5 comments about Life Is So Good.

1. I guess some of the most important things I feel I've learned from this book is: don't dwell, take pride in your work, and focus on the power of beauty. This man (as thousands and thousands of others) had to endure more mental abuse in his life so far, then a million men, but was able and lucky enough to swim to top of that putrid pond of a life he was given and see the good in it, as fleeting as that was. I was thinking of this book as a mirror and what message I saw in it, that would be "Have a Lion's Heart" .



2. This book enlightened me and really got to me, much more than I expected. I was delighted to read about the life of a 102-year old african american man from the south, as I am a 30-something white woman from MT. He has a lot to teach us, and a lot to remind us of and has a way of doing so that makes us thankful for what we have. George Dawson is a gem and I am pleased that someone took the time to put his story on paper. What a great book!



3. Even though this book was published six years ago, the message of "Life is so good" is timeless. It is a window into a world that we are all a part of, but some of us rarely see. Truly memorable! Dawson sees literacy as an incredible gift and he in turn gives the reader numerous ones in return.



4. Richard Glaubman's "Life Is So Good" is a real comeuppance for anyone whose outlook towards life runs along the lines of "I wish I had done X, but I'm too old to start now." Here's a man, George Dawson, who learned how to read at age 98. As a USA Today review aptly summarizes, "Dawson has become a literary hero, a testament to the power of perseverance." First-time author Glaubman expertly fleshes out Larry Bingham's award-winning 1998 Fort Worth Star-Telegram short story.
   
   Dawson's tales of life in the Jim Crow-era South, his unquenchable work ethic, and his travels throughout North America make for compelling reading. Here is a man who was never given a shot to read when he was younger - economic circumstances forced him into full-time manual labor at a very early age. Despite significant hardship, his optimism and sense of self-worth never waver. The title really sums it up well here. Glaubman's final words from Dawson are "Life is so good and it gets better every day."
   
   As other reviewers have noted, Chapter 1 of this book could stand alone as among the best short stories you'll ever read.



5. I like the memoir because George Dawson never gave up his dream to read and write. George was born in the late 1800's. His parents were not slaves, but his grandparents were once slaves. George was raised in Texas. His family was poor, and he never attended school. Georges started working at a very young age, drawing water from the well each morning for the house. George worked alongside his father in the fields. The work was hard, so was their life. They had to watch what they said and went in fear of the K.K.K. Twelve year old George went to work, and stayed with a white family to help out at home. His cousins came to live with his family because their parents died, so George was needed at home. George left home at twenty-one and worked in Tennessee building levees. It was two years before he returned back home.
   
   Life is So Good is a story about George Dawson's dreams of receiving mail, learning to read and write at the age of ninety-eight, and his work ethic. I can relate to George's hard work and his work ethic. I beleive in hard work and doing it right the first time.
   
   This book is sad and tells of struggles he had to go through. It is not easy reading at first because the chapters jumped around. But overall, it is a good book to read.

5 comments about Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life.

1. i love revolutionary people. with out them we would still be slaves. with out revolutionaries like malcom x or
   martin l.king we might not have civil rights. this book will take you from before che was born all the way past his death covering every thing. this book is huge. it covers everything and includes a lot of great photos. i see a lot of people wearing his t-shirt in san diego but the people dont know who he is so thats what made me buy the book. he was a communist and nothing wrong with that. its just a form of gov. that he lived under and was his choice. just like americans.democracy is a form of gov. we live under and is our choice. do you hate poor communist who live on the streets? i dont. what about a person living under democracy who is poor living
   on the streets. do you hate that person? no its silly. just because the governments dont like one another dont meant the people have to follow. so what im saying is whether che is communist or not i love him for what he fought for. many people stood up against america for its wrongs. so why not che guevara. america is wicked and is destructive world wide and he was there to try and stop etc. get the book its great.ALSO CHE BELIEVED IN THE BLACK CHRIST. SEE NOT ALL OF THE WORLD LOOKS AT JESUS AS A WHITE PERSON. IN SOUTH AMERICA WHERE HE IS FROM MOST PLACES LIKE GUATEMALA BELIEVE IN THE BLACK CHRIST AS HE DID AND I
   THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING.



2. One of my favorite books. Doesn't fall prey to the halos of the commie left OR the devilhorns of the gusano right.



3. This was a really well written bio on the man. It is historically well researched with plenty of good first-hand accounts. I think the writer did a poor job balancing some of the Latin geopolitical realities ofthe time. It is important to understand that not everyting written in books is nescessary concrete fact and there are other interpretations. This was a leader of a revolution who murdered people. He authorized bank robberies and executions. This is by no means someone that should be looked up to, but I believe that is exactly what John Anderson does. I would not tell anyone to avoid this book. I think it was definitely worth the read, but take it with a grain of salt and read it critically.
   
   It is a good strong chronicle of Latin American sentiment at the time. It is very poor in that it always paints a picture of the evil Americans, when the reality was far different. He did not talk about the corrupt influences in Latin America enough when he directed a lot of scorn towards the US government at the time. I am not arguing that he shouldn't have, I am arguing that he should have been a little more objective.
   
   As for all those out there sporting 'Che' T-shirts, and flags, I would highly recommend they do a little more research into the man they love so much. There is a good chance they will not like what they see.



4. I would always see people wear his shirts, but knew little of him. I read a few things online about him, but I wanted something more complete about him. This book is definetely it! This book has so many sources about Che that I can't think of any other book that can match it. Although it's a very long book (about 700 pages, excluding the intros, appendix, sources, index, etc) you will not want to put it down. This book gives you details from his childhood all the way to Bolivia. You will see him in a total different light.



5. Kierkegaard had an essential theory that that the optimum way for a human to live out his existence was as a "little Christ." A man, in other words, who was an emulation of the Christian theological icon. A selfless man who gave his individuated existence wholly to the greater good; the improvement of the human condition for the most was the purpose and meaning of life for this sort of being. Che seems to have adopted fully this ethic and incorporated it into the mode of his experience. The biography is of a selfless being, a man living wholly for the greater good. Richard Lee Anderson captures this basic essence while disclosing the imperfections that plague all human beings, even exceptional specimens like Che.
   A valuable lesson in what is possible for all of us. Not recommended to those who adopt a Limbaugh Land bibliography as "selfless" replaces "selfish" as the theme of the studied life.

