In my mind, I think that the plight of child soldiers in Sierra Leone, or anywhere, is probably some of the most convincing evidence that globalization is uneven. The information superhighway as well as technological advances might run through some of these nations, but little in way of actual change flows along with it. I think that the argument that globalization in economies will invariably pull all of the world with it can be lacking in many ways. This would be one of those ways. If anything, globalization has found a way to mask the fact that there are nations that have resisted it, clinging to ancient blood feuds or seeking to expand their own power regardless of what others might wish to do. Globalization has not reached these areas, as economic prosperity is severely retarded in these areas. Give the fact that globalization is becoming worldwide, it is not reaching these areas, making it an uneven process. Beah's narrative brings to light that until all areas of the world are able to be privy to the advantages of globalization, it will be, at its best, an uneven process. At its worst, it will be no different than the demonstration of wealth that roots itself as a battle between those that have wealth and those who lack it and a covering term for businesses to consolidate wealth in more places and exclude other domains.