The globalization as a process of uniting world into one community with different ideologies, religions and cultures is almost defeated. World which was divided into small “atoms” from the beginning by the nature could not be united. According to one of the theories of Darwinism the strongest and biggest one always will rule over the weak and small organisms. The multi-million years of evolution seems do not change it.
Nowadays, the strongest countries on the political arena as European and North American countries are trying to impose their installation of “uniting” world to the weakest and small countries that already were their colonies. Every century the political map of the world changes, some countries are disappearing, some are emerging. …show more content…
He divides world into civilizations according to religion, region, language and culture. Countries on the world map in 20th century were divided in two main regional and political camps as West and East. West is always progressive, secular, modern place, where democracy and human rights are the common values. The East is retrograde, religious, barbarian and retarded.
The post-colonialism discourses of Dussel, Said and Fanon define world in term of Eurocentrism, Orientalism and national liberation which held later in the 19th and 20th centuries. Enrique Dussel, in his work The Culture of Globalization sees the exact division of Eurocentric and planetary paradigms which arose in 15th and 16th centuries. Later, Fanon finds that all national liberations turn out into violence.
Returning to Huntington’s ideas if there is clash of civilizations and would it base on religion, I want to remind you the prediction of Baba Vanga, the Bulgarian psychic. She predicted in 1989, that on Earth would be wars between Islam and Christianity, and finally there is would be “Muslim Europe” . I may found not appropriate sources to write about it, but what actually happens in Europe makes me believe in her …show more content…
Huntington gives an example of Russia and Ukraine that they already argued over Crimea in 90th, but they allowed to dispute, so as Russia and Ukraine are belong to the same civilization: Slavic-Orthodox, post-Soviet and with the same culture. However, since Crimea is territory of Russia, the relationships between two countries get worse despite the historic origins. In one hand, Ukraine was the closer partner of Russia after collapse of USSR. On the other hand, Ukraine as other ex-Soviet countries tried to redefine their civilization identity. Huntington writes 3 requirements that torn country have to meet in order to find civilization identity. First of all, political and economic elite has to be generally supportive of and enthusiastic about this move. The second is public has to be willing to acquiesce in the redefinition. And third one, the dominant groups in the recipient civilization have to be willing to embrace the convert . I think Ukraine meets only first requirement. Europeans as a “privileged” civilization do not accept everyone to their “holy” circle. Ataturk’s Turkey tries to become European country, but until now they could not accept them. The same was with
Nowadays, the strongest countries on the political arena as European and North American countries are trying to impose their installation of “uniting” world to the weakest and small countries that already were their colonies. Every century the political map of the world changes, some countries are disappearing, some are emerging. …show more content…
He divides world into civilizations according to religion, region, language and culture. Countries on the world map in 20th century were divided in two main regional and political camps as West and East. West is always progressive, secular, modern place, where democracy and human rights are the common values. The East is retrograde, religious, barbarian and retarded.
The post-colonialism discourses of Dussel, Said and Fanon define world in term of Eurocentrism, Orientalism and national liberation which held later in the 19th and 20th centuries. Enrique Dussel, in his work The Culture of Globalization sees the exact division of Eurocentric and planetary paradigms which arose in 15th and 16th centuries. Later, Fanon finds that all national liberations turn out into violence.
Returning to Huntington’s ideas if there is clash of civilizations and would it base on religion, I want to remind you the prediction of Baba Vanga, the Bulgarian psychic. She predicted in 1989, that on Earth would be wars between Islam and Christianity, and finally there is would be “Muslim Europe” . I may found not appropriate sources to write about it, but what actually happens in Europe makes me believe in her …show more content…
Huntington gives an example of Russia and Ukraine that they already argued over Crimea in 90th, but they allowed to dispute, so as Russia and Ukraine are belong to the same civilization: Slavic-Orthodox, post-Soviet and with the same culture. However, since Crimea is territory of Russia, the relationships between two countries get worse despite the historic origins. In one hand, Ukraine was the closer partner of Russia after collapse of USSR. On the other hand, Ukraine as other ex-Soviet countries tried to redefine their civilization identity. Huntington writes 3 requirements that torn country have to meet in order to find civilization identity. First of all, political and economic elite has to be generally supportive of and enthusiastic about this move. The second is public has to be willing to acquiesce in the redefinition. And third one, the dominant groups in the recipient civilization have to be willing to embrace the convert . I think Ukraine meets only first requirement. Europeans as a “privileged” civilization do not accept everyone to their “holy” circle. Ataturk’s Turkey tries to become European country, but until now they could not accept them. The same was with