Posted at 11.10.2018
It is a lecture by Edward said's, organised in the University of Massachusetts, it is about clash of civilization and how people consider it. He's mainly responding back to what Samuel Huntington's and Bernard Lewis said about the clash of civilization. Edward had his MA in 1960 and a doctorate from Harvard College or university in 1964. The main work of him was the Orientalism, which was a part of postcolonial studies. In such a video recording, Said argues that Lewis and Huntington's had the wrong impression and thoughts about the clash of civilization.
In this lecture, Edward is responding back to what Huntington and Lewis said about clash of civilization and he critic their ideas. Huntington feels that in the foreseeable future, there will be clash between countries; this clash will be mainly a clash of religions. Huntington said that the Western world should be strong and keep others poor. It is clear here that he wants the West to harm other countries and take up them by using make against them, which consider colonization. In his argument, he centered on the Islamic religious beliefs and he says that it's the main reason of the clash. He said that Islam is anti-Western, and Muslims are employing assault against non-Muslim and the government and other Muslim organizations are pushing violence against them.
Moreover, Huntington's ideas and thoughts were mainly based on what Lewis Bernard said in his book Islam and the Western. He compares faith never to a faith but to geographical political countries suggesting that Muslims and Arabs are backward uncivilized people and they're savage without any manner; according to the Western culture. According to what he said, the Western world will find an excuse to strike and invade other countries, precisely what the UK do to India and they called it, we want to bring growth and train them how to be modernized similar to the Western world, but instant they take over their country and remained there for two decades. Taking whatever they want following that and do whatever they need. Edward criticism is more on the actual fact that Huntington publication is made for the policy makers in the US, thus is a primary danger when the coverage maker calls for what Huntington said really; these people will misunderstand the views of the Muslim world.
Lewis and his book Islam and the Western demonstrates the all the condition throughout the world is due to Muslims and to solve this problem they have to package with them. Lewis pointed out that there are vast amounts of Muslims in the Western plus they want to dominate the united states and he called it rage on the Western (Lewis, 1993). What he intended is that before they dominate our country allows invade them first. Once we say in Arabic, lunch time on him before he dine you. This excuse is very baseless. He just wants to begin a religious war. He also saied that Islam is not modernize rather than speared between chapel and express. Bernard must know one thing that in Islam the State rules are made by the religious beliefs rules, which can't be separated from one another. One example of that is when the united states had the economic turmoil, all the finance institutions got influenced and the majority of them did not have any money, but because Muslim banking companies used the Islamic guidelines in the banking companies they have not been influenced like the Traditional western banking companies. And about modernize, Islam is modernize nonetheless they can not see it, because to the Western world it isn't matching the Western standers. As the Western see it, you have to be like those to be modernize which is incorrect. In his book Islam and the Western world, He composed:
It should be clear that people are facing a spirits and a movements in Islam for transcending, the amount of issues and polices and the government that pursue them. This is a minimum of a clash of civilization. The perhaps irrational, but surely historical receptions, of a historical competitor against our Judeo-Christian traditions, our secular present, and the world-wide expression of both, it is crucially important that we, on our area, shouldn't be provoked into similarly historical, but also similarly irrational response against our appearance. (p. 78).
It is clear from Lewis statement that he's saying that clash is religion and it is between Islam and Christianity. And Islam is dispersing around the globe plus they the West must do something to stop it. He believes the Western religious beliefs is more superior than the others and it will not be equalized with other religions. What he's trying to say that in the past Islam used violence to spread across the world and today after more than 1200 years they are trying to do the same thing with the Western. Lewis also said in his publication that Islam cannot understand other civilization, which is incorrect. Muslim people travelled about the world before Marco Polo did. They visited Spain and China. They lived over there and took using their company knowledge and become a part of them. Islam can understand any civilization but their continually be a limit what things to take and what not to take from other civilizations.
Saied's belief that there is no part of Islam, which is fundamentally from the West. During the last decade, we've seen numerous cowardly attacks on European countries, for example, the Swedish-Iraqi strike in Stockholm and the 9/11 episodes. The US government authorities do not have any clear information that the episodes were done my Muslims. Do not believe the idea that Muslim extremists are influenced by a justifiable rage, they are really influenced by the political issues that they are having from the Western. It is never related to the religion. Islam and Western civilizations are inherently different, and this is why we have conflict. Moreover, that does not indicate Edward is anti-Western. He was very critical about a few of the ways European hegemonic thought has used to describe Arab societies and to design political relations with this part of the world. He is not bias because he was informed by British, on British-Egyptian Religious schools.
