Don't Let Disney Kill the Magic of Cinema (Op-Ed)

This Sunday, the final season of Game of Thrones will heir on HBO. Much like the ever encroaching white walkers, with their eternal winter in tow, another unstoppable force, this one within the entertainment industry, marches forward, desperate to consume as many licenses as it can and change the world of filmmaking and streaming landscape forever.

With its acquirement of 20th Century Fox, Disney now possesses 4 major studios and the hundreds of licenses that each of those studios hold the rights to. These include Pixar Animation Studios, Lucasfilm, Marvel Entertainment, and now 20th Century Fox. On top of this, Disney’s own Disney Animation Studios possesses hundreds of intellectual properties itself. Disney is now, arguably, the largest license conglomerate in the entertainment industry in terms of profitability potential.

Disney’s accumulation of Lucasfilm, Marvel, and now 20th Century Fox, over the last several years, has led the company to join the streaming services game. Disney has confirmed the launch of their own streaming service later this year, called Disney+(DisneyPlus). This service will no doubt be a large rival to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, and other top streaming services. With all of the licenses and production and studio resources Disney now owns, the company not only has ample material to prove themselves a worthy opponent to these other streaming companies, it has the potential to knock the other services from the market completely.

Disney has already begun to pull their properties from other streaming services that, until now, have licensed those properties from Disney to show on their sites. Just last week, Disney pulled the animated series Star Wars Clone Wars from Netflix. For years, Netflix had been the only streaming service to watch the entire series on. One could even argue that being able to watch the entire series was a marketing tool used by Netflix itself to attract younger viewers. If companies like Netflix and Hulu are not able and willing to explore expansions and pivots for their services, they will most definitely suffer and potentially fall as customers gravitate toward the sheer volume of content Disney now has baked into their brand.

I grew up loving movies and television of all kinds. From the sci-fantasy and awe of Star Wars to the hilarious and zany adventures of Spongebob Squarepants, I loved how diverse the media I consumed was. As a student at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, I have come to learn that this is a major reason that most people continue to attend movie theaters and tune into tv channels everyday - cinema allows us to experience all aspects of being a human, from virtually infinite points of view. This experience is what is at risk if Disney is successful in knocking out the other streaming sites while continuing to collect licenses. Much of the content we draw that experience from would eventually come from a single source and the diversity of that content would absolutely suffer as Disney would move to preserve their unique brand identity.

One only needs to look toward countries governed by military dictatorships to see what centralized media looks like. These countries have a centralized, government owned media outlet that is often times the only source of information that the public has access to. Obviously it's ludicrous to call Disney a tyrannical dictatorship but the parallels between a media outlet in a tyrannical dictatorship and a Disney streaming service wherein Disney owns and produces most, if not all, of the content being released on streaming services are clear and frightening. The death of diverse and multifaceted content within the filmmaking world is at stake.

There is hope. Foreseeing the potential threat of a Disney-owned streaming service, Amazon Video and Netflix have both pivoted and become more involved in producing critically acclaimed, original content. Each company has backed at least one project that ran the award show circuit within the last few years. For Amazon it was Manchester By The Sea and for Netflix it was Roma, which was a huge winner at the Oscars earlier this year. This revived interest in classic, theatrically released projects affirms both companies’ respect and desire to protect artistic expression and diverse content within the filmmaking community.



As customers and as viewers we are the most important component to any service. Without us, a company like Disney would not be able to exist. In this way, we have the power to control what kinds of stories are being told within the film industry. Therefore, we have the responsibility to protect the availability of diverse content that people from all walks of life can relate to. If we allow what has transpired so far to continue unchecked, our relationship with film and the experiences we receive from film will germinate from a single source and the art form itself will inevitably die. It falls to us to advocate for and support diverse streaming content.

Daggers From Space!

In fantasy and sci-fi movies, artifacts from space often hold special powers or give people special abilities. While there is no evidence that the dagger mentioned in this post gave King Tutankhamun, it does sound like a story straight from the movies.

