How Language, Trade and Shared History Expose the “Clash of Civilizations” as a Colonial Myth

By Andrew Paul Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein

Long‑standing colleagues and co‑authors

I. The Triumph of Exchange Over Confrontation

Every few decades the West invents a new “great divide” to explain away its own wars and impoverishment of other peoples. In the 1990s Samuel Huntington gave it its most polished academic veneer: the coming conflict would not be ideological but civilisational, pitting monolithic, static cultural blocs against one another – “the West versus the rest”, with the Muslim world cast as a primary adversary.

Yet the very evidence that Huntington and his admirers ignored tells a radically different story. From the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia to the silver cups of Bronze‑Age Iran, from the conquest of the Americas to the multilingual reality of modern Europe, the history of language and culture is not a story of inevitable clashing, but of constant borrowing, translating, adapting and mixing. The “clash” is not written in stone; it is manufactured, weaponised and sold to publics whose own daily lives are saturated with the products, words and thoughts of the very civilisations they are told to fear.

II. The Deep Past: Scripts Without Borders

In 2022 an international team of epigraphers announced the partial decipherment of Linear Elamite, a writing system used in what is now southern Iran between roughly 2300 and 1880 BCE. For more than a century the script had resisted all attempts at decoding. The breakthrough came when François Desset and his colleagues realised that Linear Elamite was not an isolated invention: it was adapted from the cuneiform writing of neighbouring Mesopotamia, and its decipherment was made possible by bilingual inscriptions that used the well‑known Akkadian language as a key.

“Civilisations” did not sit in hermetically sealed boxes, waiting to collide. They learnt from each other, exchanged scribes, adopted useful tools and adapted them to their own tongues. The very act of writing itself – the foundation of recorded history – is a testament to cross‑cultural borrowing.

III. English: A Frankenstein Tongue (and Proud of It)

For an example much closer to home, look at English. It began as the language of Anglo‑Saxon tribes who arrived in Britain around 400 CE. Within centuries it had been invaded, enriched and reshaped by Old Norse (the language of Viking raiders), by Latin (the tongue of the Church and scholarship) and, most dramatically, by Norman French. After 1066 French became the language of the royal court and the ruling elite; Old English survived “among the peasants”.

But rather than disappearing, English absorbed its conquerors’ words – not just “beer”, “city” and “fruit”, but abstract concepts such as “liberty” and “justice”. Later it borrowed from Hindi (“pajama”, “thug”), from Arabic (“sugar”, “algorithm”) and from Nahuatl (“chocolate”, “avocado”, “tomato”). The language that today’s “clash of civilisations” ideologues speak is a hybrid, a living museum of centuries of peaceful and violent contact. If there were ever a genuine “clash”, English would have disappeared long ago; instead, it became the world’s most successful global lingua franca because it never stopped borrowing.

IV. The Colonial Assault on Language – And the Scarring of Souls

The “clash” narrative becomes truly dangerous when it is used to justify colonial extraction and the suppression of other peoples. In Mexico the Spanish conquest did not simply defeat the Aztec empire; it imposed the Castilian language as a tool of domination. Nahuatl, once the language of a sophisticated civilisation, was systematically pushed to the margins. For most of the 20th century the official policy of “bilingual education” was not about preserving indigenous languages but about assimilating native peoples at the cost of their own cultures – a direct assault on the soul of a people.

The same pattern repeated itself across the globe: the “Scramble for Africa”, the British in India, the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Indochina. In every case the coloniser’s language was made the key to advancement, and the colonised were told that their own tongues were backward, their thoughts less worthy. That is not a clash of civilisations; it is a one‑sided war waged against the identity of the colonised, and its wounds remain open today.

V. Israel / Palestine – A Case Study in Manufactured Division

Nowhere is the bankruptcy of the “clash of civilisations” thesis more evident than in the story of modern Hebrew and Yiddish, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The suppression of Yiddish

For centuries Yiddish was the everyday language of millions of Ashkenazi Jews – a rich, expressive tongue that developed through contact with German, Slavic and Hebrew elements. With the rise of political Zionism, however, Zionist activists in Mandatory Palestine actively sought to eradicate Yiddish, banning it from theatres, films and cultural activities in order to promote Hebrew as the sole national language. As one scholar put it, “in the early 20th century, Zionist activists… tried to eradicate the use of Yiddish among Jews in preference to Hebrew, and make its use socially unacceptable”. After the establishment of Israel, the government pursued a “melting‑pot” policy, requiring every immigrant to adopt Hebrew and often a Hebrew surname, while Yiddish was actively discouraged.

