Talk:Clash of Civilizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject International relations (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Case of Bosnia[edit]

There is a problem with both the map and the division of the civilization(s) especially as it pertains to the case of Bosnia, as part of the former Yugoslavia. Huntington fairly clearly noted that Bosnia was one of those locations where, according to him, civilizations clashed precisely because of its fusion of Western (Catholic), Islamic and Orthodox influences. As such, to simply lump Bosnia into the category of "Orthodox" civilization is missing the entire point of his thesis, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Entire Map is laughable and the clash of civilization idea is simply absurd[edit]

  • Protestants + Catholic = western civilization? what?
  • Portraying most of Eastern Europe as an Orthodox civilization is laughable.
  • All of the Islamic nations lumped together…even though they have almost nothing in common.
  • Korea and Vietnam are lumped with China but Tibet (a freking territory within China) and Mongolia aren't? And Japanese being considered a separate civilization from the Confucian sinosphere, while Korea and Vietnam are not...???
  • Lumps all of South and southern Sub Sahara Africa as "African civilization" yet all of north and northern sub Sahara Africa is Islamic civilization? What exactly is African civilization?
  • The map lumps everything south of Texas as Latin American civilization, even though South America is incredibly diverse and some of them speak Portuguese instead of Spanish...

The map and perhaps the entire idea in general is ridiculous... Intranetusa (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Interesting, but this article isn't really about your personal opinion. Please provide scholarly sources. (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling Prophecy?[edit]

Wooah, that is some statement! I would suggest removing this sentence:"The Clash of Civilizations thesis may also be regarded as an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ideas of Huntington and Bernard Lewis were already influential among American neoconservative figures such as Vice President Dick Cheney prior to September 11, 2001;[citation needed] Middle East scholar Gilles Kepel (2003) reports that many radical Islamists in the Middle East likewise viewed Huntington's thesis approvingly.". The claim that this theory in itself is the principal cause for conflicts between the different "civilizations" is pretty bold and does need citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


the map/theory is laughable. It has greece painted with the same color as russia and whatever is "at that side of the world" just because of the religion denomination. i suspect the guy is a fanatical christian of a certain denomination seeing only black or white for regions never visited or even cared to read something more than a few sentences about them. greece, the country that gave the roots of the western civilization and the word that names europe. not only this theory is ridiculous, the whole article should be at least renamed to ".. (book)" or ".. (Huntington 's view)" --Leladax 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's more than just religion, it's history and culture too. Ancient Greece certainly had a strong influence on the Western World, just as it has on the Islamic World and the Orthodox World as well, but that doesn't make Greece a Western country. Western Civilization is actually rooted in the Romans... It begins to emerge under the Roman Empire when distinctions arise between the Greek-speaking East and the Latin West. This is solidified with the collapse of the empire into two halves and the eventual Great Schism between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Western Europe goes on to experience the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Exploration, and the Enlightenment. Eastern Europe on the other hand develops as a mixture of Greek Byzantine and Slavic culture. In my opinion, though, Greece should be considered a "lone" or a "torn" civilization under Huntington's theory as it has more in common culturally with other Mediterranean cultures in Western Europe and the Middle East than it does with the Slavic world, and it aligned with NATO instead of the Soviet Union.

