The clash of civilizations is essentially what one could describe as the story of mankind. Although it is currently being popularized as the antagonism of west versus east, this clash has been seen in numerous facets and guises throughout history. From the Romans and their quest to expand and conquer, to the Vikings descending in their war ships, to the various world wars, man has had conflict that has its roots in differences of culture, race and thought. Thus what one sees today publicized as the fight of the Christian West against the Muslim East, is merely a modernization of what lies in history. It is all but a resonance of what is carved into the hallways of time, a shadow foretelling what is to come and a symptom of man’s ever present weakness, that of self-identity. But even as one acknowledges the resonance of the clash, one cannot entirely attempt to explain it away as being caused by difference in identity and culture, rather one must dig deeper into the political, social and economic factors in each civilization. This paper aims to highlight the resonance of the clash of civilization as well as to analyze the reasons of the clash itself.
History has proven that humanity cannot eradicate the existence of cultural or national clashes therefore one can conclude that the clash of civilizations does resonate in a historical context. No matter how complex or how convoluted the issues that gave cause to war, the roots of all conflict behind many wars have lain in ethnic, cultural or other distinguishing differences. It is the whole concept of the “other”. It is always easier for men to blame or hate for as long as they perceive that their fellow human being is different and therefore could be a threat. The other is the basis for man’s understanding of himself and is also a threat to his well being. At the Nuremberg trials, Hermann Göring, Reich Marshal, of the Nazis said “But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”( Kamalipour pg 78) These words show how little effort it takes for one to turn against another so as to defend their identity, their sovereignty or some other such misconceived possession. By fulfilling this need for security, man guarantees that the clash of civilizations is perpetuated and continues to echo in each new generation of historical events.
In light of this one can assume that the conflict between East and West comes with the sanction of the people. By so doing this enables the clash of civilizations to resonate within the citizens of either Western or Eastern countries. According to author Mahmood Mamdani nowadays people are only surprised by violence that seems senseless, unfounded or unjustified. This means that if one’s government can find a reason to explain why violence was needed whether as a means of protection, or a way to bring about progress, the world would sanction this violence as right and proper. Even worse the world will ignore the occurrence of this violence. Such a scenario would reaffirm the fact that it is because of the people that the clash of civilization resonates and it is through them that it continues to exist.
Another way in which the clash continues is in the everyday lives of people. Whether it is on T.V. shows, in the news or in casual conversation, the bad guy is almost always cast as someone from the Middle East or someone possessing such features. In its own way, the clash of civilization lives on and is carried via the channel of people’s ignorance of each other’s culture. Apart from all this, one cannot totally blame the conflict between the East and West on merely the theory of the “clash of civilizations” Though many crimes in history have been committed with the reasoning of race, bloodlines and cultural differences, one cannot entirely make these the reason why the West and the East have conflict. This would be to fall into the same line of thought as Samuel Huntington whose view is that all it takes is for one to be Islamic and the other Western for the to be conflict. According to him the fundamental differences between western and Islamic civilizations are irreconcilable and inevitable lead to conflict (Huntington 22-49) . To take Huntington at his word would be to conveniently blame all of the world’s mistakes on the issue of identity and stereotypes or some other labels people decide on.
Critics of Huntington’s assertion have argued that to think of the world in terms of a clash of civilization would be inadequate as there are always other factors to consider such as internal conditions within each civilization. Huntington himself uses reference to Bernard Lewis to base the origins of some his arguments but this shows a limited understanding of what Lewis defines as the roots of the clash of civilizations. Unlike Huntington, Bernard Lewis declares that American cultural, political and economic imperialism is mainly to blame for the conflict East-West conflict. He argues that “for a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness” (Lewis 49) . Furthermore because of the US’ encroachment into the politics and economy of the Middle East it has tried to direct the governance of these countries and threatened their independence and sovereignty. So if there is a clash between the US and the Middle East then the reason can be found no further than the US’ foreign policy.
Edward Said also scathingly criticizes Huntington in his article titled “The Clash of Ignorance” in which he states that labels like "Islam" and "the West" serve only to confuse an already disorderly reality . The words of Said are truly understandable especially when one tries to pinpoint who is “Islam” or who is “the West”. In a world that is increasingly global that has immigration and inter-racial families as part of its norm, one could not truly begin to define the clash of civilizations in a definition limited to cultural identity. While states are political territories with geographic landmarks, culture is not confined to similar strictures. Just as “Islam” can be found in the US, “the West” can equally reside in the Middle East so to try to make these labels the basis of the argument of the clash of civilizations would be to take the myopic view of much broader subjects.
