Why isn't this book more often mentioned on Sup Forums? It has been written in 1995 and predicted the post Cold War situation of geopolitics very accurately.
When the Berlin Wall fell everybody (not only in the West) was euphoric and expecting a total dominance of western liberal democracy. Fukuyama even postulated the "end of history" where never anything noteworthy would happen in the policial sphere any more. Ever. But Huntington scrupulously analyses the political scene of his time (mostly the 80s and early 90s) in all the corners of the world and comes to the conclusion that the division of the world will transform from a configuration of two ideological powerblocks into 7 or 8 civilisations which are defined by culture rather than ideology. pic related is roughly his prediction.
He died in 2008 but I think he knew what was coming when you consider he still lived to witness 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His book is quite redpilled when it comes to Islam. He sees it as a threat and a threat only. Also from a standpoint of immigration. His other prediction was the rise of the sinic civilisation, i.e. China and how this will influence the western possibilities to project power. The description of how China handles western complaints with regards to human rights nowadays is quite prophetic, I have to say. Just a few years ago every leader in Europe and the US invited the Dalai Lama for nice photo arrangements and asked China to respect Tibet's autonomy. That's completely gone. They all suck China's dick now and even when Hongkong's democracy was basically abolished by decree of Peking, nobody dared shit.
It's really one of the most readworthy books on international politics, even now 20 years after its writing. Someone read it?
He furthermore describes the configuration of each civilisations and categorizes countries into which roles they fall into in this order. They can be *corel states or *client states. They can be isolated, satellites or bridges between different civilisations. The latter are often with divided populations, prone to conflicts and civil war. It's also possible that the government thinks of itself as belonging to a different civilisation as the people leading to instabilities as well.
For example, he describes the West as follows: It's a civilisation that's rather unusual because it's not built on a single language (family). It's common factor is roman catholicism + all their reformist/lutheran offsprings. The West has several core states: It's the US, obviously, and in Europe he sees the core as France/Germany. In 1995 the EU, as the political union we know it today, was just founded, resting on the german-french axis. The bridges are Ukraine and the south Balkan for him. To a small degree Belarus. The West includes also Australia and New Zealand, making them isolated countries in their neighbourhood. The satellites are everything else.
Jacob Lee
>They can be isolated, satellites or bridges between different civilisations. The latter are often with divided populations, prone to conflicts and civil war. It's also possible that the government thinks of itself as belonging to a different civilisation as the people leading to instabilities as well.
Sounds like he predicted Europe and the general EU vs client state situation pretty well.
Levi Clark
Good concept But of course, names and actual regions differ from reality (it would be scary if it wasn't desu)
Jayden Young
I like the special denote of Hispanic/Russian culture
Still "western". But like a sub-genre
Very good !
Carson Collins
bump
Anthony Edwards
>muslim >sub-saharan >latin american
>civilization
Asher Campbell
>Sounds like he predicted Europe and the general EU vs client state situation pretty well. Yes, the EU is textbook for his analysis. He didn't see Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU, so that's something new.
But in general when talking about divided countries, he thought of countries like Turkey, where the population is very islamic while the elites saw their place firmly in Europe. That's for Atatürk and so on. He describes Turkey's pivot towards the muslim world very detailed in his chapter about the "Islamic resurgence". After the failed coup and Erdoroaches political cleansings he would probably see Turkey as a muslim country in full and not a bridge state any more.
Jason Green
It's an open question to him where to Latin America belongs. He kind of sees it as its own thing but in a fluent state. He predicts that Mexico will try to change its place and try to become a fully Western country. The orthodox christian realm is a civilisation on its own merit in Huntington's eyes. It's not very well reflected in the picture.
He talks mad shit about Africa in the book. A civilisation "only by name" where the core state is South Africa because it was governed by Westerners for most of the time.
Blake Gonzalez
>But of course, names and actual regions differ from reality What? Where and how?
James Mitchell
Huntington was a plagiarist faggot who theory is something that average Sup Forums user could made up in less than a week. If you want to read actual good theory of civilisation read about Koneczny. Huntington is not worth your time.
Liam Wright
Thanks for summary OP. Had skimmed it but never got into reading all of it, mostly because it just made sense and I find it easier to read stuff that challenges me.
I know that Huntington is severely contested, though I never really understood why. Could you elucidate the other side of the argument on him?
Dominic Martin
That's a very interesting Russia on this map...
Jackson Robinson
Interesting because it's treated as part of a Western Christendom or because they've accidentally your Ukraine?
Jayden Torres
do you remember anything else that's said about Mexico, user? becoming a western country seems very unreal though. It'd be great, but I can't see it happening
Owen Morales
>something that average Sup Forums user could made up in less than a week. Sup Forums is cancer like Sup Forums. They can't write more than two lines of text at a time.
>read about Koneczny Don't know him. Will do.
>mostly because it just made sense It doesn't seem like a very deep insight from our standpoint, true. But you have to remember that in the early 90s it was a very different situation. Phrases like the "global village" and "multiculturalism" are from that period of time. Noone in his right mind would say that we are heading towards a unified world atm. I'm a Kraut and you can't Poo in Loos. For us it's natural because that's how it turned out to be. The book became famous because he was correct.
I'm not too familiar with the criticism of this book. It's mostly about the sharp line he draws on the question of identity. Amartya Sen has complained that we have more than one identity and that it therefore doesn't explain the world very well. When I look at the Kosovo for example then I see very sharp differntiatoins drawn indeed.
Jordan Murphy
IIRC then he said that with NAFTA and the huge amount of Mexican immigration into the US the political elite will try to draw Mexico closer to North America than to try it's luck in Central America. He's not so sure about Latin America in general because it's a lot influenced by colonialism and the according immigration. You are catholic and speak a european language which might be strong enough to bring Mexico and the US closer together.
But then there is the other part of his observations where he writes about a re-indigenisation taken place in former colonies (esp. in India). The generation that still experienced the supremacy of western cultura and military might is getting old and the new generation doesn't neccessarily think of their own successes any more of a legacy of the colonial era but as their efforts. They take pride in their culture and values and make them the narrative of upcoming emerging nations.
David Long
Yeah, it's wrong in that regard. It's more of a political map than a cultural map. He firmly sees the Baltics and Poland as part of the West.
You are in the middle. A country where one part is more looking east and the other part more looking west. And that's what you are experiencing hands on for the last 2 or 3 years now.
Brandon Bennett
Huntington doesn't give a shit about Latin America, it's too isolated to be relevant no matter which way it pivots.
