Today, a wristwatch is considered as much of a status symbol as a device to tell time. In an age when cell phones and digital pagers display tiny quartz clocks, the mechanical wristwatch has slowly become less of an object of function and more a piece of modern culture.

Walk into the boardroom of any Fortune 500 company and you’re likely to see dozens of prestigious wristwatches, including such names as Rolex, Vacheron Constantin, Frank Müller, Jaeger-LeCoultre and even Patek Phillipe. However, this was not always the case. Less than 100 years ago, no self-respecting gentleman would be caught dead wearing a wristwatch. In those days of yore, real men carried pocket watches, with a gold half-hunter being the preferred status symbol of the time—no pun intended.

Wristlets, as they were called, were reserved for women, and considered more of a passing fad than a serious timepiece. In fact, they were held in such disdain that many a gentlemen were actually quoted to say they “would sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch”.

The established watchmaking community looked down on them as well. Because of their size, few believed wristlets could be made to achieve any level of accuracy, nor could they withstand the basic rigors of human activity. Therefore, very few companies produced them in quantity, with the vast majority of those being small ladies’ models, with delicate fixed wire or chain-link bracelets.

This all started to change in the nineteenth century, when soldiers discovered their usefulness during wartime situations. Pocket watches were clumsy to carry and thus difficult to operate while in combat. Therefore, soldiers fitted them into primitive “cupped” leather straps so they could be worn on the wrist, thereby freeing up their hands during battle. It is believed that Girard-Perregaux equipped the German Imperial Naval with similar pieces as early as the 1880s, which they wore on their wrists while synchronizing naval attacks, and firing artillery.

Decades later, several technological advents were credited with the British victory in the Anglo-Boer War (South Africa 1899-1902), including smokeless gunpowder, the magazine-fed rifle and even the automatic or machine gun. However, some would argue that it was a not-so-lethal device that helped turn the tide into Britain’s favor: the wristwatch.

While the British troops were superiorly trained and equipped, they were slightly outnumbered, and at a disadvantage while attacking the Boer’s heavily entrenched positions. Thanks to these recently designed weapons, a new age of war had emerged, which, now more than ever, required tactical precision. British officers achieved success by using these makeshift wristwatches to coordinate simultaneous troop movements, and synchronize flanking attacks against the Boer’s formations.

In fact, an “Unsolicited Testimonial” dated June 7, 1900, appeared in the 1901, Goldsmith’s Company Watch and Clock Catalog as follows:

“… I wore it continually in South Africa on my wrist for 3 ½ months. It kept most excellent time, and never failed me.—Faithfully yours, Capt. North Staffs. Regt.”

This testimonial appeared below an advertisement for a military pocket watch listed as The Company’s “Service” Watch, and was further described as: “The most reliable timekeeper in the World for Gentlemen going on Active Service or for rough wear.”

In 1906, the evolution of wristlets took an even bigger step with the invention of the expandable flexible bracelet, as well as the introduction of wire loops (or lugs) soldered onto small, open-faced pocket watch cases, allowing leather straps to be more easily attached. This aided their adaptation for military use and thus marked a turning point in the development of wristwatches for men.

Another timely issue was the vulnerability of the glass crystal when worn during combat. This was addressed by utilizing “pierced metal covers”, frequently called shrapnel guards. These were basically metal grills (often made of silver), placed over the dial of the watch—thereby protecting the glass from damage while still allowing the time to be easily read.

A less common solution was the use of leather covers, snapped into place over the watch. While they did offer protection from damage, they were cumbersome to use, and thus were primarily seen in the extreme climates of Australia and Africa.

Even with their success in combat, the popularity of the wristwatch was still limited to ladies’ models. They didn’t reach the mainstream market until some two decades later, when soldiers from around the world converged on Europe to help defeat the German Empire in WWI (1914-1919). Due to the strategic lessons learned in the Boer War, the demand for reliable, accurate wristwatches was now at its peak.

While German troops at this time were largely issued the more primitive “pocket watch” designs, Allied troops had a wide range of new models to choose from. Many examples featured small silver pocket watch cases fitted with leather straps and displayed radium-illuminated porcelain dials protected by the aforementioned shrapnel guards.

Wristwatches were no longer considered a novelty but were now a wartime necessity, and companies were scrambling to keep up with the demand. One company that enjoyed success during this time was Wilsdorf & Davis, Ltd., founded in 1905, and later renamed The Rolex Watch Company, Ltd., in 1915.

Hans Wilsdorf, the founder and director of Rolex, was a strong proponent of wristwatches since the turn of the century. While others scoffed at them, Wilsdorf continued to experiment with their accuracy and reliability. Thus, some would argue that he did more for their advancement than anyone in history. In fact, he is even credited with sending the first wristwatches to the Neuchatel Observatory (Switzerland), for accuracy testing. They all passed the rigorous battery of tests, which encouraged Wilsdorf to push them even further.

Rolex subsequently received the very first wristwatch Chronometer awards from the School of Horology in Bienne (1910), and the Class “A” Certificate of Precision from the Kew Observatory in England (1914). To this day, Rolex watches consistently receive more Chronometer Certificates from the Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres (COSC), than every other watch company in the world, combined.

After the Great War, many soldiers returned home with souvenir trench watches—so named for the trench warfare in which they were used. When these war heroes were seen wearing them, the public’s perception quickly changed, and wristwatches were no longer deemed as feminine. After all, no one would dare consider these brave men as being anything but.

In the final years of the war, wristwatches began to see numerous improvements. Case makers like Francis Baumgartner, Borgel and Dennison introduced revolutionary designs, which aided in making them more resistant to water and dust. These designs were later improved on when Rolex introduced the first truly waterproof wristwatch, the Oyster, in 1926.

Also around this time, new models were first introduced with fixed lugs (often called “horns”), which gave them a more finished appearance. And to aid in their durability, new metal dials superceded porcelain, which had been quite susceptible to cracking and chipping and the fragile glass crystals were replaced with a newly invented synthetic plastic.

Over the next decade, watch companies slowly added additional models to their catalogs, and finally, by the mid-1930s, they accounted for 65 percent of all watches exported by Switzerland. It was an uphill battle, but the wristwatch had finally arrived. They were now accurate, waterproof and, by 1931, perpetually self-winding, when Rolex introduced the Auto Rotor, a revolutionary design, which is used to this day by watch companies around the world.

The success of the wristwatch was born out of necessity, and Rolex continued this tradition by introducing a series of Professional, or “tool watches” in the early 1950s. These models, including the Submariner, Explorer, GMT-Master, Turn-O-Graph, and Milgauss were also designed out of necessity, as they included features and attributes that were essential for a specific task or profession.

Because of its rugged design, variations of the Submariner have subsequently been issued to numerous militaries, including the British Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy and British Royal Marines, as well as the U.S. Navy Seals. Over the years, dozens of companies like Omega, Benrus and Panerai have also supplied specialty watch models for military duty.

Thus, the role of the wristwatch seems to have come full circle. With the general public now leaning toward high-tech, digital gadgets, the classic mechanical wristwatch has once again found its home on the wrists of those brave soldiers who welcomed it some 100 years ago.

English is well on its way to becoming the dominant global language. Is this a good thing? Yes, in fields such as science where a common language brings efficiency gains. But the global dominance of the English language is bad news for world literature, according to CEPR researcher Jacques Mélitz (Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique, Paris and CEPR). Why? Because if the English language dominates world publishing, very few translations except those from English to other languages will be commercially viable. As a result, virtually only those writing in English will have a chance of reaching a world audience and achieving ‘classic status’. The outcome is clear, Mélitz argues: just as in the sciences, those who wish to reach a world audience will write in English. “World literature will be an English literature”, Mélitz warns, “and will be the poorer for it – as if all music were written only for the cello”. His work appears in "English-Language Dominance, Literature and Welfare," (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2055). By literature, he refers to imaginative works of an earlier vintage that are still read today, and therefore the accumulation of world literature refers to the tiny fraction of currently produced imaginative works which will eventually be regarded as ‘classics’. According to Mélitz, the tendency of competitive forces in the global publishing market to privilege the translation of English fiction and poetry into other languages for reading or listening enjoyment may damage the production of world literature and in this respect make us all worse off.

Because English is so widely spoken, it has often been referred to as a "global language", the lingua franca of the modern era.[3] While English is not an official language in many countries, it is currently the language most often taught as a second language around the world. Some linguists believe that it is no longer the exclusive cultural sign of "native English speakers", but is rather a language that is absorbing aspects of cultures worldwide as it continues to grow. It is, by international treaty, the official language for aerial and maritime communications, as well as one of the official languages of the European Union, the United Nations, and most international athletic organisations, including the International Olympic Committee.

English is the language most often studied as a foreign language in the European Union (by 89% of schoolchildren), followed by French (32%), German (18%), and Spanish (8%).[27] It is also the most studied in the People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.[citation needed]

Books, magazines, and newspapers written in English are available in many countries around the world. English is also the most commonly used language in the sciences.[3] In 1997, the Science Citation Index reported that 95% of its articles were written in English, even though only half of them came from authors in English-speaking countries.

Great authors write in only one language: Remarkably few people have ever made contributions to world literature in more than one language. Beckett and Nabokov may be the only two prominent examples. Conrad, who is sometimes mentioned in this connection, is a false illustration in a glaring regard: he never wrote in his native Polish. Quite conspicuously, expatriate authors generally continue to write in their native language even after living for decades away from home. This holds not only for poets, such as Mickiewicz and Milosz, which may not be surprising, but also for novelists. Mann went on composing in German during a long spell in the US. The list of authors who have inscribed their names in the history of literature in more than one language since the beginning of time is astonishingly short.

If you want to reach a world audience, write in English: In science, as in literature, a person writing in a minor language has a better chance of publication than one writing in a major tongue, but will necessarily have a much smaller chance of translation and international recognition. The result in science is clear. Those who strive to make a mark in their discipline try to publish in English. By and large, the ones who stick to their home language – English excepted, of course – have lower ambitions and do less significant work. The same pressure to publish in English exists for those engaged in imaginative writing who wish to attain a world audience


Along with the advances in telecommunications in the last thirty years, the dominance of English in auditory and audiovisual entertainment has become far greater than in books. Does the argument about translations in literature apply more generally and explain this wider ascension of English too? The answer is partly positive as regards television, but mostly negative in connection with the cinema. US television series indeed benefit from an unusually large home audience and only travel abroad when successful domestically. On the other hand, a film need not succeed in the home market before being made available to foreign-language cinema audiences. Hollywood achieved an important place in the cinema in the era of the silent film.

Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.


51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.


The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.

The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.


20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods.


The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.


In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.


An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
3 to 1 in 1820
11 to 1 in 1913
35 to 1 in 1950
44 to 1 in 1973
72 to 1 in 1992 source 11
“The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year [2000] because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels”

The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants.

A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people.

“The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global exports.”

“The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion.”

“Of all human rights failures today, those in economic and social areas affect by far the larger number and are the most widespread across the world’s nations and large numbers of people.”

“Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.”


According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year.

For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:
Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.

Water problems affect half of humanity:
Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.

The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. “The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.”

The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity.

A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.


Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).
Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.
Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization.

Water problems affect half of humanity:

Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.

1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day.

The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)

Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.

Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.

Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.

The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. “The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.”

The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity.

A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.

Number of children in the world
2.2 billion

Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)

Shelter, safe water and health
For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:

640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
Children out of education worldwide
121 million

Survival for children Worldwide,


10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation


Health of children Worldwide,

2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)

The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”

In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s assets in 2004.