History Books

This is an excellent book for those interested in all things Byzantine. It is a well-researched, scholarly work. I highly recommend it!

Judith Herren's study of Byzantium is a quick jaunt into the stream of history for the novice or expert. Anecdotal but thorough, the book sweeps through more than a thousand years of history without pausing for tendentiousness. A fine book.

Well written and easy to read. Some interesting insights that I have not read in detailed accounts of Byzantine history.

Because the Byzantine Empire lasted 1,129 years (from Constantine's founding of Constantinople in 324 AD to Sultan Mehmet II's capture of the city in 1453), the historian writing about the empire faces a daunting task. Write about it in the traditional chronological manner, and space limitations will force a laundry list approach with little meaningful content.

What Judith Herrin (a professor of Late Antique and Byzantine Studies at King's College, London) has elected to do instead is to break the subject down into 28 topics under 4 general subject headings and then deal with each topic chronologically:

I. FOUNDATIONS OF BYZANTIUM
1. The City of Constantine
2. Constantinople, the Largest City in Christendom
3. The East Roman Empire
4. Greek Orthodoxy
5. The Church of Hagia Sophia
6. The Ravenna Mosaics
7. Roman Law

II. THE TRANSITION FROM ANCIENT TO MEDIEVAL
8. The Bulwark Against Islam
9. Icons, a New Christian Art Form
10. Iconclasm and Icon Veneration
11. A Literate and Articulate Society
12. Saints Cyril and Methodios, `Apostles to the Slavs'

III BYZANTIUM BECOMES A MEDIEVAL STATE
13. Greek Fire
14. The Byzantine Economy
15. Eunuchs
16. The Imperial Court
17. Imperial Children, `Born in the Purple'
18. Mount Athos
19. Venice and the Fork
20. Basil II, `The Bulgar-Slayer'
21. Eleventh Century Crisis
22. Anna Komene
23. A Cosmopolitan Society

IV VARIETIES OF BYZANTIUM
24. The Fulcrum of the Crusades
25. The Towers of Trebizond, Arta, Nicaea and Thessalonike
26. Rebels and Patrons
27. `Better the Turkish Turban than the Papal Tiara'
28. The Siege of 1453
Conclusion: The Greatness and Legacy of Byzantium

The core of the book consists of 333 pages, which means that each topic is limited to an average of 12 pages. As a result, the writing is information-dense, slowing the reader's progress. Additionally, the author's writing style is academic (i.e., somewhat tedious), although the shortness of the chapters makes reading the book manageable.

There are 41 photographs of varying quality, many in black and white. They appear to have been chosen haphazardly. NOTE: A good source of high quality reproductions of Eastern Orthodox religious icons is Holy Image, Hallowed Ground (Getty Trust Publications: J. Paul Getty Museum).

As the above discussion suggests, this is a book that will primarily interest an academic reader. Those interested in a more comfortable approach may wish to consider Kenneth Harl's excellent course for the Teaching Company
Great Courses World of Byzantium Parts 1 and 2 (365 and 366) (Teaching Company)

This book may, as its newspaper reviews suggest, fill a need for a general reader's overview of Byzantium, but it doesn't do it very well. I doubt the "two men in hard hats", whose curiosity (Herrin says) originally motivated her to write it, would be much stimulated or enlightened by the instant descent into theology (full of Greek terms regarding the nature of God) and architecture (equally full of narthices and pendentives). Theology and architecture (especially the former) are vital for understanding Byzantine history, but the general reader (this one, at least) would be better served by insights into why they were so important to the Byzantines, rather than plunging into the technical detail. Herrin, in short, fails to stand back from from her academic framework (which I suspect is a rather old fashioned one anyway) and give us the big picture in coherent terms. The book gets better as it goes on, and from time to time one is able to get some feeling for how Byzantium operated and how its people lived, but it's a gold-panning task.

Also, given Herrin's academic eminence, I was deeply disappointed to find elementary errors of chronology and fact in the first few pages (as I've remarked in another review, it shakes the confidence when a person with a mere general reader's knowledge finds simple errors in a specialist's work). For example: "... the last Roman emperor in the west was deposed in 476, leaving a half-Vandal, half-Roman general, Stilicho, in control of Italy" (p.13). Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor in the west, was indeed deposed in 476, but by Odoacer the Goth (even that magnificently bad film `The Last Legion' managed to get that bit right). Stilicho the Vandal had been murdered by his nominal master the emperor Honorius two generations earlier, in 408. Such an error (about events in Herrin's specialist period) would expose her to professional sniggering if committed in a peer-reviewed scholarly work. I submit that when writing for the general reader the duty of scrupulous accuracy lies, if possible, even heavier.

The challenge faced by U.S. policy in Iraq is an indication of Kishore Mahbubani's assertion that you cannot export democracy into countries that are not ready for it.

In his book "The New Asian Hemisphere" Mahbubani points to the limitations of Western leadership in such areas as free trade, global warming, nuclear non-proliferation, Middle East policy, and reticence to accept the rise of Asia.

