can you please read the argument/question below and then try responding to it?

Question

“Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations thesis’ predicts a gloomy and conflict-ridden future for the world. It also claims that the past shows that there has primarily been conflict between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’. On the other hand, historians such as Fernand Braudel have shown that there has been a history of ‘mutual borrowings’ across civilizations and cultures."



Outline these two views of the long-term history of interaction between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ and say which you find most convincing in its analysis of the past. Give reasons for your answer.

Answer 1

This is a difficult - indeed erudite - question, and the subject may be too vast to be completely answered in a format like this. However there are a couple of points that may be made which might help you along.
Firstly concerning the idea of "The West versus the Rest". To hold that idea requires a very Eurocentric view of history which ignores the histories of other continents. For example it does nothing to explain the titanic conflicts between Chinese Empires and Central Asian Nomads (Huns and Mongols in particular). An older, and better explanation, is that since civilisation developed in Mesopotamia there has been regular conflict between "The desert and the sown". That is between farmers and nomads. That explains many of the wars of Ancient Mesopotamia, the Chinese conflicts mentioned above, the Arabian conquest of the Middle East at the dawn of Islam, and even the problems between cowboys and farmers in the American Wild West. This line of argument suggests that Huntington's thesis as you represent it is too narrowly based to be useful.
Another point that you might care to consider is that there is no contradiction at all between "conflict" and "mutual borrowings". It has often been noted that whenever there is a long period of conflict between two dissimilar societies the two societies become more similar. This is logical when you realise that in order to achieve victory one society must overcome the other in those things on which the other bases its superiority. To explain that in military terms - if a state bases its force on heavy infantry but comes into conflict with a society that bases its force on light cavalry then the infantry state must develop a cavalry arm in order to prevail. Further it must do so before the cavalry state develops an infantry arm.
That this is an important point becomes clear when it is realised that to make such a revolution in military policy will involve massive social, cultural, and political affairs. The inevitable conclusion is that not only is there no contradiction between conflict and mutual borrowing it may well be that conflict and competition encourages mutual borrowing.
These can become deep waters, and I wish you well, and look forward to other answers.

Answer 2

Historical doublespeak!!

Chow!!

Answer 3

Sorry, but you have to do your own homework.