ccc
ccc


cc
cc c
 ccccccccccccccccccccccccc

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
ccc
c

cc

cc


c
cc
ccc

cc
ccccccccc
ccc
ccc
cc
c

cccc
cc c

ccc c

ccccc


ccccccc
 cc
c c

c
c ccc
c

cc
c

c
ccccc


c
ccccc
ccc
cc

cc

ccc
c

cc
ccc! cc

ccc
c
"


 ccc"


#c$
ccc
c


ccccc
ccc


ccc


ccc
cc

c%&
 'cccc
ccc
 cccc
cccc
cc #c 
c
cccc
ccc
c
cccccc
ccc
cc 
()
 c
ccccc
cc
c
ccccccccc 
ccc
c
cc$
c
c
cc
 c
ccc
cc
cc
cc*c
c
cc
ccc

cccc
cc
c cc cc
cc
cc
cc 
cc
c
 cc

ccc
c
ccc

cccc%

'c
cc
cc
c
c
ccc cc

c+c
ccc

cc
cc
c

ccc
c 
c
cc

ccc
cc ccc

cc
c
c

ccc
ccccccc

c

c
 c

cc
c c

c
ccc
ccc

 c
cc
cc

c
cc
cccc
c
c
c

c
 cc
cc
 c

c
cc
c

c

c
cc

c
cc
c  c c
c c
c
cc
c

 c
 c 
 c
c
c ccc
 c
c cc c 
c
c

cc


 ccc!c
c
c
c
c

c
c
cc
ccc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c c
cc
 c


cc cc
c
 c
c
c
" #c!c

c
c c
c
c
c

c c
cccc
cc
c
ccc

cc
c c$ cc ´ Universalism leads to
imperialism´ but is it true that better mutual understanding of each other¶s culture, race and
community leads to Violence? According to socialist and doctors the cause of Violence is the
result of lack of understanding between people so, how can proper understanding really lead
to a war between people. Therefore I conclude that Globalization does not lead to
Imperialism but only leads to better cooperation and mutual respect between people of
belonging to diverse culture, race, culture, religion, and ethnicity.

Many scientist, politicians and Historians have argued that Religion is the primary source of
all major conflicts in the world. Even Huntington has based his argument of the clash of the
civilization occurrence due to Religion. What is Religion? According to the dictionary Religion
 
cccc



c
c
c
cc
c
cc%&
 'ccc
cc
cccc
c
cc
ccccc
c
ccc ,
c

c
cc
cc
c

ccccc cccc
cc ,
c
cc
c
 
cc ccc
cccccc
c
$
cc-
cc cc
c cc
c
cc
c%
%c

 c% %cc

c
 c
c&c
 c
 cc

c

cc cc
c
 
cc
 cc

c

c

c
 c
 c

ccc

c
cc
cc

c
 cc cc
c
ccc
 c
c'cc
ccccc
(

c
c
 c

c")
 #c ccc
c c c
c
c

cc
 cc
c
cc
c
ccc
 
cc cc
c

cc
*+,,c
c
c

ccc
c
 c

c!
cc
c
-ccccc c

c
c
cc
 cc
c
cc
c
 cccc")
 #!
ccc
cc
ccc
ccc

ccccc
cc

cc
 c
cc
cc
ccc
c

c

ccc
cc
 cc ccc
cc
c

cc
cc c cc
c

c
 c
cc
c
cc
 cc
c

cc
c c
 c

Every coin has a two sides; similarly everything in this world has two viewpoints positive
and negative, a person can only see one side of a coin at a time similarly a person can only
have one viewpoint at a time, if a person have positive viewpoint toward a thing than he will
ignore the negative side. I feel that Huntington as a scientist should be in the middle of the
coin meaning have a mutual viewpoint rather than being bias and selecting a side. It is
upon a choice to choose which side of the coin he wants to be, Huntington chooses to in the
negative side therefore he has a negative viewpoint towards everything. In conclusion, I
don¶t support Huntington¶s argument on clash between the west and the rest as his
argument is bias and he does not heavy back up to support his argument. I would like to
end my essay through late Edward Said¶s words on Huntington¶s argument.

Ô

   
 
 


  
          

   
 
 

 


     
 

    
 


 

    


    
    


R



ccccccccccccccccccc
c 
c c cc
c
cc
cc
c
cccc
ccccccccccccccccccc
c c !
 
c"!#$$!#$$%%%




 $ & '( )
 *
c

Huntington, Samuel P. (1993):Ô

     âew York : Foreign Affairs

Huntington, Samuel P. (1996):Ô

    !

 

" ,âew York : Simon & Schuster, 1996

Ignatieff, Michael (1998):U #$The Warrior¶s Honor)'slo : Geelmuyden

Kiese

Said, Edward (2001, 12 'ct.):

% WashingtonThe âation

(http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011022&s=said&c=1)