The author discusses the gap between America embracing democracy and the rule of law for all nations while itself arguably playing bully in dealing with so called "enemy combatants." Because of these shortcomings, Mahbubani believes it is far better for third world populations to be modernized rather than Westernized.

While sometimes harsh on Western leaders the author is quick to give credit where credit is due by recognizing Western contributions such as science and technology, free-market economics, pragmatism, rule of law, education, culture of peace, and meritocracy. But that does not stop the author from pushing for changes in the institutions that govern the international and economic system to make room for Asia's return to global leadership, such as his call to add India and Japan to the UN Security Council.

In his book, the author calls for more partnering among East and West to help build a more stable world with more stable growth. I'll drink to that, since this is what I do for a living.

By Gunjan Bagla
Author of Doing Business in 21st Century India

Kishore Mahbubani is the Professor of Public Policy of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. His previous books carry the interesting titles of Can Asian Think? and Beyond the Age of Innocence.

In this book, Kishore, a former diplomat explores the reaction of the West especially the United States towards the shift of global power to the east. By 2050, the world's three largest economies will be in Asia: Japan, India, and China.

Kishore's thesis is that the east like to replicate, not dominate. This was always so with Asian and Western countries. However much depends on the response of the United States. If the United States are willing to share and not dominate, then there will be much benefit to everyone. However if the United States decide to try to dominate the rising economies, there will be much chaos.

History unfortunately has shown that the Western response when threatened by the east was always a retreat into protectionism and attacks. The Japan-bashing of the 1980s, have been replaced by India-bashing of the 1990s (due to outsourcing) and now we have China-bashing in the 2000s. Looks like we in Asia are in a stormy ride.

Kishore Mahbubani presents an engrossing account, written with clarity and incite, detailing the shifting landscape of our human planet. He is able to comprehensively portray the changing forces - strengths and weaknesses, economically, politically, and culturally - affecting the dynamics of the interactions and changing powers of the world's civilizations. I became interested in the book after watching Mr. Mahbubani on an interview on UCTV in which he made a potentially boring-sounding topic sound potentially interesting. IT WAS FASCINATING!

By 2050, three of the world's largest economies will be Asian - China, Japan, and India, and America's domination of global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, G-7, and the U.N. Security Council will be over.

The U.S. needs to take a broader view of morality than it has. The rise of Asia has brought more "goodness" (lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty) into the world in the last several decades; at current growth rates standards of living in China may rise 100X within a human life span, contrasted with Russia's 45% decline after following American advice to leap into democracy without reforming the economy first. Facilitating widespread acquisition of consumer goods removes the feeling of hopelessness and futility, increases sense of self-worth, lowers crime rates, encourages the teaching of history to become less ideological (eg. China's new texts mention Mao only once), and improves education standards. However, accomplishing this requires not freedom from authoritarianism (as most Americans think), but freedom from chaos and anarchy. (Part of the government's reaction to Tiananmen Square was supposedly due to their support for a Russian-style economic and political conversion.)

Mao's initial implementation of central planning was not a failure - thanks to his ending almost a century of political turmoil the first Five-Year Plan brought average annual increases in industrial and agricultural output of 19.6 and 4.8% respectively. The 1955 Great Leap Forward, on the other hand, was a failure.

The success of Chinese expatriates overseas and their low productivity on the mainland confirmed (along with initial small experiments that partially reversed collectivization of agriculture) Deng's suspicion that China had adopted the wrong economic system. Thus, he became a pragmatist ("It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white - as long as it catches mice it is a good cat."), calling for an end to name-calling, emphasizing responsibility, and stating that "To get rich is glorious." Regardless, China's development has now reached a need for a legal system that borrows from Western concepts, thereby decentralizing financial power and property rights (and further encouraging economic investment).

Asia had slipped behind Western scientific development because of a religious mindset that spurned the material world and a lack of critical questioning. Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate in chemistry, predicted that by 2010, 905 of PhD scientists and engineers would be living in Asia. China's 200,000 returnees make up 81% of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, enticed by patriotism and growing opportunities, resistance to research in some areas (eg. stem-cell), and increased government funding. (China has increased from 0.6% in 1995 to 1.3% in 2005, vs. U.S. federal outlays declining over the past 30 years to 0.05% in 2003.

The China Central Committee's (CCC) average age in 2002 was 55; membership is based on merit, not seniority (eg. Russia's Politburo). Another lesson learned from Russia's implosion was to avoid an early overfocus on military development.

Arab Muslims make up on about 1/6 of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Most live in Asia; throughout the world Islamist parties are gaining ground.

Hopefully, the Western nations will accept Asia's rise. America's star is not dimming, though it is shining relatively less brightly. In addition, our supporting Israel, Arab and other despots, speaking non-proliferation while silent on Israeli nukes, modernizing American weapons, and supporting India's nuclearization, supporting democracy, while punishing Palestinians for not voting the way we want, lack of leadership on global warming (includes insisting on too much, too soon from developing nations), name-calling and refusing to talk to Iran do not compare well with China's no-strings aid to eg. Africa, without dictating terms for economic and political reforms.

An excellent outside perspective!

First I noticed the controversy about this book in Hard Talk on BBC, where the host and the author did some very unsatisfactory pirouettes around the contentious issues, which are related to the Western reservations about current Asian progress. Then I read an even worse interview in Der Spiegel, where the interviewers excelled in stupidity while the author excelled in stubbornness.
Consequently I had to pick up the book and read it. KM expects to provoke 'us' Westerners, but he asks some pundits to write blurbs, which Summers and Zbig and others did.
KM's thesis is this: Asia rises, and that is good for the world. The Western leaders have trouble in adjusting their mental maps, which are trapped in the past. Asia has benefitted from the world system as established after WW2 and has no interest in endangering it. The current wave of optimism will enter West Asia as well and Pakistan, Iran and others will want to have the same progress as China and India etc...
The March to Modernity is good for all, and it is not just material, rather the escape from poverty has far reaching immaterial value for the masses of Asia.
In short, KM is a 'hopeless' optimist, and I do hope that his victorious scenario wins. My biggest doubts are over the Islamic world's ability to join the trend. Maybe KM knows better. I do hope so.
One surprise for me was that KM steps away from the old litany of Lee Kuan Yew and others, i.e. that Asian economic success is due to traditonal Confucian values. In the contrary, KM argues that China, India, and the others, are following Japan in adopting the '7 pillars' that were the basis of the West's surge forward some centuries ago. These 7 pillars are: 1. free economy (expect Adam Smith in the Asian pantheon of the future!), 2.science (enormous push forward; quote Rajiv Gandhi: better brain drain than brain in the drain); 3. meritocracy/equal opportunity, a trend which requires overcoming huge traditional obstacles, but which is clearly on the way; 4.pragmatism: possibly a euphemism for copying; 5.a culture of peace (maybe hard to believe for many in the West); 6. the rule of law: far from being an attained target so far; 7.education.
If KM is right, the adoption of Western values is going far beyond copying Gucci bags and Lacoste shirts. In that sense I would'nt be surprised if he got as much headwind in Asia as in the West.
The headwind in the West comes from his criticism of the exportation of democracy into nations that are not ready for it. And of course from his criticism of the way the West dominates the international institutions and applies double standards.
Why are we not happy with the Asians following our example? Because it means loss of power, plain and simple.
Can't say that I don't see his point. Equally I think he is right in blaming the current Western leadership for gross incompetence in critical issues such as Middle East policy (the Iraq invasion as the single worst case of bad judgment and terrible implementation), free trade, nuclear non-proliferation, global warming...
Incidentally, KM points out, at the time when Giordano Bruno was burned for heresy in Rome, the Muslim emperor Akbar the Great pronounced principles of a secular government in India. So much for Western conceipt.

Overall, this book is a interesting, short, and readable account of Mossadegh and the CIA sponsored coup that overthrew him in 1953. It flows quickly (sometimes too quickly) and is superb at detailing the debates between British, American, and Iranian officials on how to respond to the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil. The British, not the Americans or Iranians, become the real villains in this story. In fact, Churchill plays an interesting role, one of which most Americans and Brits, who fondly remember their WWII hero, are unaware.

While some have questioned the author's supposedly naive admiration for Mossadegh, I found that Kinzer balances his obvious condemnation for the coup with revelations about Mossadegh's flaws (emotional rather than logical discussions, fainting spells, stubbornness, etc.). Indeed, Kinzer does make a compelling case that the coup was really ordered to protect a corrupt oil company and pathetic Shah, with Americans fooled into seeing a communist threat. I did think the preface to the 2008 book on attacking Iran did not help, since injecting current political debates merely labels Kinzer's historical account. While I agree with Kinzer and think invading Iran would be a disaster for the reasons he says, I could understand how the preface might color the rest of the book by suggesting that anyone who supports a tough line against Iran now should also disagree with the author's assessment of the 1953 coup.

I found it ironic that Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA mastermind behind the coup, says he would accept thanks from Iranians and Americans soon after the coup succeeds. Rather, Americans should learn their history and realize that he may very well be responsible for our current problems with Iran and its nuclear program.

Of course, I remember the chronic "60 Minutes" segments where the Shah was interviewed ever so politely about various atrocities and he reponded suavely denying the accusations. Now, the day before the Iranian "Hostage Crisis," I was in the dining facility admiring the Iranian unforms which were so much fancier than my own. I presumed our guests were officers being trained in the fine art of infantry slaughter. In any case, they never spoke to me, perhaps because of the language problem, or perhaps because they were better than a white NCO. The day of the seizure, our friends were still enjoying fine dining with us, but, the next day, they were gone. No explanations were offered. Nobody told me nothing. Now, well before 1953, our secret government was planning to whack Iran so that Churchill and his ilk could rob the nation by stealing its oil. And so it would have gone, if Truman had not been president. Eisenhower, was another story entirely, and he was easily convinced to go along. This book records a series of evil machinations which benefitted no one in Iran and only the rich elsewhere. Read it for yourself. You will not find a word of it in the No Child Left Behind textbooks.

This is a good history book everyone needs to read. Especially anyone running for political office.

To write a good history book like this one an author needs to do well in three separate areas. He needs to research the topic at hand, write a readable account and finally analyze the events. Kinzer performs exceptionally well in all three areas. First, the book is meticulously researched. He discusses appropriate history without going into unnecessary or boring details to give the reader an appropriate context and background leading up to the 1953 coup. He also uses a diverse set of resources which leaves no holes in the story.

Second, Kinzer's writing is engaging and at times suspenseful. In fact at the end of many chapters, I was unable to put the book aside and take a break from reading due to the suspense Kinzer created. The story is very easy to follow and the reader needs practically no background to follow the events. This is particularly impressive given the relative short length of the book. My only criticism is that I wished he had summarized the cast of characters in an appendix or in the beginning as many similar books do.

Finally, his analysis, while many have called too liberal, is even handed. He makes a leap by implying that 9/11 events may have not happened if it weren't for the 1953 CIA led coup. Of course we will never know for sure. He supports his claims convincingly that the coup led to the eventual 1979 hostage crisis and the anti-American feelings in the Middle East. Liberal bias? The facts speak for themselves. The CIA using American tax payer money to overthrow a popular and democratically elected government. We, in the USA, would not appreciate if foreigners overthrew our government so why have a double standard? Perhaps Mossadegh is being glorified too much and ultimately he would have led Iran towards the wrong path, but the point remains that we will never know thanks to the coup. Kinzer does entertain the possibilities that Mossadegh would have been terrible for Iran and the West so I reject the idea that he has a strong liberal bias.

If you, like me, find the "Death to USA" chants and hostage taking barbaric and puzzling, this book will offer you fresh insights and help you understand the roots of these actions. You will become a lot smarter and more knowledgeable about the Middle East after reading it. I highly recommend this book.

"All The Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer is one of those rare works that exposes and explores a little-known moment in world history that is of high importance for our own times. The book chronicles how the U.S. and Britain pulled off a coup in Iran in the 1950s, overthrowing an elected government and setting the stage for what would become the Islamic Revolution of 1979. There has never been a more timely moment to pick up this book which explains the past, but it has priceless insights into the present. Kinzer has even included a new preface in this latest edition where he discusses the current spike in tensions and rhetoric from the U.S. towards Iran and the grave danger of a possible military confrontation and what it could mean.

In rich, fascinating detail and thrilling pace, Kinzer takes the reader through Iran's most fascinating moments in history ranging from its glory days as the Persian Empire to its time as a colony under British rule. Kinzer brilliantly looks at Iranian culture, how the Shiite religion plays a role in the Iranian character and has shaped the nation's attitudes and social structure. There are interesting moments dealing with the discovery of oil in the country and how this especially turned the area into a target for colonial interests. After this educative introduction to the country, Kinzer then focuses on the political upheavel Iran faced during the 1930s and 1940s when a parliamentry system was installed to sit next to the reigning monarchy. This came about during a time of intense nationalism which finally climaxed in the election of Mohammed Mossadegh, a fierce nationalist who's main goal was to nationalize Iran's oil which at the time was completely controlled by the British. Iranian oil was helping keep the British Empire afloat and giving the British citizenry a cozey lifestyle while Iranians lived in horrendous poverty, especially the oil workers at the Abadan refinery who lived in tin shacks while their colonial masters enjoyed golf courses, cinemas and luxurious clubs.

Kinzer's exploration of Mossadegh is deep and fascinating, reading you realize that Mossadegh deserves a place among the great nationalist leaders who have been known for their clashes with imperialism like Mandela, Lumumba, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. He comes across as a highly intelligent, charismatic character who felt a deep pain for his nation's suffering and was willing to face hell in order to liberate his people. The moment where Mossadegh speaks before the UN is especially memorable.

"All The Shah's Men's" main storyline focuses on how the battle for oil independence by Iran led to a joint British/U.S. operation to overthrow Mossadegh and re-install the Shah who was willing to serve all his master's demands as long as his throne and authority were kept secure. These are some of the books most enraging, thrilling moments as key historical characters such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and CIA director Allen Dulles make appearances, divising massive propaganda, sabotage and destabilization plots to bring down a nationalist government threatening imperial hegemony.

Kinzer's book looks at the past, but is highly important for the present because once again we face a situation where a dominant power in the world might intervene violently in Iran, but as anyone who reads "All The Shah's Men" learns, this is not a wise course of action. The intervention carried out in 1953 lead to years of brutal repression which in turn led to the Islamic Revolution and the regime we are dealing with today. Kinzer brilliantly explores Iranian culture and the history of a people who have been punished endlessly for trying to control their own natural resources, this makes the story quite universal considering the struggle of Mossadegh in the book is the same struggle we see today in nations like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Asia. "All The Shah's Men" is the answer to these radical, right-wing, religious books we have been bombarded with promoting war with Iran based on simplistic reasons when in fact, the history is much more complex.

