Conventional wisdom maintains that the differences between Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable. Pre-eminent Middle East scholar Richard W. Bulliet disagrees; and in this fresh; provocative book he looks beneath the rhetoric of hatred and misunderstanding to challenge prevailing―and misleading―views of Islamic history and a "clash of civilizations." These sibling societies begin at the same time; go through the same developmental stages; and confront the same internal challenges. Yet as Christianity grows rich and powerful and less central to everyday life; Islam finds success around the globe but falls behind in wealth and power.Modernization in the nineteenth century brings in secular forces that marginalize religion in political and public life. In the Christian world; this simply furthers a process that had already begun. In the Middle East this gives rise to the tyrannical governments that continue to dominate. Bulliet argues that beginning in the 1950s American policymakers misread the Muslim world and; instead of focusing on the growing discontent against the unpopular governments; saw only a forum for liberal; democratic reforms within those governments. By fostering slogans like "clash of civilizations" and "what went wrong;" Americans to this day continue to misread the Muslim world and to miss the opportunity to focus on common ground for building lasting peace. This book offers a fresh perspective on U.S.-Muslim relations and provides the intellectual groundwork upon which to help build a peaceful and democratic future in the Muslim world.
#997577 in Books Elizabeth Thompson 2000-01-15 2000-02-05Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x 1.00 x 6.00l; 1.29 #File Name: 0231106610400 pagesColonial Citizens Republican Rights Paternal Privilege and Gender in French Syria and Lebanon
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. A great buy!By the office fanOf the dozens and dozens of books that I've begrudgingly bought throughout undergrad; this is one of the most memorable and insightful; and one that I will definitely not be selling back for cash. A great buy!2 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Sociological UndercurrentsBy Charlotte A. HuThe sociological/psychological undercurrents of history have long fascinated me. Problematic and intangible; it is often difficult to grasp the more fragile; subtle details of past events. Often; the same difficult occurs with current events. Therefore; reconstructing and understanding historical events is even more difficult. In Colonial Citizens; Elizabeth Thompson makes an attempt at this challenging task. She frames the events of French Mandate era Syria and Lebanon in familial terms; labeling the sequence overall; a "crisis of paternity." Undoubtedly; if we were to ask any of the men in that time period the reason for their actions; they would likely give a very pragmatic; political reply. However; as Freud as illustrated; humans are often themselves unaware of their motivations. Subsequently; Thompson's argument; in many places seems on purely visceral indications to be solid. There are places in the text; however; that the familial relational terms seem strained. There are portions of the text where it seems that the events were not framed by the citizens themselves in gendered terms; but Thompson continued that language because this is the frame she chose. Gender relations is the viewpoint from which she approaches the issues; and it is possible that this perspective isn't appropriate for all the matters discussed in the text.12 of 15 people found the following review helpful. Written excellently; but with some major flawsBy Tron HontoThompson's work was a good read; and her writing style was interesting and engaging. Her research is admirable as well as her clarity. However; too often she failed to make connections intended to formed between her ideology and research. There are a few key; general criticisms I have. The book has poor understanding of the term "subaltern"; misidentifying it with social groups which are not. Ironically; she neglects to discuss one social group under the mandate totally; the Shi'a; thus; reconfirming their subaltern status. Morever; though she claims to have done so; she fails to say anything meaningful or significant about Islam whatsoever. Also; events and individuals are not often historicized enough in that background events are neglected and omitted which are key to understanding the time period.