I find nothing laughable. And you are entitled to your own opinions... however laughable.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that analysis. It is telling (and contrary to your views) that most historians refer to the Greco-Roman foundations of western civilization. The roots of the latter are not to be found in the differentiation of Roman culture (much less the schism between the churches). Moreover, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were heavily influenced (if not outright shaped) by the so called "re-discovery" of ancient Greek culture, and we all know their importance in the creation of the modern western world. (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Greco-Roman. That implies the fusion of Greek and Roman culture that occured after the rise of Rome. Also, the same Classical Greek culture that influenced the West also influenced the Muslim World long before the Enlightenment - Remember that the Muslim World played a very important role in preserving Greco-Roman knowledge. Does that mean the Muslim World is part of the West, too? That Greek culture influenced the Western World long after its prime does not make ancient Greece, or modern Greece, part of the Western World. The knowledge that influenced the Enlightment was Greek in origin, but it was analyzed and reinterpreted in a different cultural context, that of Western Europe. The Western World doesn't really begin to emerge until the late stages of the Roman Empire, with the fusion of Greco-Roman, Christian, and indigenous Western European (Celtic and Germanic) influences. The elements as they existed seperately prior to this fusion are not Western in and of themselves.
  • There is nothing "laughable" about the classification. Huntington wrote about MODERN civilizations, not ancient civilizations. Greece is not a civilization in the modern world. Greece now is just a third-rate country that belongs to the Orthodox civilization headed by Russia. (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"Third rate"? That seems more like a comment intended to create offense, rather than a good faith contribution to the discussion. Having said that, there is sometimes a seed of truth to be found even in the most inflammatory statement. In our case, there does indeed seem to be a discord between those supporting Greece's Western alignment, and those suggesting that we orientate Eastwards (in our case, to Russia) instead. (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
While I would not use the term "third rate" which is pointlessly offensive, it is true that Greece is no longer a major power in the world. However, I feel that a more useful rebuttal is that the theory is not about what countries go in what boxes. The point of the theory is that there are civilisations and they clash for a variety of reasons. You can still use the theory even if you decide that Greece is instead classified with the West or if Japan is classified with the Sino civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Recent Issues"[edit]

Who decides wich conflict will be linked in, and wich not? I don't see clear references, just popular believes, and some ethnic conflicts listed as civilizational clashes, wich are quite constrained to be listed here as a "recent issue". Clash of civilizations is about the clash of civilizations, where civilizaitions are clashing. Like Ukrainian presidental elections, tha israeli-arab conflict, international terrorism, and such. Wars other than the former Yugoslavia's (Kosovo, Croatia vs Serbia) are tipically one of those constrained ones. You misunderstood Huntington? --Vince hey, yo! :-) 10:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing/Mixed parts[edit]

  • "La revanche de Dieu" ~ God's revenge - the revival of the religions, and the renewal of religious wars/conflicts
  • The types of civilizations - 1. universalist (west), 2. agressive (islam, sinic), 3. weak (Latin America, Africa), and 4. indecisive (Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese)
    • The sructure of a civilization: 1. member states, 2. core state(s) - the "leader" of the civ 3. torn countries (this is mentioned) 4. the lone states (also just a line) 5. switching/aparting states (from a civ to another, like Turkey from Islamic to Western)
  • The poles of the World will be those core states and global interests will be replaced by interest spheres. These interest spheres: 1 Western world 2. Russia and its surroundings 3. China and it's interests 4. Islam
  • Islam's internal conflicts are mainly because of the absence of a core state and the fight to be the core (leader) state. in the Islam states, loyalty to the tribe is above the loyalty to the state. Statehood is secondary, since those are just the borders of the former colonies.
  • The revival/upcoming of the local majority's culture (nationalism) like in Slovakia, Serbia, etc. The importance of cultural identity also grows fast (and "high").

The identity crisis of the 1990s, wich lead to the new order of civilizations

  • "Human rights imperialism" - forced weternization (for ex Iraq), in the name of human rights.

Religions are more important in civilizational clashes, than ethnicity or such.

And some more. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man wich is really not important to mention. No, the reason, why Huntington wrote this book is not intresting. No. Not. Gosh... --Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The clash of civilization map is incorrect[edit]

