Globalization will be the best solution to the uneven distribution of internationla wealth.

Some may ask, what is "Globalization"? Globalization is defined, according the Cambridge Dictionary, as the increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries; or when available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world. But as we approach to the subject a little bit closer, we may have different interpretations. Ask yourself again, will or how does globalization affects your world, your country, your community, or simply just you? Globalization is just a process of making the different varieties of aspects in our life, such as cultures, economies, governments, religions, into one big "pot," and you stir all the ingredients, and you will get a combination of different varieties. The dish may taste good, or it may taste bad, depends on how do you like the way it is made. Now, as I said the product of globalization depends on the taste of that person or group of people, there is no such right or wrong opinion or answers. In the article of A World on the Edge by Amy Chua, a professor at Yale Law School, her point of view upon globalization is that conflicts occur when the ethnic-dominant minorities, the rich group, is getting stronger and stronger under the circumstance of economies is being globalized. Free-market and democracy are the products of capitalism, but they are going against each other as free-market favors the ethnic-dominant minorities while the democracy favors the other. Amy stated, "There is in the world today a phenomenon that turns free-market democracy into an engine of ethnic conflagration." (Chua, 66) Globalization is the way to spread capitalism; it brings two different perspectives, which are against each other. Therefore, two ethnic groups, which are favored differently, will have a cultural tension based on economy and politics. In the article, she also stated, "For globalization's enthusiasts, the cure for group hatred and ethnic violence around the world is straightforward: more markets and more democracy." (Chua, 68) Amy made another point after this," I believe, rather, that the global spread of markets and democracy is a principal aggravating cause of group hatred and ethnic violence throughout the non-Western world." (Ibid) As I have mentioned before, the markets favor the ethnic-dominant minorities, or in other words, Markets concentrate the wealth in the minorities from other countries. Amy believed that these would lead to the fomenting ethnic envy and hatred among often chronically poor majorities. (Chua, 69) Because of all these hatred within ethnic groups, there are three backlash, which are backlash against markets that favor ethnic-dominant minorities, backlash against democracy which are forced to favor market-dominant minorities, and violence against market-dominant minorities personally. (Ibid) In the article, Amy brought up the Zimbabwe illustration. The government itself encouraged the citizen to take over the land owned by the foreigners, or their citizens, whom their grandparents are not locally born, from other races. This is the first backlash of hatred within ethnic groups. But I also found that since the government encouraged them to do such confiscation of private properties, the minority group would very likely have a second kind of backlash, generally under this circumstance, against the government or democracy that favors one ethnic group than the other. Amy believes that the globalization will lead to the situation of majority having a backlash on the minority only, but I think differently. Majority also has an opportunity to take revenge on the political-dominant majority if the government favors on them; markets somehow "control" the government and the democracy as well since the market-dominant minority will either provide campaign money to the politicians or economically forcing the government to do in their ways. Therefore, the backlash of two groups against the government is continuously repeating. Like in the United States, the Democrats and the Replubicans are favoring their voters in different ways, the poor and the rich. " They tend to see wealth and poverty in terms of class conflict, not ethnic conflict…the anti-globalization movement asks for one thing: more democracy." (Chua, 72) I agree with the point about ethnic conflict, which is a factor of the wealth and poverty problem, but it is not the only one. Class conflict is also a factor that led to this problem. In a real capitalism, there are different classes because of the belief of free-market. Class conflict is the original factor of wealth and poverty problem; with the contribution of ethnic conflict, it makes backlashes and hatred within ethnic groups. Also, I disagree with the great solution: more democracy. First of all, more democracy would very likely lead to two scenarios; market-dominant minority control the government or the democracy which makes the life of the ethnic majority more difficult, or local ethnic government, like in Zimbabwe, favors their local ethnic majority in a extreme totalitarian way, such as violence. This is not a great solution, and not even a solution that helps the situation. Amy understands this reality also, " But unless democratization means something more than unrestrained majority rule, calling for democracy in the developing world can be shortsighted and even dangerous." (Chua, 73)