“King Tut's Dagger was Made from a Meteorite”, published by CNN, explores the origin of the stones and metals that made up a dagger buried alongside King Tutankhamen of Egypt. Using a method known as X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, Italian and Egyptian researchers were able to identify traces of iron, nickel, and cobalt, which matched meteoric compositions in a global database.

This article was very interesting, however as someone who appreciates the wow factor of discovers like this while also demanding of extensive details behind said discoveries, I felt that the article presented information of the find in a mostly well-condensed manor but lost itself in the wow factor and failed to delve deeply into the methodology behind the identification of the blade material or the implications of the find.

The discovery, if confirmed completely (the article concludes the description of the analysis by mentioning that the results of the x-ray fluorescence “strongly suggests its meteorite origin”), speaks volumes about ancient Egyptian hierarchical structures. 

Reserving the materials found in these meteorites for construction of daggers meant for royalty highlights how truly powerful rulers like King Tutankhamun were and how sacredly they were viewed. 

The article also mentions that a relatively recent hieroglyph in Egyptian history translates to “iron of the sky” and now, with this find, indicates that the Egyptians new exactly what they had. This furthers the aforementioned concept for, of course, the sacred and god-like king deserved the “iron of the sky.” Moreover, The ability to identify, locate, analyze, and manipulate the meteorites themselves suggests an advanced intellectualism as well as an advanced crafting ability within Ancient Egyptian society. The notion that ancient Egyptians in the 13th century B.C. were able to refine meteorite into daggers also provides cultural context to the situation. For no Western culture would interact with meteorites in a similar fashion for two more millennia.

A New Angle on Trump's Wall

Since he has taken his oath of office, Donald Trump and his administration have been the recipients of non-stop investigations, criticisms, insults, claims of illegitimacy, and calls for impeachment of the president himself. This is not to say that these criticisms and investigations are not warranted. However, beyond this barrage, there are pressing matters that require as much, if not more, attention as the president himself received on a daily basis. One such matter is Trump’s proposed border wall. This wall is something that Trump guarantees will stop, or at least seriously debilitate, illegal drug and human trafficking as well as illegal immigration. While much of the argument against the wall has revolved around what it stands for socio-politically(and normally includes an ad hominem attack on the president) many fail to consider the international-economic ramifications that go along with major changes at the border.

I recently read several articles that covered, and continue to follow, Trump’s recent promise to completely shut down the Southern border if Mexican officials do not stop illegal immigrants from entering the United States from their country. These articles included the usual blasting of the president and mentions of the humanitarian ramifications of closing the border to fleeing refugees and the like. However, one article also mentioned the economic picture that such an action would paint for the global community. This was something I had never considered before.

Whether it is a maritime port of entry or a land border with either of our neighboring countries, our trade outlets have an incredible effect on the global economy. Therefore, the closing of any one of these ports of entry not only has monetary consequences for the domestic GDP of the U.S., but global outlook consequences as well. In the article entitled “Trump adds a deadline on his threat to close the border”, author Maegan Vazquez, writing for CNN, quotes Robert Perez, deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection,

“It's Customs and Border Protection at every port of entry. Nearly 400

million travelers a year, $2.3 billion worth of trade, nearly 30 million trucks,

rail cars and cargo containers every year," Perez said. "And so, there (will be) a

severe impact and this is important to understand.”

This quote is particularly significant because it comes from a high-ranking official within the department Trump claims that border closures and wall installations will help. Yet, the deputy commissioner maintains a level of apprehension that Trump does, citing the economic and social consequences of a closure.

America is the single most powerful country in the world. Moreover, it has the largest and most powerful economy. A leading economic forecasting website called Focus Economics has recently the projected GDP of the top economies of the world and the United States has made the top of the list.

