This is my attempt to create a list of the definitive books on major historical events. I hope to keep this a work in progress, so feel free to comment on my selections and offer up alternatives. So you know, my idea of a definitive book would be contemporary, well written, and if possible not insanely long. In many cases, I will go with authors that have a good reputation. I will also mention good documentaries where available.
You'll notice that the list is heavily America-focused. I'm happy to add other subjects as they come to me. I am tempted to add histories of China and Russia, although I don't even know where to start. And to be honest, those would probably be so long I'd never actually get around to reading them. I'll look for documentaries instead.
American History
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
I actually want to read A Patriot's History of the United States also and see how different it is from Zinn's book. I wonder if the difference is on emphasis. It will also be interesting to compare them to *Lies My Teacher Told Me, which had more of a focus on how to teach history (from a progressive standpoint) although definitely interpreted history from a liberal perspective.
American Revolution
?
Civil War
Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPhearson
There are tons of books on the war depending on your angle. Battle Cry of Freedom seems to be the best book since it is popular and pretty brief considering the material. It was first published in 1989, so not that contemporary.
Reconstruction
A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner
This book is at the top of my reading list. It is supposed to be the best book on Reconstruction and will paint a different picture (and more accurate) picture than Gone with the Wind.
World War I
The First World War by Martin Gilbert
The First World War by John Keegan
I have no idea which is better. Both books seem to be well regarded. And both authors wrote books on World War Two, as you will see.
Treaty of Paris
*Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan
This is a good book. Many of the problems we face today stem from the seemingly arbitrary decisions of this peace conference. Although the big lesson is probably that the decisions only seemed arbitrary because the decision makers had to choose between idealism (which wasn't even always clear) and pragmatism and old-style spoils.
Great Depression
?
World War II
The Second World War by Martin Gilbert
The Second World War by John Keegan
Nazi Germany
Richard Evans' trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power, The Third Reich at War) seems to be replacing the classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Although for brevity, one might choose Shirer's book over the trilogy.
Cold War
The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis
For the Soul of Mankind by Melvyn P. Leffler
Also, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times by Odd Arne Westad, seems a fascinating read and maybe a better study of interventions than Overthrow.
Korean War
The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam
This got really good reviews. When I feel the itch to learn about this war, I will definitely go to this book. And in this case, reading a book by a journalist doesn't scare me because of Halberstam's reputation.
Cuban Missile Crisis
One Minute to Midnight by Michael Dobbs.
This book got really good reviews when it came out. I wonder if people were as thirsty for it as I was, considering that before it was published, RFK's version was the only book available (hardly an objective account).
Vietnam War
Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow
This seems to be the best history book about the war, although it is not very current. A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan and The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam are also about the time period around Vietnam but focusing on some specific people. Vietnam: A Television History seems to have come from Karnow's book. I will probably try that documentary before I try one of the books.
Civil Rights in the South
The Taylor Branch books (Parting the Waters, Pillar of Fire, At Canaan's Edge - ie America in the King Years) are the most contemporary. I am not sure how much they cover groups outside the King orbit (SNCC and Black Panthers) though. That is something I'll have to investigate.
Civil Rights in the North
Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North by Thomas Sugrue.
I really want to read this book, but it is insanely long. Not sure when I will make time for it. I do think though that it is necessary reading for people who think civil rights was only an issue in the South.
Watergate
All the President's Men by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward
Women's Rights / Feminism
When Everything Changed by Gail Collins
I can't say for sure that this is the best book on the subject, but it is the best one I have come across so far. It is on my reading list.
Apartheid
The Rise and Fall of Apartheid by David Welsh
I am not sure if this is the book I have been looking for. I desperately want a well-written history of Apartheid. *Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela's autobiography is not that book. It is a fine autobiography (although a little tedious and has too many trite observations), but not a good history since it doesn't cover many other players (like Desmond Tutu for example).
Indian Independence
I can't tell for sure, but Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann seems to be the most read out there. It focuses on the summer when India won its independence, but hopefully it gives enough background.
* books that I have read
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Book Report: Notes of a Native Son
I recently read Notes of a Native Son by James Baldwin and it was amazing. Well, to be honest, Part I wasn't that easy to read since I hadn't read the books or seen the movies he reviews. Part II (essays on race in America) and Part III (essays on Baldwin's time abroad) however are breathtaking. Although I flagged a number of powerful passages, I will leave you with the ultimate highlight from the title essay:
On another note, discovering Baldwin reminds me how little I know about African-American thought and history. Unfortunately, the common portrayal of African-American thought divides everything into two camps: non-violent strategies lead by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the violent strategies of Malcom X and the Black Panthers. It takes reading books by Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin (or better yet Malcolm X himself) to start to appreciate what should be obvious - that African-American thought is far more varied and complex.
It began to seem that one would have to hold in the mind forever two ideas which seemed in opposition. The first idea was acceptance, the acceptance, totally without rancor, of life as it is, and men as they are: in the light of this idea, it goes without saying that injustice is a commonplace. But this did not mean that one could be complacent, for the second idea was of equal power: that one must never, in one's own life, accept these injustices as commonplace but must fight them with all one's strength. This fight begins however, in the heart and it now had been laid to my charge to keep my own heart free of hatred and despair. This intimation made my heart heavy and, now that my father was irrecoverable, I wished that he had been beside me so that I could have searched his face for the answers which only the future would give me now.More and more this idea is becoming a huge part of my overall philosophy. The world is imperfect and we cannot make it perfect. But we must fight, slowly but doggedly, for incremental changes. And we cannot ever give in to despair. Baldwin puts this thought to writing so well and it comes at the end of a really powerful essay about race and his father.
On another note, discovering Baldwin reminds me how little I know about African-American thought and history. Unfortunately, the common portrayal of African-American thought divides everything into two camps: non-violent strategies lead by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the violent strategies of Malcom X and the Black Panthers. It takes reading books by Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin (or better yet Malcolm X himself) to start to appreciate what should be obvious - that African-American thought is far more varied and complex.
Responsibility for the Fishes
My colleague and I started having an interesting debate that I want to bring to this forum. The debate was around food policy, but actually has much bigger implications. I was explaining why I don't eat fish - namely because too much if not all of the fish are caught using unsustainable practices. Basically, I don't want to be part of a system that is destroying our oceans - especially now that scuba diving is a big hobby of mine and I have discovered how beautiful and wonderful our oceans are.
My colleague seemed to say that overfishing is government's problem, that he isn't responsible for it, and that even if he stopped eating fish it would make no noticeable difference on overfishing. (If I have misstated his position, I am sure he'll correct me in the comments.)
One of his points is hard to contradict - that when he (or I) stop eating fish it has a negligible effect on the gigantic problem. This is mostly true. Granted, this point depends on your definition of negligible. If we assume he (or I) eats 1/4 pound of fish per week (which I think is 1 serving), that equates to 1 pound per month, 12 pounds per year, and 600 pounds over 50 years. That is a lot of fish, although considering what a trawler likely picks up in one trip, it is mostly negligible.
But it is the other two points that I don't agree with. I might agree that government policy may be the most effective way to deal with it, but I don't agree that without government action, we are absolved of responsibility.
We can think of many similar examples to compare to this one (for example purchasing rare wood from forests that are being legally depleted in a foreign country), but I don't know if we need to go there. The basic question is easy enough to evaluate: are we responsible when our actions contribute to something that has a negative impact and is that responsibility in any way dependent on how much we are contributing to the problem?
I think the answer is obvious - that by contributing, even in a small amount to a very big problem, we are responsible. And I fear that by absolving ourselves of responsibility and leaving it to government to deal with it, it creates an attitude that discourages individual responsibility.
I want to be clear though before I move on that I only expect people to take actions that are practical. Driving cars, using electricity, and throwing out waste have negative effects on the environment. I don't expect people to stop driving cars. But I do expect people to think about when driving the car is unnecessary. Personally, on this issue, I think it is practical, although not as enjoyable, to stop eating fish.
Anyway, this liberal belief that government should do everything for us and can therefore absolve us of responsibility is a terrible mindset. And conservative criticisms of this mindset is one of their most potent points. While I think government can and should enshrine policies like this, mostly because there are people that don't care about the public good and need restrictions, I don't agree at all that if there isn't a government policy against it, we can do it even when we know it has serious negative consequences.
I absolutely do not want to live in a world where people decide they are not responsible for the world around them; where they are so comfortable with government's actions that they feel they don't need to sacrifice in any way to make the world better. Yes, the government has programs to help those in need, but we still should be donating as much as we can to charity and volunteering as often as we can. And yes, the government has good environmental policies, but we still need to be aware of what policies the government hasn't passed yet and what actions of ours are having negative effects on the world.
We cannot wait for government to act. We need to accept responsibility for the ways our individual actions lead to collective problems. And so each individual needs to try to do their part, even if for one individual, it makes small or no noticeable difference.
My colleague seemed to say that overfishing is government's problem, that he isn't responsible for it, and that even if he stopped eating fish it would make no noticeable difference on overfishing. (If I have misstated his position, I am sure he'll correct me in the comments.)
One of his points is hard to contradict - that when he (or I) stop eating fish it has a negligible effect on the gigantic problem. This is mostly true. Granted, this point depends on your definition of negligible. If we assume he (or I) eats 1/4 pound of fish per week (which I think is 1 serving), that equates to 1 pound per month, 12 pounds per year, and 600 pounds over 50 years. That is a lot of fish, although considering what a trawler likely picks up in one trip, it is mostly negligible.
But it is the other two points that I don't agree with. I might agree that government policy may be the most effective way to deal with it, but I don't agree that without government action, we are absolved of responsibility.
We can think of many similar examples to compare to this one (for example purchasing rare wood from forests that are being legally depleted in a foreign country), but I don't know if we need to go there. The basic question is easy enough to evaluate: are we responsible when our actions contribute to something that has a negative impact and is that responsibility in any way dependent on how much we are contributing to the problem?
I think the answer is obvious - that by contributing, even in a small amount to a very big problem, we are responsible. And I fear that by absolving ourselves of responsibility and leaving it to government to deal with it, it creates an attitude that discourages individual responsibility.
I want to be clear though before I move on that I only expect people to take actions that are practical. Driving cars, using electricity, and throwing out waste have negative effects on the environment. I don't expect people to stop driving cars. But I do expect people to think about when driving the car is unnecessary. Personally, on this issue, I think it is practical, although not as enjoyable, to stop eating fish.
Anyway, this liberal belief that government should do everything for us and can therefore absolve us of responsibility is a terrible mindset. And conservative criticisms of this mindset is one of their most potent points. While I think government can and should enshrine policies like this, mostly because there are people that don't care about the public good and need restrictions, I don't agree at all that if there isn't a government policy against it, we can do it even when we know it has serious negative consequences.
I absolutely do not want to live in a world where people decide they are not responsible for the world around them; where they are so comfortable with government's actions that they feel they don't need to sacrifice in any way to make the world better. Yes, the government has programs to help those in need, but we still should be donating as much as we can to charity and volunteering as often as we can. And yes, the government has good environmental policies, but we still need to be aware of what policies the government hasn't passed yet and what actions of ours are having negative effects on the world.
We cannot wait for government to act. We need to accept responsibility for the ways our individual actions lead to collective problems. And so each individual needs to try to do their part, even if for one individual, it makes small or no noticeable difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)