Book Description
From Afghanistan and Iraq to Europe and the United States we are engaged in one of the most heated wars of all time. In this incisive new book, the man that has been called--the only one to understand the mind of the jihadist--shows that the most important battle is actually taking place in the hearts and minds of the world's population. This is the war of ideas, where ideology is the most powerful weapon of all. Phares explores the beliefs of two opposing camps, one standing for democracy and human rights, and the other rejecting the idea of an international community and calling for jihad against the West. He reveals the strategies of both sides, explaining that new technologies and the growing media savvy of the jihadists have raised the stakes in the conflict. And most urgently, he warns that the West is in danger of losing the war, for whereas debate and theorizing rarely translate into action here, ideas and deeds are inextricably linked for the forces of jihad.
Customer Reviews:
Required reading by every self-respecting journalist........2007-08-23
The facts will set you free. Well researched. Bluntly honest. A very readable treatment of Islamofacism every self-respecting journalist should read. It is now on my short list of books that correctly shape one's understanding of this century's principal narrative.
Great Read!.......2007-06-13
We need more literature like this that expounds on our current situation and dilemma our children will soon face.
The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy .......2007-05-07
This is a very scholarly book. This is not a rabble rouser. It is an excellent book to gain understanding of "Jihadism against Democracy"
Book Description
“It’s hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light.”—The New York Times Book Review
The United States has repeatedly asserted its right to intervene militarily against “failed states” around the globe. In this much-anticipated follow-up to his international bestseller Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky turns the tables, showing how the United States itself shares features with other failed states—suffering from a severe “democratic deficit,” eschewing domestic and international law, and adopting policies that increasingly endanger its own citizens and the world. Exploring the latest developments in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, Chomsky reveals Washington’s plans to further militarize the planet, greatly increasing the risks of nuclear war. He also assesses the dangerous consequences of the occupation of Iraq; documents Washington’s self-exemption from international norms, including the Geneva conventions and the Kyoto Protocol; and examines how the U.S. electoral system is designed to eliminate genuine political alternatives, impeding any meaningful democracy.
Forceful, lucid, and meticulously documented, Failed States offers a comprehensive analysis of a global superpower that has long claimed the right to reshape other nations while its own democratic institutions are in severe crisis. Systematically dismantling the United States’ pretense of being the world’s arbiter of democracy, Failed States is Chomsky’s most focused—and urgent—critique to date.
Customer Reviews:
Very good analysis of the catastrophic U.S. foreign policy.......2007-09-19
This is my first Chomsky book. It is quite clear he is an academic and able to say the same thing in different ways (at least through out the first half of the book) but the context is nevertheless good and important- as a nation, we are "bullies" and it is ok for us to break laws but not for everyone else. He gives specific examples like treaties that have been violated and UN resolutions that we vetoed and violated too in order to protect and pursue our national security interests. And given the new generation of politicians- neoliberals and neoconservatives- it is nothing new when it comes to the Iraq War- It's all in the name of national security. We really don't care about democracy in the Middle East only that our thirst for oil is met.
The second part of the the book he clarifies the context and the meaning of the failed states. He delineates several examples after World War II in which we meddled into foreign country affairs and created "failed states"- from countries in Central America, South America, and the Middle East. Now because of our corrupt, immoral, and greedy influence, we are now more than ever looking like a failed state.
I thought he made several very good points but it was nothing new to me given that I have already read various books relating to U.S. foreign policy already. The only criticism I had was that it seemed redundant at times. Overall though, very good and recommended.
The bias of a Chompsky.......2007-09-10
Mr. Chompsky never fails me. Whenever I want to read something that makes me dislike America, I can count on Noam. His failure to be honest in this book is apparent from about page 5 onward. His positive reviews are pretty much canned and produced by the Jim Jomes style followers he courts on college campuses. I give this book only 2 stars. One star because he uses a few big words and another star because in actually writing a book and marketing it, he is contributing to capitalism. Other than that, his rhetoric is tedous.
FAILED STATES: THE ABUSE OF POWER AND THE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY.......2007-08-31
THIS WELL-RESPECTED AUTHOR HAS DONE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A GREAT FAVOR WITH THIS EASILY READ, WELL DOCUMENTED BOOK. TO ADMIT THAT WE, AS AMERICANS, HAVE INDULGED IN AND ALLOWED SUCH ABUSES OF POWER IS HUMILIATING. BUT WITH THIS AWARENESS, THERE IS HOPE WE CAN CHANGE COURSE AND MOVE AWAY FROM BEING A "FAILED STATE."
Great.......2007-08-06
Well researched, well thought out. Another fine book. I will use it with my history students.
an uneasy reality.......2007-07-21
Reading Chomsky is like being sprayed in the face with a garden hose. Just as there is no question that you are now soaking wet, there is no question about what our country has become. Noam Chomsky is an excellent author who manages to get his point across with a good dose of truth and factual evidence. There is no denying what he says and it makes you fear the path our nation's leaders have chosen despite the wishes of the citizens. The author demonstrates a real need for change and gives you ideas on how to effect those changes. A quick read loaded with fact and not all that preachy. A good book to be sure.
Average customer rating:
- Calculations are only as good as your numbers
- Pants on fire?
- Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed.
- Very Interesting
- History as Science Fiction
|
History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
Anatoly Fomenko
Manufacturer: Mithec
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Chinese
| Ethnic & National
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Irish
| Ethnic & National
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Japanese
| Ethnic & National
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Women
| Specific Groups
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Augustine, Saint
| ( A )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Doctors & Medicine
| Humor
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
Lawyers & Criminals
| Humor
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
Love, Sex & Marriage
| Humor
| Entertainment
| Subjects
| Books
Assyria, Babylonia & Sumer
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Early Civilization
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Historiography
| Historical Study
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| World
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Asian American
| United States
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Asian American
| Poetry
| United States
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
French
| Erotica
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Victorian
| Erotica
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Epic
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
German
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Russian
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Spanish
| Poetry
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Chinese
| Classics
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Conspiracy Theories
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
War on Drugs
| Crime & Criminals
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
English (All)
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Arabic
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Armenian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Czech
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Greek
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Hungarian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Japanese
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Korean
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Norwegian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Persian & Farsi
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Polish
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Portuguese
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Romanian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Russian
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Swedish
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Turkish
| Foreign Language
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Science
| Dictionaries & Thesauruses
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Online Research
| Genealogy
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Native American
| Earth-Based Religions
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
History of Science
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Magic & Wizards
| Fantasy
| Science Fiction & Fantasy
| Subjects
| Books
Sailor Moon
| Popular Characters
| Children's Books
| Subjects
| Books
Pilates
| Exercise & Fitness
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
History
| Fashion
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2 (Chronology)
-
History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Chronology III
-
Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America: Lost History And Legends, Unearthed And Explored
-
Before the Pharaohs: Egypt's Mysterious Prehistory
-
They Cast No Shadows: A Collection of Essays on the Illuminati, Revisionist History, and Suppressed Technologies
ASIN: 2913621058 |
Book Description
Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.
Customer Reviews:
Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03
Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.
Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19
Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.
Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09
There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.
For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.
Very Interesting.......2007-03-07
It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.
History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10
Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.
I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.
Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.
Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.
I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.
This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.
Book Description
In 1958, an African-American handyman named Jimmy Wilson was sentenced to die in Alabama for stealing two dollars. Shocking as this sentence was, it was overturned only after intense international attention and the interference of an embarrassed John Foster Dulles. Soon after the United States' segregated military defeated a racist regime in World War II, American racism was a major concern of U.S. allies, a chief Soviet propaganda theme, and an obstacle to American Cold War goals throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Each lynching harmed foreign relations, and "the Negro problem" became a central issue in every administration from Truman to Johnson.