“Despite facing challenges at the domestic level along with a rapidly

transforming global landscape, the U.S. economy is still the largest in

the world with a nominal GDP forecast to exceed USD 21 trillion in 2019.”

As the leading economy of the world, America is a sort of economic litmus test for the countries and specifically the ones that do business with the US. If the U.S. does something drastic, such as construct a border wall and/or close a border completely, other countries will panic. In their panic, the global economy suffers and comes back to hurt the U.S. even more in the future. One example of this is the housing market crash of 2008, the origin point of which was the U.S. but the fallout of which spread to countries, the world over.

It is vitally important to at least consider the socio-political ramifications of any major project. We as a society have not had a great track record in doing this and need to do better. However, when the issue is so contentious that a solely humanistic argument is ineffective in highlighting something as a bad idea, it becomes increasingly important to turn to the economic implications of those projects as well, if only to further solidify the project as a good or bad idea. In short, talk money.

Changing Education Paradigms

It is an incontrovertible fact that education is a fundamental part of life. Education gives developing minds the tools necessary to push society forward. It is a tradition that transcends recorded history and can be found, in one form or another, within every culture on Earth today. Ancient Egyptians often established schools for princes and scribes that included lessons in history, math, writing, reading, astronomy, music, science, and medicine. So, why is it that several thousands of years later, arguably the most advanced country on Earth has a laughable education system at best?

When one mentions the American school system today, the subject is usually accompanied by scoffs and palms to the face. The education system has not kept up with the rapidly changing world we live in. Advancement in computer technology coupled with increased globalization has resulted in a system of education that is outdated and unable to provide students with the tools necessary to solve issues that threaten humanity. This system has branded within the minds of millions of students the notion that there is only one answer to every problem, it has shunned collaboration and rebranded it as “cheating”, and above all, it has marginalized many of the skills that are essential to solving the world’s problems. So, what needs to be done?

In his 2008 lecture, entitled “Changing Education Paradigms”, Sir Ken Robinson explains that almost every country on Earth is in the process of reforming education and that those countries are attempting to “meet the future by doing what they did in the past.” We have to change the entire concept of what an education system is and more importantly, what it does. It is imperative that we “shift the paradigm” as Robinson says. The children of tomorrow must not be taught what to think but rather how to think for themselves. The ability to think for oneself and to think outside the parameters of a given situation is referred to divergent thinking.

Politically, the reformation of an entire way of thinking is easier said than done. Nevertheless, as someone who has experienced the system in question more recently than the majority of United States politicians, I believe that my opinion is most certainly valid. What is politically difficult is usually economically difficult by nature, but when the future of our world hangs in the balance and quality of education is the deciding factor, what can hold economic priority over education?


My experience with the K-12 system has opened my eyes to what needs to change. To safeguard our future and usher in a new age of global harmony we must begin to think for ourselves while also training ourselves to work with others if we hope to solve the problems of tomorrow.

A Case for Libertarianism

Half a century and the events of 9/11 began to solidify within the minds of many citizens, the world over, that Islam is a violent, extremist religion. Yet, as the United States recovered from the heinous attacks and a global, collective interest with the religion demanded a better understanding of the region of the Middle East and Islam by association, the reality and truth surrounding that culture soon came to light. This is not to say that Islam has escaped the stigma from within which it has been placed by the Western world, and that is the point. However, today, more so than the last several decades at least, the religion of Islam has arrived at a much better place of understanding within the minds of millions of citizens, the world over.

Similar to the way in which Islam has been distorted by social stigma and political divisiveness, the socio-political ideology of libertarianism has been distorted as extreme and radical as well. What has been revealed and what continues to be revealed about the true nature of Islam needs to happen to Libertarianism. When one boils down the philosophy of libertarianism to its root principles, it becomes clear that libertarianism is in fact heavily representative of the founding principles of the United States itself and very much deservant of its unofficial title as America’s third political party. Moreover, when observed within a heavily politicized sphere, such as Hollywood, the continued, unfair stigmatization of libertarianism not only becomes more apparent but the justification of that stigmatization begins to be broken down, for the content and stories coming out of hollywood is associative to many of the principles, notions, and values libertarians cling to.

Just as the study of the history of Islam brings with it, a deeper understanding of the religion and the rejection of a preconceived notion of radicalism, so to does an understanding of the history of libertarianism bring with it the idea that the philosophy is American and has been here from the beginning and before.

The history of Libertarianism has in many ways, grown alongside the history of human civilization, beginning with divides between Ancient Greek schools of thought. However, the history of Libertarianism in the United States can very well attribute its origins to the founding of the country itself and even to those who lived before the creation of the U.S. Two Englishmen, John Locke and Thomas Paine, are considered to be the founding fathers of Libertarianism and it is within their writings that the, since consolidated, principles of Libertarianism can be found in their purest form.

Both John Locke and Thomas Paine were english-born philosophers. Although they were both politically active and outspoken about libertarian values, it was John Locke who truly first laid the foundation for the birth of American Libertarianism. John Locke is most famous for his philosophical writings on human nature and the “self.” His first widely published work entitled, The Two Treatises of Government, outlined the optimal role that government should play based on Locke’s experience as a physician and philosopher and his assessment of human nature through those lenses.

|[The Government has the] right of making Laws with Penalties of Death,

and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of

Property, and of employing the force of the Community, in the Execution

of such Laws and in defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury,

and all this only for the Publick Good.|

This minimalist approach to the role of government went on to inspire American revolutionaries such as Thomas Paine himself. Moreover, Locke’s writings are widely referenced, although indirectly, in the Declaration of Independence itself, further reinforcing the notion that libertarianism is at the very ideological foundation that the United States was founded upon and further rendering any stigmatization of the philosophy, simply ludacris. Locke also ultimately concluded that every human is born as a sort of “blank slate”, or tabula rasa as he specifically refers to it, and that from the moment a human is born, everything that human experiences helps to determine how he or she will operate within the world. Therefore, Locke understood the importance of belief in a higher power as to foster moral values within these “tabula rasas.” For this reason, Locke vehemently abhorred the idea of atheism as an otherwise extraordinary tolerant person contextually. To Locke, God and the belief in God, represented a promise of moral high ground within society and a disbelief in a higher power would lead to the degradation of human spirit and human decency. Locke went so far as to explain that it’s not important that you call this ambiguous higher power “God” but that the importance lies within the belief in something greater than oneself. Having said that, Locke did not simply believe in God for the sake of ensuring humanity’s prosperity. Locke was a staunch believer in the cosmological argument, as so many of his predecessors were, which used the order of cosmological events, change, motion, and contingency as evidence to suggest the existence of a higher power. This is extremely significant because it suggests that from its inception and from those who lead to its inception, libertarianism was cultivated within a healthy blend of scientific inquiry, religious moral authority, and individual autonomy. So it is within this blend of beliefs, both in humans as a blank slate(naturally neutral) and the idea of a higher power which keeps human nature in check, that the idea of Libertarianism really begins to form for it is within religious freedom, the protection of the rights of the individual that Libertarians place their principles.

Libertarianism has germinated from within these origins to become a growing socio-political, as well as economic, framework from which much of the modern world has been built. As mentioned previously, John Locke’s ideas both reached many and were built upon by many. Thomas Paine was one such individual who both lived during and through the American Revolution. Moreover, Paine did, in fact, exist as a sort of propagandist on the side of the revolutionaries during the war. At a pivotal moment in the war, when Washington’s army was on the verge of chaos and disbanding, it was Paine who delivered a speech to rally the troops.

