{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03727959697732997, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006045340050377834, 'mean_word_length': 5.0920245398773005, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Huk Rebellion: A Study of Peasant Revolt in the Philippines. By Kerkvliet Benedict J.. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Pp. xvii + 305. $16.00.)

Eugene Kamenka has edited a useful volume of short essays which succeed in revealing what a treacherous concept nationalism is, and how scholars, no less than other mortals, can be befuddled by its protean forms and emotional power. Kamenka's introduction elegantly finesses the problem of providing an overall definition of his subject. "Nationalism," he argues, "is above all a specific historical phenomenon . . . best understood by examining the specific circumstances under which it arose" (p. 3). His challenge to investigate "the particular character and role" of each specimen of nationalism with full regard for its situational specificity is only partially met by his contributors. The essays by George L. Mosse and F. X. Martin illuminate the liturgical and mythical aspects of German nationalism and of Ireland's Easter Rising. These are excellent studies of how nationalist symbols are created and manipulated and how the symbols themselves may imprison their manipulators. The essays of John Plamenantz and Wang Gungwu misapply Kamenka's injunction in vain attempts to distinguish, in effect, "good" nationalism from "bad" nationalism. Neither author uses such crude terminology, but Plamenantz's contrast between the "Western nationalism" of Herder and Mazzini and the "Eastern nationalism" of most of the rest of the world comes close in finding the latter "imitative and hostile," "disturbed and ambivalent," and "illiberal, not invariably but often." On one level this is pure Western ethnocentrism; on another it reflects faulty comparative method; what Easterners did is compared with what Herder and Mazzini preached. If what, say, Germans and Italians did were compared with what Gandhi and Nyerere preached, one might reach different conclusions about whose nationalism was disturbed and hostile.