5 comments about Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy.

1. I've read over 20 books on Genghis Khan's life and legacy. Without any doubt Ratchevsky's book is a stand out. Book itself is 213 pages, 85 pages is devoted to notes. Considering that Ratchevsky translation of Secret History became an Outstanding Academic Title in 2005 rest assure you're reading a right book on the subject. If you get to read just one book or 20 + you can't miss this book. Besides his major work on Secret History Rachevsky made Un Code des Yuan a three volume work. In my eyes no other western writer has better grip on the subject and vivid understanding of the culture. Highly addictive!



2. Westerners are often shocked to hear that in Mongolia today, Genghis is revered as a national hero and the father of the country. Indeed, even in China - a victim of the Mongols - Genghis is regarded as a great man. Not China's great man, of course, but a great man nevertheless. I know, speaking as an ethnic Chinese myself. By contrast, Europeans know Genghis as something like a cross between a medieval Hitler and Anti-Christ.

   This book is indeed a little confusing, given all those proper names. Despite its conciseness, it is not written for the casual reader. I confess I have trouble understanding it. I advise those of us who are not experts in Asian history to read the relevant chapters in Frederick Mote's "Imperial China," which I think is very instructive on the Mongol period, and has a good deal to say about Timujin (Genghis) himself, from his ancestry and birth on.




3. Those who want an exciting and romantically embelished account of Temujin's (Genghis Khan) life should stick with Harold Lamb. His account is certainly more fun, but also laced with poetic license that at times becomes outright misleading. Lamb is an introduction to the story of the emperor of all men.

   But Ratchnevsky is the top of the line reference to Temujin and his amzing life. He weighs the evidence and directs the reader to the lesser known aspects of Temujin's life.

   Nowhere else will you find mentioned that Temujin probably had disappeared for ten years to China before his comeback in the late 1190ies.

   Few point out that Temujin was not the most daring of men, more of a planner than a fighter and not above saving himself first.

   Rachnevskies book paints a less glorious, but much more realistic and human picture of the man who changed the world forever. Temujin's actions have been accounted for in many sources, but few allow us to understand his motives.

   Instead of inventing awe inspiring moments, as Lamb does, and putting words into the mouth of the man, Rachnevsky presents the different sources and versions diligently; and strangely, this allows a better understanding who this great Mongol was than all the literary fancy of Lamb or the sycophantic impropabilities of Malik Juvayni.

   Lamb and Malik Juvayni have their own merits, and are a must have for all who want to explore this amazing part of history, but without Rachnevskies scholarly integrity, true understanding would elude most.

   Not for the casual reader, but Temujin deserves on less than full attention.




4. There isn't a plethora of books devoted to Genghis Khan out there and this may stem from a lack of historical information. No doubt, a large part of accepted knowledge is lore or estimation. Having an avid interest in asian history as a whole, I eagerly started this book. I was soon keenly looking forward to the kernels of interesting narrative that dot the book throughout. However, the uninspiring space between those kernels is daunting and requires determination. It may also require a tally board as one attempts to keep up with the family, allies, liaisons, enemies, followers, and friends of this Mongol warlord. Read it for the knowledge gained, but don't waste a rainy day, La-Z-Boy, fireside opportunity on the effort.



5. I find this book extremely confusing. Many names were utilize throughout the book which makes it hard to follow. As an individual who is not familiar with the Mongolian history, the author fails to elaborate or explain the details of why a character does something. In this sense, I find the book disappointing. It is also disappointing that it does not go in depth of Gengis Kahn's warefare strategy. TWO THUMBS DOWN!

5 comments about The Story of My Life (Penguin Classics).

1. Reading this book was a real chore. And a real snore.
   
   Given the sensational subject matter and the supposed wit and charm of the author, I had the feeling I was reading a really really bad translation.
   
   Im glad that other readers have confirmed this. ***DO NOT*** buy this edition unless you want dull lifeless tedious boooooooring version of this book.
   
   560+ pages? dang. i will have to wait 10 years before I give it another shot. what a waste. curse you penguin!



2. I gave this book four stars only because Casanova is such a well-known figure whose name has actually entered the English language. The book is a supposed autobiography and Casanova's sexual escapades and has much more in common with Baron von Munchhausen's fanciful tales than they do with reality. Casanova, who regarded himself as an artistic man of letters, tells literally unbelievable stories on himself. I especially like the tale in which a town's physician tells him to return "anytime" because he's infected half the women in the city with venereal diseases!
   
   The whole thing is one long dirty joke and, if you believe this thing, the joke is on you and Casanova gets the last laugh.
   
   Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico



3. There are dozens of different versions of this book, and they are all DRAMATICALLY different. Do not buy this "Penguin Classics" edition!!!!!!!!!
   
   It is horrible! All the good parts have been "abridged" out of it.
   
   
   This is one of the silliest ideas I ever heard-but Penguin apparently tried to "clean up" Casanova. They have removed most of his stories about seduction from his auto-biography! Since Casanova was the world's greatest lover, I don't know why they think anyone would want the book except to read about seductions but those are exactly the parts they took out!
   
   Only Penguin could make Casanova boring.
   
   Buy a different edition of the book!



4. I love reading about Casanova's exploits, so I bought this copy for my collection. The pages are durable and strong, the spine doesn't bend or break like some books tend to do, so you end up with that funny "bump", you know what I mean? The text is legible and large enough, the font is a good choice. The front photo is cute to look at, and it doesn't fade. Over all, an excellent copy of this often reprinted story.