|“The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves,

each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a

contract with each other to produce a government: and this is

the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and

the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”|

It is within this speech, meant to stir the hearts of American patriots, that Locke’s influence on Paine and the libertarian values that Paine carried on, becomes clear. Paine’s explanation here helps to reinforce one of the key tenets of libertarianism, that of the place for government in the life of an individual . He speaks of governments existing as a result of the individual peoples deciding that it should exist. It was not thrust upon them, but instead decided to be necessary by the individuals collectively. Paine’s prose maintains the usage of terms such as individuals, each, and his own so that the idea that a government is a social contract by individuals, not some homogeneous body, is undeniably clear. Paine is truly genius in his prose here because he is doing two things simultaneously. Firstly, as aforementioned, he has solidified the nature of how governments(the thing these troops are fighting to establish) are brought about. Secondly, Paine is urging the troops to consider each and every one of their fellow men, a tactic most effective in coaxing troops to holdfast to a cause.

In the present day, it seems as though the aforementioned history of Libertarianism has been somewhat forgotten or altogether ignored. This becomes ever apparent when one reads or hears about libertarianism mentioned in today’s media. The philosophy is often likened to conservatism and often subsequently dismissed as falling within the realm of the right(which is also the driving problem plaguing libertarianism within politicized spheres of influence such as Hollywood). However, libertarianism possesses several principles that merge the two-party line, more often than not. In an excerpt from an article published by The Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, the libertarian perspective is poignantly described

|“[A libertarian is someone striving for] peace, prosperity,

and social harmony are fostered by “as much liberty as

possible” and “as little government as necessary.”|

Along with this description, The Institute for Humane Studies also reinforces the notion of libertarianism as a historically tried and tested philosophy. Like Paine, during the American Revolution, the institute’s description reinforces the founding principles of and it becomes apparent that these principles are also the principles of the founding fathers themselves/ Again, libertarianism is nothing new. It is as though these principles were instilled within the roots of the country, were forgotten, and are now as they become more prominently displayed in society.

|“With a long intellectual tradition spanning hundreds of years,

libertarian ideas of individual rights, economic liberty, and

limited government have contributed to history-changing

movements like abolition, women’s suffrage, and the civil

rights movement. Libertarian is not a single viewpoint, but

includes a wide variety of perspectives. Libertarians can range

from market anarchists to advocates of a limited welfare state,

but they are all united by a belief in personal liberty, economic

freedom, and a skepticism of government power.”|

As further evidence of the rise of libertarianism in the United States, one needs only to look at the last three American presidential elections, the candidates that considered themselves libertarians in those races, and the followings that they generated. The three most famous figures that fit those descriptors are Senators Ron Paul and Rand Paul(Ron Paul’s son), and governor Gary Johnson. These three political figures were actively advocating for libertarian values and principles on the presidential candidacy stage and generated sizable followings(relatively) because of it. In several interviews during the 2016 presidential election circuit, the former governor of New Mexico and libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson was asked several times what a libertarian was. Johnson’s reply was simple. He asserted that a libertarian was both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. When considered, in tandem, with the historical analysis of John Locke and Thomas Paine’s founding concepts, Johnson couldn’t be more correct. Libertarians advocate for laissez-faire economy both across state lines, as well as internationally, while also utilizing the government to protect the individual rights of each and every citizen.

