For some reason, the book cover, etc are not showing up.
This review is for the book
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt (c) 1998
I guess this book exists somewhere between reference book and a book you would sit down and read cover-to-cover. I tried the latter, and ended up skimming parts, because it did get dry in parts. No wonder; the book comprises book reviews, summaries of point papers delivered at national teachers' meetings, minutes from local and state Boards of Education meetings, "White Papers" published by tax-free foundations, newspaper articles, policy papers by the Dept of Education, and the author's own commentary on these.
Like I said, it's meticulous.
The format is arranged chronologically, beginning around 1900. Everything that the author could find of significance, pertaining to the quality and content of public education is included. Over time, one gets the effect of seeing the slow-motion shift in attitudes and values of the nation, and the germane institutions, towards what a public school education is and should be.
Painting with a very broad brush, the large, long-term trends are:
1. Shift from a view that an education should result in a moral, upright, well-rounded, American citizen to the view that it should result in a trainable and re-trainable worker who can adapt to the changing demands of a fast-paced global economy.
The shift away from citizen to worker orientation was not achieved by natural means; it was the explicit and intentional work of the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation, as well as several prominent corporate-sponsored education-themed "think tanks" which enjoy the tax benefits of being nominal charities, but which in fact are powerful forces which have been shaping American education policy for over a century now, bending it to better suit corporate needs. Being multinational, these corporations have also made a hard push for...
2. Shift from national civic pride to globalist outlook.
A public school education 100 years ago stressed American history, and prized among other things our founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights -as emblematic of why our system has prospered and become the desired destination of immigrants worldwide, looking to improve their lives. A large number of factors have slowly bent this toward an impulse of internationalism- a view that international institutions should be revered over national ones (even if they are unelected and unaccountable to the public), even if Americans (and hardly ever anybody else) need to subvert their self-interest to bodies like the United Nations (which does not share our Bill of Rights). In the sphere of education, this has meant a long road of replacing Civics and History with Social Studies. It may smack to some readers of 1950's "Red Panic", but the author Ms. Iserbyl documents the intentional injection of a good deal of socialist rhetoric into the curriculum throughout the 1950's, 60's and 70's.
3. A surrender of more and more time in the lessons from teaching hard facts and critical thinking, to subjective commentary promoting "positive social themes" and class discussions designed to build consensus.
"What consensus?" you may be wondering. The answer is whatever consensus supports the Ford- and Carnegie Foundation-approved views to various topics. (e.g. should America be "the world's policeman?" etc)
4. Inner workings detailing how and why the U.S. Federal "Dept of Education" was created (in 1978, under President Jimmy Carter).
By almost every measure, American education was better when there was no national Dept of Education. Its creation is part of a larger movement to increase standardization, and to form national curricula by unelected panels of hand-chosen "experts" (who unfailingly represent the status quo vision of the large charitable foundations which fund their work). The result is less control by parents locally over what their kids are taught. At the time it was established, many prominent figures in American education lamented that America was backwards and provincial for being a "holdout" by not having a national cabinet-level equivalent of most nations' "Ministers of Education." Behind closed doors, this was perceived as a necessary step to the long term goal of integrating American with other nations' curricula, to form a "world standard" education.
To state the obvious: this would be part of the propaganda drive to promote acceptance of a supranational worldwide government, and to manufacture international consensus around certain questions (in the 1970's it was the need for America to unilaterally disarm its nuclear weapons; today I'm guessing it is the need to embrace a global "carbon tax" system to combat real and imagined climate change.)
5. A shift away from subjective, wholistic, individual attention between teacher and student, towards purely objective "metrics."
In practical terms, this is the move away from essay questions, where a teacher has to sift through a student's nuanced presentation, to the fill-in-the-bubbles #2 pencil "Scantron" tests. The idea is to phase out teachers' judgment in the classroom, and to measure students by the criteria dictated by the above-mentioned panels of "experts" at the national level.
Several policy papers explicitly state that the long-term "ideal" (better than saying "goal") is the "teaching box" (i.e. computer) posited by B.F. Skinner in the 1950's.
