Customer Reviews

Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

With a confrontational title like "Why the Rest Hates the West" you might expect a scathing talk-radio-style diatribe about the evils of the uncivilized non-western world. Or you might have expected the author to blame Western imperialism, Judeo-Christian religious history, and ecological shortsightedness for terrorist attacks.

Refreshingly, the book offers fodder for neither set of extremist views. Instead it's a reserved and rather academic (although readable) study in the differences between the post-modern West and the rest of the current world and all previous world cultures. In taking the high road though, I get the sense that the author might have titled this book "A History of Post-Modern Western Civilization's Moral Failings and their Long Range Impact on Global Demographic Shifts" and the publisher's publicist probably played a role in the "Hate" title despite little content in the book supporting it.

The author makes several keen observations on differences between the current west and non-western worlds. He details that the post-modern world has rejected its own religious heritage (despite the cries of the American left in the days following the 2004 election, the U.S. is not in danger of becoming puritanical although the U.S. does have a larger percentage of practicing Christians than many European countries). He looks at the west's history from the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Reformation, through the Victorian, post-Victorian, and finally post-modern ages. He observes the effects of all of these upheavals on the institution of the family.

His first main conclusion is these changes along with industrialism have combined to devalue social institutions like the family and local communities while elevating the importance of individualism, nationality, and human rights. It is however the institutions of family (including ancestors) and local communities that all previous world cultures and the current non-western civilization still hold dear and it is this distinction (not religion itself or militarism) that separates the west from non-west today. The pre-industrial non-west can't afford the luxury of "individualism" - families need to stick together for mere sustenance and survival. Nationality is expressly rejected by Islam. And abstractions such as "human rights" mean little to anyone struggling day to day for clean water and food. Pre-modern societies who don't know where tomorrow's meal might come from also favor stability over change, so even an "evil" dictator who is stable is preferable to a change that might endanger the family's day-to-day living. Divorced from the reality of day-to-day living by hyperprosperity, the west can afford temporary instability in the name of the long term march of freedom and can't understand how anyone could deny the value of freedom.

While he doesn't say so explicitly (unfortunately) the inevitable conclusion I drew from the book up to this point is that the west, in its all-knowing all-powerful elitist style fails to understand that today's west took some 500 years of history to evolve. But we then turn around and try to force 500 years of "progress" down the rest of the world's throat in the name of "freedom" or "human rights." If the rest of the world is to find "freedom" or "human rights" they're going to have to find it on their own terms, in their own time. Neither the approach of democracy at the point of a gun nor the approach of peaceful mediation to convince the non-west of the intellectual superiority of "tolerance" and other western values will advance real freedom's march by a day. (These are both laughable approaches considering the arbitrary geographic boundaries imposed by the west "joining" vastly different religious sub-cultures into pseudo-countries.)

He concludes the book with an unexpected twist: he ties all of the post-modern west's rejection of religion and tradition to staggeringly low birthrates in Europe, birthrates so low that they point to a population implosion. Along with rising senior citizen populations thanks to longer life expectancy, economic struggles result from an imbalance in the ration of workers to retires. These trends open the door to a flood of immigration to fill the European void and the current trend is this immigration is decidedly non-Western. The new immigrants aren't westernizing, are holding dear their traditional values including family which means higher birthrates in their populations, leading to the conclusion that "western" culture as we know if today in Europe will cease to exist within 100 years and will be equally balanced by the influx and growth of non-Western traditions. He paints a slightly different picture for the U.S. where the birthrate is at least holding steady at the minimum population rates but points out that immigration will reshape the U.S. as well. The only alternative is for the west to re-adopt traditional values.

And with that, the book ends. Not with a conclusion that the "rest" hates the "west" but that the current west is not viable because the population is not self-sustaining and that the non-west will overtake the west via population growth.
While in general he makes many good points and I felt I learned from reading it, there were things I didn't like about this.
First: the disconnect between the title and the material. He made very little effort to link his lengthy discourse on the last 500 years of western history to "hate" for the west from the rest.

Second, while the issues of family and local community are important to many people non-western world, I think he vastly understates the role of religious differences in creating and maintaining the current divide. Millennia of religious differences and western military domination the last several hundred years are hatred's foundation. The fear that the western non-traditional values will be part of the west's cultural steamroller only adds heat to hate's fire.

Finally, on the population sustainability note, I thought he failed in not connecting that if the non-west sees the west's non-sustainable birthrates, the non-west may fear the west will take the only other route available to any demographic that can't sustain through procreation - converting others (the non-west) to western culture.

This book is an excellent analysis and critique of the ills of contemporary Western culture, and their relevance to the relationship between the West and the rest of the world, particularly in the light of international terrorism such as the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The author's basic argument is that the contemporary West lives in a state of nearly complete disconnection from the reality that most people inhabit or have inhabited both now and throughout most of human history. In many, if not most places in the world, people struggle for daily survival, living in the ever present shadow of death and chaos. As a result, they understand the importance of moral order and a belief in the transcendant that gives meaning to life. We in the West, on the other hand, enjoy political stability, technological sophistication, and a level of comfort and safety unparalleled in human history. Largely padded and pampered from the harsh realities of daily survival that most people have to contend with, we have largely discarded a belief in the transcendant and have replaced objective morality with self-centered hedonism. As a result, the author argues, we have become infantile, technologically sophisticated barbarians, and this is how the rest of the world largely views us. Furthermore, our great power and influence around the world, causes many people from more traditional cultures to view us as a threat to decency, moral order, and the survival of everything they hold dear. As a result, the West is hated in many places. As a result of their often condescending attitudes towards those they view as less advanced, Westerners are often completely incapable of understanding these realities.

The book is succinct, reasonably short, well written and well argued. The author lays out well the historical factors that have led to our present situation, as well as the crisis that is currently facing the West. He also does an excellent job of critiquing the condescending attitude held by many westerners towards traditional religious and moral beliefs, and showing how even our much vaunted "tolerance" and acceptance of other cultures is really a joke. What is needed, he argues, if there is any chance of saving the West, is a return to some kind of solid, public moral commitments, and a resurgence of public religious beliefs. Things don't look particularly hopeful on this account.

All in all in excellent book. Highly recommended.

Having lived nine years in Central Asia, I was a bit nervous upon receiving this book. Was it another book bashing American culture and totally missing the point? The author himself identifies that modern tendency as "self-loathing" and demostrates how that tendency only serves to exacerbate the problem. What follows is a balanced view that forces Western readers to realize that the rest of the world sees reality through a different filter. The result is a very accessible and understandable reading of the current situation in a way that academically lays out the scene rather than trying to bash one culture or another. Highly recommended to the lay person who wants to get an honest glimpse into what may appear to him/her to be a highly irrational reaction among nonwesterners.

It takes a great deal of education, experience, and faith to write a book such as this. Originally a series of lectures, the author has developed some useful, and calmly articulated, thoughts on both why there is a disconnect between the "West" and "the Rest," and why the West is on a downward spiral to oblivion in practical terms, with the triple whammy of declining birth rates (non-replenishment), increased longevity (generally among those who are not necessarily productive in their older years), and substantial apathy among the self-absorbed, self-righteous, and largely clueless teen-agers and 20-30 "me me me" generation.

There are many books that I have reviewed here for Amazon that support this author's personal reflections, and his citations of those books that did stimulate him are more than adequate. A few themes made by the author strike me as worthy of emphasis, for they provide a road-map for any Western society that wishes to survive into the 22nd century:

1) Morality matters. It is a historical force. Will and Ariel Durant emphasized this in their "Lessons of History," and many strategic confrontations have borne out the point. Tribes and nations that become amoral ultimately decline and fall.

2) Western myopia cannot be understated. The ignorance of the West regarding global realities and the relationship between Western behavior (inclusive of US support for 44 dictators, immoral and predatory capitalism, virtual colonialism, and the general view of others that the West is "barbaric" in sexual and other matters of fidelity and integrity) and how others view is simply unrealistic.

3) The West fails to understand that the rest of the world, where faith and integrity and loyalty to the family and tribe are often all that keeps the entire society from disintegrating in the face of more primitive environments that we ourselves experience, wants to be modern but not Western--modern with cultural cohesion, not modern with the commoditization of the individual, which both the author of Lionel Tiger ("The Manufacture of Evil") credit with destroying family, community, tribe, and nation.

4) The author excels at discussion how Western individuals today have lost the context of history, the reverence for tradition, the utility of specified morality. Westerners are "out of touch" with the lessons of history, out of touch with the implications of our selfish decisions in the present that have implications for the future generations.

5) The author discusses competing concepts of legitimacy, and here he goes into nuances all too often lacking in "objective" Western analysis of competing social models. He sees the value of personal versus impersonal authority in the context of societies where bureaucracy is not yet developed and kinship remains the foundation for trust.

6) The author, educated at Oxford, would agree with Philip Alcott, brilliant Cambridge scholar and author of "Health of Nations," in dismissing most nations as false constructs inconsistent with their tribal and religious networks and beliefs. This is as true of the "Nine Nations of North America" (Joel Garreau) as it is of most of Africa, where colonialism heritage is that of inevitable genocide.

The author concludes, as one would expect of a Christian moralist, that "Nothing less than a massive cultural reversal is necessary. We need to rejoin the rest of the human race." He focuses on the renewed relevance of religious and moral vision, and here he would find common cause with David Johnson, distinguished author of books on "Faith-Based Diplomacy" and the vital role of religion in fostering reasoned dialog between West and East.

Apart from restoring the role of morality within our over-all culture, the author concludes that we must become informed--like it or not, our lives are bound up with those of everyone else all over the world. Here he is in tight agreement with both President David Boren (former Senator) of the University of Oklahoma, and David Gergen, advisor to multiple Presidents of the United States (most of whom did not listen too well). We must internationalize and modernize our educational system, restore the importance of history and international studies, and give life to the finding of E. O. Wilson from "Consilience," to wit, that the sciences demand the humanities if they are to be in the service of humanity.

This is a most thoughtful book, reverent in its arguments, one that reminds us all of the value that can be had from listening to or reading the careful reflections of a man of the cloth, born in Wales, educated in England, and now speaking to all of us.

The author definitely has a strong Christian world-view, but is refreshingly different from the usual gushings of the relgious-right and the conservative talk-show crowd.

I would hope non-religious readers would keep an open mind, think through some of the arguements Meic Pearse makes, and not "write off" the author because he comes from a historic Christian world-view.

I would also hope religious (i.e. conservative Christians) would think through how culturally entrenched their version of "American Christianity" may actually be, and realize God is not a Republican - or an American.

While not necessarily an "easy read," I'd recommend this to anyone who is looking beyond the standard arguements and views of polical left or right.

As Afghanistan and Iraq keep heating up, Meic Pearse's Why the Rest Hate the West offers one of the most profound yet accessible critiques of why we find ourselves under attack. When Nancy Pearcey said this was the best book explaining the causes for our current clash of civilizations I scooped it up. As the author affirms, It's not about money. It's not "the economy, stupid." It's a cultural conflict with people who value tradition, community, and a form of external morality more than progress, autonomy, self-expression, and individual human rights. Pearse exposes the hypocrisy of multiculturalists who preach respect for all cultures and then attack any culture that doesn't prize their Western anti-values of "dogmatic agnosticism about all truth claims and moral questions." Very insightful. Besides, you have to like a guy described this way in his cover bio: "In his spare time, he enjoys not watching television."

*** At some point in your life, the phrase "Ugly American" has probably been heard in reference not to how Americans or Westerners look, but how they act around less advanced people or people whose beliefs are different. In recent years, political correctness, tolerance for anything but intolerance, and open mindedness have become popular. Yet, if anything, that has made things worse, because as minds have been opened, the brains and hearts have fallen out, crushing values and morality underneath. Readers are given a history lesson in this concise volume, but a lesson with a difference. The past is traced not so much by what happened but by going to the heart, seeing the effects of history on values and philosophy. Although highly academic, it is not incomprehensible to the average reader. ***

Amanda Killgore

While the title is somewhat misleading, and quite likely a publisher cheap shot for selling more copies, the book is an engaging read.
It tracks the motivations at work in contemporary western society and tracks the changes in attitudes over the years.
There is an implicit assumption that the societal forces at work in old America/UK/Western world are the forces at work in the "problem nations" of the world today.
So the book can be used as a useful tool of understanding the mindsets of the rest of the non-western world, the angle of the importance of religion in premodern societies is very relevant to understanding the Islamic citizen's mindset.
The author seems to suggest that current Western foreign policy stand of demoncratizing countries or of forcing globalization through them is not the best way of "progress" for them. The forces of cultural change take hundreds of years to evolve (the western society serves as a good example of this).

Asking Why?

Have you ever turned on the television and seen five or six Iraqi / Middle East bombings of United State troops or terrorist bombings on countries located in modernized Europe? Then, have you proceeded to wonder, if only as a fleeting thought, why the rest of the world hates us enough to bomb us? Ever since the United States has concentrated it's military power in the Middle East, the western world has seen an increase in the attacks on us by other countries around the world. Many American and Europeans simply brush it off, claiming that only extremists and terrorists hate the west without reason, but there is a sensible story behind this sometimes violent hate against us. The book `Why the Rest Hates the West' by Meic Pearse is a great insight into the mind of non-westerners. It gives reason, and the thought process behind many points they have against us, and you just might walk away from it with a greater understanding of the rest of the world.

There has been one word that has been held prominently in the United States for many years: tolerance. In fact, it was one of the pivotal principles this country was founded upon. It was first meant as an agreement to accept the difference between people and their culture, or between a monolith society and the minorities that live amongst it. Recently, it has been warped to mean to completely ignore the differences between people, and to deny the different cultures that have slowly been disappearing into ours:

"Tolerance is a feature that, unless it is distinct to one country, makes it indistinct from others-especially over time. This, of course, may be a price well worth paying if the alternative is intolerance. And if the matter were to be left there, this would all be fine."

That is just on quote from Why the Rest Hates the West explaining why out view on tolerance is so twisted. This book will help you understand the real meaning of tolerance and how the western world often misuses it.
Besides the present condition of the west, this book also talks about how we got to be the hated, and now in decline society that we are, and why the rest of the world's downtrodden opinion of us has slowly soured into hate. One example would be how Meic Pearse explains that we have detracted away from integrity and instead started to accept `being true to oneself' in its place. It will help you understand how we got to this point, which will in turn hopefully help you decide how to help reform our society.
For anyone who is confused as to the western world's standing point to the rest of the world, I recommend this book to you. It can at first be harder to read, with some advanced wording in it, but it's easier once you get into the flow of the deep insight into the unrest of the world against the west.

I was "forced" to read this book this week for a class taught by Dr Pearse, and having read it, I'm glad I was. I've seen criticisms that the title is misleading, which, I suppose, is true in a way, as the point of the book isn't so much looking outward at other cultures and what they see in us than a critical review of ourselves from within and from the perspective of a historian, but the book certainly explains quite adequately what reason the rest of the world has to hate us. It is our focus on our own rights, the (often tyrannical) fight against traditional morals in the name of "tolerance," and the sexual freedoms that we preach (which, by the way, are quite conclusively shown, in my eyes, to have the exact opposite effects of what they are intended for, the intent being greater love for oneself, and satisfaction in desires), not to mention the fact that we expect everyone else to accept our views as axioms. but that's not really the point.

Dr Pearse elaborates, upon introducing the Western perspective, that these tenants of our society are not constructive values, but rather destructive antivalues. The focus on individualism and entertainment in our culture and the drastic expansion of free time due to our "hyperprosperity" have the effects of cutting down the importance of family in our lives from a young age and making marriage less of a cooperative fight for survival, and reproduction less of a source of honor, continuation of the family, and sheer survival once one reaches "retirement age," than a source of emotional support and mere companionship. I can't do justice to the arguments, or even the conclusions, without simply rewriting his entire book word for word, which I don't have time for, given how much of a tyrant professor he is (SAVE ME!). Anyways, read the book. It's good. It's even entertaining. and if you pay attention, you might even come away with a better understanding of why the rest of the world doesn't like us. In the conclusion, he even gives his own suggestions as to how to fix it all (without delegating the responsibility to the politicians). I'd even recommend it if you just want to shoot down his arguments, but try to keep an open mind. I'm sure he'd really enjoy reading a reasoned argument against him. He even says in the first two sentences of the preface he was hoping to cause trouble when he lectured on his main point.

Well, I have to get to work on his next reading assignment, so that's all I have time to say about it. Read it. Please?