Despite its rise in socio-political popularity, libertarianism is still fiercely stigmatized within several heavily influential corners of society. One such corner, the entertainment industry(centered in Hollywood)is a prudent case study in which to observe this gross misrepresentation of libertarianism and, frankly, hypocriticism at play. Hollywood is particularly relevant in this phenomenon because of the fact that several prominent content creators within Hollywood are self-described libertarians. One pertinent example of this can be found within the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Their membership within the libertarian party is particularly significant because of the influence that their show has on American society. Along with being a generator of pop-culture references, the show is a socio-political commentary through and through. Parker and Stone’s trademark, if one had to be applied to them, is that they pull no punches. They are notorious for openly and crudely attacking anyone and everyone through their show, regardless of political or any other affiliation. Matt Stone is even quoted saying,“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.” They’re abandonment of affiliation with either political party reinforces the very idea that libertarianism is almost void of politics and is instead, simply, American. In the same vein, and more relevant to film specifically, both Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn are self-described libertarians. In 2016, the year of one of the most divisive presidential elections in recent history, the pairs’ political affiliations were used as cannon fodder, against them. Their presence and representation throughout the award season was relatively low, despite Hacksaw Ridge being heavily renowned by critics and audiences alike. This misrepresentation, by demographically left-wing Hollywood elites, of the principles of libertarianism reveals a terrible bias within the industry that's made worse when considering the subject matter of projects like Hacksaw Ridge. The film itself followed a pacifist soldier that went to great lengths to heal, not harm. It was an inspirational story and represented the power a single individual possesses. Yet, it was defamed because two people affiliated with it held libertarian beliefs that the society surrounding Hollywood deemed to be too “far right.”

In a world full of stigma and misinformation, it has become abundantly clear that historical analysis and hard evidence are in increasingly short supply and yet, are needed now more than ever. For, this is also an era of unprecedented amounts of readily available, non-vetted information. It is within this era that we most risk losing our foundation as a country. Libertarianism is American. It is made up of American values and American ideas. Despite what many media outlets may convince one to believe, American values and ideas make the country stronger. The rights of the individual, religious freedom, an economy unabridged by wreckless regulation and taxation (the very causes that led our founding fathers to declare their independence from Britain) are the backbone the country draws its strengths from. If we continue to attack or even dismiss those things within our society that are traditionally and historically American, then this country will inevitably fall from its glory. We are one nation made up of many individuals. This is not to say every aspect of libertarianism is wholly applicable to the American society of today(to say that about any belief system is simple lunacy) but to not see the value in rescuing libertarianism from the stigmatization with which it has been branded and embracing portions of its tenets is, for lack of a more gracious label, completely ignorant.

On A Course for Goodness

Are humans inherently good or inherently bad? This is a question asked by droves of people throughout every age of humanity. The answer to this question has also informed the social, political, and economic systems of the world, along with religions the world over. As a filmmaker, I’ve recently been thinking about the core structure of the stories being told by filmmakers and pondering whether or not, when viewed as a whole, they reflect an answer to this question. These stories are coming from humans, so they must reflect something about humans. Do the stories we tell act a commentary on the good or bad aspect of human nature? If it is true that art imitates life, then within the films and stories we consume(which are about humans), there must be some indication of the nature of humanity.

The stories from films that we know and love as well as the new stories being told by new movies being made now all have structural parallels. In other words, there is a basic structure that most films made in the Western world, follow. This has been known for sometime and these parallels can largely be traced back, and are often credited to, Joseph Campbell, author of The Hero with a Thousand Faces in 1949. Campbell’s book was revolutionary when it was published because it provided a lens through which all human storytelling could be viewed. In short, Campbell’s book outlines his idea that the same baseline story has been told since the inception of storytelling. Going back to the first cave paintings(discovered in the Chauvet cave in France), one could argue that his theory could be applied to the stories being told on the walls of that cave.

Along with bringing a new lens through which to view the stories we tell, Joseph Campbell’s theory was viewed as a goldmine by Hollywood production companies and distribution studios and was used as such. This idea that a formula could be applied to something as lucrative as movies was extremely tantalizing to these entities and they embraced a more formulaic approach to storytelling in the films they produced from that point forward. However, as corporate as their motivations were, the powers that be in Hollywood did, inadvertently most likely, begin to cultivate a sort of through line or "so what?" point to storytelling, at least within the realm of cinema. That through line was the idea that people go to the movies to see good humans, or heros, and follow their struggles for success. This has often been ridiculed or dismissed by many moviegoers today as bland homogenization. However, one cannot deny the sort of  interconnectedness that storytelling has gained from the embrace of Campbell's ideas. At the root of his ideas is the simple idea of the hero's journey. The hero's journey is the name Joseph Campbell has given to the idea of story itself and his notion of the optimal story. A flow chart that Campbell created to showcase this theory explains in very basic terms what a story needs to be successfully received by an audience. Most importantly, a story needs a goal-oriented character who overcomes incredible odds. If modern science is any indicator, it would seem Joseph Campbell's assessment of human receptiveness of particular story elements, such as a protagonist overcoming a goal and succeeding, is accurate, for his assessment is most definitely in line with what seems to be true human nature. It seems that we are innately wired to receive joy from the success of others within our species. 

