Jump to content

Talk:Robert D. Kaplan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenway-Winship Award

[edit]

What is known about this mysterious Greenway-Winship Award? No page has been created, as of this writing (26 April 2011) and Googling it seems to only brings up mention of Kaplan's prize in particular, except for Seymour Topping's (who has a very interesting career, similar to Kaplan's).

There is, however, a google blurb from AllAfrica about a journalist in Zimbabwe. But the actual post has been wiped, and Google, for whatever reason, didn't cache it. But here's the indexed pull:

allAfrica.com: African Journalist Honoured for Bravery
Oct 21, 2001 ... "This award should serve as a reminder that if the government of ... received the second annual Greenway-Winship Award for excellence in ...

allafrica.com/stories/200110220573.html

clicking through produces the following:

Zimbabwe's Geoffrey Nyarota, editor in chief of the country's The Daily News, has honored with a Knight Award for bravey [sic] alongside three other international journalists.
He faces continuing threats to his life and personal freedom by reporting on the country's corruption and violence. Despite the bombing and destruction of its presses, Nyarota's paper has never missed an edition and continues to report daily on the state that Zimbabwe has become under President Robert Mugabe.

Who sponsors this Greenway-Winship Award, how many are handed out (on an annual basis?) and to whom? Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiosacoup (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan's 'Coming Anarchy'

[edit]

Extracts from 'Coming Anarchy':

"Physical aggression is a part of being human. Only when people attain a certain economic, educational, and cultural standard is this trait tranquilized. In light of the fact that 95 percent of the earth's population growth [4.5 billion in the next 50 years] will be in the poorest areas of the globe, the question is not whether there will be war (there will be a lot of it) but what kind of war. And who will fight whom?"

"[S]tate armies will continue to shrink, being gradually replaced by a booming private security business, as in West Africa, and by urban mafias, especially in the former communist world, who may be better equipped than municipal police forces to grant physical protection to local inhabitants."

"To the average person, political values will mean less, personal security more. The belief that we are all equal is liable to be replaced. . ." http://members.shaw.ca/competitivenessofnations/Anno%20Kaplan.htm

Altogether a pessimistic view, but based on reality. On the other hand, Thomas Barnett argues that the solution is globalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Barnett). Nations will eventually have to join the global economy - and therefore abide by its norms. However, in fairness to Kaplan, the electorates will need to be convinced this is a good idea; moreover the economic norms will somehow have to be policed around the world.

The problem with 'Coming Anarchy' is that Kaplan is using the book to raise a set of questions/problems which he doesn't answer in its pages. If you want Kaplan's answers to the problems he raises, look at "Warrior politics". Kaplan views peace as an illusion and conflict to be the natural state of man in the world. States rise and fall. He also seems to believe in a notion that life is competition and that unless America is strong, the uncivilzed peoples described in the Coming Anarchy will overwhelm America. I don't like to use the word, but quite frankly his ideas come from Italian and Spanish varities of Fascism down to his call to revive blood sports and paganism.

Why/how is he controversial?

[edit]

The article repeatedly refers to Kaplan, or his writing, as being controversial/unorthodox. Why?

Because he basically portends the end of "civilisation" and the resultant primordialisation of the globe. Furthermore, by selecting Africa as the catalyst for the coming anarchy Kaplan is prolonging Afro-pessimism.--220.238.218.119 10:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-99% of the Earth's population has probably never heard of "Afro-pessimism," so I doubt his controversiality derives from it.

He doesn't mince words about the current state of world affairs. He says democracy can be a bad thing (elections in Algeria) and some dictatorships are good (modernizing China); he says that despite the idealistic rhetoric on Africa, the continent has a dark future ahead of it; he says war can be better than peace; and much more. --Curzon 13:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To continue, see this excerpt on Africa from The Coming Anarchy:

I got a general sense of the future while driving from the airport to downtown Conakry, the capital of Guinea. The forty-five-minute journey in heavy traffic was through one never-ending shantytown: a nightmarish Dickensian spectacle to which Dickens himself would never have given credence. The corrugated metal shacks and scabrous walls were coated with black slime. Stores were built out of rusted shipping containers, junked cars, and jumbles of wire mesh. The streets were one long puddle of floating garbage. Mosquitoes and flies were everywhere. Children, many of whom had protruding bellies, seemed as numerous as ants. When the tide went out, dead rats and the skeletons of cars were exposed on the mucky beach. In twenty-eight years Guinea's population will double if growth goes on at current rates. Hardwood logging continues at a madcap speed, and people flee the Guinean countryside for Conakry. It seemed to me that here, as elsewhere in Africa and the Third World, man is challenging nature far beyond its limits, and nature is now beginning to take its revenge.

In his most recent book, Kaplan supported the ideas of imperialism, colonialism and described America as having a mission to civilize the rest of the world by exactly the same methods which were used in the 1800s to subdue and civilize native Americans. Those are all rather controversal ideas. Its not JUST that he is an afro-pessimist, its that the solutions that he offers are totally reactionary and very controversial.

Neutrality Tag?

[edit]

Someone tagged the Criticism section for its neutrality. It seemed balanced enough to me (it is criticism after all), although the section appeared a bit too large, and some quotes are probably overkill. Joshdboz 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its gone now. The person who put on the tag has not explained their case. The criticism section is large, but by making it large a level of neturality can be preserved.

Should the passage really be titled "The Coming Anarchy"?

[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to name it for example after the book he published? Or should it be an individual passage at all?Mackan 11:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "After 9/11" section

[edit]

I'd like to add to or remove the line below:

At one point he observes a Filipino and says that: "His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism."

This line is pejorative and taken out of context as the Filipino "observed" by Kaplan is asking why the Americans pulled out when that Filipino still thinks they are need there. You still have to read the entire chapter to get the proper feel for it, but basically Kaplan says in that chapter that the Filipinos still see the Yanks as liberators and saviours from the brutality of the Japanese in WWII. Also, that since Marcos was toppled, corruption and weak government with no almost services or presence outside Manila is the norm there. He says that a often heard Filipino complaint is "At least under Marcos you knew who to bribe." Add to that background and attitude the fact that the Yanks went in again with 'Enduring Freedom-Philippines' and kicked Abu Sayyaf off Basilan in 2003.

The passage below follows close to the end of the chapter, and places the colonialism comment in closer context. As I say, you still need to read the whole chapter to get the straight gen on what Kaplan is saying.

In Maluso, a predominantly Muslim area on Basilan’s southwestern tip, I met a water engineer, Salie Franscisco. He jumped on the Humvee with us and took us deep into the jungle to follow the trail of a pipeline constructed by Kellogg, Brown & Root. It led to a new dam, water filtration plant, and school, built under the auspices of the Unites States Agency for International Development (USAID). The area used to be a lair of Abu Sayyaf. The terrorists were gone. But as Francisco told me, there was no tourism, no jobs, no communications facilities, and yet lots of expectations raised by the Americans.
I saw poor and remote villages of the kind I had seen all over the world, liberated from fear, but with a new class of Westernized activists beginning to trickle in. “The Philippine military is less and less doing its job here,” Francisco said. “We are afraid that Abu Sayyaf will return. No one trusts the government to finish building the roads that the Americans started.” He went on: “The Americans were sincere. They did nothing wrong. We will always be grateful to their soldiers. But why did they leave? Please tell me. We are very disappointed that they did so.” His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism.

IMO, this Filipino wants the Yanks back in to continue what they started because the local government is so corrupt and useless it cannot get its crap together and do this itself for its own citizens. Basically, Salie wants an American garrison - which is colonialism in Western sensibilities. The "naive" comment seems to be to be meaning politically naive, not understanding why the Yanks can't just stay as he wants them to. By including only this comment, it makes Kaplan look like he is belittling Salie and playing politics, when the guy is just stating his own opinion.

So, I put it to you that this line in the Wiki should either be removed, or the quote from Salie put in.

Comments? --Scottish Andy 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With no comments either way, I'm going to pull it. ANyone seeking an explanation can read this. -Scottish Andy (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bissel Criticism

[edit]

The author has three criticisms where he just rants. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that is in there. He is not actually 'criticising' Kaplan's work, he is personally insulting Kaplan himself. Scottish Andy (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His most recent book

[edit]

The part at the end of the introduction naming the book he has just written and the publishing house looks like somebody from the publisher's office has added that. I do not believe that is part of the enciclopedia. The book is named below in the list of his works. I move to delete that bit.

Anyone disagrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.30.158 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Praise and criticism of Kaplan

[edit]

I've added some templates, for:

1. it is supposed to be praise and criticism, but it's mostly praise, which isn't really balanced, nor NPOV
2. almost all of them citations aren't backed up by sources
3. three out of seven are about just his latest book
4. it all reads as soundbites, as reviews, but not as a cohesive paragraph.

Enough reasons to add the clean-up templates, and hopefully someone is willing to rewrite it (and adding it with sources). Robster1983 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert D. Kaplan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_D._Kaplan&oldid=1255073252"