Civilizations in contemporary world - your opinion?

[Winner]

I agree, it seems this guy switched TV on and after watching the news about half an hour he wrote his monumental theories about the civilizations of the world.

That is uneccessary downplaying of his theories.

I very much advise you all to read his book. It is well written, interesting and surely, you'll get a better image than I am able to provide you.

In case you don't have a time or money to do so, you can at least read his orginal essay on which is this book bases. This essay outlines the basic ideas:

Clash of Civilizations​

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I have read the essay yet and you sumarized it very well indeed. However i didnt find it very interesting to say the thruth. And he is totally wrong IMHO in some points we have already discused in this thread.

 

[Gelion]

Yeah I think this guy is a product of his generation basing his ideas in frame of the Cold War almost completely disregarding history and traditional values of many areas (civilizations).....

 

[Winner]

Yeah I think this guy is a product of his generation basing his ideas in frame of the Cold War almost completely disregarding history and traditional values of many areas (civilizations).....

In fact, what he criticize the most is the Cold War thinking in terms of ideology. Vedle jak ta jedle, Gelion

Then, in the book, he is almost always reffering to the history, so you really can't say he knows nothing about it. The parts regarding Russia are especially interesting, as well as his analysis of international relations in Asia - he argues, that int. relations are just a reflection of the structure of relations inside the countries of given civilization. What I am trying to say - he says, that countries in East Asia never favoured the European concept of "balance of power". Balance of power, he argues, is the reflection of "checks and balances", strong aristocracy counterweighting the power of kings etc. In China, there has never been such a thing and this applies also to other East Asian countries. As a reflection of this state of affairs, countries in East Asia often accepted hegemony of one strong state instead of forming alliance against it. Most of the time, there has been a strong China and neighbouring vassal states, accepting the central position of China in the world. Once China's power diminished, they've sticked to new strong power in the region - the United States. Now, with China's power growing, they are just turning back to the original hegemon.

The US isn't going to accept it and this can, for example, lead to a dangerous situation.

 

[Dann]

...As a reflection of this state of affairs, countries in East Asia often accepted hegemony of one strong state instead of forming alliance against it. Most of the time, there has been a strong China and neighbouring vassal states, accepting the central position of China in the world. Once China's power diminished, they've sticked to new strong power in the region - the United States. Now, with China's power growing, they are just turning back to the original hegemon...

The way it should be.

Ok, just having a little bit of fun there.

Be that as it may, there have also been several periods in history where China was weak and divided, and the "vassal" states waste no time in gaining their independence, grabbing territory and fighting among themselves. It was only in the last few centuries where the weakening of China was accompanied by the intrusion into East and Southeast Asia of the Western powers, and the incredibly fast rise of Japan.

On topic, I also do not agree with the classifications. They are too broad and encompassing. No one can deny that the Japanese are a unique civilization, and yet Japan shares too many similaries with Korea and China. So why should the Koreans not get their own color on the chart? Malaysia and Indonesia are lumped into the vast Islamic sweep, and yet part from their religion, they have nothing in common with Persians, Arabs or North Africans. The list goes on...

 

[Winner]

The way it should be.

Ok, just having a little bit of fun there.

Be that as it may, there have also been several periods in history where China was weak and divided, and the "vassal" states waste no time in gaining their independence, grabbing territory and fighting among themselves. It was only in the last few centuries where the weakening of China was accompanied by the intrusion into East and Southeast Asia of the Western powers, and the incredibly fast rise of Japan.

On topic, I also do not agree with the classifications. They are too broad and encompassing. No one can deny that the Japanese are a unique civilization, and yet Japan shares too many similaries with Korea and China. So why should the Koreans not get their own color on the chart? Malaysia and Indonesia are lumped into the vast Islamic sweep, and yet part from their religion, they have nothing in common with Persians, Arabs or North Africans. The list goes on...

They have to be broad. It's like saying human kind occur in 3 main races. Of course there are tons of transitional states and mixtures, but for the categorization purpose, it is simplier to divide the human population this way. The rest can be disussed later.

No doubt that civilisations don't have sharp borders. Nobody claims that. It is often hard to distinguish. Huntington analyse that on the highest level, therefore invetiably, there will be large generalisations.

People should focus on the essence and principles, not on details.