In what may be the best analysis of how international relations affected any domestic issue, Mary Dudziak interprets postwar civil rights as a Cold War feature. She argues that the Cold War helped facilitate key social reforms, including desegregation. Civil rights activists gained tremendous advantage as the government sought to polish its international image. But improving the nation's reputation did not always require real change. This focus on image rather than substance--combined with constraints on McCarthy-era political activism and the triumph of law-and-order rhetoric--limited the nature and extent of progress.
Archival information, much of it newly available, supports Dudziak's argument that civil rights was Cold War policy. But the story is also one of people: an African-American veteran of World War II lynched in Georgia; an attorney general flooded by civil rights petitions from abroad; the teenagers who desegregated Little Rock's Central High; African diplomats denied restaurant service; black artists living in Europe and supporting the civil rights movement from overseas; conservative politicians viewing desegregation as a communist plot; and civil rights leaders who saw their struggle eclipsed by Vietnam.
Never before has any scholar so directly connected civil rights and the Cold War. Contributing mightily to our understanding of both, Dudziak advances--in clear and lively prose--a new wave of scholarship that corrects isolationist tendencies in American history by applying an international perspective to domestic affairs.
Customer Reviews:
An enlightening book on public diplomacy .......2007-01-11
If you think Las Vegas tourist ads and "listening tours" are components of public diplomacy and international relations, you need to read this book. If you think media coverage is intense now, you need to read this book. Dudziak gets into the reality and impact of media coverage forty years ago and its impact on the global information war of the time that is remarkably similar to today: "Following World War II, anything that undermined the image of American democracy was seen as threatening world peace and aiding Soviet aspiration to dominate the world... Nations were divided between a way of life 'distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression' and a way of life that "relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms."
Dudziak looks at the impact of race and the civil rights movement in the United States on American public diplomacy and foreign policy. The impact of America's "color bar" on foreign relations is astonishing and Dudziak helps contextualize the movement and government responses within contemporary pressures.
Indiscriminate actions against foreign and American dignitaries reinforced the accessibility of race-based norms to all and played into Soviet propaganda and provided a painful counternarrative that impacted US foreign relations. The US Ambassador, Chester Bowles, to India, speaking in 1952 at Yale University said, "A year, a month, or even a week in Asia is enough to convince any perceptive American that the colored peoples of Asia and Africa, who total two-thirds of the world's population, seldom think about the United States without considering the limitations under which our 13 million Negroes are living."
As we attempted to project democracy and its emphasis on equality and freedom, in opposition to Soviet tyranny, discrimination in the US was well known beyond our borders. Dudziak presents "With Us or Against Us" examples with Louis Armstrong and Josephine Baker as examples, among others. In the case of Baker, State Department officers justified censorship and hardship imposed on Baker by discounting her personal beliefs. Her "derogatory" remarks "concerning racial discrimination in the United States" were deemed to be "presenting a distorted and malicious picture of actual conditions." If we do not practice democracy, how well will our promotion of it be received? This was a real question of the time that other history books ignore and was the very question Ambassador Bowles asked.
As Dudziak wrote, "Domestic difficulties were managed by US presidents with an eye toward how their actions would play overseas." Disingenuous or factually misleading statements to justify domestic policies and opinions are not the mainstay of any single generation. While not intending to be destructive to the nation, these policies have a severely detrimental affect on domestic cohesion and leadership within the foreign relations. Dudziak implies the race issue in the international press was the seed of negative views of the US. The golden temple of American democracy was seen as something falling short, even hypocritical. Locksley Edmunson, writing in 1973, could be speaking of today with our Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and alleged secret CIA prisons when he wrote, "Those states best technically equipped to maintain world order are not necessarily the ones whose credentials recommend them as the most appropriate guardians of a global conscience."
You can read different things out of Mary Dudziak's book. As a student of public diplomacy, my take-away centered on the impact on foreign policy, which the author does a good job investigating. The take-away? Practice what you preach, or at least be effective in making them think you're trying to.
Causes and Effects.......2001-06-05
Upon first consideration one would think that the reciprocal influences of the Cold War and American civil rights activity would be self-evident. Perhaps, but Dudziak's book is full of surprises and details how galling the "American Dilemma" was to U.S. foreign policy-makers and various presidents and how each responded to the concerns of African, Asian, American, and European countries regarding the United States civil rights struggle over several decades. Why was civil rights legislation important to American foreign policy? How was Eisenhower's response to school desegregation in Little Rock influenced by foreign perceptions? How did the international attention to civil rights activity affect John Kennedy's domestic policies? Why was the State Department so concerned about Asian and African criticisms of the United States' record on civil rights? How was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 viewed by the international community? How did the views of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X affect United States foreign policy efforts? Was the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to an American activist also an international signal that worried a president and the State Department? These questions and many more are answered by Dudziak.
Dudziak deserves recognition and commendations for clearly demonstrating that the United States civil rights movement had a global as well as a national impact on America's foreign policy efforts and placed the United States squarely between the demands of a persecuted domestic minority and the scrutiny of the nations to which it declared itself the leader of human rights, liberty, and freedom in contrast to the totalitarian regimes of communist countries.
This book is well worth reading and an important addition to the growing number of books on the history of race relations that was not, and is not,taught in school. Kudos to Dudziak for an important job well done.
Eye Opening and Important -- A Great Read!.......2001-01-11
Mary Dudziak revisits a familiar chapter in American history--the civil rights movement--but provides readers with a completely new perspective on it.
We know about the work that was being done in the streets. But now Dudziak helps us see the movement through the eyes of America's cold war policymakers. For them, civil rights was a foreign policy problem, and Dudziak helps us see how this explains many of the movements successes and (maybe more important) many of its defeats.
Essential reading for everyone interested in American history, civil rights, constitutional law (yes, even Brown v. Board of Education must be seen in light of this analysis), and foreign policy.
Excellent!.......2001-01-08
This book is fabulous. Clear and articulate, it reads like a story and explores an aspect of the civil rights movement most authors and historians have neglected. It is meticulously researched and filled with information from sources ranging from presidential telephone conversations to news wires to official publications. The civil rights movement cannot be fully understood without reflecting upon the information contained in this book.
Book Description
Samuel Adams is perhaps the most unheralded and overshadowed of the founding fathers, yet without him there would have been no American Revolution. A genius at devising civil protests and political maneuvers that became a trademark of American politics, Adams astutely forced Britain into coercive military measures that ultimately led to the irreversible split in the empire. His remarkable political career addresses all the major issues concerning America's decision to become a nation -- from the notion of taxation without representation to the Declaration of Independence. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams all acknowledged that they built our nation on Samuel Adams' foundations. Now, in this riveting biography, his story is finally told and his crucial place in American history is fully recognized.
Customer Reviews:
An inspirational account of one of our greatest founders.......2007-09-13
Compared to the other fundamental founders, hardly any primary sources remain of Adams since he wasn't preoccupied with his place in history and didn't save documents and correspondence. As such, Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution is a short read, but is a relatively concise and well-written account of his political life. Adams himself was extraordinary, and after reading this book, it's easy to see that he is exceedingly underappreciated as one of the greatest American revolutionaries. Adams is a testament to the ability of one man to change the political landscape for the better, and he is inspirational as a one-man harbinger of liberty.
The Father of the American Revolution Is Given His Due.......2007-05-22
No one has articulated it any better than Mark Puls when he states in his concluding remarks that " Americans of his generation came to view Samuel Adams as the spirit of liberty and the patriarch of liberty". Jefferson may have written about the ideals of independence more eloquently; Washington may have acted upon those ideals more directly; and, Franklin may have translated those ideals more concretely abroad to our French allies; however, no one of our founding fathers wrote more frequently, acted more fervently, or lived more fully and focused on the prize of separation and independence than Samuel Adams.