Kinzer writes "All The Shah's Men" with a great eye for detail and provides in-depth analysis, documents, rare news reports and speeches to take us back in time. Like his other brilliant work on imperialism, "Overthrow," Kinzer also captures the human aspect and provides great personal, psychological details of the characters and how they were shaped by and related to the historical event in question. The book also serves as a nice crash course for anyone who wants to become familiar with Iran and its history, Kinzer does some excellent historical research that proves to be very valuable in understanding how this controversial nation has been shaped and formed.

"All The Shah's Men" is a brilliant chronicle and great resource, it is one of the best books available on Iran and the best record yet on what can be seen as the most crucial Western intervention in the Middle East in the last century before the Iraq War. A timely work and a timely warning.

This is an excellent reference and textbook. It provides a more balanced look at American History than many popular textbooks that seem to have an anti-American bias. This is the text that should be used in most of our history classes today. Every history teacher and school administrator should read and review this book BEFORE ordering his or her history textbooks. It would also be good reading for everybody else to correct misinformation they may have been taught in school. Highly recommended!

It is axiomatic that there are at least two sides to every story, so I was drawn to this volume by the back-cover blurb that proclaims the author's purpose to counter what he describes as the blame-America-first revisionist history that predominates in modern scholarship, as epitomized by Howard Zinn. The reference on the front cover to the author's "Limbaugh Letter" interview made it clear to me what this author's perspective would be. This will be an automatic turn-off for many politically liberal readers, and explains the love-it-or-hate-it nature of most reviews. Notwithstanding the author's very up-front and unapologetic conservative perspective, I found this to be surprisingly (and refreshingly) balanced in its presentation. To dismiss this book as mere liberal-bashing or an ideological exercise is a gross mischaracterization.

By way of a few examples, FDR would be an easy target for a conservative ideologue to bash, but he is treated with surprising fairness in this book. Yes, the author levels some criticism at Roosevelt's New Deal liberalism, but a few pages later he praises FDR's pre-war diplomatic efforts with Japan (even while criticizing his handling of Hitler), and takes special pains to debunk the urban legend that FDR knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen to drag the U.S. into World War II. Similarly, Truman is criticized for some of his domestic policies, but praised for his handling of the Berlin Airlift, while Eisenhower (a Republican) is criticized for perpetuating and even expanding FDR's New Deal programs. The author characterizes Kennedy, a Democrat, as "brilliant" in his handling of the Khrushchev letters during the Cuban Missile Crisis, even while ripping the ineptitude of JFK's broader Cuba policies. Nixon, a Republican, is taken to task for his big-government spending and welfare statism, but praised for his foreign policy achievements vis a vis China and the Soviet Union. Republican president George Bush (41) is praised for his coalition-building success in the first Gulf War, but is described as having a "lack of political imagination" and as having told a "bald-faced lie" to the American public with his broken "no new taxes" pledge. Even George Washington is not exempt from criticism, given his colossal military failures early in the Revolutionary War. In short, it is absolutely spurious to dismiss this book as a one-sided ideological hit piece.

The author unflinchingly displays the good, the bad and the ugly of all political figures and parties, alternately offering up both praise and criticism for each where warranted. A personality who is praised on one page is taken to task on the next, and vice versa throughout the book. That may seem like liberal-bashing to some, but that's just because they're unaccustomed to seeing their liberal brethren criticized in the history books, or seeing people from the opposite end of the political spectrum receive a fair shake. I think it's telling that many of those who condemn this book ostensibly because of the author's bias are nonetheless willing to praise Zinn's "People's History," which is far more lopsided in the other direction. To varying degrees, bias is inevitable in historical narratives because it is filtered through each author's experience and worldview. Some are better at restraining their bias, but to some extent it will always exist. Truth be told, the real issue for the critics isn't the existence of bias itself, but of a bias with which they disagree.

The book is not without its problems, however. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are a number of misprints or incorrect facts. For some examples: the date of the Burr/Hamilton duel is misstated in one place (but corrected elsewhere); Kasserine Pass was not an Allied victory by even the most generous assessments -- the Americans took a solid drubbing; on page 636 the author refers to Hitler when he meant to say Stalin, etc. Obviously there were some editorial lapses but, while these are distracting to the attentive reader, they do not detract substantially from the overall quality of the book.

Returning to the question of the author's bias, it is clear that the reader is getting a different viewpoint than is usual. However, this normally comes out in challenges to the conventional wisdom backed by fresh analysis of the historical data. It is plain that the author has done his homework, as evidenced by some 70 pages of endnotes and citations. The author does occasionally slip into conservative editorializing, particularly toward the end of the book as he gets into his personal frame of reference, which is something that I find unacceptable in this or any other history book. Just the facts, please. Still, this volume provides some much needed balance to the historical debate that has been largely dominated by left-wing academics. After reading this book, it is fair to say with the venerable Paul Harvey, "now you know the REST of the story."

On so many levels the authors demonstrate with historical facts that America's greatness is greater than the undeniable instances of racism, sexism and bigotry. The waves of immigrants that keep coming to this country must intuitively know, without benefit of these 825 enlightening pages, that the emphasis in this book is correct.

I have yet to do more than browse through the book, like what I read so far.

I thought it might be nice to get a view of history that's written from a different angle.
Or maybe the book would highlight issues and events other works had (deliberately) left out.

But if those critical of Abu Ghraib and the (handling of) the war in Iraq are simply referred to as "left leaning" and "anti war", this can not be considered a history book, balanced or even patriotic.
It is nothing more than a bitter and self righteous opinion piece, merely addressing those that hold the author's beliefs to begin with.

A Jewish baby is born in a Polish ghetto in 1942. In an attempt to save her life, her father asks a Polish gentile woman to look after his young daughter, telling her that he'll be back after the war. Indeed he does return and these two are some of the only members of their family who survive the holocaust. The frightened little girl and her father, a stranger to her, go to Sweden for a few years and then on to the United States where this little girl grows up, marries, and becomes a mother.

Erin Einhorn, a reporter, must have known she had quite a story on her hands, or at the very least a fascinating family history, because the little girl in the story was her mother, Irene Rozenblum Einhorn. Despite her mother's long reluctance and disinterest in speaking of her past, Einhorn is determined to find out who this family is who saved her mother and made her own life possible. This story has become The Pages in Between, an honest and revealing memoir which winds up going in a direction that most holocaust writing does not. Einhorn moves to Poland and is surprised to find that in this country that was ten percent Jewish before WW2, Judaism has now become trendy. There are Jewish restaurants and trinket shops and tours one can go on.

Einhorn visits Bedzin, the previous home of her family, and quite easily finds the house they used to live in, and in it, the family that saved her mother's life, the Skowronskis. The woman who cared for her has died, but her son lives there with his family. He remembers the little girl he thought of as his sister whom they had always hoped would return for a visit. Einhorn visits the family multiple times, taking a translator with her, and over time some frustration on the part of the Skowronskis is revealed. Einhorn learns there is a problem with ownership of the house, and the Skowronskis want to collect on a promise made by Einhorn's grandfather during the war.

Einhorn tries to do what she can to help them, and it turns out to be a terribly complicated and potentially expensive legal matter. At the same time, Einhorn is struggling with the somewhat turbulent relationship she has always had with her mother as well as some life-altering news.

I found this to be a quite compelling story and I enjoyed Einhorn's personal tone throughout the book. I was very impressed with the degree to which she tried to assist the Skowronskis. I felt as though they were giving her a pretty hard time and it would have been easy for her just to walk away. It's an interesting question, really. After what happened in the Holocaust, do people really owe each other for saving a life, or was it just the right (and obviously brave) thing to do? Who should property belong to? The people it was stolen from over 60 years ago, or the people who have since made it their own?

I found this to be a fascinating and unique story and recommend it.

This book is a good reminder of how the bottom of the bottom billion survive, and the importance of a minimal level of governance. Nonetheless, the author overdoes the comparisons with pre-independence Congo. Although the colonial masters undoubtedly lived well, life was far from a bed or roses for the masses--the fact that Belgium invested so little in basic services for the Congolese, is one reason the country is still a mess, even as many African countries are now rapidly advancing.

When Tim Butcher describes a city in the modern Democratic Republic of Congo as "a sad collection of ruins," he could well have been describing the entire country, whose endless struggle over control of its rich resources during the past 100-plus years has left it mostly in shambles. This highly readable account of Butcher's attempt to follow the path of Henry Stanley's 1784 expedition to map the Congo River gives ample testimony to the difficulties of not just travel but of daily life in this sadly exploited nation.

Dave Donelson, author of Heart of Diamonds: A Novel of Scandal, Love and Death in the Congo

Fifty years ago the Democratic Republic of Congo -- then just ceasing to be the Belgian Congo -- had a modern network of roads, railways and river transportation, with adequate accommodation available in all of the main centres. Today none of that exists, and the only practical way of getting about is by air, and that with difficulty and even danger. As Tim Butcher remarks at one point, "I looked at the sickly child and tried to think of another country in the world where a baby born in the same place half a century earlier had less chance of surviving than today" (the last few words are quoted from memory, and hence are probably quoted inaccurately).

So when he decided to follow Henry Morton Stanley's land route in the 1870s from Lake Tanganyika to the River Congo and then follow the river to Boma, on the coast, this was not the trivial task it would have been in the 1950s, and many experts on the country said it would be impossible and dangerous and that he would almost certainly be killed if he attempted it. In some ways he had an even more difficult task than Stanley, with no Zanzibari bearers to carry all his stuff, and no guns to shoot anyone who tried to thwart him. Nonetheless, he largely succeeded (with considerable help, it must be said, from a series of aid workers and United Nations representatives), apart from flying about a quarter of the total distance, from Mbandaka to Kinshasa ("no capital city in the world more unrepresentative of its country"), when he felt to ill to continue. He describes Mbandaka as "a sad collection of ruins", but unfortunately this description applies equally well to almost everywhere he went.

Apart from its interest as a modern adventure story, Blood River is well worth reading for what it tells us about the modern Congo, and how it got that way, with much information about Stanley's initial colonization, exploitation as the personal property of King Leopold, later as a Belgian colony, and now independent, with essentially permanent armed conflict.

Tim Butcher's book BLOOD RIVER was recommended by Amazon last summer and I bought it because I am fascinated by the Congo. Having read King Leopold's Ghost,In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz, Heart of Darkness as well as The Poisonwood Bible, I was intrigued by an update on the Congo, especially by someone adventurous (I did think crazy)enough to try to follow Stanley's journey across Africa from east to west in the current political/savage climate.
Mr. Butcher is a journalist, so he knows how to use words to convey a mood, or a place or a person. And in this book, he is at his best. You are tugged along almost reluctantly on his trip,knowing that he obviously survived, but wondering how he could have possibly made it all the way. Everyone told him not to try it, but somehow there were also very helpful people along the way.
The one man who begged him to take his four year old with him, the guys on the motorbikes, the pirogue pole guys and the captain of the boat are all unforgettable. I especially liked that Mr. Butcher would bring in historical asides, liked the making of the African Queen and Katherine Hepburn in the hotel that is no longer there, or the travel guide that his mother had. He brings in all the hard historical stuff also, like the Belgians and the hand cutting, as well as the slavery trade.
If you want a book that has it all, plus pictures, get this book and hop on behind Mr. Butcher as he pursues a dream/nightmare journey through Africa.

This book is instructive by way of example. It has not a lot of text but many interesting photographs in categories. The categories reflect the photographic or artistic value of the chapter.

Once it's not a deep study about B&W pictures - only an abridge of a few very known photos - it is very smart to have in your photography' shelf(ves), but not A MUST to have it.
Definely it's a very good work material for professionals/teachers because there is no explanations why the picture became famous, so, beginners just will fall in love about them by intuition, leaving the technical aspects to be explained/understood later.
Could be 4 stars if it'd more pictures.

I like collections of photos by many different artists, and this book has a good number of diverse pre-1970 photos to browse. There is a minimum of text and that is fine with me. The book's main contribution is that it suggests a means of systematizing photography, by frame, subject, time, details and other aspects, and as such provides a compelling jumping off point from which the aspiring photographer can learn the art of photography. Good value for the money as well.

I was expecting a book of photographs with accompanying essays on their artistic merit. According to the write up and the first review. I received the book only to find its a collection of mainly classic photographs but mainly well-known photographers, with virtaually no notes, this was quite disappointing. I might also add there are better compilation type photography books on the market.

This book is a collection of photographs from the MOMA collection, nothing more. For those (like me) who were expecting insights, comments, knowledge, this is not the book. It's dissapointing.

This is a course textbook. It contains selected readings on the philosophical issue of justice. It is greatly enhanced by hearing Sandel's lectures along with the book.

This collection gathers together a wide array of classic writings on the topic of justice -- justice as fairness (Rawls), justice as a framework for the protection of rights (Locke, Rawls, Mill), justice from a teleological perspective (Aristotle), justice as the grounding for a conception of categorical morality (Kant), and justice as a defense to the results of the market system (Nozick). This is an indispensible set of readings for anyone grappling with the foundational questions of how we should live as individuals, nations, and a species.

First off I got this book for a class, I didn't choose it of my own accord. I don't think I have the brain power or attention span to get through this book just 'on the side'.

There are a lot of interesting pieces in here. I've read Aristotle go on about the home and the economy, and John Locke talk about rights and property. The content of this book is great, and I think the arrangement of the pieces into columns makes it easier to read.

The only thing I complain about is some sloppiness. I'm not sure if it's the translation (which, in Aristotle's case, puts sentences into confusing order), or the editor, but there are some grammar mistakes. Not a whole lot, just enough that I was annoyed.

All in all, if you can digest this type of thing OK, this is a fine collection.

The translation is superb! The notes are outstanding! Get this book if you want the most out of the Republic!

Just a note to correct two reviewers who praise Alan Bloom's translation of The Republic on this page. This edition was translated by Francis M. Cornford, a classics scholar at Cambridge University in the 20th century, not by Prof. Bloom. While I'm sure Alan Bloom's translation is deservedly praised by the two reviewers, their reviews should be removed and placed on the review page for the correct edition.

The main arguments of The Republic are so well known that they hardly need restatement in this review. The central issues in this book are of great importance, but one should also take note of the side issues that Plato raises in political theory and philosophy.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this book is its coverage of issues in theoretical politics. The Republic covers so much ground in Political Theory and Political Philosophy that it is hard to see any other great thinker as completely original. Plato hinted at or mentioned ideas in politics later developed by Rousseau, Marx, Nietche, Hayek... All political theorists should cite Plato, because he thought of practically everything of importance in political theory.

Personally, I find Rousseau more interesting as a pure political philosopher, but that is not saying much. Rousseau was an absolute genius. Plato had brilliant insights in political philosophy, and he anticipated important elements of Rousseau's work anyway.

