Whatcha reading?

[Fianna]

HistoryGypsy, here are some things I love:

 

Walter Johnson: River of Dark Dreams (Southern economic and foreign policy ideology in antebellum America)

Blight Race and Reunion (politics of memory after the Civil War)

Jacobs White Mother to a Dark Race (comparative study of maternalism and indigenous child removal policies in the US and Australia.  

Minardi Making Slavery History (memory study of the efforts of New Englanders to centralize emancipation as a fundamental philosophy of the North, while minimizing the role of POC in New England and erasing the presence of slavery in New England). Great to read with Firsting and Lasting by Jean O'Brien, which uses New England town histories to examine the ways in which whites displaced and then replaced Native peoples as the indigenous inhabitants of New England.

[ToomuchLes]

Hey HistoryGypsy,

I have a whole bookcase full of great books about 19th c. America!

 

Ok... So if you want a complete history about the events leading up to the Civil War, I recommend Pulitzer Winner "The Impending Crisis" by David Potter. It doesnt dwell too far into the past, and focuses more on the 19th century. Its a great, easy and very entertaining read! Potter really connects all pertinent events, leading up to the war, into a fine web that can be easily understood, even by a layperson.

 

If you want a more complete history of slavery, then I suggest "Inhuman Bondage" by David Brion Davis. Davis' book is absolutely mind blowing since he goes back to the very very beginning of slavery in Babylon. He provides an excellent foundation for why slavery existed (socially, religiously, and politically). Another great book is by Wilma King "Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in 19th century America." King does something similar, by providing a historical foundation of the events that precipitated the rise of the domestic slave trade, and in part, led up to slave family divisions and adolescent slavery. Speaking of the domestic slave trade, "Carry Me Back" by Steven Deyle is another fantastic book! He focuses more on comparative slavery, and the economic rational of slave owners in the 1820-60s. 

 

I also highly recommend Abraham Lincoln's biography, written by Lord Charnwood. 

 

"Black Rice" by Judith Carney is about the history of rice, and the rice industry in S.Carolina. Another easy read that I very much enjoyed.

 

"Drawn with the Sword" by James McPherson is a compilation of essays that talk alittle about everything, from Southern Exceptionalism, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the war itself, and Reconstruction. 

 

Finally, if you havent seen the movie or read the book yet, check out "Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. Its a fun historical-fiction novel.

 

 

EDIT:

Another great book is "Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell Irvine Wiley. The book provides an excellent portrait of Confederate soldiers during the war. 

 

 

Let me know if you're looking for something specific. 

Edited February 28, 2015 by LeventeL

[ashiepoo72]

Soul by Soul by Walter Johnson is probably my favorite book ever. I second Race and Reunion by Blight.

Christine Stansell's City of Women is another fave. It's a pretty incredible book, all the more for how well it's aged.

Eric Foner is always good, too. You may want to check out Sean Wilentz and Paul Johnson's Kingdom of Matthias--it's short and reads like a sexy/disturbing novel.

Edited February 28, 2015 by ashiepoo72

[ToomuchLes]

Eric Foner is definitely awesome. I've only read "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War," but Im sure I have 1-2 of his books "wish-listed" on my amazon account. 

[kotov]

Just bought Keith Hitchins' Rumania 1866-1947 (which I'm embarrassed not to have read yet) and Carol Iancu's La Shoah en Roumanie.

[a.rev]

 

 

"Black Rice" by Judith Carney is about the history of rice, and the rice industry in S.Carolina. Another easy read that I very much enjoyed.

 

 

 

I'm curious to know if you have read any of the critiques about Black Rice and what your thoughts are? Specifically the one(s) by Eltis, Morgan and Richardson but also Hawthorne's middle of the road take on it (I think he called it brown rice. AHR actually asked Africanists to weigh in on it, and devoted a whole section to the debate because it was so controversial.) I'm with Hawthorne in that I don't necessarily agree with her thesis entirely but I also don't think it's absurd like the others. I think part of their criticism stems from Carney being a geographer but she's writing history. (Which is the same thing that's happened to Jared Diamond.) She's very vocal about the fact she thinks they don't like her work because the topic tends to be a "boys club" and she's obviously not in that group. Either way they do raise some interesting points. Apparently my adviser had her come talk to our school several years back and said she was wonderful, African rice cultivation is something he's interested in and we live near a rice producing area so it made sense.

 

I also really enjoyed Race & Reunion. I don't really have anything on 19th century American history per se but since it seems that everyone is suggesting themes close to race and slavery I would suggest Reversing Sail by Gomez that discusses the African diaspora and the creation of a pan-African Atlantic identity/culture. 

[HistoryGypsy]

Thanks, everyone!  My specialization is looking at Irish and Scottish immigrants during the 19th century (I'm particularly interested in folkways), but I like to read/study all sorts of topics from the century because everything kind of ties into everything else sooner or later.  Foner, I agree, is marvelous -- he manages to be both informative and enjoyable, which many historians struggle with.  Since race/slavery isn't my area of expertise, I am interested in filling in some of my gaps with a few of the books people suggested (plus, it actually does tie in a little bit to my area -- there was a movement among many Irish immigrants to support abolition because they felt a certain empathy based on what they had suffered from the English back in Ireland).  City of Women also looked fantastic -- I added it to my Amazon list of books that I get to buy as soon as I get my guarantee of funding!

[ToomuchLes]

I'm curious to know if you have read any of the critiques about Black Rice and what your thoughts are? Specifically the one(s) by Eltis, Morgan and Richardson but also Hawthorne's middle of the road take on it (I think he called it brown rice. AHR actually asked Africanists to weigh in on it, and devoted a whole section to the debate because it was so controversial.) I'm with Hawthorne in that I don't necessarily agree with her thesis entirely but I also don't think it's absurd like the others. I think part of their criticism stems from Carney being a geographer but she's writing history. (Which is the same thing that's happened to Jared Diamond.) She's very vocal about the fact she thinks they don't like her work because the topic tends to be a "boys club" and she's obviously not in that group. Either way they do raise some interesting points. Apparently my adviser had her come talk to our school several years back and said she was wonderful, African rice cultivation is something he's interested in and we live near a rice producing area so it made sense.

 

I also really enjoyed Race & Reunion. I don't really have anything on 19th century American history per se but since it seems that everyone is suggesting themes close to race and slavery I would suggest Reversing Sail by Gomez that discusses the African diaspora and the creation of a pan-African Atlantic identity/culture. 

 

When I read "Black Rice" I did not read it as a history book. In the preface, she acknowledges several influential historians, and colleagues that charted her work towards more of a historical analysis than what she is normally used to.

 

I am a big fan of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." He amazing takes a vast historical period, and provide a foundation of historical watersheds (keyword: foundation). For a historian, it would be much more difficult to incorporate 2-3 centuries of history into a single book (without, of course, making it extremely long) because he has more historical tools in his disposal.

 

I think, if someone wants more out of Carney's book, they should read the books she refers to in her preface. One of these books is "Rice and Slaves: Ethnicity & the Slave Trade in Colonial S. Carolina." The book is definitely dated. It was published in 1991. Unfortunately, I haven’t read it but I think I will be much more satisfied from Daniel Littlefield's study. Honestly, I did feel that Carney's book was ... I dont know how else to put it ... short. I remember thinking "thats it?" after I read it.

 

Nevertheless, I do not want to denigrate Carney's or Diamond's work. “Black Rice” is a book I've read several times because it introduces general themes and ideas. I believe, if Carney was a historian and she did something similar, the book would be three times as big, much more comprehensive (thats for sure), but of course, really esoteric to non-historians.

 

I think thats why Diamond's book was (is?) so popular.

 

Regarding the whole "boys club" issue, I dont see it as a "boys club" thing but rather a "history club/club for historians." As a result of her specialized discipline, I definitely think its appropriate to scrutinize her historical study. It sounds like she took it personal when she made the "boy club" comment =/ but i havent heard that before. 

 

I havent heard of Gomez's "Reversing Sail" but I'll definitely check it out! =D

(I've heard of the author tho)

[dr. t]

I am a big fan of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

 

[a.rev]

Apparently she mentioned it when talking to my adviser and his class. I assumed she probably said it elsewhere but maybe not.

 

I completely agree with you about it being a "historian" club thing. I'm sure everyone can agree that much society has this idea that anyone can be a historian (I'm looking at you Bill O'Reilly), so when specialists from other disciplines write a semi-big books that dabble in history, they become agitated. I think it's a shame that a handful of big names have all but outright discredited her research because of it.

 

I'm a huge fan of GGS (although I think he owes a lot to Alfred Crosby), and really like Big History in general. When I told my chair I didn't think I would be accepted to a PhD program this year he asked me to teach an online World Civ I class next semester. I briefly considered a big history approach but it might be too much out of the ordinary for a non-lecture course, so I'll probably have to nix it. 

 

I really liked Gomez's book but my favorite book I've read on African diaspora/Atlantic history (and I've only read about 10, so I'm still pretty limited) is John Thornton's Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World. It was one of those books that completely blew my mind and altered my view of something I thought I knew pretty well. Some people in our seminar labeled racist which made me sad because I read it as completely the opposite.

Edited March 6, 2015 by a.rev

[turnings]

Could someone explain what it is they like about Guns Germs and Steel?

[a.rev]

I like GGS because I like World History, and not the kind they typically teach in schools, but the kind that stresses broad themes (for Diamond it’s environment, for others it’s trade, or cross-cultural interactions.) I’m not an environmental determinist, and I’m not going to pretend that Diamond was 100% correct, but I think that he was one of the first people to really come out and say how just how much environment has shaped the outcome of history (obviously Crosby, McNiell, and a handful of others had also done this but on a much more narrow scale.)

 

I think another problem with Diamond’s, or at least seems to be a problem for others, is the broadness of the topic. I think there are at times he generalizes but when you’re discussing a theme as big as his, it’s nearly impossible to do otherwise. Unless you read and enjoy global history (this is not nonwestern history but history that stresses broad themes across several regions) you will almost always see this as a negative.

 

Others say Diamond leaves out evidence to support his thesis or is reading only certain interpretations of history. Quite honestly, you could say this about any historian, there are several times I read books by well-renowned authors/professors and think “well, that’s not how I learned it.” There will always be multiple accounts of the same event, you pick the one you feel is most plausible. No one wants to admit it, but I think at least some degree of cherry-picking happens in all works, whether or not it is intended. Very few writers will thoroughly address all other arguments and then tear them to shreds, some do (Thornton is brutal), and those tend to just mention them in passing.

 

I think the popularity of GGS causes people to look at history from a new angle, one that combines history, geography, environment, and people. Again, I don’t agree with Diamond’s environmental determinism and I certainly think he has gotten some things wrong, but I think the value in GGS is that it causes many to think differently about telling history. Have other authors done similar things? Yes, but none on the scale that Diamond has attempted. These are just my opinions, I'll admit that I hated GGS going into my program, for many of the reasons listed above. It was only after taking a global history course that emphasized the theory and history of the subject that I started to appreciate the book.

[ashiepoo72]

I think Blaut's criticisms of Guns, Germs and Steel are pretty spot on, but the value of a book like that is that it's widely read and gets the general public thinking about history in new and exciting ways. I personally take issue with a lot of the book, but some books aren't meant for academic historians--and that's ok! I love A People's History of the United States, and that's definitely not a scholarly monograph, but it certainly gets people thinking critically about history. Howard Zinn was also an incredible human (also an actual historian...wasn't Diamond a geologist?) so there is that.

Short story: popular history gets people interested in history.

[virmundi]

This is hilarious (and I agree 100% with the sentiment of that facial expression)!