Maybe it's because Adams shunned the spotlight and the attention that others of his era sought so impassionately to grasp, or perhaps, he was content to simply see from the background the ultimate fruits of his prodigious labors. Whatever the reason, Adams emerged as the leading patriot strategist,politician as well as most influential writer in America. The author has truly captured the essence of the man who deservedly is called the Father of the American Revolution. It is a well-witten, if not long overdue, tribute to the mastermind behind the War of independence.
S. A. shows one person can truly make a difference.......2007-04-21
Give the author an "A" for producing a very interesting and informative look at an Adams family member who has not received the attention from history he deserves. Give the publisher "F" for not being interested enough to have a proofreader correct the numerous grammatical errors before printing it.
Good bio of the Father of the American Revolution.......2007-02-25
When you read about most revolutionary war figures - Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson or Madison - their stories more or less start with the American Revolution. Even Ben Franklin, a member of an earlier generation, did not jump on the Independence wagon very early or very easily. Samuel Adams, however, was the most important figure in the early Independence movement and quite rightfully deserves the title Father of the American Revolution.
Mark Puls brief (less than 250 pages of text) biography shows how important Adams was. From an early age, Adams started thinking of independence from England. In 1764, he unsuccessfully opposed the Sugar Act, but laid the foundation for his battle against the 1765 Stamp Act. Showing both good organizational ability and political savvy, he was able to successfully organize a boycott that forced Parliament to repeal the measure. Although it would take a decade to take root, this was really the first blow for independence; it began harder and harder for the British to deal with colonial unrest.
Eventually, after acts like the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party, the rift widened and reconciliation, though attempted, was clearly impossible. During the Revolutionary War, Adams played key roles behind the scenes. Although not an author of the Declaration of Independence, his ideas permeated the document; he also helped construct the Articles of Confederation. After the war, however, other figures moved into the spotlight, a role he was fine with giving up.
In ways Samuel Adams was an idealist, willing to sacrifice his health and financial well-being to accomplish his objectives. He was also, however, a pragmatist, able to work behind the scenes to meet his goals. Reading his biography, however, is also a lesson on how we determine who are our "heroes." In certain ways, Adams is little different from John Calhoun, who also felt he was opposing an oppressive government. Adams, however, is generally looked on favorably, while Calhoun - a major proponent of slavery and one who helped start the secession movement - has, at best, a mixed reputation.
Puls biography is a positive one that never really discusses his subject's flaws, but doesn't descend into the cloying sweetness of hagiography. Well-written, this book is readable and informative, providing insight into one of the lesser-known figures of the era. For those who enjoy learning about this period, or who seem to only know Samuel Adams from the beer that bears his name, this book will be a good read.
THE MAN OF THE REVOLUTION .......2007-01-15
One of the seeming paradoxes of the American Revolution is that, unlike later revolutions, the issues in dispute, centrally the question of taxation without representation, appear from this distance to have been resolvable by essentially parliamentary means until very late in the conflict. This is reflected in the attitudes and political maneuverings of the members of the various colonial leaderships, Samuel Adams included. Unlike the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution there were apparently few conscious revolutionaries ready to take drastic action to gain independence until events forced their hands. Moreover, unlike those revolutions which were more or less predicted by substantial numbers of the people involved based on a whole series of social, political and economic factors the situation in America did not on the surface cry out for such a resolution. However, like those governments the various pre-revolutionary British governments and particularly the person of George III clung to their prerogatives beyond all reason. That is the unifying factor between all three revolutions.
That said, Samuel Adams, by hook or by crook, stands heads above the other colonial leaders in pressing the fight against the Crown to the end. He, unlike others in the various colonial leaderships, did not waiver when it became clear that nothing short of independence would resolve the conflict. From the time of the fight against the Stamp Act through the fight over the quartering of British troops in Boston to the ramifications of the Boston Massacre, the Townsend Acts, the Tea Party, the creation of the committees of correspondence to the call for the Continental Congress his name, thought and pen are linked to the struggles, particularly the struggles in Massachusetts, a pivotal locale of the colonial struggles. Moreover, again unlike other leaders, he was throughout the controversies connected with the plebian masses through the Sons of Liberty. Thus, without exaggeration he can truly be called a tribune of the people. That he has been placed on a lesser level in the pantheon of revolutionary heroes has more to do with how and who writes history than in the measure of the importance of his role in the Revolution.
One can make a strong argument that Adams's organizational skills were critical to the successful union of the colonies into a unitary fighting force against the Crown. His committees of correspondence which he initiated in Massachusetts as a means for dispensing information, producing propaganda and cohering a collective leadership for that colony and which he was instrumental in expanding to the other colonies led to the Continental Congress and thereafter to its call for a Declaration of Independence. No, he did not have a big role in the Declaration itself nor did he play a national role in the revolutionary struggle but one can clearly see his imprint on the thinking (and doing) of the times. The American Revolution was carried out by big men doing a big job. Sam Adams was a big man. If a closet Tory like his cousin John Adams has, due to recent biographical publicity, emerged as a bigger icon in the revolutionary galaxy then Sam Adams's certainly needs to be reevaluated. Read more.
Book Description
Gil Merom argues that modern democracies fail in insurgency wars because they are unable to find a winning balance between expedient and moral tolerance for the costs of war. Small wars are lost at home when a critical minority shifts the balancing element from the battlefield to the marketplace of ideas. This minority, representing the educated middle class, abhors the brutality involved in effective counterinsurgency, but also refuses to sustain the level of casualties resulting from fighting in other ways.
Customer Reviews:
They're not "Small Wars" if you live there. . ........2005-06-04
Merom's book, and Lusavardi's review essay which endorses it, share a subscription to an unhappy intellectual current: "the stab in the back" -- the idea that a worthwhile military effort is undermined by "intellectuals" back home, and that if we'd only been able to "take the gloves off" and be just a bit more brutal -as demanded by circumstances, of course-- then everything would have turned out OK.
But this analysis is both wrong, and a pretext for the suppression of dissent. One of the characteristics of all three of the wars that Merom covers is that they were long, far longer than the American Civil War, and than American involvelment in WWII. The length of these involvements alone belies the argument that if only "a little more time, or more men" had been expended then the outcome would have been different.
What they also share in common --and share with Iraq-- is that they were at best marginally legitimate. None of these "wars" included a declaration of war, nor the political unity that such a declarations require-- Begin's invasion of Lebanon was regarded as illegal by the international community, and unwise by many Israelis. The "casus foederis" for America's Vietnam excursion, the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" was as authentic as Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. And France wished to maintain as French an Arab Muslim territory which didn't desire it at a time when the international community --prominently including the US-- regarded old Empires as politically illegitimate.
An alternate explanation for why democracies lose such wars is that military political elites, having papered together a thin pretext for intervention, are unable to maintain such rationales against the steady wave of casualties, the hatred for the intervener for their efforts, and the lack of any defined endpoint, but you won't hear that in Merom's book.
Finally, we might add that the brutality argument doesn't wash. Rather brutal nations have failed at counter-insurgency warfare --hard to argue that the Soviets in Afghanistan "kept the gloves on", nor that their successors in Chechnya have either. Conversely, the British did put down an insurgency in Malaya-- one of the classic success stories in counter-insurgency warfare.
Blaming whingeing home-front intellectuals for the strategic errors of those who commit a nation's soldiers to wars without end is tempting, but wrong.
Small Wars Lost At Home Not on Battlefield.......2004-05-15
How Democracy Loses Small Wars is perhaps one of the most-timely, but unrecognized books dealing with the so-called "quagmire" and war prisoner abuse situations the U.S. has encountered in Iraq in 2004. Gil Merom addresses how modern democracies lose small wars against weaker forces. Merom writes that small wars are lost mostly at home not on the battlefield when a highly media-visible minority of the educated upper middle class selectively views with moral revulsion the brutality and casualties necessary to win war. In response, government war leaders resort to repress the ugly realities of war by deceit, censure, and crackdowns, attracting even more media attention.
Merom offers three case studies of the outcomes of small wars: the French Algerian War, the Israeli Lebanon War, and the U.S. Vietnam War. It is not the Vietnam War but the French war against Algerian independence from 1954-60 that may offer the best history lesson for the U.S.-Iraq war. France sought to hold onto its empire and oil and gas resources in a mostly Muslim country. The French had overwhelming military power. There were low casualties. The public supported the war despite concerns about the economy. The conflict entailed mostly urban guerilla warfare where one third of the casualties were due to ambushes. And the war was portrayed as a struggle between "forces of light and those of darkness." Sound familiar? France won the battles but lost the war and had to eventually pull out. Its citizens would no longer tolerate the suppression of wartime abuses by criminalizing the press, the seizing of antiwar literature, and invoking the military draft.
So look for the Iraq war to be lost not in Fallujah or Kandahar, but in Berkeley, Paris, or more lately, in Madrid or Abu Ghraib prison. Look for the war to be lost if U.S. forces resort to war crimes, cover-ups, abuses of the Patriot Act, and succumbing to provocations of anti-war activists. Thus far, the Bush administration has court-martialed those who have committed abuses, has reluctantly admitted to no WMD's rather than attempting a cover up, and have avoided anything like the opinion galvanizing incident of the 1970 Kent State University National Guard killing of student Vietnam anti-war protesters in response to the provocation of burning down the campus ROTC building.
Merom offers good analysis of the interaction between the military and civilian battlefields. His book could have been enhanced by an analysis of how, what sociologists Alvin Gouldner and Peter Berger call the "new class" are able to socially construct the military as comprising the moral low ground. As to the quest for capturing the moral high ground in the Iraq War, perhaps the often self-indulgent anti-war activists could be reminded of the tragic moral consequences of the aftermath of abandoning Vietnam - the Killing Fields, the Boat People émigrés, and the atrocities of Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Book Description
The legendary financier-and founder of the Open Society Institute-offers crucial insight into the real meaning of freedom, and how societies can best promote it
After reflecting on his support of a losing Democrat for president, George Soros steps back to revisit his views on why George Bush's policies around the world fall short in the arenas most important to Soros: democracy, human rights and open society. As a survivor of the Holocaust and a life-long proponent of free expression, Soros understands the meaning of freedom. And yet his differences with George Bush, another proponent of freedom, are profound.
In this powerful essay Soros spells out his views and how they differ from the president's. He reflects on why the Democrats may have lost the high ground on these values issues and how they might reclaim it. As he has in his recent books, On Globalization and The Bubble of American Supremacy, Soros uses facts, anecdotes, personal experience and philosophy to illuminate a major topic in a way that both enlightens and inspires.
Customer Reviews:
Summer Reading.......2007-06-27
This book has two pieces. The first half is a mix of philosophy and analysis, centered on the theme of open society. Societies can be divided between those that accept uncertainty and its consequences (open) and those that reject and deny (closed). Soros sees America as an open society in peril of closing due to a population tempted by the false certainty of closed society. The movement towards a closed society was most clearly evidenced by the presidential election of 2004, where Americans embraced the false certainty and incompetence of the Bush administration.
Interesting ideas, but too quickly drawn. What are the advantages and disadvantages of open and closed society? What kind of people gravitates to one or another? How do shock events like 9/11 affect peoples' preferences? Different segments of society will have different preferences, what is the tipping point that pushes society as a whole one way or another?
The second half is a survey of Soros' foundation work, and his going forward concerns such as global warming and a general energy crisis. It didn't engage me. I wish this latter section had been discarded and the first half expanded.
Recommended for the first half.
Good book but with too widespread and not concise line.......2007-04-16
The books is based on three pilars:
1) Representing the falsification theory of Popper, which becomes to some extend boring, since every George Soros book repeats this philosophical fundament. The extension of this theory by incorporating the human nature is indeed a very good idea.
2) Very brief references to experiences gathered within his free society foundation acting in new established democracies. It could be 5 stars rated book, if major part of this book was dedicated to this hot topic
3) Once again his role as finance guru in the past and philanthrop in the presense, revolving to everybody who knows George Soros vita well known facts.
Good book but with to widespread and not concise line
Compelling advocacy of [the] open society.......2007-03-26
Most of the meat of this decidedly philosophic opus by one of the world's most successful financial wizards concerns the differences between the closed and open societies that govern us. The closed society is characterized by traditional modes of thought while the open society is characterized by critical thought. Traditional thinking is unchanging. The past is like the present which is like the future. We think the way our fathers thought and their fathers before them. Knowledge is based on authority. In the open society change is constant. Knowledge is based on the scientific method which yields facts that are always subject to change. In the closed society knowledge is certain and absolute. In the open society knowledge is never certain and always subject to new discoveries.
Yet ironically in the open society (the European Union, the United States, et al.) pure reason does not rule, partly because the pure product of the rational mind is unobtainable because of what might be seen as Russell's paradox acting in the human world. Bertrand Russell discovered (after Godel) that self-referencing systems lead eventually to paradox. What Soros is arguing is that because our perception of the world is self-referential to some extent--that is, how we think about the world colors our perception of the world--we can never see the world "as it really is," and so our view is fallible. In fact, in most aspects of life, especially in the social, economic and political spheres, our perception actually changes reality, and so reality is a "moving target" and as such can never be captured. He calls this "reflexivity." He also dubs it the "human uncertainty principle" since our perception of the world, as our perception of quantum events, alters what is being perceived.
Soros goes on to argue that all cultures are built upon what he calls "fertile fallacies." The cultural ideas are false but they are successful (for a while) because of a positive feedback system, similar to the boom and bust phenomenon in financial markets. People believe that tulips have great intrinsic value, ergo, tulips have great intrinsic value and become worth more than gold. For a while. Eventually "reality" kicks in and the bust comes. So it is with cultures. Nazi Germany boomed magnificently (compared to the immediate aftermath of WWI), but soon went bust because it was built on fallacies. Ditto the Soviet Union.
All this Soros explains carefully and at some length. Then comes the important point: open societies can better avoid the boom and bust syndrome because unlike closed societies they are not built on some fallacious idea of eternal truth. Instead, like science they are always open to falsification and change, whereas close societies resist falsification and change.
In all of this I think Soros is making a brilliant argument. As he himself says, the argument is not original with him--he acknowledges a deep debt to Karl Popper the philosopher of science who wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies and was a mentor to Soros. But what I think Soros is doing here that is original is presenting the argument in a compelling political and social context.
There is so much of a non-philosophic nature that I would like to quote from this book. Soros's observations on politics and the current world order are insightful and penetrating. He is one of the deep thinkers of our time and a man who expresses himself fearlessly. Because of his great material success in the world and the activist stance he has taken internationally, he is a man that many people listen to, even those who find his views disagreeable. Here are a few of his thoughts:
"The idea of death is not the same as the fact of death. The idea of death is the denial of consciousness, and the fact of death is not the denial of life but its natural conclusion." (p. 42)
"I set up an Open Society Fund and defined its objectives as follows: to open up closed societies; to make open societies more viable; and to promote a critical mode of thinking." (p. 53)
In Chapter 3 Soros asks the question, "What's Wrong with America?" and comes to the conclusion that it is a failure of leadership which is the result of "a failure of followership," which is a general way of saying that the Bush administration has greatly failed the American people, but also that the electorate has failed because it has elected people like Bush. But in the next chapter, "The Feel-Good Society," he really nails it. Quite simply the American people have become gluttons of consumption who can barely get off their couches, who do about as much critical thinking as cows chewing their cuds. (His expression is less graphic.) He sees the Bush administration's "war on terror" response to 9/11 as "phantasmagoric" (p. 102) in that Bush has us fighting against an abstraction instead of going after the people responsible for 9/11. Soros writes, "Since the war on terror is counterproductive, it is liable to generate more terrorists or insurgents than it can liquidate. As a result, we are facing a permanent state of war and the end of the United States as an open society." (p. 106) (cf., Orwell)
On Afghanistan: "...we formed alliances with warlords, and it is their authority that we helped to establish; in this way, we consolidated an economic and political system based on the illegal cultivation of narcotics." (p. 149) On Iraq, "Iran is the major beneficiary of the invasion, which removed its enemy Saddam Hussein from power, tied up American forces in a task that they are ill-prepared to perform, and tightened the supply of oil" [making Iranian oil more valuable]. (p. 112)
Soros also addresses the problems of energy supply and global warming, which of course are interrelated. He touches on the nuclear threat which he sees as now more menacing than during the Cold War.
Fallible is a good description........2007-02-21
It does make sense to look at different points of view especially at this time in history. This book gives you that opportunity. Somewhat difficult to read at first it becomes easier as you proceed.
George Soros, Philosopher.......2007-02-02
Anyone who has done some reading in philosophy or the sociology of knowledge will quickly recognize George Soros' key concepts. The Open Society Foundation which he created was based on principles set forth by Karl Popper with whom Soros studied at the London School of Economics.
Popper's philosophy can best be described as critical rationalism. In science, as well as other branches of knowledge, truth is always being tested by trial and error. False theories are always eliminated, so that "more truthful" ones can be entertained. The ultimate truth, however, can never be attained; truth is that which can best withstand the falsification process. This was the rejection of scientific induction and was replaced with what is called "fallibilism." When applied to society, policies are always being formulated and constantly being revised when subjected to the real world. In an open society citizens presumably have an understanding of this process and are always willing to reject the false and embrace the truth.
And because they are dynamic, open societies are inherently unstable. Liberal democracies and market economies, which are the hallmarks of open societies, are the aggregate result of multitudinous decisions and actions by individuals and groups. It is a state of affairs which can easily become what Soros calls a "far-from-equilibrium" situation. Soros has claimed that as a market participant, he had no regard for the consequences of his actions other than profit maximization. But as a philanthrophist and political activist he is a believer in a mixed economy which would include some form of international economic governance.
With philosophic duties aside, Soros uses the second part of his book to launch a diatribe of what is wrong with the world in general and America in particular with special vitriol for the Bush administration. (Soros spent over $20 million toward defeating Bush in 2004, and once quipped that if it cost him his entire fortunem, then so be it.)
According to Soros, America has become a "feel good" society that is so intoxicated with consumerism that it can easily be deceived by corrupt politicians, or, worse yet, that it is indifferent to the fact that it is being deceived, failing to understand the basic tenets of an open society spoken of earlier. However, since the publication of this book, there has been ample evidence that Americans do not take kindly to being deceived and that they deal harshly with deceivers at the polls.
It seems paradoxical that the free-market fundamentalism preached by the Bush administration - and many Democrats - and from which Soros profited greatly, should now be the target of his anger. It even more paradoxical that after having spent millions of dollars in aiding the liberation of Eastern Europe, that Soros is now so infuriated with the Bush administration for trying to do the same thing in the Middle East - though with armed forces. What really underlies Soros' anger is that the American model of an open society has been greatly damaged under Bush's watch. He feels that the powerful example that we once were to the rest of the world is no longer, and without America's exalted leadership the world will suffer as a result.
Hopefully, Soros is overstating his case. He has been better at predicting the market than the future as a whole. Amercia can easily regain its previous stature after Bush is out of the picture, and the world will not, inspite of views to the contrary, come to an end.
Book Description
Francis Fukuyama’s criticism of the Iraq war put him at odds with neoconservative friends both within and outside the Bush administration. Here he explains how, in its decision to invade Iraq, the Bush administration failed in its stewardship of American foreign policy. First, the administration wrongly made preventive war the central tenet of its foreign policy. In addition, it badly misjudged the global reaction to its exercise of “benevolent hegemony.” And finally, it failed to appreciate the difficulties involved in large-scale social engineering, grossly underestimating the difficulties involved in establishing a successful democratic government in Iraq.
Fukuyama explores the contention by the Bush administration’s critics that it had a neoconservative agenda that dictated its foreign policy during the president’s first term. Providing a fascinating history of the varied strands of neoconservative thought since the 1930s, Fukuyama argues that the movement’s legacy is a complex one that can be interpreted quite differently than it was after the end of the Cold War. Analyzing the Bush administration’s miscalculations in responding to the post–September 11 challenge, Fukuyama proposes a new approach to American foreign policy through which such mistakes might be turned around—one in which the positive aspects of the neoconservative legacy are joined with a more realistic view of the way American power can be used around the world.
Customer Reviews:
The history of the neoconservative movement and its hijacking........2007-09-04
OK, I am not a neoconservative. However, I wanted to know a little more about this movement since many in the Administration are deemed neoconservatives. Fukuyama makes his point that real neoconservatives didn't want to go to war in Iraq. An element of the neoconservative movement made that decision much to the dismay of most leading members. He then cites the reasons why the Iraq War was not on the neoconservative agenda. I am not sure his different shadings of political movements made sense. What does make sense are the wrong reasons we went to war in Iraq.
This is a politics book and attempts to put a political label on what neoconservatives, conservatives, and liberals are. I am not sure we can put everybody in a political category. However, the book gave me a somewhat better idea what neoconservatives stand for on the foreign policy agenda of this country.
Required Reading.......2007-09-02
The past success of Francis Fukuyama has created high expectations for each new book and he does not disappoint us with America at the Crossroads. The book is an excellent primer for understanding the state of the foreign policy of the United States. The scope of this work is more narrow and focused than his classic The End of History and the Last Man, which is arguably one of the greatest non-fiction books of the twentieth century.
This new work is focused on American foreign policy after September 11th. The contentious and confusing topic is expertly analyzed and explained by Fukuyama in a manner that is understandable to the layperson, yet thorough and complex. It is a thought-provoking analysis that is unusually non-partisan. Extremists from both the left and right political circles will not find countenance in this book. Professor Fukuyama is astutely fair in his criticism of the Bush Administration and, yet, carefully realistic on what the U.S. options are in fighting Islamic terrorism.
This book is highly recommended to anyone who wants to broaden their understanding of the foreign policy matters. It should be required reading by all presidential candidates and the media who cover those candidates. It is a rarity to find this combination of complexity, evenhandedness, and readability in one book.
Anarchistically arrogant.......2007-07-13
With The End of History and The Last Man, Fukuyama provided neo-conservatives and their political acolytes with the academic legitimacy they did not have otherwise. So the world and history was no longer moving thanks to the free play of its inner contradictions but it had reached its end. Fukuyama, fifteen years later, does not criticize this basic idea of his, but criticizes the neo-conservatives who turned this anti-historical pronunciamento into the policy that led to the Iraq catastrophe. Fukuyama is thus totally unaware of his responsibility. But he shows clearly how Iraq has become a major mistake and hence a major hindrance and handicap in the aftermath of Iraq. But he does not change his idea that America is the only superpower in the world, not understanding the change occurring right now under our own eyes with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that brings together, among others, Russia, China, India, Kazakhstan, etc. He still goes on advocating that the US has the sole responsibility in the world to promote democracy. Yet he concedes two points. That has to be done through rather homogeneous coalitions, not understanding the world has to be managed collectively with and by everyone. He also concedes that democracy and regime change has to come from within a country and not from outside. And yet he advocates the voluntary association of some states around the US to promote and impose the US point of view and interest. He even goes one wide step further by considering the UN should be sidetracked and replaced by an array of organizations that would overlap over one another. The examples he defends are the International Organization for Standards (ISO) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), two absolutely opaque and non-transparent organizations bringing together private interests and enabling these to establish their rules and impose their power. ICANN is an archetypical case since it only depends on the US Commerce Department and it regulates the Internet through extensions and addresses. Fukuyama forgets to state what ICANN did at the beginning of the War on Iraq at the demand of Washington: it clicked the extension "iq" out, grounding all internet relation inside or from Iraq and all internet relation from outside Iraq into the country. It erased Iraq off the map of the Internet and global communication. And this imperialistic approach is consistently repeated from beginning to end in this book, even if it seems to consider the war on Iraq and the global war against terror were two fundamental mistakes. He is so far away from reality that he scholastically asserts that Moslem militants are young people born from Arab immigrants in poor and deprived suburbs in Europe, themselves being poor, deprived and largely uneducated, as if the French had not seen highly trained technicians moving into these groups as soon as the late 1980s and as if Glasgow and London did not reveal that place of highly educated people in these groups. And the conclusion he borrows from Madeleine Albright is typical of his own stance: "Americans deserve to lead because they can `see further' than other people." This is plainly vain and can turn into arrogance in no time.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
Interesting and formidable reading .......2007-05-14
This is a dense book on political theory. It covers the origins and future direction of the neoconservative movement. Primarily a personal essay by analyst (and former neocon supporter) Francis Fukuyama, it meanders, digresses and, at times, makes a call for action. He includes enough academic material to make both interesting and formidable reading, even for those with a serious interest in government. This is not about everyday politics, but about underlying ideas and concepts, although the author does not clearly state what he thinks will happen after the neoconservatives are removed from power - or even how soon, or if, that might happen. He reserves his recommendations for the last chapter, but the book's opaque presentation and unfortunately stilted language blunt his usual bite about the role of the neoconservative movement. We recommend this book primarily to those who have followed Fukuyama's earlier works or who are very interested in political theory. Serious poly sci students will find it rich and substantive.
fake bait and an empty hook.......2007-01-29
I am both impressed and disappointed with Fukuyama's latest work. What impresses me is Fukuyama's incredibly extensive knowledge of American history (including the history of American ideas) and his savvy with respect to American foreign policy. In America at the Crossroads he shows his brilliance as an astute critic of neoconservatism and the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. I reckon I must be impressed with what is in the book. My disappointment, then, must be owed to what is not in the book; namely, a robust alternative to neoconservative ideology, which Fukuyama promises in the introduction, but never delivers.
Amazon.com
As soon as you hear the conceit of this book--that there are two great opposing forces at work in the world today, border-crossing capitalism and splintering factionalism, and that they are the two biggest threats to democracy--you know it rings true enough to be worth reading. Although capitalism could have only grown to current levels in the soil of democracies, Benjamin Barber argues that global capitalism now tends to work against the very concept of citizenship, of people thinking for themselves and with their neighbors. Too often now, how we think is the product of a transnational corporation (increasingly, a media corporation) with headquarters elsewhere. And although self-determination is one of the most fundamental of democratic principles, unchecked it has lead to a tribalism (think Bosnia, think Rwanda) in which virtually no one besides the local power elite gets a fair shake. The antidote, Barber concludes, is to work everywhere to resuscitate the non-governmental, non-business spaces in life--he calls them "civic spaces" (such as the village green, voluntary associations of every sort, churches, community schools)--where true citizenship thrives.
Book Description
"An important new book."
--Newsweek
"Mr. Barber is. . . the first to put Jihad and McWorld together in an inescapable
dialectic . . . . [It] stands as a bold invitation to debate the broad contours and future of society."
--Barbara Ehrenreich
The New York Times Book Review
"COMPELLING. . . IMPRESSIVE. . . A thorough, engaging look at the current state of world affairs."
--The American Reporter
Jihad vs. McWorld is a groundbreaking work, an elegant and illuminating analysis of the central conflict of our times: consumerist capitalism versus religious and tribal fundamentalism. These diametrically opposed but strangely intertwined forces are tearing apart--and bringing together--the world as we know it, undermining democracy and the nation-state on which it depends. On the one hand, consumer capitalism on the global level is rapidly dissolving the social and economic barriers between nations, transforming the world's diverse populations into a blandly uniform market. On the other hand, ethnic, religious, and racial hatreds are fragmenting the political landscape into smaller and smaller tribal units. Jihad vs. McWorld is the term that distinguished writer and political scientist Benjamin R. Barber has coined to describe the powerful and paradoxical interdependence of these forces. In this important new book, he explores the alarming repercussions of this potent dialectic for democracy.
A work of persuasive originality and penetrating insight, Jihad vs. McWorld holds up a sharp, clear lens to the dangerous chaos of the post-Cold War world. Critics and political leaders have already heralded Benjamin R. Barber's work for its bold vision and moral courage. Jihad vs. McWorld is an essential text for anyone who wants to understand our troubled present and the crisis threatening our future.
"CHALLENGING AND INSTRUCTIVE."
--San Francisco Chronicle
"BARBER IS WELL WORTH READING. . . FOR AN INTRODUCTION TO THE REAL WORLD, LOOK AT JIHAD vs. McWORLD."
--The Nation
"STIMULATING, TARTLY WRITTEN."
--Publishers Weekly
Customer Reviews:
interesting, but a little preachy.......2007-06-30
First of all, the cover art has been changed. Originally, it was a relatively prosaic cover, full of logos of religious symbols, corporate logos, and military equipment. The picture of the burka-clad lady sipping a Pepsi was undoubtedbly added after 9/11, to capitalize on world events. But the text has not been changed or revised, as far as I can tell....
On to the content. Almost half of the book is taken up by a description of "McWorld" (i.e. the multinational, comsumerist culture that would have us all drinking a Coke, going to McDonalds, wearing Nikes, etc., possibly to the detriment of local culture). Nothing I haven't really heard or read before.
Next, the author tries to describe "Jihad". (As an aside, although I am not a Muslim, I do know that Jihad is a specific Islamic term roughly meaning "struggle", but actually meaning different kinds of struggles, of which the violence that we hear about in the West is only one). In the book, the term "Jihad" is used to mean any opposition to "McWorld", or perhaps modernity or other cultures in general. I'm not sure that's appropriate; maybe another term, such as "neotribalism" (which actually is used in a few places in the book) might be more useful? Only a relatively short chapter talks about religion at all; it mostly tries to compare the Christian right (and far-right) in the US with the Islamic extremists.
A couple of chapters go over the "failure" of post-Communist Russia and East Germany; another describes the effects of "McWorld" on China and Japan. Also described in several places is the intersection of "McWorld" and "Jihad"; as "Jihadists" use the products and technologies of "McWorld" ,not only to propagate their ideas, but also as products for everyday living. (Maybe the new cover with the burka-wearing woman enjoying a Pepsi is more appropriate than I thought at first!)
According to the book, neither "McWorld" nor "Jihad" is a replacement for democracy. There are a number of social goals that are not met by either. Further, the current system of nation-states is no match for the power of the multinational companies; some sort of supra-national, global, democratic institution with power comparable to that of multinational capitalism. (Actually getting to that point, however, would require imposing democratic ideals on countries and communities that are now decidedly anti-democratic--this is not a task done overnight).
What I didn't like is that the book overestimates the power of "McWorld", portraying the multinational corporations worrying that some third-world kid is drinking tea rather than a Coke. Like all stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth in it, but that doesn't make it any less of a stereotype. The author plays favorites; the word "jihad" appears nowhere in the several pages on Hollywood domination of the movie industry in France; yet, right-wing American evangelicals, (rightly or wrongly) questioning changing societal values get dumped on the "Jihad" heap with the neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists. The FCC gets dinged for not forcing a radio station for keeping its classical format (although setting formats wasn't, and isn't, a function of the FCC to begin with). And so on.
Then there's the out-and-out fingerwagging; the aside on (American) slavery seems to lacks any real tie-in to the theme of "McWorld and Jihad", but more like the author coming out and telling us how we should think. This is true to a lesser extent of the "Bowling Alone"-type material in the "Global Democracy" chapter. (It's a big step from leaving one's comfortable suburban home and joining a bowling league with one's fellow suburbanites, and forming a global government with people halfway around the world who believe in who-knows-what!)
There are also a number of lists; media mergers and top films (relevant, since it shows the domination of multinational over local media) and energy use per country (less so, since equality of energy usage could theoretically be imposed by a non-democratic global system as well as by a democratic one).
To his credit, the author doesn't present "McWorld" as an evil conspiracy, but more like a natural market force that really ought to be checked by some theoretical one-world government. The "Jihad" side, however, is more of a minefield of the author's personal biases and "Things-That-Must-Be-Defended/Derided-At-All Costs".
The unity between religious fundamentalists and big business elites EXPOSED !.......2006-06-23
It's amazing how despite all the tragedies and wars, big business elitists are able to cash in on the damage while religious fundamentalists never get caught, much less held accountable. The idiots who show their hate of this book are from terrorist nations that have a knack of socializing poverty and terrorism while at the same time privatizing wealth. Despite all the big talk about winning the so-called war on terrorism, the ugly truth is wars have not taught us anything. If it weren't for Big Business funding Hitler, Hitler would have had a harder time killing the Jews. Sadly though, even after World War II ended, the Big Business elites that funded and continue to fund dictatorships like Hitler, Stalin, and the modern ones are not only not held accountable but often end up walking away as "heroes". If we're really going to win the war on terrorism and/or poverty, we're going to have to stop supporting big business elite and stop allowing our uber-corrupt politicians from exploiting peoples fears on terrorism even while maximizing poverty.
An Important but Very Flawed Work on Socio-Economics.......2006-04-03
I tried to embrace this book--I really did. It was tempting to want to have at last found a piece of academic writing that deftly encapsulates and explains this clash of titans: jihad and globalism. Barber's main title is, however, more tantalizing than explanatory. This book demonstrates the dangers of allegiance to dichotomies; there are other forces at work in society that grapple with the headline-stealing titans.
This is an important book at least insofar as it captures a growing sentiment among academics interested in the socio-economic forces that compel current events. It is not, therefore, an easy read for the layman (particularly the last part of the book) which is ironic given his call to grassroots citizen action.
Barber asserts--really insists with an uncomfortable brand of academic arrogance--in almost narrowly political overtones that the world is immersed in a battle of opposing ideologies: the corporate, amoral and homogenized one that really is without ideology and the local, or tribal, and rigidly moral and fragmented one that is part ideology, part myth-making.
Unfortunately, in his earnestness to construct and defend his convenient dichotomy, he conforms exceptions to his rule. The jihadists--whether ethnic hatemongers or terrorists--have for Barber retained some residue of moral dignity while the globalist--whether gullible, materialistic and indifferent consumers or manipulative, multinational executives--have altogether lost their moral compass.
His solution (which he fails to outline, thus making his work more of a polemic and manifesto rather than manual for change) is an activist citizenry fully appreciative of their need and ability to shore up the civil sector of modern societies. Here again Barber is remiss, revealing that writing from one's desk rather than the field has its limitations. He fails to acknowledge, for example, the extent to which the lack of a civic tradition in such nations as Russia and China impedes social progress of the sort he pines for. And the following further indicates his lack of awareness of Chinese cultural resiliency: "What is striking is that even here where a native culture might be thought to have its greatest chances against the children of the Western Enlightenment, McWorld seems irresistible."(190)
Aside from this concern, and his lack of concrete solutions and elusive, often inaccessible writing style, Barber tends to exaggerate the extent to which corporate influence is mitigated by both government and civic organizations, especially in the Western democracies. He is undeservedly far too pessimistic in this regard and fails to note the many ways in which a bygone American lacked a collective sense of civic duty. Moreover, his analysis is flawed, as I believe you will also discover, by his apparent aspirations to global citizenship. Nor, as other reviewers have noted, has he given due credit to the government and business sectors in creating a climate for a civic society to exist, must less flourish with some degree of autonomy. The symbolic assault on McDonald's is both tedious and unfair. While guilty of promoting unhealthy diets to some extent, it is a zealous stretch to accuse this and other multinationals of single handedly distorting the cultural landscape of developing nations. And even in the U.S., McDonald's has played a civic role via the Ronald McDonald House, it's management hiring practices and provisions for inner-city employment.
This book, perhaps like this review, could have been thought out more and condensed considerably. For a far better articulated review of this book see Gary Rosen's piece online from the journal First Things.
Provactative but lacking in substance........2006-03-10
I read Barber's book in 1995, shortly after my return from my dissertation research in Indonesia. I was dismayed but what were clear errors in Barber's treatment of Indonesia. He talks about the marketing succes of Coke to sell the sweet syrupy beverage as a substitute to the more "native" tea. What he fails to see is for many if not most ethnic groups of Indonesia tea is served very sweet -- with what I hyperbolically refer to as "equal parts sugar and water." He also bemoan Indonesians taking up blue jeans in favor of saris. Saris? I know of no Indonesians who wear saris -- this is a garment better associated with India. Ok, I know these are perhaps trifiling errors. However, Barbers evidence is composed exclusively of little vignettes and reference like this. I do not know of the accuracy of his specific examples for other countries. However, if the problem he has with understanding the basic facts of Indonesian culture are replicated through all his examples, the argument he tries to support by them must be suspect.
That said, I found the book intriguing. I find the proposition that either the world will become a huge pave parking lot full of McDonald's Hard Rock Cafe's, and discos pumping MTV or it will be torn apart by attempts to assert local identity ludicrous. This idea of Barber's inspired me to write an article specificaly examine McDonald's in the Indonesian cultural landscape. In many important ways, McDonald's Indonesia is more Indonesian than it is anything else. And, it actively seeks to be so.
It came out shortly after the time I had Samual Huntington's Foreign Affairs article "The Clash of Civilizations" pointed out to me by my Indonesian Muslim interlocutors. I find Barber's argument interesting in regard to the Clash of Civilizations debate. Barber does not deal with either Bernard Lewis (who coined "Clash of Civilizations" or Huntington (who popularized it). However, I find in his work, the important corrective that the clash is not limited to Muslims but to all efforts to oppose global capitalism by emphasizing local identity. Also to the degree that there is such a clash, Barber's book can supply an understanding of its mechanism. Again, this was not Barber's point, but it can be drawn from his book.
With my critiques of this book, you might think that I discarded it shortly after reading it. I still have my original copy. I think that the book will make the reader think and if readers actually do that rather than accept it as gospel, then the book is very much worth the read. In fact, I will be assigning it as a test in course I will teach in the Fall of 2006.
Ron Lukens-Bull, PhD
Associate Professor of Anthropology
University of North Florida
McJihad vs. Reality.......2006-02-09
This book is inexplicably influential, probably due to its catchy but ultimately meaningless title. Barber fails to convincingly analyze an interesting thesis, instead delivering an exasperating 300 page-long list of every single thing on Earth that he disagrees with. Barber contends that natural human political behavior results in smaller and smaller ethnic enclaves trying to separate themselves from the larger world, while unchecked global capitalism is erasing ethnic flavor with bowdlerized mass-culture sameness. Interestingly, Barber contends that these two contrary movements are actually in an unholy alliance, using each other's excesses as excuses for their anti-democratic behavior. That is a fascinating thesis, which makes the weaknesses of this book all the more infuriating.