 

[Kyriakos]

I do not see any real difference between the west group and the orthodox group (btw calling it slav orthodox is both stupid and wrong, since neither the byzantine civ was slav, nor the empire of Bulgaria, and both Greece and Bulgaria are orthodox. Orthodoxy, as much as i don't like it like any other religion, is a greek (byzantine) creation.) in terms of political background, if you count out Russia which had to develop such a system due to its unrealistically vast size. Both the west and the east of Europe have as their core background the ancient greek and roman civilizations, and christianity. Kingdoms appeared in all of Europe, and prior to the fourth crusade (and 1204) the west was definately less developed than the east of Europe, which was the only thing protecting it from the hordes of turks and mongols.
Making a distinction of the world based mostly on religions, and presenting it as a new theory, is rather boring. I think that huddington's theory owes the fame it got to the particular foreign policy of his nation, which it complements, and nothing more, and i really doubt that future historians will base any serius work on his quotes.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

The last thing we need on Earth today is more imaginary lines.

 

[Gelion]

I do not see any real difference between the west group and the orthodox group (btw calling it slav orthodox is both stupid and wrong, since neither the byzantine civ was slav, nor the empire of Bulgaria, and both Greece and Bulgaria are orthodox. Orthodoxy, as much as i don't like it like any other religion, is a greek (byzantine) creation.) in terms of political background, if you count out Russia which had to develop such a system due to its unrealistically vast size. Both the west and the east of Europe have as their core background the ancient greek and roman civilizations, and christianity. Kingdoms appeared in all of Europe, and prior to the fourth crusade (and 1204) the west was definately less developed than the east of Europe, which was the only thing protecting it from the hordes of turks and mongols.
Making a distinction of the world based mostly on religions, and presenting it as a new theory, is rather boring. I think that huddington's theory owes the fame it got to the particular foreign policy of his nation, which it complements, and nothing more, and i really doubt that future historians will base any serius work on his quotes.

Agree with this too.....

 

[Winner]

The last thing we need on Earth today is more imaginary lines.

Ah, I've been expecting the PC people to show up

 

[Winner]

I do not see any real difference between the west group and the orthodox group (btw calling it slav orthodox is both stupid and wrong, since neither the byzantine civ was slav, nor the empire of Bulgaria, and both Greece and Bulgaria are orthodox.

Did I call it Slav Orthodox? No, neither me or H. I just said there are two main subcategories, Slav and Non-Slav, which is right. Can't see why are you having problems with this.

Orthodoxy, as much as i don't like it like any other religion, is a greek (byzantine) creation.) in terms of political background, if you count out Russia which had to develop such a system due to its unrealistically vast size. Both the west and the east of Europe have as their core background the ancient greek and roman civilizations, and christianity. Kingdoms appeared in all of Europe, and prior to the fourth crusade (and 1204) the west was definately less developed than the east of Europe, which was the only thing protecting it from the hordes of turks and mongols.
Making a distinction of the world based mostly on religions, and presenting it as a new theory, is rather boring. I think that huddington's theory owes the fame it got to the particular foreign policy of his nation, which it

This just shows me that you know very little about it. Sorry, but I can't really discuss it with you unless you know whar are we talking about. No offence, but It's like discussing quantum physics with someone who don't know, what it is.

complements, and nothing more, and i really doubt that future istorians will base any serius work on his quotes.

That's your opinion based on lack of knowledge.

 

[Kyriakos]

You are a bit vague on your dismissal of my view.
Btw i was reffering to Huddington, and not you, about the slav orthodox group. From the essay it is dominantly that group, and Russia is supposed to be the leader. However there isnt any noticable influence of Russia in Greece, if you count out the obvious communist party, which like any other owes its existence to russian communism.
Russia begun to be a major country post 1453, with the new ideology of 'the third Rome'. You may claim that i know "very little" about history, however i am an educated person, with academic degrees, and yet i havent found any reason to accept Huddington's theory, and so i suspect that if one does it would be down to his own perspective, and not some crystal clear foundation for it which would make it evidently important for others.
I am not antagonistic against you btw, although you have given me opportunity on many times to note what i will also note now, that you seem to have a slight agenda vs the eastern countries, due to the communist occupation in your own country. This may have a real foundation in strong feelings, but it has a poor foundation in logic, for the simple reason that other europeans dont feel anything that strong vs Russia, and rather dont care.
Also i am surprised that ancient Greece plays no role in a theory about culture

 

[Gelion]

thats a nice one.... 5+

 

[Winner]

You are a bit vague on your dismissal of my view.
Btw i was reffering to Huddington, and not you, about the slav orthodox group. From the essay it is dominantly that group, and Russia is supposed to be the leader. However there isnt any noticable influence of Russia in Greece, if you count out the obvious communist party, which like any other owes its existence to russian communism.

