Third-rate journalism, Hardly History
584044
Left-wing academics love it, of course, since it confirms their prejudices. But Mr. Link merely parrots (and relies too heavily on) the Washington Post and a parade of other Helms critics.

Someday a genuine historian will conduct an independent and honest study of the documents, applying his/her critical skills without injecting opinion all over the place.

We're still waiting.
4940777
The author is a journalist, and journalists are taught to keep the reader's attention by emphasizing individual stories and human interest over statistics, which are supposedly boring. Consequently, this book is a collection of stories. We get to spend time with both pirates and their victims in the Indian Ocean, with the crews of sinking, leaky oil tankers, with the investigators of the sinking of an Estonian ferry, and with shipbreakers on India's Alang beach.

The stories are great, but they only paint details and leave the reader hungry for the broad picture. There are few figures. We read, for example, that there are over 40,000 large ships on the ocean, but there is no indication of where this estimate comes from. If the ocean is chaos, how do we know how many ships are on it? Also, what does "large" mean? I would have been interested in a table of number of ships by size category, with the source of the data and the author's assessment of their accuracy. We also hear that most ships sail under flags of convenience. Here also, a table of how many ships fly each flag would have given some perspective.

The same pattern is repeated throughout the book. All the issues are presented through anecdotes, without quantification. For example, we know there is piracy, but not how prevalent it is. At the end of the book, we don't know whether the stories are examples of trends with broad significance or are simply random isolated cases.

The book is also lacking in cross-referencing information. There is only a table of contents with cryptic titles like "The wave makers" and no index. The only maps are in the lining of the cover, and there are no photographs, which leaves too much to the imagination.
3882985
The Romans produced two great historians, Livy and Polybius (who was actually Greek), who stand among the world's best ancient historians. The only ancient Western writers who can compare with them are Thucydides and the anonymous author of 2nd Samuel, especially beginning at 2 Sam. 13, concerning Absalom's rebellion (which is the best and most obviously authentic account of the world of the 10th century BCE).
The other Roman historians had the unenviable and almost impossible task of telling history with a sword suspended over their heads: the long arm of the Emperor was not to be dismissed. And so we get party line hacks like Suetonius and Josephus.
Of the post-Republic writers, Tacitus is obviously the best, for both volume and reliability. Yes, he is always pining for the lost days of propriety and virtue, and he treads a careful path around the Flavian sensibilities. Yet his elegy to his father-in-law Agricola is a masterpiece, and filled with important tidbits of real information. It doesn't matter if he knew Ireland was on the other side of Britain or not: what matters is that his father-in-law Agricola was an actual eyewitness to some of the most exciting and momentous events of the mid-first century CE, and surely told Tacitus much about them. Yes, he is biased, because of his relationship to Agricola, but Tacitus has the virtue of trying to overcome his personal bias and just tell us the story of Roman involvement in Britain. We have almost nothing like this book, except for the work of Cassius Dio, who was almost two centuries later, and therefore less reliable (probably, although Dio had access to lost accounts which Tacitus didn't).
I gave this only four stars because of Tacitus' somewhat compromised position, and frankly because he is a fairly pompous writer and one has to wade through a lot of verbiage to get at the facts. But at least the facts are there, at the bottom of the pile, unlike the boy looking for a pony.
33810
In a review titled "Cheapskate," David Rogers gives this book one star because he says it has "absolutely no photos to accompany the text." In fact, "Colossus" has 34 photos and other graphics, presented in a 16-page illustrations section that appears on glossy stock between pages 306 and 307.  Rogers claims the book is printed on "cheap newsprint." No, newsprint is what newspapers are printed on. "Colossus" is printed on standard book-quality paper. And Rogers cites the book's "untrimmed pages" as further indication that it is "an extraordinarily low quality product." Again, untrue. That single patterned edge is a binding style used with many fine editions.  In point of fact, "Colossus" is produced well, with first-rate cover, typeface, etc.  But what is far more important is the book's content.  Michael Hiltzik has written a fascinating account of a landmark of the American West.  As the Washington Post review puts it, he "approaches Hoover Dam as historian, investigative reporter and social critic."  Hiltzik manages to excel in all three roles, and the result is a truly compelling narrative.
3875704
Those who wish to learn the history of Muslim Spain would do better to find it in nonfiction works than in this too-obvious historical novel. For historical facts, I recommend Richard Fletcher's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Moorish-Spain/dp/0520248406/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Moorish Spain</a>.

The novel's plot is well-developed and the characters well-described, but the events, style and dialogue are a tad too clunky not to annoy a reader attentive to art. These elements, overly insistent on proving historical veracity via (for example) the detailed description of tunics, daggers and firearms, outweigh everything else and therefore dilute one's enjoyment of the fictional content.

It's not a bad novel, but Matthew Carr's book is also far from great. To the book's deficit, its author seems overly bent upon proving the evil of the Inquisition's demeanor toward former Muslims (Moriscos), not surprising in light of Carr's 2011 work, "Purging of Muslim Spain," whose very title demonstrates a clear bias.

I have not read Carr's nonfiction, but from this work, it seems he may have succumbed to erroneous political persuasion that Muslim Spain was entirely romantic and idyllic and that the Reconquista was entirely brutal.

Actually, terror also pervaded "heavenly," peaceful Andalusia. Spain's purportedly enlightened Umayyad conquerors were notoriously savage and established fierce, "immobile" Malikite Sunni doctrine and that "suspected and condemned in advance for the slightest attempt at rational speculation." In 1914, Miguel Asin Palacois saw Muslim Spain similarly, as had Cordovan "scholar of Spain par excellence" Ibn Habib (d. 853) and his student Muslim al-Kinani (d. 901), the latter noting that Jews must wear patches bearing the image of an ape, and Christians, patches that pictured pigs. And Jewish leaders in Granada, appointed as viziers to protect their co-coreligionists were brutally assassinated from 1056 through
1066, after which Muslim jurist and poet Abu Ishaq penned a fiery anti-Jewish "ode" that very possibly incited the pogrom that annihilated Granada's entire Jewish population of up to 5,000---as many or more Jews as reportedly were reportedly murdered in the First Crusade's Rhineland pillage some thirty years later.

It's not a bad novel, and it was good enough to finish at least. But having read this, I can't recommend it very highly.

It's a little too obvious and stilted by 21st century bias to work very well.
3423024
The book is neither good nor bad; what limits the book from being truly important is that the editor is Lewis Sorely, and Sorely is a poor historian with ulterior motives. Sorely's number one purpose, when speaking about Vietnam, is to disparage William Westmoreland by hook or by crook. In this effort, one can be assured that when Sorely decided which parts of Abram's recordings to use that they would be parsed in a manner that would diminish and/or impune General Westmoreland. What is needed is a professional to go through the Abrams tapes and release a book that can stand as part of the objective record on the Vietnam War with full confidence. To begin with, Sorely's premise that Abrams prosecuted the war in a more effective manner is ludicrous. Sorely's examples rely on the one eyed king approach, as the things he says were new approaches weren't. Westmoreland and Abrams were suffocated by political constraints that assured failure. With that said, US deaths were just as high under Abrams while South Vietnamese deaths increased under him. At the same time, Abrams was unable to take advantage of the post-TET ravaged VC infrastructure whose ranks were being filled by northerners as well as being unable to locate COSVN during the Cambodia incursion. In addition, Westmoreland was much more keenly aware of the need to out guerilla the guerilla; for anybody who doubts that, go take a look at the oral history of Hank Emerson. Emerson cleary states that Westmoreland was aware of Emerson's successful tactics and made efforts for other field commanders to incorporate them; on the other hand, one can look at David Hackworth's successes in the Mekong region during Abram's command. Hackworth clearly states that nobody was interested in adding his methods to the institutional knowledge. The argument can easily be made that Abrams was not as capable as Westmoreland at any level, it's just never been in vogue to do so. But what Sorely really doesn't get is that nothing would overcome the effects of corruption in the South Vietnamese government. For that, read "The Betrayal" By William Corson.
325590
There are people who desire to see us repeat certain aspects of our history. For them it is imperative that the dumbing-down of American history continues unimpeded by truth. We are doomed to continue ingesting the pabulum of propaganda if we do not realize that certain scoundrels thrive on our ignorance. Consider this quote from Loewen found on page 233: "US Citizens cannot possibly critique government policies if they do not know of them." Is somebody hiding something?

In his memoirs, Napoleon asked, "What is history but a fable agreed upon?" Who makes these agreements? A famous quote attributed to George Orwell reads: "History is written by the winners." Some claim the quote came from Winston Churchill, but either way, we have the answer to who agrees upon the "fable" of history. The "winners" decide how history reads as Loewen's copious documentation attests.

Furthermore, the winners, as much as they are able, also determine how history itself unfolds. One good example that Loewen covers is found on page 225. Standard Oil of New Jersey was the major impetus behind Woodrow Wilson's decision to invade Russia in 1918. In addition, somebody also decided that our military intervention in Russia should be left out of mainstream history lessons. Powerful figures behind the scenes both implemented and concealed true history by feeding us propaganda instead, and this is business as usual. Now we're getting somewhere. Loewen helps.

When a reader does not comprehend either the existence or the true nature of the prestigious string-pullers in the shadows, the spiritual dimension of historical conflict remains opaque. The conflict must then be explained in some other way. Political analysis is the benchmark of thought limited to the natural realm. A political assessment, along with Loewen's somewhat repetitive writing style, may explain why some have viewed Loewen's work as a lopsided polemic reflecting left-wing revisionism and blinded by partisan vitriol. The negative reviews have described Lies My Teacher Told Me in just this way.

Do high school history textbooks promote a sugar-coated version of our past? I checked my son's schoolbook, and Loewen is right. And it's worse than merely watered-down history. It's outright mendacious. It's so bad that Loewen must have realized that getting people to accept reality may be a hard nut to crack. Therefore he worked hard to really drive the point home. Difficult facts need repetition due to the human tendency of willfull resistance to uncomfortable concepts. Don't be put off by Loewen's determination to drive the point all the way home. Mine instead the many nuggets of information not likely to be found in the mainstream.

Had it been my decision to make, the sub-title would read: "Samples of What Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" instead of "Everything" etc. because the lies of certain men are too many to contain in one book. And if you wish to learn what the Bible says about the hidden scoundrels, see my profile. My book title is there.
2887188
Strachan is unquestionably well read on the subject of the First World War, but his book has three flaws.  First, it is written without passion.  Some consider this to be evidence of "objectivity" (as if objectivity is possible!): I take it to be a ploy - i.e. by writing in a dry fashion Strachan hopes to convey an Olympian impression.  Second, the passionless style is a cloak for an apologia for the British military.  Strachan is allied with Brian Bond and others who have made it their life's work to demonstrate that the British Army performed as well as could be expected during the First World War and that the faults and failures that uninformed readers such as myself have interpreted as evidence of mind-numbing incompetence, class prejudice and stupidity were in fact nothing of the kind.  Third, his account of the origins of the war is sketchy and inadequate, partly due to a British contempt for south-eastern Europe and its peoples, partly due to a desire to obscure the utterly unnecessary and emotionally-based de facto alliance between Britain and France that existed from 1906.  (In saying this I do not mean to imply that Germany does not bear the heaviest responsiblity for the war - she does - but there was no need for military intervention by Great Britain on land at all.  Three-quarters of a million sprigs of Empire were killed in conditions of Dante-esque horror for no good reason.  This is the appalling fact with which the British establishment - as opposed to the British people at large - has never come to terms - and Strachan is very much an establishment figure.)
2783045
On the face of it,  journalists leave us academics in the shade. They get to speak and write authoritatively on a vast range of subjects, versus our pathetic little micro-specializations. Moreover, they do so in the public domain, adding the luster of "public intellectual". They often do this with zero academic qualifications, or indeed anything we would recognize as "knowledge" in our mean-spirited ways. Finally, they get paid extremely well for their trade books, particularly if they already have day jobs, and can hold those jobs without anything we call "qualifications" in our jealous little minds.

Why then  is  journalism of "popular science"  nature often held in such contempt ? this book's fundamental thesis on "thin slicing", the tautological idea that suitably attuned experts are, in fact, expert, relates to  cognitive science. This subject studies mind as an informational system; it incorporates elements of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, AI, ethnoscience and - increasingly - neuroscience and other biological sciences.  However,  perhaps a suitably equipped journalist can just raid the area and - Blink! - all is made clear

So we get a range of examples, well-commented on already. To see the real argument, de Sousa's 1980's text&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Rationality-of-Emotion-Bradford-Books/dp/0262540576/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Rationality of Emotion (Bradford Books)</a>&nbsp;is still worth looking at; it is described on P.63 ff of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Search-for-Mind-A-New-Foundation-for-Cognitive-Science/dp/1841500690/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Search for Mind: A New Foundation for Cognitive Science</a>&nbsp;. Gladwell's "Blink" book  is close to being the worst  and most intellectually irresponsible book this reviewer has ever read, and his only regret is that the rating system here seems to force him to give a star.

Se&aacute;n O Nuall&aacute;in Ph. D. 4u Meitheamh (san tSin 35 Bealtaine)  2009
4380959
This sort of virtually detail-free, facile, manichaean "history" is fine for the Howard Zinn crowd, who are okay with any number of fudged particulars and overworked, poorly illuminated generalizations, just as long as the end result reflects poorly on the United States. But for a professor of American History at Penn, with a PhD from Harvard no less, this decidedly un-nuanced work is a sorry excuse for history writing. Compares VERY unfavorably with Robert W. Merry's "A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent". There's much that is unflattering in our nation's saga, and it deserves elucidation, but it must be conveyed with even-handed concision, intelligence and judgement.
655321
EMPIRE OF SIN is a meticulously researched (and footnoted) account of the long-standing "war" waged from 1890 to 1920 between respectable and sinful constituents of New Orleans' citizenry. A large portion of the narrative is devoted to the grisly murders, still unsolved, that were committed by the Axman of New Orleans between May 1918 and October 1919. Thus the book is more "true crime" than actual history of a famous city.

What the book is, is an account of the things that the New Orleans newspapers were preoccupied with during the 1890-1920 time period. Author Gary Krist has thoroughly mastered the art of producing readable history from contemporary newspaper accounts of events, trial transcripts, and secondary sources. The narrative includes interesting quotes from his contemporary sources, and is always fairly easy to digest (despite the frequently overlong paragraphs).

However, Krist has a regrettable habit of overstating the significance of most reported events. For example, in recounting the presence of a murdered police chief's friend (Tom Anderson) at the chief's funeral, Krist writes (in part): "No one could possibly realize it at that moment, but this young man honoring the first victim of New Orleans' war against its underworlds would someday find himself at the very center of that war. . . .Tom Anderson would come to be regarded as the principal symbol of lawlessness in New Orleans--the enemy of the city's better half, the nemesis to all of their aims, and the main target of their efforts to reform and control the city. Nor could Anderson himself have known that his next act would in a sense mark the beginning of that era of turmoil in New Orleans . . . ."

Because of the many overblown passages like this, the more-or-less-invented New Orleans "war for respectability", and the heavy emphasis on sensational crimes, I rate EMPIRE OF SIN at 2 stars ("I don't like it" on the official Amazon scale).
1415377
I must give the author points for taking a unique approach to the American Revolution at the micro level, rather than the macro typically explored.  However, the positives end there.

It is disheartening to see another author who fails to consult primary source materials.  While the work is cited, and a bibliography is provided; the works are almost entirely secondary sources, and old ones at that.  While this work may be okay for looking at nifty pictures, it is lacking in real in-depth analysis based on primary source materials.  For instance, the author perpetuates the myth that the the 7th Regiment of Foot was composed almost entirely of recruits at the Battle of Cowpens.  A quick internet search of the War Office records will show a competent historian the surviving rolls of the 7th.  These rolls very clearly provides the name of each man who was captured at Cowpens, as well as those killed.  It even reveals that elements of the 7th were captured at Yorktown.  A little more digging would actually reveal that this information is available on the internet and has been for quite some time!

It is sad to say, but this work is history-lite.
1954288
It is perhaps not surprising that a good many readers (or at least comments) were thrilled with the bashing of all things Bush.  So, this book clearly succeeds as a contemporary (2007 publication) polemic.  As history or serious analysis, as opposed to "telling nuggets" about its right-wing villains --- well, for that one must look elsewhere.  In fairness to the author, he makes no pretense that the book is other than what it is.  For that, it gets 2 stars rather than 1.  That being said, it has not worn well with the passing of even a half dozen years.  One need only read any of the more current, serious (and plenty critical) accounts to appreciate that most of the book's crucial premises and larger facts, as opposed to generalizations and second-hand anecdotes, simply haven't held up.  As an example of a particular mind-set of a particular time, it may still have some value down the line; otherwise, may it rest in peace.
3032186
Rupert Murdoch's right-wing "news" empire is certainly ripe for a scholarly expose, but this isn't it.  It's more like fighting yellow journalism with equally yellow journalism.  Interesting tactic, but it doesn't work at all.  I haven't seen the film "Outfoxed" (to which this book is intended as a companion piece), but after reading this, I certainly hope the movie is better.

I definitely agree with Kitty's point of view on Fox News, so my complaint about the book isn't political in the least.  No, my criticisms are entirely stylistic.  It's quite simply the worst-written book I've read in a long time.  If you can remember anything your high school history teacher told you never to do in writing a research paper, chances are you'll find multiple examples of it here.  Slang terms are found absolutely everywhere in the book, incomplete sentences turn up every few pages, and Kitty's own biases appear in places where they definitely don't belong.  (A Canadian, she snidely refers to New York and Washington as "dueling candidates for center of the universe" at one point, and also labels Fox News watchers "sexually frustrated".)  She also violates the cardinal rule agaisnt assuming prior knowledge on the reader's part, going on for pages in the first chapter about Conrad Black and the downfall of the Hollinger corporation without providing any information at all on who Black is or what actually happened to his company.

I think I understand the tone she was aiming for here, but she missed her target entirely.  The familiar, conversational tone she's attempting here hardly ever works in nonfiction.  While it is clear to me that she hoped to make the book more accessible through her approach, the sloppiness of her style actually makes it much more difficult to understand.  Also, her in-your-face attitude amounts to sinking to the level so often employed on Fox News, which defeats the purpose of a book-length critique of it.

Eric Alterman and Mark Crispin Miller have both written more broad-based looks at the right wing media in general.  Until another full-length look at Fox News comes along, their work is adequate for anyone who wants to learn more about Murdoch and his enterprise, even if it isn't comprehensive.  Meanwhile, skip this one!
4137144
The title is a misnomer.  Historians spend their time researching in archives, looking for clues in all manner of places, and work to keep their subject matter within relevant contexts.  This book does none of these things.  It is an apologetic based on uncritical use of material that has not been subjected to rigorous analysis - especially with the new material available from the National Archives (de-classified by order of President Clinton in 1997).  It begins with a conclusion already firmly in mind, namely that Pope Pius XII was/is a hero of the Holocaust.  The historical record begs to differ.  Pius was a limited being, obsessed with communism and the safety of the Catholic Church to the point that he was prepared to do all in his power to avoid any conflict with Germany that might impede the bigger war against atheistic communism.  For the Jews of Europe there was some comfort from the Successor of Peter, but his long-term goal of saving Europe from Bolshevism meant they would always be, to use the term of Saul Friendlander, "lesser victims".
2561208
For anyone unaware of the controversies and uncertainties about the historical truths of the life of Ned Kelly, this book will be an enjoyable read, as the story is well told and the details and embellishments do indeed liven it up.  However, the story of Ned Kelly has been told many many times, almost universally in sympathetic terms, so one immediately has to ask, why another one?  What new angle is he going to adopt? I read Fitzsimons book "Eureka" and found it enthralling. He set the story in the widest possible context of Victorian pioneering and political and social life in the mid 19th century and so I was hoping he would do the same for the Kelly story. My hopes were raised further by pre-publication advertising for the book, claiming Fitzsimons would be "weighing in on all the myths legends and controversies generated by this compelling and divisive Australian Rebel"

In fact the book does nothing of the sort. It is unfortunately just another sympathetic and very long recounting of the  same old stories everyone already knows, with a noticeable absence of any discussion of any number of the critical "myths legends and controversies": and almost nothing that is new other than Fitzsimons own embellishments designed to "bring the story to life'. For example he doesn't  mention or comment on the allegations of the kellys that Constable Fitzpatrick groped Ellens 14 year old daughter Kate, the supposed trigger for the entire "outbreak"; the uncertainties about George King and his fate are not mentioned, the forensic evidence relating to the numbers of wounds and bullets in the bodies of the dead policemen at Stringybark Creek isn't discussed, there is almost no mention of the entire "Republic" conspiracy so beloved of Fitzsimons mentor Ian Jones, and so on. It would appear that the author was trying not to offend anyone on either side of the ongoing debate about Kellys legacy - good or bad - and inevitably has produced something which neither offends nor excites. The "elephant in the room" in my opinion is his failure to read and list among the 60 or so books in his bibliography, arguably the most important and original work on the subject in the last twenty years, Ian MacFarlanes "The Kelly Gang Unmasked".  Fitzsimons has said that the reason he didn't read The Kelly Gang Unmasked was because Ian Jones "hated it".This failure reduces the books authority, emasculates the story somewhat, and relegates Fitzsimons book to "just another sympathetic Kelly story" In my view its not good enough to displace Ian Jones "Ned kelly : a short life" from the top of the pro-kelly reading list.
4175830
I agree that Gordon is what we call a "coffee table" historian, whose work is much wider than it is deep, and heavily shaded by his blatant pro-free market leanings. Compared with other historians of the Great Depression like Galbraith, for example, the writing is turgid and leaden.

A good illustration of Gordon's neoliberal bias is his blithe conclusion on NPR the other day that the notion that suicides increased in the aftermath of the 1929 financial crash was nothing but a "myth." A similar claim is recited in this book. But in this case Gordon simply doesn't know what he's talking about. First, suicides are notoriously underreported, especially by middle-class families for whom they remain something of a scandal. Second, according to the CDC, the official US suicide rate did indeed increase dramatically in the wake of the 1929 crash. The median rate for 1920-29 was 12.2 per 100,000. It was 13.5 in 1928, 13.9 in 1929,15.6 in 1930, 16.8 in 1931, and 17.4 in 1932. Obviously it took some time for the negative wealth effects of the 10/29/1929 crash to register. The fact that, as Gordon claims, there were few extra suicides reported in the "last quarter of 1929 in New York City" is irrelevant -- most wealthy speculators lived elsewhere and the effects took time. Third, A simple check of the New York Times and Time Magazine archives for that period will confirm that there were indeed many individual cases of reported suicides by prominent investors. Fourth, the aggregate suicide rate then retreated gradually, to 14.3 in 1936, before jumping to 15 in 1937 and 15.3 in 1938 -- consistent with the lagged effects of 1937's steep slide. Similar increases in US suicide rates can also be found for the steep 1907-08 recession, for later US recessions, and for other countries. It's not surprising the 1987 stock crash didn't produce many deaths; it was over quickly, and didn't produce a recession. Would be scholar Gordon needs to do his homework.