Rating: 
Summary: Worst Book Ever Written
Review: This book is motivated by hate, ignorance and insecurity. It is based on unfounded facts. A western biased perspective in the nature of international relations. Grossly misunderstood Islam and What Asia is all about! Read this book very carefully and ask yourself this question: What is the hidden agenda motivating the writing of this book? Who is Samuel Huntington and what he has been engaging in the past 40 years? I find it unfortunate that many find this book great verifying my greatest fear that the West really misunderstood the Rest!
Rating: 
Summary: Be Careful - 3.75 Stars
Review: As many have previously noted, Huntington's article first appeared in "Foreign Affairs." It was then expanded into a book. Maybe it should have stayed an article. Ultimately, his thesis is that in the new world, conflicts will arise from cultures, not from ideologies (as they had in the past). Furthermore, the biggest problem for the West is Islam and vice-versa.
By expanding his essay into book form, he makes the same statement but it takes him about 200 more pages to do so. He mentions other cultures such as Asia (China), South America, Africa, but really they are just straw men constructed so he can pit "the West" against Islam. Ultimately, it is a persuasive argument that rings true not only because of recent terrorist/political events in the Mideast, but also because of communism's death in Russia and its current slow death in China.
One must be very careful when reading this volume, though because it is such a nice neat argument, it is easy to take at face value. The does book have some misleading statistics and it is almost racist in some parts painting a disparaging picture of Muslims. On the whole, though, the book is not racist or incorrect. It is a fascinating thesis that is correct on certain levels. It is well written and very accessible to those that do not have a political science background. I definitely recommended this title, but I caution the reader against accepting Huntington as "The Word." Check out Benjamin Barber's "Jihad vs. McWorld" for a nice companion/foil to Huntington.
Rating:
Summary: to hnimonjr on a factual point.
Review: Wrong. Huntington is his name. He is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor, an honorary position with special alumni or benefactor funding
Rating: 
Summary: This is a distinct possibility
Review: Huntington's 1993 article in 'Foreign Affairs' generated so much interest, it was expanded into this book. His answer to the question 'Will conflicts between civilizations dominate world politics?' is affirmative; clashes between civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace; an international order based on civilizations is the best safeguard against war. Since the end of the Cold War people define themselves by blood, belief, faith and family - ancestry, language, religion, history, values, institutions, tribes, ethnic groups and customs - rather than by nation, ideologies and economics. Nation states remain the principal actors but the most important groupings are the major civilizations - Western, Latin America, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese. Civilizations have no clear-cut boundaries, no precise beginnings and endings; they are mortal but long-lived; they evolve and adapt. The hotspots are on the fault lines between civilizations - Chechnya, the Transcaucasus, Central Asia, Kashmir, the Middle East, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Sudan. Bosnia was a war of civilizations with Russia providing diplomatic support to the Serbs while Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Libya provided funds and arms to the Bosnians. The philosophical assumptions, underlying values, social relations, customs and overall outlooks on life differ significantly among civilizations, reinforced by the revitalization of religion. The West is the most powerful civilization but its relative power is declining while Confucian and Islamic societies are rising to balance the west. Dangerous clashes are likely to arise from Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance and Sinic assertiveness. Bill Clinton argued that the West does not have a problem with Islam but only with violent extremists, but 1400 years of history demonstrate otherwise. The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. Islam is a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and obsessed with the inferiority of their power. Huntington presents the evidence, the argument and provides a strategy for the West to preserve its culture while learning to coexist in a multipolar, multi-civilizational world.The expansion of the Western civilization has ended and the revolt against the west has begun. Western power has declined and the map of 1990 has little resemblance to the map of 1920. Toynbee warned that the parochialism and impertinence of the West is manifested in egocentric illusions; Braudel urged a broader perspective to understand the great cultural conflicts and the multiplicity of its civilizations. However, "the illusions and prejudices of which these scholars warned, live on and in the late 20th century have blossomed forth in the widespread and parochial conceit that the European civilization of the West is now the universal civilization of the world." As the West confronts problems of slow economic growth, stagnating populations, unemployment, huge government deficits, a declining work ethic, low savings rates, social disintegration, drugs and crime, economic power is shifting to Asia. Military power and political influence will follow. There has been a religious resurgence, often fundamentalist, to meet the psychological, emotional and social needs of people caught in the traumas of modernization. Asia and Islam have been the dynamic civilizations of the last quarter century. China is projected to have the world's largest economy early in the 21st century while Asia is likely to have seven of the ten largest economies by 2020. Islam is not just a religion but a way of life. Islamic assertiveness under the banner 'Islam is the solution' accepts modernization but rejects Western culture. Social mobilization and population growth and particularly the expansion of the fifteen to twenty-four-year-old age cohort, provides recruits for fundamentalism, terrorism, insurgency, and migration. At 18% of world population in 1980, the Muslim population is likely to be 30% in 2025. The Protestant Reformation was one of the outstanding youth movements in history; the youth of Islam have already made their mark in the Islamic resurgence. Larger populations need more resources, push outward, occupy territory and exert pressure on neighbors.
