wars among different developments — western W r i t i n g
According to Huntington (1993), civilizations refer to cultural entity that involves villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, and religious groups. They all have various levels of heterogeneity. Civilization as a term in historical terms can be hard to characterize, yet Huntington limits down the extent of this term. According to Fleischacker 2007, of all the constituent components that contain a specific human advancement, its distinguishing proof with religion, ethnicity and society frame the center. A development’s association with these components is more persevering and impervious to change than its affinity for change, say, in the financial and ideological spaces.
According to Huntington 1993 the future fault line will be based on society and religion. Huntington’s theory of the clash of civilizations predicts arrangements and wars among different developments—Western, Islamic, Chinese, Japanese, Orthodox/Russian, Hindu, African, and Latin. The expression “clash of civilizations” was initially utilized by Bernard Lewis as a part of an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled “The Roots of Muslim Rage” (Kumar 2010).
According to M. 2013, Huntington accurately brings up that in the hundred years before the end of Cold War there have been radical changes from government to socialism to democracy, from liberal free enterprise to stringent financial protectionism, and all around the globe. Not just have there been various examples of such changes however have additionally wavered starting with one extreme then onto the next. In the midst of such a lot of churning, the main unique origination with which people in various parts of the world could relate with is their civilization. M. 2013 also disagrees with Huntington’s theory saying that Huntington’s speculation is vulnerable for the fact that he can’t back up his statements with factual evidence. The thought of a recently eminent period in mankind’s history that would be ruled by ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ might be convincing at the level of hypothesis, yet since the hypothesis relates to occasions later on, one can’t determine its legitimacy right now. According to M. 2013, Huntington’s proposal too is subject to the same criticism. The other downside of Huntington’s technique for examination is that he embraces a top-down methodology. For instance, rather than working upwards from the pool of observational proof, Huntington sets up his proposition at the start and goes searching for supporting confirmation. Beyond any doubt enough, Huntington discovers enough cases in history that substantiate his cases. In any case, the same number of cases, if not more, can be exhibited that can be presented that contradict his thesis. For instance, Huntington focuses on the incompatibility of Islamic and Western civilizations by referring to a several areas of conflict between the two. Be that as it may, he doesn’t notice examples where these two apparently contradictory substances do effectively participate. A great illustration is the coordinated effort between the Saudi Royal family and American political initiative. The elites of Saudi Arabia have solid business ties with American companies – a relationship that about-faces numerous decades. Notwithstanding when the culprits of the September 11, 2001 assaults were recognized to be transcendently of Saudi origin, the political administration of both countries proceeded with their same old thing. The hypothesis of “Clash of Civilizations” falls flat on its face one perceives how reactionary the Saudi administration is. The dictator administration in Saudi Arabia is viewed as the most in reverse peered inside of the Islamic world. Yet, the leaders of purported dynamic West keep on keeping up solid business and political relations with it. Inconsistencies, for example, these fundamentally debilitate Huntington’s hypothesis. Indeed, even the Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden were in the payrolls of CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) as of late as the 1980s. Indeed, a substantial offer of the credit for the fruitful development of Al Qaeda is to be ascribed to the American government, which supported the youngster dread outfit with financing and supplies of ammo keeping in mind the end goal to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. To refer to a later sample, Saddam Hussein was Washington’s blue-looked at kid when it was in showdown with Iran in the 1980s. By what method will Huntington clarify this companionship between pioneers of particular human advancements? Why was there no conflict of civic establishments then? As the 1980s swung over to the 90s, and as Saddam Hussein declined to follow orders from Washington (not on grounds of society and civilization but rather on grounds of affirming his self-governance in the area) he turns from companion to enemy. To put it plainly, the top down technique endeavors to “find” what suits its cause, while neglecting to notice what negates the proposal. This remaining parts the essential downside in Huntington’s work.
According to O’Connor et al. 2015, foreign policies are created to protect America and the Americans from terrorism. The executive branch I feel creates and implements these foreign policies based on morals, values, religion, and ethics which most Americans share. This was also brought forth by the Framers. So, Huntington could be right in his views, but I also feel that times have changed, the wars and terrorism today are based on other nation-states having dictators and communism and the said people of those countries (civilians) seek the same freedoms and rights we already have. We are a super power and dictators and communist I think feel threatened by us.
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount