Reader Reviews of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
taken from amazon.com
Nuenke is Nuts..., September 23, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from CHICAGO
...to think that the United States will disintegrate. Huntington's book is a helpful review of the world's main cultural systems, and Mr. Nuenke's review in January 2000 offers a legitimate critique about the role of natural selection in human development.
However, Nuenke is blind to a very basic evolutionary factor. It is the tyrannical butchery of fellow tribe members by the Romans (see "Gladiator"), Nazis, Soviets, and the Taliban that, ultimately, leads the butcher's own tribe to self-destruct.
The modern West has developed a very different tribal model characterized by a deep and diverse gene pool, inviolate protection of individual human rights and many other factors which all favor ultimate survival. ....
In his next book, Mr. Huntington should reconsider these aspects of his subject.
cynical, sinister and dangerous, September 16, 2001
Reviewer: shukan from USA
Let the reader beware! History will not look kindly upon this book, nor its converts. Huntington is a leading critic of traditional, Western-style parliamentary democracy. Since his 1957 book "The Soldier and the State," he has advocated instead the militarization of American society on a Prussian model. In this, he is working within a tradition of political theory that may be traced directly to Carl Schmitt, one of Nazi Germany's leading legal architects.
Like Schmitt, Huntington believes that state power can be defined only with respect to an external enemy. Now that the Cold War is over, Huntington in "The Clash of Civilizations" cynically invents the concept of "Islamic-Confucian" civilization to replace Communism as the West's new "enemy." In this respect, he and Osama bin Laden see the world's future in the same way: as a culture war between "Islam" and the "West" that will, regardless of who "wins", put an end to traditional Western liberal democracy as we know it.
In order to defend ourselves and the US Constitution against those who committed the September 11 atrocities, we must first utterly reject arguments such as Huntington's. Our fight is clearly against some well-organized, well-financed group of criminals, not a "civilization." Those who would distract the public from the obvious and try to sell it instead on a new world war against "Islam" are no better than the Nazis, who started one against "Judaism". It is absolutely shocking that as the American public is being prepared for a new war, curtailment of civil liberties and a militarized society, this 1996 "Mein Kampf" is approaching the top of Amazon's best-seller list. Those who forget history are truly condemned to repeat it.
In the wake of the NY/DC terrorism, this is worth reading, September 13, 2001
Reviewer: Chris Ward from Costa Rica
Huntington's thesis is remarkably germane now, after the terrorism that destroyed the WTC and a portion of the Pentagon. Read it and see-- his prescient analysis should be kept in mind as we plan our response.
Read Pages 209-221, NOW!!!!, September 12, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from Pittsburgh, Pa USA
I just re-read these pages and other chapters 10-11. Read this book. After the events of 9/11/01 we have to see how clairvoiant this author was in 1996. This book tells it like it is and that we may be entering a new phase of the Crusades.
A Missed Opportunity, July 26, 2001
Reviewer: unraveler from United States
The book rips off Toynbee and Spangler and tries to update them for the twentieth century. It is plagued by the same problems characteristic of scholarly books trying to "prove" what is merely a point of view or ideological perspective, but not a bona fide scientific hypothesis. It is strewn with data that does not clearly support a specific proposition, it pushes its erudition of the reader with an enormous number of proper names and small facts, it ends with sensationalism ("In the clash of civilizations, Europe and America will hang together or hang separately.") and melodrama ("In the greater clash, the global 'real clash,' between Civilization and barbarism, the world's great civilizations, with their rich accomlishments in religion, art, literature, philosophy, science, technology, morality, and compassion will also hang together or hang separately").
A theoretical book on civilizations is needed. But this is not it. In this book, Huntington has no fresh insights, presents no new connections, and offers no specific solutions. Instead, he plays on the popular mistrust and misconception of Muslims--"Islam has bloody borders"--and lets his reputation do the rest.
Paradigm shift, or a lot of hot air?, July 13, 2001
Reviewer: Edward Bosnar from Zagreb, Croatia
Huntington made a sincere attempt to be at the cutting edge in defining the shape of international politics in the wake of the cold war, and perhaps hoped to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. But the world's just not that simple. Despite this book's length, and the amount of effort Huntington invested in arguing his "clash of civilizations" thesis here and in the pages of Foreign Affairs, it is nonetheless based on a number of generalizations and conclusions that do not stand up to more detailed scrutiny. For example, the renewed tensions between the U.S. and Russia probably have less to do with Russia's "Orthodox Slav" civilizational sphere than the more recent history of hostility between the former USSR and the West, as well as the fact that many Russians today feel international financial institutions (propped up by US, EU or Japanese capital) plundered the Russian economy. His characterization of the Yugoslav wars as a conflict on a civilizational "faultline" is almost laughable (even though it was quite popular for a time among those former Yugoslavs located on the 'right' side, i.e. in the West, of Huntington's civilization border). Additionally, although Huntington attempts to downplay it, the underlying theme of "Clash of Civilizations" seems to be that the West (read America) is better than the rest. Therefore, the book often seems more like a call to arms than a constructive analysis of potential international political problems and how to overcome them.
not that good, June 26, 2001
Reviewer: ioancuza
well, i was happy with Samuel Huntington's Third Wave, but this one seems too political and not so much based on theoretical research. i like his ideas about civilization, but he doesn't show much respect for the Arab nations, and tries to present policy that further alienates and isolates Arab countries.
Other values, June 26, 2001
Reviewer: Walter F. Kohlbach from Wolfsberg Austria
Underlying the surface earth are tectonic plates and Huntington´s argument that a similar thing is true with civilisation(s) is in a way frightening. For it means that there probably never will be such a thing as a universal all-human civilisation, so beloved to scifi-writers. Well, I love science fiction, but also history and I live near to the Balkans where three civilisations meet. That´s why I think that the analysis given here is correct. Huntington´s book is valuable if you want to understand the shape of foreign policy in the near future. It may come as a shock to many Americans: most of the world doesn´t want to become loke the USA. They have other values. Good? Bad? Doesn´t matter: fact!
Reveals the truth about Islam, April 17, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from Bethesda, Maryland USA
With it its profound interest in safeguarding the oil flow from the Middle East and due to the sense of false monotheistic kinship with Islam the Western Nations placate the raging Mullah. But any objective study of history shows that Islam was the most destructive ideology that history has ever produced. Stalinism and Nazism look pale before when compared to Islam in terms of victims claimed and civilizations annhilated. Colonial Christianity follows in a distant second place. Huntington does very well to bring out the potential of these ideologies in future military and political show downs. His most important contribution is to expose the danger of Islam to the average reader who has probably been fed on a string of apolegtic writings that try to paint Islam in pleasant light.
His predictive scenarios may not be right and he does not seem to show a clear grasp of the Asian geopolitics, yet the work deserves commendation due to the important point of ideology -> civilization -> leading to clashes.
Reviewer: David Marshall Nagasaki, Japan
I remember noticing the essay on which this book was based, in an international newspaper several years ago. Though I knew nothing of the author at the time, I don't think it took me more than a paragraph or two to realize, first, "This is a major argument," second, "It has some validity," and third, "This is going to make a lot of people mad." The book is, of course, far more nuanced and detailed than the article. I do not agree with every point Professor Huntington makes, but it certainly carries through on the promise of those first few paragraphs. This book is one strong and rather iconoclastic model by which to understand international relations in the coming years. Even if you disagree with it, or find it offensive, this is definitely a book worth reading, or if you're a teaching, assigning your students to read and attack or defend.
I do not think some attacks below (not all really arguments) on Huntington's approach to Islam were quite fair. I didn't see anything "pathological" or "paranoid" about his arguments, and he explicitly stated, time and time again, that Islam was not at all "monolithic." Actually, I think he is sometimes overly cautious and understated on the subject, in effect making all kinds of excuses for the militant character of Islam, and holding out the hope that it will mellow. Anyone who knows how Islam is perceived by non-Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa, India, or China, or is aware of the military career of Mohammed, can only be amazed how prevalent p.c. attempts to deny the obvious seem to be. (A phenomena we have seen with other absolutist idealogies.) Instead of trying to browbeat anyone who tells the truth about Islamic militarism and lack of freedom, why don't Muslim intellectuals change the realities? (If they can.)
It is true, Huntington did not clearly define what he meant by "civilization." It seems odd to designate countries that have been taught atheism for eighty years, "Orthodox," for example. But I think the basic categories are sound, however we quibble about semantics. I see the relationship between China and the West as more ambivalent, though, in other words more potentially positive, than Huntington. (I wrote a book, True Son of Heaven, which describes common links between Chinese and Christian thought.) While Huntington discusses other variables, one of the main assumptions of this book is that powers clash. He generally seems to avoid dogmatism on the nature or intensity of the clash. So I agree that some tension in the relationships he describes is fairly inevitable, though I by no means ascribe to Real Politic or any deterministic or cynical view of human relations.
Agree or disagree, Huntington's is a thesis that deserves careful consideration. It contains some hard truths, but as the Preacher said, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy."
author, Jesus and the Religions of Man / d.marshall@sun.ac.jp |