5. Giacomo Casanova (his name has become synonymous with that of a fiery amatory male!) was born in 1725. Somehow he managed to live until 1798 in a life which would make many people tired by just reading about his countless adventures!
   Among his many avocations was that of priest; soldier; courtier; gambler; violinist; spy;translator and famed author. Casanova managed to cram several lifetimes into his 73 wild years. If you want to follow this ultimate rake across the world be prepared to visit Italy, Germany,England,France, Spain, Switzerland, the Ottoman Empire of Turkey and Russia. Along the roue's route he met such luminaries as Voltaire, Frederick the Great and Catherine the Great.
   Casanova a serial lover of the fair and innocent maidens he seduce dwith wit, charm and seductive skills. He was imprisoned at times always managing a daring escape or the ability to have friends in high place save his love machine hide. He was no dunce being able to write and converse in many languages. His autobiography was written in French being widely published in his lifetime and ever since.
   The Penguin edition is an abridgement of his monumental work which in its entirety would swell to over 3,000 pages. The translators add material which connects the episodes. The book is filled with colorful characters; excellent descriptions of what Europe was like among the elite and filled with enough sex scenes to keep the reader searching for more.
   Casanova was not someone you would want your daughter to bring home to meet her family. He would make an excellent guest on the TV chat shows!
   Enjoy a few hours of pure escapism with this famous work!

5 comments about "Bayonet! Forward": My Civil War Reminiscences.

1. This book, written by Civil War hero Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, is an interesting first person look at his experiences in the war. While some of his passages are self-serving and do not necessarily reflect what actually happened (e.g., his and the 20th Maine's actions at Little Round Top during the battle at Gettysburg), this is a good rendering of one person's account of his experiences.
   
   The book provides a tour of Chamberlain's part in the War, beginning with his engagement at Fredericksburg, through the violence at Gettysburg, to the battle at Petersburg (where he was badly wounded), to White Oak Road and Five Forks (and his dramatic encounters with the fiery Phil Sheridan), to Appomattox. The book concludes with the story of the Army of the Potomac's grand review in Washington D. C. after hostilities had ended.
   
   It is written in the style of the times, which seems somewhat overblown and overstylized today. Nonetheless, it provides one soldier's perspective on the War.
   
   In addition, there are a series of Appendices that flesh out Chamberlain's story (such as his comments at the dedication of the 20th Maine's monument at Gettysburg in 1889, Chamberlain's report on his and the 20th Maine's role at Gettysburg, his rendering of the last salute of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox. The volume ends with a memoriam to Chamberlain upon his death.
   
   All in all, a useful book to gain a sense of the perspective of an important soldier in the Union Army, although flawed to some extent by some self-serving discussion.



2. I became acquainted with the story of Joshua Chamberlain after reading Shaaras' "Killer Angels" and wanted to learn more about him. This book has been an overwhelming dissapointment. For a man who was present at a number of important and exciting events in US history and an authentic American hero, his narrative is plodding and dull. His battle decriptions and his attention to minor troop movements are confusing and essentially unreadable. The maps he provides are completely inadequate in providing a better understanding what took place. The maps can be excused by the fact that they are provided with 19th century technology, his muddled writing style cant be. If you're looking for an enjoyable reading experience that will help you learn more about Chamberlain, I suggest you look elsewhere.



3. An excellent read. Chamberlain brings himself to you for examination. He hides nothing while bringing you through some very vivid accounts of the Civil War. If this book is not in your library, you should consider getting your hands on it. Enjoy!



4. These United States of America have more pretenders to the title than genuine heroes. Revisionist historians often inform us that our idols have feet of clay. George Washington, the "father of our country," was too proud to shake the hand of ordinary American citizens. Thomas Jefferson, "author of the Declaration of Independence," held others in servitude. Abraham Lincoln was subject to deep bouts of depression. George Patton was a bully incapable of showing compassion for psychologically wounded soldiers. It is even whispered that "Ike," the very symbol of 1950s family stability, may have had an affair during WWII, while Mamie patiently waited at home for the return of her soldier. The list goes on.

   That on-going litany of real world disappointments is what makes Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain so important to the American story. In Chamberlain, we find one of the few genuine heroes, so far revealed in our short, national history.

   In this volume, we read Chamberlain's (mostly) post-war speechs and reports on some of the most critical actions of the Civil War. Despite his meteoric rise from Lieutenant Colonel to Major General in four, awful years, Chamberlain does not turn the spot light upon himself. Despite being awarded the Medal of Honor, Chamberlain does not see himself as special. Instead, in speech after speech, Chamberlain gives credit (by name) to his soldiers and to his God. Like Alvin York, another American hero who would follow him 50 years later, Chamberlain was truly humble, and in his humility could be found the seeds of his heroism.

   This book, like Chamberlain's other writings is a magnificent primer for those who would seek to give selfless service to their nation, their God, or both.




5. If you want to learn more about Joshua L. Chamberlain, what better way to do it than to read his first hand accounts and speeches. This book is a compilation of several articles he wrote for a magazine and a number of speeches he gave after the war. Bear in mind that the magazine articles were heavily edited by the editor of the magazine, much to the chagrin of Chamberlain, who was quite angry! One of his speeches at the dedication of the Gettysburg monuments very succinctly outlines his reasons for volunteering for the Union Army and the ideology that kept him going back to the field, even after a horrible wound that should have killed him. Chamberlain wrote very eloquently about his experiences and his speeches are extremely moving. A must read for any Chamberlain fan!

3 comments about Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt (Chronicles).

1. I've been waiting for a book like this to come out. If you have Chronicle of the Pharaohs you have to have this companion book. I truly enjoyed being able to see the woman or women behind the man. Also how the book gave insight of what life was like for the women inside the palace walls and out. I used it when I taught the 5th graders about Egypt at my daughters'school.



2. I am enjoying reading my recent purchase from the above book, I have always enjoy reading books from Thames and Hudson, excellent history and reference materials. Keep up the good work, I will look forward for more books from them.



3. Joyce Tyldesley's research is evident in her writing. She did a good job on many Queens who are veiled in mystery as her biographies of the well known names. This book serves as a great mate to the Chronicles of the Pharaohs. Enjoyable reading.

5 comments about The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

1. This is a Wicked and delicious (mostly true in my opinion) biography of the Bush "Dynasty". Kitty gets it right on the mark on many things. The Audio edition which I had the pleasure of reviewing was most especially captivating.



2. I read this book through 2 times. It is astounding how many people have lied and cheated to protect our present top man in government and the former family members. I remember seeing Kitty on CNN one time to promote her book and then the Bush people must have gotten through to all other venues of promotion. She was not on any more that I saw. The "people" saw to that!! In fact, she was fired from her job as a result of the book. But no one sued her for libel, because she is so thorough in researching her facts. Prior to this book, I never realized how much bad things happen in politics and coverups. This gal tells it as it is.



