Clash of the Articles

Francis Fukuyama's 'The end of history?' argues that history is not comprised of actions, but of battles of ideology, and that the ideology of democracy has won, resulting in the end of 'history'. Fukuyama believes that democracy will be the only way to go and that the world will become westernised. On the other hand, Samuel Huntington's article 'The Clash of Civilisations?' argues that nations will instead fight about their customs and differences in ways of life.

While the two do not agree with eachother, both arguments have good and bad points. Fukuyama argues that democracy and other ways of life cannot work together. He argues that Democracy is the best way of life, but Huntington argues that with the attempted westernisation of the world, nations are fighting harder to keep their own ways. I would agree with this. Coming from a country with a strong multicultural society, I find that immigrants who are faced with such a strong pressure to conform to the west, make an effort to hold on to their beliefs and practices from back home. Even when their home starts to change, they want to hold on to what they had, almost as if to defy the west and keep a part of themselves. That is what they believe in and have grown up with, so they are not going to change to democracy overnight and suddenly see how 'good' it is. Some of the actions and ways of life carried out by those living in democratic societies goes directly against what the immigrants believe, so how can they think that it is good, or even better for them?

Some may argue that there are countries who live with a mix of democracy and other ways of life, such as Islam. Some places can, but some can't. It has been argued that Turkey is an example of this, but Huntington says that Turkey is the perfect example of a torn country. The west won't accept them until they cut out Islam, and the the Islamic nations won't accept them until they cut out the westernisation of their country. And they are having trouble making the two ways of life work together. Some members of government are trying to get religion out of the public altogether, by banning head scarves and religious wear from government buildings. And some are trying to enforce religion in a very strong way, almost to the point of extremism. Clearly they are having problems reconciling Islam and democracy.

Some nations can make it work, but they are usually democratic secular nations, where people can freely practice their religions, but the nation is not ruled by any religion. While I think this is a good way of doing things, not everyone does, and that's up to them. We cannot enforce democracy on nations who do not want it. That seems to be compeltely beside the point of democracy. 'We want you to be free, but we're giving you no choice'. Maybe the western world should just butt out of other people's business. Maybe other nations will ask for our help when they want it. But then there is the problem of standing by when there are things happening that the west believes to be wrong and against human rights. This is where the clash of civilisations occurs. Where do we draw the line?

Show Me The Money (and the Guild)

I thought Chris Mooney's article Blogonomics was interesting and looked at blogs in a way I hadn't thought about before. I hadn't ever considered the economic rights of bloggers. Of course I've heard about successful bloggers who have made money from their blog such as Perez Hilton, or who have gained book deals from their writing, and those who write a blog as their job like opinion writers. But I hadn't thought about those whose blogs are making money for someone else.

It only seems fair that if someone can sell advertising, or charge people to come and see what you have written, you should get some compensation for it. And from there it only makes further sense that there should be some organisation to regulate the payment of bloggers. It would help to minimise unfair treatment and payment of bloggers, who are, after all, writers.

I know we've always been looking at bloggers as the citizen journalists of the future, and have known they play a huge part in the development of the internet and it's role in society. But now there's a new reason to keep watching them, and I know that it's sparked my interest, at least.