Recent anthropological evidence uncovered within the remains of ancient pre-human when considered in tandem with chimpanzee and Bonobo ape behavior suggest that humans are not only the most naturally altruistic species on Earth but it is that altruism that led the species to being far more advanced than any other species on the planet. A report by Scientific America synthesized the study done by a collection of researchers, spanning over various fields:

"If human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense."

It would seem that the stories being told do indeed reflect our human nature accurately. For humans are, by nature, cooperative, self-sacrificing, and at their core, good. 

An Argument for More Globalism

If one were to study a map of the Homo Sapien’s migration and settlement of the Earth, one would discover that it took our prehistoric counterparts over one-hundred thousand years to traverse the distance between modern day Africa and modern day North America. Today, if an American businessman needs to meet with his associate in Johannesburg, he can travel from LAX to South Africa in under twenty-four hours. Large and rapid advancements in technology, coupled with an educational focus on tolerance and coalition is transforming the world into a place of synergistic interactions. It is in said interactions that we safeguard our future and survival as a species.

Charlie Chaplin, speaking as a fictitious dictator, put it best, “The airplane and the radio have brought us closer together.” It is within the utilization of inventions such as these that we see globalization in its purest form. Everyday, humans from different parts of the world communicate and meet with each other. In doing so, the population is exposed, both consciously and subconsciously, to the many cultures of the world. The fact that in the year 2015 people are utilizing technologies that depend on levels of global collaboration the likes of which people living in the 1920s would not have been able to perceive, only strengthens the assertion that the world is and has been moving, however gradually, toward total globalization.

There is no aspect of human culture that is not being affected by the increasingly universal nature of the Earth. The global economy is no exception. In an article entitled “Why Globalization is Good” published by Forbes magazine, author Robyn Meredith explains that, contrary to popular belief, globalization is universally beneficial from an economic standpoint. Unlike foreign aid, foreign direct investment remedies poverty in a way that is profitable for all parties involved. “It’s remarkable what a few container ships can do to make poor people better off. Certainly more than $2 trillion of foreign aid, which is roughly the amount (with an inflation adjustment) that the U.S. and Europe have poured into Africa and Asia over the past half-century”

Humans have abandoned convictions of intolerance and put aside petty differences in order to help each other, several times, throughout history. The frequency of these conjunctive occurrences has recently increased, specifically within the past century. At a time when Nazism engulfed most of Western Europe, many of the world’s countries, all with diverse cultures, banded together against the threat of Adolf Hitler and ultimately achieved victory in the bloody conflict of World War II. A speech given by United States president Ronald Reagan reinforces this notion of a “unifying common enemy.” “Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world”

How do we continue to build on this cosmopolitan concept? We must look to education to continue the trend of globalization . Humans are not born with prejudice, animosity, or bigotry. These traits are taught. Through proper education these traits can be untaught and replaced by an understanding and respect for the world and it’s ever changing peoples, cultures, religions, and creeds.

Whether one is speaking in economic, social, political, historical or educational terms, the sentiment that globalization is beneficial to the entire planet is incontrovertible. In an era where nuclear annihilation is a very real possibility and said possibility is due to infinitesimal differences between cultures, it becomes essential for the human race to not only understand each other's cultures and traditions but to accept them as well. It is with the establishment of global tolerance that we secure our survival as a species.