5 comments about My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla.

1. I'm really a fan of Tesla and this book was a good view into him as a person. Although the exact same pages of this book can be found in the end portion of the book "The Nikola Tesla Treasury" and I highly suggest that book over this one.



2. Not what I expected. His childhood years were interesting. But I didn't finish it - and I really like books about inventors. Not enough info. His writing style is a bit hard to follow. Better to buy a bio written by somebody else. I rate it "One Induction Motor".



3. You really get a feel for the way he thinks, and his eccentricities from this book. If you want to know what it would feel like to talk to him then read this book. If you want an in depth biography I recommend Tesla: Man Out of Time



4. Good book, it seems like its written funny,not sure how to explain it though. Alot of uncapitalized i's, was it even proofread?



5. This is a great book which surfaces Tesla's biography, image of himself and of his internal mental processes. The way Tesla outlines his own internal thought processes and psychology is deeply interesting. I think anyone who aspires to be an inventory would be inspired by reading this book. Tesla's explanation of how he ran experiments in his mind without needing any interfering apparatus is inspiring to those who enjoy theorizing and exploring reality.

5 comments about Black Edelweiss: A Memoir of Combat and Conscience by a Soldier of the Waffen-SS.

1. This book is quite a read. I found it eye-opening, interesting and even a bit entertaining. I thought it was great how the author tells his story, alternating between his time in the field and his time in captivity. It made for an almost movie-like experience. I also found the authors thoughts, upon learning of the Holocaust, and his reactions and feelings on the subject, were quite interesting. Foremost being, he felt the name and image of the elite Waffen SS was soiled by Nazi goons.
   
   I highly recommend this book. I've read several first-person memoir type accounts, and this is by far the best I've read so far.



2. I bought the book based on the other reviews.
   
   I really enjoyed the book and would recommend the read to anyone keen on the topic. Rather than rehash what others have already written, why not purchase a copy and enjoy a few evenings engrossed in an accurate account of what it really was like fighting a war in the far north.
   
   10/10



3. Johan Voss's story is interesting in its sheer typicality. He grew up in an intellectual middle-class family which held varying opinions on Hitler, from fanatical enthusiasm to seditious contempt. As a teen, he became somewhat enrapt with the idea of the Waffen-SS, which was marketed not as a racial elite but as a brotherhood dedicated to protecting Europe from Soviet Communism. Seeing in the concept the seeds of a United Europe (divisions of Waffen-SS were recruited from everything from Danes to Frenchmen to Cossacks and Muslim Croatians), Voss joined up, and being from a mountainous area, was assigned to the 6th SS Mountain Division "Nord."
   
   "Nord" spent most of its service fighting on the forgotten sector of the Eastern front - the Russian-Finnish border. Voss served in the frozen wastes of the Arctic Circle until late 1944, when the deteriorating military situation caused Finland to turn against Germany - indeed, the book's toughest emotional passages deal with the bitterness of the Germans as they are forced to march a thousand miles through the snow to Norway. After that, the division was sent to France to fight in the "Second Battle of the Bulge" - Himmler's assault into Alsace in the closing days of 1944. It was during this chaotic battle that Voss was captured by Americans and first had to hide his SS identity. In the prison camps he was confronted with evidence of Nazi atrocities and engaged in lengthly and painful self-examination about the Waffen-SS and his role in it, hence the "conscience" part of the title.
   
   EDELWEISS is not the best WW 2 memior I've read. It moves a bit slowly, and Voss is almost too thoughtful for his own good; his constant introspection is interesting in and of itself but drags down the narrative. But it is a refreshingly bold and important book. Because he falls short of complete repudiation of the organization, seeing himself as both the facilitator of crime and a victim of it, Voss' memior is somewhat controversial. Like many other W/SS vets, he is willing to accept his share of responsibility for the actions of Nazi Germany, but refuses to serve as the "alibi of a nation", merely because he wore SS runes and not Army litzen on his collar. By refusing to be lumped in with the black-clad Political SS and the Death's Head troopers who staffed the concentration camps, Voss puts himself at odds with everyone, inside and outside of Germany, who wants him to admit that he is criminal and keep any non-criminal exploits to himself. Luckily for history, he didn't take their advice.



4. This is one of the best first hand accounts I have read by any soldier. A majority of the book is about his time in combat, but there are many pages written while he was in captivity where he is forced to come to grips with what he was a part of. He is unashamed of his participation in the SS, and seems a firm believer that the German cause was just in its battle against Bolshevism. I can not judge him as I did not grow up in 1920/1930s Germany, but as a former soldier who has been in combat, I feel his memories and descriptions of his wartime experiences are genuine. This is a page turner, well written with nothing that will hang up a reader, and a glimpse into the mind of just one man in those conditions in our history. If you like this, I also recommend "Sniper on the Eastern Front" for another great first person view of combat on the ground in the ETO.



5. This book is worth reading, but it's not a book that you cannot put down.
   Alot of politics discussed... If you want an exciting book to read, read "the forgotten soldier." There is controversy about the book.. whether it is a work of fiction.. maybe because it is so exciting. Not exciting , but very interesting. Exciting is the wrong word. But it is a book I highly recommend.

5 comments about Having Our Say: The Delany Sisters' First 100 Years.

1. I am so glad that I read this book. I found it uplifting and inspirational. How amazing that women like this lived, and I am so grateful they shared their story. It is not something I normally would have read, but I am grateful that I gave it my time. It was a very quick read.



2. "I'm not black, I'm brown!" So says Bessie Delany, at age 100. Despite her years of involvement in the Civil Rights movement, accepting its nomenclature wholesale isn't part of Bessie's personality. She's the feisty sister. Sadie, age 103, is the one who conquers by saying nothing - while going right ahead and doing exactly what she wants. Or by playing dumb, as she and Bessie both put it; but either way, it's always worked for Sadie. These two, the second black woman licensed as a dentist in New York and the first black woman to be appointed a New York City high school teacher, have lived together more years than not in their long lives; and as of this book's publication, they're still in their New York home and taking care of themselves just fine, thank you very much.
   
