Rating: 
Summary: Very eerie...
Review: Among other things, Huntington's thought-provoking book predicts increased conflict between the West and the Islamic civilizations. It specifically mentions the possibility of Islamic terrorists hijacking an American airliner. Now look carefully at the cover of this book, published in 1998: the background is a photo of the World Trade Center.
Rating:
Summary: Demonstrates the imperialism of non-Western civilizations
Review: In The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington suggests that conflicts between civilizations, rather than between competing ideologies like capitalism and Marxism, will comprise the battlegrounds of the future. Huntington posits that there are eight civilizations: Western (the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe), Orthodox (Russia), Islamic, African, Sinic (China), Hindu (India), Japanese, and Latin American. According to Huntington, these civilizations compete against one another, though some are able to work more closely together than others. Huntington anticipates disputes between Western civilization, and the Islamic and Sinic civilizations. The squabble earlier this year between the United States and China over the downed spy plane, and the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks on the United States, have refocused attention on this book. Disagreement with Huntington's thesis as it relates to the post-September 11 world is usually based on the idea that fundamentalist, violently anti-American Muslims are not representative of, or even tied in any way to, Islamic civilization. Given the timeliness of the issue, it is important to make clear that this is an inaccurate assessment of Islam. The word "Islam," contrary to much media misrepresentation, does not mean "peace;" it means "submission." Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity and in contrast to Judaism. Reading the sacred texts of Islam confirms this. The Koran is unequivocal in its language. Sura 5, verse 85 prophesies an inevitable conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers [the Muslims] wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5 adds, "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem [of war]." The Koran asserts that people must be fought "until they embrace Islam." Islam also teaches that Muslims must not befriend Jews and Christians. Surat Al-Maidah 5:51 says, "O ye who believe [i.e., Muslims], take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you who turns to them [for friendship] is of them." The Koran commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians: "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [Mohammed] and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth [Islam] among the people of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] until they pay the Jizyah [a tax paid only by Jews and Christians who do not convert to Islam] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Surat At-Taubah 9:29. As Huntington recognizes, Islamic civilization is aggressive, and at present defines itself primarily through its opposition to Western civilization. The spontaneous street celebrations in several Muslim cities after the 9/11 attacks, as well as the constant stream of anti-American rhetoric from the Islamic press and Arab street, prove this point. Huntington's clash of civilization thesis, ironically, seems to enjoy much more support in the Islamic world than it does in the Western world. One must question whether this is the case due to our modern Western affliction: "cultural relativism," which is essentially a reluctance to condemn in others what we would never tolerate in ourselves. In any event, The Clash of Civilizations is a crucial read at the moment, and will probably become ever more relevant as time passes.
Rating: 
Summary: flawed but very worthwhile
Review: Samuel P. Huntington is almost certainly correct that the next several years will see a clash between Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization, but the result of this encounter is foreordained, if not the particulars of how we'll arrive at the conclusion. There are really only two alternatives : either Islam will reform itself and become more like the West on its own--including, most importantly, separating church and state and accepting greater economic inequalities as the price to be paid for greater growth in general--or Islam will be devastated in war and will be rebuilt, even if against its will, along Western lines, as happened in Japan after WWII. It just is not possible to envision a scenario in which Islam succeeds in defeating the West. If, God forbid, the West ever really had its back to the wall it would undoubtedly unleash a thermonuclear, biological and/or chemical holocaust in the Middle East (and probably Indonesia) which would essentially annihilate Islam. As Victor Davis Hanson has written in his terrific book Carnage and Culture, the single factor that has been most significant in the repeated victory of the West in global conflicts has been the ruthlessness and finality with which it prosecutes war. The West has been more willing than other civilizations to utterly destroy enemies. There is no reason to believe that it would not do so again. Despite these weaknesses in his thesis in its broadest form, Huntington's book is invaluable in its narrower form. First, by warning that the clash of civilizations that genuinely differ from one another will continue to be a central feature of world politics, he provides a much needed warning that the West must deal with Islam and Communist China as rivals, not merely as alternative types of societies. As regards China, we can somewhat assume that the forces of capitalism that have been unleashed will eventually subvert the authoritarian political system. History has proven again and again that you can not provide your citizens a little bit of freedom without them eventually demanding more. China today much resembles Gorbachev's USSR, a society on the verge of crumbling which needs only strong and consistent pressure from the United States to fall apart completely. The most effective ways of applying this pressure have the great benefit of also being good policy for the U.S. We should invite Taiwan, Russia, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the moderate nations of Southeast Asia to join NAFTA. To the greatest extent possible we should also seek to make such an organization a strategic and military alliance, with its might directed specifically against China and, to a lesser extent, Indonesia. The U.S. should also step up its Missile Defense program and should simultaneously pursue the development of offensive space-based weapons. The goal of the latter should be to develop the capacity to eliminate any nation's nuclear arsenal and its communications