Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

My biggest complaint about this book is that it is almost like a term paper that has been expanded into a book. Some of the other reviews have done a good job about summarizing the argument so I will be brief, so as not to recover ground that has already been covered. Her basic thesis is that (1) hyperpowers fail because they become intolerant, thus excluding the skills and contributions of some of their most promising minorities, causing these minorities to emmigrate and enrich their rivals, and in extreme cases causing these minorities to revolt and overthrow the hyperpower;(2) successful hyperpowers have a "glue" that binds its members together, in the form of a shared idea or citizenship and she cites the Roman Empire and the British Empire have been successful at this generating this idea of citizenship that its members have aspired towards. The United States has a strong glue that binds its citizens through a shared ideaology but because it is a democracy it cannot extend this citizenship to other nations as they will then have vote in how it is governed, thereby excluding other nations from what makes it successful. Both these ideas are extremely interesting and could provide much fodder for in depth analysis. Unfortunately she aims for breath over depth and leaves me unconvinced. For instance when dealing with a massive subject such as the fall of the Roman Empire she spends a paragraph dealing with alternative explanations for the fall, but then quickly cuts to her major argument that the intolerance of a Christian Rome was a significant factor in the subsequent decline. This approach would be acceptable were it to provide penetrating insights, or pertinent anecdotes, or little know facts or figures to bolster her argument. Unfortunately it ends up as a summary of other people's work and only a few people at that. If one were to look at the footnotes on that one chapter, she cuts many paragraphs from J.E. Roberts History of the World (not even a History of the Roman Empire - but a general history!), a chapter here and there from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a number of journal articles. This criticism via footnotes may seem a little unkind but when one sees the copious bibliography of Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers or Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, whihc are books in the same genre, then we might feel slightly short changed by Ms. Chua's lack of preparation. My second gripe is the lack of facts that advance her argument. They are dry as a bone and rare as hen's teeth. One example is in her chapter about the rise of Holland as a world power. She talks in most of the chapter about the Jews fleeing to Holland and bringing their skills because of the inquisition but there are no real statistics to describe this phenomenon except that the population of Holland's Cities grew very quickly. Then there are a few sentences about how the Dutch East India Company which was one of the key factors in opening up new markets and Dutch commercial success was mainly funded, not by Jews but by Protestants fleeing persecution in France and Spain. One waits for more development of the role of Protestants but it is left hanging and not visited again. My final gripe is that Ms. Chua is always seeking to insert personal anecdotes into the book when it is not always necessary. The fact that she is of Filipno Chinese and grew up in the US is of peripheral interest to the book. She tries to tie this argument into the fact that Chinese have this "glue" which binds overseas Chinese to the motherland. Sometimes it reads like a bad university application essay - she complains that her parents made her bring Chinese food to school when she wanted to eat hot dogs. She also complained that her parents wanted her to go to Berkeley but she rebelled and went to Harvard instead. Her parents came as immigrants and worked very hard. I am extremely against this kind of writing as it feigns an understanding of "Chineseness" and identity just by virtue of her birth and perpetuates all the stereotypes of Asian Americans making it harder for others to break out of that mould (I am Malaysian Chinese and grew up in the UK and studied in the US and ran up against these very stereotypes). Also such lack of humility by advertising which school she attended and how, though a Professor of Law, is somehow an "expert" in International Relations is not a very "Chinese" trait. So I return to my original argument that the book should have been kept as a short piece. A short book like Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power" can still be extremely thought provoking and influential, and ultimately more effective. But when the publisher is dangling the big check and there is a strict delivery deadline I guess writing a long one is difficult to refuse.