   What do they have to say? Plenty, mostly in alternating chapters. Their father was born a slave, and their mother's parents - a mulatto woman and a white man - couldn't marry because state law forbade it. That freed slave eventually became an Episcopal bishop, and all ten of his children became college-educated professionals. Sarah and Elizabeth Delany were old enough to be shocked and hurt when Jim Crow became the law of the South, and each had to find her own ways to survive and thrive in spite of both cultural and institutionalized prejudice. Relocating to Harlem, New York City opened new opportunities, but didn't take them away from that familiar struggle. Through it all, Sadie and Bessie lived by the creed their parents had taught them: You're here to do good. To which Sadie added her own maxim: Maybe I can change the world a little bit, by changing me.
   
   The challenges these two women faced are not familiar to me personally, in one sense, because I've never had to face racial prejudice. Yet in the way they met those challenges, with determination, realism ("As long as they need you, you've got that job"), and plenty of humor, any fellow human can surely find inspiration. A wonderful read!



3. The Delany Sisters are simply a spectacular duo of fighters. Their story is one almost every person would find amazing. The way they see this world, and how their past experiences with Jim Crow and being colored in the South before the Civil Rights Movement shaped their perception of humans forever. The book is filled with very warm humor and it is essential to understand part of the complex psyche of 'colored' people in the United States today, which, by the way, is a term prefered by the Sisters over black or even African American to refer to themselves and their people.



4. This book was recommended to me by my 95-year-old mother, and I must say it was an excellent recommendation.
   
   
   
   Author Amy Hill Hearth must have had numerous conversations with Sadie (age 102) and her "little sister" Bessie (100). The book is written with the words and the spirit of these two special ladies shining through each page. The Delany sisters were born to a father who was a former slave and who got an education and later became the first black bishop in the Episcopal Church. Their mother had white blood, but she chose to marry and socialize among the black race. As the sister explain, if you had one drop of black blood at that time, you were considered a Negro.
   
   
   
   The sisters describe their growing-up years and their gratitude for their parents' love, guidance, and the high standards of conduct which they held up to their children. They tell what is was like to be chased by the Ku Klux Klan, discriminated against by teachers and employers, and be the victims of the Jim Crow laws. They mention the illustrious black people, such as Adam Clayton Powell, and Cab Calloway, who were part of their social circle. They tell about their patriotism during WWI and WWII and in one of the most poignant comments in the book Bessie says, "We were good citizens, good Americans! We loved our country, even though it didn't love us back."
   
   
   
   This is a look back at American history by two women whose family was prominent in the black community, but mostly unknown in the white world.
   
   It is an eye-opener and is a wonderful story.



5. Let's just say I fell in love with the sisters so much that I adopted their last name. I am in awe of these remarkable woman, still. After living for more than a century they did not believe they had a story to tell. I am grateful that Amy Hill Hearth was able to convince them otherwise.
   Their accomplishments were remarkable not only what the two oldest sisters did but the entire Delany family. Their father Henry was borned into slavery, however, he did not use that as an excuse. All of the Delany children were trailblazers because there were no civil rights for people of color in the early 1900's. They did what they had to do, Bessie was honest and brutal as she felt it was her duty to tell people the truth. Sadie was considered the sweet one, however, she too was a go-getter.
   I recommend this book and the two other books that were co-authored by Amy Hill Hearth. Without Ms. Hearth these women and their stories would have never been told, I am thankful to her for bringing them into my life. I expected the sisters to live forever but Bessie died in 1995 shortly after turning 104 and Bessie at 109 in 1999. They are still alive in the hearts of many of us and in the pages of their books.

5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.



2. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



3. Far and away one of the best biographies I have ever read. Massie masterfully gives life to the doomed, tragic last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. I was absolutely rivetted from page one by this outstanding work. The book gives a sympathetic portrait of Tsar Nicholas, his wife Empress Alexandra, and their ongoing struggle to cope with their haemophiliac son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne. Alexei's illness indirectly leads to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the family's murder. An astonishingly good read, and one I highly recommend to all who are interested in this era of history.



4. Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a biographical study centered on the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia. Massie's portrayal of the last ruling Romanavs is like many other works on the subject in that it is poignant, dramatic, and vibrant; but never dull. However, Massie's work stands out above other works on the subject for its thorough account of the lives of the imperial couple and most of all, its sympathetic portrayal of them.
   
   Nearly all works of the period agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not the blood-drenched despot the Bolshevik revolutionaries claimed him to be, and although he may not have been as benevolent as his contemporary Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, he at least lacked the bellicose nature of his German counterpart (and early advisor), Wilhelm II. Massie's account demonstrates how Nicholas II was ill-prepared to ascend the throne in after Alexander III, but unlike the contention of other historians, Massie makes a reasonable case in defending the intelligence of the fallen autocrat.
   
   Massie's account of Nicholas and Alexandra does not absolve the couple from their failure to prevent the collapse of the reign and ultimately their country, but it does partially excuse their inflexibility and fatalism on the serious of misfortunes that continued to plague Nicholas from the very day of his coronation; when hundred of Russian peasants were stampeded to death in a overzealous crowd on Khodynka Meadow. Yet, no Romanov apologist can ignore the detrimental influences on Nicholas's reign, including his wife Alexandra, a German Kaiser, and especially a corrupt starets. That such an array of persons from various strata of society could at times impose their will on a man raised to be an autocrat was a tarnish on Nicholas' character.
   
   Despite his habit of being easily swayed at times, Nicholas is not one-dimensional in Massie's account. It is noted how Nicholas ignored the advice of able ministers and most of all; remained unyielding to grant the masses of his subjects the representation and constitution they desired--until it was too late. Even Massie can be counted among the historians who muse whether the Romanov dynasty might have survived had the Tsar been more accommadating to the popular demands of his people--or if war had not erupted in the manner it did in 1914.
   
