Clash of Civilization

CM · Post by CM » Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:54 pm

Another Politics topic from yours truly, though a little more abstract than the whole Muslim and West thing. Huntington believes there are a total of 7 global civilizations. The West, Islam, Chinese, Indian, African, Latin American, South Asia. These are all resurgent, while the power of the west is diminishing respectively. He sees the Asian cultures, specifically Islam as being anti-Western. He believes and is to an extent correct that many from Asia think the west is a decadent society. Their own societies are far more morally adept and consistant. Plus their ways of things are better. How many agree with this assesment?

A second concept which is very related to this, is the idea of westernization and modernization. Does one need to follow the other? Must both be put in to place at the same time? Or can you have modernization without westernization?

Lastly Do you believe in the main concept derived from Clash of Civilizations, that Islam and the West are on a crash course for a war? My comments later on.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:24 pm

As usual, I'm not going to post too much in the debate thread. Just try to stir things up here this time.

First of all, I do not believe in 7 global civilizations. Why the West and Islam, Chinese, Africa etc.? Islam is a religious society, while Africa is region. Does his concept of the West include Russia and Eastern Europe? How about Australia? Japanese and Korean culture may be similar to the Chinese, but I do not believe they are in the Chinese civilization. Does he prepare to claim those two countries do are not/not in the civilizations?

Secondly, how about Islam society in Europe, or Chinese in the US? Are they a part of the Islam/Chinese civilizations respectively, or the Western?

Next, to some extent, I agree most Asians do think they are more morally adept. Consistant? No. There are too many example for the inconsistancy on this issue. Neither the East nor the West is better than each other. There are things better in the East, and many which are not. If their way is better than the West, why there are so many come to Europe/America for research, study, etc.? (I don't mean illegal immigrants here)

You get idea on how I'm looking at. I might come back later.

Logic IsAThreat · Post by **Logic IsAThreat** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:42 pm

i certainly hope were not on a crash course for war...

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:50 pm

I think by 'The West' he means 'white'...

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 1:55 pm

My views about Huntington coincide with Minerva's. Those seven "global civilizations" are extremely superficial and even racist: there is just about nothing similar between a Lesothoan, a Senegalese, a Moroccan and an Egyptian. They represent four completely distinct cultures on a continent that has far more of them than it has recognized nations.

I would also question the "Islam vs the West" argument. It's too pat. There are Western nations that get along perfectly well with Islamic nations. Islam and "the West" are simplisitic monoliths useful for discussion purposes, but fail when considered as specifics, themselves. We might get a better fix on the issue if we consider it as a question involving several levels, beginning with a juxtaposition of essentially single-party nations vs multi-party ones.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 2:03 pm

Originally posted by Logic IsAThreat
i certainly hope were not on a crash course for war...

I hope not, too.

I doubt it will ever come to the war between, say, the West and Islam. Having said that, it is always someone who claim that, just like Osama bin Laden or Sadam Husain have done. I'm sure most of Muslim will not support that, still it is easier for them to claim the Jihad for their act to gain support/suppress opposition within. And, of course, there are many groups (Neo Nazis, for example) in the West who might comit just that and declare the war against non-white societies (or the 21st Century version of Crusades).

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 2:05 pm

BTW, who is Huntington?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 2:47 pm

Originally posted by Minerva
BTW, who is Huntington?

Samuel Huntington. Pop historian, IMO.

Wrote the 1996 hit, Clash of Civilizations.

Phantom Lord · Post by **Phantom Lord** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 3:00 pm

I don't believe in such a clash because it wouldn't make sense. There are differences beetween race, religion, colour of skin but there are only few areas where it really comes to a clash (eg Israel / Palaestina). Islam vs. West is not a clear clash scenario, eg there are many muslims living in the west, so what would they stand for?

Westernization and modernization falls into the same category, the west isn't necessary modern. Russia, China, India are countries with a vast potential and maybe an American's idea of "modern" is just different from that of a Chinese. So my answer would be "no", westernization and modernization don't follow each other neccessarily.

I also don't think it's a good idea to divide the world into 7 cultures. There are thousands of cultures IMHO. People from Africa often see themselves as members of tribes, people from Europe feel that they belong to certain regions and so on. Civil war would be the typical reaction if you put too many people into too few compartments.

Besides that I believe that there are nice people as well as there are idiots everywhere, in every country, in every culture. I believe that every culture can learn a lot from every other culture, as long as individuals are actually interested in different ideas. As long as there are enough people who care about different ideas, there will be no clash. Altough if ignorance takes the rule on all sides it could get difficult.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 6:10 pm

As some said before, his "division of the world" is questionable. I don't understand the importance he give to South America, as a civilization, also the "West" obviously is larger and more influential than he see.

For debate purposes and for awnser the question proposed, I will assume his perspective as truth.

By CM:
He believes and is to an extent correct that many from Asia think the west is a decadent society. Their own societies are far more morally adept and consistant. Plus their ways of things are better. How many agree with this assesment?

My knowledge is too restrict for a good comparation in any way, because I'm restrict to the west. But in a comparation in the time, past and present of the west society, I do believe it is becoming inconsistent, flooded. Inpredictability boosted with fast mobility leading to inconsistence and fear.

By CM:
A second concept which is very related to this, is the idea of westernization and modernization. Does one need to follow the other? Must both be put in to place at the same time? Or can you have modernization without westernization?

In a first moment both concepts were connected; I don't believe they are so linked anymore; But its dificult to state something without question the concept of modernization and Globalization.

By CM:
Lastly Do you believe in the main concept derived from Clash of Civilizations, that Islam and the West are on a crash course for a war?

The West, IMO, is 2/3 of the World. So its irrelevant, not a Crash maybe a ***ocitose. How long a culture can resist in conflict? But if you change the word "west" to "USA", then maybe can be a Crash, not necessary it will happen, and if happens, not necessary with a direct war. In other hand, its possible to say that they(USA/ Islam) are already in a crash.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 7:40 pm

On Fas last comment, I don't believe that we are on the verge of war. Islam is a peaceful religion as are many of its followers, and I assume that the west would be the Christian based followers. A religious war is something that we would expect from the middle ages perhaps, but not in this day of age.

You would think a historian would provide a better assessment of cultures also.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Jul 30, 2002 11:44 pm

Originally posted by Minerva
How about Australia?

Australia doesn't count. It never does.

IMO the 7 cultures view is extremely oversimplified, and likely made that way deliberately, so as to make for simple reading for the masses to be able to say "Ah, I thought so."
I don't know if there is going to be a Clash, both Dubyah and the Australian government (following Dubyah's lead

) say there will be, but I remain skeptical.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 12:32 am

Hmm, the west vs islam has been beaten to death, at least in my eyes, so I'm going to focus on the "can modernization occur without westernization?" question.

Short answer, not in the immediate future.
The 2 areas of the planet with the highest amount of high tech ability, is the United states, and an asian block, notably South Korea and Japan. These are not the ONLY high tech areas by anymeans, but imo are the focal points. The majority of advances in modern science come from those 2 locals. The asian culture, please correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be taking many highlights from american culture, everything from lifestyle, standards of beauty and many more trivial things. From these 2 points, they are the focus, and alas, the other major tech centers are also western. I see the modern world become increasingly like the US and W europe as the decades roll by, with an eventual drastic reversal back to their native roots. My 2 cents.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 2:10 am

Originally posted by fable

Samuel Huntington. Pop historian, IMO. Wrote the 1996 hit, Clash of Civilizations.

Ah, I see. Then, my opinion on this topic is quite simple: Don't waste your time by taking his words seriously.

He's probably got lots of money, though... for the most historians' standard, anyway.

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 31, 2002 2:33 am

Just to point out these are not my views yet.

Minerva, the views on the civilizations are not mine. Rather Huntingtons. Originally in his essay for Foriegn Affairs, he doesnt use the west and Islam. He uses Western Christiandom and Islam. Anyway, I dont agree with his assesment either. Actually i find it rather obvious. Through out history one civilization has fallen to another. His idea that western power will diminish and another will rise in its place is obvious. A 2 year old could say that.

Accordingly, Huntington divides the West into the orthodox and non-orthodox. The non is what many define western europe and the US. While the orthodox are the countries under russias sphere of influence.

