Analysis Of Samuel Huntington 's The Clash Of The Civilisations

The Ends of the World as We Know Them by Jared Diamond describes the factors that made powerful societies through history collapse. What makes this text interesting, is the way the author relates these problems to the current situation in the United States. Diamond develops a very effective technique during the description of these factors by creating a parallelism between ancient societies and the modern age. This parallelism allows the author to analyze the problems that threaten modern day society and more specifically the United States. One very important feature of Diamonds analysis and description in the text is the level at which the reader is involved.

During the 20th century different regions and countries of the extra European world –Japan, China, India, the Middle East and Latin America- have been invested by profound transformations, that in part went to aliment the tensions that later would have brought to the second world war, and in part determined the beginning of the process of decolonization .

Some argue that globalization will, on the long term, bring all cultures as a unique Western, if not Americanized, culture, while others argue that some cultures will persist in order to keep their own essence and therefore avoid the homogenization of all cultures. Alongside pure tradition, global conflicts, contradictory political regimes and the diversity of economic systems, some cultures are bound to face issues when trying to fully fit in a global western culture, and that is why cultures are adaptable to one another, but with some limits that we will express in this essay.

The published work I selected for this essay was Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. His work delves into the discussion of the development of European, Asian, and North African societies (using the landmass as a whole termed Eurasia) over history, and using the three mentioned lexemes in the novel’s title to explain the most important aspects of societal development- militant technological advancements, ecosystems/ecophysiology, and geopolitics, respectively. Diamond argues that contrary to popular belief, biology is not the generally accepted factor that determined the global cultural hierarchy. Diamond refutes the biological

Each one of the claims will go onto support the overall issue that culture will cause the clash of civilizations. A great support Huntington uses is that no matter what we think of cultures each one is different in many ways. If its religion, language, or different historical backgrounds these will cause conflict to arise. With each civilization being different it can be hard to get along with other people because of how different their views might be. Another issue that arises is that not all, but many civilizations are influenced by the west. This is where the idea of westernization comes into play. Each community is trying to improve and be bigger and better themselves, they are trying to be better than their neighbors. If one civilization improves the surrounding groups will want to be the same. This means they will compete to be the same or even better than the civilization that already made it. This can lead to conflict and death between civilizations. Another reason is that when conflicts arise between civilizations it is a lot harder to resolve than a political or economical one. Like stated before it is very difficult to change someone’s beliefs, that means there is very little wiggle room for negotiation. The final example that Huntington writes about is that the economic regionalism is increasing. This means that more cultures and civilization are trading between themselves, but

Jared Diamond's 'Weapons, Germs, and Steel' is an exceptionally amazing novel which uncovers the insider facts about the genuine history of the human humankind. I left away inspired by its achievement in compacting 13,000 years of mankind's history into a clear and convincing clarification of why the rate of financial advancement changed so remarkably on distinctive mainlands, without depending on culturalist or racialist contentions. Jared Diamond succeeds terrifically at demonstrating why Eurasia had gotten to be by 1500 AD (the beginning of "Europe's attack on the world") the world's most mechanically propelled landmass, a long ways in front of sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and Australasia. In the last part, he extends the examination to question why, inside Eurasia, it was Europe that definitively overwhelmed obviously better-enriched contenders (essentially China) inside of the following four hundred years and continued to "change the world in its own picture". Be that as it may, his thought regarding the bases of imbalances between

politics. Fukuyama uses Huntington as an example and states that many of the Englishmen who

In Samuel P. Huntington’s article “The West: Unique, Not Universal,” he addresses his audience with a very controversial question: Is Western Culture universal or unique? Huntington elaborately opens up this question with research and examples to explain and persuade readers that the West will never be a universal culture for all, but rather a unique culture that will be accepted by those who appreciate it. For decades now, historians and scholars have debated with one another to determine who is right and wrong. However, from a handful of articles from different scholars, Samuel Huntington’s statement that the West is unique rather than universal is supported and even further elaborated on by these particular sources. A common understanding between all the sources, that must be noted, is that a civilization’s culture is not comprised of material goods but rather their culmination of their religion(s), values, language(s) and traditions. While although there are scholars out their that negate the West is unique, a large amount of scholars still argue and strengthen Huntington’s argument that the West has unique and exclusive characteristics that make them distinctive and rare.

Stephanie Liang WR98 C1 Prof.Michaud Essay 1-Final states”(103). Had he not used these constructions and instead stopped at “drama”, the readers would not be able to understand the various relationships during Cold War. These succinct constructions allow a straight-forward understanding of the essay and help gain readers’ agreement. In addition of short phrases, the author contrasts the global atmosphere during Cold War period to that at present in separate paragraphs but with highly identical structures. For example, he utilizes the features of “division” and “wall” (102) to serve as a foil to the “integration” and “web” (102) concepts of globalization system by including detailed description of the better-being in the latter system, and in doing so, makes it obvious to readers that two systems possess different nature and that the new one is favored. Another structure technique Friedman uses is parallelism, which illustrates the divergent communication phenomena of two systems: “In the cold war we reached for the hotline, which was a symbol that we were all divided but at least two people were in charge…In the globalization system we reach for the Internet, which is a symbol that we are all connected and nobody is quite in charge” (103). This equal paragraph distribution of two discussed subjects enables readers to

Samuel Huntington’s entire article is more broadly written as a genetic fallacy, by using general assumptions about the “Mexican problem. Additionally he more specifically uses Ad Hominem fallacies to personally attack all Mexican immigrants character by using statements to infer that they are “exceedingly fertile” or have less interest in education. He narrow mindedly accuses them of being uneducated, resource-using threats to our economy with out providing any real facts to back up his premises. Huntington fails to recognize our country was built by the hard work of immigrants, the damage and repercussions segregation has on their quality of education, and finally he falsely proclaims them to potentially become a threat to our nations safety.

As an instance of the West civilization, in geography, Huntington indicated that Russia, Europe, and North America both belong to it. In politics, all the nations who either attended the World War I or been the main member of the Cold War belong to the West civilization. Though, in the West civilization, it has a lot of different countries, such as America, Europe, and Russia. These countries have their own cultures and these cultures

Huntington and Fukuyama have opposite points of view about how the world will looks like in the future. Huntington thinks that the civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be divided between seven or eight major civilizations because the most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural differences, separating these civilizations from one another. However, Fukuyama argues that all the people on planet want to live in liberal – democratic regime especially after discrediting of socialism, monarchy, fascism, and other types of authoritarian rule. He supports his point of view by saying that modernity, democracy and free market have a stronger cultural foundation

Brancati begins her analysis by posing the question, what impact does a decentralized government have on ethnic conflict and secessionism? The conventional knowledge on the topic is that political decentralization is believed to “reduce ethnic conflict and secessionism in the world today...by bringing the government closer to the people, increasing opportunities to participate in government, and giving groups control over their political, social, and economic affairs.” She believes in this statement to the extent that

Reacting to the theory of Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington resumed the expression "Clash of civilizations" in 1993 and speculates that it is mainly cultural and religious identities

Lately there has been a thought that the difference in Civilizations is another issue that may cause a conflict. Starting from World War I the arguments raised by nations were over an ideology: fascism vs. communism, communism vs. democracy. Some people believe that the next step would be a war based on a cultural sense and religion. Such war would unite people with similar beliefs, views on the world, language, tradition and history. They believe the conflict of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations [1].