satellites in a first strike. At that point we would be in a position to impose nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament on the rest of the world. Second, as regards Islam, while Turkey and Iran offer fascinating case studies in the eventual possibility of Islam and democracy co-existing, both have struggled so mightily and are such unique situations, both having been run by pro-Western dictators for an extended period of time, that it seems only realistic to assume that Islam and the West may eventually engage in a widespread conflict. It would obviously be preferable to have Islam reform itself, but one searches in vain for leaders, religious or secular, with the stature, ideology and steadfastness of purpose to lead such a fundamental restructuring of the entire Islamic Civilization. In the absence of such a leader, leaders, or a coherent reformist movement, and in the absence of any evidence of willingness on the part of the current leaders of Islamic nations to countenance such reform, conflict becomes increasingly likely. It is therefore necessary for the West to plan and prepare for this eventuality, even as we seek ways to avoid it. Unfortunately, we have come to the point, not infrequent in such clashes, where the course of future events by and large depends on the doomed civilization. In the 1930s and 40s, German and Japanese fascists wrote their own death warrants by declaring war on the United States. There followed a total war, with the demand for unconditional surrender, that left those two nations virtually unrecognizable in its aftermath. The Soviet Union well realized that it would meet the same fate if ever it forced a final showdown, so it festered along for several more decades before reforming itself out of existence. It is now up to Islam which course it pursues. They can confront us now and get it over with quickly or die a lingering death, but, make no mistake, these are the alternatives. Those in the Islamic world who view globalization and American hegemony as a lethal threat to Islam are correct. The only debate now is over how the death is administered, by us, because they force us to, or by them, because they realize its in their own best interest. Finally, Mr. Huntington asserts that : The principal responsibility of Western leaders is not to attempt to reshape other civilizations in the
image of the West, which is beyond their declining power, but to preserve, protect and renew the
unique qualities of Western civilization. While I would contend that we can do both, he is absolutely correct that the great danger to Western values arises from within. This is the danger inherent in multiculturalism. It's all fine and dandy to study and learn from the great variety of civilizations that Man has created, but we must never make the mistake of treating them as all equally valid. We must make a simple but essential judgment that Western Civilization is superior to the alternatives. Having made this judgment, the two most important steps to be taken are to inculcate these values in our schools and demand that immigrants accept them. To allow successive generations of young people to grow up with little knowledge of Western Civilization, and even less appreciation of its greatness, is to court our own extinction. We have seen though, particularly in the weeks since the 9-11 bombings, just how difficult it is for people to take even the first step of accepting the core judgment. The storm of protest that descended upon Italian Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi when he stated that Western Civilization is superior was indicative of a kind of soul-sickness and self-loathing in the West that is a far greater threat to our way of life and the eventual extension of freedom and prosperity to every corner of the globe than Islam is or Communism ever was. It is nearly unthinkable to consider that some good may come from the events of September 11th, but in the long run this may well be the case. If those events force upon us the realization that civilizations do clash, that their different values produce much different ways of life, and that our way of life is preferable to others, then perhaps we can give a very special meaning to the victims' deaths. If we can once again become forceful defenders of and advocates for Western Civilization, then they will have died in the cause of freedom. Sixty years ago, the great conservative critic, Albert Jay Nock, said that he considered himself : "...the unworthy inheritor of a great tradition." So are we all, but let us strive to be worthy. Let us, who have been so fortunate as to benefit from Western Civilization, rededicate ourselves to defending and extending it. We must, and we will, win the Clash of Civilizations that Samuel P. Huntington has so helpfully reminded us is still going on. But having won, we must remain vigilant in our defense of our cultural inheritance. GRADE : B+
Rating:
Summary: Not the be all end all of international relations...
Review: ...but an interesting and valid concept nonetheless. Huntington makes some very valid points about cultural differences and their effect on world events, as well as historical politico-social divisions. Of course, he often neglects other influences, but if one reads this as merely describing an aspect of international relations and not necessarily the only driving force behind them it has a lot of credence. Basically, he provides a view of the world that "works" at the broadest, most macrocosmic level but breaks apart very quickly when one starts to get more specific. For instance, he is quick to claim that one of the worlds most troubled areas - the Balkans - lies at the confluence of three civilizations (in his terms, the West, Islam, and Orthodoxy). The difficulty with this arguement is that while the Balkans was no doubt the crossroads of empires and the conflict there was without doubt heavily influenced by this, the Serbs (Orthodox), Bosniacks (Muslims), and Croats (Catholics), have a common ancestry and indeed essentially the same language, as well as many common cultural characteristics. They are separated only by religion and historical allegiance. One can say that they represent three different civilizations but frankly it doesn't mean much nor does it give you much real insight into the conflict. As long as you're aware of this weakness, though, it can be very helpful in understanding long-term, broad historical (or current) trends. It is well-written - not a particularly difficult read. I had it required for a class and was rather overwhelmed by the title, but was pleasantly surprised when I started to read it. He gives lots of examples. I hope soon to read also The End of History and THe Lexus and the Olive Tree. Together with these Clash.. forms an important part of a balanced understanding of international relations.
