I just realized I celebrated 5 years on the great OLO project.

I thought I will come back with an interesting topic by Dr Katzenstein : why the clash of civilizations is wrong?

In the link below, the amazing Professor Katzenstein talks about the responsibility shift theory and how it replaces the power shift advocated in S. Huntington theory ‘clash of civilizations’.

It’s a 50 minutes audio lecture:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2881513.htm

You may find the first 5 minutes a bit academic/boring, but it gets intersting after that.

Dear F.H.... why not save us the trouble of spending an hour of our lives listening...and just tell us what his point is ?

We know what 'your' point is:) perhaps his and yours coincide?

One more thing..I'll call your Prof Kat theory and raise you a

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/cloward-piven-strategy-voter-registration-plan-for-the-poor-and-unemployed-1984-election-cycle/

"Cloward Piven strategy"..... But don't worry..that's a bit of red herring..I'll get to that in an appropriate thread.

Boazy: << why not save us the trouble of spending an hour of our lives listening...and just tell us what his point is ? >>

That's so funny coming from you, Boazy - the poster of interminable YouTube and off-topic links. And you have the gall to call me a hypocrite?

Awww.. CJ.. did it hurt ? :)

Even here.. you remember it.. and play the man as usual.

If I aim a well deserved derogatory assesment of your views or even you,(at times) it's "Hypocrisy" but if you call me some horrible name it's just criticism is it ?..... ummmm yeh.

Well..blessing to you and peace.... you will need all you can get... as we all.

FH..I see your Prof Katz... is also a member of the evil CFR.. (strike 1)

He was recognized by the American Political Science Association (strike 2) which presents a Woodrow Wilson prize each year... oooh my.. WILSON ?

He was one of the architects of the destruction of America... a progressive yob who did more damage than most others put together.

I'm wondering of that says something about Prof Katz Political orientation?

Ok.. his talk.

He refers to "Huntingtons Unitary conception of Civilization"

He says "In Huntingtons view..civilizations balance power rather than reflecting augmented processes and a broad range of human practices"

He also says that Huntington sees large groupings of nations which share commonalities as 'civilizations' in themselves. But that does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

Huntington's theory is:

The Clash of Civilizations is a theory, proposed by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.

H is referring to the clash of ideas.. which could be within nations or groups of nations.

But K cliams H's position "Lacks conceptual richness or empirical support" ....HUH ? has this K been living in a small tin shed most of his life ?

Bottom line, I think K is trying to understand people of faith from a secular or academic standpoint.. in other words.. an exercise in futilty.

There is no clash of civilisations, there is only one.

There *is* a dispute over whose practices constitute civilisation and whose constitute wall paper and other decorative upholstery.

Once all the upholstery is clearly identified, we can move on.

Rusty.

Rusty..I listened to all of that talk, it seems to me that the prof is just trying to make a name for himself by criticizing Huntington.

He is picking on Huntingtons 'broad' use of the term 'civilization' to represent many varied entities and states and groups.. and Katz is focusing on the diversity within what we call 'The West' to try to establish that it is not so simple as 'group A vs group B'.

But I think Katz misses the point. Huntington is grouping people together as much on the grounds of 'not' something as 'something'.

I think he is alluding to the world of Dar Ul Haab (the land of war.. as yet not conquered by Islam) in Islamic theology, vs Dar Ul Islam, (already conquered)

So it's not incorrect for Huntington to do this in my view.
The *clash* he is referring to is that of theology as much as culture.
Theology/Religion .==> Culture ==> National/religious identity etc.

While there might be some diversity in the Islamic world (Sunni Shia mainly) this does not negate his basic premise of an existing, ongoing *clash* between non Islam and Islam.

Are you up for a bit of 'interesting historical coincidence' ? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

See the date when the battle started...Remind you of an event in 2001 ? -this was the first time the Ottoman Turks were defeated in 300 yrs. (defeated in a way which turned the tide of history)

Their quest....the *CLASH* began in 1299 and went on until that battle in 1683...it was alllll downhill from there :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe

I listened to the lecture - yes all of it

It is an incoherent collection of truisms. Katezenstein is a man who literally cannot see the wood for the trees.

Individual trees are often very different from one another and they compete with each other for resources. But the wood exists.

Yes, civilisations are pluralist. Yes they have fuzzy borders. Yes different factions within a civilisation may be at odds with one another. Yes they evolve. But that does not mean civilisations don't exist.

At the end all I could think of saying was "And your point is....?"

Steve...I think his point was just to raise his profile by criticizing an icon of history.

He completely misses the concept that within a generalized 'civilization' which consists of many nuanced elements, they are still held together by a broader cultural or ideological foundation.

Even if there are radical political elements within a civilization, until they start to represent the vast majority, it doesn't change the basic shape of that majority or the tone of the civilization.

I think the *point* of this article is found more in the fact that it seems to diffuse the "Islam/West" contention, which suits fellow humans 'soft islamization' agenda quite well :) It also mentions 'sufi' traditions..which further obeys FH's world view. To him.. "Islam" is the Sufi tradition only.

I think what Prof. Katzenstein he is saying the cup is half full and that civilisation friction (within the same civilisation and in between) is a way of finding touch points and integration and not necessarily clash. Its how we manage things that leads to a clash or closeness.

Hey Boaz, good to know you are still around under a different name.

PS: why the name change? and I thought you liked AL Gore.

F.H. my nick is part of my current 'message' :)

Just check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqlXid_ankQ&feature=channel

Notice he mentions a 'Kathy Zoi' as CEO of the "Alliance for Climate Protection" (which Gore founded)

They were given $300,000,000 to do ONE thing.. "Persuade the public about Climate Change"

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

Now see THIS!

http://www.climateexchangeplc.com/investor-relations/shares-in-issue-top-10-holders

Look at the 5th entry in the list.

This might not mean a lot at this point..but it sure as heck means Gore will benefit HUGELY (as in bigger than Ben Hur) from any Cap and Trade laws.

Kathy ZOI ? :) aaaaah.. do a wiki on her and see what she does NOW...

There is an evil network of scumbags on the make from this whole 'climate change' thing..and she, Gore and others are all a part of it.

That's why the name.(My nick) to make a point every time I post.

Hey you better watch out :) I've toned down my 'islam' rants but another.. Proxy, has proven to be "the old me on steroids and turbo".. very strong and does it much better than I ever did :)

Now I can rest and be nice :)