Regarding Ramzy Baroud's Nov. 21 article, "Globalization: a culture killer": I completely disagree with the premise. In my opinion, globalization is the best thing that has happened in global politics and economics for a long time. The development of communications, transportation and information technology allows us to exploit a tremendous potential that was untapped before. The whole world is a playground provided one is able to rise to the challenge. The resulting economies of scale and technological breakthroughs have helped to improve standards of living for millions of people.
As for the author's point that globalization fosters a "clash of cultures," I'd like to point out that (1) culture is not something static and written in stone, but is dynamic and ever-evolving; and (2) only weak cultures, because of their inferiority complex and sense of insecurity, refuse to adapt to the incorporation of strengths from other ones.
Strong cultures assimilate great ideas and move on. In addition, strong cultures also have an influence on others.
No one is forcing MTV or video games on anybody. If people don't like them, they can switch the channel or do something else. Likewise, no one can force the "right culture" on me or anyone. I am not picking on Nepali culture, but with regard to the author's comment about it — and I'm not sure how much it differs from India's Hindu culture — my view is that every culture will not be "preserved." Some may wither away with the passage of time because they are not strong enough; "isolating them" will not help in the long run. It has happened throughout history — sadly, mostly by religious wars and conquests and, occasionally, by trade and cultural exchange. Don't blame globalization for it.