This book was published in 1998, so some of this may have changed by technology. I can imagine some time in the near future where an A.I. program could read a student's essay and grade it according to a programmed formula, so maybe kids in the future may go back to writing essay questions... so long as the globalist corporate forces can control how exactly it will be graded.
6. A lengthy explanation of how the RAND Corporation-developed "Delphi Technique" has been employed against American parents and taxpayers attempting to fight the above changes through local means at their city and state Boards of Education, and through the national Parent Teacher Association (PTA).
It's basically a population manipulation technique to convince a group of people that they naturally arrived at an authentic consensus supporting a predetermined conclusion they were in fact intentionally led into. Here's a little more about that.
It is fascinating stuff, but like I said, a lot of this is policy papers, so beware of that.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the battle for Italy doesn't seem to get as much attention as other areas of World War 2. Normandy and Stalingrad are more theatrical... larger-scale clashes and deceptions. The war in the Pacific is primarily naval, and aviation plays a bigger role, so those are both glamorous, and they involve cultures seemingly more "exotic" to Western readership.
As stated above, this is the best book I've read on the subject... actually the only book I've ever read exclusively devoted to this subject, and it does a solid job addressing a few deserving main topics:
The Italian Campaign as "battlefield laboratory"
Italy is smaller scale, and was a testing ground for a lot of things that followed, so there are a lot of humiliating missteps... but they were worth it, because the lessons learned helped win the war in other places. The "laboratory" of the Italian campaign involved the first large-scale mechanized amphibious landings in the modern era (the Romans apparently did a lot of this, and the various British and American Generals involved read extensively on those. The book furnishes some of the titles, if you wish to pursue this.) Landings in Gela, Sicily and Salerno, near Naples were successful in that they weren't catastrophic failures (e.g. the landing armies weren't pushed into the sea by defending Axis powers), but were also filled with a lot of embarrassments... supplies lost overboard, equipment ruined by sand and saltwater, the hazards of landing supplies in poorly-chosen order (e.g. landing field guns to defend the beach, but with all the ammunition in another ship scheduled to arrive a few hours later; landing unarmed medical personnel before infantry to defend them, etc)
How best to coordinate multinational fighting forces? The Italian campaign was fought by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian, and New Zealand forces. Later some additional nations added to the effort (French North Africa, South Africa) Working out the command structures took a lot of adjusting, and some of it was complicated with the individual personalities involved (British General Montgomery was a showboater but very risk adverse; American General Mark Clark was very competent but very politically minded and not-so-secretly an Anglophobe; British General Alexander was strategically sound and aggressive in a good way, but perhaps not the best manager of his subordinates, etc) The books does well in this area... and provides a nice balance of telling the war from the flag-rank level (where the decisions are made) as well as the "boots on the ground" experience of the footsoldiers. What I particularly like was the amount of time the author describes a soldier based on his letters home, diary entries, hospital notes about him, etc, and then cuts his narration short with a "he died later that day, in an enemy shelling" etc. The cumulative effect of these thumbnail sketches, where the person becomes humanized, followed by a quick and inglorious death- really drives home the human cost of this campaign. More than 50,000 Allied fatalities (about the same losses as America experienced in the Vietnam War, but that was drawn over nearly 10 years, as opposed to 15 months here) and over 200,000 wounded in final tally.
The other big area where Italy served as "learning curve" was appreciating the uses and limitations of airpower in a land campaign. In the Pacific, airpower was supreme... because the distances are so great, because the fighting platforms (battleships and attack submarines) are so much slower than aircraft, and because the wide open sea provides clear appreciation of the targets. In land warfare, air superiority is also necessary (witness American destruction of Iraqi forces before we ever entered ground phase, in the First Gulf War), but there are a lot more places to hide, and the enemy can blend in with the civilian population, making them a poor target. The enemy might also do ingenious things like hide tanks and field guns in train tunnels or mineshafts, etc. Directing air power to good effect is trickier... which author Rick Atkinson deftly describes.
Interesting: because so many of these issues were unresolved at the onset of the Italian campaign, Atkinson argues credibly that the reclamation of Italy is the portion of WW2 which most resembled WW1... entrenchment, large scale head-on infantry confrontations, with massive body counts for small gains of real estate, and tanks (instead of air power) serving as the primary forward destructive force.