   Although Massie's work is very thorough, it only briefly touches the clandestine operations of the Tsarist police state in rooting out revolutionaries and assassins from its masses prior to 1917. Indeed, other works (e.g. Edmond Taylor's "The Fall of the Dynasties") are careful to point out that Tsarist police included a host of known double agents whose loyalties were perpetually in doubt. While Massie makes note of that insecurity in his account of Prime Minister Peter Stolypin's assassination in 1911 by a Tsarist agent, he fails to explain how widespread the problem actually was. Indeed, Taylor describes as monarchy's slide to collapse as a "suicide", not because they were unable to stop that slide, but rather because they were unwilling.
   
   Just as it is difficult to excuse the corrupt system of Tsarist counter-revolutionary activity, historians are also unable to justify the Russia's policy in WWI of placing the needs of France above that of her own. The disaster at Tannenburg early in the war is described in detail by Massie, and is correctly portrayed as a premature offensive launched by Russia (with the support of Nicholas) to rescue its beleagured ally from the German onslaught through northern France. Indeed, even after his abdication and arrest, Massie notes how Nicholas pleaded with Kerensky to continue to support the Russia's allies in the war effort--a mission with which the Provisional Government leader would complete in the summer of 1917 with disastrous consequences. Although Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not outright label the monarchy as a principle agent of its own destruction, his book nevertheless provides a strong case to the conclusion that the last rulers (and their ministers) of the Romanov dynasty practiced an inexplicable policy of self-immolation.
   
   It is perhaps this mystery--or lunacy--of the Romanovs that continues to fascinate so many readers 90 years after their unglorious deaths in their Siberian imprisonment. Undoubtedly, the story of the last Romanovs will continue to perplex students of history for decades to come, and Robert Massie's work will will remain the foremost account of the twilight of Imperial Russia.



5. Massie has written a masterpiece.
   Graceful, informative ,never boring.
   One of the best introductions into the insanity
   of the Red Revolution and the rise of communism.

5 comments about Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West (Lewis & Clark Expedition).

1. Historical novels are one of my favorite types of text, and I have been an avid reader of Stephen E. Ambrose through his World War II works. Every American child knew about Lewis & Clark and the Louisiana Purchase (Thank you Schoolhouse Rock), but this book brings to life the true and amazing task these men went through to help open America into the vast and great nation she is now.
   
   After the 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France, President Thomas Jefferson, a man of knowledge and curiosity himself, issued a continental exploration Corps of Discovery to travel to the Pacific Ocean. If you could imagine walking across your own state, now imagine walking (horse/canoe allowed) across the country, no roads, no cellphone, no Walmart, no bathrooms, no electric lights, wild animals...the grizzlies read like monsters, potential attacks from hostile natives, the weather...it is unimagenable that any human could have survived or endured such hardships!
   
   It is important to realize that Lewis and Clark were the leaders, but also traveled with a large group of brave men, unique and talented in their own respects, including the female Native American Sacagawea and her baby, plus the sad tale of York, Clark's slave who shared the pain, dangers, and loyalty, but received none of the rewards, promises, or respects afterwards...this subject raises my ire, so I will not continue on York's betrayal by Clark.
   
   Regardless of whether you read this as pure history, this book reads like an adventure tale like Krakauer's Into Thin Air, a testament of man versus nature, the book is also a cultural exploration as the "White man meets the Red man" no disrespect meant. On so many levels this book will offer insight, information, and entertainment that few books balance so well. So you might as well read a good tale and actually improve your own academic knowledge.
   
   Thank you and keep reading.
   John Dae Min



2. What I liked best about this book is that it reads like a neighbor telling you all about his favorite nephew. Ambrose's descriptions and judgments and asides have almost an avuncular feel. If this is not your thing, the book will probably bug you.
   
   What I liked least about this book is Ambrose's unquestioning high regard for Jefferson, but since Ambrose's attitude reflects that of Lewis's, I can go with it.
   
   The outtakes of the journals, the excellent maps, and the good-natured commentary combine to make me LIKE the characters. I feel familiar with them after reading this book. I am impressed by their accomplishments, and feel I know them as people much better.
   
   It is also clear that Ambrose knows the areas where Lewis and Clark explored. Many of his notations tell how the area described look to present-day canoers or hikers, and he gives highway exits and directions to some of the less-remote campsites and overlooks. Ambrose's love for the beauties of western America comes through, and they add to the fond tone of the book.



3. I will keep it simple. Next to the Holy Bible ~ best book I ever read. I have since then read several of Stephen Ambrose's books and highly recommend them. He and his family put many years of research in before writing any book. I have travelled across the country all the way to Cape Disapportment as a result of reading the book and following the trail. Everything Mr. Ambrose claimed in the book is accurate, very interesting, and provides us a heritage for our country that everyone should be proud of.



4. The history of the Voyage of Discovery is one of the outstanding feats in American history. No one has told it better than Stephen Ambrose. This is a must read even if you don't enjoy history.



5. I got this book for my birthday, picked it up, and enjoyed every page. It is a great way to learn more about the founding fathers of this country and have some real-life adventure as well as tragic thrown in throughout. Those things that we now take for granted once required risk of life to achieve. Great Read!

2 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave, Written by Himself (Enriched Classics).

1. I ordered this book for my daughter,for college. She is very pleased with it.



2. Frederick Douglass was a social thinker in his time. The book was
   first published in 1845 by the Anti-Slavery Office. A memorable
   quote is presented:
   " I was born in Tuckahoe near Hillsborough and about 12 miles
   from Easton in Talbot County, MD. I have no accurate knowledge of my
   age, never having seen any authentic record containing it.
   By far, the larger part of slaves know as little of their ages,
   as horses know of theirs and it is the wish of most masters within
   my knowledge to keep their slaves thus ignorant."
   