Furthermore, Said pointed out that, some civilization that has ability and technology advancement provided to them self the to colonize other in the name of Nobel idea, which is to civilize them however in fact, they want something else. Rivalling imperial vitality invent their own theory of ethnical destiny in order to justify their action aboard. I simply want to know who offered them the to evaluate on people and just how they live. You can't change something that relates to culture. Types of these countries, USA, Germany, and UK. Which the real goal is to have significantly more ability, conquest, and unrestraint self applied pride. The Western world believes that each raise has a particular future or job to do. FOR INSTANCE, the Chinese increase is to provide, the black increase should be the labor, because they are strong and they can work hard. Here we can see that the West had the wrong impression about people, they thing they are the superior raise because they are white and other people are below them so they must provide them.
Edward said that for a country to have it truly independent. They need to speak their own Dialect, Which he supposed nationalism. You need to be pleased with your terminology and used it to possess truly independence. For instance, in India conquers party, only by encouraging Indian words the political self-reliance can accrue. Only by encouraging their word from the West, they'll be able to stand on their toes. Edward said that the Culture and civilization is multiply then one another. The core of Islam is usually to be separated from the rest, and the center of the Western is usually to be separated from all the other. Also that, it is not a clash of civilization, but clash of meaning. Determining the culture is hard; each culture defines its enemy. "Folks are fighting with each other over us vs. them, ideas of good and wicked, belonging or not belonging. Islam like the Western is not really a single or uniform thing"(Edward, 1998). Islam differs in Indonesia, different in Egypt. For example, in Egypt, there's a issue in the Islamic activities. In the lecture, Saied has quoted from Aime Cesasre, which he wrote:
But the work of man is only just starting, and it remains to overcome all the violence entrenched in the recesses of our passion and no race offers the monopoly of beauty, of cleverness, of pressure. And there's a place for those at rendezvous of win. (p. 48).
Cesasre meant that we now have no boundaries or block between cultures. Anyone can take whatever he desires form other culture. And there is absolutely no standers for civilization or beauty or brains. Every people or culture has their own stander, which is different from one culture to some other and all of them are right. At the end of the lecture Edward talked about the Palestinian Israelian issue and exactly how it is a good exemplory case of colonization. The Israelian uses the reason that plastain is the assurance land to them, so they keep eradicating people and pressure these to leave their houses. It seems this clash between them relates to religion however in fact, they just want a place to live and a country. Edward said that you can't victimize others because you were sufferer yourself, there needs to be limit. It isn't a reason to invade other folks and take over their country.
Additionally, Edward said it was a "clash of ignorance. " That Huntington experienced a monolithic view of Islam and he over generalized the situation and didn't understand the complexity of the conflicts and individuals involved with them. He is touching on the growing effect of those who advocate tensions and clashes, and subsequently benefit from this type of contaminated atmosphere to prepare the people, specifically of the USA, to engage in war, like the circumstance now. The multimedia Ї»їhas become nothing more than a blowing horn for such a paradigm of pressure and hate. The Western world mainly considers Islam through distorted, Ї»ї Orientalist, lenses. Also, correlation alone is not sufficient to establish that what you said must signify there's a 'ethnical clash'. There could be a clash in a few areas, but this is established by powerful people to make Islam seem to be threatening so areas, like Iran, can be dominated for essential oil. More people should be aware, that it's never about faith. He covers the issues of how Muslim/Arab folks have more to do than to "think about the Western with hatred, " how Huntington is not a college student of Arab/Muslim civilizations but wants to prolong and hinge the discord. SaidЇ»ї observes the way the French used the notion of a "civilizing mission" to justify brute push against the countries whose land and resources they wished. This imperialist quest gives surge to wars of nationwide liberation one of the colonized.
What Huntington and Lewis expected that in the foreseeable future there will be a clash between religions and that what occurred, but it isn't true. People think that nowadays there's a clash between religions. When US invaded Iraq, people thought that it's a Holy Conflict and because they think Muslims are behind the 9/11 episodes. What happened is the fact US invaded Iraq for a politics issues, that was that Saddam experienced a mass distraction weapons nevertheless they didn't find anything over there. It had been mainly about engine oil and recourses. US mass media are displaying to individuals who US are in a spiritual warfare in Iraq and they're aiming to bring liberty and democracy to Iraqi people. I cannot know how the 9/11 attacks relates to Iraq. They just desired an excuse to invade Iraq in the name of independence. West media confirmed the stereo kind of Muslim and exactly how they are upset all the time, they just misrepresent the Islam. What Edward said is completely true there is absolutely no clash between religions, however the US government wishes the visitors to think that what is happening. As I see it, the history is duplicating itself. Once the British visited Africa, they said we are here for a Nobel cause, however in reality they can be here to dominate the country. A similar scenario is happening in Iraq, but in this case, their reason is religion, which is totally wrong. To resolve this dilemma, the Western world should solve their politics problems with the East and not to connected with the faith. Another Example is the current crises that US facing with North Korea. North Korea has a clash with the Western and they are not Muslims. This support my point that the clash is not about religious beliefs, it is about politics.
