A bit pissed off...

[Urizen]

Has anyone read Samuel Huntington's "Clash of the civilisations"?

A great study about subjects like immigration,global politics, post-cold war world, and general place of countries in the today's world.
He has a theory that every country belongs to a specific civilisation, and according to that  shapes it's long term politics .

 

[Anonymous]

Huntington is one person for whose political theory I have not the slightest respect.

 

[Urizen]

Why?

 

[Anonymous]

He promotes thinking in boxes. You said so yourself. Each country belongs to a specific civilisation- that is cattle manure of the worst sort. I have maps of his "cultural continents" and have to say it's one of the most racist things I have ever put my eyes on. So, Turkish Central Asia is the same civilisation as Berber Mauretania? Ethiopia belongs to the same civilisation as Malawi? But the Czech Republic belongs to a different civilisation than Croatia?

His theory of the "clash of civilisations" has one fundamental flaw: It never took place. For several millenia, different cultures have rather lived together than fought each other. We can still see examples of this today. If I believed Huntington, the country of India would be completely unable to exist. We only hear about clashes between Muslim and Hindu extremists three times a year. Here's a hint: Three clashes a year for a country that is as big as western Europe and has one billion inhabitants is not much. It is actually very little. According to Huntington, historical entities such as the Roman Empire could never have existed.

Huntington's school of thought does not offer to solve problems. It promotes them. He draws border lines where they needn't be. The clash of civilisation is not inevitable. It will only take place if we provoke it. The keyword we need is not "clash" but "dialogue". And we can't have that if we think in boxes.

 

[Albie]

Glad you brought that up Perun. I seem to remember a short while back watching this program hosted by women who delved into this whole stupid men v women debate (personally, I can't stand this culture where one sex seems to want to point out how better they are than the other). The topic got on to War and the cause of most Wars (not about religion) - territory. One of the hosts made this point about if women ruled the world, the middle East would be peaceful as they would conduct affairs as such: "You can have this bit, and you others can have the rest". The audience then roared their approval without stopping to think of the crassness of her comment.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree, Albie. Some people simply don't have any kind of idea what they're talking about. This "you can have this bit and you will have this bit" is what started the Middle East conflict in the first place.

Another thought that, in my opinion, shows how absurd Huntington's theory is: According to Huntington, Urizen, who lives in the Balkans, and I, who I live in Germany, would be members of two different civilisations (look it up). So why are we sitting here discussing Huntington and not thrashing on each other's heads if there is an inevitable clash of civilisations?

 

[Albie]

This "you can have this bit and you will have this bit" is what started the Middle East conflict in the first place

Exactly.

 

[Urizen]

He promotes thinking in boxes. You said so yourself. Each country belongs to a specific civilisation- that is cattle manure of the worst sort. I have maps of his "cultural continents" and have to say it's one of the most racist things I have ever put my eyes on. So, Turkish Central Asia is the same civilisation as Berber Mauretania? Ethiopia belongs to the same civilisation as Malawi? But the Czech Republic belongs to a different civilisation than Croatia?

His theory of the "clash of civilisations" has one fundamental flaw: It never took place.He particularly states that the civilisation theory is only valid for the post cold war world. He states that countries are thinking in a civilisation rather than ideological way from the '80, '90  on. For several millenia, different cultures have rather lived together than fought each other. We can still see examples of this today. If I believed Huntington, the country of India would be completely unable to exist. It would be able to exist as there is only 10 prc. Muslim population  in India                                                                                                                               We only hear about clashes between Muslim and Hindu extremists three times a year. Here's a hint: Three clashes a year for a country that is as big as western Europe and has one billion inhabitants is not much. It is actually very little. Yeah, but they got nuclear weapons- and if we go"Oh, it's only three times a year never mind" ...and some of them do the unthinkable? According to Huntington, historical entities such as the Roman Empire could never have existed. He speaks of the post-cold war world. He states that the civilisation blocks are being formed from the '90 onward, and he gives some good evidence for it. Look at the western europe-US relations, no real conflicts there. And have you heard that the USA is building a wall on its border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigrants from entering. Look at the Kosovo status issue-there is a piece of one country's teritory in which there is 90prc. of foreign inhabitants. Plenty of conflicts there. The UN forces are now 7 years there, and negotiations about the status are going on for months, with no end in sight.
Huntington's .school of thought does not offer to solve problems. It promotes them. Or it makes us avare of them so we can try to prevent them. He draws border lines where they needn't be. The clash of civilisation is not inevitable.He didn't said it is inevitable. It will only take place if we provoke it. The keyword we need is not "clash" but "dialogue". I agree, but You can't go into a debate unprepared. And we can't have that if we think in boxes.

Sorry I messed up the quote, so I just put my words in bold.

Here's an example that confirms Huntington's theory: Wars in Bosnia. There you had Bosnian muslims helped by in both financial and military way by the large number of islamic states(even the nonfundamentalist ones). They even sent volunteers into Bosnia to help them in that war . And why did thousands of volunteers traveled thousands of miles to fight in a foreign land? Because they are members of the same civilisation. Why did Russia offered political support to Serbia? Why did Germany supported Croatia?

I don't like this state of affairs. But these are the facts.

I just hope that civilisations will learn how to live in peace.

 

[Anonymous]

Your examples are fine and they support the thesis of "togetherness" of various countries. I don't know if we could call this a common "civilisation"- in my book, Morocco or Afghanistan are as different to Bosnia as can be. The only thing that combines them is the (to an extent) common belief. If a fanatic Muslim sees what he thinks is his belief attacked anywhere on the world (that could be a burning mosque in America), he will consider himself attacked.

As for the Muslim countries supporting Bosnia or Russia supporting Serbia, I think the supporting countries used the argument of being 'related' to gain some influence in the area. Russia and Serbia have always been close allies, due to the fact that they are both Slavic; but how come Russia does not support other Slavic countries like Slovenia or Croatia, then?

As for Germany supporting Croatia, that was a foreign political coup stemming from the country's reunification and had very little to do with anything else.

I do not deny that civilisations exist, I only think that the borders between them have always been blurred, and in our times, it is not only more difficult than ever before to draw a clear line, but also more dangerous, for a lot of reasons.

 

[Urizen]

Your examples are fine and they support the thesis of "togetherness" of various countries. I don't know if we could call this a common "civilisation"- in my book, Morocco or Afghanistan are as different to Bosnia as can be. The only thing that combines them is the (to an extent) common belief. If a fanatic Muslim sees what he thinks is his belief attacked anywhere on the world (that could be a burning mosque in America), he will consider himself attacked.

As for the Muslim countries supporting Bosnia or Russia supporting Serbia, I think the supporting countries used the argument of being 'related' to gain some influence in the area. Russia and Serbia have always been close allies, due to the fact that they are both Slavic; but how come Russia does not support other Slavic countries like Slovenia or Croatia, then?Because in Croatia and Slovenia catolicism is a predominant religion, whereas in Serbia it is orthodox christianity(same as Russia)-Huntington addressed this fact in the book.

As for Germany supporting Croatia, that was a foreign political coup stemming from the country's reunification and had very little to do with anything else.

I do not deny that civilisations exist, I only think that the borders between them have always been blurred, and in our times, it is not only more difficult than ever before to draw a clear line, but also more dangerous, for a lot of reasons. You are right about that, making blocks of any kind(religious, ideological...) is dangerous, and is a first step towards hostilities. I think that the purpose of his book is to warns us of this. History taught us that all too well.Lets just hope that the last hypothesis in his book will remain in the domain of fiction.  Well, this was a nice debate, don't you think?