[lit-ideas] Re: The Effects of Reading Military History
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:55:22 -0800
Andreas,
Even though I have tried, tried, tried to explain Huntington's thesis to
you, you refuse, refuse, refuse, to understand. When you added Japan to
Irene's Germany a few days ago I could tell you were missing the point.
Irene's question was valid but yours wasn't. She was asking about wars
within Civilizations. It seemed to her they were as significant as wars
between Civilizations which was a valid question. 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.
Huntington says what you have written except you assume you are trumping
Huntington. Within a Civilization there is strife, but it tends to be less
severe and gotten over more quickly. Irene's question about Germany gives
one pause at this point, but not California and Oregon. We are the same
people, in the same civilization.
Now the idea of Universal Peace isn't mine, it came from Fukuyama and
Barnett, and while I don't recall attempting to explain them to you in the
recent past, I want to say I could remedy that now, but your lack of
interest in my explanation about Huntington causes me to believe you
wouldn't pay any attention. But for anyone else reading your note, you have
it quite wrong about either Fukuyama's or Barnett's thesis. 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.
Barnett's thesis is similar but he differs in that he provides practical
instructions. He is more of an activist than Fukuyama. He separates
nations into "Functioning Core" and "Non-Integrating Gap" nations.
Functioning Core nations are as the title implies the successful
democracies. The Non-Integrating Gap nations are the third-world nations,
nations with tyrannies, Rogue nations, poor nations, etc. Barnett provides
suggestions for how Non-Integrating Gap nations can be brought into the
Functioning Core. Like Fukuyama he believes success will not be achieved
until all nations are in the Functioning Core.
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.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:49 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Effects of Reading Military History
>>> Can the impulse to engage in war be tamed?
Of course it can. California and Oregon haven't started any wars against
each other lately,
and it doesn't likely in the future either.
The relations between states in the USA is peaceful. European countries,
which were plagued
by endless war for 2,000 years, are at peace with each other.
It's only demagogues who are a danger. Regrettably, the American legal
system has a failure
that allows someone like Bush to start a war. The Congress was asleep and
the press has
silenced itself.
Someday, there will be universal peace. It won't be Lawrence's version of
"universal peace",
where the darkies have been either cowed into slave-like submission or
blasted by nuclear
bombs. There will be a real peace, where everyone works constructively to
build a better
society.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