3. This should be required reading for Americans of voting age. Well researched and clearly written, the book relies on reliable sources that, for the most part, maintain Kelley's objectivity. Although a reasonably well informed individuaI, I now realize that I have been quite naive regarding political ruthlessness.



4. My expectations were low. I never read a Kitty Kelley book before, so it's clear that her critics had done their work on me. While some sour grapes relatives had their say, the book had far more meat than I expected. There was plenty of written record, and the all so telling sealed and missing records.
   
   Kelley's presentation about the Bush intra-Family, Bush-Yale, Bush-Reagan Bush-Republican Party, relationships etc. provided the glue for putting the missing pieces of the family story together. Now I know why Bush 41 had the succession of unrelated gov. positions before he ran with Reagan. Every family has black sheep and secrets, but within this family, the stories of these relatives and their excommunication from the family are extreme. There is a lot of food for thought on how family dynamics over 3 generations have spurred political ambition.
   
   New to me, was that upon election Bush 41 was worth only $2 million. I thought they were far richer than this. They may be now, Bush 43 made $15 million alone capitalizing on the family name/contacts to get taxpayers to fund his baseball team. Kelley says almost nothing on the family relations with the Saudis.
   
   Kelley tackled 3 generations and did a competent job. There is plenty of unexplored turf for the next biographers.



5. 
   Beneath tons of minutia and irrelevant details that often border on mere salacious family gossip, a clear picture of the Bush family, its code of honor, code of ethics and family dynamics, does eventually emerge. The Bush formula for success consisted mostly of parlaying meager individual talents, an ability to maneuver on the outer edges of morality, a penchant for winning at all costs, and punching the right social tickets, into a coveted entry into the most envied of inner social and economic circles.
   
   According to the author, sucking up to those higher up the social ladder, and giving expression to this sycophancy by exhibiting whenever necessary, a willingness to make deep moral turns in the road, (a theme also repeated in Russell S. Bowen's "Immaculate Deception") became the family's number one business practice and eventually its clearest ethical signature. Sycophancy and questionable business practices not only proved to be the most reliable hook for ascending the proverbial social ladder (well beyond a rung that their talents and family code of ethics alone would have otherwise entitled them to), but also served as a way of consolidating their power and position once they arrived. Kelly argues that this weak moral template continues to work for the Bush family even into the present generation.
   
   Once gaining a foothold somewhere nearer the top of the food chain and having done so literally by hook or crook, the Bushes then perfected the art of holding on to their illicitly gained status: Display all of the outward signs of moral rectitude, while just behind the scenes, engage in the most ruthless of bare-knuckled business and ethical practices. In short, at every turn, demonstrate that you are willing to use up all of the family's moral capital in order to sustain the family's social status.
   
   Tempered by the uncertainty of the depression, and the precariousness inherent in living above ones own intellectual and moral station, the Bushes understandably were always terrified of being discovered as the social and economic frauds they saw themselves as. This palpable inner fear helped shape their worldview, animated family dynamics and contributed to most of the family's deviant behavior, which from time-to-time included alcoholism and latter on some sporadic drug use.
   
   The author implies that the Bushes might still be suffering from a kind of "survivor's guilt" of knowing full well that talent-wise they have never quite measured up to others in their lofty inner circles. Thus most of their lives have been dedicated to self-justification -- proving to themselves that they are deserving of the many unearned and often unethical entitlements they have received.
   
   However, it must be said in passing that compared to the stories of others of this ilk, who like the Bushes, have also clawed and scratched their way to the top of the food chain (the Kennedy's would be another good case in point), there is nothing strikingly out of the ordinary about the Bush family.
   
   Plus, I can think of nothing negative to say about a family that can turn an utter un-redeeming family black sheep into the President of the USA. They must have been doing something right. Amen.
   
   A good read; another classic American story told well: five stars.

5 comments about Gone Native: An NCO's Story.

1. The author did many courageous things while in Vietnam. But he was also undisciplined and had trouble with authority. He used drugs extensively while on duty and off. The book chronicles his run ins with the law in the US and with the military authorities in Vietnam. Also a great deal of time is spent recounting his sexual exploits.
   
   Not a book I'd recommend to anyone. The writer is a troubled man and if you doubt this, you need look no further than this short excerpt from the book in which he details his fragging of his XO... an act for which he expressed no remorse. Inexcusable.
   
   "The supply sergeant ran over to me to tell me that the XO had been wounded and needed my help. I knew I was in trouble right then because I hadn't gotten the job done. ... When I had pitched the grenade in, it had rolled underneath the desk and came to rest directly under his oak chair. When the grenade blew, it sent slivers of wood up his *ss and shredded his lower legs. With deep satisfaction, I saw that the grenade had really done some damage to him, though regrettably not enough to snuff him."



2. A well-written document by one of the troops on the ground. Crazy moments of a GI under stress, a good feel for the local hill people, and remembrances of buddies in the field. Some of the actions and soldiers described by Cornett have been written about by others and it is always good to see another version of events, not for differences but for shades and nuances to flavor the stories.
   
   A personal growth story: A boy does good, does bad, then good again and manages to live through the process in a war that featured so many wrong decisions from higher and so many incompetent lower and mid-level officers more concerned with careers than with their men.



3. This was a good book to read. It gave a new perspective from "pre-military to post. I considered giving it 4 stars, but for an overall score, I thought 3 stars was more justified.
   
   I can recommend Gone Native to anyone who is thinking about purchasing this book, but it is not a page burner and it seemed to ramble a little towards the end. But in no way would I want a perspective purchaser of this book to think it's not a good one. It is. He is frank and honest and what landed him in the stockade was quite refreshing. (You always hear about the other guy. Well, Cornett was the other guy. Thank you for your honesty.)



4. Once I started reading the book, I could not put it down. I kept coming across places and people I knew and it brought back a lot of memories. I eventually supported several of his units with intelligence and map overlays for "sensitive" operations, and was in-country myself for six years. I had several run-ins with jerk officers but thankfully they were rare. But I did pull my .45 on three Pentagon O-6s at a SOG briefing when they refused to assist us. Luckily, an SF 1SG Deluca grabbed me and said they were not worth killing as they ran from the room. A couple of weeks later I was jerked out of VN and sent to Germany. I recommend this book to everyone who wants to know how close many of us got to the Vietnamese and the war, and I would very much like to be in contact with the author.



5. This was one of those books I didn't want to put down until I was done.

5 comments about Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander.

1. My wife's grandfather had been through the battle of Shiloh with the 35th Tennessee Rifles, and was almost killed afterward at Corinth. He had seen the elephant, so to speak, and when his grandaughter asked if he had ever killed anyone, he simply said, "Oh, I hope not." This terrific, detailed story of Porter Alexander's service, as told to his daughters, is similar, I think...it is thoughtful, and without malice toward his adversaries. In fact, Alexander is to be given credit for 'charity towards all, and malice toward none" in his fair, open account. He genuinely liked his old classmates, and they, him. The fact that the reunited country could put him to work in its service says volumes about the character of the man.
   
   What started out as a concession to his daughters became the best description of the Army of Northern Virginia's campaign, ever, in my humble opinon. His candor and even his humor sneaks in constantly, and we find ourselves riding and walking beside him...and, I suspect, that is what this Father had in mind for his girls. Thanks, General.
   
   Thos. B. Fowler
   Pastor, Schuyler Baptist Church
   Schuyler, Virginia



2. The world owes a great debt of gratitude to Gary W. Gallagher for his efforts in producing this book. Even though I would consider myself a "Private" in the ranks of civil war buffs, I have read dozens of memoirs by Civil War era men and women. None of them moved me the way this book has. At heart, I am a "Union girl", but when I finished reading this book and had to close it, I truly felt like I had lost a friend. E. Porter Alexander was a gifted, candid, and witty writer. His reminiscences are like sitting down with your favorite uncle for an evening of story telling by the fire. This book is a treasure, and is definitely worthy of more than one read.



3. Although Alexander's memoirs weren't written as memoirs as such they provide a good insight into the war as fought by the Army of Northern Virginia. General Alexander held an important position in the Confederate Army and was in a position to see much which was otherwise missed by historians or left out of the memoirs of more senior officers who had reputations to protect after the Civil War was over. A fascinating book!



4. This is a wonderfully engaging memoir, written by E. Porter Alexander, engineer, staff officer, and, as most recall him, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia's First Corps artillery guru. What sets this book apart is its honest, candid view of events from Alexander's perspective. Not the usual glorification of the cause and its leaders as with many other actors from the Civil War. This book stayed hidden from sight for many years after it was completed; it is a blessing to those who study the Civil War that it came to see the light of day with publication. The Introduction concludes by stating that (page xxiii): "'Fighting for the Confederacy' is a book to be savored, one of those wonderful volumes that is both instructive and pleasurable to read."
   
   One line that exemplifies this, focusing on Lieutenant General Leonidas Pope, a corps commander in the Western Theater's Army of Tennessee, is enchanting. Polk was a bishop in his church and, for some unfathomable reason, had the confidence of President Jefferson Davis and General Braxton Bragg. When Alexander and the troops of General James Longstreet's First Corps joined Bragg's army at Chickamauga, he observed that (page 289): "So all our pious people with one consent & with secret conviction that the Lord would surely favor a bishop turned in & made him a lieut. Gen., which the Lord had not." A sly way of saying that Polk was a disaster as a general (and, indeed, Alexander was accurate in his assessment).
   
   A couple passages that make this volume--and Alexander's method--so refreshing. At the close of his discussion of the battle of Chancellorsville, Alexander notes that Union Commanding General Joseph Hooker lost his courage and will--as did his top commanders. Alexander observes that the Union Army was intact, outnumbered the Confederate force and could have won the battle with better leadership. Then, in a passage extraordinary for a Confederate officer, he says (page 217) "Had it been Grant in command, he would not have dreamed of giving up the fight." This suggests a perspective on the war that many partisans--whether Union or Confederate--never had. Indeed, had the Union Army listened to Generals Meade and Reynolds who were arguing strenuously to counterattack the Confederate forces, the end result might have been a significant Union victory. We'll never know, of course, but Alexander does suggest an alternative history.
   
   Then, Gettysburg. . . . Here is the poignant scene, told from Alexander's perspective, where Longstreet must order Pickett's forces (and others) to advance. But Longstreet fears a disaster, and obviously is in a state of inner turmoil (see pages 254 and following). At one point, it is almost as if he were giving Alexander the task of deciding whether or not the charge takes place. At a later time, Longstreet expresses openly his fear (page 261): "I don't want to make this attack--I believe it will fail--I do not see how it can succeed--I would not make it even now, but that Gen. Lee has ordered & expects it."
   
   So, in the end, this is a wonderful first person description of the war, one of the finest of Civil War memoirs.



5. I have read many books of self accounts of the civil war. This book tops all others in the details and extra touch of personal feelings that where experenced by this brave man and all his fellow soldiers that fought this conflict. If you enjoy accounts of the civil war this book is a must read!!!!!

5 comments about Journey into the Whirlwind (Helen and Kurt Wolff Books).

1. This book was assigned to my Historical Research and Analysis class and I ABSOLUTELY loved it! The only downside was that it was only the first part out of a 2-part series.
   
   This particular part accounts for Ginzburg's first 3-4 years in the Russian Gulag from 1937-1941. It is a a great read, though a few things should be taken into consideration.
   
   -Ginzburg spent 18 years in the Russian Gulag. One must remember that this is a memoir and that she is writing things as she remembers them (about 20 years after the fact) which means it is not all true. Also, she writes that she was taken before her husband, when in all actuality she was taken after him. Whether it be that she forgot, or that she chose to do this, is not necessarily important, what is important is that it gave her character one of more importance than it really had. (Her husband at the time was an important communist official in Kazan and she was a university professor/journalist. There really are alot of factors that question the legitimacy but I'll let you take a source analysis class for that!
   