   Frederick Douglass tells of the cruel whippings of slaves.
   He describes Mr. Severe who was both cruel and profane. There are
   recitations of trips to the Great House Farm in order to pick up the
   monthly allowance by slaves. The book chronicles his plan and
   success in escaping slavery. He was wary of the "Underground
   Railroad" because it stimulated masters to increase their
   general surveillance and watchfulness over the slaves.
   The work contains an eye-opening recitation of the treatment of slaves
   even a half century after the Constitution was written.

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. AN AUTOBIGRAPHICAL BOOK OF HITLER.
   A PRICELESS MANUSCRIPT OF A MANS DESIRE TO CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH HE ALONE WILL RULE,A MILLION MAD MEN WILL HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS LIKE THIS AN NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY YET HE CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVEING HIS VISION,HOW EVER DELUDED HE WAS, HOWEVER EVIL HE WAS ,THIS BOOK IS A TEMPLATE OF HIS VISION AND VIEWS.



2. From my point of view this is probably one of the most important books written. This is one of those books that changes history. Yes, this means I completely disagree with what Hitler said about books. He mentioned that books don't change history, but a good speaker/leader does. While this is very true, books usually exist in conjunction with this. I think you need both because the book is far more timeless than the speaker and often times a book precedes a major turning point for a movement. Look at texts like "The Bible", "The Principia," or Euclid's "The Thirteen Elements". All these texts were turning points in history and changed the way we look at the world. "Mein Kampf" would forever change the way we looked at the world as well. It literally moved nations to act... in opposition of such a major power struggle.
   
   I do not advocate Hitler's methodology in what he did, but I do acknowledge the profound impact it has left on the world and the major advancements we were all forced to make in realms such as technology. Now that this book is part of history you can't help but think of the "what if..." scenarios as I read through this massive text, I'll play into these concepts as I touch upon specific areas. Now I'm not a World War II or World War I historian by any means, so it was a hard book for me to read some of the more minute details Hitler referenced in this book. However, I read it more for the prospects in philosophy.
   
   This particular edition is split into two different volumes with an excellent introduction by the translator. Volume I was printed in 1925 and then Volume II came out in the year 1926, so they were written very close together. The first was mostly philosophical and recounts his childhood growing up. The second was more a general history of the political party and how to deal with foreign nations. It's interesting that Hitler didn't put out any other books after these two and I assume it's because his involvement in politics took up much more of his time and no longer had the free time to write. However, they did find another book he was working on after the fall of the Reich and is now published as "Hitler's Second Book". This edition is great because it compared the first printing with the second printing and footnotes the discrepancies. It also adds in details on the people Hitler named specifically in this book who would be relatively unknown to the rest of the world outside Nazi Germany and especially helpful to me because I haven't read that much about this period in history to know the extreme details. In Volume's I and II Hitler specifically references incidents in World War I that really helped shape the beliefs he has here.
   
   Anyway the introduction that prefaces this edition is rather lengthy, but well worth the read. It adds more of the historical background into the text you are about to dig into. It has interesting anecdotes about Hitler's involvement with the party, like in the text he states he was the seventh member of the DAP, but later it was found out he was 555th and this was corroborated with an unsent letter from Drexler, one of the founders. In fact when historian's looked at the membership items that were left behind after the war they could see that Hitler's had been altered physically. Also the introduction has an excellent overview of the printing of this book. Such as how it is not allowed to be printed in certain countries. Luckily in my country no such restrictions apply to any printed document, so I am free to read and review whatever I wish, regardless of how inaccurate a printed document is. I'm definitely glad there was an introduction even though it added another twenty pages onto an already daunting read. The introduction also forewarns us that Hitler can have a tendency to ramble in forms that eventually make little sense. I'm glad this warning was stated because when reading this book it was quite clear when Hitler felt particularly passionate about the subject he started to go off on these ridiculous tangents and tirades, often times in run on sentence form.
   
   In the spirit of this book, I will review Volume I separately from Volume II. So first we discuss Hitler's philosophy and growing up. Personally, I think Hitler should have stuck with the philosophical approach and left politics to the politicians (regardless of the fact this didn't mesh with his philosophy). Hitler's main point in doing the things he believed in was to change society for the better. It's very clear that he truly thought he would be saving the world and putting Germany in the forefront of being that savior. Hitler's conclusion was that it would most easily be changed through moving into the political realm. He specifically outlined his plan for getting access to the political realm and the backing of the people through propaganda. He even spells out that the propaganda doesn't always have to be true; it just needs to draw a person's attention. Realistically, when we look back on what he was planning on doing and how he did it, none of the world should have been shocked that this is what would happen. He pretty clearly outlines where his prejudices are and why he has them.
   
   Hitler starts his story as a young boy growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world around him. His father wouldn't let him do what he really wanted to do, which was art. He doesn't seem like the over confident Hitler that history portrays today. In fact I would say the movie "Max" starring Noah Taylor as Hitler did a pretty good portrayal of that possibility, only that movie was not about Hitler in his High School years, so it was a little unrealistic. When World War I started Hitler joined the military and I think this is where his confidence in himself really started to take root. This is also where he became convinced that propaganda was the key to winning the war because upon viewing the enemy's propaganda it was better than what Germany was putting out. It would appear his assumption was correct; since via propaganda he got many crowds gathered to listen to him speak.
   
   Probably the most well known facet of his beliefs is the anti-Semitism that brought on the Holocaust. He eventually ended up in Vienna and I think this is where his prejudice became firm. You can see where his theory turns into some sort of paranoid dementia, because before you knew it he was calling everyone on the street a Jew in disgust. This was mostly based on looking at the person and guessing. He believed they had penetrated the newspaper industry and were completely lying to everyone in the world. As Volume I continues you find that eventually this belief grows into him thinking that they also controlled the governments. I think a lot of this stemmed from one other text, which he mentions in this book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This is a hoax that has existed for a while and first started getting published in 1897. I believe the global conspiracy outlined in that book only solidified what Hitler suspected with his newspaper theory. I was surprised that Hitler had originally wanted to start out as an artist and actually held a few gallery viewings of his work. I wonder at this point if there is any Hitler original art around. If I remember correctly I heard actually wasn't a very good artist. It's interesting to note that as Hitler continues with his tirades I this book, you can tell he has a special soft spot for art because he wants more of that industries presence in Germany.
   
   Overall I was surprised at how little anti-Semitism there was in the book in comparison to the length of the text. I was actually expecting a lot more. Don't mistake me, he took jabs wherever he possibly could and there was an entire chapter dedicated to the subject. However, I felt like in the first volume he spent more time criticizing the Slavs and the Austrians as being a much more immediate problem. It's almost as if the first and foremost problem was his own government and Austria; the issue of the Jewish population was a more of a global problem and probably seemed to be less immediate. You get a wholly different feel by the time we reach Volume II though.
   
   I was also very surprised at the countries he referenced as being respectable, specifically England and America. He must have been greatly disappointed in England when they refused to side with him during World War II and he must have felt doubly wrong about his initial assessment of America when we funded a lot of his enemies. Being an American I found some of his comments curious since it seems he felt we had a dominant German aspect of our country. I found this odd since it was essentially founded by England and France mostly. I couldn't help but think that Hitler was misinterpreting his history or the books he was reading were just plain wrong.
   
   For the most part Hitler is a pretty good writer. I found that he appears very intelligent and very well read, also very arrogant. He has sections that discuss the part of his life where he was looking into the political arena and when he came across the German Workers' Party. He doesn't hesitate to point out how superior his ideas were or how much better things worked when done his way. From the point of view of a leader, this seems counter to what you would want. Since his ability to elevate his own status seems to be his main underlying motive rather than helping his people, despite what he actually says. There is one instance when he was recounting the first speeches given for the party and how the first speaker was rather boring, but when he spoke the crowd became excited and into the words, they stood up and cheered even. History recounts Hitler as a very excellent speaker and I have no doubt this is true, but it's curious to see that he puts himself over his own party members constantly in this book. There were also sections where he got very passionate about a topic that became very confusing, as I explained above. I don't think this speaks to his inability to write, but rather his inability to write clearly when he is really trying to get his point across on a topic he believes as a core problem.
   
   Either way you looked at it, I couldn't help but think by the end of Volume I that Hitler would have been one of the world's most celebrated leaders if he had just put his prejudice aside. This was the case... at least until I read Volume II. Through Volume I he seems to genuinely want to help his people and the world around him. The one major crux in his argument is that he believed in some overly prejudice driven conspiracy. I think Hitler really had to start struggling in the end when it was becoming even clearer that the Jews weren't as well off in Germany as he believed they were, especially during the great depression. I was surprised at his focus on helping the middle class and a seemingly focal point on intelligence and action. It appeared his main push to change the nation was centered on elevating the knowledge of the German peoples as well as moving them to the desire for action to help their nation. I think this is a great point and he's most certainly not wrong about it being needed. However, my interpretation of this concept would be dashed by Volume II...
   
   Volume II made it incredibly clear to me that Hitler had no place in becoming a leader and especially no place on deciding education reform. Shortly into Volume II he has a lengthy chapter on what he plans to do with education to bolster a more national spirit for young Germans and to create what he refers to as a "folkish state". The concept of the "folkish state" is discussed in great length throughout Volume II and seems to be the main focus. One of the first things he was going to do was decrease the amount of time in classrooms and increase the amount of time for exercise. Following this he would decrease the amount of subjects being taught in school. This completely conflicts with his desire for an intelligent Germany, and he also discusses at length how the intelligentsia of the area are all weaklings and spineless. He notes that many students learn quite a bit of frivolous subjects in High School, which is true, but I personally believe that being a well rounded student is far better. I do agree that people need more exercise, this is painfully clear to me living in America, but to sacrifice the access to knowledge is not a viable solution! He complains at length that too many people complain about certain political actions, but being spineless professors they never actually do anything about it. Hitler sought to change this and part of this included that right after High School the population (men) would go directly into the military. Hitler being a Veteran clearly thought his experience taught him strength, so he thought that what was good for him would be good for everyone else. If only such things were true, this is clearly something that cannot be put into practice. A lot of these crazy ideas may have seemed plausible on paper, but realistically they are a fool's errand... an errand Hitler was intent on running! After a citizens completion of Army service they were then allowed into the community to pursue whatever higher level career they saw fit to pursue. His purpose in High School was to expose the students to enough generalities for them to make a choice, which is a good idea, but his plan of execution was fairly far fetched and unrealistic. Personally, in 2008, I don't think High Schools are teaching students enough to prepare them for college or to perform in the working world. So it would seem less education on academics is not the answer, but the world really does need to find some kind of a balance on this subject, even Hitler recognized that and he lived in a vastly different era from our own.
   
   Volume II also takes a drastic turn in terms of anti-Semitism and his foreign relations outlook. England seems to have been demoted into a nation that they could possibly not ally with due to the financial control of the Jewish empire. The United States was also seen as a victim of this disease, but his knowledge of American finance seems to have been quite limited. Granted there were some major firms in the U.S. that were founded by German Jews, namely Goldman Sachs, but what about firms like J.P. Morgan? In terms of the major American firms there was a balance and in the 1930's Goldman Sachs nearly went out of business in the Great Depression, so clearly this racial favoring of economic power was quite unfounded. I think Hitler spoke on these foreign nations rather out of turn because it was pretty clear he didn't know all that much about the nations and had gotten all of his knowledge from books, which may have been biased. For he terms Ford as one of the only free American business men, but in the second printing he no longer names Ford specifically, I felt this was curious. This was a drastic change from my perspective after reading Volume I, where he praised America. So even within his own book he is very contradictory. Also the focal point of being against the Slavs and Austrians has been replaced by Germany's mortal enemy... France. This sort of came out of nowhere, since in Volume I they were not "mortal enemies" just the regular kind. Hitler must have read a lot more on the subject and decided the French were far worse than they once appeared. I find all this curious because he prefaces Volume II, with saying that it's going to be about the party history and formation. The above topics have nothing to do with the party history or its formation, rather Hitler's own pet peeves about the problems that he saw after World War I.
   