The clash of civilizations does exist and indeed it resonates in many circles of our society. Just as it can be traced through history, the clash continues to be seen in popular media, the way kids are tough about the clash in their respective countries as well as in the reasons behind its existence. It can be argued that the clash exists because of the fear within the citizens of both East and Western countries just as one could propose that the clash’s continuance is encouraged by the political and economic intentions of primarily Western governments. Whatever the reasons in their full scope, they just serve to pronounce the resonance of the clash.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Understanding the "other"
The clash of Western and Islamic civilizations cannot be discussed without considering the concept of the "other". The manifestations of this creature are many and varied whether be it in discussing corruption of political leaders, distrust in business dealings with the "other", religious fanaticism or cultural eccentricities of the "other". No matter the topic there is always that "other" looming its head as the protagonist of the story. In this context one has to conclude the inevitable necessity of the "other". There is no escaping it, the "other" is the vehicle by which the story becomes more exciting, the standard by which human beings define themselves, the vital component that lends itself to how we shape our ideologies. Human beings are only as good as they can be compared to or against the "other". This therefore suggests that the whole debate over the West versus the Middle East is highly over-dramatized and spurred more by an ignorance of who and what constitutes either party. I would venture to even declare that the greater part of this pervasive ignorance is on the part of Westerners who often do not take the time to understand beyond popular rhetoric all the issues surrounding dialogue on the the Middle East.
Other than discovering who is responsible for fueling the clash, one is faced with the regrettable fact that there can never be realistically a world without the "other". Simply put, it is the basis of human understanding and we need for there to be an "other" in order to understand ourselves. People are skinny because there is an "other" who is fat, well mannered as opposed to the "others" who are not, and religious fanatics instead of God know how the West would describe itself in terms of religion. It is a phenomenon of life that is essential to self-identity therefore one should not lose it in the popular band wagon of hatred and animosity rather, the "other" should merely be understood and accepted as part of one's everyday reality.
Other than discovering who is responsible for fueling the clash, one is faced with the regrettable fact that there can never be realistically a world without the "other". Simply put, it is the basis of human understanding and we need for there to be an "other" in order to understand ourselves. People are skinny because there is an "other" who is fat, well mannered as opposed to the "others" who are not, and religious fanatics instead of God know how the West would describe itself in terms of religion. It is a phenomenon of life that is essential to self-identity therefore one should not lose it in the popular band wagon of hatred and animosity rather, the "other" should merely be understood and accepted as part of one's everyday reality.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Perspectives on Media
For my perspectives of the media, I chose to look at an article about Iran’s plans to expand its nuclear activities as well as its latest breakthrough. This article was covered by the Los Angeles Times and for the Arabic perspective, by Al Jazeera.net. Al Jazeera is a sub-company of Al Jazeera English, a 24 hour English-language news and current affairs channel that is headquartered in Doha, Qatar. Both articles related that Iran had announced new advances in its nuclear technology with two new devices that would enrich uranium. Iran also was inaugurating a plant that would produce fuel pellets for a heavy-water reactor. Although both articles dealt with the same subject matter, what is unique to note was the portrayal of Iran in the Western media as opposed to the more objective reporting of Al Jazeera. This paper seeks to analyze both articles in a bid to reflect the bias of Western media towards the Middle East and the counter depiction of the Middle East about itself.
From the titles of the articles, one can predict the differences in perspectives that each writer is going to bring. The Los Angeles Times headline reads “Iran touts nuclear technology gains” The term “tout” would suggest that Iran is being brazen in its publicity of its nuclear breakthrough. On the other hand Al Jazeera.net’s headline reads “Iran 'open to nuclear talks'” In this case, there is a ring of optimism in the picture drawn by the Middle Eastern headline. It seemed to present Iran as a country that is willing to cooperate with all those concerned about its nuclear activities.