The Republic does have an Achilles heel: economics (or political economy). The problem here is not so much that he was wrong about economics, but rather than he passed over this subject. Much of what Plato wrote about his ideal Republic is hard to defend in light of economic theory. Some might think me unfair for criticizing Plato by modern standards, but general economic laws were neither different nor unintelligible in Plato's time. Furthermore, Aristotle had a few insights that fit with what we now know as economics. How could someone as brilliant as Plato not see the issues in his book from "the economic point of view"? After all, key elements of modern economics boil down to common sense. Furthermore, there are subtleties to modern economics that raise serious problems with his idea of rule by a philosopher-king.

The lack of economic reasoning in The Republic does not really detract much from its greatness. Given the situation in the ancient world, it was only natural that great thinkers would focus on politics, and pass over economics. Economic issues did not really become apparent until the first wave of Globalozation began, so Plato should have focused on politics instead. That being said, Plato's Republic stands as THE most important book of Political Theory ever written.

This edition of The Republic is important because it includes Alan Blooms interpretive essay. Bloom makes you think more deeply about Plato. This book is a must-have for anyone with serious interest in political or interdisciplinary academic interests.

Bloom's essay is possibly the best commentary on Plato I've read. An overly simple summary is that he suggests many of Socrates' proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoiding involvement in it as much as possible. He also suggests that much of what Socrates says is not a definite political program, but directed to the particular characters of his interlocutors (Glaucon and Adeimantus) to lead them towards philosophy and away from their particular weaknesses (as Socrates saw them).

Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I've grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There'll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it's very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. As for the Republic itself:

In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system. (It's for us to ponder what he meant us to consider carefully, to accept, to reject, and what was humor).

We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it's hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato's assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of "democracy" with which we're inundated by politicians and the media. It's easy to say Plato's system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, "Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a pitifully dumbed-down culture." Or, "Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element." Could these ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since they're too blasphemous for our society (even though they're partially built into our Constitution).

It's funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves, but when's the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessments of the various systems (honest but not straightforward, with much irony, overstatement, paradox, intentional contradiction and crucial matter between the lines), to compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question - what might constitute good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships.

Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn't the issue. What is good government? What is virtue? Was there genuine legitimacy in the founding of any existing states? Is truly legitimate government possible in this world? And, depending on the answers, how should we live? Plato doesn't provide the answers, at least not overtly. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn't have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.

Thank you Dr. Bloom,
i'll simply say i've never enjoyed reading the Republic that much. It's indeed the best literal translation for such a great work, and i encourage everyone to have it.

I wanted to read this book to discover some new songs and reminisce about making tapes in the 80's and 90's but the extremely gloomy story quickly killed that buzz. Yes, I realize the story about anyone's wife dying young will be sad but the author really went to great lengths to detail just how depressed he had become. So much so that the songs and mix tapes really didn't seem to matter much anymore.

A good read but the story seemed to be more about closure for the author. Someday I'll go back and lookup the song lists again but for now I'm just too dispressed.

Rob Sheffield's small but mighty book is about love and loss, but also weaves music in the story seamlessly. He writes for Rolling Stone now, but back when he met his future wife, he was just a self-proclaimed geek who loved music. Their relationship progressed to the tunes of Sonic Youth, REM, and everything in between.

Sheffield gives readers a full list of songs that influenced his life, so you can read while listening. This book made me laugh and cry, and gave me new tunes to add to my ipod. I highly recommend if you want a book that you can't put down from beginning to end.

What a unique and touching book. The concept of telling his story via music, which played such a key role in his life, was genius. As a music lover who grew up in the 80s and 90s myself, each time he mentioned a song that I remembered, I would start to sing it. This book reminded me how much the music you like reveals so much about you and is so ingrained in our lives. How many times have I listened to a song and it's taken me back to a certain time in my life? Countless. For Rob Sheffield, as for many of us, the memories might be happy or sad (although maybe not as sad as some are for him). This book reminded me how precious life is and how to enjoy everyday. Not to mention, it made me mad at myself for throwing away last month all of the mixed tapes I made for myself or my friends throughout my life. What a great book!

This book is honest and bittersweet. He goes on just enough tangents to satiate curiosity without straying too far from the story. The story is about his love for Renee, but also about how music kept them together, changed who they were and helped him recover after she dies. About half the music mentioned I haven't heard, but in a way you don't have to. The language is friendly and simple. A quick read if you can dry the tears fast enough.

What I mainly took away from this book? It's a cliche, but it's how you really should appreciate the people in your life while you have them. There's a difference in hearing that phrase and actually feeling it. This book makes you feel it without ever saying it.

This book reads like an awesome mix tape that forces you to stay in your car after arriving at your destination, leaving you without a care about getting out of your car and wanting to just listen to it over and over again.

At points its laugh-out-loud funny and at other times its eye-watering sad. But its so well written that you won't put it down. This is easily a one day read.

If you like chuck klosterman, you will like this book.
If you grew up in the 80s and 90s and made mix tapes for your friends (and still make mix CDs and playlist on itunes) than this book is for you.
If you are looking for an easy quick read that will bring you back to a younger you, this book is it.

awesome awesome awesome