Globalization in essence is companies and governments climbing onto the world stage and interacting internationally.
Globalization has helped some, but it has also hurt a lot, specifically through:
- Making the rich richer
- Removing trade barriers only for new ones to rise (VAT taxes, etc.)
- Increased trade deficits with many jobs leaving their developed nations for less developed ones (U.S. manufacturing to China, etc.)
- Developed country job pay cuts
- MNC's leaving countries and exploiting international tax havens
- MNC's overseeing bad work conditions in countries with less regulations
- MNC's influencing international politics
- Exploitation of labor
- Social welfare schemes
Et cetera, et cetera...
All the problems we hear about with companies leaving their countries and stranding thousands if not millions of people without jobs, and labor issues in other countries all stem from globalization. So we need to decide if the benefits outweigh the costs here or not...
Answer:
The correct answer is A. Cultural capital.
Explanation:
According to Bordieu, cultural capital refers to the certain <em>knowledge, abilities and skills </em>an individual can make use of in order to prove his/her social status or that he/she is culturally competent.
In this case, students from different backgrounds come with various <em>values, beliefs, attitudes and competencies in language and culture</em> which they can tap into in order to <em>establish their </em><em>social status</em><em> and </em><em>cultural competence. </em>
According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution distributed the power of the federal government among these three branches, and built a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch could become too powerful.
When Jesus reached the famous well at Shechem and asked a Samaritan woman for a drink, she replied full of surprise: "Jews do not associate with Samaritans” (John 4:9). In the ancient world, relations between Jews and Samaritans were indeed strained. Josephus reports a number of unpleasant events: Samaritans harass Jewish pilgrims traveling through Samaria between Galilee and Judea, Samaritans scatter human bones in the Jerusalem sanctuary, and Jews in turn burn down Samaritan villages. The very notion of “the good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) only makes sense in a context in which Samaritans were viewed with suspicion and hostility by Jews in and around Jerusalem.
It is difficult to know when the enmity first arose in history—or for that matter, when Jews and Samaritans started seeing themselves (and each other) as separate communities. For at least some Jews during the Second Temple period, 2Kgs 17:24-41 may have explained Samaritan identity: they were descendants of pagan tribes settled by the Assyrians in the former <span>northern kingdom </span>of Israel, the region where most Samaritans live even today. But texts like this may not actually get us any closer to understanding the Samaritans’ historical origins.
The Samaritans, for their part, did not accept any scriptural texts beyond the Pentateuch. Scholars have known for a long time about an ancient and distinctly Samaritan version of the Pentateuch—which has been an important source for textual criticism of the Bible for centuries. In fact, a major indication for a growing Samaritan self-awareness in antiquity was the insertion of "typically Samaritan" additions into this version of the Pentateuch, such as a Decalogue commandment to build an altar on Mount Gerizim, which Samaritans viewed as the sole “place of blessing” (see also Deut 11:29, Deut 27:12). They fiercely rejected Jerusalem—which is not mentioned by name in the Pentateuch—and all Jerusalem-related traditions and institutions such as kingship and messianic eschatology.