As one begins to read the article by the Los Angeles Times one is faced with terms such as Iran is “trumpeting” its achievements which would suggest that Iran has a boastful attitude. Granted this would be perfectly permissible if Iran did decide to boast about it nuclear activities, after all it is their achievement, but the tone of the Los Angeles was almost disapproving. The article goes on to relay details of the ceremony that Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had held to mark these developments however it then digresses for about two thirds of the entire article into an analysis of how the West suspects Iran of intending to eventually produce weapons. Now this is a concern that has been ongoing for years now therefore to be fair to the Los Angeles Times, it was bound to crop up in any discussion of Iran and nuclear technology. Even so the reporter declares that “Iran's buildup of nuclear technology infrastructure, without explicitly pursuing weapons, keeps its unnerved regional rivals and the West guessing about its capabilities and intentions, a strategy that some analysts say could serve as a deterrent to foreign military action.” Such as a statement would suggest that Iran has a deliberate plot that is to keep the West nervous and uncertain while it sneaks about increasing its infrastructure.
One statement quoted within the Los Angeles article is that of Paul Kerr, an arms control expert at the Congressional Research Service. According to Kerr "The reactor is under safeguard. They can't [create weapons-grade plutonium] without getting caught" This version of Western perspective reflects and apparent attitude of suspicion that is embodied in the use of the phrase “without getting caught”. It also doesn’t help that this phrase brings back images of Iran sneaking about behind the West’s back. This statement could even be taken to be an expectation by the West that Iran will be caught of which that would mean as far as the West is concerned Iran is guilty until proven innocent.
I was especially curious about the writers of this article from the Los Angeles Times, Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim, seeing as it was that both had names that could be assumed to be Arabic or at least from the Middle East. Because of this I wondered why they would write in a voice so reminiscent of Westerners. Though I failed to find much about Ramin it turned out that Borzou was actually born in Iran but was raised in Chicago and New York City. This and the fact that his bread is buttered by the Western media would explain the differences between his writing and that reflected in the Al Jazeera article.
As far as the Al Jazeera article is concerned it actually was concerned more with the Iranian President’s speech to allay Western leaders’ fears over its nuclear developments as well as the US’ response to this speech. This was a stark difference from the Los Angeles Times that had paid more tribute to the suspicion of guilt itself. According to Al Jazeera.net “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was open to negotiations based on "justice and respect".” The article goes on to say that Mahmoud accused the West of using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a "mask of peace to confront [Iran] and stop its advancement" The picture painted this far in the article would be that of a cooperating Iran that is being hindered by Western finger-pointing and intrusions. I am skeptical about the total innocence of Iran as this article would have it seem, just as I am undecided over its future nuclear plans, what is most important to remember for everyone concerned in Iran’s matters, is that nothing has been proven of all these allegations of weapon manufacturing. Therefore should the Iranian President be open to talks then it is up to the rest of the world to take it at face value and accept the olive branch for what it is.
The second half of the Al Jazeera article is in regards to the US’ response to the nuclear developments as well as the Iranian President’s accusations. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is quoted to have said "We don't know what to believe about the Iranian programme. We've heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years." One would applaud the diplomacy of Hillary in not resorting to an outright declaration that Iran is guilty of plans for manufacturing weapons, something that other leaders have done. On the other hand one must note that Hillary did not negate these allegations either instead of extending the solidarity and goodwill that should exist between countries that are at peace with each other.
The Al Jazeera article rounds up in an analysis of how the speech by the Iranian President could be interpreted to have been political posturing in preparation for the next presidential elections. Between this article and the Los Angeles Times one I would say that I prefer to have read the AL Jazeera one primarily because it was more objective. While the Los Angeles Times alluded to boastfulness in Iran’s nuclear announcement as well as highlighted the opinions of those that would suspect Iran, the Al Jazeera article limited itself to just the Iranian President’s announcement and West’s response to it. For me this was valuable in that it was not an imposition of another’s opinions that would guide me in what to think over Iran’s nuclear developments, rather I could formulate my own opinions. Both articles proved to me what I saw as the bias of the West reflected in its media thereby further compounding upon people’s already misguided notions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200949151820306693.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear10-2009apr10,0,6613541.story
From the titles of the articles, one can predict the differences in perspectives that each writer is going to bring. The Los Angeles Times headline reads “Iran touts nuclear technology gains” The term “tout” would suggest that Iran is being brazen in its publicity of its nuclear breakthrough. On the other hand Al Jazeera.net’s headline reads “Iran 'open to nuclear talks'” In this case, there is a ring of optimism in the picture drawn by the Middle Eastern headline. It seemed to present Iran as a country that is willing to cooperate with all those concerned about its nuclear activities.