[ToomuchLes]

A.rev and ashiepoo72 pretty much said what I was thinking.

 

Zinn and Diamond are publishing BIG histories. This, as ashiepoo72, points out is a great way to make history fun for the laypersons. If you introduce "Inhuman Bondage" by David Brion Davis to someone that is not a historian, or a student of history, they will be overwhelmed by the esoteric information, background info, and analysis. Likewise, most historians publish works meant for only scholars. This can be very intimidating for the reader if he is, in fact, not a scholar or still lacks the proper knowledge to fully comprehend what that historian is arguing. Think back to when you first started reading text about your area.

 

I think, scholars (maybe more specifically historians) should produce big, general works to make history fun again. I realize that most historians do not like these general monographs for a variety of reasons. BUT, if you introduce these books to a high school student (which is when I read Zinn and Diamond's work), those readers will grasp a better understanding of basic history, and then, they can start reading more detailed works. I didn't want to sound like a Diamond groupie (can historians have groupies? lol i think so), but he was one of my ... first ... historians to provide information that is not usually taught in public high schools. I cant think of a specific example from Diamond's work, but I can from Zinn's "Peoples History." Throughout my pre-college education, I was never ever taught about the Arawak/Columbus Exchange. I learned very very very little about their interactions. In "Peoples History," I think the very first chapter is about the Arawaks, and what Columbus did to those people. For me, that was very eye-opening and from there, I had established a solid foundation to further my knowledge about that particular history. I could have totally picked a different book, something more comprehensive from a historian that specializes in that area, but the question is : as a new student of history, would I enjoy and understand it as much as I did when I read Zinn's book? 

 

I would like to say, I have NOT read Zinn or Diamond in many many years. I have their books in my personal library, so maybe one of these days I'll revisit their text and see how I like it now. Im sure that Chapters 9-10 will frustrate me because its about slavery, and Zinn probably left out things that I find important, but this information that I claim to be important was only gained through years of study. Dilettante "historians," do not have our academic backgrounds, which is why Zinn and Diamond are so popular. There are obviously more history-dabblers than actual historians. If you were to go to a university campus and ask random students if they heard of Alan Taylor (or some other Pulitzer winner) vs Zinn/Diamond, I think, most people would vote on the latter.

 

I like the gif too lol very cute

[ashiepoo72]

I recommend Nature's Metropolis by William Cronon (and totally would recommend Taylor!) to strangers on the street. Just sayin'

[dr. t]

So here's my problem:

 

History is a manner of thinking, and the purpose of teaching people who will not become historians history is to train them to think historically. Thinking historically, at least as we conceive it today, is the process of understanding events on the small scale and then, if possible, weaving them together to form broader conclusions. This process requires specialists, but it does not preclude generalists. Generalist history, however, requires a substantial amount of effort to pull off correctly.

 

Being a generalist or writing to a lay audience are not valid excuses for sloppy work. Attempting to approach a subject on a larger scale puts more of a burden on the scholar, not less, because without the solid foundation in microhistory, you can't separate reality from your preconceived biases. If you find a generalist work that you agree with or think is useful which is not so grounded, all that tells you is that the work accords with your own preconceptions. It tells you nothing about the validity of those preconceptions.

 

Popular "historians" such as Diamond do not think historically. They do not write historically. However great their appeal, they are not useful to historians nor should they be encouraged because they are teaching a false approach to history. Diamond in particular promotes an entirely uncritical vision of Western exceptionalism which does much more damage than good.

 

Not all publicity is good publicity.

Edited March 6, 2015 by telkanuru

[ashiepoo72]

I agree with everything you said re: Diamond, but I still don't think popular history is necessarily a problem. I view someone like Bill O'Reilly as dangerous, because he deliberately feeds people misinformation in his "histories," but some pop historians are actually decent at getting people interested in history. I'm sure I've said this here somewhere, but reading popular history steered me into academic history. Tons of people simply aren't interested enough for this to happen, which I could go on and on about (starting with the crappy history taught in secondary school), but for those who have that inclination pop history can push them in the "right" direction.

