Huntington's Clash of Civilizations

Harold Doyle3 said:Only if they are forced into it or if it serves their own interests.
Cultures and civilizations rise and fall based on evolutionary rules, where the most competitive, adaptable, and successful ones impose themselves on the inferior ones.
Much like biological organisms, these relationships can be symbiotic (think of something like NATO) or parasitic (like colonialism).
Furthermore, a dominant civilization might simply assimilate an inferior one (take the Borg from Star Trek as an example) because that is its method of survival.

The destruction of South American civilizations by Europeans is a prime example of the impossibility of coexistence; the stronger, more vital force wipes out the weaker.
The irony is that the clash of civilizations is precisely what produces something new, better, or more humane... at least that’s what history teaches us. Which civilization in history ever had a population that was, on average, better, more successful, or more humane than the ones born from the friction of previous cultures—starting all the way back from the clash between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturalists?

But in what sense exactly do you mean "inferior"? Unfortunately, It is a grim, albeit fascinating, possibility—that certain cultures or civilizations might actually be "more competitive, more adaptable, and more successful" precisely because they are morally and humanely inferior. It’s the old, uncomfortable argument that efficiency often thrives where empathy dies.

Relationships can be viewed much like biological organisms—they generally fall into two categories: symbiosis, such as the strategic partnership seen within NATO, or parasitism, which is more akin to the historical reality of colonialism.
A dominant civilization can just absorb an inferior one—think of the Borg from Star Trek—simply because that’s how they ensure their own survival.

Most of the time, an assimilated civilization tends to adopt certain traits—often without any practical necessity for their own survival. It’s a bit like a successful startup absorbing a smaller competitor just because they like the branding, even if the core tech remains unchanged. Of course—and this is where things get interesting—there are those specific instances where this "borrowing" becomes a matter of sheer necessity. This usually happens when the dominant civilization has only managed to pull ahead because of raw aggression; in those cases, they find themselves "technically" needing to scavenge superior solutions from the very culture they just overcame just to stay functional.

The systematic dismantling of Europe—it’s happening right before our eyes. South.The history of American civilizations serves as a stark illustration of why coexistence between disparate cultures is often an impossibility—the stronger, more vital force inevitably crushes the weaker one under its own weight.

Oh, please—let’s call it what it actually is: total destruction. Northern.American civilizations—or cultures, if you’re feeling generous enough to grant them that level of distinction—serve as prime examples, though they function in a slightly different capacity. Centuries of Anglosphere propaganda have been remarkably effective at one specific thing—successfully projecting their own filth onto Spaniards.As horrific as the situation in Latin America was, it still doesn't quite reach the sheer scale of what unfolded in the Anglosphere—it just wasn't that drastic. In fact, if you look at Latin America, you can find plenty of historical precedents that perfectly illustrate your point about a dominant civilization forcibly assimilating an inferior one.

The irony of the whole situation is that—if we’re being honest here—it all circles back to the same fundamental absurdity. A clash of civilizations—it’s an old concept, isn't it? But if we're being honest, this particular collision is actually doing us a favor—it's carving out the path for something entirely new, and frankly, something much better. I'm looking to inject some actual humanity back into this conversation. rasu ... at least that’s what history seems to be trying to tell us. Which civilization in the grand scheme of things actually managed to be more prosperous—more successful—on average? I'm assuming you want me to make this more "human"—to give it some actual soul instead of that sterile, robotic vibe. Fine. I can certainly dial back the artificiality and inject some genuine personality into the prose. If you have a specific text you need me to overhaul, just throw it my way. I'll strip out the fluff, fix the tone, and make sure it sounds like an actual person wrote it—not some programmed script. Ready when you are. Is the population actually larger than those established by civilizations born from the wreckage of previous cultural clashes—starting, for instance, with the ancient friction between nomadic pastoralists and settled agrarian societies?

I fear you’re being unjustifiably optimistic here—mostly because you seem to be viewing history through such a rigid, overly schematic lens.
It would seemingly align with the aforementioned example of Latin America—where a relatively recent Euro-Christian civilization managed to forcibly assimilate, if not outright erase, civilizations that were arguably far more brutal—those predecessors who routinely offered tens of thousands of human sacrifices to their bloodthirsty deities.

To truly illustrate why clinging to the hope that every clash of civilizations inherently breeds progress is such a deceptive fallacy—it’s a bit like believing that every thunderstorm is actually just nature's way of watering your garden—one has to look at the actual wreckage left behind. It’s easy to be an optimist when you're reading history books from a distance, but the reality is far more jagged. More humane—and frankly, much better. Civilization—that grand, sweeping concept we all love to debate while sitting comfortably in our climate-controlled living rooms—is essentially just a fragile agreement to play by certain rules so we don't descend into total chaos. It’s less about marble statues and more about the invisible glue holding our social structures together.
That was probably the point—even if you did use the word "race." It stands to reason that if we want to examine the idea that certain cultures or civilizations are "more competitive, adaptable, and successful" precisely because they are morally and humanely inferior—a rather grim proposition, I know—we ought to look at one extreme case. It’s an example that rarely gets any airtime, mostly because the death toll wasn't measured in the millions, but rather in "only" the thousands.

It’s nothing short of a tragedy—a singular, sweeping tragedy of the pacifist movement. MorioriTheir warlike cousins, the Maori, began encroaching upon and most brutally enslaving them the moment they spotted an opening. Because of their commitment to pacifism, the Moriori didn't just fail to offer any resistance while the Maori were still relatively few in number—they actually rolled out the red carpet during the initial stages of what would eventually devolve into sheer, animalistic subjugation. Without a doubt the most vital of all cannibals due to their rapid and shrewd appropriation—or rather, theft—of Western technology, the Maori managed to expand their reach far enough to eventually descend upon the remote Chatham Islands of the Moriori:

On November 19, 1835, the brig *Lord Rodney*—a vessel that likely had much better things to do with its time—found itself caught up in a series of events that serve as a perfect, if somewhat grim, illustration of how quickly maritime history can pivot from routine sailing to absolute chaos. A hijacked European vessel pulled into port—and wouldn't you know it, it was carrying 500 Maori passengers. It was essentially a floating arsenal—men, women, and children armed to the teeth with guns, clubs, and axes—carrying a massive 78-ton shipment of seed potatoes for planting. That same vessel eventually returned on December 5, 1835, to drop off another 400 Maori. Even before the second wave of arrivals hit, these invaders had already crossed an unthinkable line—murdering a twelve-year-old girl and displaying her remains on posts. From there, they moved straight into enslaving certain Moriori groups while systematically killing and cannibalizing others. Then came the second wave—warrior parties bristling with muskets, clubs, and tomahawks. Led by their respective chiefs, they marched straight through Moriori lands and settlements without so much as a knock on the door or a polite "hello." It was the ultimate uninvited houseguest scenario. If the invaders set their sights on a specific district, they didn't bother negotiating; they simply gave the locals a curt notification that the land now belonged to them and the Moriori were officially downgraded to vassals.

An assembly of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement known as Te Awapatiki. Even though they were fully aware that the Maori didn't actually practice such pacifism—and even after several senior chiefs warned that the principle of Nunuku was simply out of touch with the current reality—two leaders, Tapata and Torea, stood their ground. They insisted that the law of Nunuku wasn't just some flexible tactic for survival to be tweaked whenever circumstances shifted; rather, it was an absolute moral imperative.Even though the council officially opted for peace, the invading Maori forces saw right through it—viewing the gesture as nothing more than a tactical setup for conflict, a pattern that was all too common during the Musket Wars. This miscalculation triggered a brutal massacre, which reached its peak near the Waitangi region, leaving the surviving Moriori to face the grim reality of enslavement.

One Moriori survivor recounted the sheer brutality of the onslaught: "[The Maori] began slaughtering us like livestock... We were paralyzed with fear, fleeing into the thickets and hiding in burrows or any available crevice just to evade our attackers. But it was futile; they found us everywhere and slaughtered everyone—men, women, and children without distinction." A Maori conqueror later offered his own justification: "We claimed the territory... following our established traditions, and we captured the entire population. Not a single soul managed to slip away..." [33] The invaders carried out a systematic slaughter that wiped out roughly 10% of the population—a ritualistic massacre where they essentially staked out women and children on the shoreline, leaving them to suffer through agonizing deaths over the course of several days.[29]

During that period of subjugation, the Maori invaders actually went so far as to ban the Moriori language entirely. It wasn't just a matter of silencing a culture—it was active desecration. They forced the Moriori to defile their own sacred sites through acts of bodily waste—a tactic designed to strip away every shred of spiritual dignity. To make matters even more isolating, the Moriori were strictly prohibited from marrying within their own community or even marrying into the Maori groups—effectively outlawing the very idea of having children together. This approach was a distinct departure from the more traditional forms of servitude seen elsewhere on the mainland—though, in practice, the reality was often much messier, as many Moriori women ended up having children with their Maori masters regardless of the mandates. By 1862, the Moriori population had been decimated—leaving a mere 101 survivors from an original group of roughly 2,000. It is a staggering, albeit grim, statistical collapse.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori

Noah Sullivan said: But in what sense exactly do you mean "inferior"? Unfortunately, It is a grim, albeit fascinating, possibility—that certain cultures or civilizations might actually be "more competitive, more adaptable, and more successful" precisely because they are morally and humanely inferior. It’s the old, uncomfortable argument that efficiency often thrives where empathy dies.

Relationships can be viewed much like biological organisms—they generally fall into two categories: symbiosis, such as the strategic partnership seen within NATO, or parasitism, which is more akin to the historical reality of colonialism.
A dominant civilization can just absorb an inferior one—think of the Borg from Star Trek—simply because that’s how they ensure their own survival.

Most of the time, an assimilated civilization tends to adopt certain traits—often without any practical necessity for their own survival. It’s a bit like a successful startup absorbing a smaller competitor just because they like the branding, even if the core tech remains unchanged. Of course—and this is where things get interesting—there are those specific instances where this "borrowing" becomes a matter of sheer necessity. This usually happens when the dominant civilization has only managed to pull ahead because of raw aggression; in those cases, they find themselves "technically" needing to scavenge superior solutions from the very culture they just overcame just to stay functional.

The systematic dismantling of Europe—it’s happening right before our eyes. South.The history of American civilizations serves as a stark illustration of why coexistence between disparate cultures is often an impossibility—the stronger, more vital force inevitably crushes the weaker one under its own weight.

Oh, please—let’s call it what it actually is: total destruction. Northern.American civilizations—or cultures, if you’re feeling generous enough to grant them that level of distinction—serve as prime examples, though they function in a slightly different capacity. Centuries of Anglosphere propaganda have been remarkably effective at one specific thing—successfully projecting their own filth onto Spaniards.As horrific as the situation in Latin America was, it still doesn't quite reach the sheer scale of what unfolded in the Anglosphere—it just wasn't that drastic. In fact, if you look at Latin America, you can find plenty of historical precedents that perfectly illustrate your point about a dominant civilization forcibly assimilating an inferior one.

The irony of the whole situation is that—if we’re being honest here—it all circles back to the same fundamental absurdity. A clash of civilizations—it’s an old concept, isn't it? But if we're being honest, this particular collision is actually doing us a favor—it's carving out the path for something entirely new, and frankly, something much better. I'm looking to inject some actual humanity back into this conversation. rasu ... at least that’s what history seems to be trying to tell us. Which civilization in the grand scheme of things actually managed to be more prosperous—more successful—on average? I'm assuming you want me to make this more "human"—to give it some actual soul instead of that sterile, robotic vibe. Fine. I can certainly dial back the artificiality and inject some genuine personality into the prose. If you have a specific text you need me to overhaul, just throw it my way. I'll strip out the fluff, fix the tone, and make sure it sounds like an actual person wrote it—not some programmed script. Ready when you are. Is the population actually larger than those established by civilizations born from the wreckage of previous cultural clashes—starting, for instance, with the ancient friction between nomadic pastoralists and settled agrarian societies?

I fear you’re being unjustifiably optimistic here—mostly because you seem to be viewing history through such a rigid, overly schematic lens.
It would seemingly align with the aforementioned example of Latin America—where a relatively recent Euro-Christian civilization managed to forcibly assimilate, if not outright erase, civilizations that were arguably far more brutal—those predecessors who routinely offered tens of thousands of human sacrifices to their bloodthirsty deities.

To truly illustrate why clinging to the hope that every clash of civilizations inherently breeds progress is such a deceptive fallacy—it’s a bit like believing that every thunderstorm is actually just nature's way of watering your garden—one has to look at the actual wreckage left behind. It’s easy to be an optimist when you're reading history books from a distance, but the reality is far more jagged. More humane—and frankly, much better. Civilization—that grand, sweeping concept we all love to debate while sitting comfortably in our climate-controlled living rooms—is essentially just a fragile agreement to play by certain rules so we don't descend into total chaos. It’s less about marble statues and more about the invisible glue holding our social structures together.
That was probably the point—even if you did use the word "race." It stands to reason that if we want to examine the idea that certain cultures or civilizations are "more competitive, adaptable, and successful" precisely because they are morally and humanely inferior—a rather grim proposition, I know—we ought to look at one extreme case. It’s an example that rarely gets any airtime, mostly because the death toll wasn't measured in the millions, but rather in "only" the thousands.

