Anyone read any good history books recently? I'm about to read one on the sinking of the Andrea Doria, and have a biography of Jennie Jerome Chuchill waiting in the wings.
Rob
Rob
Would interesting books do?Read any good books lately?
One example:
The Titanic sinking was a sign to the world from the heavens that the "Dear Leader" (Kim Jong Il) had been born.
I have been neglecting my book reading over the past few years, but I finally finished "Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari.
I really enjoyed the book and learned some things I had never knew much about or had considered before. After finishing it, I've decided that humans would have been better off if we had remained as hunter gatherers, instead of fucking up the planet and so many of the other species on it.
(2) Europe Between the Oceans (9000 BC to 1000 AD) by Barry Cunliffe. A good look at Europe's pre-history (although when he wrote the book, Cunliffe lacked modern understanding of the very important Indo-European expansion).
(3) Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings by Jean Manco. This will fill in some of the picture Cunliffe misses, but will appeal most only to those interested in details of DNA evidence.
Yes, but the goal is to do all that in comfort meaning from a comfortable residence with electrical power, heat, AC, medical care in a modern hospital if needed, access to a well stocked grocery store and/or restaurant, transportation, entertainment, etc.And what is the typical goal of modern-day working man? To save toward early retirement so he can engage in hunting, gathering, fishing, and beach-combing!
The term "hunter-gatherer" is a bit of a misnomer. These non-farmers also engaged in fishing and (e.g. on the coastlines of Western and NW Europe) shell-collecting and beach-combing. (And what about Pitted Ware, a Copper Age hunter-gatherer culture along the Scandinavian coastline? They were heavily into trading and, perhaps piracy! Experts?)
I have been neglecting my book reading over the past few years, but I finally finished "Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari.
I really enjoyed the book and learned some things I had never knew much about or had considered before. After finishing it, I've decided that humans would have been better off if we had remained as hunter gatherers, instead of fucking up the planet and so many of the other species on it.
Are you a Luddite like me?![]()
And what is the typical goal of modern-day working man? To save toward early retirement so he can engage in hunting, gathering, fishing, and beach-combing!
I recently finished John Man's The Mongol Empire, which starts with a biography of Ghengis Khan but goes on to lay out the history of the Mongol Empire. (snip)
They describe an indigenous Amazonian society that shifted seasonally between two entirely different forms of social organization (small, authoritarian nomadic bands during the dry months; large, consensual horticultural settlements during the rainy season).
...
[T]he authors’ most compelling instance of urban egalitarianism is undoubtedly Teotihuacan, a Mesoamerican city that rivaled imperial Rome, its contemporary, for size and magnificence. After sliding toward authoritarianism, its people abruptly changed course, abandoning monument-building and human sacrifice for the construction of high-quality public housing. “Many citizens,” the authors write, “enjoyed a standard of living that is rarely achieved across such a wide sector of urban society in any period of urban history, including our own.”
...
In a remarkable chapter, they describe the encounter between early French arrivals in North America, primarily Jesuit missionaries, and a series of Native intellectuals—individuals who had inherited a long tradition of political conflict and debate and who had thought deeply and spoke incisively on such matters as “generosity, sociability, material wealth, crime, punishment and liberty.”
The Indigenous critique, as articulated by these figures in conversation with their French interlocutors, amounted to a wholesale condemnation of French—and, by extension, European—society: its incessant competition, its paucity of kindness and mutual care, its religious dogmatism and irrationalism, and most of all, its horrific inequality and lack of freedom. The authors persuasively argue that Indigenous ideas, carried back and publicized in Europe, went on to inspire the Enlightenment (the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy, they note, had theretofore been all but absent from the Western philosophical tradition). They go further, making the case that the conventional account of human history as a saga of material progress was developed in reaction to the Indigenous critique in order to salvage the honor of the West.
The Dawn of Everything
The Atlantic has a review (subtitled "A brilliant new account upends bedrock assumptions about 30,000 years of change") of a book titled The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. I've not read the book but plan to order it.
Here are some excerpts from the review:
They describe an indigenous Amazonian society that shifted seasonally between two entirely different forms of social organization (small, authoritarian nomadic bands during the dry months; large, consensual horticultural settlements during the rainy season).
...
[T]he authors’ most compelling instance of urban egalitarianism is undoubtedly Teotihuacan, a Mesoamerican city that rivaled imperial Rome, its contemporary, for size and magnificence. After sliding toward authoritarianism, its people abruptly changed course, abandoning monument-building and human sacrifice for the construction of high-quality public housing. “Many citizens,” the authors write, “enjoyed a standard of living that is rarely achieved across such a wide sector of urban society in any period of urban history, including our own.”
...
In a remarkable chapter, they describe the encounter between early French arrivals in North America, primarily Jesuit missionaries, and a series of Native intellectuals—individuals who had inherited a long tradition of political conflict and debate and who had thought deeply and spoke incisively on such matters as “generosity, sociability, material wealth, crime, punishment and liberty.”
The Indigenous critique, as articulated by these figures in conversation with their French interlocutors, amounted to a wholesale condemnation of French—and, by extension, European—society: its incessant competition, its paucity of kindness and mutual care, its religious dogmatism and irrationalism, and most of all, its horrific inequality and lack of freedom. The authors persuasively argue that Indigenous ideas, carried back and publicized in Europe, went on to inspire the Enlightenment (the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy, they note, had theretofore been all but absent from the Western philosophical tradition). They go further, making the case that the conventional account of human history as a saga of material progress was developed in reaction to the Indigenous critique in order to salvage the honor of the West.
Only The Ball Was White is a great baseball book as well as a good history.Have been reading a number of books about the Negro Leagues -- biographies of Willie Wells, Rube Foster and cool Papa Bell, a history of the Baltimore Black Sox, and I have Only the Ball Was White on hold at the local library. Fascinating stuff.
Rob
Here are two books that I'm still in the throes of reading. They provide excellent background for understanding more about the history of Slavic nations and the situation in modern Europe.
Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations by Norman Davies
The chapter on Prussia is an excellent example of the interesting subject matter in this book, and I'm sure it would interest @Hermit, whose grandfather was part of that history. The last chapter, on the fall of the Soviet Union, is a fitting close for the book. It is all especially relevant for what is going on in Eastern Europe today. Norman Davies is known for his specialization in the history of that part of the world.Here are two books that I'm still in the throes of reading. They provide excellent background for understanding more about the history of Slavic nations and the situation in modern Europe.
Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations by Norman Davies
I read that one as well. The subject has always fascinated me.
Rob
Thanks for the heads-up. I read some of the book a few years ago. It reads like a travelogue written by a journalist, but it is also densely packed with historical information. Norman Davies knows his shit, and he is also skilled at presenting it in an engaging manner to the general public.The chapter on Prussia is an excellent example of the interesting subject matter in this book, and I'm sure it would interest @Hermit, whose grandfather was part of that history. The last chapter, on the fall of the Soviet Union, is a fitting close for the book. It is all especially relevant for what is going on in Eastern Europe today. Norman Davies is known for his specialization in the history of that part of the world.Here are two books that I'm still in the throes of reading. They provide excellent background for understanding more about the history of Slavic nations and the situation in modern Europe.
Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations by Norman Davies
I read that one as well. The subject has always fascinated me.
Rob
The Dawn of Everything
The Atlantic has a review (subtitled "A brilliant new account upends bedrock assumptions about 30,000 years of change") of a book titled The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. I've not read the book but plan to order it.
Here are some excerpts from the review:
... The authors persuasively argue that Indigenous ideas, carried back and publicized in Europe, went on to inspire the Enlightenment (the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy, they note, had theretofore been all but absent from the Western philosophical tradition). They go further, making the case that the conventional account of human history as a saga of material progress was developed in reaction to the Indigenous critique in order to salvage the honor of the West.
The data are anecdotes where a child is adopted or abducted from a European culture to a Native American culture or vice versa; and then years later given a choice which culture to remain with or return to. According to the authors the choice is almost always to remain with or return to the Native culture. This is the choice regardless of whether the Native parents are the birth parents or adoptive parents.But empirical data is available here, and it suggests something is very wrong with Pinker's conclusions.
The Dawn of Everything
The Atlantic has a review (subtitled "A brilliant new account upends bedrock assumptions about 30,000 years of change") of a book titled The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. I've not read the book but plan to order it.
Here are some excerpts from the review:
... The authors persuasively argue that Indigenous ideas, carried back and publicized in Europe, went on to inspire the Enlightenment (the ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy, they note, had theretofore been all but absent from the Western philosophical tradition). They go further, making the case that the conventional account of human history as a saga of material progress was developed in reaction to the Indigenous critique in order to salvage the honor of the West.
DHL delivered this book to me a few days ago. I've just started it and plan to read this 600+-page book at a very leisurely pace. (DHL delivered six other books at the same time.)
But I hope other Infidels read it. Perhaps someone should start a thread to discuss it. (Not me; I do a VERY bad job of starting threads, beginning with badly chosen thread titles.)
For two professors of archaeology, at first there seemed to be an inordinate desire to spin contemporary politics. But this lasts only for the first few pages. And in those pages they make the interesting claim that Rousseau and Hobbes have OPPOSITE views of prehistoric man, but both views point to similar conclusions, and both are wrong. (They also claim that Rousseau's and Hobbes' descriptions of primitive man were "thought experiments" and not intended to be realistic portrayals.)
On page 18 begins an interesting claim that has bearing on our discussions of income inequality (and thus contentment and social stability) in Politics threads.
Is it better to be an average person in a wealthy modern society? Or an average person in a primitive society, e.g. Native American?
The data are anecdotes where a child is adopted or abducted from a European culture to a Native culture or vice versa; and then years later given a choice which culture to remain with or return to. According to the authors the choice is almost always to remain with or return to the Native culture. This is the choice regardless of whether the Native parents are the birth parents or adoptive parents.But empirical data is available here, and it suggests something is very wrong with Pinker's conclusions.
Riffling through the book, I see that it is full of rich discussions and data. Enjoy it! I'm sure I will.
I highly recommend a full read of the book; its glory is in its details, not in a summary. I'm already regarding it as one of great books of this decade; it is not blazing a trail so much as communicating much of what has been going on in archaeology of the last fifty years, but so few people actually have any idea what's been going on in archaeology, that having it all summarized and explained in an approachable (if enormous) work is extremely important, I think.