 

On second thought, I really wouldn't put Zinn in the same camp as Diamond. Zinn actually was a trained academic historian, and while his work should certainly be scrutinized (as all scholarly work should be), he hasn't been outright discredited by the wider historical community. The most problematic thing about Guns, Germs and Steel is Diamond's disregard for the historiography--which he can do, because he's a scientist and not a historian. But this means he's not really answering to anyone in the historical community.

[knp]

+1 Nature's Metropolis. [edit: Let me amend that to +10. It's amazing!]

 

So then, do any of you have big, 'generalist' histories you recommend to people, apart from GGS? Not necessarily as scholarly works, but if I wanted to recommend a book to a younger cousin, say, or just to see what people are talking about in big histories these days.

 

Personally, I remember loving 1493 (by Charles Mann) when it came out, and from that went on to read 1491. I am not sure I would recommend them now; it's been a couple years, and several big steps forward in my historical thinking. (These steps were in part caused by liking that one and some other pop histories I read at the time, following ashiepoo's comment about the 'right direction.') 1491 might still hold up, although I'm more skeptical about 1493. If I recall correctly, Mann's thesis in the former was "the Americas in 1491? They weren't unpopulated. Let me tell you what scholars are thinking about them." I think a thesis that general probably helped his cause, letting him preserve some nuance rather than flattening it to serve a more deterministic thesis. On the other hand, I remember rolling my eyes right out of my head at Mann's chapter that speculated that the entire US political system was based on Iroquois government, based on the fact that neither the new American republic nor the Iroquois had monarchs... I mean, he might not be wrong, but I don't remember that chapter containing any evidence. (Or was that in 1493?) I remember 1493 less well, but I think it might have dipped into that vein of speculation more often. I don't know what else I would nominate.

 

I never read it myself, but are people still mad about 'The Better Angels of Our Nature'?

Edited March 6, 2015 by knp

[a.rev]

Ashiepoo describes exactly how I feel. I also can't help but be a little put off by the concept that historians have nothing to glean from reading popular histories (specifically GGS) because my whole rethinking of GGS was the result of my adviser explaining to me why it's important for historians to read. (Even though it's not history.) This is someone who is very well respected in his field. The point of all this is that he's not some layperson or student who doesn't understand the complexities of historical training but that seems to be the insinuation. I'd to reiterate my point that all histories have flaws or pitfalls. Popular histories more so than scholarly ones but that doesn't mean they don't have value, even to historians.

On the topic of big histories, Fernandez-Armesto's Civilizations is one and you might consider Bentley's Old World Encounters. To be honest though, the best thing I've read that helped me find what I enjoyed about global/big history is Ross Dunn's reader called The New World History which includes everything from world systems to periodization. It also helped me to ask the "big" questions in my own work.

As much as I dislike O'Reilly wasn't he a high school history teacher? I remember hearing that somewhere as validation for why he can write books about "killing" historical figures.

(I decided to edit something out because I'm paranoid someone could track down who I am. Crazy, I know but oh well.)

Edited March 6, 2015 by a.rev

[ToomuchLes]

But isnt the absence of historical thinking, and principles what make pop history fun and interesting for the layperson? Zinn is great because he's readable for everyone. I wouldn't put Zinn and Diamond in the same category, but I would definitely put Zinn's "Peoples History" and Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" on the same shelf of recommended reads for those interested in pursuing history. These are elementary books. They demonstrate what history really is about, without providing the arduous historical thought process. That is what turns people off.

 

I agree that being a generalist or writing to a lay audience are not at all valid excuses for sloppy work, but are you saying that Zinn and/or Diamond produced sloppy work? I think, they achieved something that most historians have difficulty doing. When someone has a vast library of knowledge about something, they weave together the small stuff into a large big and therefore, its harder to produce a general history because you have so much the say. Then if you attempt to say everything, it'll evolve into a text that is too cumbersome for the layperson to read. Maybe thats why Diamond's book is so popular with a lay audience? But also because he thinks like a scientist, which is a general way most people think.

