The Clash of Civilizations -- what's the score?

[Aimless]

Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis--or, at least, one version of it--has, I think, seen a resurgence in recent years, esp. among laymen.

I believe this model has been shown to be deeply flawed but obv. I get most of my information from ICHCb so I'd like to know your thoughts on the current status of this model. How much has it gotten right and how much has it gotten wrong? Does it have any real credibility today? What are the problems and what are the advantages? Do you strongly prefer any other model?

[RandBlade]

I think its an overly simplistic idea, though there is certainly a clash between medieval barbarism and the modern world.

[Loki]

It's a useful narrative for nationalists, like ISIS and Trump, but has little to none empirical basis. An argument could be made that people tend to sympathize more with people like them and to misinterpret actions of people different from them. But it takes many leaps in logic to go from there to say that civilizational differences are the key cause of conflict (there's also the matter of defining what a civilization is, something Huntington is particularly bad at doing).

For some recent evidence, ISIS does most of its killing against fellow Sunni Muslims. The same is true for Boko Haram. The main interstate conflict right now is between two Christian Orthodox countries. South Sudan, the scene of some of the most violent intrastate conflict in recent years, is composed of groups from the same "civilization".

[RandBlade]

Indeed, ISIS have the same barbaric medieval attitude that heretics are worse than infidels.

[Steely Glint]

It's ironic to call ISIS medieval, because they're considerably worse than Islam in the medieval period. Worse than Christianity back then too, probably.

[Loki]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij

This is what other rebels call them.

[RandBlade]

It's ironic to call ISIS medieval, because they're considerably worse than Islam in the medieval period. Worse than Christianity back then too, probably.

No comparison is perfectly apt but medieval is the closest the world has seen to that level of religious zealotry and brutality.

[Loki]

They're actually known for attracting fighters who aren't very religious and they look the other way when those fighters continue being not very religious. More like a murderous group of thugs who enjoy making the life of anyone under them miserable.

[RandBlade]

Again quite apt for the true piety of the medieval era.

[Steely Glint]

No comparison is perfectly apt but medieval is the closest the world has seen to that level of religious zealotry and brutality.

Most of the really gross acts of religious persecution at least in the Christian world - witch trials, the inquisition etc - actually come from the renaissance and early modern period.

[RandBlade]

The inquisition began in the medieval period, 1184. It continued into the Renaissance which was fighting against such medieval practices.

[LittleFuzzy]

Witch trials are also a much older thing. They were maybe not as formalized before, in many areas, but still not a rare practice.

[RandBlade]

In one way these things got recorded better in more modern times but that doesn't mean it originated later.

[Cracky]

Most of the really gross acts of religious persecution at least in the Christian world - witch trials, the inquisition etc - actually come from the renaissance and early modern period.

What's the Renaissance, and what's the middle ages is kind of a grey area though.

[Flixy]

The inquisition began in the medieval period, 1184. It continued into the Renaissance which was fighting against such medieval practices.

That's not really right. The inquisition was expended to counter the protestants etc., not the other way around. And I think during the middle ages believing in witches was heresy so witch hunts would be, I guess, targets of the inquisition rather than the other way around IIRC witch hunts were more of a pagan, pre Christian thing.

[Lewkowski]

It's ironic to call ISIS medieval, because they're considerably worse than Islam in the medieval period. Worse than Christianity back then too, probably.

I dunno Islam has been pretty bad for a long time. However lots of groups of people were bad in the medieval period, the difference is that other religions and cultures have grown out of murder and rampage.

[Loki]

See Christians in Rwanda, South Sudan, and Democratic Republic of the Congo; Hindus in India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, Buddhists in Myanmar. Shitty people do shitty things. Shitty people must have some religion. Some of them are Muslim.

[Lewkowski]

See Christians in Rwanda, South Sudan, and Democratic Republic of the Congo; Hindus in India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, Buddhists in Myanmar. Shitty people do shitty things. Shitty people must have some religion. Some of them are Muslim.

Most of them are Muslim is what I think you mean. I'm positive you can find examples in the last 20 years of other religions and for each one you come up with I can come up with at least three from Muslims. Putting your head in the sand and being PC about it doesn't do anyone any good.

[RandBlade]

That's not really right. The inquisition was expended to counter the protestants etc., not the other way around. And I think during the middle ages believing in witches was heresy so witch hunts would be, I guess, targets of the inquisition rather than the other way around IIRC witch hunts were more of a pagan, pre Christian thing.

The inquisition predates Protestantism, it originally fought against the heresies of the Cathars and Waldensians and was expanded to cover Protestantism when that arose a few centuries later. It was a medieval practice that grew in a reactionary manner in the Renaissance. Just as there are vile medieval practices in the modern era today.

[Loki]

Most of them are Muslim is what I think you mean. I'm positive you can find examples in the last 20 years of other religions and for each one you come up with I can come up with at least three from Muslims. Putting your head in the sand and being PC about it doesn't do anyone any good.

The Christian African examples mentioned above have led to far more civilian deaths than violence by all Muslims groups combined. You making up shit just because you hate Muslims doesn't do anyone any good.

[Lewkowski]

The Christian African examples mentioned above have led to far more civilian deaths than violence by all Muslims groups combined. You making up shit just because you hate Muslims doesn't do anyone any good.