   Also, it is a bit fluffy, if you really want to know about what happened at the Gulags. The second part of this memoir is much more detailed and not so pg-13 if you can call it that. If you want to read something horrific I would suggest Elena Glinka's 'Kolyma Streetcar'
   
   Overall it is a great book, I am in the middle of reading the second part and it is just as good as the first. If you can, get them both, you won't regret it!



2. I actually read this book and its follow up, Within the Whirlwind 10 years ago from the library. It has haunted me so much ever since I simply had to get it. It annoys me so much that there are so many commie - lefties in the west when there are grotesquely awful parables of what totalitarian societies do to their own people.



3. Reading this book you can vicariously experience what it was like to spend time in the Stalin prison camps. For me this book rounded out the picture I had from reading the Gulag Archipelago. The book is educational, easy to read, and enjoyable reading.
   
   I think Solzhenitsyn wrote about the following also. I quote from the Ginzburg book: "When a human being is isolated ... he achieves a kind of spiritual serenity" and "...especially solitary confinement, ennobled and purified human beings, bringing to the surface their finest qualities, however deeply hidden". For some time now I have thought that violent criminals should be put into solitary confinement and not permitted to communicate with others. Instead of mollycoddling these perpetrators of evil, they need to be forced to ponder at length about what they have done. I think if anything could do so, solitary confinement might ~rehabilitate~ them. I know Ginzburg and Solzhenitsyn were not violent criminals but I think it worthwhile to try to extrapolate from their experience.



4. This is a book I probably wouldn't have read at all, but it was a book club selection at our local university, Ferris State. Considering the awful and primitive conditions of Ginzburg's 20-year ordeal, the writing is very genteel, and even peppered with quotations from various Soviet poets and writers, and even some original verse from the author herself, which she composed to break the monotony and dreariness of her two years of solitary. The 18 yrs she spent subsequently in the Siberian labor camps of the Stalinist era is given less attention, but the horrors and the dangers - of starvation, rape and all manner of brutalizations - are made clear enough. I found it odd, and surprisingly refreshing, that, in spite of its subject, the language of the book remains G-rated, perhaps because of when the book was written (first published in 1967), but more probably because it is, as Ginzburg states at the close of her narrative, "the story of an ordinary Communist woman during the period of the 'personality cult'." There is nothing ordinary about Eugenia Ginzburg though; to pampered westerners like us, her story is nothing short of extraordinary. She survived several brushes with death and remained a loyal Communist, living into her 80s. - Tim Bazzett, author of Love, War & Polio



