Grand civilizational rubrics invent false collective identities that enable deadly conflicts

Evidence

The “clash of civilizations” rhetoric therefore became dominant in the aftermath of 9/11 and was the ideological basis for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well domestic attacks on Muslims and Arabs. For a while it appeared that the neocons were unstoppable—but they overplayed their hand. During its first term, the Bush administration built a “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq, rejecting criticisms from allies it derogatorily labeled “old Europe.” The war on Iraq, however, did not go the way the neocons wanted it to. Instead of greeting US forces as liberators, the Iraqi people resisted and rejected US hegemony. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421 (#expands, via linked claim)

At its heart, Said’s critique challenges the motivations of those, including Lewis and Huntington, who rely on a clash of civilizations paradigm to make sense of the world in general and the relationship between Islam and the West in particular. Such a paradigm feeds on conflict and division, thereby “increasing the rifts between people in order to prolong our dominance.” What we need is not conflict but community, not a clash but a coming together of people across cultural barriers to face the dangers that threaten the entire human race. — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 233 (#expands, via linked claim)

The world is not as simple as Lewis and Huntington want it to be. They desperately want to hold onto a world in which the difference between “us” and “them” is clear. What they ignore, argues Said, is that civilizational identity is not fixed but fluid. All civilizations and cultures, including so-called Western civilization, have intense, often contentious internal debates about how to define themselves. Civilizations are also shaped and transformed by all sorts of migrations and movements between peoples of different cultures. Finally, it is hard to imagine a culture today that, in the past or the present, has walled itself off from other cultures. In fact, every culture has been and continues to be involved in transformative exchanges, contacts, and conversations with other cultures. — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 232 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421; Abandoning humanity’s common origin makes natural war between races plausible; Civilizational identity is fluid, not fixed or walled off — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 232 (+4 more)

Related

• The clash of civilizations narrative is a constructed frame, not a given fact (similarity 0.89)
• The War on Terror was ideologically framed as a civilizational clash (similarity 0.88)
• The clash-of-civilizations paradigm serves to prolong dominance (similarity 0.88)
• Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks (similarity 0.85)
• Juxtaposing contending ideologies lets thrillers move beyond war-on-terror binaries. (similarity 0.85)
• Civilizational identity is fluid, not fixed or walled off (similarity 0.84)
• Emphasizing essential cultural difference feeds the clash-of-civilizations frame (similarity 0.84)
• The Kite Runner’s binary oppositions calcify an America-versus-Afghanistan divide (similarity 0.84)
• The clash of civilizations thesis asserts Western values are alien to Islamic societies. (similarity 0.83)
• Even realist think tanks opposed the clash of civilizations narrative because al-Qaeda weaponized it. (similarity 0.83)
• The clash-of-civilizations thesis converted political conflict into cultural racialization (similarity 0.83)
• Post-Cold War conflict was framed by Huntington as civilizational cultural clash (similarity 0.83)
• Cultural brilliance can coincide with and mask political and military decadence (similarity 0.83)
• Human-rights discourse has replaced civilizational rhetoric as war’s legitimation (similarity 0.82)
• Popular ‘us versus them’ discourse can be recoded to support the power bloc (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks #expands (0.92) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421
• The clash-of-civilizations paradigm serves to prolong dominance #expands (0.87) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 233
• Civilizational identity is fluid, not fixed or walled off #complicates (0.85) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 232
• Abandoning humanity’s common origin makes natural war between races plausible #qualifies (0.75)
• Formerly colonized peoples risk adopting the dominating discourse against themselves #expands (0.72)