   Most of this Volume is spent complaining about current (1920's) Bourgeoisie decision making and discussing what Hitler plans to do to fix that. I personally wasn't buying it, but then again, his book is so long that I doubt many of the general workers ever actually read what he wrote. He did spell out in Volume I that he was essentially going to dupe the masses into following him by creating the best propaganda to get people to go to the meetings. At that point he probably understood the concept of mob madness and let that do the rest for him. He recounts his early involvement with the party as becoming the head of propaganda, which is what he wanted because he believed propaganda, first and foremost, was the fulcrum to a party's success. Hitler even points out that it doesn't matter if the party is well organized at that time if the propaganda doesn't bring the masses in, they will have nothing to organize in the first place. He also discusses at length the rarity of a man who can organize and lead well; I couldn't help but feel that he thought himself to be such a man. He was a brilliant strategist and acutely aware of the power of the threat of violence on the general populace, especially after a major war that was still fresh in peoples memories. One of his main points was that he believed that it didn't matter what the people knew as long as an intelligent leader was looking out for them, and it's clear he believed that he was the person that could truly help the most and should be leader. This is regardless of the violence he would have to inflict; besides he only wanted strong people to be German anyway, so a show of strength went a long way with him.
   
   It's interesting to also note that he clearly wanted to rewrite some of the annals of history to favor the German people. In his long winded explanation of the Folkish State he points out that he believes the Aryan's are the only ones who could ever develop culture. No, he wasn't referring to the peoples belonging to the nation of India, but rather the Germanic peoples. See, the term Aryan comes from India, and I have no idea if Hitler knew this or not, but that's its origin. Indians clearly wouldn't have been high on his list, and certainly didn't qualify as those being able to create culture despite their history of creating that vast nation. Rather, it appears the legend and concept of the Aryan survived and came down to Hitler as the superior race. For some reason he equated that with the Germanic peoples. His whole concept of the white population being the only force intelligent enough to create culture is clearly unfounded. He gets even more contradictory in this concept since he was well aware that Germany was vastly tribal up until the Roman invasions. He states the reason was that "we were a young people". This is just foolishness because it was trade in technology that eventually brought what we call "civilization" today to the Germanic tribes. It has nothing to do with them being the only creative force in the world. He completely ignores the fact that Egypt existed long before as a civilization. I question whether he knew of the Arab city-states of Sumer, but it doesn't explain Egypt. I think Hitler merely viewed them as "uncivilized" or "not a cultured" or whatever other twisted elaboration he wanted to thrust upon them. Either way, he does not explain his reasoning in detail, and just states matter of factly that only Aryans harbor the creative force to develop culture and no one else.
   
   Overall I walked away with reading a superb book, in my opinion. At times it was very hard to read and I will be the first to admit that not everyone will struggle through this thing. There are too many sections of rambling that don't drive home the main points. It all sounds very smart at first glance, but when you sit down and analyze what he's saying inherent contradictions come to the surface. Then it occurs to the reader that most of his language use is merely superfluous for the sake of sounding intelligent (much like this sentence). No one wants an incredibly inconsistent leader (however, I feel like that's all we get at times!). Despite the racial hatred, I am glad I read this book, it gives me a great historical perspective and I now understand where Hitler was coming from. On a philosophical note, it really makes me think of the concept of evil and how that plays into perspectives. From Hitler's perspective he thought he was saving his people. He thought he was actually saving the world from the greatest threat and he really thought the other nations would see the truth that he saw and back him up. Alas, for Hitler he was chasing after rumors and ghosts that didn't actually exist.
   
   In reading this I also couldn't help but wonder about what the world is like today. Lots of "what if" questions come to mind. Despite the incredible tragedy that Hitler wrought on so many lives, it was really the need to ramp up production of war elements that brought the world out of the great depression. So Hitler really did end up helping the world in this sense by provoking everyone to action. He also motivated the world to increase production and research into massive amounts of technology. Atomic energy might not have come to us as soon as it has without this provocation. I can't deny this factor. Also, I have to look at the historical perspective that the country I now reside in is the major world power because of Hitler's actions against Europe! Many people will probably consider these horrible thoughts, but I can't deny the reality of the situation and it leaves me to wonder that if Hitler had become the artist he always wanted to be, would we be in the same situation? Would Israel exist today if he never came to power? After World War II the Cold War went quickly into effect and I wonder if I would even have the internet to relay my ideas if World War II had never taken place, since that also forced us to ramp up production and research in technology. As a philosophical perspective these are all very profound concepts and questions. Despite all the horror that was wrought in the war, if you step back with the utilitarian perspective of Mills and look at all that has come out of the war that has elevated our lives and the economy as a whole.
   
   On the reverse side, what if Hitler had actually succeeded in what he wanted to do? Israel surely wouldn't exist today. Would Christianity be the same? Since he seemed to respect Christianity and he was surely no atheist, so would his disdain for the Jewish people provoke him to edit the Bible down to just the New Testament? I've already said before that he clearly sought to rewrite history and I don't think anything would be out of his grasp. I do know one thing for sure though, I wouldn't have been able to read all the books I have under a reign like that, and I most surely would not have been able to criticize this book as I have in such a society. Thankfully his party was not in power for a long time, but apparently long enough to change the world.



3. Mein Kampf is an interesting and powerful book to be sure. The book is not solely about the Jews, but I am writing my review in reference to Hitler's assertions therein, mostly because I am extremely disturbed by the content of many of the previous reviews. Hitler was a powerful figure, and obviously powerful still.
   
   I was patently shocked how many reviewers were taken in by Hitler's ongoing method of argument. Throughout the book, he makes his points by randomly refering to various notions, texts and occurences to prove his own inaccurate points. Because he stipulates various references, he manages to appear educated and convincing. This is particluarly true the case in Hitler's discussion of the Jews where he randomly refers to Jewish ideals and texts for his own end. What I found most interesting was precisly how little Hitler understood Judaism (although one uneducated reviewer asserts the oppposite), a faith, a philosophy, and ethnicity but not a race. What I found most alarming about many of the reviews was that people, even after all that has happened, bought into his various lines of reasoning on so many subjects, even those outside Judaism. His assertions, particularly about the Talmud, are are vague and highly misconstrued. Judaism is a philosphical religion, an as such is open to ongoing debate at all times even in the 21st century. I was floored by one reviewer who uses Hitler's own tactics to his make outlandish statments about the work of Talmud and Maimonedes, a topic on which he has no keen undertanding.
   