Atleast with regards to India. I dont think it does justice to Sikhs,Jains,Bddhists or even India's 150 million Muslims to pegionhole Indian civilization as a "Hindu civilization". Whats more the South East Asian countries decidedly have cosiderable Hindu influence. I know Huntington labels it as such, but the map makes it look as if Wikipedia is endorsing his hypothesis. I mean c'mon you dont need a grossly incorrect map on this article. This isnt Clash of Civilizations of Dummies or something, is it? Amey Aryan DaBrood© 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that Huntigton's conceptualization is highly problematic. But this is an encyclopedic entry about his controversial theory. Wikipedia does not endorse any specific theory, it just tries to summarize all of them. That is why the map should follow what Huntigton actually wrote in his book. But there is also a section about the published criticism in the article. Tankred 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, India is also marked as a "cleft" coutry. It's muslim pop is considered as part of the Muslim civ. Huntington's map is divided on religions, not real borders. Those are just sometimes match with religious borders. So, I partially agree that the map incorrect. OFF:But this is common. (Personal attack removed) --Vince hey, yo! :-) 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that map is 100% WP:OR. For example, the Turkic speaking countries of central Asia, Albania and Bosnia are remarkably secular due to their communist past and in some cases multiethnic with significant non-Islamic populations. How can they be classified as part of the "Islamic World" when Turkey is not? Generalizations like that should not be made, at least without sources.--Domitius 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the map is that it differs from Huntington's own map (in the book) in quite a few details. Arguably it reflects Huntington's views better than his own map but it involves some interpretation that might be controversial. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, just read the article: there are a lot of #Missing/Mixed parts. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 04:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a mistake on the map regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the map it is under Orthodox and in the text it says Muslim. In reality is neither Orthodox nor Muslim nor Western. It's a strange kind of mix. 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Created Archive[edit]

See Talk:Clash of Civilizations/Archive_1 for the archived discussions from prior to this year. Kyle Cronan 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

World population by civilization[edit]

I have made a plot of past and projected population by civilization, using Huntington's classification. The data is from the US Census and covers the period 1950-2050. Perhaps this is a bit too much in the way of original research (as I had to decide exactly which countries to put into each civilization), but I wondered if this might be good for the article. One caveat is that as Huntington himself points out, this model is not so useful once you go back to the Cold War era and may not be again in 2050. But it seems to give a pretty good impression of how things are changing presently.

I'd be glad to also post the country lists if people are interested in how this data came about. Here is the image.

Kyle Cronan 05:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about adding this first because it is original research and second because total population is not really the demographic issue Huntington focuses on. Nonetheless interesting image. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose that's true. Well, I'm glad somebody else got a kick out of it. Kyle Cronan 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I´d agree that this is original research, but there are some researchers pursuing such questions.
I take Huntinton to be concerned not so much about absolute numbers of population but about young males. In an interview with a british newspaper, he stated: "I don’t think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. But the key factor is the demographic factor. Generally speaking, the people who go out and kill other people are males between the ages of 16 and 30" See Michael Steinberger: ‘So, are civilizations at war?’ - Interview with Samuel P. Huntington, The Observer, Sunday October 21, 2001.
This seems to point to youth bulge theory, a summary of which (including references) you can find here. This model basically states that historically, large scale violence such as in conquests, colozization, wars, civil wars etc. has been executeed by "surplus young males" - ambitious 2nd, 3rd. and 4th sons who were not able to find acceptable positions in their society of origin. A mismatch between social positions and young male seekers creating "surplus" young males presupposes high birth rates (4 children per woman´s lifetime or above). So the line of research you were suggesting does exist - I´m not sure if Huntington pursued it any further, though. --Thewolf37 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

New map[edit]

