Military Recognition

As a beginning of an essay, I wish to briefly introduce my experience during the military service. From 2011 to 2013, I was involved in the Korean army, which is mandatory since division of territory of the Korea Peninsula. Frankly, I was afraid because I thought I didn’t have enough physical strength for hard trainings. I was also afraid for losing my confidence rather than losing my relationships through the military service. The worries about falling behind in society which I’m involved were really fearful to me. However, when I’d faced up the reality of military, the physical requirement wasn’t hard as I expected. My physical strength wasn’t the best one but not the worst one. After the point of realization, I’ve revived my confidence and
Perhaps everyone has this kind of experience. Each of us has distinction that gains more widespread appreciation of our value. However, recognition is like a Janus of Roman mythology. Sometimes it can produce a good effect like my military experience, but sometimes it can exert baneful influence upon human history. Because basically the recognition is the competition with other people, on occasion it also can be achieved by bloodshed. Of that reason, even if the recognition is leading our performance, it should be prevented to supply on a large scale as countries or civilization, because side effects of large countries are much more extensive than individuals. Therefore, in a view of whole, as scale of nations, severe competition to get recognition should be avoided, and pursue other’s deference as ours. My first expression of two books ‘The end of history and the last man’ from F.Fukuyama and ‘The clash of civilization’ from S.Huntington was arrogant. I’m afraid to say they are arrogant because I know they’re great scholars in this time, but I can’t agree on both of
He argues democracy starts the efforts to ensure distinct of every people have, which is recognition. From that point my argument that ‘democracy is not the final destination because it can’t cover the innovation’ was defeated. He argues democracy was born to cover innovation, and also democracy is the innovation itself. So for me, I don’t have any option but accepting his idea. As I stated experience of military service, I can’t deny I’m the man who chasing recognition and it’s stronger than others. However, even though I agree on democracy is perfect; he can’t avoid the critics’ that his idea is based on Western supremacy, as Huntington did. Nowadays civil inter changes are activist in human history. Whatever the fact is, both of writer’s view of civilization is confrontation rather than comprehension. Such thinking like ‘dividing’ goes against the trend of times. They are still live in the world of ‘The cold war’. We should think why there were conflictions among the civilization. As I stated above, knowing the expansionism and dominatism of Western and especially American imperialism is the main factor of confliction. Yardstick of other civilization is set by American, so it is ridiculous to assume that yardstick is still standard in other countries. Furthermore, even though globalism is a tendency of the times, we should know all the people and countries can’t be the same. Accordingly,