Fragmentation or antagonism? Or both?

[Guest pappajacks]

I was speaking to someone the other day about politics, and he believes the world has fragmented into antagonistic cultures since 9/11.

 

I tend to disagree. While the world does seem to be fragmenting, the word antagonistic may be too strong a way to describe it. There are certainly differences in how some countries are sprinting along in progress yet others stay mired in poverty and are wanting in basic needs. East, West, North, South, 1st World, 3rd World… there is constant grouping and regrouping, and it looks like America vs. Iraq will bring on yet another fragmentation of allies (Western vs. non-Western?). Some fragmenting need not be antagonistic in my mind.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

I had to do a presentation over this. The point I ended up arguing was not the fragmentation vs. unification or antagonist bits, but I presented the whole bit as the world unifying and fragmenting all at the same time. We've got a world market, we've got big military alliances, we've got economic organizations. In the midst, or beneath them, we have groups raging against them. We have fragmentary groups that don't want to be unified which is where the antagonism comes in. The Middle East doesn't want to be associated with the West. If they hate us so much, then they ought to quit selling us oil. Easy as that. But, like I said, it's a fragmentation within a unification movement.