The Clash Of Civilization!!!

[Dragon]

SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests."

Samuel Huntington wrote nearly ten years ago now, in one of the most debated, commented upon, and controversial foreign policy essays this side of Francis Fukuyama's End of History. In the simplistic terms in which such things tend to be discussed, Fukuyama was understood to be saying that mankind's ages long global conflict was over because everyone would seek to become liberal democratic capitalists as opposed to Huntington, who was understood to be saying that certain societies (or civilizations) would never evolve into such modern Western states. For the duration of the 90s, with the Western economy humming and peace mostly reigning, Fukuyama appeared to have the better of the argument. Then came September 11th, and suddenly Huntington was hailed as a prophet, Fukuyama dismissed to the ash heap of history.

The central theme of this book is that culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are
civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the
post-Cold War world.

He breaks the world up into seven separate competing civilizations : Western; Sinic (roughly the Chinese); Japanese; Hindu; Islamic; Orthodox; Latin American; and offers the possibility that African civilization may be an eighth; and then goes on to elaborate his theory :

Read it for yourselves:

<a href="http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html " target="_blank">http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html </a>

[Limerick]

tres old

[FooFoo]

I tend to lean towards the view that you cannot make every society fit into one single mold. While the Chinese are currently racing towards capitalism, I don't see where they will morph into a Western Liberal Democracy any time soon. They may want the riches that a capitalist society provides, but I doubt China is ready for representative democracy.

As for the Middle East, I see a much bleaker situation. As certain countries have rushed to cash in on the oil boom of the last 50 years, democracy has failed to flourish at all. Rebuking the theory that economic prosperity leads to liberal government policy. And with the current climate heading towards Islamic fundamentalism, I believe they will only step further backwards. Once oil is gone, their ability to generate wealth that is comparable to first world nations will continue to be an unreachable goal. In my view Islamic fundamentalism and economic prosperity, as it is known in the West, are diametrically opposed concepts.

While countries like India and China will continue on their path towards prosperity (one being a democratic nation, the other a totalitarian state) the bulk of the Middle Eastern countries will continue to back slide. Which of course will lead to an eventual war. Looking back at history, those countries that are often the most dangerous, are the ones who have faced economically desperate conditions.

[Dragon]

Oui Limi, tres old!

And guess what? That's why we post it here to show, that long before Sep 11th 2001, they were preaching of <b>The Clash Of Civilization!!!</b>. While they accusing the others of being fanatic, and they therefore need to change their way of thinking and religious teaching.

[old_n_grumpy]

Persons in the know have been warning for many years of the dangers posed by militant Islam. Have you only just started to discover this?

[Dragon]

<b>the Boxing Kangaroo flag?</b> <img src="/threads/images/graemlins/evil.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/threads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />



Here you have some more

<a href="http://www.fotw.ca/flags/au-kang.html#bk" target="_blank">http://www.fotw.ca/flags/au-kang.html#bk</a>



So they do, recognize that? Don't they? We see the matters, that these people incited the entire conflict, by directing the politic in a certain direction, namely the confrontation course.



Why cannot we talk of cooperation and mutual interests instead, why should we and the the other culture be in war? <img src="/threads/images/graemlins/bawling.gif" alt="" />



It's a grace of Heavens that we have East and West, or in the economic terms, North and South, that way we could find a way to learn from each other, and recognize one another needs.

[hfsc_peace]

What Huntingdon misses entirely, what comes up empty on a search as well, is the name Wahab.

Where wahabbism is, others cannot be. The most recent example of this is Ansar Al Islam. Now that they are fully radicalized, suddenly naqshubandi sheiks are forbidden to practice openly as are others. Or course, it is the naqshubandis who carried the ball for 150 years until recently in Chechnya.

When wahabis arrived from KSA in Bosnia before largesse was permitted they stripped the walls of the mosques bare of the paintings there for (some) close to 1000 years, and desecrated the cemetaries (as they did in KSA in their time).

Islam has it's own clash to settle. If these haters of song from the Najd are victorious then there absolutely WILL be a clash, and it will have only one possible ending.

On the other hand if 'traditional' islam gradually does away with the haters of song, the world will have a chance to be more peaceful.

The lack of toleration of this group makes living on the same planet with them, in the end..intolerable

[Dragon]

<b>The lack of toleration of this group makes living on the same planet with them, in the end..intolerable.</b>

Tolerance must control our actions in every aspect of life, that is in face, the rule we, personally, have been following and practicing.

People like Huntingdon who likes to hunt in the darkness, with no head lights, want only to incite the societies on each other, and have the clash of the civilizations for the rule, and the other way around for the exception.

We can't possibly expect the others to be tolerant, when we deliver them every reason to be against us. This is a matter that must be dealt with down to the roots, what will the people think when someone like Bush declares a new crusades on them. Even if he was forced to draw his silly words back, just to fool them, they know that these words were mean originally the way they were spoken.

We should all work hard to enable living in peace, isn't?

[Adnan]

I do not share the views of HUNTINGTON on the clash of civilizations.

“Civilization” is a very broad term that we can not possibly associate with individual nations or races. The term means different things to different people. Some think of civilizations as stemming out of religion or philosophies and as such are based on them. Others think of sciences, buildings, urban infrastructure, etc. when the word civilization is mentioned. Others think of different periods in history.

The westerners may think of themselves as belonging to one western civilization. This could be true but what is the criterion used in reaching such conclusion? If the criterion is based on the system of government we can immediately point out that not all-western countries have the same system of government (some are republics while others are kingdoms). If the criterion is religion we can point out that no one religion is prevalent in the west and more importantly western countries are mostly not based on religion but rather on secular doctrines called “constitutions.” Sciences in the west are not evenly spread either so that can not be a criterion.

We can understand conflicts between individuals or nations but a conflict between civilizations can only be waged at a theoretical level, which is probably neither based on nor supported by facts of life.