From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Kryders 2 I am unimpressed 2.1 Response 3 wra? 3.1 OLD Eng 4 Eng Final

[edit] Kryders

Kryder's Law rewrite discussion goes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kryder%27s_law

Good Night --ZachPruckowski 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am unimpressed

I am *deeply* unimpressed by your extremely hypocritical revert on Concorde. Looks to me like you only bothered to read some fraction of the changes, about 2/3 of them negatively impacted the article, or introduced subtle inaccuracies or removed the main point of a paragraph; or added formatting changes. When an edit overall reduces the quality of an article, my experience shows it must be reverted.WolfKeeper 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Sorry, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but a revert is not as good as an edit in this case. The edit was not vandalism. Take the time to edit it correctly (ie collaboration) or leave it alone. Really, you should go back into it and fix the mistakes that the previous editor made, but failing that leave it alone. I understand this is something of a judgement call, and I really didn't mean this to become a flame war. I'm just another user doing my best to make WP good. Oh and for the record, I did read all the changes and I saw plenty that made me cringe (would not > wouldn't springs to mind), but I had to go off to class. Qleem 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wra?

hey do you go to WRA? if so who are you? --JohnJacobs 21:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OLD Eng

NO LONGER UP TO DATE, SEE BELOW

Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” expounds a controversial theory of regarding the global currents of power and influence, and their directions in the future. His work has attracted a large amount of criticism from many quarters, for many different reasons. These criticisms include views that Huntington’s division of the world into civilizations is inaccurate and dangerous, as well as other that state that the conflicts Huntington cites have their roots in political and economic rivalry, rather than civilizational clashes. Huntington’s “Clash” brings up the notion that future conflicts between sectors of the world will arise out of the continued and heightened interactions between civilizations. “The interactions among peoples of different civilizations enhance the civilization-consciousness of people that, in turn, invigorates differences and animosities stretching or thought to stretch back deep into history”(Huntington 24). This is exactly what we disagree with. Our notion of this increase in civilizational interaction is one that would slowly lessen the aggression one group has towards another – more interaction would bring with it more familiarity within the groups, which in turn forges greater respect between the involved parties. I agree that at first conflict will arise from exposure to different civilizations however, after a certain point a degree of comfort will start to accrue, lessening the degree of hostility towards one another. Another argument that has been made against Huntington’s thesis is that if his ideas are widely proliferated, they risk becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If small, local conflicts are being explained in civilizational terms, there is a great risk of pushing people whose opinions are undecided, or who disagree with the most widespread opinions within their “civilization” into the arms of those who want to widen the conflict to include entire civilizations, rather than those who want to resolve the conflict within its regional context. One of the people who makes this point is Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning economist and philosopher, who argues that “A person’s religion need not be his or her all-encompassing and exclusive identity” (Sen, 3). Sen’s point is that by defining the current war against terror as a clash of the Western and Islamic civilizations, the current dialogue is aiding those who “would like to suppress all other identities of Muslims in favor of being only Islamic” (Sen, 3) . Sen believes that people can define themselves by many things other than religion, such as ethnicity and language, as well as many other identities associated with their social status, gender, profession, political alignment, and many other factors. These other identities can serve to bridge the gaps between “civilizations” and reinforce the commonality of mankind, which would help to offset the friction of civilizational encounters. Huntington bases his views on the cross-civilization conflicts of the past and present. In reality, however, most of those have been political or ideological conflicts that only coincidently fell along cultural lines. Culture itself rarely drives significant conflicts, but is often used to sustain or rally other, unrelated conflicts. Because those interested in furthering conflict emphasize cultural differences whenever possible, “examples” of cultural conflict are abundant. Considering this, the Cold War was perhaps not a lapse at all. For example, many medieval conflicts Huntington would quickly attribute to civilization distinctions could just as easily be attributed to conflicting territorial expansion of Empires centered in the Middle East and European nation-states. Then, Huntington claims that groups within his “civilizations” are drawing closer together. In fact, this is untrue: the very example he uses of China and Taiwan is a counter-example, as to this day Taiwan feels it necessary to use war games to “showcase its readiness to repel an attack by neighboring China” (Enav 1). Huntington tries to support his thesis with concrete examples, but a close look will show his argument is contrived. Finally, in “The West Versus the Rest,” Huntington claims that the West possesses a military, political, and economic power that is unrivalled by any other civilization. It uses this power to maintain western values and influence in the world. He uses this argument to assert a pattern of conflicts between civilizations, or cultures. Huntington believes that “[t]he central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be […] the conflict between ‘the West and the Rest’” (Huntington 14). What Huntington fails to demonstrate is that a “West versus Rest” battle is a cultural conflict, rather than a political one. In the course of history, as one civilization grew strong, other cultures banded together to maintain a balance in power. There has never been an instance in history when one civilization became powerful enough as to control the entire globe. The evidence of this is that there is no current superpower who is maintaining absolute control over other civilizations. Today, not only does Japan threaten the western economy, but India and China are rising economically with higher rates of GDP. It may not be long before we see a turn in the tides of power. Clearly, Huntington’s argument falls short in describing the current global balance of power in terms of clash of cultures. It is the natural response of other nations to conform together to balance Western power. Thus, history shows us that global conflicts are not always cultural. Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” hypothesizes that future sources of conflict will be cultural. His argument does not place great emphasis on political and economic conflicts, but rather showing the cultural ideologies behind them. It is for this great assumption that his argument fails to provide strong grounds. Huntington does not properly show a logical link between cultures and conflicts. Perhaps another pattern dominates history.