 

In order to understand a historian, you need specific training or be a historian. This can be detrimental to a country's history because the lay audience will misinterpret the text, and ta da.. pseudo-history. I never watched Bill O'Reilly's show so I don't know if he does this, or what exactly he doesnt wrong. 

[ashiepoo72]

I think there are plenty of books that are "historical" and "scholarly" that are easy to read and interesting. I named Cronon. I'd also say Walter Johnson, Michael McGerr, Eric Foner, Sean Wilentz, Gordon Wood, Christine Stansell, Bruce Levine, Louis Perez, Patricia Limerick, John Bodnar, Kenneth Jackson, David Kennedy, Martin Sherwin, Harvard Sitkoff are all eminently readable while still providing historical analysis and insight, and these are just names off the top of my head.

 

Like I said, I think pop history can be useful, but there are plenty of books that present a "historical thought process" that isn't "arduous," and in fact are quite accessible. The true task of a IMO successful pop historian is to make both the history and the critical historical process accessible.

[dr. t]

But isnt the absence of historical thinking, and principles what make pop history fun and interesting for the layperson?

 

No, quality prose and an engaging narrative are what do that. 

 

I agree that being a generalist or writing to a lay audience are not at all valid excuses for sloppy work, but are you saying that Zinn and/or Diamond produced sloppy work?

 

That is exactly what I'm saying.

 

 I think, they achieved something that most historians have difficulty doing. 

 

I don't think they achieved anything except for fat royalty checks.

 

When someone has a vast library of knowledge about something, they weave together the small stuff into a large big and therefore, its harder to produce a general history because you have so much the say. Then if you attempt to say everything, it'll evolve into a text that is too cumbersome for the layperson to read.

 

I don't agree. I think popularity has more to do with style and density of text. Many popular historical biographies, for example, don't run into the sorts of problems that Diamond's works do. Academics also don't really value good and engaging prose, and they treat writing ability as something that descends from the aether, rather than something you need to practice. Academic historians who practice can write really well. I would cite Peter Lamont Brown as a great example of someone who can write history which appeals to both a general and specialist audience.

 

In other words, the problem with Diamond is not what he's doing, it's that he's bad at it.

Edited March 6, 2015 by telkanuru

[dr. t]

I think there are plenty of books that are "historical" and "scholarly" that are easy to read and interesting. I named Cronon. I'd also say Walter Johnson, Michael McGerr, Eric Foner, Sean Wilentz, Gordon Wood, Christine Stansell, Bruce Levine, Louis Perez, Patricia Limerick, John Bodnar, Kenneth Jackson, David Kennedy, Martin Sherwin, Harvard Sitkoff are all eminently readable while still providing historical analysis and insight, and these are just names off the top of my head.

 

Like I said, I think pop history can be useful, but there are plenty of books that present a "historical thought process" that isn't "arduous," and in fact are quite accessible. The true task of a IMO successful pop historian is to make both the history and the critical historical process accessible.

 

I would also say that there are authors like David McCollough write "popular" histories that academics manage not to hate.

[ToomuchLes]

Did you read works by those authors before you made the decision to study history as a profession?

 

I have never met a layperson that read books by those authors because its fun and/or interesting. I read Gordon Wood's "Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History" in a lower division undergrad class (we assigned certain chapters for class, so not the whole book), and I remember alot of students, taking that class to fulfill gen. ed. requirements, hated it. 

 

The authors that you listed are readable for us. We actually need to test it out to see if it is, indeed, readable (and this means, the reader enjoys and understands the text) for the layperson. Neither one of us, on this site (or more specifically in the history section), can say for sure that the works by these authors are readable. We can definitely say that Zinn and Diamond are readable for the layperson because of the number of sales and how widely these scholars are known. And because the high number of sales, we can most definitely say that People's History and Guns, Germs & Steel are not at all arduous to read. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by LeventeL