A few years after Fukuyama published "The End of History?" Samuel Huntington shared his own theory on the future or even the end of mankind. Now that the battle over ideologies has reached its limitations, according to people like Fukuyama, Huntington believes the latest clash will be between civilizations.
Some people may consider Huntington a fortune teller for predicting major culture and civilization clashes like 9-11 or the War in Iraq. Or he could've just been stating the obvious. People haven't been getting along since the beginning of people. As long as there is something to fight about, people will fight. If it's not about what type of government can lead a country best, it'll be something else.
I guess that means I didn't find Huntington as enlightening as Fukuyama. I agree with him though. From the way things are going these days, it doesn't look like everyone will all get along anytime soon.
What I want to read now is an explanation. Why are people like this? Why are people so afraid of variety? When we talked about what the United States with do if a new ideology emerged that threatened to overtake liberal democracy, it sounded like we would have to do something to stop it. It just doesn't make sense. Just as people shouldn't complain about "Americanization" around the world, they shouldn't complain if others don't like to live the same way. If someone in Bangladesh wants to watch Gilmore Girls, so be it. If Jews want to fast, let them fast. I know my examples are a bit extreme and I'm being a bit idealistic, but I'll just never understand how we let common human conflict erupt into something as catastrophic as war.
I'm not sure what that tangent means. I agree with Huntington and I find most of what he says understandable--despite his shady definitions--but I just hate that he's right I guess. But I'll just pull my head out of the clouds and get back to the present; a present with real clashes between people among the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment