Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations

[saysmydoctor]

Who here has read this article? What are your thoughts on Huntington's overall point?

[GeeBee]

I feel like it was subtle and pedantic, arbitrary and capricious.

[saysmydoctor]

hahahahah is that Family Guy?

[thatwasamoment]

I disagree!

[whenyourearound]

We're actually reading this in one of my political science classes now.

[MyNameIsRoss]

I feel like it was subtle and pedantic, arbitrary and capricious.

:-d

[MyNameIsRoss]

haven't read it, but I know the basic theory. and yes, I would say he's probably pretty spot on.

[GeeBee]

hahahahah is that Family Guy?

I threw Peter Griffin AND Cosmo Kramer into that response. BOO-YAW.

[Machu505]

Fun Fact: Huntington, West Virginia is the fattest metropolitan area in the United States.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I haven't read the whole article but I strongly disagree with the main point.

[saysmydoctor]

I think Huntington said a lot of what theorists had been arguing for a while but I think he was the first to take all these puzzles pieces and make the big picture.

The major issue I have with his article is the emphasis he puts on religion and how he calls it a 'revival of religion.' I think he is taking the fact that fundamentalism may be the loudest and gets the most attention--doesn't mean it's most prominent. I also think he ignores the mass public's want for peace. You can look at the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis and the polls show a slim plurality that would rather see a two-state solution. In his attempt to show the bottom of the stratified world, he seems to have forgotten that it's the top elites that make the policy decisions and to have confused the elite with the bottom.

[MyNameIsRoss]

I think Huntington said a lot of what theorists had been arguing for a while but I think he was the first to take all these puzzles pieces and make the big picture.

The major issue I have with his article is the emphasis he puts on religion and how he calls it a 'revival of religion.' I think he is taking the fact that fundamentalism may be the loudest and gets the most attention--doesn't mean it's most prominent. I also think he ignores the mass public's want for peace. You can look at the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis and the polls show a slim plurality that would rather see a two-state solution. In his attempt to show the bottom of the stratified world, he seems to have forgotten that it's the top elites that make the policy decisions and to have confused the elite with the bottom.

Yeah, but everything going on in the middle east is rooted in religious conflict. And from what I understand there is a strong Christian fundamentalist "movement" in our military. Which is really fucking scary. I think all of this is self-fullfilling and eventually this bullshit will be obsolete.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, but fundamentalism isn't mainstream.

[MyNameIsRoss]

I think it has a wider influence than any of us would like to think.

[saysmydoctor]

No, that's the thing. It doesn't. It just appears to.

[GeeBee]

No, that's the thing. It doesn't. It just appears to.

Come to Utah and say that. There's substantial numbers of crazy out there.

[x togepi x]

Come to Utah and say that. There's substantial numbers of crazy out there.

you mean "come to anywhere that isn't the coasts"...

[GeeBee]

you mean "come to anywhere that isn't the coasts"...

Yes, thank you. People would be surprised at the high concentration of Beck/Hannity/Rush- ophiles the further into the interior of the U.S. you get.

[vodyanoj]

I think Huntington said a lot of what theorists had been arguing for a while but I think he was the first to take all these puzzles pieces and make the big picture.

The major issue I have with his article is the emphasis he puts on religion and how he calls it a 'revival of religion.' I think he is taking the fact that fundamentalism may be the loudest and gets the most attention--doesn't mean it's most prominent. I also think he ignores the mass public's want for peace. You can look at the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis and the polls show a slim plurality that would rather see a two-state solution. In his attempt to show the bottom of the stratified world, he seems to have forgotten that it's the top elites that make the policy decisions and to have confused the elite with the bottom.

This.

I can think of several othr schemata to use in assigning a particular ethnic group to a particular civilization, most of which would produce results markedly different from those of Huntington. That is to say, his general thesis is well worth our attention and further study, and is essentially valid; his particular conclusions in this case appear to me basically shite.

[caveBEAR]

I disagree heavily. While I acknowledge that there is a chance that this "Clash of Civilizations" can occur, the level of conflict and misunderstanding in the world would have to increase a lot to make it anything more than a slim chance.

The good news is that all the Jordanian cab drivers I meet love America and want to go there, if this clash occurs I can't wait to have an army of Jordanian taxi driver son my side.

Ha ha ha, I just envisioned you standing in front of a giant army of yellow cabs, and you extending your arm screaming 'CHARGE!' and hearing the hum of all the taxi's turning over their engines. Ha ha ha.

[saysmydoctor]

Boykosaurus sighting.