I also agree with fable that his classifications are racists and he just adds countries or regions for the hell of it, and not giving it deep thought.

But i disagree with the idea that Western Countries get along perfectly fine with Islamic countries. I will post my views on this a bit later and more. After my fight with Eery

CM · Post by CM » Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:01 am

Earlier I had said I differed with Fable (I know, I know, I am suicidal

) on the relations between Muslim countries and the US. I have decided to cover the major or the more popularly known Islamic nations as an example. In my eyes the US has no allies or friends in the Islamic world rather, it has its stooges, which it helps no matter what, and the rogue states. The only exceptions that come to mind are Malaysia and Algeria.

Pakistan: Now everybody knows I am Pakistani, thus my views are biased, but the US has never been Pakistan’s friend or ally. Rather we have been used. Dennis Kux a former US diplomat has just published a book called, Pakistan and the US disenchanted allies. Excellent book, details the relationship between the countries during different administrations. The over all theme, is that Pakistan is a front line contender to be a dominant power in the Islamic world. With nuclear weapons, a strong army, etc. So we need to be kept close, but not too close. We had sanctions against us, specific amendments and laws against us dealing from trade to weapons deals. It is commonly believed in all circles of Pakistani society. From the diplomatic core to the common man, that if it weren’t for our relations with china and our nuclear capabilities, we would have been branded a rogue nation along time ago.

Iran: Rogue nation, axis of evil, 1979 etc. I don’t think there is need for me to elaborate.

Iraq: Rogue nation axis of evil Gulf war. Ditto (as above)

Saudi Arabia (I include: Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait and UAE under this) Oil rich countries, that are developing considerably, and that the US needs to keep close, as oil is an important commodity. These countries have no legitimacy with their people. Violate Human rights, do not provide womens suffrage and provide logistic and as well solid base support to American military forces. According to this week Economist, there are 50,000 forces around Iraq, with a mobile commad centre in Bahrain and a command centre in Saudi. Stooges is an apt word for the leaders of these nations. They don’t conform to the wishes of their people, if they did, there would be an oil crisis right now.

Egypt and Jordan: Staunch allies of the US, according to the US govt. Of course, that is all based on the fact that these two are the only countries around Israel to still maintain diplomatic connections. Mubarak uses the US support as a way to stay in power. In this week economists, the Egyptian govt has sent a scholar (secularist) who spoke against the govt to jail for 3 years. While 11 or 12 scholars, teachers and professionals have been handed worse sentences for speaking up against the govt (they are all Islamists). Jordan has always been a stooge, ever since the Former king leaked the plans for the 1967 war to the US.

The Mahgreb countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya): One of these is a rogue state: Libya, so not much there to discuss. Algeria is facing a civil war, where the rightfully democratically elected Islamist leaders were thrown out by the secular military, which has a history of atrocities against its own people. The US doesn’t have many ties with Algeria, as it is seen as Frances sphere of influence. The US has strong ties with Morocco, due to oil and access to military bases. That is why the Western Sahara problem is not solved. The country is a police state, where anything said against the king will earn you a quick death.

I will cover Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria and Lebanon later on.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:30 am

Originally posted by CM
<snip>
But i disagree with the idea that Western Countries get along perfectly fine with Islamic countries. I will post my views on this a bit later and more. After my fight with Eery

Many "problems" with the "Western contries" and the Islamic contries, imo, (could) comes from the fact that to (some) "western" societies a political system based on a religion seems "out-dated" and "old" wich is why I could see possible problems.
This view is, imo, due to the fact that it was the way Europe was run in the middle ages and up when Emporers/Kings was percived as "appointed by god" and many things was done according to (an interpretation of ) the bible.
Now they see in the islamic contries, an equvivalent way of running their countries, and thus it seems old/out-dated.

Many of the notions that are a factor in todays societies in "the western world" is the freedom of the individual wich also seems to clash with this "religious goverment".

