Do you agree with the author of the Clash of Civilizations, Samuel P. Huntington?

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington

no I do not agree with that statement. Otherwise everything in the world would be boiling, wars with everyone...the world would be dead if that statement was true. The West has indeed won by superiority of its ideas...not sure about religion thou.

Sounds like Mr Huntington got it basically right.

Christianity was largely imposed on other nations during colonisation. The superiority of western technology, which led to the ability to conquer other nations, was due as much to accidents of geography as anything else.

On the other hand, Europe did go through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The West may not have won the world with ideas, but some of its ideas have made the world a slightly better place to live in that it otherwise might have been.

Christianity was largely imposed on other nations during colonisation. The superiority of western technology, which led to the ability to conquer other nations, was due as much to accidents of geography as anything else.
I agree with that. But bear in mind that although western technology was superior to that of the native populations of the Americas and elsewhere, it was NOT superior in the sixteenth century (that century of exploration and conquest) to the technologies of the Middle East or the Orient.

The Christianising of Amerindians and Filipinos in that century was happening at the same time as the Islamising of the East Indies (modern Indonesia).

Iberian colonisation was the product of the explorer, the missionary, and the soldier of fortune. The technological revolution that began in eighteenth century Britain enabled that country, and subsequently America, to exert a military-industrial dominance of a mightier kind.

Overdose:

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

Not just the West... all countries with any influence have used organized violence to gain that influence. To single out the West is rather selective and unfair.

It's just an accident of history, as well as geography, which has already been pointed out. The Ottoman Empire was a contender right up until the beginning of the 20th century. The Mongols actually invaded Europe and many historians believe they would have conquered the place if they had not abruptly turned around. So did the Moors.

China and India both had their day and they were as powerful as Europe was in those eras.

Europe would have self-destructed by now if they hadn't gotten to North America before the local inhabitants invented civilization. Not that the Aztecs and Incas were any match for European military technology, it's just that a millennium or two of even a Bronze Age civilization had stripped Central and South America of its natural resources. What is now the USA and Canada was the only underpopulated, resource-rich area left to be exploited.

The USA is the economic hub of "the West." Now that we've started our downward spiral, somebody else will get their turn. It could be a second chance for India or China. Or a surprise might pop up out of some place like Brazil or Indonesia.

This too shall pass.

no I do not agree with that statement. Otherwise everything in the world would be boiling, wars with everyone...the world would be dead if that statement was true. The West has indeed won by superiority of its ideas...not sure about religion thou.

Would you fight 500lbs gorilla with your bare fists? I don't think so. Before boiling begins, there is some kind of cost-benefit analysis is going on. People, generally are not suicidal.

Overdose:

Not just the West... all countries with any influence have used organized violence to gain that influence. To single out the West is rather selective and unfair.

To give the West is due as the champion (in the sense of being the most effective) of violence and coercion is not fair?

But bear in mind that although western technology was superior to that of the native populations of the Americas and elsewhere, it was NOT superior in the sixteenth century (that century of exploration and conquest) to the technologies of the Middle East or the Orient.

Which probably explains why China and India weren't conquered by Europeans in the sixteenth century.

The Christianising of Amerindians and Filipinos in that century was happening at the same time as the Islamising of the East Indies (modern Indonesia).

Islam began to spread in the 12th century in northern Sumatra and soon Muslim kingdoms were establishd in Java, Sumatra and mainland Malaysia. Despite the colonization of the Malay world, Islam spread in that area covering present day Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Phililppines and southern Thailand, and is still continuing in islands farther east.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/woi_history.html#21