Huntington in his theory specifies that the era of ideologies and conflicts between has ended now the rivalry is between the civilizations. According to him the main conflicts in the future will occur because of the differences between the cultures. Especially after the cold-war the importance of the conflict in civilizations or cultural conflicts has increased. He mentiones main civilizations in the world as: Western Civilization: Western Europe, Northern America, Australia and New Zealand. Orthodox Countries: Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece Latin America: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, Mexico... Islamic Countries: Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia India : Continental India and Nepal China: Including Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan Japan: Mixture of Chinese and Altaic civilization Apart from these main types according to Huntington's theory there are also isolated countries like Israel, Turkey, Ethiopia which do not belong any of the above mentioned groups. According to his theory Russia and India; China and Iran are natural allies.
Does he suggest a path to conflict resolution? I think there is a separate global (industrial) culture emerging which endangers all of the others. Universal ethics are seen as invasive by non-conformist cultural groups. Fairly enough though proponents of the new global culture see it as unifying. What are your conclusions?
the United State's relentless desire to force its currency on the world, to the advantage of its ruling and financial classes, will provoke unending wars.
Outdated, unsubstantiated and ignorant. Huntington is a harbinger of ignorance in the field of the social sciences, in my opinion, let alone his still born theory of civilizations. Total nonsense.
Huntington has been a deluded servant of government forces since he came to prominence in the 60s. Persistently absurd as well.
my senior thesis was on Fukuyama's "The End of History" - I used a bit of Huntington in both refutation and propagation
Do you prefer there be a global currency independent of the dollar? Regardless, it is the exorcising internal demons of countries that will drive conflict, not the dollar or particular national culture. We saw this with the Iraq War.
It means people engage in foreign affairs based on one of two things: It makes them feel like they are doing good regardless of whether they are, or because it makes them feel less bad about something bad that has happened to them. It is increasingly emotive and decreasingly rational.
The State will create lots of reasoning for it's aggression. It will appeal to the simpleton reasoning of the masses. Does that mean it is the real reason ?