   For sure, Hitler is right about the Talmud in one respect: it is about life today, this moment and how to live it respectfully and well (although Hitler interprets this as a defect). While Christianity focuses on resurrection, Judaism focuses on the now, for tomorrow is uncertain and may not exist; for Jews, the afterlife, at best, is a shadowy thing.
   
   The fact of the matter remains that Judaism is the only religion in which God accepts ALL people so long as they are good; Judaism does not define goodness by Jewishness, but by goodness itself; belief in Judaism is not required. You do not have to be one of "The Chosen," a term which Hitler throws around in incite his readers, to be worthy. (To be "Chosen" in Judaism actually means that you are one who has accepted the burden 613, often contradictory, laws. Those who are not "Chosen" must only accept 7, very easy and innately human laws of behavior.)
   
   Mein Kampf is an important book and is hard to rate because it's can't be subject to "good" or "bad;" it stands outside such clear distinctions. It simply IS. While reading Mein Kampf I can only suggest that you read critically and take his assertions on all subjects with a grain of salt. It is arduous, self-serving and covertly incomplete. If you are at all interested in Hitler mind, this book is an obvious go to. It has people repeating and thus validating his injustices even now.



4. Hitler was a grand socialist. He proposed state control (regulation) of industry, economic interventionism, universal healthcare, and:
   
   "We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. "
   
   Oh, wait, that is just good old fashioned welfare statism a la Paul Krugman and H. Clinton.
   
   The fact that we universally recognize Hitler's racism as evil, while adopting the same collectivist welfare statism, speaks to our ignorance.
   
   Until individualism replaced collectivism, we will continue to see injustices against the individual from both the Liberals and Conservatives.



5. It seams odd, VERRY odd to have purchased this book. I am neither a Nazi, Neo Nazi nor simpathiser of ANY sort or degree!!!! You have NO idea
   how much bull I have recieved for just haviiing it, especially from my jewish aquaintances, but I think it is IMPORTANT to learn from the past. "You Know Who" was a MONSTER, a mad MONSTER, undeniabely!!!!!!! He was, however unfortunately, also a genius!!!!!
   I felt compelled to read this book in an attempt to find some degree of understanding and insight into how ANYONE could be SOOOO TWISTED, even EVIL!!!! For one man to do such things to another, let alone hundreds of thousands. His existance was a tragedy on ALL of humanity, a scar which can never be erased!!!! If humanity doesn't learn from it's mistakes it will be condemned to repeat them!!!!!!! There is knowledge in ALL things, no matter how horable and/or tragic!!!!!! LEARN!!!!!!!

5 comments about The Frontiersmen: A Narrative.

1. Eckert has written a truly engrossing book on an amazing figure in American history. Simon Kenton, like Daniel Boone had the lust to wonder the woods for days and both had a immense memory for the scope of the land he wondered. The narrative writing is excellent. It puts you back in the 18th century when America was truly wild. It was a harsh land when one false step led to an early death, often times gruesome. The Shawnees were none to compliant to give up their lands and sold it at a high cost of human life. Tecumseh also emerges here, also one of the greatest figures in history. A Sorrow in Our Heart, which is about Tecumseh is also a must read. In the Frontiersman, the Ohio River flowed blood red with hatred for intruders. There are captivating stories here of the many clashes that took place between whites and indians. It was a time period of two cultures clashing, one wanting to hold on to a way of life etched into the land through balance and harmony, aganst a culture that produced men who were determined to see new vistas and experience the thrill of blazing a trail that many would soon follow. But it was this migration which ruined the very thing they loved most, the feeling of true wilderness. This book captures it all. A must read for those who find history a fascinating subject.



2. I was assigned to read this book for my 10th grade American History summer reading. I loved to read as a teen. I loved history -- I went on to get my degree in it. This book threatened to change all of that.
   A ponderous piece of agonizing minutiae, this book brought me to the breaking point. I read it -- the whole thing. As a fifteen year old. I think it actually made me cry, I hated it so much. It's well researched, but seemed almost masturbatory in its envisioning of the motivations of frontiersmen. And excruciatingly long. Some people obviously enjoy this book. To each their own. But for the rest of you, it is okay to hate it. Really. You know you want to.



3. I first became acquainted with Mr. Eckert's books a few years ago while shopping for a gift for my son-in-law who loves local history and someone recommended one of his books. I took it home and while wrapping it, read a page. I was hooked, I went out and bought one for myself. We live in an area rich in history and his books cover our area extensively. I only wish all the history classes I took in high school and college had been this interesting. Our whole family now enjoys Mr. Eckert's books.



4. After picking up our pots in Seal Bay we ran over to Port Williams for a few days before continuing on around the northern tip of Afognak Is.We lay overnight at Bluefox Bay where my sister was then living.She lent me her copy of this book,of which,at the time,I thought to be rather a large chunk of reading.However,upon returning to town for more supplies,we were stuck there because our skipper ran over himself with a snowmachine.Now I had much time to read,and read I did! Non-stop.This is history as it should be presented.Real people.Red,white and foreign.Simon Kenton,the man who is the common thread throughout the book,is one man I had never heard of,in history or elsewhere.
   The words "WOW!";"AWESOME!":"UNBELIEVABLE!" have lost their power in our current age from over-use,but their original applications do fit this book.
   The above trip took place in early 1978 and from that time I have kept my eye out for this book.All inquiries were met with either "Out of Print" or exorbiant pricings of a collectors' item.While I was not looking for it this recent order,by long habit, the title matches for the search criteria were imprinted in my mind and the book is now part of my collection....CliffThe Frontiersmen: A Narrative



5. This is a book I've read, and re-read many times. That's how good it is.
   I bought two this time and gave them as gifts.