5. The mindset and belief system of the early Soviet Union, as defined by the Bolsheviks' neurotic obsession with the ideals of perpetual revolution and the existence of nigh-infinite capitalist and ideological foes that constantly threatened the continued subsistence of the Soviet entity, cannot realistically be classed as rational or conducive to internal stability; with nervous eyes turned forever to the capitalist West, it was only a matter of time before terror of internal enemies gripped the Soviet hierarchy. When, in 1934, Sergey Kirov, a top Party official in Leningrad, was assassinated under dubious and mysterious circumstances, Josef Stalin, then leader of the Soviet Union, took advantage of the killing in order to brew an intense horror in the hearts of the Russian people; no longer simply assailed by their external Capitalist foes, Stalin led the people to believe that they were also threatened by more dangerous enemies with the Communist Party itself. Using the killing of Kirov and the ideal of internal foes, Stalin was able to launch a brutal and hideous campaign to eliminate dissenters with the Party, while numerous innocent Party members found their lives obliterated as they were caught in what has become known as the "Great Purge." First thrown out of the Party on charges most often both false and ludicrous, these unfortunate souls then found themselves jailed under horrific circumstances, many being sent to perish in labor camps in remote Siberia; by the time of Stalin's death, roughly 5 million Party members had been detained in such a way. Eugenia Ginzburg, an editor for a newspaper in Kazan, was one such victim of Stalin's senseless purges; arrested in 1937 following years of police harassment, Ginzburg was sent to numerous prisons where she endured abysmal treatment before finally being detained in Siberia until 1953. In documenting her horrific ordeal, Ginzburg amply addressed not only the confusion of the purges and the inhumanity of the prisons, but also explored the sheer motivating power of fear in the actions of all classes and ranks; irrational fear, it is shown, was what ultimately fueled the escalating madness and accusations, and destroyed forever the lives of so many.
   At the time of Kirov's assassination, Eugenia Ginzburg was leading a successful life as a member of the Communist Party, even marrying a top Communist official of Kazan. As she so eloquently and persistently notes throughout the account of her struggles, Ginzburg was nothing save a loyal and dedicated Communist, adhering to and accepting the Party's line of policy. Such an upstanding member of society surely could not have been dragged into the insanity of the purges, yet she was; although she amply demonstrates her loyalty to the Party and complies fully with her early accusers, vying to convince them of her ideological orthodoxy, she is nonetheless made the recipient of increasingly outlandish charges. This is pivotal, as the reader begins to understand all along that the purges were not, as popular rhetoric espoused, an attack upon dissenting and criminal elements within the party, but a monstrous, all-consuming, bloodletting of the entire Party in which any and all could become victims; even the officials that prosecuted the accused and the guards who abused them often found themselves becoming victims themselves and sharing prisons with those they had wrongly imprisoned. Even the wife who, out of blind loyalty to the Party, denounces her husband when he is arrested as a traitor is herself later accused and jailed. Similarly disturbing is the fact that mere association, however indirect, with anyone suspected of being a traitor was enough to end one's life and lead to one's arrest; Ginzburg's brief association with Elvov, who was himself wrongly accused of treachery, was the key factor in her expulsion from the Party and subsequent sufferings. As such accusations by association continued, the purges assumed the heir and hysteria of a witch hunt, with friend turning against friend in desperate self-preservation; Ginzburg is herself forced to endure the treachery of one of her greatest friends, who under pressure and in looking after her own interests validates the charges leveled against Ginzburg. It is perhaps one of Ginzburg's most admirable qualities to never herself accuse any innocents in the way she was denounced. Gripped by such extreme levels of terror and paranoia, the Communist Party simply turned its aggressions upon itself, fueling a terrible madness that only grew in intensity and senselessness the longer it continued. Indeed, these purges served only to weaken the Communist party, greatly harm the economy and agriculture, and, more vitally, to drive away potential members who were horrified at the thought of being caught in the killings. Far from strengthening the Party by eliminating its enemies, Stalins purges only weakened it and left it with a cloying odor of death and suspicion. The pervasive influence of fear is evident throughout the account, and it is quite apparent the even the most vile interrogators or guards likely act as they do out of fear for their own lives, often to no avail. So it was that Stalin's terrorism against his own people drove those within his own government to new heights of irrationality, cruelty, and falseness.
   In detailing her early troubles before her arrest, Ginzburg, despite her continued assertions of loyalty and railings against the absurdity of the suspicion laid upon her, is accused of increasingly severe charges ranging from "lack of vigilance" to a later accusation of being the ringleader of a terrorist network; yet all the while Ginzburg remains devoted to the Party, refusing the advice of her mother and friends to flee, desperately believing that she could clear her name through the legal practice. This naivety, or refusal to recognize the reality of the situation or to see fault with the Party, led ultimately to Ginzburg's travails; most commonly, those wrongly accused believed their case merely to be a correctable mistake, while the innumerable others locked away must surely have been truly guilty. In her continued astonishment at the absurdity and irrationality of the process of the purges, Gunzburg vividly illustrates the clash of a ration mind with an inherently irrational and violent system. The level of ignorance toward the intent of the purges is perhaps best illustrated when Ginzburg learns that the vans she sees throughout city do not carry milk as he had believed, but instead contained prisoners; the unwillingness to see or believe in impending doom led many to their demise in this period. Even Ginzburg's disdain for Stalin, the worship of whom by the persons around him genuinely disturbing her, was not enough to overcome her deadly faith in the Party.
   Of particular note throughout Ginzburg's account is the juxtaposition of the illegal and immoral force, coercion, and violence of the purges with the absurd pursuit of legality by the interrogators. Although the interrogators and other accusers know the charges leveled again those such as Ginzburg are false, or that their "confessions" are similarly falsified, they nonetheless insist upon obtaining real signatures for said false documents. When the prisoners refuse, they are subjected to various forms of physical and mental abuse, ranging from extended periods of intense interrogation with food or rest to more wrenching mentions of the prisoners' families. Many interrogators work themselves into murderous rages in pursuit of signatures for their false confessions, perhaps out of fear of not obtaining them or out of sheer contradictory nature. One cannot but be amazed at the level of bureaucratization of the purges, an essentially illogical and illegal proceeding; like the Holocaust, it is disturbingly evident that the central government held no reservations for their actions, nor any desire to bury them away. It is the ability to carry on such an open and grand persecution that perhaps best illustrates Stalin's immense dominion at the time, a dominion he gained through overt terror such as that which Ginzburg encounters.
   Although Ginzburg wrote her account of her imprisonment and travails, during which she learned that relationships formed in such horrific circumstances often proved closer than any others and that when reduced to such a state all people must be accepted, her memory of complex events and names astounds the reader; names of those that Ginzburg only ephemerally interacted with decades ago are still fresh in her mind, as are conversations and poems. One may deduce that such extreme and trying events as those experienced by Ginzburg indelibly imprint themselves upon the mind forever, as evidenced the Ginzburg's ability to produce entire sections of books from her mind at command; one could simply never forget such vivid suffering or trial. That, then, is the most important aspect of Ginzburg's account. The Soviet purges, a terrible period of internal destruction and death on a massive scale, is here presented in all its horror and grittiness from the perspective of one who endured them personally; in this way, such a monstrous and massive event becomes personal, thus far more moving and instructional.

5 comments about Rosa Parks: A Life.

1. An inspirational story about the life of Rosa Parks, a mulatto woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery AL on Dec 1, 1955. Her courageous act became known as the beginning of the Civil Rights movement in the United States. Her quiet and non violent action sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycot, provided the NAACP with a model case to end Jim Crow laws in the South and gave opportunity for young minister, Martin Luther King, Jr. to display his enormous leadership potential. The story reveals little known facts about the quiet and demure seamstress. It tells of her personal struggles with racism, poverty and chauvinism. It is a heroic story of an ordinary person with incredible inner strength.



2. True Life: Rosa Parks
   By: Mariah Sanchious
   
   This book states all the facts about Mrs. Rosa Parks and how she basically struggled to be equal her whole life. Mrs. Parks didn't really understand in her young years, why they happened to be separated by color. As she grew older she began to learn why. Why did she make such a difference in the south? Come experience her growing up memories with me and how she had a huge impact on today's society.
   
   I enjoy this book because it notified me that people struggled to get what I have. Even though Mrs. Parks isn't before Irene Morgan or Claudette Colvin she made her stand up for her rights famous. She went through things like getting kicked out of restaurants to getting threating phone calls. She also cost her husband Raymond Parks his corner barbershop job. She also had KKK mobs running up and down the street throwing fires. She worked all the way on the opposite side of town and she walked six miles everyday until justice was served. As this happened to her, her close friend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's house was burned down. His church also got burned down while two little girls were in the bathroom. She later lost her job and her husband was abused by policeman. She was also aware that her friends got raped and murdered by policeman and nothing would be done about it. A lot of pregnant women would walk a great distance just to protest with the bus boycott. People really believed separate but equal but a lot of African American leader strived to make that change.
   
   I also enjoyed how the book gives specific details on her childhood years. Rosa McCauley was born on February 4, 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama. She had a mom Leona that was a rural school teacher, and she had a dad James that was a carpenter. In her toddler years her mom and dad separated and Rosa, her younger brother Sylvester, and her mom moved into a farm. They moved in with their former slaved grandparents in Pine Level, Alabama. She was home schooled until she was old enough to realize how the law was. At age eleven she went to an all girl's school with her friend Jonnie Carr. She continued that all girls school until she went to college. She went to Alabama State College for Negroes but had to dropout because her mom and grandmother were diagnosed with a terminal illness. That's when she got a job and married a local barber named Raymond Parks.
   
