Rating: 
Summary: Some chapters of this book is relevant to missions
Review: Several chapters in this national bestseller is relevant to missions including the ones on world religion and its role in reshaping world order, initial Westernization of the 2/3 World and its re-embracing of indigenous cultures, and the rise of China as superpower and her language as international trade language.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant explanation of war
Review: Reviewers who criticized this book missed the point by misunderstanding fault line wars or focusing too much on the details of civilizations.Huntington took studies by Toynbee and others on the rise and fall of civilizations and used them to develop a theoretical and practical explanation of war: Why do some small wars remain local, while other small wars expand into larger regional wars, or even world wars? The answer is that a small conflict becomes important when the belligerents are part of larger identity groups. Thus, we couldn't care less about a war between two Nigerian tribes -- until we learn that one tribe is Muslim and the other is Christian. At that point, the small war becomes part of a larger fault line conflict between Muslims and Christians worldwide, and other Muslim or Christian nations might get involved, either to negotiate a peace or to join the war as new belligerents. Huntington foresees a major worldwide clash between Western and Muslim civilizations, but not for some vague religious reason. He foresees this clash because for several decades the population of Muslim countries has been growing much faster than the population in Western countries, creating a "youth bulge" of young Muslim men eager to join other Muslim men to fight the infidels. In other words, it's demography, not religious dogma, that's leading to the "clash of civilizations." There's been a lot of silly nonsense written about this book, some people even calling it "dangerous" because it might cause a war. (Can anyone cite any historical example where a book was the cause of a war?) What's really true is that Huntington's predictions, made in 1995, appear to be coming true, especially in the Mideast, where the Israeli/Palestinian situation has been deteriorating continually for years. This is not the time to live in a state of denial. If the Mideast breaks out into full scale war and then attracts Muslim and Western identity groups as belligerents (something that seems quite likely), then we will indeed have a major clash of civilizations, and we really ought to be preparing ourselves for it.
Rating: 
Summary: Give the emerging African Civilization more thought
Review: For a general review of this groundbreaking book there are many other detailed reviews on this website that highlight Huntington's refreshing commonsense approach and its non-PC honesty. The book is a mild wake-up call to Western Civilization and lifts the veil to the dangers it faces. I agree with almost all the big ideas raised by Huntington, however I was taken aback that the African Civilization (Central and Southern Africa - see map) counts as merely "possibly" a civilization. Russia and her near abroad is regarded as a civilization set apart from a general Christian Civilization (The West) solely on the basis of the marginal religious differences. Russia, as the core state of the Orthodox Civilization, are up against huge odds and its future looks bleaker each decade. In contrast to the Orthodox civilization, Africa, with South Africa as its core state (acknowledged by Huntington, with reference to Nigeria as well), is standing on much firmer ground. Albeit weak at present Africa is rapidly developing into a separate civilization with encouraging prospects, simultaneously present in many countries. That white (like myself) and black elite South Africans used to see ourselves as Westerners is about right. Right again is that this view is changing fast and already we regard ourselves more as an African state - which we are. However, the fact that we view ourselves as primary a part of the African Civilization does not mean that "western values are rejected." Huntington and his esteemed philosophical kin will do well not to reject the African Civilization even before its cultural and civilizational values have been finally decided upon. Western values like personal freedom, individuality and private property are being easily interwoven with basic African values like social responsibility, traditional leadership hierarchies and unconventional approaches to problem solving - South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique are some examples. Which way the African Civilization will align itself is still undecided and a strong relationship between it and the West is very possible and can be of huge mutual benefit. Lastly, Huntington states that Nigeria is a cleft country belonging to both the African and Islamic Civilizations, and alludes to the fact that it could possible be a core state for the African Civilization. I seriously doubt it. Africa is in general a laid back, open, southern hemisphere civilization that will not stand a core state with draconian laws and cultural values (just as it didn't except the apartheid laws) that are increasingly espoused by Nigeria. Nonetheless, The Clash of Civilizations is an excellent book. Useful maps enhance the text and this timely book concludes with an extensive bibliography and thorough index.
Rating:
Summary: 99% of Terror Islamic
Review: My political correctedness virtually stops me from telling the truth, it has to be told with a heavy heart. Millions have died for telling the truth and many millions will but it has to be told nevertheless. There is only one constant in 99 % of world terror and that is Islam. The most unfortunate part of it all is that the so called educated and civilized Muslim find one or another flimsy reason to support terror be it in USA, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Philipines, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, China, and many other countries. Having named so many countries there is virtually no need to name others. The USA is at present suffering the terror from outside of its borders. Days are not far off when the locally bred or converted Muslims will take matters into their hands and claim an Islamic State in USA. The foundations for such a struggle is already laid with claims of Driving Licenses to have photos with Burka for Muslim women. This is the begining and the milder form. When courts will not allow these Islamic luxuries, terror will be the way of the days to come. Best of Luck
May God save us all free thinking people.
Rating:
Summary: Prescient: A Classic
Review: "The end of the Cold War has not ended conflict but has rather given rise to new identities rooted in culture and to new patterns of conflict among groups from different cultures which at the broadest level are civilizations" (p. 130) These were the words of Samuel P. Huntington in the year 1996 when many people were talking about "the end of history", the triumph of liberal democracy around the world, and the planet becoming a peaceful interconnected global village. Huntington was right on the money, and 9/11 came to prove him right in the most frightful and dramatic manner. His taxonomy of 8 broad civilizations in which the world is to be divided (West, Latin America, Orthodoxy, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Sinic, and Japanese) is quite useful in helping understand the various socio-political phenomena in the world, although perhaps somewhat simplistic in that it is based mainly on religious lines. There are some statements made by Huntington in this book, which may be argued against, such as him including Greece in the Russia-centered Orthodox civilization rather than the West, but those are peripheral ones and in no way reduce the significance and presience of his main thesis. The point made by Huntington in the book that "Islam's borders are bloody" (p. 258) had raised controversy, just as the analogous statement in the Foreign Affairs article (the precursor for this book) did. Huntington however substantiates this argument of his with what appears to be credible evidence, being at the same time quite blunt about U.S. interventions in the Islamic world, as in his referring to the Gulf War as "the first post-Cold War resource war between civilizations". (p. 251) Overall, this book is highly recommended for everyone interested in understanding the world better and learning more about global affairs and power politics.
Rating:
Summary: still urgent
Review: Huntington argues persuasively for a new way of viewing world politics after the end of the Cold War. Though the book is nearly a decade old, it has prophetic aspects to it, especially as concerns the Muslim world against the West. His exposition of the Balkan crisis is quite deft as well, particularly the question of Clinton's support of Bosnia. Towards the end, he argues that it is always dangerous and perhaps ill-advised to tinker with the satellites of a "major civilization" such as the Muslims. On the otherhand, he argues that a major civilization such as the West has an interest in preventing competing civilizations from constructing regional hegemonies. Maybe he should make the later point the priority, and subordinate the former. Additionally, he ascribes "rules of law" to the West only, whereas it does exist in other civilizations. Perhaps he means "secular law," for that does not exist in cultures such as Islam. But that would be the exception. Zakaria in his "Ill-Liberal Democracy" ascribes "rules of law" to all civilizations. It remains an unresolved question, a source of further thought. Huntington's book is brilliant and essential reading.
Rating: 
Summary: There is only ONE civilization
Review: The author of this book seems to be quite limited in his vision. For certain, his background in world history and how different societies passed on knowlegdge and understanding to each other. I would discourage people from reading this book because the tries to isolate different parts of the world from the rest. That is not the case. We are all one civilization.
Rating: 
Summary: Just a note
Review: This concept of the clash of civilizations was
probably first brought up by Francis Fukuyama in
his book "The End of the History and the Last
Man" published in 1992. At the end
of Chapter 21 of that book, it states:"
And the persistence of these differences may
mean that international life will be seen
increasingly as a competition not between rival
ideologies--since most economically successful states
will be organized along similar lines-- but between
different cultures.
Rating:
Summary: Obtuse and dangerous
Review: The book is mainly based on an analysis of the relations between so-called civilizations, be they past and present. The author suggests that global conflicts/evolutions can be predicted based on this type of analysis.
The approach has two fundamental flaws which make it not only false, but also potentially dangerous. First and most important, it postulates the existence of supra-national entities called "civilizations", with clear-enough boundaries and descriptions. Civilizations engage in predictable relations and conflicts and will act as main actors in the future. It seems to me that such thesis can only stand at the basis of a new racism, this time related not to the colour of the skin, but to the geographical origin. This is why I consider the approach to be plainly dangerous. Meanwhile, I think that the authors' conclusions are not the expression of an intrinsic maliciousness. It is tempting to try and formalize the term "civilization" -- a notion much used in a vague sense by historians and anthropologists. The fundamental flaw (overlooked by the author) is that the formalization requires the drawing of borders (also done by the author). In reality, such cultural borders never exist. Take, for instance, the US and Mexico. The south of the US is still very much "south-american", and the north of Mexico "a bit occidental". Most persons in these areas are of "mixed civilization". Thus, one cannot apply to them the given approach.
Rating:
Summary: Who's got a better lense?
Review: Oh there definitely is a premeditated bias in Huntignton's book. But it is hated for reasons usually outside the fundamental issue, a discarding animated by the morbid fear that the thesis might just reflect the truth.
It is perfectly true that proponents of all religions have commited heinous crimes against humanity in the name of God. ( a situation forseen by Christ when He said he shall take away from His face those that will claim to have done great things unto the world in His name. ) But beyond the actions of mortals, Huntington's thesis relies on the inclination of each religion, in its dogma. The world wouldnt get the same peace if its sacred texts were followed faithfully. The clashes are fundamental and are not refuted by realpolitik arrangements between countries, as some would believe.
Also, the thesis is as old as dirt. This isnt a novel paradigm, not by a long shot, but Huntington shines in his shrewd extrapolation of its implications.
To accept this thesis as truth is not to wish it to be so.
Its danger lies also in the tendency of such a paradigm to blind one as to the individuality of the other. Masses are people.
Im still waiting for a better lense to come along. Till then, this seems to be the one.
| 
