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
This book tells the story of how White Rhodesians, three-quarters of whom were ill- prepared for revolutionary change, reacted to the "terrorist" war and the onset of black rule in the 1970s. It shows how internal divisions--both old and new--undermined the supposed unity of White Rhodesia, how most Rhodesians begrudgingly accepted the inevitability of black majority rule without adjusting to its implications, and how the self- appointed defenders of Western civilization sometimes adopted uncivilized methods of protecting the "Rhodesian way of life." This is a lively and accessible account, based on careful archival research and numerous personal interviews. It sets out to tell the story from the inside and to incorporate the diverse dimensions of the Rhodesian experience. The authors suggest that the Rhodesians were more differentiated than has often been assumed and that perhaps their greatest fault was an almost infinite capacity for self- delusion.
Customer Reviews:
Rhodesia WASNT Super.......2003-04-26
This book piece by piece debunks the myrhs surounding the Rhodesian war and sociaty.
Itshould be made compulsory reading for all the ex Rhodesian when-we's who live around the world today.
If only some body would write a book this good debunking the myth of Mugabes noble freedom fighters
Fourteen Great Years?.......2001-12-13
"Rhodesians Never Die" is a comprehensive history of the European population that ruled pre-independence Zimbabwe. This book takes a cynical view of Rhodesia's struggle to maintain minority rule amid increasing outside and internal pressures.
Godwin and Hancock put together an amazing amount of information in this work that includes even the smallest detail. "Rhodesians Never Die" chronicles every event, argument, article and demographic affecting Rhodesia for more than a decade.
The only drawback to this exhaustive work is its critical view of Ian Smith and Rhodesia's so called 'way of life'. Reading this book I got the impression that the authors arrived with preconceived conclusions about Rhodesia that weren't supported by their arguments. This could be due in part to the fact that this book does not relate Rhodesians to international influences or to the black population. I would liked to have seen a more classical argument and counter-argument to Rhodesia's problems.
Nonetheless, those who read this book will be greatly surprised to see how moderately the authors portray Rhodesia's Prime Minister. Even though 'Old Smithy' is not shown favorably, he wasn't the extremist as he is so often labelled. That role was played by other segments of Rhodesia's political spectrum.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who has read Peter Godwin's "Mukiwa" or would like to learn more about the politics of southern Africa. This book was well worth the wait.
Book Description
Despite black gains in modern America, the end of racism is not yet in sight. Nikhil Pal Singh asks what happened to the worldly and radical visions of equality that animated black intellectual activists from W. E. B. Du Bois in the 1930s to Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s. In so doing, he constructs an alternative history of civil rights in the twentieth century, a long civil rights era, in which radical hopes and global dreams are recognized as central to the history of black struggle.
It is through the words and thought of key black intellectuals, like Du Bois, Ralph Bunche, C. L. R. James, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes, and others, as well as movement activists like Malcolm X and Black Panthers, that vital new ideas emerged and circulated. Their most important achievement was to create and sustain a vibrant, black public sphere broadly critical of U.S. social, political, and civic inequality.
Finding racism hidden within the universalizing tones of reform-minded liberalism at home and global democratic imperatives abroad, race radicals alienated many who saw them as dangerous and separatist. Few wanted to hear their message then, or even now, and yet, as Singh argues, their passionate skepticism about the limits of U.S. democracy remains as indispensable to a meaningful reconstruction of racial equality and universal political ideals today as it ever was.
Customer Reviews:
A Work of Great Relevance and Urgency..........2004-06-05
In its simplest rendition, Black Is a Country is a work of hope that holds the potential to guide us out of our current state of racial dilemmas. Nikhil Singh points to the futility of relying on U.S. nationalist traditions in dismantling racism by illuminating the dialectic of race and nation, two concepts that have always been ineluctably intertwined, yet have largely remained fixed at opposite ends of the spectrum. Black intellectuals throughout the "long civil rights era" had articulated a vision of democracy that stretches beyond the parameters of American nationalism, and by doing so, they pointed to the failures of American universalism by shining light on the contradictions between American claims of universal democracy and the realities of systemic racial oppression. Recalling these bold visions and radical conceptions of democracy from the past, Singh ultimately suggests, will potentially lead us once again to "an effective antiracism" (14).
In framing his argument, Singh re-envisions a "long civil rights era" that defies the "King-centric" and universalist version that remains engraved in the annals of American history. This new framework accomplishes four things. First, it suggests that civil rights made up only one part of a much broader and expansive struggle. As Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized toward the end of his life, "justice for black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from the fountains of political oratory" (13). Second, rather than emphasizing the March on Washington or the passage of the Civil Rights Act-two landmark occurrences that reinscribed the notion of American universalism-as the apex of the movement, it centers the formation and expansion of the black public sphere as the movement's most phenomenal achievement. Third, as had already been implied, the long civil rights era embraced a host of intellectuals and artists who experimented with a range of politics with the ultimate vision of forging an independent black radicalism. Far from recognizing American nationalism as the suitable arena to achieving democracy, these black leaders (who have tragically become overshadowed by the figure of an idolized Martin Luther King, Jr.) looked beyond national borders and tapped the wells of their radical imaginations to locate an independent and transformative conception of democracy. Finally, it illuminates a long, unbroken line of black radicalism that stretched from old intellectual sages like W.E.B. Du Bois and C.L.R. James to young black nationalists like Stokely Carmichael and Amiri Baraka. This black radical tradition, although distracted by the repressive nature of McCarthyism and despite taking on different political guises, remained at heart one continuous struggle.
Simply put, Black Is a Country is a work of great urgency that forces us to seriously rethink the dialectic of race and nation, a concept that had for the most part been taken for granted by historians. It is a book that should be widely read and reread.
Book Description
In this audacious recasting of the American Revolution, distinguished historian Gary Nash offers a profound new way of thinking about the struggle to create this country, introducing readers to a coalition of patriots from all classes and races of American society. From millennialist preachers to enslaved Africans, disgruntled women to aggrieved Indians, the people so vividly portrayed in this book did not all agree or succeed, but during the exhilarating and messy years of this country's birth, they laid down ideas that have become part of our inheritance and ideals toward which we still strive today.
Customer Reviews:
The Universality of the American Revolution.......2007-02-16
The history of the American Revolution is usually treated, even by professional historians, as an event out of history. It's a platitude, but accurate, to say revolutionary figures like Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Franklin are treated as philosophers debating abstract principles of government with Olympian detachment. At the same time, it's rare to find any serious treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, and women as revolutionary actors. For this reason, Nash's treatment--with or without alleged historical accuracies and exaggerations--is well worth reading.
Nash is fairly unusual for historians of this period insofar as he introduces a broad range of social issues that were raised, but not resolved, by the war: the struggle, *roughly* contemporaneous with the armed insurgency, by women for enfranchisement (achieved in NJ until 1806) and to abolish slavery, to establish social accountability for business enterprise and to preserve vertical mobility--these are all struggles that gave the American War for Independence its revolutionary nature. During the War, the crown relied heavily on mercenaries from the Continent, militant North American loyalists, and Native Americans. The revolutionary forces, to my surprises, relied, on recent, impoverished immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and England. The patricians produced a conservative separatist ideology, but the blood and sinews of the Revolution--the spiritual transformation of American society, the fighting, the starving, and the dying--THAT came form the dregs of the American masses. After the war, this cohort of Americans was hurled into the lurch. The Continental Congress and the nascent federal government issued few pensions, and those were platy.
Nash also introduces the important research of Richard White on the revolution among the Native Americans. Yes, the Native peoples of North America along the Middle West and the Tidewater experienced a political revolution. Understandably, the vast majority of Native peoples had no choice but to side with the crown. But the effects on the first nations were dramatic: determined efforts by visionary leaders to forge the disparate Indian bands into a coalition against the advancing settlers, while far from successful, destroy the popular myth of a moribund people facing extinction fatalistically.
Gary Nash's history considers far more: it broaches and responds to far more questions of the revolution than other historical accounts I have seen. Its narratives are far more realistic. And Nash, departing from near-universal tradition, does not glorify the winners, something that will no doubt raise a lot of hackles.
Debunks the Notion that the American Revolution Was A Conservative Revolution.......2007-02-15
Generations of scholars have put forward a hypothesis that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. On the surface, this hypothesis seems plausible. After all, the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia created a model of government that was very similar to the English model, a model of branches of government that had checks and balances over one another. Gary Nash's book, the Unknown American Revolution, collects and reveals information about a revolution that was truly radical -- a revolution that I had never seen revealed in any classroom, in spite of being exposed to a fair bit of liberal arts education.
Although Nash doesn't make an explicit comparison, the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was quite conservative compared to the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776, a constitution that called for a broader franchise and government by a unicameral legislature. Elites were snubbed in this state constitution, a constitution that created a government without an executive branch or a upper house of the legislature. Up and down the seaboard, radicals argued for state constitutions such as these, although, in most cases, they had to compromise with conservatives and moneyed interests and produce more moderate governing institutions.
Nash paints a fascinating picture of angry farmers and "leather aprons" tearing down sumptuous mansions of abusive governing elites and staging jailbreaks for unjustly imprisoned leaders; Black slaves joining both sides in the conflict in a revolutionary attempt to secure their own freedom and abolish slavery; and itinerant frontier preachers challenging the established church in defense of Christ's Poor. He establishes a continuity of mob violence from the Carolina Regulator Movement to the violent reactions to the Stamp Act, all the way through Shays Rebellion of 1786. Nash's portrayal of Shays Rebellion as a continuation of the disaffection of the poor makes more sense than the traditional portrayal of Shays Rebellion as an aberration demonstrating the weakness of government under the Articles of Confederation.
Indeed, Nash's defense of mob violence as something focused and purposeful (as opposed to random and mindless) is bound to generate some controversy. Professor Nash takes up the position that a law that is unjust is no law at all, and that mobs are not unthinking masses. Is mob violence democratic? Can a mob make a reasoned decision on whether a law is just or unjust? Nash seems to think so. A little scary, since this line of reasoning could be used to justify riots, wilfull destruction of property, and lynchings.
The genius of Professor Nash's book is his ability to separate the War of Independence from the American Revolution. Separating from Britain is one matter, revolutions are another. How much did American society change in the American Revolution? More than meets the eye, argues Nash. The fledgling United States might have failed to abolish slavery, but the contradiction between the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and holding people in bondage was placed firmly on center stage. Slavery WAS abolished north of the Mason-Dixon line, and the institution drew harsh condemnations even from slaveholders such as Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Radical government may have been replaced with more moderate government, but never again could wealthy elites contemptuously ingnore the political aspirations of the masses or publicly label them as "rabble."
Although the Unknown American Revolution is long and seems to ramble in some places, this book effectively challenges some myths in the account of the revolution. This is a good popular history of the American Revolution.
Revolution...or Civil War?.......2006-11-14
Maybe it's been done before, I'm no history buff, but this was the first book I've read about the Revolution that focused primarily on details of the local economic, political and religious conflicts tearing through the lives of ordinary Americans in the 1770's, instead of the big-picture stuff we all learned in school (military battles, international politics and the Founding Fathers).
It makes you realize that the Revolution was really a nasty and often chaotic civil war that was starting to break out even before the first "official" battle against the British, with farmers fighting land speculators, radical evangelists fighting conservative churches, poor fighting rich...and that's just the Anglos. Meantime the Indians were fighting illegal settlers, and African slaves were fighting slave-owners. I happen to live in New England, and there's an old house near me where the mother and kids in a Tory family had to physically fight off a lynch mob out for the blood of her husband -- that's the kind of thing this book reminds you was going on all over
Probably this is old news to history Phds but for the ordinary reader it's a great eye-opener. I will say that the book drags in some parts but it was still well worth a look.
Different Views.......2006-09-17
It must be admitted that the history of the American Revolution that we learn in school leaves a lot of people out. What were women, the poor, slaves, and Native Americans doing during this period of our history. In general, most history books are silent on this topics and focus on the founding fathers instead. This book attempts to fill in the blank spaces in the picture of the American Revolution.
Perhaps the most interesting idea put forth by this book is that the Patriots' cause was not the call a call for freedom for many people. In the case of slaves, they put faith in the British as a chance for freedom, while the Patriots were advocates of slavery. In the end, the British abandoned many of their slave allies to their fate. Also, from the Native American perspective, an American victory was the first step on the road to destruction and genocide.
I really recommend this book to those who would like to understand the complex web of interests which were in play during the American Revolution.
Class Warfare Comes to the American Revolution?.......2006-04-19
Gary B. Nash's purpose for the book is, "to capture the revolutionary involvement of all the component parts of some three million wildly varying people living east of the Mississippi River." (Nash, xxviii) Nash bemoans how the "great men" still "dominate the master narrative [of the American Revolution,]" (Nash, xv) and that we are struck with "historical amnesia," (Nash, xvi) because we forgot the stories of those outside of the "great men" clique. He states that we cannot capture the essence of the Revolution without paying close attention to the experiences of the many groups that made up colonial society. These groups not only include the poor farmers, artisans, and other laborers, but also of women, blacks (both free and slave), and of the AmerIndian population.
Nash illustrated the problems and plights of the lower order through their myriad of stories. To illustrate the importance of the lower classes of white society, he showed the importance of these individuals in their role as revolutionaries, which include their participation in riots against the various taxes implemented by the Parliament. He also shows the tensions between the seaboard inhabitants and their piedmont antithesis to the west which, in his estimation, helped to spur change all along the way. In the case of the inhabitants of what would become Vermont, he illuminated their fight against the landowners located primarily in New York City. Led by Ethan Allen, the "Green Mountain Boys," as they would become known as, fought to keep the land that they cultivated with their own hands - against the wishes and land deeds that the New York City landowners had for their property. (Nash, 110 - 114) He also showed how the piedmont inhabitants of the Carolinas had to struggle for their rights to live life as they saw fit as well. (Nash, 73 - 79) In the case of the "Green Mountain Boys," their struggle proved to be more successful than the struggle of the Carolina piedmont, whose insurrection was brutally suppressed by then colonial governor of North Carolina, William Tryon.
Nash also shows how this sector of the population became mobilized politically during the course of the revolution. In Nash's estimation, these people were spurred on by the rhetoric of equality in society, as championed by the Founding Fathers in the countless tracts and pamphlets that were produced during the revolutionary war era. In Pennsylvania, the 1776 state constitution was heralded by Nash as a true revolutionary document because of its unicameral legislature, its weak executive, and its attempt to limit an amassing of wealth within the state. He also praised the fact that artisans and lower sorts also played such a vital role in the forming of the new state constitution. (Nash, 271 - 286) In states where the constitution did adhere to these premises, Nash equated it with a betrayal of the will of the people, as evident by the problems Massachusetts had in ratifying their state constitution because of its more conservative outlook. (Nash, 302 - 304)
The talk of freedom and equality also spread, according to Nash, to the black population in the American colonies. These ideals not only spread to the free black portion of the population, but also to the thousands of enslaved blacks throughout the land. This spread of ideas to the black population, particularly the enslaved portion, troubled white leaders, according to Nash (Nash, 59) What was more troubling to the white slave owners was their perception that slave restlessness and even revolt was on the rise. (Nash, 37 - 39) What else was truly troubling to many slave holders was that the British actively recruited the slaves to fight against their masters - and all other rebels to the British Crown. (Nash, 157 - 164) Nash contributed much of the awareness of the enslaved to their plight the rise rising literature of freedom that the Founding Fathers were disseminating across the land. Nash believes that this rhetoric, and its implications, were inescapable to the slaves. (Nash, 64) He also showed us the aftermath of the revolution for those slaves who sided with the British; they were transported off either to Nova Scotia or to the Caribbean Islands where they were subjected to an even harsher form of slavery than on the mainland. (Nash, 426 - 427)
Women also were praised in this work, as Nash pointed out how crucial this sector of the population was throughout the course of the conflict. First, women were important to execute the boycotts that were prevalent in the preceding years of the revolution. Nash argued that without their co-operation in the boycotts, the measures would not have proved effective. This is because women had a great deal of involvement in the running of the household and much of the purchasing power was in their hands. If they did not adhere to the boycotts, the measure would have failed, in Nash's estimation. (Nash, 141 - 144) Nash also illustrated how the women of the revolution became active during the war, specifically in response to rising prices for necessities. Nash showed us the response of many women in the Boston area to Thomas Boylston, a merchant whose prices on goods rose as the war progressed. In response to these rising prices, women marched on Boylston's shop, and the shops of other merchants throughout the colonies, to procure the basic necessities for their families at what they deemed equitable prices. (Nash, 232 - 235)
The plight of the American Indians was also great as land speculators and land hungry colonists swarmed over the Appalachian Mountain range to claim and settle upon lands that were seen as belonging to various Indian nations. Nash showed us how the natives resisted this encroachment upon their lands through a myriad of tactics, from essentially engaging in bushwhacking warfare with the colonists who encroached upon their lands, (Nash, 253 - 255) to the fact that many Indian nations chose to align themselves with the British in their cause to suppress the rebellion. (Nash, 151 - 157) What was more alarming to Nash is the colonists' "genocidal" policies towards the native population. (Nash, 377 - 381)
Although it may not seem like it, there is an underlying premise to Nash's illustrations in the struggles of all of the aforementioned groups during the American Revolution. That premise with Nash, at first alluded to, and then by the end of the book, states bluntly is class warfare. There is, however, a very real problem in this Marxist outlook on American society during the era of the Revolution, specifically that the colonists did not view the class structure in the same light that we do today, or even as class was viewed in when Karl Marx wrote his tracts on such matters. As Gordon Wood pointed out in his work, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, "The social distinctions and economic deprivations that we today think of as the consequence of class divisions, business exploitation, or various isms - capitalism, racism, etc. - were in the eighteenth century usually thought to be caused by the abuses of government." (Wood, 5) Wood also pointed out that there were complexities and variations to American society, which fell along "local, regional, sectional, ethnic and class differences." These complexities made, "any generalization about Americans as a whole," quite difficult. (Wood, 6)
Wood further illuminated the difficulties of following such a class distinction as Nash proposed in his work. Wood stated in his review on Nash's work in the "New Republic Online":
Nash's evidence for popular resistance to all this class exploitation is the incidents of rural rioting and urban mobbing that took place in the decade or so leading up to the Revolution. This mobbing and rioting is exceedingly familiar to historians, who have produced a literature about it. Unfortunately, these phenomena do not support Nash's argument. Not only did the rural rioting have little or nothing to do with the Revolution, but the urban mobs, which were indeed directed at British authority, did not represent the class upheaval that Nash assumes. The rural riots all arose out of peculiar local circumstances, and were hardly expressions of some sort of coherent class warfare. (Wood, "New Republic Online Review)
Wood, in his review of Nash's work, went on to illustrate exactly what constituted the true dividing lines in American society when he stated:
But what of all the rhetoric about the laboring people contesting the aristocratic few that Nash draws on to make his case for class warfare? There was indeed a serious division in eighteenth-century American society that reverberated through the northern states over the succeeding decades, but it was not the one that Nash describes. Instead of being divided between a rich upper class and a poor working class, as Nash sees it, anachronistically anticipating a later nineteenth-century division between employers and employees, eighteenth-century American society was in fact still divided between a leisured gentry and the mass of artisans and other laborers who worked with their hands--many of them the businessmen of the future.
In Nash's work, he viewed many of the Revolutionaries as having ulterior motives for their proclamations of equality and freedom. Nash, I would argue, hinted toward the idea that the Founding Fathers only took part in the revolutionary movement to benefit themselves. Throughout the course of the book, Nash takes great care to "expose" the double standards of the Founding Fathers, making them seem as if they merely wanted to continue their "elitists" lifestyle at the expense of the commoners below. There is no bigger whipping boy for Nash than John Adams, who, according to Nash, was essentially a closeted monarchist who was afraid of the people. To be sure, Adams did have his reservations about the people, but it was more a fear of a "tyranny of the masses" than it was an outright fear that the people would displace the leaders of the new nation.
However, what is truly ironic is that Nash relied so heavily upon the writings of John Adams to illustrate many of his points. Not only did he rely on Adams' writings, but also the writings of many of the other Founding Fathers. Throughout the course of the book, when Nash referred to any of the writings of the Founding Fathers, I found myself wondering if Nash was cropping their words to support his case. It is my belief that this is something that seriously needs to be explored in greater depth than I can provide here. What is also ironic is that Nash makes little use of the narratives of those whose stories he claimed he wanted to tell. Outside of the use of Joseph Plumb Martin's narrative of his experiences as a soldier in the Continental Army during the war and the autobiography of Ethan Allen, he does not make extensive use of the diaries and letters of many people who lived through the war experience, both in the military and in the civilian sector. To be sure, there are many diaries out there from those below who can illuminate their thoughts throughout the era. Would their writings bear out what Nash proposed?
Nash criticized the Continental Congress for not being able to pay the soldiers their salaries. This inability to pay the soldiers wages stemmed from the fact that the government was essentially broke: they were unable to levy taxes on the people of the colonies because of the weak governmental structure from which they operated and many of the colonies did not pay their fair share of the financial burden of the revolution. When Robert Morris tried to restore fiscal responsibility to the war effort and raise revenue to provide pay and necessities to the army, Nash viewed it as an attempt to "tame the social and political radicalism of the Revolution." (Nash, 367) However, I suppose Nash chose to forget the fact that Morris was trying to get revenue to provide for the war effort. Why then would Thomas Paine, one who Nash seemed to have great respect for his principles of democracy, agreed to author a pamphlet on behalf of Robert Morris in favor of his new fiscal plan. (Nash, 395) If Morris' plan was so stifling to democracy, intended to roll back the radicalism of the revolution, then why would Paine agree to be a party to it? Not all of these explanations and questions would mesh well with Nash's outlook on Morris and the Founding Fathers at large.
Further, if the Founding Fathers truly wanted rule for themselves, there was no better chance for one of them to establish it than with the "Newburgh Conspiracy." It is true that the soldiers and officers of George Washington's army were deeply distraught by the ineffectual abilities of the Congress to pay wages and provide for basic necessities. (Nash, 370 - 371) However, what Nash failed to mention is the other half of the conspiracy. The men wanted to march on the Continental Congress and put George Washington in power. Washington, through an impassioned speech and performance, quelled all of these thoughts and possibly saved the revolution once again.
Nash, as stated previously, believed the struggle of the thousands of black slaves in the colonies was heightened by the revolutionary rhetoric that littered the landscape of the era. He believed that such literature raised their awareness and caused more unrest and rebellion than at any time previously. However, I would like to offer my own take on this. Did it take pamphlets from the Founding Fathers to raise the awareness of the enslaved that there was something unnatural about their situation? I certainly think not. Frederick Douglass' autobiography indicates that from a very early age, he was well aware that there was something wrong with the situation he found himself. In an illustration, a still teenage Douglass talked with some of his young white friends on the streets of Baltimore and they complained about their lot in life. Douglass illustrated the point when he wrote, "You will be free as soon as you are twenty-one, but I am a slave for life!" (Douglass, 53) While Douglass certainly is an exceptional individual, I doubt that this same premise was lost on the countless enslaved individuals in the colonies and that they wanted freedom and it did not take pamphlets for that realization to come to mind.
Nash lamented the "genocidal policies" towards the AmerIndians adopted by many colonists during the revolution. While it is true that atrocities were committed against the natives, first, this was nothing new by this point in American history. Warfare between the natives and colonists was an almost constant from the time that European settlers stepped onto the New World. In such a climate, atrocities committed by both sides in this armed and almost perpetual struggle were inevitable. However, Nash is somewhat disingenuous when he makes the native population seemingly innocent or justified in their actions. Although Nash admitted that the British courted and armed the native peoples to fight the colonists, even after the revolution was over, he cannot seem to find any justification for the colonists to meet force with force.
Lastly, as stated previously, Nash bemoaned how historians and the people at large have lost the viewpoint of those below the Founding Fathers - how the great men still consistently dominant the narrative on the American Revolution. (Nash, xv) First, I would ask Mr. Nash, "should we discount what the `great men' did during the war?" While historians do deal with the "great men" of the American Revolution, I doubt there is one serious historian out there who would discount the actions and sacrifices that were made by the people below. Their deeds do not go unnoticed in narratives of the war. We read about the Boston Tea Party, we read about the non-importation of British goods and how the participation of the common people was vital to such an enterprise. We read about the plight of the Continental soldier as they nearly starve and free to death in the service of their country.
What Nash further discounted was the explosion over the past decades in dealing with various social aspects of the history of the revolution. Bruce Chadwick's piece, The First American Army: The Soldiers of the American Revolution, he offered the reader a look into the world of the solider in the Continental Army through their diaries, letters and records. Through these written records, we are presented with the bleak situation that so many found themselves in - conflicting interests between home and duty, the want of food and clothing, and their battle experiences. Alfred Young, in The Shoemaker and the Tea Party, offers a glimpse into the world of the common man on the streets, taking part in demonstrations and actions against the British and their oppressive measures.
Women's roles in the revolution are far from ignored. Mary Beth Norton authored a book, Liberty's Daughter's: The Revolutionary Experience of Women: 1750 -1800, dealing specifically with the trials and tribulations of the women during the American Revolution, both from the Patriot side and the Loyalist side. Linda Kerber also wrote a piece on women in the American Revolution entitled, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, which also draws upon the revolutionary experience of women through their diaries, letters and legal papers.
The Native Americans receive their fair share of print as well. Alan Taylor wrote Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution, which offers a rich, sprawling history focusing on the Iroquois Six Nations of New York and Upper Canada during the era of the American Revolution. Taylor examines Indians' wise but unsuccessful attempts to hold onto their land as colonists encroached on it. Colin Calloway, in his work, The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities, explored the internal strife that the revolution brought to Indian nations involved with the American Revolution.
The African-American population in the revolutionary era also received a fair amount of print about their ordeals. Glenn Knoblock wrote, Strong and Brave Fellows: New Hampshire's Black Soldiers and Sailors of the American Revolution: 1775 - 1784, which explored the military careers of over 200 black military officers during the American Revolution and attempted to reconstruct their ordeal throughout the conflict. Sylvia Frey, in her book, Water from a Rock: Black Resistance in a Revolutionary Age, explored the triangular relationship between the British, the Americans, and slaves in the South. Through this triangular relationship, Frey attempted to illustrate the complex and confusing options presented to the slaves in the South during the rebellion.
Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic, edited by Jeffrey Palsey offers readers an alternative reading in the same light that Nash presents, the conflicting desires of the myriad of peoples during the American Revolution. The political historians contained in this work showed that the early history of the United States was not just the product of a few "Founding Fathers," but was also marked by widespread and passionate popular involvement; print media more politically potent than that of later eras; and political conflicts and influences that crossed lines of race, gender, and class. Thus, this work is not beholden to one particular point of view on the revolution, as Nash is guilty of being caught up in.
These are just some of the books out there on the myriad of topics that Nash covered and, to be sure, there are many more. These books are not hard to find. Just do a search on Amazon's or Barnes and Noble's online stores on any of these topics and you will be presented with a cornucopia of choices - there is not quite the neglect that Nash claimed in these fields. To be sure, there will still be authors who write biographies on the "great men" of the American Revolution, but there are many who also explore the social history of the conflict. Thus, Nash is not the lone voice for these "forgotten" as he claimed.
Book Description
Combating terrorism is nothing new for democracies. Over the course of decades, a wide range of democratic states has encountered an array of terrorist groups--and, moreover, has often prevailed against them. As this timely and stimulating volume makes clear, the United States can learn much from fellow democracies to help it in its current war against al Qaeda and affiliated groups.
Democracy and Counterterrorism offers unparalleled breadth in its comparative study of the policies, strategies, and instruments employed in the fight against terrorism. The distinguished contributors--some scholars, some practitioners, and all renowned experts--examine no fewer than fourteen cases, featuring thirteen states and sixteen major terrorist groups. Each case study includes a brief overview, a detailed analysis of the policies and techniques that the government employed, and an assessment of which measures proved most effective and instructive.
The substantial conclusion draws together common threads from the individual cases and asks what lessons their collective experience can offer to the democracies now battling al Qaeda and the global jihadists. Among the answers sure to interest policymakers as well as academics is that the constraints within which democracies must fight terrorism are actually a source of strength; democratic governments that seek simply to obliterate terrorism by force usually succeed only in making their problems worse.
Book Description
A brave and timely examination of America's great dilemma in the Muslim world
Published just as the United States went to war in Iraq, After Jihad put Noah Feldman "into the center of an unruly brawl now raging in policy circles over what to do with the Arab world" (The New York Times Book Review).
A year later, the questions Feldman raises-and answers-are at the center of every serious discussion about America's role in the world. How can Islam and democracy be reconciled? How can the United States sponsor emerging Islamic democrats without appeasing radicals and terrorists? Can we responsibly remain allies with stable but repressive Arab regimes, chaotic emerging democracies, and Israel as well?
After Jihad made Feldman, in a stroke, the leading Western authority on emerging Islamic democracy--and the most prominent adviser to the Iraqis drafting a constitution for their newly freed nation. This paperback edition--which includes a new preface taking account of recent events--is the best single book on the nature of Islam today and on the forms Islam is likely to take in the coming years.
Customer Reviews:
Rosy Prediction on Prospects for Islamic Democracy.......2007-04-06
Feldman propounds a solution to a crucial problem of U.S. policy toward the Middle East: the fact that almost all the Arab regimes we support have scant legitimacy in the eyes of their people. The thrust of his argument is that things are so bad now that the U.S. doesn't have much to lose in supporting Arab democracies, even those that would be anti-American. As it stands, he believes that Arab governments are able to stifle freedom of thought and speech and manipulate public opinion against Israel and the U.S., to deflect attention away from their own fragile legitimacy. Why not, he proposes, just withdraw U.S. support for these regimes and truly support open political systems. Even if Islamists take over, the necessities of rule and the realities of power would force them to moderate their rhetoric. Arabs would have a channel to vent their political frustrations, and would no longer have any reason to attack the U.S. to get at their own regimes, as was the case in 9/11. Feldman also assumes that in open political systems, Arabs would pay more attention to their own local concerns and that the Palestinian-Israeli dispute would become less important.
Feldman's internal logic is consistent and he argues well, but how realistic are his assumptions? Are Islam and democracy as compatible as he believes?
His views are important because he was among the drafters of the interim Iraqi constitution.
Islamic permutations.......2006-04-04
Democracy had a trial run in Algeria in 1990. The experiment collapsed, however, and the Islamic political party was banned. Muslim countries differ greatly in political system. Violence has lost much of its politcal support. In the past the United States has preferred autocrats to elections in Muslim countries. Secular nationalism has been tried in the Arab world and has failed. Extremists, Palestinians excepted, represent a fringe. Islam has shown much internal flexibility. Democracy and Islam are mobile ideals. Islamic democracy is a desirable synthesis.
Most Muslims do not want religious enforcement. Potential democratic readings of Islam are possible. An official religion need not negate basic rights. Western democracy grew up among pious Christians. Democracies regulate personal relationships to a striking degree. What makes ideas mobile are their universality. Turkey offers a model of democracy. Indonesia has had a democratic movement. Pakistan has had brief periods of democracy. Iran needs gradual democratization. Ataturk's nationalism in Turkey included secularism. He banned traditional dress and imposed the Roman alphabet. (He reminds one of Peter the Great.) Religious parties have been disfavored by the Turkish military.
Indonesian Islam is famous for its relaxed style. Pakistan was conceived as Muslim and democratic. Nationalism has infected Arab states. Arab countries created through colonialism have survived. Some are monarchies. Oil has been transformative. Where there are no monarchies there may be dictatorships. Wherever there is oil, economic conditions are good. The monarchies in oil-producting countries use the oil to preserve power.
The endnotes are of great interest to any reader of this excellent study.
Fantastic and valuable overview of Islam and democracy .......2005-11-18
_After Jihad_ by Noah Feldman is focused on answering one crucial question facing American foreign policymakers today; can democracy flourish in Muslim countries?
Feldman wrote that the attacks of Al-Qaeda and others are the "last, desperate gasp" of a tendency towards violence that has lost widespread support in Islamic lands. Many Muslims stand ready to embrace democracy; it is only their governments and to some extent Western policy that stands in the way. Violent jihad has failed, with revolutionary states having only been achieved in Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan and the only other places where such jihadists enjoy any real popular support is in areas seen as fighting wars of liberation (such as in Chechnya and Kashmir).
Washington policymakers have shied away from pressing for democratic reforms in the Muslim world for a variety of reasons, notably for a need to rely on existing Muslim allies in the war on terror, the risks of instability that democratization may pose, particularly as it might affect oil prices, and the fear that free and fair elections in several countries will bring to power violent, anti-American Islamist groups.
The author argued that this sort of thinking is flawed, that support of dictators may be of benefit in the short-term but is not beneficial in the long-term. In addition, Islam and democracy are both more flexible than is generally thought; that they are what he called "mobile ideas," ideas that can appeal to and be adapted by diverse peoples living in very different countries and societies. Any fear that Islamists may rise to power is realized when those groups are repressed, as reversing the democratic success of Islamic groups in Algeria for instance produced a civil war and similar actions could serve to alienate Islamic groups in Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey, groups that worked within the system but repression of which runs the risk of turning them into a violent opposition.
Feldman divided the book into three parts. In part one he sought to show how Islam and democracy are much more compatible than many think. He felt it was a false dichotomy to say that the only options in the Muslim world are either a secular state or an Islamist state; a range of options are possible; a pure Islamist state relying only on classical Islamic law is only one possibility, and even if it did rely on shari'a law could still be considered democratic if shari'a law was chosen by the majority in that country and the basic rights of non-Muslims were respected. Too often to stay in power and gain the support of secular people in their own country and of the West autocrats have emphasized that they are the only alternative to Islamist rule, and again, this is a false dichotomy. Even if Islamists do come to power there is reason to show - by the example of Iran - that many people after a few cycles of Islamic government might start to look for something more secular. Also, Islamic groups are not by definition anti-American (the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was very pro-American for instance and even Islamic groups in Turkey have been more concerned with meeting EU requirements for membership and infrastructure improvements, not exactly anti-Western activity).
Potential democratic readings already exist in the Qur'an. Both Islam and democracy share a universal belief in the principle of basic human equality, a very good starting point. The first rulers of the Islamic community adopted the title "caliph" (Arabic khalifa), which means a delegate or replacement (whether for the dead Prophet or a stand-in for God), with the Qur'an strongly implying that the caliph was to be selected by the people, that the people retain some power to displace the caliph, that he governed with the consent of the Muslim community, that he administered but did not create Islamic law (and thus was bound by that same law), and he was compelled by the Qur'an to engage in consultation (shura), though admittedly the Qur'an was rather vague on the exact nature of shura.
Feldman answered a number of objections to any synthesis of Islam and democracy. Among them, the necessity of the separate of church and state (there is no separation of church and state in the United Kingdom), the problem of a state-sanctioned imposition or support of Islamic values (Western governments endorse values by awarding medals, proclaiming holidays, and sponsoring the arts and have laws governing many aspects of family life; broadly this is the same as might exist in any Islamic democracy), the role of non-Muslims in a Muslim state (Jews and Christians held prominent positions in many places and eras, from Medina in the Prophet's lifetime to medieval Muslim Granada and beyond), and the harshness of punishments for hudud, crimes such as theft, which requires the thief loses his hand (in reality these punishments are rarely meted out and the standard of proof is often too high to reach; hudud standards for adultery requires four eyewitnesses in good standing of the act itself, difficult to produce).
In part two, he evaluated how Islam and democracy are interacting in many nations in the Muslim world, surveying the various types of regime found in Islamic lands. For those worried that civil society - vital to democracy - does not exist in the Muslim world they need only look at the web of social services and charitable institutions provided in Egypt (and increasingly in Pakistan), not by the government but by Islamic organizations. Islam he felt was unfairly blamed for the mixed success of democracy in Pakistan; it had arguably more to do with poverty, the vast disparity of wealth, low literacy rates, a too-powerful military, and other factors.
In part three Feldman argued that the United States (and the West) must change their policies towards the Muslim world, that it should encourage rather than impede democracy, that this would serve long term American interests, promote peace in the Middle East, and that it is simply the right thing to do.
an instant classic.......2005-07-20
As far as I'm concerned, Noah Feldman has written one of the most important books of the post-9/11 era. This books deals with the question of Islamic democracy, and why Feldman thinks its possible.
This book can be divided into three sections. The first deals with broad discussions of the Muslim faith and of democracy. In this section, Feldman gives a plethora reasons why he thinks Islam and democracy are compatible. He doesn't say that the two fit together perfectly, or that it will be easy to merge the two, but he presents a well-reasoned, well-researched argument.
The second section of the book deals with specific case studies of Islamic countries (mostly from the Middle East). He discusses the climate in each of these countries as it relates to democracy and to Islam. Some countries appear more hopefull than others, but Feldman does a fantastic job at identifying what will have to happen in these countries for democracy to emerge.
The final section of the book deals with American policy specifically and what the U.S. should do to encourage Islamic democracy. I think a very convincing argument is presented here that the U.S. needs a new way of thinking about foreign policy if our long term interests are to be served.
This is one of my new favorite political books. I'm going to assign it for all my current world problem classes at Ohio University. It's well written, the language is clear, and I think that it presents what is ultimately the right course of action for the U.S. Feldman should be the next Secretary of State.
Islamic democracy is the only solution to Islamist violence.......2004-05-05
The negative reviewers here have not read this book. In response to some of their claims: Other than Saudi Arabia, all Muslim nations allow churches/synagogues/temples for their minority faiths. Don't judge all Muslim nations by the behavior of the Saudi Wahabis. In Bangladesh, which is a Muslim democracy, Christmas is a public holiday, even though Christians make up less than 1 percent of the population. In the United Arab Emirates many malls display Christmas decorations and play Christmas carols. Christians also conquered, massacred and oppressed other peoples. Look at the treatment of natives in US, Canadian, South American and Australian history.
But now to the book. Feldman says that the West should not fear democracy in Muslim nations because even if Islamic parties come to power (they usually don't) the people will soon get tired of them because they won't deliver on basics, such as education, infrastructure and jobs. Islamic parties tend to promise Utopia if they get elected but will always fail to deliver on their promises. There is a lot of evidence to support Feldman's argument. You only have to look at Iran to see how quickly most people tired of Islamic rule. Muslims in Northern Nigeria are already starting to grumble about Islamic rule. In Pakistan, an Islamic party recently won power in one state (only because of outrage over the then impending US invasion of Iraq). Many now say that they regret their vote for this party and feel that crackdowns on freedoms and women's (already limited) rights have gone too far. In Malaysia Islamists recently lost control of one state they controlled.
Feldman also claims that Islamic Law can exist alongside democracy. Islamic Law is not actually Islamic. It did not exist in Muhammad's lifetime and was first implemented in the Ottoman Empire about 1000 years after the founding of Islam. Islamic Law only became widespread in the last 50 or so years. However, most Muslims do not know this, they falsely believe that Islamic Law is divine, and will therefore insist on some form of Islamic Law. In many Muslim nations Islamic Law exists alongside secular law. For example, family law tends to come from Islamic Law but criminal or business law is secular. I agree with Feldman that Islamic and secular law can coexist in a democratic society (it already does), and I also agree with Feldman when he says that this will make women and non-Muslims second-class citizens. But Feldman also believes, and I agree, that these societies will evolve and that women and minorities will fight for equal rights as has happened in the West. Keep in mind that in America Christianity was used to justify slavery and women's inequality. And keep in mind, that in America, women and minorities have had to struggle for the rights they have today. It's unreasonable to expect Islamic nations to become bastions of equality and justice overnight. This will be a long slow process.
Feldman is right that we in the West should not fear democracy in Islamic nations. About 40 percent of Muslims currently live in democratic countries, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, France and the US, so Islam and democracy are obviously compatible. For too long the West supported and propped up dictators in Muslim nations and look what happened. America was hit on 9 11 and we and the Europeans will be fighting extremist Islamists for years to come. Giving Muslims the freedom to control their own destinies is the only answer to this problem.
Book Description
“In this meticulously cited work, Barbara Olshansky does a brilliant and relentless job unraveling how the Bush administration is violating the US Constitution, international human rights, and the civic integrity of this country. Everyone must read this book now, then get out there and get angry and fight with your life to save our freedom and democracy.”—Eve Ensler
“In measured, lucid detail, Barbara Olshansky presents a wide-ranging account of the Bush administration’s malfeasance. The grim record exposed in
Democracy Detained should shame people who care for their country and its future, and encourage them to use the legacy of freedom they enjoy to put an end to these disgraceful crimes.”—Noam Chomsky
“[Barbara Olshansky] is a forceful presence in the courts for an organization that is on the cutting edge of wielding the
actual rule of law against the most lawless administration in American history.”—Nat Hentoff
Book Description
This uniquely comprehensive study of Kenya's political trajectory shows how the struggle for democracy has been waged in civil society, through opposition parties, and amongst traditionally marginalised groups like women and the young. It also considers the remaining impediments to democratisation, in the form of a powerful police force and damaging structural adjustment policies. Thus, the authors argue, democratisation in Kenya is a laborious and non-linear process. Kenyans' recent electoral successes, the book concludes, have empowered them and reinvigorated the prospects for democracy, heralding a more autonomous and peaceful twenty-first century.
Books:
- The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
- The Wretched of the Earth
- They Just Don't Get It: How Washington Is Still Compromising Your Safety--and What You Can Do About It
- This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future
- Trading Up: Why Consumers Want New Luxury Goods... And How Companies Create Them (Revised and Updated)
- Understanding Health Policy
- Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen
- Whatever It Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don't Learn
- Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change
- Why Are So Many Black Men in Prison?
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications
- Tile Style: Creating Beautiful Kitchens, Baths, and Interiors with Tile
- Retreats That Work: Everything You Need to Know About Planning and Leading Great Offsites
- Survive!: My Fight for Life in the High Sierras
- The Measure of a Man: A Spiritual Autobiography
- The Oxygen Revolution: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy: The Groundbreaking New Treatment for Stroke, Alzhe
- The Long Hunt: Death of the Buffalo East of the Mississippi
- The Owner-Builder Book: How You Can Save More than $100,000 in the Construction of Your Custom Home,
- Quickbooks Pro 2002: A Complete Course
- Making the Australian Chartered Accountant
Democracy
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
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
