Is Friedman's perspective overly 'America-centric'? Does he adequately consider the viewpoints of other countries and cultures?

Answer: That question cuts right to the point and essentially addresses one of the core discussions in The World is Flat. Simply put, the answer is: Yes, Friedman's perspective is largely "Ameri-centric". He does not fully and adequately account for the viewpoints of other nations and cultures.

However, this doesn't mean his book is without value. We can understand this issue from several angles:

Why is it considered "America-centric"?

Think of Friedman as someone observing the world through a telescope, standing on top of an American mountain. He sees the changes happening in the world, sees people and events in distant places, but his starting point, angle of observation, and final conclusion are always rooted in that "American mountain" beneath his feet.

This manifests specifically in these ways:

For Whom is the World "Flat"? Friedman's assertion that the "world is flat" primarily refers to technology (especially the internet) leveling obstacles to the flow of information, capital, and work. This allows an American company to easily outsource customer service to India or place production in China. From this perspective, the world indeed seems "flat" for multinational corporations and elites who can leverage these tools. But for an Indian call center worker, or an American worker who loses their job because of this, the world is anything but flat. The former may endure extremely low wages and harsh management, while the latter faces livelihood issues. This "flatness" resembles a "level playing field" viewed through the lens of American capital and elites, overlooking the fact that many players on the field don't even have proper running shoes.
An Overly Singular Definition of "Success" In Friedman's narrative, success seems to have a standard template: embrace globalization, learn English, master technology, integrate into the U.S.-led global supply chain. He praises Indian engineers and Chinese entrepreneurs because they have successfully "plugged into" this "flat" world. This perspective somewhat ignores other cultures' different definitions of "success" and "a good life." Must every country follow this path? Societies prioritizing cultural preservation or resisting hyper-globalization appear, within Friedman's framework, as "laggards" or "those who are flattened."
Oversimplification of Cultural Issues When discussing culture, he often treats it merely as a "tool" or "obstacle" for participating in globalization. For example, he might state that some cultures encourage innovation while others are more conservative. However, he rarely delves deeply into the impact and erosion of globalization on indigenous cultures themselves. When Coca-Cola and Hollywood movies proliferate globally, it's not just commercial success; it's also the spread of a dominant culture. He gives scant attention to the loss of this cultural diversity.

So, Is Friedman's Perspective Worthless?

Absolutely not. We must also understand his context and purpose for writing.

He Was Primarily Sounding an Alarm for Americans: One of Friedman's core motivations was to warn Americans: "Hey, stop resting on your laurels! The world has changed. Young people in India and China are studying intensely, ready to snatch away your jobs in this 'flat' world." Viewed as a "wake-up call" service, his book was highly successful.
He Did Identify Key Trends: In the early 2000s, he astutely captured major trends like outsourcing, offshore production, and globalized supply chains, popularizing them through the vivid metaphor "the world is flat." This prompted many ordinary people to begin systematically thinking about what "globalization" truly meant.
He Wasn't Completely Oblivious to Other Countries: As a New York Times columnist, he traveled extensively to countries like India and China for interviews. His book is filled with accounts from these places. While his viewpoint remained American, he did bring the dynamism and changes happening elsewhere to the attention of American readers.

To Summarize

Think of it this way: Friedman opened a window for Americans, allowing them to see the new landscape of globalization—distant competitors and collaborators. But the framing of that window was made from "American materials" and designed to "American standards."

He enables you to see the outside view, but the very window frames the way you see that scene.

Therefore, reading The World is Flat is an excellent starting point, offering a vivid understanding of one facet of globalization. But to grasp a more complete, multi-dimensional picture, you must seek out more "windows"—perspectives from European, Chinese, Indian, African, or Latin American writers. Only then can you piece together the true shape of the world, rather than the "flat world" seen solely from the vantage point of that "American mountain."