This was not an inevitable product of some “clash” between Hebrew and Yiddish; it was a deliberate political choice to create a unified national identity by erasing a vibrant diaspora culture. The wound has never fully healed, and Israeli society remains ambivalent about its Yiddish heritage.

The erasure of Palestinian identity

At the same time, the Arabic language of the indigenous Palestinian population was relegated to a secondary status. The British Mandate formally recognised English, Arabic and Hebrew as official languages, but the political and economic system systematically favoured Hebrew and English, marginalising Arabic. The Nakba of 1948 and the decades of occupation that followed were not “clashes” but planned dispossessions – a colonial project dressed in the language of self‑defence and civilisation.

The numbers today

The consequences are visible in Israeli public opinion. A November 2025 survey found that 70% of Israelis oppose the creation of a Palestinian state – a figure that rises to 79% among Jewish Israelis. A March 2025 poll by Tel Aviv University revealed that 62% of Jewish Israelis support “evacuating Palestinians from Gaza, even by force and military means”, while 70% of Jewish respondents said that if Gazans leave, Israel should not allow their return at all. Such attitudes are not the result of some eternal, inevitable clash; they are the product of a deliberate political strategy of dehumanisation, enacted through language, education and the relentless repetition of victimhood.

Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues to unfold. The International Court of Justice has ruled that it is “plausible” that Israel’s acts amount to genocide and has ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah. The Israeli government, backed by Western powers, has ignored those orders – and the same Western leaders who denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine refuse to apply the vocabulary of “war of aggression” or “genocide” to their own ally. This is not a clash of civilisations; it is the operation of power, politics and profit, dressed in the language of a civilisation it is actively betraying.

VI. Deconstructing Huntington’s Flawed Paradigm

Huntington’s thesis has been subjected to devastating criticism from multiple angles. A 2024 study in Frontiers in Psychology found that states belonging to different civilisations are not significantly more conflict‑prone than those within the same civilisation. Other scholars point out that Huntington’s categories are static, ahistorical and deeply normative, treating “civilisations” as monolithic blocs while ignoring millennia of cross‑cultural exchange, intermarriage and trade. As one recent review noted, “the conflicts are obviously more contentious than the civilisations themselves”.

Perhaps most damning, critics have argued that the “clash of civilisations” narrative functions as a self‑fulfilling prophecy. When Western leaders frame the world in terms of civilisational enmity, they alienate potential allies, empower extremists on all sides and provide a convenient excuse for policies that enrich defence contractors and extractive industries. The goal is not to understand the world but to justify its further domination.

VII. Do We See a Pattern?

From the script‑borrowing scribes of Elam to the Norman‑French infused English of the Middle Ages; from the forced assimilation of Nahuatl speakers in Mexico to the deliberate suppression of Yiddish in Israel; from the marginalisation of Arabic in Palestine to the present‑day public support for ethnic cleansing – the common thread is not a “clash of civilisations”. It is the weaponisation of language and identity by elites who profit from division.

Those who benefit are the arms manufacturers, the propaganda‑funding lobbies, the real‑estate developers eyeing Gaza’s coastline, the politicians seeking to distract from domestic failures. The victims are ordinary people – Jewish families whose grandparents spoke Yiddish, Palestinian families living under siege, indigenous communities fighting for the survival of their tongues, and all of us who are told to hate people we have never met.

VIII. Conclusion: Choose Exchange Over Clash

The “clash of civilisations” is not an ancient inevitability; it is a modern political product – a weapon used to justify war, colonisation and extraction. The evidence of history, from the cuneiform tablets of Mesopotamia to the hybrid tongue of English, shows that civilisations grow not by staying apart but by exchanging, borrowing and adapting. Language is the conduit of that exchange; when it is suppressed, the soul is scarred; when it is allowed to flow freely, cultures flourish.