I found another articles which discusses the clash of civilizations, In Rami G. Khouri article " rescuing Europe's failed middle east plan" he's expressing that the Europe's insurance policy is faltering in Midsection East. So they don't add anything to resolve this problem and their insurance policy don't have the strength to change anything and solve this problem. Morover, Khouri thinks that they can't change anything because the Europe's are pursuing what US and Israel insurance plan. Without expressing their own point of view. So they become with Israel in this turmoil between East representing by Palestine and Western world which is representing by Israel in this turmoil. His advice for European countries is to stop pursuing US and Israel plan. Since it will lead to a clash between the East and Europe, like the West and the East.
Furthermore, he had written articles "Rewinding the reel to underlying triggers'' and he said that the root for the conflict between East and Western world is the Israel- Palestinian discord. If the root of the issue between East and West is the Israel- Palestinian issue, what do you think if the thing is some countries like America or Europe countries, which support Israel? They'll feel same as Samuel Huntington proven fact that the clash between East and West is about faith. All of the people who analyze the history and find out about the crusades will know that the turmoil between your Israel and Palestine will take him back in its history of the crusades period because both situations are same in a great deal of edges. The Israelian are doing the same thing that Crusades possessed done, which is invading the country and killing people and turn it to a religious war.
But in the other side, Amartya Sen in her article "What clash of civilization? Why religious identity isn't destiny?" strongly disagree with Samuel Huntington argument, because she feel that Huntington make civilization too simple and equalite with religion. Amartya think that human has so many aspects that produce him what he's. You should not judge on the book based on its cover. What she designed that there is another reasons of clash which is not related to religion.
Kofi Annan stated in his article "Annan says politics, not religion, at heart of Muslim-West separate". He feels that there is no connection between politics and religion and he is convinced that the faith is not the root for any turmoil in this world. I trust him the root of conflict relates to the political issues that the country have against each other. It was never about religion. I trust him that the Israel- Palestine issue is the main of the conflict between East and Western and this conflict is the primary cause of the clash between the two sides.
Moreover, Mohsin Hamid and his article" why do they hate us" he says that Muslims hates West due to America insurance plan. In this aspect I might trust Mohsin Hamid, because Muslims perceives that America international policy is actually unfair with Muslims in different issues and various places all around the globe. Muslims don't have any problem with America, if their plans change not using what Muslims want, but with the justice even if it was up against the passions of Muslims. Therefore, this is another point that supports my discussion that the clash is approximately politics not religion.
Another Article published by John L. Esposito, which is "It's the policy stupid''. It's an interesting article, because John L. Esposito feel that the root of the problem began from America coverage. Because they does a whole lot of errors in their international plan toward the East and when they try to solve their first problems, they made new errors, which made the situation a whole lot worse than before. Another political issue, which is not related to religious beliefs.
In Fawaz Gerges article which is entitled" America and politics Islam". He believes that there is no clash between civilization and the clash is between benefits. Any American countries who are against the west will be "Terror''. I agree with him that this is very a clash of benefits and interests. We see that some countries policy change from daily. They change their insurance policy because their interest change plus they change their allies depending on the interests. For instance, Saddam was a friend of the US government, but when the interests modified they just removed him.
An article had written by Edward said which is Imperial Perspectives. He is declaring that after World War 2 the united states goal is to control the oil supply in the centre East and ensure that Israel is the dominate power in the Middle East. He said that US declare to educate people and liberate them however in truth they just want to regulate and rule. The US want to see Arabs and Muslim in the way they like, not with just how Arabs and Muslims are which an imperialist perspective is. He also said that US think Arabs and Muslims are anit-democratic and anti-Semitic. These are enough reasons for US to invade another country in the name of democracy and independence.
All in every, The west uses the clash of civilizations misconception as a means of western intervention and expansion, which western culture is dominating, which reveals a Eurocentric dichotomy. What Huntington and Lewis expected came true but in reality, the government uses the faith as an excuse to invade other countries. What Edward said it is true that the clash is not about religion. US multimedia want visitors to think that it is approximately religion, which can make their job easier. In the past when a powerful country invade another country their reason was to modernize and educate them, now they are using the democracy and flexibility excuse to invade other countries. Different excuses nevertheless they have the same goal, which is to colonize.