I'd like to see some evidence of that. To be clear we are talking about terrorist attacks carried out for religious purposes. That is what people's problem with Islam is. If religion is ancillary to the issue than for the purposes of what we are talking about it is irrelevant. Example - Truman identified as a Christian and he also ordered nukes deployed in WWII. It would be asinine to say "Christians are a threat because they are more likely to drop nuclear bombs on civilians." Pretty much only one religion has people launching suicide attacks screaming religious slogans while they attack.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/0...rs-in-belgium/

"Two female officers were attacked and wounded by a man wielding a machete and shouting “Allahu Akhbar” outside the main police station in the Belgian city of Charleroi on Saturday, police said."

Strange that when I see an article headline about a terrorist attack 99% of the time I know it will be about an Islamic Terrorist. Its shocking your downward descent into utter liberalism has become. Join the other liberals who can at least see the evil that is Islamic terror. Bill Maher and Dawkins both pretty out there on the left and they have no issue calling Islamic terror for what it is.

I'm curious Loki can you give me one thing you actively believe in that most liberals would find offensive? I'm not talking about economic policy or other wonkish policy position, I want to hear what the most 'extreme' anti-SJW belief about culture/religion/gender/race that you have. Because if I'm right you've fully drunk the university liberal kool-aid.

[Aimless]

I'd like to see some evidence of that. To be clear we are talking about terrorist attacks carried out for religious purposes.

What? When did the discussion get so specific? Sounds dodgy.

[Loki]

http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/d...flict_dataset_

Look at Side A (the non-state group perpetrating the violence), BestFatalityEstimate (self-explanatory), and location (for a hint of the religion of the rebels/terrorists). I recommend sorting by BestFatalityEstimate.

http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/d...lence_dataset/

If you want to include government actors, see the above dataset. You'll find very similar results.

I also find it amusing that you automatically assume that any terrorist attack on the West is done by Muslims when Muslims are responsible for 10% of the terrorist attacks in the US.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/p...rism-2002-2005

[LittleFuzzy]

I'd like to see some evidence of that. To be clear we are talking about terrorist attacks carried out for religious purposes. That is what people's problem with Islam is. If religion is ancillary to the issue than for the purposes of what we are talking about it is irrelevant. Example - Truman identified as a Christian and he also ordered nukes deployed in WWII. It would be asinine to say "Christians are a threat because they are more likely to drop nuclear bombs on civilians." Pretty much only one religion has people launching suicide attacks screaming religious slogans while they attack.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/0...rs-in-belgium/

"Two female officers were attacked and wounded by a man wielding a machete and shouting “Allahu Akhbar” outside the main police station in the Belgian city of Charleroi on Saturday, police said."

Strange that when I see an article headline about a terrorist attack 99% of the time I know it will be about an Islamic Terrorist. Its shocking your downward descent into utter liberalism has become. Join the other liberals who can at least see the evil that is Islamic terror. Bill Maher and Dawkins both pretty out there on the left and they have no issue calling Islamic terror for what it is.

I'm curious Loki can you give me one thing you actively believe in that most liberals would find offensive? I'm not talking about economic policy or other wonkish policy position, I want to hear what the most 'extreme' anti-SJW belief about culture/religion/gender/race that you have. Because if I'm right you've fully drunk the university liberal kool-aid.

Isn't it amazing how Lewk suddenly thinks there is no presentation bias in the media? You talk about violence against blacks and you can't listen to a word the media says, they're out to get cops, but mention Darfur and suddenly the fact that you didn't see much media play for a long time meant there was nothing happening. The only violence in the world was Islamic terrorism.

[Aimless]

He was really cunning though. By specifying a range of 20 years he managed to exclude Srebrenica. I didn't expect Lewk to be so cunning.

[RandBlade]

Today in two wrongs make a right...

[Lewkowski]

http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/d...flict_dataset_

Look at Side A (the non-state group perpetrating the violence), BestFatalityEstimate (self-explanatory), and location (for a hint of the religion of the rebels/terrorists). I recommend sorting by BestFatalityEstimate.

http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/d...lence_dataset/

If you want to include government actors, see the above dataset. You'll find very similar results.

I also find it amusing that you automatically assume that any terrorist attack on the West is done by Muslims when Muslims are responsible for 10% of the terrorist attacks in the US.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/p...rism-2002-2005

Ehhh burning stuff down without the intent of killing people isn't what most people consider terrorism even if it does fit the legal definition.

"Vandalism and Arson
Erie, Harborcreek, and Warren, Pennsylvania
(Six acts of Domestic Terrorism)"

We should totally take out those idiots too but there is a difference.

[Lewkowski]

What? When did the discussion get so specific? Sounds dodgy.

Because if religion isn't the prime motivator I'm not certain how it relates to the discussion. If a Christian kills a Christian due to a racial or property dispute issue is it Christian Terrorism? I'd say yes if the attack was motivated by one being a Baptist and one being a Methodist but if it isn't than its ancillary to the issue. I'll use the Truman example again - would you classify that as Christian Terrorism?

Islamic Terrorism is far different. They are using religion as the reason and the cause of their actions. That is why Islamic Terrorism is a threat to the West, you can't appease them, you can't negotiate with them. They literally believe in placing Muslims above non-Muslims (in addition to eliminating all of the 'heretics' who are the wrong type of Muslim).

[Aimless]

I think you should re-read the exchange.

[Loki]

On the topic of Russia bombing hospitals:

Since March 2011, at least 738 Syrian doctors, nurses, and medical aides have died in more than 360 attacks on medical facilities, according to Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The independent human rights group holds the Syrian government and its ally, Russia, responsible for upwards of 90 percent of these attacks.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/11/...ne-underground

Newflash to the Lewks and Rands of the world: just because the media disproportionately covers violence by Islamists doesn't mean that Islamists are actually responsible for all (or even most) of the violence that's taking place in the world.