Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
Thanks Tree38Thanks

Thread: Putin's next target: Belarus

  1. #41
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    I don't believe for a second that Huntington argued that because an area is of a certain cultural group it is "legitimately in the sphere of influence" of the biggest nation of that group.

    Is The US free to invade and occupy my country, overthrow my government, imprison dissenters, murder opposition, torture critics etc? Is that legitimate because we both share a culture of Anglo-Saxon, Christian heritage?

    Does the UK have such a legitimate claim on the US? It can impose its will on US citizens at will because of a shared heritage?


    Russia has no more ownership of Orthodox civilization than Belarus simply because its currently bigger and meaner.
    I've been teaching from the Huntington book for almost twenty years now; I think I am probably more familiar with it than most people. Huntington was VERY MUCH a 'spheres of influence' thinker. He believed the world was divided up into some seven or eight or nine major civilizations. [Why the imprecision? Because it is not clear if there is a Buddhist civilization or an African civilization; I'll leave that aside for now.] He also argued that MOST of these civilizations have a CORE STATE that other states revolve around.

    Today, for example, America is the core state of Western Civilization (it was Britain in the 19th century); Russia is the core state of Orthodox Civilization; China is the core state of Sinic Civilization; India is the core state of Hindu Civilization; Japan is a state that IS a civilization. Latin America and Islam are two civilizations that do not have a core state. The Ottoman Empire was the last core state of Islam. Latin America has NEVER had a core state.

    The core state of a civilization is not NECESSARILY the largest nation in a civilization; this was obviously NOT true of Britain in the 19th century.

    When you write that "I don't believe for a second that Huntington argued that because an area is of a certain cultural group it is "legitimately in the sphere of influence" of the biggest nation of that group", I am afraid you are very much wrong, with only the caveat that I just stated. So yes, he WAS saying that Canada (for example) is in 'the sphere of influence' of America, and that Belarus is in 'the sphere of influence' of Russia. That is, in fact, EXACTLY what he was saying.

    It does NOT follow from that, that he was arguing that America would have the 'right' to invade Canada and torture Canadians, or anything remotely of the sort. It means that Canada is USUALLY going to FOLLOW America when it comes to foreign policies. THAT'S what it means.

  2. #42
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    The problem with his thinking is that it does assume that religion doesn't change--that its contours are "set in stone" and don't allow for change. I think the Renaissance demonstrates this isn't true. I also think that pre-Renaissance Christianity had all the problems we currently seen in Islam. I think Huffington suffered from atavism in that he could not envision the course history beyond his moment. He assumed that all change stops in the "now" and the particulars of the present moment last indefinitely.
    I think you are gravely misinterpreting Huntington here. He was a sophisticated thinker; he most certainly did NOT think that religions never change. But I am done posting for the night, I think. Will have to take up this argument/discussion some other time....His book, though, was utterly prophetic. When the Cold War ended, many foolish people thought the world was moving into an era of peace and harmony. Huntington put the kibosh on that silly idea, saying that the post-Cold-War-world would actually be MUCH more complicated than the bipolar world of the Cold War, with a clash of civilizations.

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,323
    Thanks
    32449

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    I think you are gravely misinterpreting Huntington here. He was a sophisticated thinker; he most certainly did NOT think that religions never change. But I am done posting for the night, I think. Will have to take up this argument/discussion some other time....His book, though, was utterly prophetic. When the Cold War ended, many foolish people thought the world was moving into an era of peace and harmony. Huntington put the kibosh on that silly idea, saying that the post-Cold-War-world would actually be MUCH more complicated than the bipolar world of the Cold War, with a clash of civilizations.
    Okay. Fair points. But I would point out that since WWII we HAVE enjoyed a moment of peace and harmony that's quite extraordinary in human history. The number of deaths from border conflicts and other kinds of violence we'd class as "war" is way down over just about any previous period.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and The Man

  4. #44
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Okay. Fair points. But I would point out that since WWII we HAVE enjoyed a moment of peace and harmony that's quite extraordinary in human history. The number of deaths from border conflicts and other kinds of violence we'd class as "war" is way down over just about any previous period.
    All true. But consider this: Huntington also had a student, Francis Fukuyama, who has become rather famous himself. At about the same time Huntington was writing The Clash of Civilizations, Fukuyama was writing a book titled The End of History. Fukuyama was arguing that America's victory in the Cold War meant that mankind's ideological evolution was over, that the liberal democracies had triumphed for all time, and that there would be a general global rush to adopt the same sort of liberal democratic governance, all over the world. He argued that the world would become very BORING, with only little technical disputes left to be resolved.

    Say whatever you want about the world of the 21st century----and, yes, it has been more peaceful, at least thus far----it has most certainly NOT been 'boring'!!

    The teacher was more far-seeing than the student.
    Thanks from The Man

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28th April 2015, 01:47 PM
  2. Putin setting his sights on a new target
    By bajisima in forum Europe & Russia
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 24th May 2014, 03:34 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 22nd January 2014, 09:53 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5th July 2008, 12:50 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed