Benjamin "Benny Boo" Barber is a fairly renown political theorist. His job is to examine political systems and, according to his angle, how they influence each other, directly and indirectly. With that in mind, he penned his magnum opus, "Jihad vs. McWorld," an exmaination as to how the two extremes of societies (modern, capitalistic, commercial McWorld vs. traditional, xenophobic, localized Jihad) are vying for the souls of all humanity. It's like Spawn, except without the action figures and Todd McFarlane rambling at the camera before the start of each episode.
The ideas in the book are worth exploring, because as it turns out, neither Jihad (which is a generalized concept rather than the specific cause of jihad by Muslim extremists) nor McWorld are rather nice. They're both competing against democracy, which means citizens from around the world are in a daily struggle to maintain their independence against the leering McWorld and the crazy Jihad.
It's a very strong thesis, but unfortunately Barber doesn't really do a whole lot with it. Of course, one of the book's biggest failings is that the crux of it was written in the 1990s, where Vajpayee is in control of India, Rafshanjani is in control in Iran, and Yeltsin has only just got a decent hold on Russia's government. So, in short, the book is woefully, woefully outdated.
It has very little to say about 9/11. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think it even freakin' HAD 9/11 in it. That's kind of a big deal there!!
Obviously I can't fault Barber for writing an outdated book. To his credit, his ideas are still valid today, but the landscape has changed. For instance, his focus on Germany and Russia are positively quaint in light of today's hotspots and areas of interest. I'm sure a lot of what he has to say is applicable to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and Africa, but that analysis is lacking here.
One thing he didn't cover that he could have touched upon, even in the 90s, was Israel/Palestine. I don't think he mentioned that little area much at all. It was a big deal back then and I was rather surprised he glossed over it. Perhaps his political theory didn't really fit it?
The other major flaw of the book is attributable to his writing style. Mainly, he writes a lot. And a lot. And a lot. About the same things. And the same things. And the same, same things. Entire paragraphs will go by, all basically reiterating the same point, maybe with slightly different examples thrown in. The book probably could be cut by 33% and still retain all its points, and probably be much more concise, too.
Also, the book has a very, very odd way of handling commas, and I rather suspect that it was edited by an Englishman. That would be tres weird because Barber's an American, but he writes like a Brit? No, no, something doesn't add up here. SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP HERE. :chomps on cigar:
Otherwise, Barber's political ideas are neat, if kind of obvious (I mean, yeah, choosing between crazy luddites and overbearing soulless pitchmen is a rotten choice). But he does have a flair for passing along stories, anecdotes and details about certain events (the fall of the Berlin Wall, the de-communiz(s)ation of Russia), which in and of themselves are worth reading about. If I reviewed this book 15 years ago, I'd be far more impressed with it.
Though, looking back, it's not a very good tome regarding in a predictive sense, since he misses the growth in international terrorism and such. But as a historical analysis, it's solid enough to be worth a gander. Just be prepared to skip over blocs of text.
Errata: The next post will be 101 Facts You Need to Know Before Going to England, and If You Don't Know Them, You Might Be Killed
No comments:
Post a Comment