I am reffering mainly to his latter book (from 1996), where he clarified many of his points.

BTW, it is H-U-N-T-I-N-G-T-O-N. It shouldn't be so hard to remember

Russia begun to be a major country post 1453, with the new ideology of 'the third Rome'. You may claim that i know "very little" about history, however i am an educated person, with academic degrees, and yet i havent found any reason to accept Huddington's theory, and so i suspect that if one does it would be down to his own perspective, and not some crystal clear foundation for it which would make it evidently important for others.

I don't say you are not educated, I say that from your claims it is clear that you don't know much of the Clash of Civ. theory.

Eastern Orthodox civ. is centered around Russia now, because it is the most powerful Orthodox country. The founder of this civilization is the Byzantian Empire, which of course no longer exists.

I am not antagonistic against you btw, although you have given me opportunity on many times to note what i will also note now, that you seem to have a slight agenda vs the eastern countries, due to the communist occupation in your own country.

This is really not the case here. If I wanted to bash the Russians, I'd do that differently.

This may have a real foundation in strong feelings, but it has a poor foundation in logic, for the simple reason that other europeans dont feel anything that strong vs Russia, and rather dont care.
Also i am surprised that ancient Greece plays no role in a theory about culture

Of course it does! Read the book and you'll understand. I don't really know what else should I say. Maybe that one of the roots of the Western civ. is the Classical heritage. Both Western and Orthodox civs have common ancestor, the ancient Roman Empire. Since it's fall, the Western and Eastern parts have developed differences and gone their way.

H. himself claims, that Western, Orthodox and Latin American civs are very close to each other, much more than to other main civilizations.

I have an impression you (and not just you, many people here do that as well) are trying to find some dark, racist purpose behind this theory. Something like "We're the great West and you all are insects". Nothing can be so far from being truth. The message in his book is that West should respect other cultures and in order to survive, it must stick to its values without imposing them on the others.

 

[Gelion]

Winner but you made adjustments to his division of the world. Are we learning this H. guy or discussing worlds civilization divide???

 

[Winner]

Winner but you made adjustments to his division of the world. Are we learning this H. guy or discussing worlds civilization divide???

Both. Have you any concrete suggestions?

 

[Gelion]

Both. Have you any concrete suggestions?

I did. Create a European civilzation based on Classical heritage with 3 divides: East, West and Latin America..... if you so insist.

 

[Winner]

I did. Create a European civilzation based on Classical heritage with 3 divides: East, West and Latin America..... if you so insist.

Impossible, because the empirical evidence wouldn't support it Wait about 100 years and then, we can talk about it

 

[Kyriakos]

You dont get it. People who are in the west do not bother to think of it like you do. Due to the special status of ex eastern block countries it is to be expected that a lot of people there are too anxious to see themselves as western, but since you are in the Eu you dont have to prove any "westerness". Others in the Eu do not care, unless they have their own agendas.
The west didnt develop more than the east of Europe because it was superior in any way; it was just more to the...west, and so it had a shield of eastern countries which took all of the blows of the asian conquering tribes. Had Bohemia been in the Ukraine it would have been overun by the mongols, and had it been in the balcans it would have been overun by the turks. The West of europe always lagged far behind the east, and far behind the arabs as well; only when the east was overun from all sides did the west develop, and even then it received an influx of minds and wealth from the east again, since people where feeling en masse from the conquered areas and from war.

 

[Winner]

You dont get it. People who are in the west do not bother to think of it like you do. Due to the special status of ex eastern block countries it is to be expected that a lot of people there are too anxious to see themselves as western, but since you are in the Eu you dont have to prove any "westerness". Others in the Eu do not care, unless they have their own agendas.

I've already said that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my personal feelings or intentions. Please don't even try to imply it.

The west didnt develop more than the east of Europe because it was superior in any way; it was just more to the...west, and so it had a shield of eastern countries which took all of the blows of the asian conquering tribes. Had Bohemia been in the Ukraine it would have been overun by the mongols, and had it been in the balcans it would have been overun by the turks. The West of europe always lagged far behind the east, and far behind the arabs as well; only when the east was overun from all sides did the west develop, and even then it received an influx of minds and wealth from the east again, since people where feeling en masse from the conquered areas and from war.

Funny, you say it as you thought I won't agree, but you're wrong in this. Western rise to power started in 17th century.