The first part of the book is an interminable tirade of lists within lists, of cultural trends that Barber disdains, in an avalanche of complaints that is not analytical but merely selective and arbitrary. It's all tied together with attempts at "edgy" pop culture references, made-up terminology (like the annoying "infotainment telesector"), and pseudo-intellectual quotations and namedropping. All is lumped together unconvincingly under the anemic term "McWorld," which is so vague and all-inclusive as to become meaningless. In his never-ending examples of how recent cultural trends are damaging the freedom and intelligence of the masses, Barber merely comes across as a condescending snob who thinks his own interests are superior, or a curmudgeon who thinks everything was better back in the good old days, or both. In the second part of the book, Barber proceeds to throw obtuse political science theories at various world hotspots, in which tribalism and separatism are damaging the integrity of nation-states. His umbrella term for this phenomenon is the dangerously loaded term "Jihad." Note that this book was published back in 1995, so that word was not as prevalent in Western discourse as it is now, but Barber still uses the term as a loose descriptor which is likely to offend both devout Muslims and ardent anti-Islamists.
When it comes to the specifics, many reviews here and elsewhere list out the numerous flaws in Barber's arguments, and there are so many of them that a lot of reviews are necessary for the task. You can agree or disagree with various critiques of Barber's contentions based on your own personal politics. But everyone will probably conclude that in this book's final section he does not deliver on the ironic implications of his initially intriguing thesis (embodied in the book's title), and simply forwards borrowed theories on civil society and the public sector. Overall, this book is mostly the longwinded grumblings of a nostalgic know-it-all who portentously predicts doom for every single cultural and political reality of the modern world. [~doomsdayer520~]
Book Description
Exploring the challenge of rehabilitating countries after civil wars, this study finds that attempting to transform war-shattered states into liberal democracies with market economies can backfire badly. Roland Paris contends that the rapid introduction of democracy and capitalism in the absence of effective institutions can increase rather than decrease the danger of renewed fighting. A more effective approach to post-conflict peacebuilding would be to introduce political and economic reform in a gradual and controlled manner.
Customer Reviews:
Provocative but off the mark.......2007-06-21
This is a provocative and useful book. Besides making a case that the attempt to impose a liberal political and economic order on states recovering from civil war often fails and is sometimes a disaster, Paris provides a nice introduction to several of the most important recent attempts at international post-conflict reconstruction.
But Paris' argument is oversimplified, and sometimes just plain wrong. He paints the international effort as ideologically unified around a liberal order, when in fact those carrying out the economic program (neoliberalism) scarcely talk to those carrying out the political reforms and reconstruction. In fact, the complaint that the two work at cross purposes -- with World Bank and IMF reformers insisting on economic austerity ("fiscal stability"), liberalization, and privatization policies that undermine efforts to provide people with a "peace payoff" -- has become common among those who work and write in this area.
Paris also worries that, in failing to address the poverty and inequality that lay at the root of civil conflicts, the international community has laid the groundwork for future conflicts even in success cases like El Salvador. In fact, the evidence is that political reforms that incorporate dissident elites into the political system satisfied the central "root cause" of civil war. There is lots of inequality and poverty around the world, but it rarely leads to civil war without a political leadership determined to mobilize people against what they see as a repressive and exclusionary regime.
Finally, Paris proposes an alternative model that would have the international community playing a more directive role, taking over the civil administration of countries recovering from civil conflict until institutions are strong enough to manage democracy and economic liberalization. But he ignores the fact that most civil conflicts leave governments standing that are strong enough -- and determined enough -- to resist international meddling. Even in Cambodia, where the UN was given sweeping powers to oversee the civil administration, the Hun Sen government was determined to maintain control and there was not much UNTAC could do to stop it. The illusion that "we" can just step in and impose our agenda is widespread in this country and accounts for the notion that the United States could (and, for some, still can) bring peace and democracy to Iraq if we could just commit enough time and troops to the effort. Paris should ground his recommendations in the real world and not in American fantasies of omnipotence.
This Book Deserves More Attention.......2006-07-21
It is stunning that so little attention has been given to reviewing this book yet. This volume is one that advances preconditions for successful democratic nation building, based upon a series of recent case studies (such as Angola, Rwanda, Cambodia, Liberia, Bosnia, Croatia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Namibia, and Mozambique). This is one of a series of works (such as The RAND volume, America's Role in Nation-Building;Fukuyama's State-Building; etc.) that address what it takes to create new democratic states that will ensure.
Roland Paris addresses an issue that initially seems far afield--peacebuilding. However, his analysis ends up very much on the mark for better understanding democratic nation building. For Paris, peacebuilding represents ". . .postconflict missions". . .with ". . .the goal of preventing a recurrence of violence" (Paris, 2004: 2). What does this have to do with nation building? As he explains (2004: 5):
Peacebuilding missions in the 1990s were guided by a
generally unstated but widely accepted theory of conflict
management: the notion that promoting "liberalization" in
countries that had recently experienced civil war would
help to create the conditions for a stable and lasting
peace. In the political realm, liberalization means
democratization, or the promotion of periodic and genuine
elections, constitutional limitations on the exercise of
government power, and respect for basic civil
liberties. . . .
On the economic side, liberalization refers, according to Paris, to the movement toward a market economy model. His study of a series of postconflict situations finds this liberal economic democracy model a common end goal of peacebuilders. In effect, what he terms peacebuilding looks very much like what others call democratic nation building.
Paris argues that the most promising strategy is IBL---Institutionalization Before Liberalization, that is, that peacebuilders should not immediately move toward economic and political liberalization. Rather, they should first (re)build institutions so that there is a stable base. Among the steps in this process are:
1. Wait until conditions are conducive for elections to
take place.
2. Design electoral systems to reward moderate parties
and candidates.
3. Work to develop a stable civil society.
4. Head off the emergence of "hate" speech.
5. Develop conflict-reducing economic policies.
6. In short, rebuild effective state institutions.
For Paris, there needs to be a two-step process: first, build institutions as a foundation; second, construct liberal structures on that foundation.
This means time and hard work. For successful democratic nation-building, patience is needed--and understanding thast the process must be carefully managed with uncertain outcomes. In short, this is a must read on the subject of what it takes to produce successful nation-building.
Books:
- The White Rose: Munich, 1942-1943
- Thermopylae: The Battle for the West
- To Be a U.S. Army Green Beret (To Be A)
- To the North Anna River: Grant and Lee, May 13-25, 1864
- Urgent Fury: The Battle for Grenada (Issues in Low Intensity Conflict)
- Waffen-SS Encyclopedia
- War Is a Racket: The Anti-War Classic by America's Most Decorated General, Two Other Anti=Interventionist Tracts, and Photographs from the Horror of It
- When the Wind Blows
- Zlata's Diary: A Child's Life in Wartime SarajevoRevised Edition
- 55th North Carolina in the Civil War: A History And Roster
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Taking Sides: American History, Volume I
- Goddess of the Rose
- The Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell: Molecular and Biological Responses to the Extracellular Matrix
- A Man Called Raven
- Caspar David Friedrich
- Human Resources in Healthcare: Managing for Success Second Edition
- Cutwork
- Usonia, New York: Building a Community with Frank Lloyd Wright
- 100 Victorian Architectural Designs for Houses and Other Buildings
- Marine Algae of the Monterey Peninsula California
Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West
Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the Us
Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't
The Al Qaeda Reader
World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism
