Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (43636)	2/25/2003 1:12:13 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

What do we mean when we talk of a civilization? A civilization is a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from German villages. European communities, in turn, will share cultural features that distinguish them from Arab or Chinese communities. Arabs, Chinese and Westerners, however, are not part of any broader cultural entity. They constitute civilizations. A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he intensely identifies. People can and do redefine their identities and, as a result, the composition and boundaries of civilizations change. The Clash of Civilisations, perhaps the most influential geopolitical treatise of the 90's, raises more questions than answers and tends to also somewhat obscure the more pressing, micro issues in favour of broad sweeping generalisations as evinced by the following passages. On both sides the interaction between Islam and the West is seen as a clash of civilizations. The West's "next confrontation," observes M. J. Akbar, an Indian Muslim author, "is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is in the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Meghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin." Bernard Lewis comes to a regular conclusion: "We are facing a need and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations -- the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both." Fundamentally I will devote the next week to the uniqe nature of the Islamic political system and its inherent "aggressive" predispositions. In geopolitical analysis questions rather than answers are fundamental to a deeper understanding and when one reads such passages it is critical to elucidate what questions must be answered. Is Islam really a threat, does it constitute a rival civilisation in itself or does its roots with Judeo-Christian ethics make a convergence likely? Perhaps it is possible to discuss within the confines of a weblog post Islam as a civilisation! The fundamental quintessence of Islam, stripped of cultural and historical affiliations, is to be found in Mecca, 6h century AD. Of course there are spurious arguments by those who claim that Islam is a part of the "West" and that must be wholly rejected. At its very essence Islamic culture and beliefs are antithetical to its Western counterparts and thus whlist stemming from a common root they have diverged sufficiently so as to constitute different worlds so to speak. Nevertheless apologists for Islam, invariably residing outside of the Crescent, are correct in that there is a clear gradation of Islamic culture which considerably overlaps with Western civilisation. The Balkans, the Middle East (westerly regions such as Greater Syria and Turkey) and North Africa are the varying bridges between the temperate and lush valleys of Christendom set against the deserts and oasises of Islam. There is no doubt that the cultural kinship are strong and there are many commonalities between these Islamic cultures and their European neighbours. In a similar manner peripherial states throughout the Islamic Crescent tend to act as an intermediary between non-Islamic neighbours and Islamic civilisation. The Islamic nations of Africa, Malay and South Asian Islam are all instances when Islamic cultures tenatively reconcile their Islamic traditions, virtually an outgrowth of their indigenous cultures, with the austere Islamic revivals now heralding from the Mid-East. There is preponderance of "dhimmis" Islamic civilisation thus giving rise to further conflict and the shades of gray are too many thus causing some difficulties during Partition. This is in stark comparison to Western societies, which have historically been homogenous and where mass settlement & colonisation have resulted in offshoots in the New World retaining their historic affinity to Christendom rather than meld in foreign civilisations (the greatest instance is that of the Western nations, Australia and New Zealand, in the Antipodes which have historically remained aloof from Asian neighbours to the north and are now developing a greater cultural framework to incorporate those traditions). Zachary Latif 01:16 latif.blogspot.com