I'm going to be gone for a month and I'm busy packing. When I get back I'll be glad to do so. Julie Krueger ========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Huntington's thesis Date: 3/11/06 3:35:22 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on: Since you read the book, give us your analysis of it. Lawrence ____________________________________ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:21 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Huntington's thesis Would somebody on this list interested in this topic please, please read Johnathon Sack's (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826414435/sr=8-1/qid=1142111932/ref=sr_1_1/002-6989823-1726419?_encoding=UTF8) _The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations_ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826414435/sr=8-1/qid=1142111932/ref=sr_1_1/002-698 9823-1726419?_encoding=UTF8) Lawrence, surely you cannot ignore this book. C'mon guys -- you're all well-read literati. Just give the freaking ideas in the book a chance. Julie Krueger ========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Huntington's thesis Date: 3/11/06 12:07:27 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on: You donât have Huntingtonâs thesis right. He isnât saying what you think he is saying in Clash of Civilizations. He thinks Western Civilization will be superseded at some point by Sinic Civilization. The Japanese/American war did represent a Huntington Clash of Civilizations. The use of weaponry doesnât enter into his thesis. That Japan has mastered technology doesnât either. As to the WTO, I commented upon that at some length, even to the posting of some of its bylaws. I also posted some criticisms about how they restrict themselves to economic matters. They are accused, in essence, of being amoral about such matters as arming rogue states. Fukuyamaâs Liberal-Democracy as the end of history is plausible as described in his book. What would make a WTO end of history plausible? The only think I can think of is to use it as one of Liberal-Democracyâs tools, but in that case the WTO would be subsumed under Liberal-Democracy, not the other way around. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:35 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Huntington's thesis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:55 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Effects of Reading Military History > Andreas, > > Even though I have tried, tried, tried to explain Huntington's thesis to > you, you refuse, refuse, refuse, to understand. This would be a great line to open a country music song. > You asked, how about > Japan as though that were supplementing Irene's question. It wasn't. The > war between the U.S. and Japan would qualify as a clash between > Civilizations because the U.S. and Japan are in different Civilizations. I chose Japan because that's an example of a country that at the beginning of the 18th century, was indeed a separate society, and, by the end of the 1800s, had industrialized and modernized. By the 1930s, Japan's economy was based on industrialization. The the Pacific War, Japan and the USA fought not as two different civilizations (one with carrier-launched war planes, the other with samuri on horseback) but on the same terms: both used the output of technology and industry. Both fought on the same level. By the 1970s, Japan was beginning to surpass the US lead in electronics; by the 1980s, they began to rocket ahead. That's my point about Huntington. It's a great idea. Civilizations. The White Christians here, the darkies there, and so on. We all know what he means; we've seen the Saturday morning cartoons, we've seen the frat boy antics. But if you look beneath the surface, Huntington's "civilizations" evaporate. The distinctions fade. The Arabs are stuck in a medieval mindset? Well, just go to Dubai. That city is beyond anything in the USA. Japanese are a different civilization? You bet! They're totally into cell phones. The USA is our civilization? Which USA? The agrarian country that was founded by Jefferson and others? That's gone with the wind. The industrialized country of Ford and US Steel? We sold that long ago. Lawrence, you and I are a perfect example of two totally different cultures that live in the USA; you talk about patriotism and country, and I point out that the economics have changed to the point that these aren't valid concepts anymore. This is the general position about Huntington: it's a nice idea, but it doesn't go very far. It's positivist history, of the kind that Toynbee and others did 100 years ago. If you look at these countries, it's hard to say that they were distinct civilizations. Like India. We all know India, right? Hindus and cows in the street. Or... India, the Muslim country? It was Muslim for 800 years. It's been Hindu for all of 50 years. Which one is more important? Or, was it Buddhist? India was a Buddhist country 2,000 years ago. It's been three major civilizations. And now, it's turning into a fourth: technological. Pick any country, and start looking at its history. There aren't any clearly identifiable civilizations. The Egyptians maybe: they managed to last 3,000 years without any changes whatsoever (not even hair styles). That was a civilization, if there is such a thing. But that was 2,500 years ago. > Fukuyama > believes all nations will eventually become successful Liberal Democracies. > For a nation to suppress another, dark skinned or not would mean that the > end of history had not yet arrived, and Fukuyama believes it one day will. > After that there will be universal peace. Yes, but I don't think you'll like the universal peace. The globalization of economics has made countries irrelevant. Or, they are as relevant as going from Ohio to Missouri. Are those two different countries? The USA was created as an alliance, a confederation, of different states, each with its own laws. But the end result was a homogenization into one vast strip mall. There is no difference in a mall in California or Alabama. That's the result of economics. The same is happening to Europe. Where there was once 12 countries, it's turning into the European Union. One economy. The previous countries become just local color (like when you buy hillbilly postcards in East Tennessee). Fukuyama was right, there'll be univeral peace, but he was wrong: it won't be a peace of democracies. The democracies will fade and we get a large structure, managed by the WTO, where the previous countries are just local issues. > I'm always interested in theories about how to solve the world's problems. > Fukuyma and Barnett have intriguing theories, but you dismiss them - perhaps > in ignorance, but in any case you imply that you have your own theory about > how to achieve what Fukuyama and Barnett seek to achieve. I would be very > interested in adding your theory of Universal Peace to theirs. I'm not proposing my own theory. This is the standard understanding of economics that is taught in every university and business school, from Dubai to Tokyo to Bejing to Frankfurt to Harvard. You're resisting, like the agrarian farmers resisted the railroads. yrs, andreas www.andreas.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html