"all this weight is on it's worse, we're moderate, we modernize"

what a rainy, pretty miserable looking and feeling day. i had a really good in-person interview, however i didn't get the position. i'm still looking at the physical interview on thursday, which gives me hope, but i think i'm going to start reaching back into the company where i was looking at temping and looking to more permanent positions. i think that's why i was brushed off today, but no offense taken, possibly better for me anyway. we can never know reasons for everything, right?
the title of this post is a lyric from "our hell" by emily haines and the soft skeleton. i liked the idea of being moderate by modernizing, reminds me a lot of an international studies/sociology class, we really went deep into the ideas of being modern. discussed how the majority world (or global south, as it is also known as) generally embraces what is considered as "modern", and seeking to throw out the "traditional", although this generally serves to entrench those who can be "modern" in power, as they hold the power to closer observe the "global north". i think so much is lost in our seeking newer and "better" things.
here we see the black impact of "globalization", as integration occurs. for example, the brazilian amazon, as tribes are discovered, they choose to integrate with the population. this, in general, is good for brazil, as it binds it's people in a more all-encompassing identity. but also, it must be recognized that slowly, as the tribes untouched disappear, and are introduced to portuguese, most will probably choose to participate in the city environments, and as languages slowly dry up, so goes all the knowledge that was not able to be translated or originated in their original culture. i believe that many traditions have deep roots, and resonate within cultures for reasons, and i think that as we deconstruct these traditions we cause ourselves to feel more vacant and distant. i believe that modernity has to be grown contextually, from a firm traditional base, in order to maintain robust, and to provide deeper and more rewarding contributions to society rather than simply providing a materialist cover/ caricature of the consumerist world that the global north is indeed engaged in. "globalization" as homogenization serves to cause the "clash of civilizations" as samuel huntington terms it (which i strongly disagree with, as it stands to be a gross distortion to what the world is in the first place, as being very biased towards the current ideas about "development" as positive).
i'm not saying i don't think that cosmopolitan communities are good, much to the contrary, that they are indeed progressive by presenting options for different cultures and allowing spaces to coexist rather than stifling them by banning or discriminating. nor am i citing the united states as the pillar of the free world, i believe that many ideas here, on which we were founded, are very important, but the manner that we've constructed our culture, indeed a very new culture that was defined after fordism, and will continue changing. i don't know who said it, but i've heard a saying that "the only constant is change", and that is indeed true for this world. there are some areas that are isolated, but these are isolated on purpose from the "global north" for lack of interest. with the current crises faced by the world, i don't know why those who follow the huntingtonian ideas of the world haven't prescribed a "conversion" strategy to convert the undecided and push the decided towards an ideological rebirth of the cold war.