I have updated the map of Huntington's major civilizations to more accurately reflect the one from the book. This look about right? Kyle Cronan 08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please quit putting your map on the article. It is has too many errors. 1.)Israel is not a part of the islamic world 2.) Haiti is not part of latin america, they don't speak spanish and they are black 3.) if you are going to potrays the islamic regions in africa then u should have included northern nigeria and nearly all of west africa 4.) The phillipines is not part of the sinic world (they are catholic) 5.) there are more muslims in kazakhstan and bosnia than there are orthodox christians, so don't lable them orthodox nations. 6.) kaliningrad is part of russia, not the west
I can at least commend u on labling tamil eelam in sri lanka hindu, something I messed up on. User: Ishvara7
The image is captioned "Huntington's Civilizations" (at least it was: you also reverted my fix to the markup for the caption). Generally speaking, an article--particularly one that covers someone else's book--should try to avoid offering new interpretations of the material, in keeping with the policy on original research. The only way we can do this without controversy is to follow Huntington's own map. If the delineation has been criticized, and that criticism is notable and verifiable, then we can point out cases where the map may give a misleading impression. I think it would also be fine to qualify by citing text in the book where Huntington seems to contradict his own map.
In case you don't have the book on hand, a scanned image of Huntington's map is available here [1]. I took another look, and I believe the only places I have strayed from Huntington's own image are in Tibet, Guinea-Bissau and Guinea. I will correct these errors, but I hope we can come to an understanding first. Kyle Cronan 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the northern part of the Philippines supposed to be shown as Sinic, with a Western outline? Also, Hong Kong is marked as being Western. --Astrokey44 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Both those markings are in Huntington's map as well (see the linked copy). Christopher Parham (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the book's map tonight and provide some input on this. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the whole I think Kyle's map is superior. Ishvara's seems to make numerous deviations from the one in the book based on his own opinions about the proper affiliations for these countries. I would support putting Kyle's map back on the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ishvara, thanks for creating the original image. I would not have been motivated to create a new version if you hadn't gotten the ball rolling. That said, I'm going to restore my version (with a few errors corrected). Kyle Cronan 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ishvara's map is correct. If you have read the book, you would have noticed that all comments made by Ishvara above are correct. Nevertheless the map can be improved, for instance by crossing the boundaries of countries. Many countries do indeed have civilizational cleavages, such as the entire east coast strip of Africa should be Islamic. Sijo Ripa 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ishvara's identified errors are supported by the book to various degrees; Haiti is the most clear one. (Israel isn't marked as Muslim in Kyle's map.) With countries like Kazakhstan, however, it is not clear that being majority Muslim puts them in the Muslim civilization; Kazakhstan is pretty clearly identified as being politically dominated by its Russian minority. And while the Phillipines are clearly Catholic it's not clear that this puts them in the Western world. In general, Huntington doesn't speak directly to the affiliation of many countries. The nice thing about adopting the same divisions as Huntington's own map is that they are clear and unambiguous. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on the words at this point. Covering these sorts of cases in the text (as is done currently, for the most part) will allow us to present a more nuanced and accurate reading of Huntington's theory than is possible with the map alone. I, however, still have half the book left to read, and will return later. Kyle Cronan 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done a slow revert on the map again. If anyone objects (Ishvara, are you still around?), please let's discuss it here. Personally, I just don't see how it can be incorrect to use a map that follows exactly what's in the book. Kyle Cronan 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the new map is that it has too many errors. We need to follow what Huntington wrote rather than drew. His map of tibet was rather crude, and last time I checked Bosnia's muslims make up the largest group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishvara7 (talkcontribs) 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the border line for Tibet is not quite right, though I think people will understand the intended meaning. I don't know a whole lot about Bosnia, but it would certainly seem to be a difficult case. Keep in mind that at the time of the book's publication the war there had only just ended. It is a place that has historically been subjugated by Serbs. Though it's interesting that the same reasoning did not apply for Huntington in the case of Tibetans in China. Perhaps the circumstances are a bit different there. In any case, you're absolutely right that what Huntington wrote is the important thing and it may contradict his own map a bit, but this only goes to show how contentious the debate is bound to be if we open things up to subjective interpretations! Kyle Cronan 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

KOREA AND JAPAN ( ALTAIC CULTURAL GROUP). LANGUAGE WISE AND CULTURAL WISE NON-CHINESE SPHERE. MAP IS WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talkcontribs) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

S vs Z[edit]

I took me quite a while to find this article, being that I was using "Civilisations rather than the American "Civilizations". I'm not a pro at Wikiediting, so could someone put a redirect to this page from the former's spelling? Thanks --AQjosh 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Since 13:42, January 13, 2005, there exists Clash of Civilisations and since 17:06, March 24, 2007, Clash of civilisations, so I don't really understand why you had difficulties. --Cyfal (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clash Of Civilizations[edit]

Rastinny 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rastinny, I have moved your essay to Talk:Clash_of_Civilizations/Rastinny_essay so that it doesn't take up so much space here. Hope you don't mind, but I figured you just weren't aware that you can do that (it took me long enough to figure out!). Kyle Cronan 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

As we all know this is a major issue within the Huntington framework.

Even on this wikipedia page the information is carelessly contradictory, as Bosnia and Herzegovina is placed in the Orthodox camp on the map and in the Islamic camp in the text.

I am here to propose a solution.

As we all know Bosnia and Herzegovina is a region particularly relevant to the clash of civilizations concept because the three major groups there, the Serbs (Orthodox), the Bosniaks (Muslim), and the Croats (Catholic) connect their national identity largely with their religions (civilizations). As Huntington observed, this led to a clash of these 3 civilizations and a civil war. The country is now an independent state for the first time in history and we are puzzled as to where to place this country on Huntington's map.

The solution is simple: Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into 2 distinct entities, The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska). Each entity takes up roughly 50% of the geographical area. (see Subdivisions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina on wikipedia) The population of the eastern region, Republika Srpska, is nearly 90% Serb and thus 90%+ Orthodox. The other entity, The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is 70% Bosniak and 28% Croat. That second entity may yet see a struggle between the Islamic and Western civilizations, but one thing is clear...

The western borders of the Orthodox Civilization must be drawn at the Republika Srpska, including this entity into the Orthodox world. This is a notion Huntington himself would certainly agree with, and the solution that makes the most sense. Bosnia and Herzegovina is far too divided along civilizational lines to be represented as a whole single entity on the Huntington map. It is Huntington's view that any such country that embodies clashing civilizations will meet the same fate as Yugoslavia itself in the near future: civil war and ultimately partitioning of territory along civilizational lines.

I propose we make this change to both the text and the map, dividing Bosnia and Herzegovina by its distinct entities.

-- 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Influence on "Clash" - Feliks Konexzny?[edit]

I just changed in a slightly bold/choleric action the main article on Samuel P. Huntington. Maybe I should have waited for a reactions on my entry in the talk section Talk:Samuel P. Huntington#Coinage:_The Clash of Civilization.

BUTWhat I cut out now is an unsourced contribution in brackets, that suggests the following influence on the "Clash of Civilization" : (inspired by Polish scientist Feliks Koneczny) My hope is that the author might be around, and strictly it belongs here. LeaNder (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Koneczny also divided civilisation into seven types and also argued, that civilisations lead the wars.. But Koneczny divided civilisation not according to language and religion, but according to treatment of law, ethics, church, attitude to private and public spheres of life etc. In Koneczny classification, for example, France is byzantine type of civilisation (high role of state, centralisation, no place for ethics in politics) despite being catholic country. Szopen (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington[edit]

World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not just tolerate each other but eventually mix up (unite) and form a single global civilization. The sooner this will happen, the better. Otherwise people will be killing each other for no reason for centuries. (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i'm all for it but you try telling every other person in the world that they have to abandon their culture and way of living for some yet to be determined global civ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

'The slow suicide of the West' by Jorge Majfud, presented an argument against the views of a certain famous Italian journalist (an Italian best seller writer/journalist who is known to have problems with most of the people around the world). While the journalist's venom was mainly targetted against African Muslims, it does not exclude Muslims of different ethnicity. Her argument was based on the premise that west has a open tolerant value system while Islam is repressive and intolerant in doctrine. Jorge Majfud presented the other side of the view with gallant logic.

I have heard many such arguments from intellectuals who on one hand proclaim to be tolerant, rational and logical but on the other hand stand rigidly on jingoistic opinions. Infact those who tout the supremacy of the western rational and progressive values often forget that this was not the case during its entire history until the very recent times. The history of the west is replete with many instances of regressive values (the crusades, the inquistion, slavery, not to mention colonization atrocities) and irrationality.

I suppose the journalist's intolerance of Islam talk volumes of her open minded values. Muslim Immigrants are growing ever more conscious of the image that they carry with them considering that even before they open their mouth, their last name, their attire and skin colour subject them to a prejudiced straitjacket. In the meanwhile, thank god for some sane voices like that of Jorge Majfud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Why Turkey is green? It is a lone country in Huntington's map.--Martianmister (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, somebody should correct that. I will remove the map, it's misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Turkey and reverted the map to its earliest version which I think is the most correct version. Because in Huntington's criticism, the Turkish culture is the mixture between Islam and Western, a lone country like Japan or Ethiopia with its owned culture. As you can see, the map was fixed by some Muslims. That is nosense to say that Turkey is the same sort with other Muslim cultures, it's not totally right, at least if according to the original criticism of Huntington. I also think that Turkey is mixed, not very Muslim culture at all. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is supposed to have a unique color in that map. Please fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnr Kllrb (talkcontribs) 05:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"a lone country like Japan or Ethiopia with its owned culture."

Don't you understand that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has their own separate culture? The lumping in the map is simply ridiculous. Intranetusa (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt Turkey and the other Turkic countries be filed under "Turkic Culture"? Or isnt that part of the clash of civilizations? NeoRetro (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvard clashes[edit]

We learn a lesson from Harvard clashes. See the historical instances in the following sections. --KYPark (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1975 of Wilson v Gould[edit]

1990 of Bruner v Miller[edit]

1993 of Huntington v Fukuyama[edit]

the map[edit]

I appreciate the usefulness of File:Clash of Civilizations world map.png, but there remain some issues:

  • it more or less accurately reflects the section content, but that content is completely unreferenced in its details.
  • the colours should reflect the groupings. As they are, the eye groups" "Western" with "Sinic" and "Latin American" with "Hindu". Not a good choice.
  • the "torn" countries would need to be indicated in hatching or similar.

--dab (𒁳) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The original map in the source is this one and only this map is corresponds with it. --Olahus (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Huntington say that Eastern Thrace and Anatolia belong to two different civilizations? Prove he did and I'll your map alone.--Mttll (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a trivial argument. You are merely using a technical glitch as an excuse to push your POV. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So you accept it's a technical glitch and you don't think it should be corrected?

Mttll, you cannot edit the article in concordance with your personal point of view. (see WP:NPOV) If the original map in the source (see WP:SOURCES) represents Turkey in two cultural areas, you must respect this fact. Turkey is not the only state represented like this. You must understand that your (or my) personal point of view are completely unimportant as long as the information from the sources are not matching with them. In my opinion, I would include even European Turkey (Eastern Thrace) to the islamic cultural area. But does my personal opinion matter? I think it doesn't. --Olahus (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey's case is different. It's a glitch like Tsourkpk says. Do you not agree? Do you think the source thinks Eastern Thrace belongs to a different civilization? Please, being neutral doesn't mean acting like robots or zombies.--Mttll (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is quite clear: It includes Turkey as part of the Islamic Civilization. The glitch you ar referring to is that Eastern Thrace is shown as not part of the Islamic Civilization. This is a technical mistake. What holds for Anatolia holds for all of Turkey. You are just cynically exploiting a printing error to push your POV. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Just correct that printing error. Apparently that map doesn't recognize lone countries, but that's another topic of discussion.--Mttll (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed in this version of the map [2], which the only correct one. Hence, this is the version that stays. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
@Mttll: A printig error? Did you read it in the erratum of the book? I doubt it. --Olahus (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Malta: a quick note[edit]

Malta is counted as being part of the Muslim world. This is certainly incorrect. They are 98% Catholic and are adamently European. Their ethnicity is a mix of Arab (because of repeated invasions throughout history) and Italian (due to proximity), but the Maltese should be counted as part of Western Europe. (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)A. F.


Aside from Australia and New Zealand, which have obvious Western roots, has Huntington ever made any formal statements about the nations of the Pacific Ocean? It seems that this region was largely ignored. These countries are generally grouped in with the Western World, but this seems odd when you consider that Huntington considered the English-speaking Caribbean to be a distinct civilization. The linguistic and cultural roots are largely indigenous - Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, and Papuan - rather than Western. The only real criteria I can see that would make them Western is the prevalence of Christianity, but even that is often highly sychretized with indigenous rituals such as the ceremonial use of kava. Western influence through colonization and Christianization does not seem to make Sub-Saharan Africa part of the West either, for example... -- (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


I majored in International Relations and Western World Studies! What is interesting is that the author sperates Latin America as their own civilization, If I can recall it was Europeans that colonized all of Latin America. The French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch. Even in Canada is way different than the US. Quebec is official in French. Quebec considers themselves part of Latin America. But the world "Latin" by itself is too contraversial as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What differentiates Latin America from the West is the region's substantial Native American and African influences. Modern Bolivia, for example, has an indigenous majority, in addition to an indigenous president and indigenous official languages. As Bolivia's population becomes increasingly politicized, its indigenous roots seem to be getting even more strongly pronounced. Guatemala and Peru also have indigenous majorities, while Paraguay has an indigenous official language. African-derived religions are prevalent in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. Most other Latin American countries have mestizo or mulatto majorities, with cuisine, music, vocabulary, and other cultural aspects that are indigenous or African in origin.

In Canada, on the other hand, the Metis are relatively small portion of the Francophone population, while the larger Quebecois are more solidly Western. Quebec's indigenous people are marginalized by the mainstream, having only minor influences that are much under-appreciated. In opinion, however, Argentina and Uruguay should also be counted as "Western", apart from the rest of Latin America due to their overwhelmingly European flavor and their lack of pronounced indigenous or African influence. -- (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the clash of civilizations, it is rather "the clash of power-hungry men".[edit] (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)I read Huntington’s book in the mid nineties and thought that maybe he was on the wrong path. Did he miss the bigger picture? Do men's conflicts with other men stem from their cultural differences or do they stem from the need of the ruling class to create real or imaginary enemies for their tribes to gain, maintain, consolidate and use power for their own benefit? The dark shadow of the power-hungry men is lurking above every small tribal fight or national and inter-continental wars. It is still the exact same formula: Us against them. Good against evil. The formula is as old as the man himself.

Thanks for the Marxist tip!  :) Semmler (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The true clash of all time (past, present and future) is wealth vs poverty ("haves" vs "have nots"). Its nothing new or innovative. Religion and politics are merely tools used to justify the unforgiving and relentless greed of man. The wealthy will continue to oppress the poor and middle/working class, and the poor will periodically revolt or terrorise (depending on whether the tool is political or religious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

criticism section[edit]

In the third paragraph "it has been claimed" is tagged as "weasel words". Reference (#8) is provided and the text as written seems appropriate. Labelling the ideas following in the paragraph a "claim" is correct; neither clear-cut fact or an overt falsehood. I suggest removing the "weasel" tag. JAB

I think the point of the weasel tag is more that the claim is set out there without any discussion of who is making it or whether it is widely accepted among any particular group of scholars. Lots of things are claimed; just saying that they are is not very enlightening to the reader. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopia, Haiti and Israel[edit]

Huntington writes in Clash of Civilizations that instead of belonging to one of the "major" civilizations, Ethiopia and Haiti are "lone" countries, and that Israel could be considered a unique state with its own civilization.

Therefore, imho, these three countries should appear in a different color in the map. It is true that Ethiopia, Haiti and Israel are not singled out in the original map (the one printed on the book), but we'd rather give priority to the text over the map. Sebasbronzini (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The point seems simple. We want to provide a map showing the civilizations as outlined by Huntington in his book; the book conveniently provides exactly the map we want. Why would we reject Huntington's own work and replace it with our own creation, while attributing the idea to Huntington? Ethiopia and Haiti are mentioned only briefly in the book (along with many other countries whose assignment to a particular civilization is questioned), but the only direct and unambiguous statement about their classification is in the map.
If you wish to restore your version, at least change the caption to make clear that your map is not as presented in the book. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Israel is easily western. Majority of the Jewish population of the state has come from Europe and the US. The majority of Jews are in the US. Israel is entirely western politically, socially, economically, ethnically, etc, etc.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Huntington's predictions: analysis and retrospect[edit]

this section has had no sources and a tag for practically 2 years now. If there is no source for this original research/synthesis then it doesnt belong here.(Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kitsikis an influence on Huntington?[edit]

The article contains right now this passage:

"Huntington's geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the "Intermediate Region" geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikis and published in 1978."

There is a reference to Greek and Turkish edit ions of Kitsikis' book but it's quiteunclear to me whether Huntington has indeed been influenced in any significant way by Kitsikis. Did Huntington ever read Kitsikis' books, much less derived his theory from them? This latter claim is somewhat dubious, unless backed up with a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talkcontribs) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This author is clearly clueless about Greece[edit]

The article's thesis is ridiculous concerning my country. We have absolutely no real ties with Russia at the moment. The OPPOSITE is true. There have been talks with Turkey and Russia after the "Georgia Incident" last year "If you help us with Georgia, we'll help you with Cyprus" is what Russia said to Turkey. Even if the situation is not black and white - a deal with oil by last government comes to mind - there's certainly no real certainty of ties. If you have some ties with someone and some differences, the same may be true with others. This RELIGIOUS-centric view of the world has failed. It's not the 19th century anymore.-- (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it's so failed that even in the 19th century when there were some minimal steps for Russia to help Greece gain independence from the Turks because of religious ties, even then it didn't go more than a faint attempt. The actual independence effort was almost completely abandoned by Russia and main help came from England and Germany/Austria. -- (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually Greece's membership in an "Orthodox civilization" is more than proven by her both fanatical and nonsensical support of Serbia in both the Bosnian and Croat wars, to the extent that Greek volunteers participated in the massacre of Srebenica, and that Greece is the one country in the world where a film opposing the Serb murderers wasn't allowed to be shown. And to the extent that when Anna Politkovskaya was murder, and other national leader offered their condemnations then-prime minister Karamanlis wished Putin a happy birthday. Greece also has *very* close political and diplomatic ties to Russia, both overt and covert in both the right-wing and the left-wing parties: to the extent that Greece has been declared the "trojan horse of Russia" in the EU. Greeks are ignorant about this level of Russian entaglement in politics, because that's how the political establishment of Greece wants it to remain -- and yet you'll note that you'll never hear a word of condemnation by any political party towards Russia, when you constantly hear words of condemnation towards France/Germany/United States/UK/etc... Aris Katsaris (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

french guyana is not sub-sahara-africa[edit]

how can france be described as a cleft between sub-saharan-africa and france, using french guyana as an example. french guyana's state of development might be discussed, but its geographic location is definitely not in africa, but in south america. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


IF i am not wrong,Bhutan is a predominantly Buddhist country.Granted that it has pseudo-suzerainty with India - a.k.a Hindu civilization but that foes not stop it from labeling it as a "Hindu civilization"please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC) this guy is clearly a fucking terrorist

E. Said block quote excised and reproduced here for posterity[edit]

The following quote was excised from the article:

[The following sentence is from the article] "Especially under Said's critique fell Huntington's view of 'Islam' as a monolithical entity:"

My concern […] is that the mere use of the label «Islam», either to explain or indiscriminately condemn «Islam», actually ends up becoming a form of attack […] «Islam» defines a relatively small proportion of what actually takes place in the Islamic world, which numbers a billion people, and includes dozens of countries, societies, traditions, languages and, of course, an infinite number of different experiences. It is simply false to try to trace all this back to something called «Islam», no matter how vociferously polemical Orientalists […] insisted that Islam regulates Islamic societies from top to bottom, that dar al Islam is a single, coherent entity, that church and state are really one in Islam, and so forth.

— Said , 1997, p. xvi

I think the argument is the following: usage of "Islam" as a label to explain Islam is some form of attack. (Here I do not distinguish between an intentional act, and a foreseeable consequence of that intentional act...please, I'm not interested in discussing philosophy right now, nor in splitting hairs.) In other words, by uttering "My wife prays every day. She is Islamic", one engages in an attack, or takes a position in a debate (although the quote in the form used on the article doesn't specify what is being attacked).

Uttering "My husband believes Jesus Christ is God. He is Christian" is not an attack.

E. Said wrote something, and when I read it, I don't see how a reasonable person could take it seriously. At least in the western world, we learn at an early age that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". The most astonishing aspect of this quote is that he immediately engages in the behavior he condemns, by attempting to describe and explain an aspect of the "Islamic world". It might be useful to include this quote in an article on the particular form of argument he is making, to give the reader an example. I do not know the name of the fallacy, it is roughly "it is impossible to discuss X without taking a position on X" and in fact this is a strong form, wherein for a particular X, namely X=Islam, E. Said writes, "it is impossible to discuss X without attacking X". (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)