Matt Mackowiak
268766690
TLC 331 / Henry
TTH 3:30-5pm
Said's reaction to Huntingdon
Huntingdon's theories aim to simplify US foreign policy and, more importantly, summarize the reasons for anti-American sentiment in the post-Cold War period. Indeed, the events of September 11 may actually help legitimize Huntingdon's arguments by attempting to prove an Islamic movement to attack the United States. However, it places too great a significance on cultural differences, and not enough on economic or political differences. Huntingdon says that global politics in the future will be determined by culture, more than anything else. However it is tyranny and oppression which seem to dictate where the US decides to get involved in the world (Bosnia, sanctions against China, Afghanistan). The United States has bigger things to deal with than insignificant cultural differences, and Said agrees.
Said's reservations, as well as my own, with this oversimplified type of reasoning is that it doesn't help us understand anything, and rather is counterproductive, only making the situation more complicated than we originally believed it to be. Huntingdon uses a made-up battle between the "West" and "Islam" to try and prove his point. He argues that the other seven or so cultures are in collusion with each other against the United States. However, the sobering truth is that there are far more intercultural disagreements than he would surmise (India vs. Pakistan and Palestine vs. Israel immediately come to mind). By Huntingdon's own thesis, these disagreements would not be possible. And the United States does not take sides based on culture, but rather on justice, democracy, and common beliefs about human rights.
The middle east, and several other world political situations are far more detailed, historic and complex than Huntingdon would ever give them credit. It is ludicrous to strip any one of these relationships down to "Islam" vs. the "West" and have it given any credence or taken seriously. If there was one determinant of US foreign policy in the future, it would be the desire to instill democracy throughout the world. The US believes that all countries should be democratic, not that they all should be Christian. After all, that would violate our own Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even in the Cold War period, we did not take a stand against the Soviet Union or Cuba for their culture or their religion, but rather their communism and the disallowance of representation and democratic rule. Cultural or religious differences matter very little to the US and its leaders, but the war against terror is also a war against oppression, and tyrannical leaders like those in Iran, Iraq and N. Korea should beware.
After all, the US did not declare war on Islam. In fact, Islam is practiced by millions of Americans, including famous people like Muhammad Ali. Our country feels a responsibility to right wrongs in all parts of the world and end "ethnic cleansing", sweeping genocide and religious hatred in any corner of the globe. Said agrees that religion does not matter with respect to our foreign policy. However, Said strongly opposes the sweeping generalizations that Huntingdon's essay makes. It is impossible to group several different cultures together and pit them against the West without seriously examining how they are related, coexist, and what their histories are. Many of these disagreements date back several hundred years and are so complex that only a few experts in the world understand them correctly.
Said feels Huntingdon is "reinforcing defensive self-pride" instead of critically "understanding the bewildering interdependence" of our time and the nations of this world. This statement clearly shows the inherent problem with Huntingdon's essay. It takes the easy road of saying all Islamic peoples and nations hate the US, without investigating how those cultures are inter-related and what other factors are at work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mackowiak