As for a clash on civilasations, I must say I fear this perspective.
I doubt it will result in war (although it seems plausible to me) - but I think we will see more "Osama Bin Ladens" and equvivalent actions and an increased divesion of the world.
Another kind of "cold war" dividing the "western societies" and the islamic world is possible imo.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Aug 05, 2002 6:31 am

Originally posted by Xandax

Many "problems" with the "Western contries" and the Islamic contries, imo, (could) comes from the fact that to (some) "western" societies a political system based on a religion seems "out-dated" and "old" wich is why I could see possible problems.
This view is, imo, due to the fact that it was the way Europe was run in the middle ages and up when Emporers/Kings was percived as "appointed by god" and many things was done according to (an interpretation of ) the bible.
Now they see in the islamic contries, an equvivalent way of running their countries, and thus it seems old/out-dated.

Exactly my view as well. I dont see a war between the two parts. But i definitely see a clash. There are double standards when it comes to issues in Islamic countries and those around the world. Dictatorships and human right is obvious. As are the issues of Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya. Not to mention social issues. Time magazine coined the phrase which Minvera used: Muslims and the West. Meaning, we are in the west, but we are not the west. Muslims dont integrate, Turks in Germany or Pakistanis in the UK are an example. Rather we make the environment conform to us. We stick to our ways of life, our culture, our traditions, our laws etc etc. Realistically in the west, we a sub society of the larger society of the country, distinct and on our own.

Originally posted by Xandax

Many of the notions that are a factor in todays societies in "the western world" is the freedom of the individual wich also seems to clash with this "religious goverment".

As for a clash on civilasations, I must say I fear this perspective.
I doubt it will result in war (although it seems plausible to me) - but I think we will see more "Osama Bin Ladens" and equvivalent actions and an increased divesion of the world.
Another kind of "cold war" dividing the "western societies" and the islamic world is possible imo.

That is the issue of society and values. The western society stresses individuality. Our society stresses the larger group. What is important is the good for all, not what what is good for a few. People are grouped, by family, by clan, by tribe, by religion etc. Our identity is based by things that are group orientated. Religion, family, nationality are the main characteristics of our muslim identity.

If Bush and the US govt, continue on their reckless path of planning to attack iraq, letting the Palestine issue fester, pushing Pakistan into a corner with Kashmir etc. Yes there will be more attacks, though by then nobody in the Islamic would have any sympathy.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 7:10 am

I have not read Huntington's work, so I will not comment on it directly, but I will say that I do not believe that a clash between "the West" and "the Islamic" worlds to be inevitable.

Rather than see this as a holy war or something to do with the differences between cultures, I think we should view the tensions between the United States & (to a lesser extent) western Europe and the rest of the world as an issue between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

Why are the US and the oil-producing Islamic countries of the world so buddy-buddy? Because we need oil and countries such as Saudi Arabia like to take our money. If there were no oil in Saudi Arabia, do you think we'd have soldiers stationed there (at the Saudi's invitation) to protect them? Of course not.

There is a lot of resentment between the US and the rest of the world because we're at the top of the heap. Other countries have occupied a similar position and they were reviled just as much then as we are today. For instance, when the British Empire was at its height, people didn't like them very much. It's part fear and part envy, but it has everything to do with not being able to resist the power of another nation.

One day, someone will unseat the United States as the most powerful nation on Earth. It won't be anytime soon, but one day the sight of an American carrier battle group of the coast will not be something to fear and respect. As long as the US can exert its will on other people despite their will, there will be resentment towards us because no matter what the rhetoric we cloak our actions in, we have the power to get what we want and no one can stop us.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 7:36 am

Originally posted by CM
Earlier I had said I differed with Fable (I know, I know, I am suicidal ) on the relations between Muslim countries and the US. I have decided to cover the major or the more popularly known Islamic nations as an example. In my eyes the US has no allies or friends in the Islamic world rather, it has its stooges, which it helps no matter what, and the rogue states. The only exceptions that come to mind are Malaysia and Algeria.

I think you misunderstood me, @CM.

I didn't write "Arab countries vs the US," but Islam vs the West." Many of the nations you named have excellent relations with (for example) Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, etc. My point is that the problems between the countries are political in nature, rather than fundamental and based on some postulated irreconciliability of cultures. I think that followers of Islam can live under the governments of Canada without betraying their religious beliefs; you would know this better than I.

And it's not suicidal to disagree with me. Why, I haven't slain anybody with a lightning bolt in over 3500 years! Give or take a few thousand...