   I also enjoyed how they showed how much awards she received and how much honor she received when she died. after the Montgomery Bus Boycott,In 1979, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People awarded Parks the Spingarn Medal, its highest honor, and she received the Martin Luther King Sr. Award the next year. She was inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame in 1983 for her achievements as a civil rights activist. She was aslo asked to welcome Nelson Mandela from is imprisoning in South Africa. She also received rthe Rosa Parks Piece Prize in 1994 in Swedan. She also received the highest award given by the U. S Executive Branch in 1996 called the Presedintal Medal of Freedom. She also received the highest award from the legislative branch in 1999 called the Conggressional Gold Medal. Sha also got the Windsor-Detroit International freedom award that was pesented to her at the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival. She died in Detroit, Michigan at age 92.
   
   In conclusion, I would like to say that Rosa Parks stood up for a lot of coloreds . Her and all the civil rights activist led us to vitory and achieved their goal. Those 382 days of that bus boycott proved that we are strong and can do and be anything that we want to be. I would recommend this book to anybody who enjoys learning about black history. I also would like to say that this book makes you apprciate everything you have. It also has makes you feel that your in the obsticles that happened to african americans. I think that people would enjoy this book a lot .



3. I do not think this is a very good book for a book report on Rosa Parks. Despite the fact the title is "Rosa Parks", I received more information on other things that were happening at the time and about other people than you did about Rosa Parks. However, this is a good book if you are doing a report or want to learn about African American History in the late 1800s and 1900s.



4. Walking into restaurants and shopping malls, I see short and tall people, young and old people, and black and white people. You may be thinking, "Well, DUH!", but think about it for a minute...were black people always allowed to eat with and shop where white people did? I don't think so! I mean if it weren't for certain people such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, black and white people wouldn't even be able to drink out of the same water fountain, let alone shop and eat among each other.

   After reading the book entitled Rosa Parks, written by Douglas Brinkley, I realized that life today isn't at all the same as life was 50 years ago.

   Rosa Parks is mainly an autobiography of Rosa Parks. It does although mention other great people such as Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth. All these people helped create equality throughout all of the human races.

   On December 1, 1955, a 42-year old black woman, named Rosa Louise Parks, refused to give up her seat to a white man. You see, back then, white people had the privilege of sitting in the front of the bus, due to their so-called "superiority" over blacks, and blacks were sent to the back. Rosa Parks' refusal set off a 381-day boycott led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and is now considered to have been the beginning of the American civil rights movement.

   Rosa Parks' case was different from many other people who disobeyed the laws. Rosa Parks had this biblical quality, which made her a saint, somewhat divine. Also, Rosa Parks only spent 2 hours in jail, while others were in for days, weeks, perhaps even months.

   This book not only recognizes some of the most influential people of all time, but also tells exactly how black people were treated and how they reacted.

   If you are interested in finding out more about Rosa Parks and other interesting people, I highly recommend this book.




5. Douglas Brinkley brings out the essence of Rosa Parks' humanity and her role in the Civil Rights movement. This short, highly-readable book provides useful background on Mrs. Parks' parents, early childhood, and introduction to the NAACP.

   The impact of Rosa Parks' actions on her family and friends was among the most revealing aspects of the book. The web of support, before and after her refusal to give up her seat, is truly inspirational.

   The author explores in detail the involvement of Mrs. Parks in the NAACP, church groups, and other activist organizations during the early-to-mid '50s. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s first national exposure in the movement is interesting for those not having read "Parting the Water..." and other such works.

   Douglas Brinkley's telling of the Rosa Parks story is not the first - and certainly not the last - but is the best!

5 comments about The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics.

1. This is a very good book about two great Americans. It is also a pretty good analysis of how politics works, and the very different roles played by activists and statesmen. It gives you some insight into how great a man Lincoln really was, but not as much as Doris Kearns Goodwin's magnificent Team of Rivals. And it gives you a great many insights into why Douglass was a more flawed but still impressive man.
   
   In the end the book feels a tad "slight," not quite up to the large task Oakes set out to accomplish. As Douglass gains respect over time for Lincoln we see glimmers of why that might be, but Oakes seems to have more academic distance from what he really believes than he needs to have. It is as if he is not quite willing to accept that Douglass came to admire and even love Lincoln for his extraordinary qualities of decency and courage. Decency that Lincoln exhibited as he so often did by embracing Douglass despite the meanness of many of Douglass' comments towards him, because Lincoln had an almost other-worldly ability to see the world from another man's point of view.
   
   There is something very beautiful about how these two men drew closer over the course of the nation's great struggle to end slavery.
   
   Many other contemporaries missed the power and wisdom of Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech. Not Douglass, who was there in person and, despite many obstacles, made his way to the East Room of the White House to personally congratulate Lincoln. Lincoln made sure he was permitted to enter saying, "Here comes my friend Douglass." He then asked Douglass for his opinion, because he valued it. Douglass replied: "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort."
   
   It was indeed a sacred effort. And that exchange between these two men of great character should be the centerpiece of this study. While Oakes carefully explains how they both arrived at that moment, he misses much of the drama. And that is a shame, because there are few moments in American life more full of meaning and symbolism.



2. On Douglass, Oakes looks at how he moved from radical to politician throughout his life, including wedding himself so much to the GOP in his last years that he apparently never entertained the idea of a "Free Vote Party" paralleling the Liberty Party of his younger days.
   
   No, it's not a full bio, but it leads to further questions. Was this the "settling" of an old man? Was it an evolving pragmatism? Did getting a patronage job bank his inner fires?
   
   On Lincoln, Oakes takes a careful look at the long-debated issue as to whether or not he had any racist bones, either before election to the presidency or even after.
   
   On 126-29, Oakes tackles the pre-1860 politics of Lincoln re black-white relations beyond slavery with depth. He says Lincoln simply accepted white intransigence was so great that blacks never could have equality and that it was not a case of Lincoln himself rejecting racial equality. Nonetheless, Oakes believes "spineless" is a legitimate charge, as is "cynical."
   
   More serious are some of the themes from a pro-colonization lecture, in essence, Lincoln gave to northern black leaders shortly before announcing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
   
   Oakes sees this as a more cynical version of Lincoln's 1850 stance on accepting white racism even though Lincoln didn't hold to it himself. After claiming in the past "racism" and "slavery" were different, Oakes says Lincoln now tried to conflate them with a cheap syllogism.
   
   This level of analysis is what makes the book all of the things I said in my header.
   
   No, again, this is not a complete dual bio. But Oakes' excellent "For Further Reading" appendix points to the best bios on both men, as well as takes on the Civil War militarily and socially, Reconstruction and more.



3. I am reading this book now and am struck by the evolution of Douglass' ideas about politics. At first, he was angry and rejected all compromise, influenced by radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Later, he began to see the value of politics and compromise and became a Republican in 1856 when John C Fremont was the nominee of the new party. Douglass accepted the necessity of compromise and a strategy of gradual starvation of the institution of slavery. From rejecting the Constitution as a "slaveowners' document", he became an enthusiastic supporter of the American system and sought citizenship for the freed slaves once the South collapsed, by war or economic forces they could not resist. I wish some Black Liberation advocates would read it. Douglass was a wise man and not as radical as the title suggests. An excellent book. Also a new look at Lincoln although I knew most of the story.



4. There is a perennial tension in any democracy between those who insist that there must be scrupulous respect for the law, and those who insist that at times a higher law must be followed. Philosophical and moral disagreements separate the two groups. But so does temperament.
   
   James Oates' The Radical and the Republican masterfully witnesses to the crucial role temperament plays in determining which side of the political and moral divide one lands in the higher law debate. Lincoln (the republican) was by nature a man inclined toward moderation, reason, patience, and unemotional analysis. Although always a loather of slavery, it took the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act to put slavery in the middle of his political radar screen. Even then, he insisted that slavery was implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, and that, short of a constitutional amendment, the most a President or Congress could do was to geographically contain it. Lincoln, who eventually adopted a policy Oates calls "strategic racism"--refusing to speak against the race-baiting so popular in the U.S. in order to make his eventual decision to emancipate the slaves an easier pill to swallow--thought John Brown a madman.
   
   Douglass (the reformer--or better, perhaps, the rebel) had a much more phlegmatic tempermant: emotional, volatile, black-and-white thinking, quick judgments. Although aligned when young with the pacifist Garrisonians, Douglass was never much of a pacifist. But he imbibed the Garrisonian insistence that the Constitution and the government, through their complicity with slavery, were utterly corrupt, and that a higher moral law not only sanctioned but obliged disregard of them when it came to slavery. Douglass, who adopted a policy of black self-reliance which Oates calls "strategic separatism," thought John Brown a hero.
   
   The Civil War created an extraordinary environment, argues Oates, in which Lincoln the republican and Douglass the reformer began to converge. Lincoln dropped his idea of gradual and compensated emancipation by issuing the Emancipation Declaration and lobbying for the passage of the 13th Amendment. Douglass, under the influence of Gerrit Smith, came to see the Constitution as an anti-slavery document and politics as a legitimate method to reforming society. By the time Lincoln was murdered, Douglass had come to greatly admire the man who he mercilessly criticized through much of the war. And Lincoln went out of his way to refer publicly to "my friend" Douglass. Still, their basic temperaments remained quite different, and it's curious to reflect on what their relationship might've evolved into had Lincoln lived.
   
   Oates' discussion of the two men is fascinating, well-written, and well-documented. Strongly recommended not only for those interested in the Civil War but also for anyone interestd in the higher law debate.



5. One of the easiest things to do, especially on the web, is to take a highly regarded leader of the past, say, Abraham Lincoln, pull a few of his quotes or actions out of their historical context, and supposedly "prove" how horrible that leader actually was. In contrast, author James Oakes explains Lincoln to us postmoderns the way an historian should - by reminding us of Lincoln's circumstances and explaining Lincoln's overarching purposes. Oakes does this without resorting to making Lincoln a saint. According to Oakes' compellingly-supported evidence, Lincoln refused to compromise two essential commitments - to antislavery and to the American political system. Lincoln would not compromise his antislavery position to get more votes, nor would he compromise his oaths to uphold the Constitution to undermine slavery. This dual commitment of Lincoln's goes very far in helping us understand why Lincoln limited his goal to preventing the spread of slavery before he became president, why he didn't just go ahead and free all the slaves when he became president, why he moved slowly towards emancipation during the war, etc. Furthermore, the author's discussion of Lincoln's overwhelming desire to change the hearts and minds of Americans about slavery instead of merely forcing through political change regardless of wider support was especially useful. As the "Republican" in the title, Lincoln wanted a government that represented the will of the people; therefore, the will of the people needed to be converted before the government could make radical change. The fact that Lincoln helped accomplish this more widespread change is quite a testament to his legacy of leadership.
   
   The "Radical" in the title is another great American, Frederick Douglass. Unlike Lincoln's, Douglass' reputation typically is not in dispute. Most of us love Douglass, and for good reason. Oakes doesn't tarnish Douglass' reputation, but he does help us to understand how Douglass' singular commitment to antislavery/antiracism, as compared to Lincoln's dual commitment explained above, often put Douglass at odds with the political process AND caused Douglass to speak out so vehemently against politicians like Lincoln. From Douglass' perspective, only immediate emancipation and egalitarianism would serve justice. Thus, by necessity, Douglass would oppose and criticize Lincoln - that is, until the two men met.
   
   One of the reviewers below critiques Oakes for supposedly overstating the relationship between the two men. I believe this critique is misplaced because Oakes never claimed to be writing primarily about the interpersonal relationship between the two. Instead, he's writing about the interplay of the radical ideology of one, and the antislavery politics of the other. Also, I think that Oakes analyzes the relationship between Brown and Douglass comprehensively, not simplistically, as a reviewer below seems to believe.
   
   As a person who teaches history at the college level, and as a person who enjoys reading history for fun, I would recommend this book. I intend to make it one of my required texts for my survey American history course, alongside Frederick Douglass' autobiography.