Clash of civilizations?

Romania
March 6, 2013 7:58am CST
Samuel P. Huntington writes a book - "Clash of civilizations" - in which he argue that after the Cold War, cilizations matter more than they did before and became the principal actors of international politics. Those are, according to the author: western occidental, latino-american, chinese, orthodox, budhist, hindu, japanese, african and islamic. States form alliances and get into conflicts mostly based on civilizational characteristics. Economical reasons or ideaological ones, that shaped the world in the past, are now replaced by cultural reasons, mainly religion, but also ethnical. His approach is opposed to the globalization one, which argues that we are going to an "end of the history", where liberal democracy becomes universal and fighting for ideas becomes obsolete. Fukuyama is the best known author who sustaines this view. What do you think? Are civilizations more important now than they were in the past? Have the world become more... "idealistic", in the sense it values now more cultural than economical? Have you read Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"? Does it make sense for you? Would you prefer a globalized world, or in the contrary a world that shows the differences between people (even if it means more conflicts)?
2 people like this
3 responses
suspenseful
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
6 Mar 13
I believe that civilizations are based on ideas and we should not have a world global government. That is what the Communists want because they want everyone to think alike, they want one supreme leader and only God is suppose to be the leader. I think that for most the world is more cultural and idealistic. We see things differently in the west then those in the east and it seems here that secularism is more important, but then of those like me who are religious, we see God as supreme over all, whereas in some places they seem to think of working to gain God's favor. I have not read the "Clash of Civilizations" and it sounds interesting. I prefer a world where not everyone is under a supreme leader except for God and HE will do it in HIS time.
1 person likes this
spicymary
@spicymary (558)
• Romania
9 Mar 13
It's not only about communists, but also about the liberal democrats of now. Most of the political class in Europe is inspired by marxist ideology, so this may be the main reason. They want to export democracy in every place of the earth. It's a great activity, from my point of view. It's the best system we produced till now. But the problem is that this is going further. With exporting democracy, they also export a cultural lifestyle that has nothing to do with politics. To put myself in the argument of Huntington, I feel I belong to the "orthodox" civilization. And I also feel the western pressure to be like them.
1 person likes this
suspenseful
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
9 Mar 13
I think that America got an idealist view of what is going on in Europe with Marxist Ideology because they see them getting month or two month holidays and do not realize that they cost money. I also think with democracy, do you mean an area selecting a representative to talk for them or everyone talking for themselves? Because in many countries who have one representative talking for them, they are not used to voting for themselves so that one representative takes over and becomes a dictator. I am in favor of a system that each are has representatives for that area and there are laws and taxes related to that area such as to a state or province and in other matters they elect a representative for laws pertaining to the country what was in America until Obama and the liberal democrats took over. I do think that other countries with dictatorships or one leader rule have to get used to a republic or democracy but they do not need to give up their culture to do so except for some customs that could be cruel and barbaric.
celticeagle
@celticeagle (167050)
• Boise, Idaho
7 Mar 13
I think that the different cultures, traditions and religious are what make the world a interesting place to cohabit in. I don't think there will ever be an end to the history. I think cultural should be more important. Keeping up on traditional and cultural values is important. I haven't read the book but it sounds like an interesting argument.
celticeagle
@celticeagle (167050)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Mar 13
But the sad thing is that we are losing those cultures and traditions. People are not teaching their youth and we are losing it. I was just discussing languages earlier this morning. It is sad.
spicymary
@spicymary (558)
• Romania
9 Mar 13
I agree with you, that the difference between values is beautiful and interesting and should be preserved. Cultures can evolve without melt in the same pot.
1 person likes this
teotimoponcerosacena
@teotimoponcerosacena (1552)
• Philippines
6 Mar 13
Clash of civilization can be construed as radical opinion for in actual. What happened was getting to know each other, helping each other, sharing of ideas and so forth. There can be no important than the civilization before for it was our foundation today positive or negative it did help a lot. Our civilization today is much more improve though those barbaric people are still active so be it let it be as long majority believed in peaceful Earth we will survive.
spicymary
@spicymary (558)
• Romania
9 Mar 13
I think you are talking about civilization (an evolved state of behavior due to increses in knowledge and experience as human beings), and not so more about civilizations, like different ways to see the world, that have nothing to do with evolution, just with difference. Please tell me if I get your post wrong.