Although we hear more about,"globalization did less than once it was assumed" lately, but the concept of globalization is in a self- contradiction right now; in one hand, it tries to generalize and unifies in the matters of technology, education, speed of life, but it increases the self- awareness and sensitivity to competativeness among different races and cultures, at the same time (unexpected for information-age builders). Of course, this is a natural reaction of human for any unfamiliure new creations, to see him or herself defensless, or unsafe; e.g. when the telephone and television were invented first, some individuals in different cultures felt that their privecy was in danger! Besides, the matter of values are a bit move in between religion and culture, and it is hard to impact on a belief system by globalization (it harmed more than helped, so far).  

Faranack is basically right. Globalization "pushes" in opposite directions. On the one hand, it unifies (and "make similar") people around the world at the operative level. We all use similar technologies and perform similar procedures. We see the same events, and so forth. On the other hand, global processes (and corporations) are experienced by local communities as a *threat* to their independence, resources, values, way of life, and so fort. Such feeling produces a resistance to the global tendencies: indigenous cultures (religions, etc.) are used as the means by which the materially weaker (indigenous) communities resist the domination of the materially stronger global forces. So globalization and global interactions have two opposite effects: they displace the local (indigenous), but they also revitalise (strengthens) it. 

I agree with you both - globalization as such is neutral. While there are certainly tendencies that go against the maintenance of indigenous cultures, the growing interconnectedness of their organizations and movements (a process that actually starts in the 1970s) pushes in the opposite direction. And the spread of concepts such as Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay, Good Life; Abya Yala, Inti Raymi that all work for a strengthening of indigenous cultures is simply not imaginable without the structures created by globalization.

I agree in general with the above answers. However, the time and energy cost to local indigenous groups is typically prohibitive

It probably depends on the context as there is a lot of variation between indigenous cultures and communities. For example, In Australia, there are some Aboriginal communities who don't want to publish their cultural information online. They believe that the only way for people to experience their culture is by physically visiting their community. Other Aboriginal communities embrace the web, such as Facebook, for meaningful cultural networking. I wouldn't like to generalise about all Indigenous cultures because of the diversity.

I agree with Reece, its quite complex trying to understand if globalisation affects indigenous culture.  I will agree to Mario's response too. In my experience, there are communities or groups who fully embraced the benefits of globalisation but on the other hand this communities are also trying to maintain the traditional way so its like a seesaw. We all have the capacity and the capability to perform equally no matter what colour skin or culture we came from. As Mario said, we all use the same technologies, although not everybody have an opportunity to access such technologies. Perhaps, finding balance will be an ongoing process, perseverance and never loss hope.

There are riding herds of globalization: the transplantation effect of the values of comfort, convenience, and fastness of transactions may spoil certain indigenous practices. What is being spread in the process of globalization is " what matters in life is convenience, and comfortable living anchored on having more, done in a fast moving transactions."  While there are discernible values of care in times of disasters from trans-global donors from formal international institutions, there are more international riders along the line of wealth extraction at the expense of indigenous communities.  Usually gold is mined in an indigenous community, but there are organizations doing wealth extraction without due consideration of the indigenous communities well-being. This is what the UNDP Report of 1998 has reported: there is growth among third world countries but it is a "rootless" one.   

Let me mention an additional question to the initial question about de-tribalization. First of all, I am not sure what "willful extinction" actually means: whose "will" is followed (dominant) here? The additional question is whether the de-tribalization is good and in what sense.

I was born (61 years ago) in a village which was not "tribal" in literal sense: it belonged to European (Christian) culture, but at the time of my childhood, there was virtually no technology and means of communication in my village. And I remember (quite well) that the life was not particularly interesting or good in any sense. Then suddenly technology (agricultural machines, radio, television) arrived. This was very exciting at the beginning, and nobody complained about the losses of the "traditional life", which was very limited in nearly every sense.

The problem is, that "the new" quickly began to *impose* its way of life to people, and this brought numerous unpleasant things. I am not an uncritical lover of "tradition", but the question is how good (pleasant) the "new way of life" has been: how intrusive, demanding, and often destructive the "new" has been.

If we want to move towards "a better world/life", we *must* de-tribalize. The question is whether we move toward something better (more pleasant, tolerant, cooperative), or do we move towards something more aggressive, psychotic, and destructive. What (and who) leads our "historical way": business interest of the stronger, or some more sublime aims and forces? I wish to be optimistic in this regard, but there are numerous problems all around ...

A chapter of my PhD focuses on the impact of globalization to traditional knowledge, so I am looking forward  to come up some kind of solid evidence with the indigenous community I am working with in Australia.  

Before answering the question, the inquirer needs to carefully define "tribal" and de-tribalization". Today, in particular, these terms are very loaded with political-economic meanings. For example for my doctoral dissertation (Berkeley, 1978) I analyzed the World Bank as a "tribal" culture.