Rating: 
Summary: blind man's response to the end of the cold war
Review: you know, i was impressed with Samuel Huntington's "Third Wave," because it described very well how the third wave of democratization occured in 1989. yet this book, while it has good points about civilizations and their role in modern politics, tends to become political and extreme to the right. he doesn't seem to grasp the islamic religion and seems to say that the best foreign policy towards islamic countries would be that of control. for some reason, according to huntington, we cannot allow islamic or arab countries to have a growing influence in the world. it is sad that a few terrorist attacks by extremists, who could be compared with anti-abortion extremists killing doctors, paint the entire islamic world as extremist and evil, when if you think about it, there are over 1 billion muslims in the world, yet i don't belive, last i checked, that there are 1 billion terrorists. grow up and start respecting the rest of the world. the first step in doing so would be not to read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Nuenke is Nuts...
Review: ...to think that the United States will disintegrate. Huntington's book is a helpful review of the world's main cultural systems, and Mr. Nuenke's review in January 2000 offers a legitimate critique about the role of natural selection in human development. However, Nuenke is blind to a very basic evolutionary factor. It is the tyrannical butchery of fellow tribe members by the Romans (see "Gladiator"), Nazis, Soviets, and the Taliban that, ultimately, leads the butcher's own tribe to self-destruct. The modern West has developed a very different tribal model characterized by a deep and diverse gene pool, inviolate protection of individual human rights and many other factors which all favor ultimate survival. .... In his next book, Mr. Huntington should reconsider these aspects of his subject.
Rating:
Summary: cynical, sinister and dangerous
Review: Let the reader beware! History will not look kindly upon this book, nor its converts. Huntington is a leading critic of traditional, Western-style parliamentary democracy. Since his 1957 book "The Soldier and the State," he has advocated instead the militarization of American society on a Prussian model. In this, he is working within a tradition of political theory that may be traced directly to Carl Schmitt, one of Nazi Germany's leading legal architects. Like Schmitt, Huntington believes that state power can be defined only with respect to an external enemy. Now that the Cold War is over, Huntington in "The Clash of Civilizations" cynically invents the concept of "Islamic-Confucian" civilization to replace Communism as the West's new "enemy." In this respect, he and Osama bin Laden see the world's future in the same way: as a culture war between "Islam" and the "West" that will, regardless of who "wins", put an end to traditional Western liberal democracy as we know it. In order to defend ourselves and the US Constitution against those who committed the September 11 atrocities, we must first utterly reject arguments such as Huntington's. Our fight is clearly against some well-organized, well-financed group of criminals, not a "civilization." Those who would distract the public from the obvious and try to sell it instead on a new world war against "Islam" are no better than the Nazis, who started one against "Judaism". It is absolutely shocking that as the American public is being prepared for a new war, curtailment of civil liberties and a militarized society, this 1996 "Mein Kampf" is approaching the top of Amazon's best-seller list. Those who forget history are truly condemned to repeat it.
Rating:
Summary: In the wake of the NY/DC terrorism, this is worth reading
Review: Huntington's thesis is remarkably germane now, after the terrorism that destroyed the WTC and a portion of the Pentagon. Read it and see-- his prescient analysis should be kept in mind as we plan our response.
Rating:
Summary: Read Pages 209-221, NOW!!!!
Review: I just re-read these pages and other chapters 10-11. Read this book. After the events of 9/11/01 we have to see how clairvoiant
this author was in 1996. This book tells it like it is and that we may be entering a new phase of the Crusades.
Rating:
Summary: Paradigm shift, or a lot of hot air?
Review: Huntington made a sincere attempt to be at the cutting edge in defining the shape of international politics in the wake of the cold war, and perhaps hoped to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. But the world's just not that simple. Despite this book's length, and the amount of effort Huntington invested in arguing his "clash of civilizations" thesis here and in the pages of Foreign Affairs, it is nonetheless based on a number of generalizations and conclusions that do not stand up to more detailed scrutiny. For example, the renewed tensions between the U.S. and Russia probably have less to do with Russia's "Orthodox Slav" civilizational sphere than the more recent history of hostility between the former USSR and the West, as well as the fact that many Russians today feel international financial institutions (propped up by US, EU or Japanese capital) plundered the Russian economy. His characterization of the Yugoslav wars as a conflict on a civilizational "faultline" is almost laughable (even though it was quite popular for a time among those former Yugoslavs located on the 'right' side, i.e. in the West, of Huntington's civilization border). Additionally, although Huntington attempts to downplay it, the underlying theme of "Clash of Civilizations" seems to be that the West (read America) is better than the rest. Therefore, the book often seems more like a call to arms than a constructive analysis of potential international political problems and how to overcome them.
|