Part V of the book - The Future of Civilizations - is the really interesting part. Huntington points out that civilizations can reform and renew themselves. The central issue for the West is whether it can meet the external challenge while stopping and reversing the process of internal decay. He paints a scenario for a major war of civilizations and points out that the great beneficiaries will be those who abstain and closes by saying: "If this scenario seems a wildly implausible fantasy to the reader, that is all to the good. Let us hope that no other scenarios of global civilizational war have greater plausibility." If Huntington is right that clashes between civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace in the future; if he, Toynbee and Braudel are right about our arrogance and conceit in believing that Western civilization is the end of history; and if our leaders see no need to plan for the inevitable rise of other civilizations, I fear that the world map is due for another big change.
Rating:
Summary: Bigotry
Review: Huntington's book is very provincial, simple minded and full of bigotry. It is the product of emotional hate.
The book is simply not worth discussion.
Rating:
Summary: Look what happened to Mexico
Review: They are a country of confused, severely confused masses of people. The Spanish and French pounded most of their cultural and religious ideologies on them over a period of time and they lost their identities. Where they, the Mexicans, used to have their own language(s) has been replaced by Spanish; where they used to have their own relgious worship has been replaced by Catholicism. The country is staunch Catholic and look towards Italy, mainly the Vatican, for their direction. An entire mass of brainwashed people was the end result. Can one turn an entire country into the mirror image of the desired own? Of course it can! The Spanish proved that it is possible to exercise its religious and language on an entire people and succeed.
Rating: 
Summary: A Dated Prediction from Incomplete Data
Review: Huntington is his pen-name. His real name is Dr. Albert J. Weatherhead III. He is a Professor at Harvard and director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. He was Director of security planning for the NSC during Carter's administration (which you may remember, was a failed organization).
I've read, now, about 1/2 of the book and am tempted to put it down. It is obvious he is basing most of his ideas and concepts on both the ultra-liberal ideals and on the failed foreign policies of the Clinton administration. For example, he lays the causes of the fall of the West on the following:
1) The rise of Asian identity and power
2) The resurgence and eventual domination of Islamic power as a global identity
3) The growth in populations outside of the West
4) The decline in military size and power vis-a-vis emerging countries such as Iraq and Iran (sic)
On the economic side, he develops the treatise that the emergence of particular economic blocs will overshadow free trade. He lists the economic powers in the following (from least powerful to most powerful):
1) Free trade areas
2) Customs unions
3) Common markets
4) Economic unions
This structure is very similar to that developed by Marx in his
Communist Manifesto with similar predictions. Given the ideas expressed above, and with the understanding that the Clinton administration pulled many of their policy decisions from the same group that Weatherhead is Director of, is indicative of the reasons for the events towards the end of the Clinton administration and the enablement of a belief that America was incapable of responding significantly to an outside threat.
This philosophical belief has lead many a country to underestimate American and Western will and ability during all of the 20th Century. It will continue into the 21st given ill-founded writings such as this...(am I opinionated???? Maybe...I have had a lot of experience in Strategic Studies and Intelligence myself...).