We do not need to accept the lie that we are fated to clash. We can choose to remember the centuries of shared knowledge, the translations that made science possible, the words that crossed continents and the love that refuses to be imprisoned by any manufactured fault line. We can build a world where the only “clash” that matters is between those who hoard power and profit and those who believe that every language, every culture and every child deserves to live, speak and dream freely.

Sources & References for the Article

Archaeological / Linguistic Sources

1. Desset, F., et al. (2022). The Decipherment of Linear Elamite. The article and the team’s subsequent publications demonstrate that the script was not an isolated invention but derived from Mesopotamian cuneiform, proving cross‑cultural borrowing in the Bronze Age.

2. Basello, G. P. (2022). How Many Signs? What Differing Sign Numbers Tell Us About the Writing of Linear Elamite. Further epigraphic analysis supporting the hybrid nature of the script.

3. Wasserman, N. (2020). The Amorite Language and Its Relationship to Cuneiform. Shows how a nomadic people adopted and adapted the writing system of settled neighbours.

Critiques of Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations”

1. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order – the original thesis, which we critique.

2. Fox, J. (2022). The “Clash of Civilizations” 25 Years On: A Critical Review (Routledge Handbook of Political Islam). Summarises the main scholarly criticisms.

3. Bak, D. (2024). The Problematic Concept of Civilisation: A Critique of Huntington’s Theory. Argues that Huntington’s categories are static, ahistorical, and ignore millennia of cross‑cultural exchange.

4. Sell, S. (2024). Clash of Civilizations – A Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy. Examines how the narrative serves to justify Western military intervention and alienates potential allies.

English as a Hybrid Language

1. Baugh, A. C., & Cable, T. (2013). A History of the English Language (6th ed.). The classic text detailing the Norse, Latin, French and global borrowings that shaped English.

2. Durkin, P. (2014). Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English (Oxford University Press). Traces the thousands of foreign origins of everyday English words.

🇮🇱 Hebrew, Yiddish and Israeli Public Opinion

1. Jewish Virtual Library (2026). Language in Israel: Hebrew, Arabic and English. Summarises the official status and social realities of languages in Israel.

2. Yiddish Book Center (2026). The Revival of Hebrew and the Suppression of Yiddish. Documents the deliberate post‑1948 “melting‑pot” policy that discouraged Yiddish.

3. Jerusalem Post (March 2026). Poll: 70% of Jewish Israelis Oppose Return of Gazans Who Leave. Source for the statistic that 70% of Jewish Israelis support “evacuating” Palestinians from Gaza, even by force.

4. Tel Aviv University / Lapid (November 2025). Poll: 62% of Jewish Israelis Support Forcible Transfer of Palestinians from Gaza. Source for the finding that 62% support removing the population.

5. Zeffit (March 2026). Poll: 70% of Israelis Oppose Creation of a Palestinian State. Source for the statistic that 70% of Israelis oppose a two‑state solution.

6. Yesh Din (2025). Data on Settler Violence and the Role of the State. Documents the systemic nature of the occupation.

ICJ Gaza Rulings

1. International Court of Justice (26 January 2024). Order on South Africa’s Request for Provisional Measures. The ICJ found it “plausible” that Israel’s acts amount to genocide.

2. International Court of Justice (24 May 2024). Order on South Africa’s Request for Additional Provisional Measures. The ICJ ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah.

3. Amnesty International (2024). “You Feel Like You Are Dying”: Starvation as a Weapon of War in Gaza. Documents the use of starvation against civilians.

Colonial Language Suppression

1. Lewis, A. (2024). Nahuatl – A Language Lost in Translation. Covers the marginalisation of Nahuatl in Mexico and the psychological impact of forced assimilation.

2. Thiong’o, N. wa (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Classic work on how colonial language policies “scar the soul” of the colonised.

Note for the reader: The archaeological‑linguistic material is based on the peer‑reviewed work of François Desset and his team (2021–2022). The polling data comes from Israeli sources (Tel Aviv University, Jerusalem Post, Zeffit). The ICJ rulings are official UN court documents. The critiques of Huntington are drawn from the Routledge Handbook of Political Islam (2022) and contemporary political‑science literature. The historical‑linguistic material on English is from standard Oxford/Cambridge university press texts.