As one begins to read the article by the Los Angeles Times one is faced with terms such as Iran is “trumpeting” its achievements which would suggest that Iran has a boastful attitude. Granted this would be perfectly permissible if Iran did decide to boast about it nuclear activities, after all it is their achievement, but the tone of the Los Angeles was almost disapproving. The article goes on to relay details of the ceremony that Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had held to mark these developments however it then digresses for about two thirds of the entire article into an analysis of how the West suspects Iran of intending to eventually produce weapons. Now this is a concern that has been ongoing for years now therefore to be fair to the Los Angeles Times, it was bound to crop up in any discussion of Iran and nuclear technology. Even so the reporter declares that “Iran's buildup of nuclear technology infrastructure, without explicitly pursuing weapons, keeps its unnerved regional rivals and the West guessing about its capabilities and intentions, a strategy that some analysts say could serve as a deterrent to foreign military action.” Such as a statement would suggest that Iran has a deliberate plot that is to keep the West nervous and uncertain while it sneaks about increasing its infrastructure.
One statement quoted within the Los Angeles article is that of Paul Kerr, an arms control expert at the Congressional Research Service. According to Kerr "The reactor is under safeguard. They can't [create weapons-grade plutonium] without getting caught" This version of Western perspective reflects and apparent attitude of suspicion that is embodied in the use of the phrase “without getting caught”. It also doesn’t help that this phrase brings back images of Iran sneaking about behind the West’s back. This statement could even be taken to be an expectation by the West that Iran will be caught of which that would mean as far as the West is concerned Iran is guilty until proven innocent.
I was especially curious about the writers of this article from the Los Angeles Times, Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim, seeing as it was that both had names that could be assumed to be Arabic or at least from the Middle East. Because of this I wondered why they would write in a voice so reminiscent of Westerners. Though I failed to find much about Ramin it turned out that Borzou was actually born in Iran but was raised in Chicago and New York City. This and the fact that his bread is buttered by the Western media would explain the differences between his writing and that reflected in the Al Jazeera article.
As far as the Al Jazeera article is concerned it actually was concerned more with the Iranian President’s speech to allay Western leaders’ fears over its nuclear developments as well as the US’ response to this speech. This was a stark difference from the Los Angeles Times that had paid more tribute to the suspicion of guilt itself. According to Al Jazeera.net “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he was open to negotiations based on "justice and respect".” The article goes on to say that Mahmoud accused the West of using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a "mask of peace to confront [Iran] and stop its advancement" The picture painted this far in the article would be that of a cooperating Iran that is being hindered by Western finger-pointing and intrusions. I am skeptical about the total innocence of Iran as this article would have it seem, just as I am undecided over its future nuclear plans, what is most important to remember for everyone concerned in Iran’s matters, is that nothing has been proven of all these allegations of weapon manufacturing. Therefore should the Iranian President be open to talks then it is up to the rest of the world to take it at face value and accept the olive branch for what it is.
The second half of the Al Jazeera article is in regards to the US’ response to the nuclear developments as well as the Iranian President’s accusations. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is quoted to have said "We don't know what to believe about the Iranian programme. We've heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years." One would applaud the diplomacy of Hillary in not resorting to an outright declaration that Iran is guilty of plans for manufacturing weapons, something that other leaders have done. On the other hand one must note that Hillary did not negate these allegations either instead of extending the solidarity and goodwill that should exist between countries that are at peace with each other.
The Al Jazeera article rounds up in an analysis of how the speech by the Iranian President could be interpreted to have been political posturing in preparation for the next presidential elections. Between this article and the Los Angeles Times one I would say that I prefer to have read the AL Jazeera one primarily because it was more objective. While the Los Angeles Times alluded to boastfulness in Iran’s nuclear announcement as well as highlighted the opinions of those that would suspect Iran, the Al Jazeera article limited itself to just the Iranian President’s announcement and West’s response to it. For me this was valuable in that it was not an imposition of another’s opinions that would guide me in what to think over Iran’s nuclear developments, rather I could formulate my own opinions. Both articles proved to me what I saw as the bias of the West reflected in its media thereby further compounding upon people’s already misguided notions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200949151820306693.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear10-2009apr10,0,6613541.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
