By Joseph J. Ellis.
Copyright 2000 by Joseph J. Ellis.
Published Vintage Books a Division of Random House, 2002.
Originally published by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2000.
248 pages.
This is a book that won the Pulitzer prize so clearly I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to let awards and honors sway me from my opinion no matter how wrong I am. The problem with much non-fiction, especially that of History, is that it is not always reader friendly. There's tons of citations, quotations, notations and appellations in this book which always make for a difficult read.. This is especially true when the book is about the politics of the day, which this one is.
But the author tries to present the content in a different way. He tries to write stories, or essays, in a roughly chronological order (apart from the 1st one which is later/ middle in the time period covered) and this does help a little. I believe the author even uses the word "stories" in his introduction. And certainly the book does start off with a riveting story. It speaks about the infamous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. And that is a pretty riveting story, even when the author describes the circumstances that led to the duel, which are mostly political in nature. They were in opposite political parties and Hamilton was pretty much libeling Burr. Still this section of the book was very interesting.
But then the "stories" seem to be pretty flimsy constructs to hang a narrative. Ellis might take one small event, a dinner party between rival politicians, to wax seemingly forever about the politics of the day. A couple of the stories are not even stories but simply concepts or themes. Here are some example titles: The Silence, The Collaborators and The Friendship. Not really stories, but themes. Which is fine, but the author had me believing this would be more narrative oriented.
Not that I didn't enjoy all the information about the politics of the day. There was much discussion about slavery, states rights vs Federal government power, and Federal banking. All of them being intricately connected. And I enjoyed those discussions, but I am probably a more patient reader than most.
The last two chapters center around Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and the book picks up here again. They were friends during the Revolution, rivals in Politics, and then friends again in the waning years of their lives. They wrote a series of letters to each other, even while Jefferson was President. They wrote with the knowledge that they would be leaving these letters behind them after death for posterity and history. Adams wrote that now that they were friends again, they should try to explain their differing opinions to each other, and consequently to History and the future.
I think the author war somewhat successful at making this book "reader friendly", but not completely. And the above organization of information was helpful. I can think of two books about History which I felt were reader friendly, so I do think it is possible to do, but admittedly rare. One was a book about modern Mexico. (The title escapes me but was one of my all time favorites) It used themes to organize the information. The book was highly readable and enjoyable. Of course it wasn't strictly about politics, but it did have a chapter or two about that. So maybe it is really hard to wrote a "reader friendly" book about political history.
Another book, which can be found on this blog was one about the Jamestown colony. That was very interesting partly because it had extensive primary sources written by Captain John Smith himself. Again this book is not strictly about the politics. In this book, the author talked about the relationship with the Indians often. Perhaps a bit more intriguing than strictly politics.
So, while this was an excellent book, I believe the readability suffered because of the focus on the politics and also some of the old fashioned language used in the quotes. Maybe it's not possible to have a purely political book that is reader friendly, though I think this was a good attempt. And of course, the content, no matter how difficult the reading, is always paramount in non-fiction and the content alone can sometimes be enough to keep a reader engaged. Which it did for me. I don't mind political history.
Here's some one else's opinion.
Showing posts with label Book - nonfiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book - nonfiction. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Stitches**1/2
By David Small.
Published by 2009
by W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
330 pages,
The illustrations are nice if not a bit dreary. It's done in gray washes and for the most part simple lines. Some of the better, more detailed illustrations have some nice variations in gray, but most of the shading is simple in that there are only 2 or 3 varieties of gray. The dreariness does fit the story though.
This is the memoir of the author/artist. Being a memoir, it's episodic in nature, though the main narrative revolves around his non communicative parents and the cancer he obtains in his pre and early teens.
It takes place in the fifties when every one was ultra conservative and conformist.
Mom's a housewife, but she's very bitter. She comes off as the heavy in this book. She rarely smiles. She also turns out to be gay. The conclusion one draws is that she's bitter because she stuck in the marriage. In those days there were not many alternative to leading the typical " married and 2.5 kids" lifestyle. At one point she censors his reading selections (including Lolita) and tosses them n the garbage.
Dad's a typical 50's dad. Jolly when around, but never home.
So they discover a bump on David's neck and they go to the hospital to have an operation,. They don't tell their son he has cancer. He later discovers that fact while sneaking around in his mother's stuff and finds a letter that tells him the truth. He is understandably angry with his non communicative family. Obviously, he survived to write this book so the rest of the story has to do with his feelings toward his parents.
Also there are many of dream sequences, which I think graphic novelists use too much. I know it's an opportunity to have fun with their illustrations, but to me they are quite often a distraction and don't lend, or lend very many, important elements of the plot. He uses approximately three in a book that tends to be dominated by illustrations already. So there is not too much text to begin with and he uses facial expressions to tell the emotions of the people. I like the art work but I do have a hard time concentrating on it when the art alone is trying to tell a story. It's like silent movies (one critic in the back of the book compared it to a silent movie) and I/we are not accustomed pictures telling stories anymore. My daughters have a hard time sitting through a silent movie. I think they have an aesthetic of their own, but they are dated and old fashioned. People today prefer more language (written or spoken) oriented narratives. I suppose I am that way to a degree also. So maybe it's my fault for not being more patient with the illustrations and giving them more time and attention that they really do deserve. But his illustrations are so simple, it's easy to fly past them.
As a narrative , it's dark and disturbing and I think the story needs to be told. David Small is an older author - born 1945 - that makes him in his 70's. I am not aware of his other work, but I think he's worth checking into some more. I just would like to see more detailed and lengthier narratives.
Apparently the book was nominated for the National Book Awards. Apparently I don't know what I am talking about - but that's not anything new.
And some excerpts from the book.
Published by 2009
by W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
330 pages,
The illustrations are nice if not a bit dreary. It's done in gray washes and for the most part simple lines. Some of the better, more detailed illustrations have some nice variations in gray, but most of the shading is simple in that there are only 2 or 3 varieties of gray. The dreariness does fit the story though.
This is the memoir of the author/artist. Being a memoir, it's episodic in nature, though the main narrative revolves around his non communicative parents and the cancer he obtains in his pre and early teens.
It takes place in the fifties when every one was ultra conservative and conformist.
Mom's a housewife, but she's very bitter. She comes off as the heavy in this book. She rarely smiles. She also turns out to be gay. The conclusion one draws is that she's bitter because she stuck in the marriage. In those days there were not many alternative to leading the typical " married and 2.5 kids" lifestyle. At one point she censors his reading selections (including Lolita) and tosses them n the garbage.
Dad's a typical 50's dad. Jolly when around, but never home.
So they discover a bump on David's neck and they go to the hospital to have an operation,. They don't tell their son he has cancer. He later discovers that fact while sneaking around in his mother's stuff and finds a letter that tells him the truth. He is understandably angry with his non communicative family. Obviously, he survived to write this book so the rest of the story has to do with his feelings toward his parents.
Also there are many of dream sequences, which I think graphic novelists use too much. I know it's an opportunity to have fun with their illustrations, but to me they are quite often a distraction and don't lend, or lend very many, important elements of the plot. He uses approximately three in a book that tends to be dominated by illustrations already. So there is not too much text to begin with and he uses facial expressions to tell the emotions of the people. I like the art work but I do have a hard time concentrating on it when the art alone is trying to tell a story. It's like silent movies (one critic in the back of the book compared it to a silent movie) and I/we are not accustomed pictures telling stories anymore. My daughters have a hard time sitting through a silent movie. I think they have an aesthetic of their own, but they are dated and old fashioned. People today prefer more language (written or spoken) oriented narratives. I suppose I am that way to a degree also. So maybe it's my fault for not being more patient with the illustrations and giving them more time and attention that they really do deserve. But his illustrations are so simple, it's easy to fly past them.
As a narrative , it's dark and disturbing and I think the story needs to be told. David Small is an older author - born 1945 - that makes him in his 70's. I am not aware of his other work, but I think he's worth checking into some more. I just would like to see more detailed and lengthier narratives.
Apparently the book was nominated for the National Book Awards. Apparently I don't know what I am talking about - but that's not anything new.
And some excerpts from the book.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Love is a Mix Tape - Life and Loss, One Song at a Time **
By Rob Sheffield.
Published 2007 by Three Rivers Press, Crown Publishing Group a division of Random House.
224 pages.
This is a memoir written by a writer that contributes to Rolling Stone magazine. Basically, it's about how he fell in love and then lost that love to a pulmonary embolism. All this while living, loving and dieing to his (and her) favorite music. So the premise is that each chapter starts with a play list which introduces the time period which the author wished to present, and then he follows with the narrative. It's a neat idea, but something doesn't work.
The first chapter bothered me a bit. It kept trying to make these poetic comparisons to pop songs and life. It seemed that he had to really stretch to make those throw away pop lyrics connect to his bigger ideas. It kept trying to be profound even though most of the music wasn't. Maybe if he had different music it might have worked (more on that later). Thankfully, he did not keep this method up for long. For the most part, he just used the mixes as a time marker and didn't really try to show the significance of the song to his life, which I preferred. After his wife, Renee, dies he does return to this concept a bit because he's dealing with death and sorrow, so I think the book dips in quality here. Again he has to stretch some pretty silly lyrical content to get to his deeper and more profound thoughts and ideas.
I'm a mix tape maker, so this should be right up my alley. I think I was turned off by his taste in music. Now I am a pretty hard customer to please, but I must say that much of his taste was pedestrian. And when he tries to make connections to this mostly pedestrian music, it doesn't work for me. The high moments he had was when he listed Roxy Music and Tindersticks. But by his own admission, he really liked the pop radio music. He claimed that the thought other cool music people looked down on this kind of music and so he tried to make himself look better or cooler for liking it. Now there is the school of thought that some music could be so bad, that it's good, but he has too much ordinary musicians listed to use that as an excuse. Even the alternative music he likes is really boring stuff. He's a big fan of Big Star and Pavement. All the alternative stuff he names is mainstream in the alternative culture. Stuff that's at best ok, but nothing special. Near the end, I do like how his taste has grown. He started to listen to old country and rock and roll, so he does seem to be opening up in his tastes. I guess I really had a hard time relating since i disagreed with his taste so often.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that this guy put him self out there, and while I don't dislike him, I don't really like him. He should be cooler since he's a music writer, but what do you expect? He writes for Rolling Stone, not exactly the mouthpiece for non mainstream music.
Here's an excerpt.
Published 2007 by Three Rivers Press, Crown Publishing Group a division of Random House.
224 pages.
This is a memoir written by a writer that contributes to Rolling Stone magazine. Basically, it's about how he fell in love and then lost that love to a pulmonary embolism. All this while living, loving and dieing to his (and her) favorite music. So the premise is that each chapter starts with a play list which introduces the time period which the author wished to present, and then he follows with the narrative. It's a neat idea, but something doesn't work.
The first chapter bothered me a bit. It kept trying to make these poetic comparisons to pop songs and life. It seemed that he had to really stretch to make those throw away pop lyrics connect to his bigger ideas. It kept trying to be profound even though most of the music wasn't. Maybe if he had different music it might have worked (more on that later). Thankfully, he did not keep this method up for long. For the most part, he just used the mixes as a time marker and didn't really try to show the significance of the song to his life, which I preferred. After his wife, Renee, dies he does return to this concept a bit because he's dealing with death and sorrow, so I think the book dips in quality here. Again he has to stretch some pretty silly lyrical content to get to his deeper and more profound thoughts and ideas.
I'm a mix tape maker, so this should be right up my alley. I think I was turned off by his taste in music. Now I am a pretty hard customer to please, but I must say that much of his taste was pedestrian. And when he tries to make connections to this mostly pedestrian music, it doesn't work for me. The high moments he had was when he listed Roxy Music and Tindersticks. But by his own admission, he really liked the pop radio music. He claimed that the thought other cool music people looked down on this kind of music and so he tried to make himself look better or cooler for liking it. Now there is the school of thought that some music could be so bad, that it's good, but he has too much ordinary musicians listed to use that as an excuse. Even the alternative music he likes is really boring stuff. He's a big fan of Big Star and Pavement. All the alternative stuff he names is mainstream in the alternative culture. Stuff that's at best ok, but nothing special. Near the end, I do like how his taste has grown. He started to listen to old country and rock and roll, so he does seem to be opening up in his tastes. I guess I really had a hard time relating since i disagreed with his taste so often.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that this guy put him self out there, and while I don't dislike him, I don't really like him. He should be cooler since he's a music writer, but what do you expect? He writes for Rolling Stone, not exactly the mouthpiece for non mainstream music.
Here's an excerpt.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Strength in What Remains ***
By Tracy Kidder.
Published by Random House, hard cover.
2010 Random House Trade Paper back Edition.
272 pages.
I think that one of the most amazing things about this book is that it reads like a fiction book. I was hooked like when I read a piece of fiction. After reading about 50 to 60 pages, I started looking at the cover and blurbs about it and then that's when I realized that it was a non-fiction book. I truly believed I was reading fiction! Simply put it's very readable. Much non-fiction can be dry and it is sometimes it's only the specific content that keeps a reader interested.
Perhaps it was the structure of the narrative that made me believe I was reading fiction. It went back and forth between two times of the subject's life. At least the first 30 to 40 percent is structured in this way.
This is the story of a Burundian refugee named Deo who escaped from Burundi and ended up in the hard streets of New York City. It tells the tale of Deo's escape and then alternates that tale with the tale of his arrival and early life in New York City. In Burundi, he had been a medical student when all hell broke loose and the civil war between the Hutus and the Tutsis broke out. This portion of the story is a barely coherent vision of fear, mayhem and murder - appropriate because that must have been what it felt like to live with it. Yet this part of the narrative still had a flow if not a single direction. It spoke of the numerous dead he had seen, the fright he would feel when he saw people walk around with a machete, the sickness and malnutrition he suffered and some of the kindness he encountered that made it possible. In fact, I believe this, the kindness of strangers, was one of the major themes that runs through the book.
And this theme occurs again in New York City. Now one of the hardships for many immigrants to the US is that often times, they have to work at menial jobs, because their lack of English bars them from an occupation that their training in their homeland was targeting. So Deo come to America with $200 in his pocket and didn't know a soul. He does speak French, the Lingua Franca of Burundi, and a cab driver helps him find an abandoned building to live in. There is crime and homelessness in this tenement, but at least he has a roof over his head. He gets a job at a small grocery and it's there he meets a woman during a delivery who takes interest in him. She works for a church and speaks some French. She learns about Deo's experiences and his education and decides to take him under her wing. She finds him a home with a sympathetic couple. He goes back to school and again, through the kindness of strangers, he's back on his feet.
There are a couple of strands worth pursuing at this point. One is that though Deo is on his feet, there are still some deep scars from his experiences during the massacre. He demonstrates this in his behavior toward some of the people who try to help him. Of course, he's relatively well off emotionally compared with the potential harm that could have befallen him.
Another thought I had while reading is the fact there was something special about him. He was educated. Could people sense this even if they didn't speak his language? Maybe his mannerisms gave him away as someone worthy of a little extra help. What would happen to me if I was a refugee in a foreign country I wondered while reading this. Well, first off I'm white and American so I'd either have my head chopped off or I'd be elevated to king status. I exaggerate but I feel if I could avoid the danger that my foreignness attracts in a foreign country, I could probably get by, because I'm an intelligent, go getting American. I know better than to ignore the fact that my being American is an enormous advantage in such extraordinary circumstances, yet my argument stands. Would I be able to survive by will of my education and force of my personality. I think so, and I think this is why Deo was able to survive. Of course there is some major differences between Deo and me. I would go and seek help. Deo did not seek it out so much but it was more like help seeked him out. If I was in a foreign country, I would be asking questions and putting my nose in places where I could get someone to hear my case. Deo avoided this behavior. Partly because he was still afraid for his life and partly because of his culture.
The book tells several folk tales that explain why people don't complain, or tell other people their business or problems in Burundi. It is a culture of silence and stoic suffering. In one part of the book, the woman benefactor tries to persuade him to write a memoir of his experiences. Deo did not want to do this. He feared his enemies and it was against his very nature to be broadcasting trials and tribulations to the world at large.
The second part of the book drops a bit in quality. After Deo's tale is told, the author does a bit of navel gazing and discusses how he met, researched and found all the people involved. Not horrible reading, but clearly not as engrossing as the previous part.
The final part becomes more interesting again. It is about a trip that the author and Deo take back to Burundi. DeoDeo was at time silent and brooding and in one instance he was insolent to a person who could potentially do him harm. Even though the majority of the violence had ended in Burundi, there was still some dangerous situations in Burundi to be concerned about.
This is the kind of book someone should make if they want to get people involved in world events, unlike the book mentioned previously in the blog about Darfur where it was already assumed that the reader knew what was going on. One has to learn about something before one can or is even willing to do something to make a change or a difference.
Here's a nice general video that gives a lot more information than I do about the story.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PcAQFNLacfw" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen>iframe>
And an interview.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KPWuGVzPVBM" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen>iframe>
Published by Random House, hard cover.
2010 Random House Trade Paper back Edition.
272 pages.
I think that one of the most amazing things about this book is that it reads like a fiction book. I was hooked like when I read a piece of fiction. After reading about 50 to 60 pages, I started looking at the cover and blurbs about it and then that's when I realized that it was a non-fiction book. I truly believed I was reading fiction! Simply put it's very readable. Much non-fiction can be dry and it is sometimes it's only the specific content that keeps a reader interested.
Perhaps it was the structure of the narrative that made me believe I was reading fiction. It went back and forth between two times of the subject's life. At least the first 30 to 40 percent is structured in this way.
This is the story of a Burundian refugee named Deo who escaped from Burundi and ended up in the hard streets of New York City. It tells the tale of Deo's escape and then alternates that tale with the tale of his arrival and early life in New York City. In Burundi, he had been a medical student when all hell broke loose and the civil war between the Hutus and the Tutsis broke out. This portion of the story is a barely coherent vision of fear, mayhem and murder - appropriate because that must have been what it felt like to live with it. Yet this part of the narrative still had a flow if not a single direction. It spoke of the numerous dead he had seen, the fright he would feel when he saw people walk around with a machete, the sickness and malnutrition he suffered and some of the kindness he encountered that made it possible. In fact, I believe this, the kindness of strangers, was one of the major themes that runs through the book.
And this theme occurs again in New York City. Now one of the hardships for many immigrants to the US is that often times, they have to work at menial jobs, because their lack of English bars them from an occupation that their training in their homeland was targeting. So Deo come to America with $200 in his pocket and didn't know a soul. He does speak French, the Lingua Franca of Burundi, and a cab driver helps him find an abandoned building to live in. There is crime and homelessness in this tenement, but at least he has a roof over his head. He gets a job at a small grocery and it's there he meets a woman during a delivery who takes interest in him. She works for a church and speaks some French. She learns about Deo's experiences and his education and decides to take him under her wing. She finds him a home with a sympathetic couple. He goes back to school and again, through the kindness of strangers, he's back on his feet.
There are a couple of strands worth pursuing at this point. One is that though Deo is on his feet, there are still some deep scars from his experiences during the massacre. He demonstrates this in his behavior toward some of the people who try to help him. Of course, he's relatively well off emotionally compared with the potential harm that could have befallen him.
Another thought I had while reading is the fact there was something special about him. He was educated. Could people sense this even if they didn't speak his language? Maybe his mannerisms gave him away as someone worthy of a little extra help. What would happen to me if I was a refugee in a foreign country I wondered while reading this. Well, first off I'm white and American so I'd either have my head chopped off or I'd be elevated to king status. I exaggerate but I feel if I could avoid the danger that my foreignness attracts in a foreign country, I could probably get by, because I'm an intelligent, go getting American. I know better than to ignore the fact that my being American is an enormous advantage in such extraordinary circumstances, yet my argument stands. Would I be able to survive by will of my education and force of my personality. I think so, and I think this is why Deo was able to survive. Of course there is some major differences between Deo and me. I would go and seek help. Deo did not seek it out so much but it was more like help seeked him out. If I was in a foreign country, I would be asking questions and putting my nose in places where I could get someone to hear my case. Deo avoided this behavior. Partly because he was still afraid for his life and partly because of his culture.
The book tells several folk tales that explain why people don't complain, or tell other people their business or problems in Burundi. It is a culture of silence and stoic suffering. In one part of the book, the woman benefactor tries to persuade him to write a memoir of his experiences. Deo did not want to do this. He feared his enemies and it was against his very nature to be broadcasting trials and tribulations to the world at large.
The second part of the book drops a bit in quality. After Deo's tale is told, the author does a bit of navel gazing and discusses how he met, researched and found all the people involved. Not horrible reading, but clearly not as engrossing as the previous part.
The final part becomes more interesting again. It is about a trip that the author and Deo take back to Burundi. DeoDeo was at time silent and brooding and in one instance he was insolent to a person who could potentially do him harm. Even though the majority of the violence had ended in Burundi, there was still some dangerous situations in Burundi to be concerned about.
This is the kind of book someone should make if they want to get people involved in world events, unlike the book mentioned previously in the blog about Darfur where it was already assumed that the reader knew what was going on. One has to learn about something before one can or is even willing to do something to make a change or a difference.
Here's a nice general video that gives a lot more information than I do about the story.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PcAQFNLacfw" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen>iframe>
And an interview.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KPWuGVzPVBM" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen>iframe>
Saturday, September 4, 2010
The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin **1/2
By Gordon S. Wood.
Published by Penguin Press in New York, 2004.
246 pages.
The title speaks of an Americanization. One of the main thesis is that the Benjamin Franklin we know now, was not always thought about in the same way as we do now. The man, legends, and myths that we know now did not become popularized and well spread to the middle of the 19th century.
For starters we know Franklin as a self made man who toiled hard at manual labor in his printing and newspaper business, which is true, but he spent over half his life as a gentleman and gave up manual labor as a relatively young man. But the American myth only speaks of his hard work and toil. His later gentlemanly stature would not be considered a very American way of life. The life style of the 'gentleman' was a very old world and European concept. More on that subject below.
The book also speaks and discusses the class structure of the colonies and of England and Europe. Franklin DID start out poor and he WAS a self made man, but he craved and strived for the gentleman lifestyle and eventually attained it. He was an educated man, albeit self-educated. His indisputable genius was a gift and was strengthened by his own efforts at self-education.
The concept of the "Gentlemen" was that a person should not toil manually and should lead a luxurious and idle life. This luxury allowed for the gentleman or the aristocracy to have time to do serious thinking, and be involved with the politics (and power of course) of the day. The self rationalization was that a few intelligent, well intentioned men should run the country (implying that government was not work for the lower class, undereducated people). Not exactly an American ideal, yet this is what Franklin strived for.
This discussion of the class differences took a good third of the book and was very interesting. There was a new rich middle class (a la Franklin) who became rich through business and the work world. These people were frowned upon by the aristocracy as inferiors. These "middle' people strived to be gentlemen, but were not accepted by the aristocracy. They were considered crass and undereducated. Franklin was well aware of this and was careful to develop his gentleman status so as not to appear crass. Eventually he was accepted, so his carefulness had payed off.
Another large part of the book involved Franklin's role as a diplomat. That was his major job and contribution to the Revolutionary war. He spent so much time in England prior to the war and France during the war that he spent the majority of his older age in Europe. He was barely ever in the colonies, though he did come back at the during the most momentous parts of the Revolution.
This long period away from the colonies made him unpopular in the colonies. In fact, for a long time, Franklin was a loyalist (to the King of England) and his role was to convince the powers that be in England that the colonies loved the king and it was just that they wanted representation. This was not the case. The colonies were ready for revolt. Being away so long from the colonies (almost 20 years in England) was out of touch with what was happening in the colonies.
He had many friends in England and he really loved it there, perhaps more than he loved his native American colony of Pennsylvania. After all, he was allowed and encouraged to circulate in aristocratic crowds. He was also considered the "expert" about the colonies, though obviously, he really wasn't aware of current feelings and events in the colonies. Meanwhile he was making enemies in the colonies because he was away for so long and people were not trusting him. All went well for him, but the rift between the colonies and England became greater and greater. Finally, the more and more belligerent Parliament of England took him to task and he was insulted by them. That is the point at which he turned into a revolutionary after all the work he had done to help his Mother England
He went back to the colonies. And then he became a diplomat and was sent to France to help get their aid in the Revolution. He was loved in France, but his fellow diplomats were jealous of the attention he received, and he continued to make enemies at home. But he was the only one who could get along with the French government (There was some distrust against the French since only a couple of decades earlier, there had been a war against the French). The king often would only talk to Franklin. This made some colonists think that he was in collusion with the French and a traitor, but it was clear that the French never would have helped the colonists with out Franklin
When he came back to the colonies after the war, he was NOT celebrated and was relatively poorly treated, even though he is considered to be one of the founding fathers. Not till after his death 50 some years later was he truly appreciated, and that was more for his legend and his myth than for what he actually accomplished during the war. It was sort of a sad ending for our beloved Franklin.
Overall, the book had some excellent discussions like those mentioned above, though I would have liked to see more details of his life. The kite incident was only referred to and not described. Since there are so many different stories about that incident, it would have been nice to actually know exactly what happened. Of course, that was not a focus of the book, but it would have still been nice if it had more details like that.
the state).
Published by Penguin Press in New York, 2004.
246 pages.
The title speaks of an Americanization. One of the main thesis is that the Benjamin Franklin we know now, was not always thought about in the same way as we do now. The man, legends, and myths that we know now did not become popularized and well spread to the middle of the 19th century.
For starters we know Franklin as a self made man who toiled hard at manual labor in his printing and newspaper business, which is true, but he spent over half his life as a gentleman and gave up manual labor as a relatively young man. But the American myth only speaks of his hard work and toil. His later gentlemanly stature would not be considered a very American way of life. The life style of the 'gentleman' was a very old world and European concept. More on that subject below.
The book also speaks and discusses the class structure of the colonies and of England and Europe. Franklin DID start out poor and he WAS a self made man, but he craved and strived for the gentleman lifestyle and eventually attained it. He was an educated man, albeit self-educated. His indisputable genius was a gift and was strengthened by his own efforts at self-education.
The concept of the "Gentlemen" was that a person should not toil manually and should lead a luxurious and idle life. This luxury allowed for the gentleman or the aristocracy to have time to do serious thinking, and be involved with the politics (and power of course) of the day. The self rationalization was that a few intelligent, well intentioned men should run the country (implying that government was not work for the lower class, undereducated people). Not exactly an American ideal, yet this is what Franklin strived for.
This discussion of the class differences took a good third of the book and was very interesting. There was a new rich middle class (a la Franklin) who became rich through business and the work world. These people were frowned upon by the aristocracy as inferiors. These "middle' people strived to be gentlemen, but were not accepted by the aristocracy. They were considered crass and undereducated. Franklin was well aware of this and was careful to develop his gentleman status so as not to appear crass. Eventually he was accepted, so his carefulness had payed off.
Another large part of the book involved Franklin's role as a diplomat. That was his major job and contribution to the Revolutionary war. He spent so much time in England prior to the war and France during the war that he spent the majority of his older age in Europe. He was barely ever in the colonies, though he did come back at the during the most momentous parts of the Revolution.
This long period away from the colonies made him unpopular in the colonies. In fact, for a long time, Franklin was a loyalist (to the King of England) and his role was to convince the powers that be in England that the colonies loved the king and it was just that they wanted representation. This was not the case. The colonies were ready for revolt. Being away so long from the colonies (almost 20 years in England) was out of touch with what was happening in the colonies.
He had many friends in England and he really loved it there, perhaps more than he loved his native American colony of Pennsylvania. After all, he was allowed and encouraged to circulate in aristocratic crowds. He was also considered the "expert" about the colonies, though obviously, he really wasn't aware of current feelings and events in the colonies. Meanwhile he was making enemies in the colonies because he was away for so long and people were not trusting him. All went well for him, but the rift between the colonies and England became greater and greater. Finally, the more and more belligerent Parliament of England took him to task and he was insulted by them. That is the point at which he turned into a revolutionary after all the work he had done to help his Mother England
He went back to the colonies. And then he became a diplomat and was sent to France to help get their aid in the Revolution. He was loved in France, but his fellow diplomats were jealous of the attention he received, and he continued to make enemies at home. But he was the only one who could get along with the French government (There was some distrust against the French since only a couple of decades earlier, there had been a war against the French). The king often would only talk to Franklin. This made some colonists think that he was in collusion with the French and a traitor, but it was clear that the French never would have helped the colonists with out Franklin
When he came back to the colonies after the war, he was NOT celebrated and was relatively poorly treated, even though he is considered to be one of the founding fathers. Not till after his death 50 some years later was he truly appreciated, and that was more for his legend and his myth than for what he actually accomplished during the war. It was sort of a sad ending for our beloved Franklin.
Overall, the book had some excellent discussions like those mentioned above, though I would have liked to see more details of his life. The kite incident was only referred to and not described. Since there are so many different stories about that incident, it would have been nice to actually know exactly what happened. Of course, that was not a focus of the book, but it would have still been nice if it had more details like that.
the state).
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Plan of Chicago: DAniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City *1/2
By Carl S. Smith.
Published by University of Chicago, August 2007.
202 pages.
I looked forward to reading this as I greatly enjoy history, architecture and learning about Chicago. The book certainly has some of that and had some interesting parts, but I found a large portion to be kind of dry. I could recommend parts of this book for reading if it was fresher in mind. I haven't read it for about a month now.
What I do remember that was interesting were the sections about antecedents for city planning. Paris was one example discussed and Burnham worked in several American cities previous to making his great plan in Chicago.
Some of the discussion about Chicago in the 19th century was interesting as it illuminated many of the problems that Chicago had at that time - filth, squalor, chaos. And the book also discussed the solution that the plan suggested for these problems.
And finally some of the comparisons that were made between Chicago prior to the publishing of the plan, the plan itself and contemporary Chicago were very interesting. It was very interesting, but I feel there could have been more. The author even states that to do all that comparing would be a very difficult task. I think it would have been worth the effort. This was the book I was expecting.
The book falls flat for the rest of it. This book is more about the plan itself then Chicago history. It spends quite a lot of time discussing the organization of the groups that supported it - The Merchants Club and The Commercial Club of Chicago, which Burnham and Bennet (his partner) were a part of. These were groups of wealthy , conservative and influential men and some famous names do crop up such as Wacker (got his own street). It's no wonder they got most of their ideas passed since they had all this influence (including some shady aldermen and mayors). I think this influence was essential to the plan becoming realized.
The book discussed who was responsible for what part of the production of the plan. And that's the thing, the book talks a lot about the production of the plan. How it was printed and bound for example. Or how it was marketed to the public (it was part of the Junior High curriculum in Chicago). Or the description of the fancy, high fallutin' special editions. As you can see, much of this, while it did have some interesting tidbits, were not about city planning, or architecture.
There were some dissenters to the plan, though most people supported it then and now. The book only mentions these dissents in passing and does not give much sway to their arguments.
One problem was that the monumental size of the project was dehumanizing. Some of the drawings seem futuristic and sterile. There are no people to be seen in the streets of these drawings.
Another criticism of the plan was that it was centered on the lake front and did not address issues in the surrounding, and often squalid neighborhoods. The hope of the plan was to unite everyone, rich and poor etc., to marvel at the wondrous awesomeness of the city. That smacks a little of propaganda in which the masses should all come together for the sake of good (ie. a war or in this case the pride of Chicago). Look at how people now unflinchingly support government policies out of patriotism, even if it means their sons and daughters are dying in wars overseas.
Though like I said, the title is about the plan of Chicago and not necessarily so much about the city itself. So the book does not falsely advertise it's contents. It delivered what it said it would. I was just a little less interested in the content that it delivered.
Here's some pictures and more information in the following videos.
Published by University of Chicago, August 2007.
202 pages.
I looked forward to reading this as I greatly enjoy history, architecture and learning about Chicago. The book certainly has some of that and had some interesting parts, but I found a large portion to be kind of dry. I could recommend parts of this book for reading if it was fresher in mind. I haven't read it for about a month now.
What I do remember that was interesting were the sections about antecedents for city planning. Paris was one example discussed and Burnham worked in several American cities previous to making his great plan in Chicago.
Some of the discussion about Chicago in the 19th century was interesting as it illuminated many of the problems that Chicago had at that time - filth, squalor, chaos. And the book also discussed the solution that the plan suggested for these problems.
And finally some of the comparisons that were made between Chicago prior to the publishing of the plan, the plan itself and contemporary Chicago were very interesting. It was very interesting, but I feel there could have been more. The author even states that to do all that comparing would be a very difficult task. I think it would have been worth the effort. This was the book I was expecting.
The book falls flat for the rest of it. This book is more about the plan itself then Chicago history. It spends quite a lot of time discussing the organization of the groups that supported it - The Merchants Club and The Commercial Club of Chicago, which Burnham and Bennet (his partner) were a part of. These were groups of wealthy , conservative and influential men and some famous names do crop up such as Wacker (got his own street). It's no wonder they got most of their ideas passed since they had all this influence (including some shady aldermen and mayors). I think this influence was essential to the plan becoming realized.
The book discussed who was responsible for what part of the production of the plan. And that's the thing, the book talks a lot about the production of the plan. How it was printed and bound for example. Or how it was marketed to the public (it was part of the Junior High curriculum in Chicago). Or the description of the fancy, high fallutin' special editions. As you can see, much of this, while it did have some interesting tidbits, were not about city planning, or architecture.
There were some dissenters to the plan, though most people supported it then and now. The book only mentions these dissents in passing and does not give much sway to their arguments.
One problem was that the monumental size of the project was dehumanizing. Some of the drawings seem futuristic and sterile. There are no people to be seen in the streets of these drawings.
Another criticism of the plan was that it was centered on the lake front and did not address issues in the surrounding, and often squalid neighborhoods. The hope of the plan was to unite everyone, rich and poor etc., to marvel at the wondrous awesomeness of the city. That smacks a little of propaganda in which the masses should all come together for the sake of good (ie. a war or in this case the pride of Chicago). Look at how people now unflinchingly support government policies out of patriotism, even if it means their sons and daughters are dying in wars overseas.
Though like I said, the title is about the plan of Chicago and not necessarily so much about the city itself. So the book does not falsely advertise it's contents. It delivered what it said it would. I was just a little less interested in the content that it delivered.
Here's some pictures and more information in the following videos.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Never a City So Real: A Walk in Chicago (Crown Journey) **1/2
By Alex Kotlowitz.
Published by Crown Journeys, Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
Copyright 2004.
156 pages (est.)
This is a very enjoyable and quick read. Kotlowitz focuses on some of the lower class inhabitants and areas of Chicago. He writes about the stories of peoples lives and the neighborhoods they live in. The stories are very engaging. He tries to show how tough Chicago is and that is what makes Chicago what it is. What I mean to say is that he is trying to identify Chicago's personality and prove his thesis on how Chicago is a singular and unique city which no city can compare to. Of course he discusses the concepts of neighborhoods, which is integral to any conversation about Chicago. Each chapter takes place in a particular neighborhood. Those neighborhoods are (if memory serves me correctly - again I am behind on the blog so time has passed since I read it) the West Side, Bridgeport, Cicero and Lakeview for starters.
He seems to take pride in the toughness of the city and comes off as wanting to be as tough as those people he interviews. In one section of the book, he describes when he was with some good friends, two tough African American women social workers, and there was gun fire right out side of the store front. So he comes off as a tough guy (on the cover of his book he looks nerdy) because he is such close friends with the African American women, and because he was present at a shooting. he comes off as a little of a wannabe.
The only other complaint I have is that the book should have been expansive. It should have covered more neighborhoods. It seems a little non-representational. And of course, it was such an invigorating read, I would have loved to read some more if it had been available.
here's an interview with Kolowitz. Does not really reveal much abou thim or the book, so take it for waht it's worth.
Published by Crown Journeys, Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
Copyright 2004.
156 pages (est.)
This is a very enjoyable and quick read. Kotlowitz focuses on some of the lower class inhabitants and areas of Chicago. He writes about the stories of peoples lives and the neighborhoods they live in. The stories are very engaging. He tries to show how tough Chicago is and that is what makes Chicago what it is. What I mean to say is that he is trying to identify Chicago's personality and prove his thesis on how Chicago is a singular and unique city which no city can compare to. Of course he discusses the concepts of neighborhoods, which is integral to any conversation about Chicago. Each chapter takes place in a particular neighborhood. Those neighborhoods are (if memory serves me correctly - again I am behind on the blog so time has passed since I read it) the West Side, Bridgeport, Cicero and Lakeview for starters.
He seems to take pride in the toughness of the city and comes off as wanting to be as tough as those people he interviews. In one section of the book, he describes when he was with some good friends, two tough African American women social workers, and there was gun fire right out side of the store front. So he comes off as a tough guy (on the cover of his book he looks nerdy) because he is such close friends with the African American women, and because he was present at a shooting. he comes off as a little of a wannabe.
The only other complaint I have is that the book should have been expansive. It should have covered more neighborhoods. It seems a little non-representational. And of course, it was such an invigorating read, I would have loved to read some more if it had been available.
here's an interview with Kolowitz. Does not really reveal much abou thim or the book, so take it for waht it's worth.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Balkan Ghosts - A Journey Through History **1/2
By Robert D. Kaplan.
Published by First Vintage Departures 1994.
Hard Cover - St Martin's Press 1993.
287 pages.
The following videos are neither exciting nor well produced and the narrator is almost incomprehensible. Who chose the music! But there are some pictures and maps which are based directly on the book.
P.S. I noted something interesting while looking for appropriate videos. There were lots of videos showing future maps where some countries disappeared and and others grew at their expense. In the comments were lots of cursing and racial name calling. The hate is still there even today.
Published by First Vintage Departures 1994.
Hard Cover - St Martin's Press 1993.
287 pages.
From the title, it's easy enough to surmise the content of this book. It's the history of the Balkans. But it does have a slightly weird premise. It's not only history but it's a travel book. Now, when I think of travel books I think of tour guides. The ones that tell you which places you need to see and visit, so I was confused when the author called this a travel book, because he definitely is not recommending places to visit, though you could certainly visit some of these places if you wished.
I guess there is a difference between a travel book and a tour guide. In this book anyway, the author does travel, but he writes about the history and the politics of each place he visits as he visits those places. So it's a historical book.
I like a book, especially non-fiction, that is highly readable. Not too dry, or confusing. I like a well written, well told story when it comes to non-fiction. This book partially succeeds. There are some pockets of very interesting passages in the book, but it does get a little hard to follow at times too. This may not be completely the fault of the writer, since the task he takes on is so huge.
He write about all the Balkan countries. They include Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia territories (which include Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia). He does not include Hungary which is included in his map, perhaps because , as he briefly mentions, it's culture is too European, though it is geographically part of the Balkans (I make that assumption since he includes Hungary on his map). He also spends the most time on Romania and Bulgaria.
It's no wonder the text can be so confusing. There are multitudes of characters, organizations, political parties etc., in each country. He does try to focus on one or two characters in each chapter (The chapters are divided by countries) and on the more recent events of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. That is helpful for the flow of the narrative, but he needs to give background, so he has to go further into that long and almost ancient past and to discuss a multitude of characters and events. All these places and characters are what makes the book confusing. He could have written about any of the countries during a specific time and have enough detail in information to fill a whole book. But he covers (almost) all the countries and several hundred years of history. Maybe a more specific thesis for the book might have been helpful.
So here's what I got out of the reading. Only the most basic concepts are what stick with me during this writing.
There are three religious groups all mixed together in these lands, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Closer to Europe (Austria borders Croatia) are the Catholic Christians - hence Croatia has more European feeling. As one goes further south-East , there are more Orthodox Christians - the ancestors of the Byzantine Empire. And the areas furthest East (Albania for example) are of course mostly Muslim - ancestors of the Turkish Empire. And these three Empires, throughout history have been constantly at war with each other and the hostilities continue until contemporary times. Especially in the East where Turkish and Byzantine groups were constantly at war. The details are different in each country, but the basic idea is the same. The Balkans, because of their location, was and still is the original battleground between the East and the West. This is of course all a generalization.
To be more specific, his travels through Romania, especially the Eastern part are particularly grim with tales of poverty , corruption and prostitution. He was constantly approached by prostitutes when he was there.
Everyone knows about Greece and their classic Hellenic background, but the author makes the case that their many years under Byzantine domination make that country more culturally Byzantine and hence, more Balkan than European.
I requested this book through the Chicago Public Library and I requested an older edition since there were more copies available. Again, this book was written when many of the crises in the Balkans still had not been resolved. I would have liked to have seen a later edition, in which I am sure there would have been updates. I wonder what's going on there now?
The following videos are neither exciting nor well produced and the narrator is almost incomprehensible. Who chose the music! But there are some pictures and maps which are based directly on the book.
P.S. I noted something interesting while looking for appropriate videos. There were lots of videos showing future maps where some countries disappeared and and others grew at their expense. In the comments were lots of cursing and racial name calling. The hate is still there even today.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Team of Rivals - The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln ***
by Doris Kearns Goodwin
copyright 2005 by Blithedale Production Inc.
First Simon & Shuster edition 2006
pages 754
This is a fairly long tome and I had to check the book out twice to finish reading it. The second half of the book, which focuses on the Civil War, is a faster more engaging read. I think it's worth the while to read it, though I know barely anyone reads any more, and few are willing to take the time and make the sacrifices necessary to read a book this size - too busy checking their Facebook status (guilty here too, but I still find time to read). Sigh...
The summary about this is fairly simple, so I won't waste too much time on this and perhaps delve deeper into the details. This book is a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It tends to focus on his political activity and especially his cabinet (rivals).
I may be mistaken, but I believe that President Obama has been seen carrying this book around, so clearly he is influenced by Lincoln, as he himself has said in the past. Perhaps I'll get back to that idea after discussing some of the details of Lincoln's life.
I believe most people take for granted that Lincoln is one of the greatest president ever, and very few people would disagree. But except for the obvious freeing of slaves and the winning of a long, difficult and harrowing war, I would wager few people could tell you why he was great.
In fact the beginning of his presidency had an auspicious start. He was thought of as a yokel - a prairie lawyer from the frontier. To be certain, he was much less connected than most of his rivals. In fact he was not the favorite to win the nomination of the party. But the favorites had made so many political enemies, that Lincoln ended up winning the nomination. And the start of his presidency he was clearly naive.
One major mistake was allowing his generals to delay the attacking of the confederate army in the beginning of the war. General McClellan, a dandy officer from the east, had his soldiers drilled and in fine uniforms, but when it came time to mount an offensive, he always found a way to delay it. Not only that, but he seemed to blame everyone but himself for the problems that the Union army had. Some have surmised that if the Union army had attacked earlier in the war, the war might have ended quicker and less death, pain and suffering would have been the result. Thge North always had supierior man power and technology. I always thought the industrial power of the North came later in the war, but it was always there. Lincoln refused to get rid of McClellan (It amazes me that there is a school in Chiago named after this pompous, arrogant guy). People saw Lincoln as too kind or too patient or perhaps even intimidated to do what needed to be done.
And he was a kind and generous man, and some people thought that was a fault and that he was too simple. But he began to get his footing, and his genorisity of spirit remained, yet he was definately in charge of the administration.
The rivals are the memebers he chose for his cabinet. Most presidents picked men who agreed with their policies. Lincoln felt it was best to pick the best men for the job, whether they agreed with Lincoln or not. I believe President Obama attempted the same kind of thing when picking his cabinet.
He gave the most important positions to his biggest rivals who not only felt they were more qualified to be president, but were bitter after losing the party's nomination. The two main rivals were Chase and Seward (The same Seward that later purchased Alaska and was ridiculed for that decision). In fact Seward, expeceted he would pretty much run the show as Secretary of State and that Lincoln would just be a puppet. But Lincoln proved them wrong. Lincoln proved to be shrewd and savvy when dealing with these rivals, at times placating them and at times standing his ground when he wanted something, and he always seemed to have the right balance of generosity and firmness.
Now some people are aware of his feelings toward the slaves and African-Americans. He was a Republican, and the Republican platform was anti-slavery, but Lincoln was a moderate. He did have some moderate rascist feelings torward the slaves, which can be expected for a man of his time. For example, he believed that the freed slaves would not be able to get along with the white population and wanted to set up a colony in Africa. But he proved to be a man who learned his lessons well, and when he finally did come around on some of these controversial race issues, his support for these issues did not waver. When he decided to make the Emancipation Proclamation, he not only did it for political expediency (which is what he told certain moderates in the party), but he also did it because he truly believed (eventually) that all men should be free. He was a man that didn't make rash descisions and took his time thinking about what was best. When he finally did make those descisions, he stuck to them becasue he had put so much effort and thought into those decissions,and truly believed in whatever decision he made.
An interesting thing I learned about Lincoln that they don't mention in the text books I grew up with, was that his assassination was a plot. There were three assassins and each assassin had a person to attack and they were all to attack at the same time. One, John Wilkes Boothe, of course killed Lincoln, another tried to kill Seward. He was unsuccessful, but he seriously wounded Seward and killed a couple of Seward's friends and family memebers (a son I think). The third assassin was supposed to kill Johnson, the Vice President. I believe he was in the same hotel and his vicinity at the appointed time of the attempt. He didn't go through with it. It was more that he had bargained for.
One of the saddest aspects of Lincoln's life as a president was that the Civil War started only days or weeks after his election. And he died less than one week after the end of the war. He never knew peace as a president. His whole presidentail experience was hardship and grief. His innate melancholy character became even more so during this period. He felt he had the blood of too many people on his hands. I wonder what he would have been like in his second term, being a president who ruled under peace instead of war.
He was very in tune to public sentiment (hence he waited on some crucial policies, to the chagrin of the more Radical Republicans who wanted things to be done immediately). His waits always seemed to be justified after the results of his decisions were found out.
So why was Lincoln a great President? He had a knack for making the right political decsions at the right time. He was very concerned about the public sentiment and tried to time certain policies to match that sentiment. He learned from both his moral and political mistakes. He did have comand of his various underlings, though it wasn't always outwardly apparent. And then there was his kid and generous heart.
In that sense, I think Obama has chosen an excellent model to base his presidency on. It's going to be nice to have a president that loves and care the poelpe for once. It will also be nice to have a president that makes thoughtful and intelligent decsions. We haven't seen that in the most recent years. I see Obama balancing his strong leadership with his generosity of spirit. And like Lincoln, Obabma is more concerend about putting good people into offices and not just people who agreed with his policies. It may be too early to see, but I think we got another great one here.
it might be worth an hour of your time for this.
copyright 2005 by Blithedale Production Inc.
First Simon & Shuster edition 2006
pages 754
This is a fairly long tome and I had to check the book out twice to finish reading it. The second half of the book, which focuses on the Civil War, is a faster more engaging read. I think it's worth the while to read it, though I know barely anyone reads any more, and few are willing to take the time and make the sacrifices necessary to read a book this size - too busy checking their Facebook status (guilty here too, but I still find time to read). Sigh...
The summary about this is fairly simple, so I won't waste too much time on this and perhaps delve deeper into the details. This book is a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It tends to focus on his political activity and especially his cabinet (rivals).
I may be mistaken, but I believe that President Obama has been seen carrying this book around, so clearly he is influenced by Lincoln, as he himself has said in the past. Perhaps I'll get back to that idea after discussing some of the details of Lincoln's life.
I believe most people take for granted that Lincoln is one of the greatest president ever, and very few people would disagree. But except for the obvious freeing of slaves and the winning of a long, difficult and harrowing war, I would wager few people could tell you why he was great.
In fact the beginning of his presidency had an auspicious start. He was thought of as a yokel - a prairie lawyer from the frontier. To be certain, he was much less connected than most of his rivals. In fact he was not the favorite to win the nomination of the party. But the favorites had made so many political enemies, that Lincoln ended up winning the nomination. And the start of his presidency he was clearly naive.
One major mistake was allowing his generals to delay the attacking of the confederate army in the beginning of the war. General McClellan, a dandy officer from the east, had his soldiers drilled and in fine uniforms, but when it came time to mount an offensive, he always found a way to delay it. Not only that, but he seemed to blame everyone but himself for the problems that the Union army had. Some have surmised that if the Union army had attacked earlier in the war, the war might have ended quicker and less death, pain and suffering would have been the result. Thge North always had supierior man power and technology. I always thought the industrial power of the North came later in the war, but it was always there. Lincoln refused to get rid of McClellan (It amazes me that there is a school in Chiago named after this pompous, arrogant guy). People saw Lincoln as too kind or too patient or perhaps even intimidated to do what needed to be done.
And he was a kind and generous man, and some people thought that was a fault and that he was too simple. But he began to get his footing, and his genorisity of spirit remained, yet he was definately in charge of the administration.
The rivals are the memebers he chose for his cabinet. Most presidents picked men who agreed with their policies. Lincoln felt it was best to pick the best men for the job, whether they agreed with Lincoln or not. I believe President Obama attempted the same kind of thing when picking his cabinet.
He gave the most important positions to his biggest rivals who not only felt they were more qualified to be president, but were bitter after losing the party's nomination. The two main rivals were Chase and Seward (The same Seward that later purchased Alaska and was ridiculed for that decision). In fact Seward, expeceted he would pretty much run the show as Secretary of State and that Lincoln would just be a puppet. But Lincoln proved them wrong. Lincoln proved to be shrewd and savvy when dealing with these rivals, at times placating them and at times standing his ground when he wanted something, and he always seemed to have the right balance of generosity and firmness.
Now some people are aware of his feelings toward the slaves and African-Americans. He was a Republican, and the Republican platform was anti-slavery, but Lincoln was a moderate. He did have some moderate rascist feelings torward the slaves, which can be expected for a man of his time. For example, he believed that the freed slaves would not be able to get along with the white population and wanted to set up a colony in Africa. But he proved to be a man who learned his lessons well, and when he finally did come around on some of these controversial race issues, his support for these issues did not waver. When he decided to make the Emancipation Proclamation, he not only did it for political expediency (which is what he told certain moderates in the party), but he also did it because he truly believed (eventually) that all men should be free. He was a man that didn't make rash descisions and took his time thinking about what was best. When he finally did make those descisions, he stuck to them becasue he had put so much effort and thought into those decissions,and truly believed in whatever decision he made.
An interesting thing I learned about Lincoln that they don't mention in the text books I grew up with, was that his assassination was a plot. There were three assassins and each assassin had a person to attack and they were all to attack at the same time. One, John Wilkes Boothe, of course killed Lincoln, another tried to kill Seward. He was unsuccessful, but he seriously wounded Seward and killed a couple of Seward's friends and family memebers (a son I think). The third assassin was supposed to kill Johnson, the Vice President. I believe he was in the same hotel and his vicinity at the appointed time of the attempt. He didn't go through with it. It was more that he had bargained for.
One of the saddest aspects of Lincoln's life as a president was that the Civil War started only days or weeks after his election. And he died less than one week after the end of the war. He never knew peace as a president. His whole presidentail experience was hardship and grief. His innate melancholy character became even more so during this period. He felt he had the blood of too many people on his hands. I wonder what he would have been like in his second term, being a president who ruled under peace instead of war.
He was very in tune to public sentiment (hence he waited on some crucial policies, to the chagrin of the more Radical Republicans who wanted things to be done immediately). His waits always seemed to be justified after the results of his decisions were found out.
So why was Lincoln a great President? He had a knack for making the right political decsions at the right time. He was very concerned about the public sentiment and tried to time certain policies to match that sentiment. He learned from both his moral and political mistakes. He did have comand of his various underlings, though it wasn't always outwardly apparent. And then there was his kid and generous heart.
In that sense, I think Obama has chosen an excellent model to base his presidency on. It's going to be nice to have a president that loves and care the poelpe for once. It will also be nice to have a president that makes thoughtful and intelligent decsions. We haven't seen that in the most recent years. I see Obama balancing his strong leadership with his generosity of spirit. And like Lincoln, Obabma is more concerend about putting good people into offices and not just people who agreed with his policies. It may be too early to see, but I think we got another great one here.
it might be worth an hour of your time for this.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond *
By Don Cheadle and John Pendergast
Published by Hyperion
2007
272 pages
Luckily this book was read several months ago and I don't remember much or this rant would be much longer than it already is. But it did have some relatively small merits to reccomend it. I'll end this discussion with those merits. First I want to rant.
I really disliked this book. I felt tricked into reading it. I though I was getting the story of Darfur, which I knew nothing about and was curious to learn about. This is not really a book about Darfur. It is a book about how to be an activist. There probably wasn't more than a dozen pages describing what exactly was happening in Darfur. There was tale after tale of examples of people being successfull activists. How they were able to raise money for their cause. Or how they were able to meet politicians and lobby. Certainly, this is an important thing to discuss but that was not what i was looking for. And If I had known what this book was really about, then I wouldn't have read it. Not that that kind of information is not important, but really, it's so much less interesting than what I had hoped for. I want to spend my time reading books that are interesting. It felt like i was reading a large corporate brochure.
It seems that this book was preaching to the choir. The authors made the assumption that we all realized that the situation in Darfur was horrendous and therefore we wwould be ready for active participation. And anyone who is mildly alert and current with today's events know that there is something going very wrong over there. But the book keeps making the point that few people, becasue of the press and politics, know about the situation. I myself knew very little. The little that I did know made me want to find out more. It piqued my interest. This book did make me more interested in the situation. Ok, yes, I know that things are bad over there. You (the authors) need to tell me just how bad it is because there are a lot of things that need my attention, and I need to be convinced that Darfur is THE ONE most important thing and that I should spend my precious litte free time for this cause. Liike most people i havbe a very busy life and a variety of interests including my surviving and taking care of my own family. If you want me to take time out for "your' cause, then convince me that I need to get involved, don't take it for granted.
What this book needed to do if it wanted me to get mobilized was to tell me a story. Tell me a heartbreaking, well told story. The book mentions the movie Hotel Rwanda (another genocide in Africa that happened slightly previous to the one in Darfur) as a piece of art/literature that might get people interested in the casue. Give me a riviting fictional account or even a well written historical/political account of what is happening, and I might feel more dispensed to become active. The book fails to do that.
The book is way too repetative. I guess they are trying to drive their points home, but I got very tired of it. It states that one of the dealiest sins to the casue of activisim is to be boring. Ironically, that is exactly what this book is. It really is, overall, a boring book (though it did have a few moments acattered far and wide through out the book). It says not to be too self- righteous as it's a turn off to possible converts. This book is too self righteous.
There are some redeeming values (hence the 1 star). The information given here is good if you did want to get involved in activism. While the book overdoes the "testimonial" aspect of the success of activism, there is one section which describes these examples which is quite readable. There are some interesting anecdotes written by the actor Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda), who is also co-author of this book. And finally there is a nice appendix of information to use if you want to get involved and help. It does suggest some smaller things that one can do with out sacrificing your whole life.
This could be a valueable book if you cut it down to under 100 pages (lot's of repetition!) because it is a good reference. In fact, keep it short was another piece of advise they gave us which the authors failed to follow themselves. And it could be valuable if one was already interested in becoming an activist. What they should have done is attach this quality information to the appendix of a really riveting, best selling book. Get the people hooked first, then preach the activism. That is what Al Gore did with his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He presented rivieting information and followed it with a short "appendix" about what we the people could do to help.
It was also nice to see that so many Jewish - Americans are getting involved in this movement. I was beginning to think that after the hey day of the civil rights movements when Jews were very involved in activism. that the Jewish community had turneed inward and begin to be more concerned about the acquiring of material goods like the rest of America. There are several examples of Jewish leaders in this movement. To be sure the word genocide is partailly what attracts them to the cause, since Jews have went through similar events. I think that's a good thing.
I don't like that the book tried to make me feel guilty. Of course genocide is a horrible phenonema, and we should do all the things necessary to stop it. I would be willing to do some of the smaller activities suggested if I wasn't so irritated with the book that I forgot about it in a couple of weeks. In fact, I kind of did make a plan to do some things. But as time passed the urge grew weaker. A stronger book might have made that urge last longer.
This video might actually be more interesting than the book.
Published by Hyperion
2007
272 pages
Luckily this book was read several months ago and I don't remember much or this rant would be much longer than it already is. But it did have some relatively small merits to reccomend it. I'll end this discussion with those merits. First I want to rant.
I really disliked this book. I felt tricked into reading it. I though I was getting the story of Darfur, which I knew nothing about and was curious to learn about. This is not really a book about Darfur. It is a book about how to be an activist. There probably wasn't more than a dozen pages describing what exactly was happening in Darfur. There was tale after tale of examples of people being successfull activists. How they were able to raise money for their cause. Or how they were able to meet politicians and lobby. Certainly, this is an important thing to discuss but that was not what i was looking for. And If I had known what this book was really about, then I wouldn't have read it. Not that that kind of information is not important, but really, it's so much less interesting than what I had hoped for. I want to spend my time reading books that are interesting. It felt like i was reading a large corporate brochure.
It seems that this book was preaching to the choir. The authors made the assumption that we all realized that the situation in Darfur was horrendous and therefore we wwould be ready for active participation. And anyone who is mildly alert and current with today's events know that there is something going very wrong over there. But the book keeps making the point that few people, becasue of the press and politics, know about the situation. I myself knew very little. The little that I did know made me want to find out more. It piqued my interest. This book did make me more interested in the situation. Ok, yes, I know that things are bad over there. You (the authors) need to tell me just how bad it is because there are a lot of things that need my attention, and I need to be convinced that Darfur is THE ONE most important thing and that I should spend my precious litte free time for this cause. Liike most people i havbe a very busy life and a variety of interests including my surviving and taking care of my own family. If you want me to take time out for "your' cause, then convince me that I need to get involved, don't take it for granted.
What this book needed to do if it wanted me to get mobilized was to tell me a story. Tell me a heartbreaking, well told story. The book mentions the movie Hotel Rwanda (another genocide in Africa that happened slightly previous to the one in Darfur) as a piece of art/literature that might get people interested in the casue. Give me a riviting fictional account or even a well written historical/political account of what is happening, and I might feel more dispensed to become active. The book fails to do that.
The book is way too repetative. I guess they are trying to drive their points home, but I got very tired of it. It states that one of the dealiest sins to the casue of activisim is to be boring. Ironically, that is exactly what this book is. It really is, overall, a boring book (though it did have a few moments acattered far and wide through out the book). It says not to be too self- righteous as it's a turn off to possible converts. This book is too self righteous.
There are some redeeming values (hence the 1 star). The information given here is good if you did want to get involved in activism. While the book overdoes the "testimonial" aspect of the success of activism, there is one section which describes these examples which is quite readable. There are some interesting anecdotes written by the actor Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda), who is also co-author of this book. And finally there is a nice appendix of information to use if you want to get involved and help. It does suggest some smaller things that one can do with out sacrificing your whole life.
This could be a valueable book if you cut it down to under 100 pages (lot's of repetition!) because it is a good reference. In fact, keep it short was another piece of advise they gave us which the authors failed to follow themselves. And it could be valuable if one was already interested in becoming an activist. What they should have done is attach this quality information to the appendix of a really riveting, best selling book. Get the people hooked first, then preach the activism. That is what Al Gore did with his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He presented rivieting information and followed it with a short "appendix" about what we the people could do to help.
It was also nice to see that so many Jewish - Americans are getting involved in this movement. I was beginning to think that after the hey day of the civil rights movements when Jews were very involved in activism. that the Jewish community had turneed inward and begin to be more concerned about the acquiring of material goods like the rest of America. There are several examples of Jewish leaders in this movement. To be sure the word genocide is partailly what attracts them to the cause, since Jews have went through similar events. I think that's a good thing.
I don't like that the book tried to make me feel guilty. Of course genocide is a horrible phenonema, and we should do all the things necessary to stop it. I would be willing to do some of the smaller activities suggested if I wasn't so irritated with the book that I forgot about it in a couple of weeks. In fact, I kind of did make a plan to do some things. But as time passed the urge grew weaker. A stronger book might have made that urge last longer.
This video might actually be more interesting than the book.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Book Seller of Kabul
**1/2
by Asne Sierstad
I am very remiss in my writing as was expected considering the magnitude of events taking shape in my life now. I read this book back in September, so my memory will be poorer.
The author is attempting to tell this non-fiction tale in a narrative style. As such, she makes assumptions about what the people actually are feeling and thinking. Sometimes, perhaps, she goes a little too far.
The main subject of the book is an ambivilent character. Being a book seller he thinks of himself as a progressive thinker and an instrument in the mission to restore Afghanistan culture to its former glory.
Yet he has the role of the typical patriarch in Muslim society. He takes a second wife to the disgruntlement of his 1st wife, and his daughters are considered important only for their worth in what they bring to the family for their marraiges. One daughter is treated so bad, she is practically a slave to the rest of the family. Even the son can't go to school because he is expected to work in the book shop. An educated man, one would think, would want his children, or at least his sons, to get a good education. He rules the household with an iron fist. Understand that this is no different from most Afghani men, but he claims to be a progressive thinker.
This is a translation from, I believe Swedish, and some of the language seems a little awkward at times. Some of the parts do also drag on a little. I believe a scene where the women are preparing for a wedding is an example of that.
The author does go a little bit into the history of the Russian invasion and the arrival of the Taliban. It certainly added to my knowledge about that issue.
For the most part it was an ejoyable and enlightening book.
by Asne Sierstad
I am very remiss in my writing as was expected considering the magnitude of events taking shape in my life now. I read this book back in September, so my memory will be poorer.
The author is attempting to tell this non-fiction tale in a narrative style. As such, she makes assumptions about what the people actually are feeling and thinking. Sometimes, perhaps, she goes a little too far.
The main subject of the book is an ambivilent character. Being a book seller he thinks of himself as a progressive thinker and an instrument in the mission to restore Afghanistan culture to its former glory.
Yet he has the role of the typical patriarch in Muslim society. He takes a second wife to the disgruntlement of his 1st wife, and his daughters are considered important only for their worth in what they bring to the family for their marraiges. One daughter is treated so bad, she is practically a slave to the rest of the family. Even the son can't go to school because he is expected to work in the book shop. An educated man, one would think, would want his children, or at least his sons, to get a good education. He rules the household with an iron fist. Understand that this is no different from most Afghani men, but he claims to be a progressive thinker.
This is a translation from, I believe Swedish, and some of the language seems a little awkward at times. Some of the parts do also drag on a little. I believe a scene where the women are preparing for a wedding is an example of that.
The author does go a little bit into the history of the Russian invasion and the arrival of the Taliban. It certainly added to my knowledge about that issue.
For the most part it was an ejoyable and enlightening book.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Cahokia - City of the Sun **
Written by Claudia Gellman Mink
Published by Cahokia Mounds Museum Society - 1992
76 pages
Some things are what they are. This is a book usually sold by a museum. It's got your basic information. At least it is not a difficult read (though for my students it would be difficult), though it is pretty boring. It gives you the facts and that's that! There is very little anecdotes about the people's daily lives. It describes how life might have been but there are no "tales" here to hold the readers' interest.
It would be difficult for me to use in my class, which is the purpose of my reading this book. I could use some of the simpler excerpts perhaps, but the kids would be bored to death.
Ancient civilizations probably present a special problem to historians and archaeologists. There usually is no or little written record. And coupled with the fact that these civilizations were of course existing a long time ago, it is very difficult to get information about them. So that is one reason that it would be very difficult to write anecdotes and narratives. I believe in this book, the author and archaeologists don't even know the names of the kings. Still, I've seen it done where vivid pictures have been painted of what life might have been like. I remember once I read a book about the Aztecs. The 1st third was incomprehensible, but it got much better when it started to describe what daily life might have been like.
Here is a summary of those basic facts.
There were groups of indigenous peoples in the North American continent called The Mississippians. They started out living in the Southeastern woodlands of North America which is called The American Bottom. Basically it centered abound the confluence of Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Prior to the rise of Cahokia (the civilization being discussed here) mounds were being built. There is one famous one called the serpent mound that is shaped like a serpent, which is located in Ohio.
The Mississippians reached their apex with the city of Cahokia, which is located just east of the Mississippi River and current day St. Louis. It was larger than any city in Europe or the United States up until the year 1800. They built great giant mounds which were probably used for religious and communal purposes.
One reason they were able to become large was due to the cultivation of corn. It was the major food staple of their diet. Some historians hypothesize that the lack of a varied diet helped lead to the downfall of their civilization, along with other problems that can arise from big cites such as health, pollution, overpopulation and the depletion of their resources. Being located in the woodlands, wood of course was a major resource which they used for building structures.
They were a center of trade as proven by the seashells that were found which came from the Gulf of Mexico. The used the rivers as highways to travel and trade.
No one really knows what happened to them. it was probably a combination of things that led to their demise. The problems of big cities mentioned above were certainly a contributing factor. They could have also been conquered by neighboring hostile groups. Archaeologists have found proof of a wooden wall that went around the entire city, probably for protecting themselves, but also possibly to keep the social hierarchy of their society from breaking down - Perhaps it kept the riffraff out. And there is no evidence of any great battle.
The city lasted until the early 1400's when it was abandoned. It was too early for European explorers and conquerors to meet them, but they did meet some of their ancestors who told them tales of this great civilization.
I think if I teach this as a unit of study, I'll probably just stick to the information I just summarized. There are lots of ancient objects found, but that would be too subtle for my students to enjoy.
Published by Cahokia Mounds Museum Society - 1992
76 pages
Some things are what they are. This is a book usually sold by a museum. It's got your basic information. At least it is not a difficult read (though for my students it would be difficult), though it is pretty boring. It gives you the facts and that's that! There is very little anecdotes about the people's daily lives. It describes how life might have been but there are no "tales" here to hold the readers' interest.
It would be difficult for me to use in my class, which is the purpose of my reading this book. I could use some of the simpler excerpts perhaps, but the kids would be bored to death.
Ancient civilizations probably present a special problem to historians and archaeologists. There usually is no or little written record. And coupled with the fact that these civilizations were of course existing a long time ago, it is very difficult to get information about them. So that is one reason that it would be very difficult to write anecdotes and narratives. I believe in this book, the author and archaeologists don't even know the names of the kings. Still, I've seen it done where vivid pictures have been painted of what life might have been like. I remember once I read a book about the Aztecs. The 1st third was incomprehensible, but it got much better when it started to describe what daily life might have been like.
Here is a summary of those basic facts.
There were groups of indigenous peoples in the North American continent called The Mississippians. They started out living in the Southeastern woodlands of North America which is called The American Bottom. Basically it centered abound the confluence of Ohio, Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Prior to the rise of Cahokia (the civilization being discussed here) mounds were being built. There is one famous one called the serpent mound that is shaped like a serpent, which is located in Ohio.
The Mississippians reached their apex with the city of Cahokia, which is located just east of the Mississippi River and current day St. Louis. It was larger than any city in Europe or the United States up until the year 1800. They built great giant mounds which were probably used for religious and communal purposes.
One reason they were able to become large was due to the cultivation of corn. It was the major food staple of their diet. Some historians hypothesize that the lack of a varied diet helped lead to the downfall of their civilization, along with other problems that can arise from big cites such as health, pollution, overpopulation and the depletion of their resources. Being located in the woodlands, wood of course was a major resource which they used for building structures.
They were a center of trade as proven by the seashells that were found which came from the Gulf of Mexico. The used the rivers as highways to travel and trade.
No one really knows what happened to them. it was probably a combination of things that led to their demise. The problems of big cities mentioned above were certainly a contributing factor. They could have also been conquered by neighboring hostile groups. Archaeologists have found proof of a wooden wall that went around the entire city, probably for protecting themselves, but also possibly to keep the social hierarchy of their society from breaking down - Perhaps it kept the riffraff out. And there is no evidence of any great battle.
The city lasted until the early 1400's when it was abandoned. It was too early for European explorers and conquerors to meet them, but they did meet some of their ancestors who told them tales of this great civilization.
I think if I teach this as a unit of study, I'll probably just stick to the information I just summarized. There are lots of ancient objects found, but that would be too subtle for my students to enjoy.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Longitude - The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of his Time ***
by Dava Sobel
1995 Walker Publishing Company
The title of the book is a little misleading, but it's still a good book. It makes it sound like the inventor invented Longitude. He didn't - he just solved the problem of how to figure out longitude. In fact, he didn't even really figure it out. They already knew how to figure out longitude.
The globe, being circular in shape is divided into 360 degrees of longitude. Every one degree of longitude represents a certain distance (15 or 30 miles for example). The way to figure out how many degrees you traveled is by using the time of where you departed from compared to the time of where a ship is located in that exact moment. So they knew how to do it! The problem was that they needed to keep the departure time current and accurate so the comparison could be calculated accurately. Well 300 years ago, time keepers (watches) were not able to withstand the trials of sea travel - the extreme heat and cold, the movement of the boat and the constant wet conditions. So really, this book is the story of how this inventor created a watch that was extremely accurate an durable. He was an innovator of clock mechanics - not the inventor of longitude.
Of course his accurate clocks enabled sailors to calculate Longitude, so he did solve the problem of longitude.
An interesting theme in the book is that this longitude problem was rife with politics. The longitude problem was so important (and deemed almost impossible to solve at the time) that the King of England offered an award for the person who could solve this problem. Well, many people tried and what it amounted to was that there were two different strains of logic. The king had set up a board to help solve the problem and judge the solutions that came in. The memebers of the board were of course all scientists and mathematicians, and they were not eager to endorse a mechanical solution by a mere clockmaker. They were more interested in astronomical and scientific ways to figure it out. There was much resistance to the time pieces and therefore, it took the clockmaker over 20 years to convince this board that his time keepers were the solution.
There are some other minor points that are interesting, such as how they picked the Prime Meridian, but the above summary, pretty much gets to the gist of the story.
The book is easy to read (relatively - some of the older women in the Chicago Pubic Library were not able to get through it) and tells some good anecdotes and tales.
1995 Walker Publishing Company
The title of the book is a little misleading, but it's still a good book. It makes it sound like the inventor invented Longitude. He didn't - he just solved the problem of how to figure out longitude. In fact, he didn't even really figure it out. They already knew how to figure out longitude.
The globe, being circular in shape is divided into 360 degrees of longitude. Every one degree of longitude represents a certain distance (15 or 30 miles for example). The way to figure out how many degrees you traveled is by using the time of where you departed from compared to the time of where a ship is located in that exact moment. So they knew how to do it! The problem was that they needed to keep the departure time current and accurate so the comparison could be calculated accurately. Well 300 years ago, time keepers (watches) were not able to withstand the trials of sea travel - the extreme heat and cold, the movement of the boat and the constant wet conditions. So really, this book is the story of how this inventor created a watch that was extremely accurate an durable. He was an innovator of clock mechanics - not the inventor of longitude.
Of course his accurate clocks enabled sailors to calculate Longitude, so he did solve the problem of longitude.
An interesting theme in the book is that this longitude problem was rife with politics. The longitude problem was so important (and deemed almost impossible to solve at the time) that the King of England offered an award for the person who could solve this problem. Well, many people tried and what it amounted to was that there were two different strains of logic. The king had set up a board to help solve the problem and judge the solutions that came in. The memebers of the board were of course all scientists and mathematicians, and they were not eager to endorse a mechanical solution by a mere clockmaker. They were more interested in astronomical and scientific ways to figure it out. There was much resistance to the time pieces and therefore, it took the clockmaker over 20 years to convince this board that his time keepers were the solution.
There are some other minor points that are interesting, such as how they picked the Prime Meridian, but the above summary, pretty much gets to the gist of the story.
The book is easy to read (relatively - some of the older women in the Chicago Pubic Library were not able to get through it) and tells some good anecdotes and tales.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Love and Hate in Jamestown - John Smith, Pocahontas and the Start of a New Nation ***
Author - Price, David A.
Published 2003 - Hardcover - Alfred A. Knopf / Random House, Inc.
2005 - First Vintage Books Edition
Pages (readable) 247
OK, this is more like it. This book gives the story behind the facts and details. It probably helped that John Smith took many notes and published several books when he returned to England (That's a story in itself - He was sent back to England because basically he was not very diplomatic and did not get along with the leisure class who were also his superiors, though he very much wanted to return.) . Hence, there are a lot of details to help create the story. The whole story of how Pocahontas saved Smith is told very well.
These are some general impressions or what I learned from the book. The peace with the Native Americans was always shaky. When I read about this event in my 5th grade text book, I get the impression that when there was peace, it was absolute. Not the case. John Smith was only the President for one short year. He of course was very involved in the very first initial years of the colony before becoming president, but in total he only spent a handful of years there. His job was basically dealing with the Indians. He used a balance of intimidation and an understanding and respect of the culture to get what he wanted. Others who dealt with the Natives were far less successful. Smith came from a lower strata of society and therefore, though his skills were appreciated, he was never accepted or liked by the upper class. Partially because he didn't "know his place". He kept telling them how they were wrong in many of the decisions they were making and of course they were. That's the reason they forced him out of Jamestown. In fact at the very 1st arrival of the English, Smith was imprisoned on the ship and accused of trying to start a mutiny on the ship. It was probably not true, but the upper class gentlemen, who of course were not very pragmatic and didn't like to do manual labor,needed to get rid of him. The fact that he was able to become president was a testament to his skill as a leader.
There was nothing between Pocahontas and John Smith. She may have admired him, for his leadership qualities and his manly abilities of making war, hunting etc. But Smith saw her as a young teenage girl. He of course was grateful that she saved him and grew to have an affection and a friendship with her, but that was as far as it went. In fact, Pocahontas ended up marrying John Rolfe, a plantation owner who perhaps was not quite as manly as Smith would have been, which the book suggests she liked because she was tired of that macho attitude from the men of her own people.
After the portion of the book during Smith's era, it gets a little harder to keep track of things. There are a succession of presidents and the troubles with the Native Americans are in a continual flux. Yet there are still some interesting tales to tell. During this time there was a great massacre by the Indians. There was a presumed peace and the natives were allowed to go in and out of the colony as they pleased. This turned out to be a mistake, and the colonists were surprised. The colonists of course retaliated.
This latter time period covered by the book was a longer time period, so there are of course more presidents and events. So while reading this section, events tended to blend into one another and become less distinct. I don't think that is a failing of the writer as he was still able to maintain interest in these later stories. Besides, I think he made a decision to focus on the John Smith/Pocahontas era as he should have done. Even if he wanted to go into more detail of the latter era. there were probably less resources and less was known about that era. Remember Smith had published several books about his travails. On the other hand, it could have been simply a less interesting era.
The author uses much original sources and publishes them in the book. I think that was very successful, except some of the times these quotations were difficult to follow because the language is so different from modern English. He did paraphrase some, but I believe a little more would have been better. On the other hand, too much would have destroyed the fluency of the book.
Rating this book was difficult. When I think of fiction books, I am looking for something profound and prophetic. In a history book, that would be a little difficult to find. So I suppose my standards are a little lower for non-fiction books. I mean, a piece of fiction can touch people (if it is truly a great piece of fiction) in personal ways that can affect their very lives. I don't see a history book doing that. In a history book, I am looking for readability - a book that it is well written and enjoyable to read. I also want a piece of history to be able to draw conclusions - to synthesize the material and come up with its own ideas. This book does that to certain extent.
Published 2003 - Hardcover - Alfred A. Knopf / Random House, Inc.
2005 - First Vintage Books Edition
Pages (readable) 247
OK, this is more like it. This book gives the story behind the facts and details. It probably helped that John Smith took many notes and published several books when he returned to England (That's a story in itself - He was sent back to England because basically he was not very diplomatic and did not get along with the leisure class who were also his superiors, though he very much wanted to return.) . Hence, there are a lot of details to help create the story. The whole story of how Pocahontas saved Smith is told very well.
These are some general impressions or what I learned from the book. The peace with the Native Americans was always shaky. When I read about this event in my 5th grade text book, I get the impression that when there was peace, it was absolute. Not the case. John Smith was only the President for one short year. He of course was very involved in the very first initial years of the colony before becoming president, but in total he only spent a handful of years there. His job was basically dealing with the Indians. He used a balance of intimidation and an understanding and respect of the culture to get what he wanted. Others who dealt with the Natives were far less successful. Smith came from a lower strata of society and therefore, though his skills were appreciated, he was never accepted or liked by the upper class. Partially because he didn't "know his place". He kept telling them how they were wrong in many of the decisions they were making and of course they were. That's the reason they forced him out of Jamestown. In fact at the very 1st arrival of the English, Smith was imprisoned on the ship and accused of trying to start a mutiny on the ship. It was probably not true, but the upper class gentlemen, who of course were not very pragmatic and didn't like to do manual labor,needed to get rid of him. The fact that he was able to become president was a testament to his skill as a leader.
There was nothing between Pocahontas and John Smith. She may have admired him, for his leadership qualities and his manly abilities of making war, hunting etc. But Smith saw her as a young teenage girl. He of course was grateful that she saved him and grew to have an affection and a friendship with her, but that was as far as it went. In fact, Pocahontas ended up marrying John Rolfe, a plantation owner who perhaps was not quite as manly as Smith would have been, which the book suggests she liked because she was tired of that macho attitude from the men of her own people.
After the portion of the book during Smith's era, it gets a little harder to keep track of things. There are a succession of presidents and the troubles with the Native Americans are in a continual flux. Yet there are still some interesting tales to tell. During this time there was a great massacre by the Indians. There was a presumed peace and the natives were allowed to go in and out of the colony as they pleased. This turned out to be a mistake, and the colonists were surprised. The colonists of course retaliated.
This latter time period covered by the book was a longer time period, so there are of course more presidents and events. So while reading this section, events tended to blend into one another and become less distinct. I don't think that is a failing of the writer as he was still able to maintain interest in these later stories. Besides, I think he made a decision to focus on the John Smith/Pocahontas era as he should have done. Even if he wanted to go into more detail of the latter era. there were probably less resources and less was known about that era. Remember Smith had published several books about his travails. On the other hand, it could have been simply a less interesting era.
The author uses much original sources and publishes them in the book. I think that was very successful, except some of the times these quotations were difficult to follow because the language is so different from modern English. He did paraphrase some, but I believe a little more would have been better. On the other hand, too much would have destroyed the fluency of the book.
Rating this book was difficult. When I think of fiction books, I am looking for something profound and prophetic. In a history book, that would be a little difficult to find. So I suppose my standards are a little lower for non-fiction books. I mean, a piece of fiction can touch people (if it is truly a great piece of fiction) in personal ways that can affect their very lives. I don't see a history book doing that. In a history book, I am looking for readability - a book that it is well written and enjoyable to read. I also want a piece of history to be able to draw conclusions - to synthesize the material and come up with its own ideas. This book does that to certain extent.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Book: The History of Venezuela *1/2
Tarver, H. Michael & Frederick, Julia C.
2006 (Hardcover) Palgrave Macmillan (paperback - this edition) Palgrave Macmillan
(nonfiction)
Ok - so probably not too many people stumbled upon this website looking for this book because this book is not a book someone would seek out unless they were interested specifically in the history of Venezuela. But I read it and I am reviewing it here anyway. Remember, this is more a personal journal that I just happen to be sharing with a broader community.
First, what was my purpose for reading it? Well, summer is here and my plan is to read some history and to also concentrate on the fiction of Paul Auster. I read this particular book because I am a teacher (5th grade) and every year our school does a unit of study on Spanish speaking countries of the world. This year I chose Venezuela. But this is an adult book, so why bother? There are plenty of informative children's books that I could have used. Well, this is my rational:
While lecturing/discussing topics of history with my students, I noticed something about the textbook. It was really boring. No wonder the kids are less than enthralled with Social Studies. Here is a paraphrased (and inaccurate - it's based on my memory) excerpt from the text about the Puritans in colonial New England and the decision of some dissenters to start there own Christian branch separate from the Church of England and consequently founded new colonies:
There was a trial about the dissenters beliefs and one person decided to start a colony in Connecticut...
Where's the story? What happened at the trial? No, all that is mentioned in a couple of sentences are these basic little facts about what happened. The story, which is what draws people to History is missing. I'm sure there is an intriguing and interesting story in there. But it's too general and vague.
Now I notice that when I add interesting detail to our discussions (ie. - how the Puritans punished people in the stocks and how incredibly intolerant they were to other religions even though they themselves were seeking religious freedom) the students seem to be more interested. When they write what they have learned, I see that this added information sticks with even the lowest students even though they quite often have confused some of the facts.
So I chose to read this book to enhance my knowledge of Venezuela and so that I could share interesting stories with my students. Well, I certainly did learn more about Venezuela, but there were few interesting things to share with the students. It has been about 2 weeks since I read this book and nothing comes to me that is "memorable". It, like the text books, is written in very broad terms. Perhaps it's because the topic is so broad. And maybe because there were many presidents, too many presidents to keep track of, because of the violent way that Venezuela, like many Latin American countries, changed governments.
Quite frequently, the information was basic. They would name the new president, list (not describe) his programs, his compadres, achievements and his beliefs. I was going to take a quote from the book to demonstrate this, but I don't have permission and I don't want to run the risk of copyright infringement. Needless to say, this book may have lots of information and facts, but it is written (relatively at least) in an academic style. It's not a well written story. It doesn't make me want to stay up all night finding out what happens next. I find that problem frequently with nonfiction and especially history. Much of it is not very well written (I don't mean grammatically, but that it's not very interesting to read). The content of the book has to enough to satisfy the reader's thirst for knowledge. In a perfect world, the book has an interesting content AND is well written at the same time. I know it is possible. I wanted to list some of those books, but then I would have to describe them here and that is beyond the scope of this entry.
To be fair, there were some interesting discussions that appeared more in the latter half of the book as Venezuela became a more modern nation. Some of those portions are when Venezuela becomes more democratic. They were able to maintain a single president for a longer time, so that perhaps there were more details to write about. The time period of the Cuban Revolution was interesting because it had a direct influence on Venezuelan politics. The book also ends with an interesting discussion Hugo Chavez. Is there anyone out there that think he is a good man? I ask that, because this books seems to be very anti - Chavez. Of course there may be a good reason for that, but someone must think he is good for something.
2006 (Hardcover) Palgrave Macmillan (paperback - this edition) Palgrave Macmillan
(nonfiction)
Ok - so probably not too many people stumbled upon this website looking for this book because this book is not a book someone would seek out unless they were interested specifically in the history of Venezuela. But I read it and I am reviewing it here anyway. Remember, this is more a personal journal that I just happen to be sharing with a broader community.
First, what was my purpose for reading it? Well, summer is here and my plan is to read some history and to also concentrate on the fiction of Paul Auster. I read this particular book because I am a teacher (5th grade) and every year our school does a unit of study on Spanish speaking countries of the world. This year I chose Venezuela. But this is an adult book, so why bother? There are plenty of informative children's books that I could have used. Well, this is my rational:
While lecturing/discussing topics of history with my students, I noticed something about the textbook. It was really boring. No wonder the kids are less than enthralled with Social Studies. Here is a paraphrased (and inaccurate - it's based on my memory) excerpt from the text about the Puritans in colonial New England and the decision of some dissenters to start there own Christian branch separate from the Church of England and consequently founded new colonies:
There was a trial about the dissenters beliefs and one person decided to start a colony in Connecticut...
Where's the story? What happened at the trial? No, all that is mentioned in a couple of sentences are these basic little facts about what happened. The story, which is what draws people to History is missing. I'm sure there is an intriguing and interesting story in there. But it's too general and vague.
Now I notice that when I add interesting detail to our discussions (ie. - how the Puritans punished people in the stocks and how incredibly intolerant they were to other religions even though they themselves were seeking religious freedom) the students seem to be more interested. When they write what they have learned, I see that this added information sticks with even the lowest students even though they quite often have confused some of the facts.
So I chose to read this book to enhance my knowledge of Venezuela and so that I could share interesting stories with my students. Well, I certainly did learn more about Venezuela, but there were few interesting things to share with the students. It has been about 2 weeks since I read this book and nothing comes to me that is "memorable". It, like the text books, is written in very broad terms. Perhaps it's because the topic is so broad. And maybe because there were many presidents, too many presidents to keep track of, because of the violent way that Venezuela, like many Latin American countries, changed governments.
Quite frequently, the information was basic. They would name the new president, list (not describe) his programs, his compadres, achievements and his beliefs. I was going to take a quote from the book to demonstrate this, but I don't have permission and I don't want to run the risk of copyright infringement. Needless to say, this book may have lots of information and facts, but it is written (relatively at least) in an academic style. It's not a well written story. It doesn't make me want to stay up all night finding out what happens next. I find that problem frequently with nonfiction and especially history. Much of it is not very well written (I don't mean grammatically, but that it's not very interesting to read). The content of the book has to enough to satisfy the reader's thirst for knowledge. In a perfect world, the book has an interesting content AND is well written at the same time. I know it is possible. I wanted to list some of those books, but then I would have to describe them here and that is beyond the scope of this entry.
To be fair, there were some interesting discussions that appeared more in the latter half of the book as Venezuela became a more modern nation. Some of those portions are when Venezuela becomes more democratic. They were able to maintain a single president for a longer time, so that perhaps there were more details to write about. The time period of the Cuban Revolution was interesting because it had a direct influence on Venezuelan politics. The book also ends with an interesting discussion Hugo Chavez. Is there anyone out there that think he is a good man? I ask that, because this books seems to be very anti - Chavez. Of course there may be a good reason for that, but someone must think he is good for something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
