Global Injustice In Sociology

There are many reasons why sociologists make the argument that the structure and state of our world cannot be examined without history. One of the main reasons why sociologist make this argument, is because they believe that the social injustices of history have molded the social injustices that are present in our current society. However, the only way to prove that history has formed the social concepts that are present today is by looking back in history and matching up the social problems of the past with the social problems of today. Global injustice is one thing sociologists look at when trying to find similar characteristics that explain how history formed many of the injustices of today, because there is a lot of information about how

When examining the history of social inequalities, sociologist refer to injustices such as global injustice to try and understand why inequalities have come to be today. Global injustices are the inequalities between different countries caused by the history of how countries have risen into their certain economic, political, and cultural positions. Some examples of global injustice are the facts that eight percent of the world live on less than $10 a day and that the combined income of the world’s richest 500 people is greater than that of the poorest 416 million. These astronomical problems can be blamed on how countries have been developed overtime. Such developed countries as China have less global social problems, and benefit more from the global economy, than that of still developing countries. The reason is that developing countries face more problems with economic success, because of inequalities, such as unfair trade and debt, which makes them unable to compete with the economies of developed countries. These inequalities between countries goes back to how they have become industrialized over time. Vadana Shiva, in her book “Stolen Harvest” gives a good example of a global injustice that substantially worsened over history when she explains the effects of The North American Trade Agreement on Mexico. Shiva (2000) goes on to