is clash of civs the one where he states that cultural differences (7 major civilizations or something) make war inevitable?

No, he says the world has moved from being characterized primarily by ideological conflict (the Cold War) to one that is primarily characterized by cultural/civilization conflict. He traces most of the major conflicts in the world to being at the fault lines of culture, where major civilizations overlap.

I don't agree with everything Huntington writes but most people who bash Clash of Civs have never bothered to read it. He was a brilliant political scientist.

i havnt read, but id be interested in seeing how he places certain areas and peoples in one "civilization" and leaves others out. I would think things are too complicated. (as i said never read this, but I have recollections from my international relations class in undergrad)

Well people who hem and haw against any categorization of anything whatsoever will nitpick his piece endlessly, and that's mainly where the criticism lies. Huntington defines civilization as the highest cultural grouping people have before humans separate themselves from other species. He never ever says that these categories are homogeneous entities without important cultural differences within them. He says there are eight major civilizations: - Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and (possibly) African. But he does not by many means suggest these are the only civilizational groupings. The most important conflicts he says will be where these particular civilizations overlap. I think the "war on terror" and the civil wars of the 1990s have largely proven Huntington to be correct.

The things I disagree with are the parts where he implies that many non-Western civilizations are not ready or less able to adapt to democracy. In his essay about Hispanic immigration in the US he says that they compromise America's values and don't assimilate into the culture. Kind of a douchebag.

Non-Western cultures being less able (I would assume more for lack of desire than capacity) to adopt to Western democracy than Western culture isn't really inflammatory... unless I'm missing something, because I'm not seeing the inherent implication that this characteristic makes them inferior cultures for it.

He's not exactly wrong about that point either. Not many democracies have indigenously sprung forth from non-western parts of the world. Those that have don't work exceedingly well. Democracy works better in cultures which have a long experience with the Enlightenment. This just isn't the case for most cultures outside of Europe. The fact is most of Latin America has been under some form of military rule for much of the 20th century. That's not to say though that his point about immigration is valid.

"The things I disagree with are the parts where he implies that many non-Western civilizations are not ready or less able to adapt to democracy."

I don't think that opinion is all that controversial. Nor do I think it implies the superiority of Western Culture, in itself. In the West we take our liberal attitudes for granted, as if it were the most natural way of thinking. Take for example the emphasis on the individual in the west. From our perspective this is view as morally righteous, but in other cultures the concept is viewed as corrupting as it overrides older loyalties such as to the family, the tribe, religion (or other larger social units). But individualism is a core part of democracy, as we in the west know it. It is almost a cultural prerequisite for democracy. Furthermore we assume that democracy is desirable. And for us it is. Our democratic systems of governments provide political cohesion and stability, but this is not necessarily true for other cultures/societies. Democracy could in some circumstances be destabilizing, and not of great benefit.\

"In his essay about Hispanic immigration in the US he says that they compromise America's values and don't assimilate into the culture."

George Friedman shares similar views. In his book "The Next 100 Years" he postulates that the border region of Mexico and the United States could conceivably become part of Mexico again one day. That some of the immigrants who live in that area, are more likely to maintain older loyalties, especially as Mexican friends and family are so close by, and thus still see themselves as Mexican. Wheres those Latin Americans who live further away from the border are more likely to assimilate and see themselves as American.

This is not to denigrate Mexicans but is rather a product of human nature. Once the situation was the other way around. Texas and California we part of Mexico and it was the Americans who were the immigrants, but immigrants who were not interested in assimilating with Mexico.

Is this really true of Mexico and the United States, speaking for myself, I honestly don't know if it is true, but I can appreciate the reasoning.

First of all I don't think I phrased his views very well. Second, how many of you actually read the articles? I think you might be more critical of him once you read them. Third, I think the current revolutions in the Middle East spit in the face of such notions. The idea that democracy is a purely Western thing screams of that same tempered brand of "white man's burden" nonsense that was in vogue after World War Two under the Bretton Woods system.

Please read the Problem of Political Order in Changing Societies. Huntington persuasively argues that the problem facing much of the non-western world is one of a lack of authority and order. He's arguing precisely the opposite of what you are saying about the 'white man's burden'. He does not think western governments should go around trying to impose neoliberalism and democracy on the rest of the world. He says economic modernization is destabilizing and will not necessarily lead to democracy.

Huntington was ironically denounced as being a sort of 'fascist' because he spoke favorably about military governments in Latin America and elsewhere in terms of their consequences for political development.