Works Cited Enav, Peter. "U.S. Walks Fine Line With China, Taiwan." Associated Press Online 12 Aug 2006 1-4. 06 Feb 2007 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com>. Samuel P.Huntington. "Clash of Civilizations." Council on Foreign Relations. Summer 1993. Sen, Amartya www.slate.com. “What Clash of Civilizations?” March 29, 2006

[edit] Eng Final

Unbelievers: Group 2 NAMES HERE Eric Vazquez 76-101 K 7 February 2007 Counter-points: Exposing Huntington Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” expounds a controversial theory of regarding the global currents of power and influence and their directions in the future. His work has attracted a large amount of criticism from many quarters, for many different reasons. These criticisms include views that Huntington’s division of the world into civilizations is inaccurate and dangerous, as well as others that state that the conflicts Huntington speaks of have their roots in political and economic rivalry, rather than civilizational clashes. Huntington’s essay brings up the notion that future conflicts between sectors of the world will arise out of the continued and heightened interactions between civilizations. In Huntington’s words: “The interactions among peoples of different civilizations enhance the civilization-consciousness of people that, in turn, invigorates differences and animosities stretching or thought to stretch back deep into history”(Huntington 24). This is exactly what we disagree with. Our notion of this increase in interaction is one that would slowly lessen the aggression one group has towards another – more interaction would bring with it more familiarity within the groups, which in turn forges greater respect between the involved parties. While we do agree that at first conflict will arise from exposure to different civilizations, at a certain point a degree of comfort will start to accrue, lessening the degree of hostility towards one another. Another argument that has been made against Huntington’s thesis is that if his ideas are widely proliferated, they risk becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If small, local conflicts are being explained in civilizational terms, there is a great risk of pushing people whose opinions are undecided, or who disagree with the most widespread opinions within their “civilization” into the arms of those who want to widen the conflict to include entire civilizations, rather than those who want to resolve the conflict within its regional context. One of the people who makes this point is Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning economist and philosopher, who argues that a “person’s religion need not be his or her all-encompassing and exclusive identity” (Sen 3). Sen’s point is that by defining the current war against terror as a clash of the Western and Islamic civilizations, the current dialogue is aiding those who “would like to suppress all other identities of Muslims in favor of being only Islamic” (Sen 3). Sen shows that people can define themselves by many things other than religion, such as ethnicity and language, as well as other identifying factors associated with their social status, gender, profession, political alignment, and the like. These other identities can serve to bridge the gaps between civilizations and reinforce the commonality of mankind, which would help to offset the friction of encounters between civilizations. Huntington bases his views on the cross-civilization conflicts of the recent past and present. In reality, however, most of those have been political or ideological conflicts that only coincidently fell along cultural lines. Culture itself sometimes does drive significant conflicts, but often it is merely used to sustain or rally other, unrelated conflicts. Because those interested in furthering conflict emphasize cultural differences whenever possible in order to draw more people to their cause, “examples” of cultural conflict are abundant. Furthermore, Huntington claims that groups within his “civilizations” are drawing closer together. In fact, this is untrue: the very example he uses of China and Taiwan is a counter-example, as to this day Taiwan feels it necessary to employ war games and other stratagems to “showcase its readiness to repel an attack by neighboring China” (Enav 1). Huntington tries to support his thesis by looking broadly at a few examples, but a closer inspection will show his argument is contrived. Finally, in “The West Versus the Rest,” Huntington claims that the West possesses a military, political, and economic power that is unrivalled by any other civilization. It uses this power to maintain Western values and influence in the world. He uses this argument to assert a pattern of conflicts between civilizations, or cultures. Huntington believes that “[t]he central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be […] the conflict between ‘the West and the Rest’” (Huntington 14). What Huntington fails to demonstrate is that a “West versus Rest” battle is a cultural conflict, rather than a political one. In the course of history, as one civilization grew strong, other cultures banded together to maintain a balance in power. There has never been an instance in history when one civilization became powerful enough as to control the entire globe. The evidence of this is that there is no current superpower who is maintaining absolute control over other civilizations. Today, not only does Japan threaten the Western economy, but India and China are rising economically with ever higher per-capita GDP. It may not be long before we see a turn in the tides of power. Clearly, Huntington’s argument falls short in describing the current global balance of power in terms of clash of cultures. “The Clash of Civilizations” hypothesizes that future sources of conflict will be cultural. Huntington’s argument does not place great emphasis on political and economic conflicts, but rather showing the cultural ideologies behind them. It is for this great assumption that his argument fails to provide strong grounds. Huntington does not adequately investigate the link between cultures and conflicts, making merely a superficial examination of the causes and outcomes. A deeper exploration into the ebb and flow of current and future global power distribution is necessary to fully understand the nature of the conflicts which will define it.

Works Cited Enav, Peter. “U.S. Walks Fine Line With China, Taiwan.” Associated Press Online 12 Aug 2006 1-4. 06 Feb 2007 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com>. Huntington, Samuel P. “Clash of Civilizations.” Council on Foreign Relations. Summer 1993. Sen, Amartya. “What Clash of Civilizations?” March 29, 2006 <www.slate.com/id/2138731> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.237.252.160 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC).