Asia's Unknown Uprisings Volume 2 People Power in the Philippines, Burma, Tibet, China, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Thailand, and Indonesia, 1947–2009

The provided review offers no positive feedback regarding the book's content or execution. While the reviewer noted that the book's description indicated a focus on largely unknown uprisings in Asia, suggesting the subject matter itself could be appealing to certain readers, no commendation is given for the author's approach to this material or any other aspect of the work.

The primary criticisms leveled against the book center on its perceived extreme ideological bias, which the reviewer characterizes as "Marxist drivel" and "not even real history." The author is accused of cherry-picking events, imposing universal causal factors, and ignoring counterfactuals to fit a pre-existing theory that idealizes popular uprisings. This ideological blind-spot reportedly leads to an inability to understand why uprisings might fail or why people might not support them, often equating every participant as a hero. The reviewer also criticizes the book for being paternalistic and Western-centric, despite its focus on Asia, by jamming European ideologies onto Asian realities and devoting significant space to non-historical writers to support a "shaky theory." The book is further described as misleading and dangerous for its activist stance, idealizing bottom-up action and even violence, and failing to acknowledge the potentially negative consequences that can follow such movements. The writing style is also deemed unreadable due to being overly ideological and including unrelated political commentary.

In conclusion, the reviewer finds the book to be a deeply flawed and ideologically driven work that misrepresents historical events to fit a specific political agenda. It is deemed problematic for its lack of objectivity, its simplification of complex historical contexts, and its perceived idealization of revolutionary violence without acknowledging potential negative outcomes. Therefore, this book would likely appeal most to readers who already align with a strongly Marxist or New Left perspective on history and social change, particularly those interested in an ideologically framed narrative of popular uprisings and anti-establishment movements. Conversely, readers seeking objective, nuanced historical analysis, or those skeptical of revolutionary ideologies and their real-world consequences, would likely find this book unconvincing and potentially even dangerous.