SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: carranza2 who wrote (90613)4/6/2003 12:41:34 PM
From: paul_philp  Respond to of 281500
 
C2,

There are some people here who will claim that there is no clash of civilizations.

I would now call it a 'Clash of Ecosystems'. Two different ecosystems meet, both need to grow, they are incompatible so they compete. There are many possible outcomes but the clash will work it's way through to equilibrium at some level.

We are the Fast Growing Vines and they are the Desert Weeds.
Fast Growing Vines have many advantages but cannot survive in the desert. I expect a new variety to emerging - Desert Vines. ie/ Captitalism/Democracy that works for Arabs and Muslims.

Paul



To: carranza2 who wrote (90613)4/7/2003 2:51:27 AM
From: Sun Tzu  Respond to of 281500
 
There are some people here who will claim that there is no clash of civilizations.

I am one of them. There is clash of two massive forces, but neither can be considered civilization. McWorld for instance is not the American Civilization. It has no regards for the founding principles of America. It shares nothing with Japan's rich traditions. It bears no resemblance to French thought? So while it was borne out of Western society, it is far from being its encompassing virtue or even its biggest portion of civilization. It is as dangerous to us as it is to others. We just haven't fully appreciated its danger because it can present us a face we find charming. It can't do the same in some places because its charm is not as effective there.

We, as a people, can find a way to live peacefully and happily with other cultures. There is no clash of civilization here; there is no inherent reason that only one of us can live. But we cannot live with the world of Jihad. Nor will we ultimately be able to live with unbridled consumerism of McWorld.

McWorld, on the other hand, for all its faults offers a measure of hope, change, enfranchisement which, though admittedly not on the scale one would like to see, is higher by far than the bleakness offered by jihad.

IF I had to choose between McWorld and Jihad, then I suppose I would choose McWorld. This is not surprising given where I live and what I do and how I dress, etc, etc. But I see no reason why I have to make such a choice. Chances are, that if I was raised in say Saudi, I'd find the world of Jihad more appealing. But again, there is no reason a Saudi has to choose between the two. What is missing is an understanding that McWorld and Jihad reinforce each other. There are polarizing forces. Many people who would otherwise not have supported Jihad do so because they find it closer to the world they want. Closer does not mean "close". It is a relative measure. But that is what polarization does. Similarly, many people who are fearful of Jihad, embrace McWorld as the lesser of two evil. Your own thinking seems to be along this line.

My point is that not only I do not have to make an either/or choice between the two, but also weakening one will weaken the other as well. Presently Jihad is the bigger evil for me. So by bridling McWorld, I can kill two birds with one stone, or so I hope.

Here's the great Chesterton writing many decades ago on this point.

I am sorry I don't see it that way. I don't claim to be an expert on Islamic studies, but off the top of my head I can site more than a few significant examples to the contrary.

There is something to keep in mind. And this is very important because it applies universally, though we frequently see it manifest itself in religion. Human beings are most dangerous when they believe. It is the dogma that is dangerous. And when this is combined with power hungry leaders, the results is disastrous. Mahdi was not the first person to do this and Islam has no monopoly on such politics. Christianity practices it for ages. The Communists and Nazis were dead set on how history and science is on their side and they cannot possibly be wrong. And the blind faith in the "invisible hand" is no more benign than any of these.

Sun Tzu