From the cultural perspective, he states, "Countries with distinct cultural groupings belonging to the same civilization may become deeply divided with separation either occurring (Czechoslovakia) or becoming a possibility (Canada)" (1996, pg 137). He goes on to point out the strength in such countries as India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq due to their strong Islamic roots...ignoring the political and other factors such as extreme governmental repression. He does do a very good job at analyzing what he terms are 'cleft' countries (e.g. Russia, Turkey,
Mexico, and Australia) in terms of the factors that are causing internal strife. Yet, as with Australia and Canada, his predictions begin to falter. He takes minority structures as the cause for normalcy and majority pressures as non sequitor. He likens minority pressures as "The Western Virus" (pg 154). In this section, he calls for the removal of pro-Western ideals in Cleft countries as a cause of 'cultural schizophrenia' that must be expunged. What is interesting to me, this concept of 'cultural schizophrenia' ignores the existence of the basic
human needs and rights which founded this country...and has become prevalent in his 'utopian' states of China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq. The desire of individuals to personal and individual respect, the freedom to live and succeed independently of governmental interference, and the right to a personal sense of worth (e.g. the desire of Afghan women following the fall of the Taliban to assert their rights to education, profession, and wedded equality in spite of Islamic Law to the contrary). What is interesting is that Admiral Canaris had a similar view of the United States in 1936. He was touring the US for Hitler to construct an intelligence estimate. He wrote two...the first stating that the US was so divided that it would never come together into one political will. The second told Hitler that, under no instance allow an event to congeal the US or its power would consume Germany. Why the change? He was taken to a football game in New York and watched the crowd... His second
estimate was the correct one...and proved prophetic after Dec 7th, 1941...as also evidenced by the events of Sept 11th.
An interesting look into a research text that only takes a narrow view of potential futures...
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting and Persuasive
Review: This is truly an excellent book that may just define the much-needed new paradigm for post cold war international relations. Huntington's thesis that civilisational identity and conflict will dominate the next 50 years of international relations is both interesting and persuasive. Of particular interest is his exposition of the inherent conflicts between Islam and the West that are deeply rooted in the history and identity of the two civilisations. Also, he persuasivley argues that the precepts of western civilisation (liberalism, democracy etc. . .) are not valuable to the world because they are as universally binding, but rather because they are unique in world history. The only reasons I do not give it 5 stars are because: 1)he relies too much on the sheer breadth of examples to illustrate his main thesis without stepping back (enough) to explain and argue how the examples prove the thesis; and 2) he makes the patently foolish argument that the economies of east Asia and Japan do not follow the standard rules of "western" economics. Paul Krugman ("the Myth of the Asian Miracle") and Bill Emmot ("the Sun Also Sets") explained exactly why the exceptional growth rates of these economies were unsustainable in the long term, and they seem to have been vindicated. He also makes the straw-man argument that economists improperly claim that economic growth alone will bring peace between "conflicted" countries. Huntington argues that growth merely brings greater opportunity for conflict. I think most economists would actually agree with Huntington's position for the very same reasons he gives. However, the real argument (stated vulgarly) is that growth through FREE TRADE will foster peace because over time it will create powerful interests in even "conflicted" countries to resolve disputes peacefully because these interests understand that war is bad for business. That said, I think this book will define the terms of the next generation of international thought and policy. Finally, the title of this book has become a popular buzz phrase on cable news and talk radio. However, once read, it will be obvious that most who like to use the phrase have never read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A twist to the tale of civilization clash
Review: The book is very interesting, it highlights nowadays and onwards clash in worlds civilization specially with Islam. For other readers buying this book and will read comments made by others, i would like to shed a clarification to what was said by the following :- 1) Publishers Weekly as stated that " Muslim countries are involved in far more intergroup violence than the others, he urges that the west should worry not about Islamic fundamentalisim but about Islam itself" a different civilization whose people are convinved of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with inferiority of their power.
2) A reader from washington D.C has partially reed the Quran and referred to various phrases from the part he only reed and stated that " Quran is unequivocal in its language", "Islam also teaches that Muslims not befriend Jews and Christians" and " The Quran commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians"
I also have reed the Quran and found this in Surat Al-Mumtahanah Ayat #07 " Perhaps Allah will make friendship between you and those whom you hold as enemies. And Allah has power over all things and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most meciful (08) Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against on account of religon nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity. (09) It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them, and whosoever will befriend them, then such are the ( wrong-doers-disobey Allah ).
Hope you all enjoy the book
Rating:
Summary: Less than impressive--nearly absurd
Review: Please! This book deamonizes islamic cultures in a way that is arguably responsible for recent foreign policy. While much of Huntington's "opinions" have manifested themselves in our government does not mean that they are in any way correct. How is it validated to cite SEVERAL book reviews as evidence??!? The New York Times is a great newspaper, but it is not statistical or historical data of any kind! There are no references provided in many articles, so citing anything (as Huntington does countless times) is clearly a flawed method. Moreover, Huntington has written this book in such a way that his evidence "conveniently" fits into spots in his book where he needed something to back him up. Nevermind the fact that much of that evidence is taken from sources that in no way support his overall thesis. Academically, this book is an embarassment to development theorists everywhere. I thought scholars were trying to get away from essentializing the West. Perhaps the lessons we learn from this book will help us start.
|
