ARTICLE: “On Lake Michigan, a Global Village,” by Steve Lohr, New York Times, 2 July 2006, p. BU1.

ARTICLE: “”Last Stop, Lhasa: Rail Link Ties Remote Tibet to China; Critics See Cultural Peril and Domination,” by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 2 July 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “At 13,000 Feet High, Pens Explode, Ears Pop on Tibet Train,” by James T. Areddy, Wall Street Journal, 5 July 2006, p. A15.

ARTICLE: “Business Joins African Effort To Cut Malaria,” by Sharon LaFraniere, New York Times, 29 June 2006, p. A1..

First story is an interesting one about how Racine, Wisconsin is trying to recast its global connectivity in such a way as to revitalize its economy. The factories are gone, as are the reflexive, anti-big-business politics. So a new mayor pushes a globalizing agenda for little old Racine.

“In the past, Racine was a self-contained economy,” [Gary Becker] said. “But that is not an option anymore.”

Will Racine’s locale uniqueness get somewhat lost in this transition? You bet. With connectivity comes a certain degree of homogeneity. That’s how connections are built and made secure--a certain level of standardization.

Culture is mongrelized and transnationalized in this process, and that is pure evil to some, who would rather keep people pristine and poor, celebrating that lifestyle from afar--no doubt (or perhaps on the occasional visit to their quaint little remote village).

So China’s engineering marvel of a train that now links Beijing to Lhasa is naturally decried as the beginning of the end for Tibetan culture, which has remained so distinct precisely because of its disconnectedness. Tibetan activists will tell us that the rail line is a tool of imperialism, both economic and cultural, and they will be correct. Connectivity brings contamination. It reduces the power of collective identity and raises the power of individual identity.

That scares for a lot of reasons. It challenges the meaning of what it is to be Tibetan. It will change gender roles and relations dramatically, and that subverts traditional society. Some will win, others will lose, and if China’s pattern of resource exploitation holds, the losers will outnumber the winners.

But it’s hard to argue against China’s clear domination of Tibet. China considers Tibet part of its mainland like we consider Texas to be part of ours. Did we get Texas in any nicer a fashion, all myths aside? Hmm. Not an easy argument.

But connectivity-wise, Tibet is more like a Montana or Idaho: landlocked and distant from damn near everywhere. Unless the connectivity is forced through infrastructure development, which almost always is driven by demand for raw materials in the first iteration, then Tibet will remain very pristine and very poor.

Me, I don’t think cultural preservation outweighs the need or right for economic development leading to individual empowerment.

Then again, I’m an American, and that’s our whole raison d’etre.

But once you get that connectivity in there, then you often force private businesses coming into the remote situation to deal with all sorts of collective goods issues that the local weak governments are poorly equipped to handle, like watching mining giant Billiton get sucked into dealing with malaria in Mozambique. Is it better to leave those people to suffer their pristine fate? Or is it better to force the connectivity--and the connectors themselves--to deal with the challenges found within?

I know, I know. Send in the aid instead. But what has all that aid done for Africa to date?