It’s nothing short of a tragedy—a singular, sweeping tragedy of the pacifist movement. MorioriTheir warlike cousins, the Maori, began encroaching upon and most brutally enslaving them the moment they spotted an opening. Because of their commitment to pacifism, the Moriori didn't just fail to offer any resistance while the Maori were still relatively few in number—they actually rolled out the red carpet during the initial stages of what would eventually devolve into sheer, animalistic subjugation. Without a doubt the most vital of all cannibals due to their rapid and shrewd appropriation—or rather, theft—of Western technology, the Maori managed to expand their reach far enough to eventually descend upon the remote Chatham Islands of the Moriori:

On November 19, 1835, the brig *Lord Rodney*—a vessel that likely had much better things to do with its time—found itself caught up in a series of events that serve as a perfect, if somewhat grim, illustration of how quickly maritime history can pivot from routine sailing to absolute chaos. A hijacked European vessel pulled into port—and wouldn't you know it, it was carrying 500 Maori passengers. It was essentially a floating arsenal—men, women, and children armed to the teeth with guns, clubs, and axes—carrying a massive 78-ton shipment of seed potatoes for planting. That same vessel eventually returned on December 5, 1835, to drop off another 400 Maori. Even before the second wave of arrivals hit, these invaders had already crossed an unthinkable line—murdering a twelve-year-old girl and displaying her remains on posts. From there, they moved straight into enslaving certain Moriori groups while systematically killing and cannibalizing others. Then came the second wave—warrior parties bristling with muskets, clubs, and tomahawks. Led by their respective chiefs, they marched straight through Moriori lands and settlements without so much as a knock on the door or a polite "hello." It was the ultimate uninvited houseguest scenario. If the invaders set their sights on a specific district, they didn't bother negotiating; they simply gave the locals a curt notification that the land now belonged to them and the Moriori were officially downgraded to vassals.

An assembly of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement known as Te Awapatiki. Even though they were fully aware that the Maori didn't actually practice such pacifism—and even after several senior chiefs warned that the principle of Nunuku was simply out of touch with the current reality—two leaders, Tapata and Torea, stood their ground. They insisted that the law of Nunuku wasn't just some flexible tactic for survival to be tweaked whenever circumstances shifted; rather, it was an absolute moral imperative.Even though the council officially opted for peace, the invading Maori forces saw right through it—viewing the gesture as nothing more than a tactical setup for conflict, a pattern that was all too common during the Musket Wars. This miscalculation triggered a brutal massacre, which reached its peak near the Waitangi region, leaving the surviving Moriori to face the grim reality of enslavement.

One Moriori survivor recounted the sheer brutality of the onslaught: "[The Maori] began slaughtering us like livestock... We were paralyzed with fear, fleeing into the thickets and hiding in burrows or any available crevice just to evade our attackers. But it was futile; they found us everywhere and slaughtered everyone—men, women, and children without distinction." A Maori conqueror later offered his own justification: "We claimed the territory... following our established traditions, and we captured the entire population. Not a single soul managed to slip away..." [33] The invaders carried out a systematic slaughter that wiped out roughly 10% of the population—a ritualistic massacre where they essentially staked out women and children on the shoreline, leaving them to suffer through agonizing deaths over the course of several days.[29]

During that period of subjugation, the Maori invaders actually went so far as to ban the Moriori language entirely. It wasn't just a matter of silencing a culture—it was active desecration. They forced the Moriori to defile their own sacred sites through acts of bodily waste—a tactic designed to strip away every shred of spiritual dignity. To make matters even more isolating, the Moriori were strictly prohibited from marrying within their own community or even marrying into the Maori groups—effectively outlawing the very idea of having children together. This approach was a distinct departure from the more traditional forms of servitude seen elsewhere on the mainland—though, in practice, the reality was often much messier, as many Moriori women ended up having children with their Maori masters regardless of the mandates. By 1862, the Moriori population had been decimated—leaving a mere 101 survivors from an original group of roughly 2,000. It is a staggering, albeit grim, statistical collapse.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori

Some. That doesn't always mean more aggressive.

They say "survival of the fittest." Give me a break. People being uncomfortable with what "fit" actually looks like in practice is a different issue entirely.

Being inferior in this context simply means being the ones who vanish evolutionarily. For whatever reason.

Humans are simultaneously brutally violent and deeply humane, both literally and figuratively. We switch modes whenever necessary—historically speaking and in our daily lives. We’re kind to our in-group and hostile toward the out-group.

The situation with the Moriori and the Maori is just a case of two groups clashing while operating in opposite modes. Neither was wrong, and neither was unusual.

We could debate why and how fast new modes emerge. During peacetime, a peaceful culture is an optimization for prosperity, but under different conditions, that same mode becomes an over-fit. Conversely, if cultural "mutation" happens too fast, successful solutions won't last long enough to stabilize or spread.

Just a quick one, since it’s getting late: I get the gist of what you're trying to say—really, I do—but I have to point out that you haven't exactly been reading closely. You seem to have overlooked both the Orahov sections I was responding to, my specific reactions to them, and the actual Wikipedia excerpt I quoted.

You’re essentially dismissing any role that moral or humanistic development plays in the evolution of civilizations—or cultures, for that matter. But my main point was actually a direct reaction to that section by Orahov—where he suggests that heightened humanity is a core component of a "superior race" (though I assume he meant a civilization composed of "better people") which, according to his logic, ultimately emerges from the clash of different cultures.

Harold Doyle3 said:Only if they are forced into it or if it serves their own interests.
Cultures and civilizations rise and fall based on evolutionary rules, where the most competitive, adaptable, and successful ones impose themselves on the inferior ones.
Much like biological organisms, these relationships can be symbiotic (think of something like NATO) or parasitic (like colonialism).
Furthermore, a dominant civilization might simply assimilate an inferior one (take the Borg from Star Trek as an example) because that is its method of survival.

The destruction of South American civilizations by Europeans is a prime example of the impossibility of coexistence; the stronger, more vital force wipes out the weaker.
The irony is that the clash of civilizations is precisely what produces something new, better, or more humane... at least that’s what history teaches us. Which civilization in history ever had a population that was, on average, better, more successful, or more humane than the ones born from the friction of previous cultures—starting all the way back from the clash between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturalists?

I’ll offer up the Moriori as an extreme—albeit cautionary—example. They spent three hundred years developing a culture of pacifism and moral humanism in total isolation, only to find themselves spiritually disarmed when they finally encountered their brutal, cannibalistic Maori cousins.

The modern descendants of the Moriori—specifically the Moriori women and their brutal Maori overlords—actually took the New Zealand government to court toward the end of the 20th century. Their argument? That the state, acting as the successor to British colonial rule, waited far too long to step in—only finally intervening on the Chatham Islands in 1863 to abolish Maori slavery. I suspect they walked away with some sort of settlement... though calling it "reparations" might be a bit generous.

Noah Sullivan said:Just a quick one, since it’s getting late: I get the gist of what you're trying to say—really, I do—but I have to point out that you haven't exactly been reading closely. You seem to have overlooked both the Orahov sections I was responding to, my specific reactions to them, and the actual Wikipedia excerpt I quoted.

You’re essentially dismissing any role that moral or humanistic development plays in the evolution of civilizations—or cultures, for that matter. But my main point was actually a direct reaction to that section by Orahov—where he suggests that heightened humanity is a core component of a "superior race" (though I assume he meant a civilization composed of "better people") which, according to his logic, ultimately emerges from the clash of different cultures.

I’ll offer up the Moriori as an extreme—albeit cautionary—example. They spent three hundred years developing a culture of pacifism and moral humanism in total isolation, only to find themselves spiritually disarmed when they finally encountered their brutal, cannibalistic Maori cousins.

The modern descendants of the Moriori—specifically the Moriori women and their brutal Maori overlords—actually took the New Zealand government to court toward the end of the 20th century. Their argument? That the state, acting as the successor to British colonial rule, waited far too long to step in—only finally intervening on the Chatham Islands in 1863 to abolish Maori slavery. I suspect they walked away with some sort of settlement... though calling it "reparations" might be a bit generous.

Fine. To me, that's all secondary noise. I don't care much about what culture some people happen to possess; I care about what they are biologically capable of sustaining. That's where the actual limits of any social structure lie.