What's So Great About America

Rating:
Summary: Well-presented arguments that buckle under scrutiny
Review: This book won't change minds. However if you already believe that slavery wasn't that bad, colonialism wasn't that bad, and carry around the intellectual baggage that accompanies such beliefs, this book is a good refresher-course that will help revivify possibly waning beliefs. Almost all the arguments have been heard before in one form or another from the usual suspects, but the book is a good compendium of these theses.

Dsouza claims at one point that since he didn't grow up in the USA, he may enjoy the "Tocqueville advantage" (his language).However he quickly assures us that he isn't comparing himself to Tocqueville. Actually it's good he does so, because his arguments are no different in details or in shape from any of the usual suspects who might have written this book. It is to be hoped that in the future Dsouza desists from stressing the non-existent parallels between himself and Tocqueville. I've spent 21 years of my life in India as opposed to Dsouza's 16, and frankly I can't FEEL the Tocqueville advantage the way Dsouza does. Dsouza is just extremely smart, the Tocqueville advantage is merely an excuse for unwarranted modesty.

Dsouza argues that colonialism isn't a Western invention and other societies also indulged in it. Dsouza concludes that while colonialism was bad for the guys who endured it, it was good for their children by exposing them to Western science and legal systems. Dsouza finally shouts out two cheers for colonialism, but it's a mystery why he witholds the third, since there's nothing in the discourse which suggests this third cheer is undeserved. I must attribute this shyness to some mysterious call from the depths of Dsouza's own "authentic self" - the Roussouic idea that pops up non-stop in the book. Or shall we ascribe it to "liberal guilt"?

If you are given to mental gymnastics, Dsouzas arguments might convince you that hey, NelsonMandela's incarceration was just an extended holiday when viewed through the telescope of history. Similarly,what was wrong with British exploitation of Indian peasants since the Maharajahs were doing it anyway? And hey, weren't the policemen who fired on the hapless victims in JallianwallaBagh themselves Indian even though the officer giving the order was British? If you really WANT to believe that colonialism wasn't bad, this kind of reasoning combined with an ability to block the bigger truth can get you far.

Dsouza makes the valid point that slavery wasn't a Western invention. But he errs when he asserts that emancipation was a Western invention. Not so. Just as the roots of slavery extend far into the past, amnesties for slaves out of benevolence or strategic reasons have occurred throughout history. We can then conclude that neither slavery nor emancipation are Western creations, what is uniquely Western is the hypocrisy attending the coexistence of slavery and lofty phrases like "inalienable rights". Dsouza may then say that hypocrisy isn't a Western invention. And he would be absolutely right.

Dsouza also struggles to make the unconvincing case that the founding-fathers believed in equality of blacks and whites, and they had to compromise because of political imperatives. If that's the truth, I haven't found evidence in its support from the private actions of the founding-fathers regarding their own slaves. The confusing pronouncements of Madison and Jefferson for instance leave one wondering if rhetoric wasn't the sole purpose of these writings considering the yawning gap between "outrage" and effort. They were great men in other ways.

Dsouza rebukes multiculturalism by pointing to examples of hunter-gatherer societies adopting Western customs, or Indians adopting Western clothes and legal systems.Actually the Indians-in-western-clothes example must be an error, since he clarifies that playing the sitar or wearing ethnic clothes isn't the core of multiculuralism. Indeed it isn't. Dsouza fails to deal with several important examples of non-Western people NOT adopting Western customs despite persistent efforts. Christian missionaries found to their dismay that while Indians adopted Western legal systems, they did not adopt Western religions. A large number of Hindus who were converted to Christianity were converted by the Portuguese who were not really polite in their persuasive tactics (unless the sword is polite). So Eastern societies adopted a host of ideas like penal codes, while rejecting Christianity which offered nothing extraordinary spiritually with promise of HeavenandHell. Indeed this prompted one Bishop who came with the purpose of "saving souls" to mouth profanities about India when he found Indians clinging tenaciously to their religions - despite deplorable features like untouchability. And therein lies a lesson regarding steamroller-uniculturalism and multiculturalism.

Dsouza zeroes in on the concept of freedom as the idea most subversive to Islam, and ascribes all Islamic animus towards the West to it. He errs by trying to pin-point a single factor, when of course these hatreds can only be explained as a cocktail mix. But Dsouza is not the only one who tries to do this, plus this tussle between freedom and HolyBook is indeed an important causal factor behind this hatred. Of course, the idea of "authenticity" from Rousseau that Dsouza refers to, is subversive not only to Islam but to Christianity, to Judaism, to the person who holds the Vedas as Divine revelations, in short it is subversive to anyone who holds up a book and invites us to be TrueBelievers. The concept of the TrueBeliever is as central to Christianity and Judaism as it is to Islam. And "authenticity" is equally the enemy of all these doctrines. If the route of "authenticity" leads you to reject one of the TenCommandments, you are no better than someone whose "authenticity" leads him to reject nine of the ten. Both are going to hell anyway according to the book that offers binary choice between heaven and hell.

Of course the American founding-fathers must be commended for opting for a system that allowed Roussouic "authenticity" to trump the TrueBeliever paradigm. To Dsouza's credit he doesn't complain about the system and actually stoically defends it, he only expresses dismay with its consequences.

Rating:
Summary: D'Souza's bid for fame and fortune.
Review: In the nineties D'Souza's was a fresh and refreshing voice standing out from the homogenous choirs of politically correct academia. Whether debating "reader-response" guru Stanley Fish or defending the canon of Western literature, he revealed a sharp, analytical mind capable of confronting the the most elusive deconstructionist. But the success of writers like Tom Brokaw and Ann Coulter has not escaped him, for in his comfortably, accessibly titled "What's So Great About America," his thinking process has been calcified into the ideological nuggets and bromides that are sure to be snapped up not so much by the thinking conservative as the mainstream consumer who flies an American flag on his SUV. D'Souza certainly understands that the strength of the American community lies not in its superiority to Moslem or Communist nations but in its religious tolerance, protection of civil liberties, and free exchange of ideas. Yet in this book, the first that is unworthy of his abilities, he jumps on the 9-11 bandwagon with a chauvinistic "love it or leave it" theme that he no doubt hopes will put him on the road to the material "greatness" that apparently even the best confuse with the American dream.

Rating:
Summary: Scratches the Surface of a Vast Topic
Review: Reading Dinesh D'souza new book is like listening to the Boston Pops play "Star and Stripes Forever." It is an exhilaratingly patriotic experience. As an immigrant, Mr. D'Souza appreciates the bounties of his adopted homeland far more that scores of native-born citizens who fail to fully comprehend the blessings of America.

It would take volumes to even list the basics of his subject, so at 218 pages he wisely limits his focus. Within that narrowed purview, two basic tenets are worth citing for the persuasive way that they are presented. Mr. D'Souza methodically undermines the florid sounding arguments in favor of multiculturalism, and he--perhaps more satisfactorily than multitudes before him--addresses the issue of slavery in America's founding.

What truly makes the exploration take wing is that it cannot be dismissed as gossamer by even the most adamant relativist proponent. It is a deeply researched, intellectual articulation that America is the greatest nation on earth--far surpassing whoever could claim second place.

While the multicultural movement may shroud itself in egalitarian trappings, the author clearly sees the pernicious threats to this separatist mindset that has built a strong emplacement on most elite American college campuses. Going hand-in-hand with anti-Americanism, Mr. D'Souza recounts many of the vituperative screeds eructed at these alleged institutes of higher learning and wisely remarks "could bin Laden have put it better? If what these people say is true then America should be destroyed."

Delving into the controversial discussion of slavery D'Souza acknowledges that America was founded predominantly by slave owners, but then enunciates a (in some circles) controversial point, "slavery has existed in all known civilizations" and lists several places around the world where the depraved industry flourished for centuries. To further antagonize anti-American objicients, he also accurately states that unlike the universality of slavery, "abolition is an exclusively western institution. Never in the history of the world, outside of the west, has a group of people eligible to be slave owners mobilized against the institution of slavery." Adding fuel to his raging fire, he notices goals of slave traders backfired and inadvertently, ultimately abetted the very people they were willing to exploit; "despite the corrupt and self-serving motives of their practitioners, the institutions of colonialism and slavery proved to be the mechanism that brought millions of nonwhite people into the orbit of Western freedom." To the many critics who condemn the founding fathers now over the tragedy of slavery, his commonsensical refutation will likely fall upon unlistening ears. Although our 2002 morals justifiably often color our thinking, D'Souza is correct in stating "to outlaw slavery without the consent of the majority of whites would (have been) to destroy democracy, indeed to destroy the very basis for outlawing slavery itself."

Regarding America's sole superpower status, D'Souza further instigates the multicultural elites with "previous empires have dominated their subjects through force. Once again America is different in that its influence is not primarily sustained by force." His completely authentic piece de résistance is "the ideologues who proclaim the equality of all cultures simply cannot account for why so many people around the world would seem perfectly willing to dump their ancient cultures and adopt new ways that they associate with America."In the third world, beyond the rampant poverty, even the water treading middle class has little opportunity. He lists several reason for this entropy; "the roads are not properly paved, the water is not safe to drink, pollution in the cities has reached hazardous levels, public transportation is overcrowded and unreliable, and there is a two year waiting period to get a phone." Like the late Cardinal Beradin (in many ways his political opposite) Mr. D'Souza bravely slays one of the multiculturalists' sacred cows, tolerance. "If I tolerate you that implies I believe you are wrong. I object to your views, but I'll put up with you." He will further aggrieve certain factions by stating how this now enshrined shibboleth was in stark contrast to the founding fathers views of mutual respect for different religions.

The author, who has debated Jesse Jackson and several other race hustlers on many occasions, shows little regard for those who use racial rhetoric to fuel divisive fires. Some will be repelled by his honest assessment of America's lack of bigotry, "as an immigrant I am constantly surprised by how much I hear racism talked about and how little I actually see it."

Beyond its commendable plug for the enumerable benefits of the Great Melting Pot, "What's So Great About America" has many other assets. It is a book to be savored, but don't be surprised to find yourself singing "America the Beautiful" after finishing it.

Rating:
Summary: The new meaning of whitewash
Review: America is a remarkable nation, strong and vibrant, and by most measures the most powerful country in the world. That America and the "west" owe their current ascendancy and the rest of the world its decline, to the superiority of Western Civilization (hereafter WC) is a stretch that D'Souza attempts to substantiate in this earnest little tome.

While this book makes for a decent read, D'souza's attempts to rationalize the glory of WC is riddled with specious rationale, inferences drawn from the side-by-side comparison of broad generalizations with specifically chosen examples, and the overriding logical fallacy that since other civilizations did the same thing and did not end up as wealthy as "the west", they are inferior.

Waffling between occasional introspection, patronizing bouts of faint praise for the non-WC and diatribes that reek of the bitter vomitus of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter, D'souza is certainly a convenient lapdog singing the glories of his adoptive land and earnestly sucking its teat, but his arguments are dismal. The persistent refrain is that all Americans must subscribe to a 'higher patriotism' that is currently under threat from the 'liberal left'. A less charitable person might characterize D'souza's book as a cynical ploy to cater to the wave of nationalism that has blanketed us since 9/11.

D'Souza claims that he would never have enjoyed his molly-coddled upper-middle-class existence without the British colonization of India, and concludes that it must therefore have been beneficial to all Indians. His eulogy to colonialism is spiteful and based on the platform that the installation of railroad infrastructure and a judicial system was a fair trade-off for the rape of the land and its culture. He continues to grasp at the debunked 'Aryan invasion' theory and uses trivial (though amusing) anecdotes to make his flimsy points.

Whitewashing history, indeed!

D'souza's thesis is that slavery brought Africans out of ruin and into the orbit of Western culture, and thence to a new-found civilization, for which he ascribes credit to the enslavers. The bizarre reasoning presumes that in the absence of such occupation, the Africans would have sat around and twiddled their collective digits, and remained mired in backwardness. The book is filled with this sort of WC-congratulatory twaddle, which is amusing at first but rapidly turns tiresome.

Clearly I have idealogical differences with D'souza, but will concede that his prose and narrative are intelligent and well-paced, and that I enjoyed the literary experience of working my way through this book. I would recommend that you get this from your local library or wait for the inevitable book club appearance.

Rating:
Summary: A Unique Perspective
Review: What a fabulous book. Written by an immigrant and naturalized American this book offers a uniqe perspective on what makes America so great. And he hits so many things right on the head that many natural born citizens don't seem to comprehend.

Dinesh (the author) touches on so many issues and perspectives but you must read them to get the jist of what he is talking about. He hits the nail on the head so often. When talking about the perspective of the Arabs on the United States as to what we think of them, "camel jockeys" ect. He is right in many ways. When he talks of how we should respond to the 9-11 attacks he speaks from a middle-eastern perspective (he is from India). He talks of slavery and the African-American perspective and also speaks of the confrontations he has had with Jesse Jackson and their conflicting perspectives. That of a new immigrant as opposed to a supposedly down-trodden minority.

This is a very important and informative book. Although many may not like it or consider in controversial or even too patriotic in its view I feel that it should be read by every American and immigrant. If only more Americans would have the overall view of this immigrant and naturalized American perhaps we would understand ourselves better. A GREAT BOOK! Buy it, read it and think on it. More folks like Dinesh D'Souza in the United States would make it a better country. He is intelligent, insightfull and patriotic!

Rating:
Summary: Genius
Review: This book was simply outstanding. It has changed the way I view the world and America. This should be required reading.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding observations about and defense of America
Review: What a shame 21st century USA is so polarized where being a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican (etc.) means either entirely accepting without question ideas along party or ideological lines -- or entirely without question rejecting them. People don't want to give "the (domestic political) enemy" a full hearing, let alone even partly CONSIDER a foe's arguments, even if they're reasoned and make actually make SENSE.

It's a shame because this book (published by the conservative publishing house Regnery, which is itself like waving a red flag in front of a bull for some people) is so engaging,
well-written, convincing and solid that Dinesh D'Souza may one day be considered a modern day Alexis de Tocqueville.

Three fascinating levels mark this highly perceptive book:
1. D'Souza, who became a US citizen in 1991, shares how his life would have been quite different if he had grown up in his native India.
2. He makes fascinating observations about how US life and culture differ from various parts of the world, especially the Third World. These are the ones future generations may consider on the same level as de Tocqueville's.
3. And then there is material directly related to the book's title. He makes the case, in a nutshell, that other cultures (especially fundamentalist Islamic) detest the United States
because Americans are inner-directed and can write their own life's script, while Islamic culture seeks a life controlled and dictated by others.

One key conclusion certainly will not endear him to Islamic fundamentalists. He says the Islamic world is nothing without oil revenues.

"The only reason it (the Islamic world) makes the news is by killing people," he writes. "When is the last time you opened the newspaper to read about a great Islamic discovery or invention? While China and India, two other empires that were eclipsed by the West, have embraced Western technology and even assumed a leadership role in some areas, Islam's contributions to modern science and technology is negligible."

In this book, written after 911, he concludes that terrorism is merely "a desperate strike against a civilization that the fundamentalists know they have no power to conquer" so they try to "disrupt and terrify the people of America and the West."

The book is worth its price ALONE for his observations on how American culture differs from the third world and many Islamic countries: Americans have to be convinced they are fighting a war for noble reasons; young people go away to college and don't return, whereas in other countries this would be like "abandoning one's offspring"; other cultures cherish age, the US worships youth; people welcome visitors for long periods in the Third World where Americans want to get rid of visitors within days. And more.

D'Souza also takes on the "multiculturalists" who, he writes, detest the melting pot idea and "want immigrants to be in America but not of America." And he shows many flashes
of great wit. Two of them:
--On French criticism of the US: "Many Americans find it hard to take the French critique seriously, coming as it does from men who carry handbags."
--On calls for reparations for African-Americans (he completely DEMOLISHES arguments for reparations) he writes debating foe Jesse Jackson: "I found the concept of this rich, successful man -- who arrived by private jet, who speaks at the Democratic
National Convention, whose son is a congressman -- identifying himself as a victim of oppression a bit puzzling and amusing."

D'Souza decimates critics' arguments against American foreign policy, history and culture. . But his greatest analysis is how World War II's "Greatest Generation," tempered by surviving the Great Depression and the brutal war, upheld traditional values by cherishing necessity and duty -- only to fail to replicate these values in their offspring who made answering their inner voices, pursing their own desires and personal authenticities the focus of their lives....until. Sept. 11.

"Only now are those Americans who grew up during the 1960s coming to appreciate the virtues,...of this older sturdier culture of courage, nobility and sacrifice," he writes. "It
is this culture that will protect the liberties of all Americans."

Rating:
Summary: A good and easy read, and this from a moderate liberal
Review: While I do not wholly agree with D'Souza's philosophies, I give his book 5 stars because he is articulate (mostly) and give fascinating insights into this society that us born-here Americans have a hard time seeing due to being "too close". He doesn't gloss over the problems facing our society and civilization and acknowledge we have a difficult time ahead. His "we are on the side of angels" comment reminded me of my Mom's bible study teacher who said "We should not say that God is on our side, but that we are on God's side."

The reason for my liberal tendencies is that our family depends on government programs to help my mentally handicapp sister to live in the community and the place where she is employed recieves tax breaks for hiring people such as she. Currently, she has the best life compared to the rest of us and I am very grateful. Science and captalism would not have had a major role into her assimilation into mainstream life, but I will not deny that she is a beneficiary of it.

I love that line "if you have one religion, you have tyranny. If you have two religion, you have a religious war. If you have many then you have freedom." How true it is since neither branch can dominate the other. In a sense this can be said for multiculturalism. Perhaps D'Souza and my view on multiculturalism have a different definition, but to me I felt that multicultualism has a hand in America's remarkable lack of religious and ethnic bloodshed when compared to Europe. The vast influx of so many different ethnic groups into America didn't allow time for the various groups to completely separate themselves, and when forced to live side by side the end result is generally more positive than negative.

Anyways, I completey agree that our founding Fathers were wise to separate religion and state and by directing our energies into bettering our lot, and thus the pursuit of money, religious and ethnic disputes hence take a backseat.

I have often wondered why America is a successful superpower, other than the obvious reasons such as winning WWII, Europe struggle to rebuild itself, & coming ahead of the Cold War. D'Souza provided an interesting observation from within America that I think most of us knew innately but weren't sure if it were actually true. Thank you D'Souza for giving us that voice.

Rating:
Summary: What a guy!
Review: Does your house need painting? Then hire this guy, his skill at "whitewashing" on a grand scale is second to none!

This is the kind of book that confirms everybody's prejudices, and adds nothing to their knowledge.
If you are a gung ho patriot, you'll believe every word and assume that America is indeed God's chosen country.
If you already see America as rather less than spotless, this book will confirm your suspicion that self-styled patriots couldn't tell fact from fiction if their lives depended on it.

And if that's want you want, this is the book for you!

Rating:
Summary: Plays to the Gallery
Review: Dinesh D'Souza seems to have figured out the Americans. Like Rush Limbaugh, he plays to the gallery consisting of a White crowd. Never mind the truth, just heaping lavish praise boosts the ego of this crowd and Dinesh D'Souza acts as a lusty cheerleader for the Whites.
No new perspectives, no new information, just out and out praise for Whites - that is what his book is about.