[lit-ideas] Re: Huntington's thesis
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:20:51 EST
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_1/002-6989823-1726419?_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be superseded at some point by Sinic Civilization.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
Other related posts:
