Rating: 
Summary: Bravo for Chua
Review: The review above, discussing redistribution of wealth, seems to miss the point of "World on Fire." The premise of the book, it seems to me, is to define and analyze the planet's growing problem of social and economic disparity. It is a warning. It does not, at any point that I'm aware of, hold itself out as offering a/the solution. "World on Fire" defines and analyzes, with both depth and clarity, the growing and troublesome inequity within and between nations. An inequity which our current promotion of democracy and capitalism only seem to further alienate the poor majority in the developing world.Americans feel outraged by 911, and appear quick to call for retribution. Perhaps America would be advised to first listen to Amy Chua's careful and methodical explanation of why this terrible event happened. If we don't work toward solving this growing problem, it will no doubt happen again, and again. I salute Chua for her effort and encourage you to listen to her!
Rating:
Summary: US History of
Review: As toddlers in history class we learned for the first time the atrocities of Holocaust Germany, gasping how on earth such savagery and inhumanity can be initiated upon fellow human beings. We swore somewhere in the back of our minds that such atrocities can never possibly again occur, that those circumstances in Germany were surely unique for those times--a great mass delusional hypnosis leading to mass slaughter of an entire race in several countries. Surely, we thought, such mass delusional hypnosis can never blanket and blind us again. In this exhilarating book, Amy Chua examines the impact of economic globalization from Africa and Asia to Russia and Latin America, and compellingly and consistently unveils how unfettered free markets have led, in disturbing patterns, to concentrated disproportionate wealth in the hands of a resented ethnic minority--the Chinese in Southeast Asia, Croatians in the former Yugoslavia, whites in South Africa, Lebanese in West Africa while unfettered, bareknuckle democracy has led the oppressed majority to elect an official, oftentimes demagogues, to oppose the wealthy (almost always ethnic) minority leading to unexpected and violent consequences. Instant democratic rule has led, Chua argues, to economic, political, and ethnic backlash against the wealthy minority within these countries. These backlash, she continues, took forms in ethnic cleansing of Croatians, mass slaughter in Zimbabwe and Rwanda, riots in South Asia, and is the basis of the current Chavez presidency in Venezuela. Finally, she points out how US is currently percieved as a global minority with disproportionate wealth and is vulnerable to similar attacks by the global majority. She argues how we can temper the harsh effects of globalization, pointing out that current US policies of democratization is vastly different than the democracy the US and other Western Eurpoean Countries had themselves participated in, noting that universal sufferage by the majority was never implementated, as is it now, without also implementing a checks and balance policies against majority backlash. The absence of this checks and balance system so prevelant in today's "instant" democracies, has lead to democractically organized "anarchy" in countries mentioned above. Lastly, she offers compelling insights on how we can approach future democracies and their path to open markets that alludes many policy makers. I believe she along with Hernando de Soto are the most compelling voices in a soft landing approach and offers practical and compelling insights towards peaceful globalization today. As to the comment below by one reviewer that "It is the fact that in the Western nations the thriving economic ethnic groups ARE the majority, not the minority...." History of the US has proved otherwise. In 1832, the US (mostly the south) elected Andrew Jackson president-the first southerner to hold office of the presidency. Andrew Jackson was the first "people's president"-- elected by the people majority to reflect the majority in the US. One of the first act of the "people's president" was to pass the Indian Removal Act--eventully leading to the genocide of an entire race of people. The next president, Martin Van Buren, another Demcrat from the south, came on board just in time for a big economic crash. When Jackson eliminated the Second Bank of the United States (one of the first centralized bank in the US), state banks became involved in wild speculation and inflationary practices. Hundreds of banks failed, people lost their land and money, and a depression set in that lasted five years. In 1854, another majority bill was passed: The Kanasas-Nebraska Act and the ban on slavery is ended (REVERSING the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that banned slavery). Instead, the free residents of each territory to decide whether or not to introduce slavery. It was called, at the time, "popular sovereignty" in the South. So in 1854 a group of Whig (and wealthy) Senators and Congressmen, appealed not to pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Their impassioned plea was a first step toward the creation of the new Republican Party and the nomination of Abraham Lincoln as president to run against Senator Douglas and to abolish slavery that eventually led to, of course, our Civil War. Freedom is not without cost, even in America. And the civil strife America had gone through is going through countries the world over by a factor of ten or more. The historical tug and pull between minorities and majorities is nothing new. In Athens Greece, taxation was light and there was little discriminatory legislation against the rich such as we would now associate with democratic rule and such as Aristotle said would be "the inevitable result of the rule of the poor."
Rating: 
Summary: World On Fire
Review: An interesting thesis, that is very valid, except a central conclusion (as stated in the editor review); "Western capitalism wisely implemented redistributive mechanisms to offset potential ethnic hostilities, a practice that has not accompanied the political and economic transitions in the developing world. " is not accurate. It is not redistributive policies that have enabled western free market/democratic nations to thrive (redistribution was non-existant to minimal for much of the U.S./European histories), thus placating minorities. It is the fact that in the Western nations the thriving economic ethnic groups ARE the majority, not the minority. How to transfer this to nations where it is an ethnic minority that succeeds is unknown, but redistribution has been shown not to elevate lower classes
Rating: 
Summary: Good But Limited
Review: This is an excellent overview of how class and ethnicity intertwine to the point where concepts like liberalism and democracy become contradictions. Yet I would posit they do not have to be, except as a market society makes them so.
Throughout the book Ms. Chua engaged in standard academic cliches re: socialism or "planning systems," prefacing her statements with "disastrous." How and why said systems were disastrous - and for whom - is never empirically demonstrated.
Also she neglects to mention that "market-dominant majorities" - precisely because of their alienation from the majority, like Jews in Eastern Europe or the Chinese in Southeast Asia - were often the vanguards of revolutionary movements and Communism in these areas.
But overall still a good read.
Rating:
Summary: Refreshing and well argued
Review: This book is a quick and interesting read. The author presents a simple, clear and logical hypothesis and proceeds to explain it in a clear and honest manner. The book is full of some very interesting stories and history you may not have be previously aware of; in particular from areas of the world that you don't often see in the news. The book is a refreshing change to a lot of the "globalisation" tracts as it focuses on real life and reality rather than some nice handwavy economic theory.
There are some real insights in this book that I have never heard stated before by any of the "experts". It also managed to give me some new insights into the recent political history of my own country (Australia).
The chapter on "why they hate us" (which discusses 9/11 etc) left me with mixed feelings. The central argument is great; but as a non-US reader I felt the author's nationality coloured her arguments. Readers from outside the US may find the tone of this chapter strange... she seems to avoid the obvious conclusion (that the US is just another selfcentred dominant minority) and instead paints it as some kine of huge misunderstanding. The next chapter on what the US can do to prevent terrorism borders on the ridiculous. She suggests a typical American response; all you need is some good PR!
Lets face it, the world is a contest, and at a certain scale moral arguments are irrelevant. Its kill or be killed :-)
The book does get slightly repetitive toward the end, as the author strugges to find more examples that back up her argument. But overall I would recommend this book to anyone who is unimpressed by the usual commentary on this subject and would like something more hardheaded.
The next logical step from this book is an analysis of why these dominant minorities form in the first place. This would make for an interesting book in itself.
Rating:
Summary: interesting to say the least
Review: if you have any sort of interest dealing with world economics and it influences on culture and ethnic hatred, this book is for you..... gives great examples, and the author does not shy away from lending her personal experiences. overall, well-written and keeps u interested through-out the whole book....the only downfall is some information tends to be repetitive....but still, its thought provoking
Rating:
Summary: A thoughtful, thorough and well-written piece of work!
Review: This challenging and satisfying book offers a thought-provoking explanation for the uneasy coexistence of the free markets and democracy in many parts of the developing world.
Overall, Chua shows that what is being advocated in current international development policy circles - rapid liberalization and universal suffrage of destitute populations without a social safety net - is a political experiment that has not yet proved workable in history. I hope that visionary leaders in developing countries will give this book's thesis the attention it deserves and advocate a more nuanced approach to rapid development.
I have only one concern about the work - For Kenya, the "outsider" sources used were scanty and outdated, giving the entire section a sweeping feel. The description of Kenya's white minority ("Kenyan Cowboys" or "KCs"s ) for example. This lot (while still a pain) are much less "spoilt" in reality than they come off in the book. If anything, there is a notion - accurate or not - that KCs are less exploitative than both "native" Africans and Indians as employers (or husbands, for that matter).
The book also overlooked a key reason why market-dominant minorities ("MDM"s) are resented: their general contempt for and dehumanization of other groups. This is a crucial ingredient in the hatred and violence cycle - with inequality being only one (small) piece. Increased patriotism, philanthropy and economic affirmative action will go some of the way to heal the rift between MDMs and their local communities, but the true answer to this political quagmire is in the personal realm, where prejudice, fear and bitterness thrive.
Rating:
Summary: Important Observations and Conclusions
Review: "World on Fire" is a penetrating look at the "exported" bundle of free-market capitalism and democracy to third world countries in the post-war era amidst socialism's defeat along with the USSR. The book analyzes these new independant states systems, their circumstances and the successes or failures of those states, with a penchant towards each country's internal ethnic struggles.
Chua has a wide array of personable stories to demonstrate her arguments. At first these seems exhausting and sometimes irrelevant, but they provide a strong foundation for her foreign policy arguments and observations later on in the book.
The book's primary success is the analysis of free-market democracy on various countries: how they were implemented, and why they were successful or not. She uncovers the interesting "tension" of this prescribed system in that free-market capitalism favors the minority of the population, and democracy favors the majority of the population. She explains why this system succeeded in the west, Japan, and Brazil, and then inspects its failures in Africa, Latin America, and Southeastern Asia. Lastly, she applies her analysis to the Israeli-Arab conflict with some convincing arguments, and even makes some global observations of the United States and its role in the Middle East. All of these observations are logical, and some of the conclusions are important.
The book has a weak thesis. Most of the book focuses on how free-market democracy inflames ethnic hatred in ethnic-partisan countries. It is easy to assume (like the a previous reviewer) that Chua is attributing these racial faults in the democratic foundation to the system itself, and by proxy, the United States. This is simply untrue. Chua is charitable and fair with her assessment of the USA's role in foreign policy. Granted, "World on Fire" does not make the observation that free-market democracy is to blame but admits 19th century colonialism and failing economic infrastructure is the culprit; this observation is belated and should be an early focus of the book, rather the later one it is. The ethnic conflict is a product of this broader issue, and therefore the objective analysis of the political/economic package should not receive a backseat to the ethnic issues. The hardly acknowledged truth (as it would undermine a great portion of the book's thesis) is that most--if not all--of these structural collapses would not happen if the country had stabilized its racial, tribal, and economic foundations prior to implementation. Chua also neglects to follow the reasons why the west has been so careless in their prescriptions of free-market democracy. My hypothesis is that the governments are primarily concerned with foreign investment oppurtunities rather than a humanitarian familiarization of the countries cultural adaption to the system. But this is simply speculation on my part, and the topic is a sorely missed topic in the book.
Regardless, Chua provides a comprehendable and powerful description of political globalization today. Despite qualms with the organization of the book and emphasis on particular theses, it is a recommended read.
Rating: 
Summary: dumb
Review: This book is silly. Just plain silly. It's like it was written by a 17-year-old. It's the kind of book that makes me sorry that I'm the kind of person who insists on finishing every book I start, since Chua has wasted irretrievable hours of my life.
I read a great number of books about politics and current events and, while there is a great deal of mediocrity out there, this book is in a class of its own. It's just silly.
Chua siezes on a paradigm and then bends everything to fit it, despite her protests that she is carefully avoiding such reductionism.
The book could have been boiled down to a monograph of about 10 pages; for what we have here, really, is just another Washington Post essay -- and not a very insightful one.
For a much better treatment of the same ideas (er, same IDEA, that is, her Ahabian fetish with "market-dominant minorities"), I would instead recommend Niall Ferguson's "Colossus," which covers all of the same territory, although in a much more substantial and well-researched fashion.
Rating:
Summary: This is the best a Yale Law Professor can do?
Review: This is nothing more than belly-aching about how globalization caused the death of Chua's grandmother. This is a poorly organized work that attempts to claim that ethnic violence in Asia is a recent creation of American style capitalism. Perhaps Chua forgot many thousands of years of ethnic violence in Asia (and elsewhere) that arose before the advent of globalization. For Chua globalization is the cause for this violence, but in my book globalization is simply an excuse.
|
