I never claimed otherwise.
I think you need to look at history to understand Huntington’s civilization map.
The United States and Canada are the decendents of the British Empire. After their independence, they were largely populated with Anglo and Germanic immigrants.
South America and Mexico are largely the product of Spanish and Portuguese colonization and immigration.
What we currently consider “Western Civilization” is for all intents and purposes, NATO. Former British Commonwealth nations like Austrialia, Canada and any European nation that would rather not be Soviet.
South American and North America are also geographically divided with just a thin peninsula connecting them.
Yes. I wrote a thesis on it and its effect on neoconservative foreign policy.
And, based on that, you equate Huntington’s theory, and/or neoconservative foreign policy itself, with “race war”?
I think the issue isn’t that people in Latin America are less white overall than, say, Europeans or European-descended Americans and Canadians. There is a historical paradox at work here; the indigenous peoples of Latin America were certainly exploited, and their lands ravaged for the abundant gold it contained. In fact, there was so much gold that in the century or two after the discovery there was very significant inflation due to the massive influx of gold into the European economy.
Yet, in contrast to what happened in the United States, the indigenous people generally survived by the millions, through intermarriage (and maybe through forced marriages, rape, or other direct exploitation of indigenous women–I am not an expert so I don’t know). It is true that almost everyone speaks Spanish or Portuguese, but even today the Euro-centric elements of the culture seem to emanate from the upper class, which is almost entirely white. Consider the skin tone of most Presidents of Mexico, for example, and contrast it with the average factory worker or day laborer. So to include these countries as a whole under the umbrella of Western Civ seems potentially unfair to the original inhabitants and their progeny.
Mainly because there were a lot more of them to begin with – that is, the pre-Columbian population south of the Rio Grande was much larger than north of it.
No- based on the text of the book itself. I was concerned with the practical implications of the theory when I wrote, not the philosophical ones.
Look at it this way. What does the Klan do nowadays? It tries to scare mainstream white America into believing that the negroes/Mexicans/Jews/whoever are going to impregnate their daughters and flood their borders, and that one day they’ll wake up and be the minority themselves.
Then it offers a solution: bring back the good ol’ days when the darkies knew their place (or send them home).
This is essentially the same refrain Huntington offered, only on a macro scale.