- May 21st 2014, 3:22pm

In the communication world, ‘ethnocentrism’ is a big concern. When we communicate with people from different cultures or backgrounds, we make judgments about the words and actions of others based on the experience and traditions of our own culture. Uncontrolled, we assign negative values to things that are ‘different’ to what we are comfortable with. This negativity towards differences results in arguments, wars, oppression, and missed opportunities.





It’s becoming increasingly clear that, from the sheltered point of view of American media, there are no other currencies besides the US dollar. In fact, in the same vein of ‘ethnocentrism’ (which no doubt exists in this case as well), what we’re seeing in the media today is a type of ‘currency-centrism.’ Many journalists and rich old white men can’t seem to see beyond the current dominance of the American dollar when it comes to understanding the importance of Bitcoin. They dismiss it because they don’t understand it - it’s not the same thing as a ‘good ol’ US dollar’. It has a different underlying system of technology and control, it has a different ideal, and it potentially does away with some of the systems and institutions that we have simply come to accept.





Along with a prejudice against things that are ‘different’ from one’s comfort zone, is the blindness one can have about the position they are coming from. We see this hypocrisy all the time in politics, in religion, and in diplomacy. It’s not uncommon to be critical about someone or something while blithely ignoring the fact that you, or the people, or the product/idea you support may have the exact same problems. The latest case in point: the Wall Street Journal’s latest article about US investigations into the Silk Road, and how these relationships with illegal activity are “tainting the currency with associations of shady activity.”





While it is certainly true that Bitcoin has been used to facilitate illegal activity, trading an item of value for an illegal item/service is nothing new. But while journalists – whose job has changed from generating good articles to generating good clickbait - rush to link Bitcoin and illegal activity (because nothing makes headlines better than controversy), they seem to be ignoring that the US dollar is no innocent child in the meadow. Perhaps WSJ missed the news that there are 11 drug dealers who’ve been worth $1billion or more. This is just wild conjecture, but they’re probably not keeping their money in pesos.





Here’s another tidbit the WSJ might also have missed: 90% of US bills are really tainted – with cocaine. If we apply the same standard the media seems to apply towards Bitcoin, then US dollars are about as ‘tainted’ and ‘shady’ as a currency could be, as Congressman Jared Polis pointed out.





Another common argument from the ‘we don’t get it’ crowd is that bitcoin has no real value – that it’s imaginary money. This argument shows just how potentially disconnected from reality some in the media really are. The fact is that 90% of US currency is nothing but 1s and 0s in computers. And what exactly is ‘real value’ in an economy where 1s and 0s on a plastic disc can be worth $200? To anyone tying value to intrinsic physical properties: your train left the station quite some time ago.





For those that no longer riding the ‘intrinsic physical value’ bandwagon, the next argument is that the US dollar is ‘backed’ by the ‘full faith and credit’ of the US. I’m sorry (truly sorry) but the credit of the US isn’t what it used to be, and the ‘faith’ in the US by the rest of the world is quickly waning – mostly because we can’t seem to actually fix anything.





Maybe it hasn’t been clear enough, maybe the media just can’t get their heads around it: Bitcoin is not about America. Yes, there are big US names involved who are championing the currency and its underlying technology. But don’t kid yourself that this is somehow an American-specific, or even a ‘Western’ phenomenon. There are rich investors in Asia too.





As Bitcoin continues to mature and stabilize, the people who are most likely to benefit in the future are individuals that live in smaller, unstable economies in which the values of their local currencies can drop 20% overnight; people who can get cellphones, but have to travel miles for fresh water, let alone banking services.





The media keeps reminding us about globalization and the importance and interconnectedness of the global economy. Maybe they should take their own advice and realize that ‘global’ doesn’t only mean ‘places I can use my credit card.’