Political aspects of the fight
What's interesting about the political dynamics of this theatre is that Italy was an enemy at the time of the initial Sicilian landing, but by the time the Sicilian operation was completed, Mussolini was driven from power, and his successor, Marshal Pietro Badoglio, promptly surrendered. Now, officially, Italy was essentially an ally being occupied by hostile German forces... but it wasn't that easy, because pockets of Italian fascists were still fighting, and a large portion of the civil population was ambivilent/ noncommittal to the fight. This complicated a lot of supply questions. If the local population is willing to help supply you (i.e. sell to you), that reduces the supplies you need to bring to an operation, and how much you care about defending your supply chain. This is also an area rich with psychological warfare, and a robust campaign was mustered to convince Italians to support the Allied forces (even fight the Germans with them), and to disrupt German operations. As the campaign progresses, the Italians come over, but the question of loyalties is still a factor in the landing at Salerno.
Other considerations explored
How much value is there in capturing Rome? It has great propaganda and morale value, but much less industrial value than pushing on for a quick capture of industrial centers in Turin, Milan and Bologna.
Arguments pro and con for invading Italy at all. Was it really necessary to the war? Churchill really wanted to secure the Mediterranean, in hopes of reestablishing trade with India through the Suez Canal... in a desperate and ultimately unsuccessful bid to retain the British Empire after the war. Americans were less enthusiastic, and felt Italy could be marginalized and left to "die on the vine", thinking that a landing in Southern France might be more effective, by forcing a direct confrontation with German border forces earlier in the war.
Ultimately, the decision to Italy came down to two factors: 1) and urgent need to draw German forces out of the Russian theater, to ensure that Russia not fall to Hitler (although there is a question of whether he could have held it, even if he captured it); and (2) insufficient capacity to transfer the land forces anywhere else. Neither the British or American Navy could spare sufficient transport ships to more all the tanks, infantry, and mobile infrastructure which captured North Africa in 1942 to the Pacific, or even up to Britain to participate in the Normany invasion. Tunisia is only about 125 miles from Sicily, so the jump could be achieved over this small distance with many short shipping runs, but would be impractical for much larger distances. Really, if the forces left over from the North African campaign weren't used to capture Italy, there was no good place to locate them, with the available shipping resources. Even in the European theater, WW2 was truly a naval war.
Good reading. Four stars (not five) because it gets too bogged down in detail in some parts, is a bit too uncritically laudatory of Eisenhower, and it lacks sufficient maps to support the text. Some of these little villages are not in my atlas. Google maps makes up for some of it, but even so, there are bridges, reservoirs, railroad lines, etc which aren't around today... a five star military history book would err on the side of too many maps, rather than too few.
This is a wonderful and highly readable book, but do not misunderstand what it is about. The subtitle is completely honest: this is not a book (entirely) about human history in Africa; this is a book about the African continent. As such, it is divided into three approximately equal sections:
1) Natural History:
This describes the formation of the African continent during the cooling phase of the Earth's crust. Africa is unusual among continents for being composed of just three giant cratons. A large portion is dedicated to the formation of the Bushveld Igneous Complex- the single largest and richest concentration of mineral wealth on the planet, and almost the sole accessible source of some strategic materials like chromium.
This part progresses to the emergence of life, and the considerable evidence that humans find their origin in Africa, with our present form emerging somewhere between 2 and 4 million years ago, depending on what criteria you apply, and how you interpret the available evidence.
Development of human civilization in Africa, and importantly- the co-evolution of other organisms with the human species in their land of origin. This is a big deal, because all the evidence suggests that humans only left their mother continent about 120,000 years ago. We are an invading foreign species everywhere else on the globe, and like most introduced species, we had fewer natural predators and parasites outside of Africa. Malaria is the best example of an organism which co-developed in evolution, in Africa, alongside humans. Humans even adapted with rearrangements of hemoglobin, which can be beneficial in the hybrid SC form, but deadly in the SS homozygous form (i.e. Sickle Cell Anemia). This, and other similar examples account for the comparatively slower growth rate of human communities within Africa, compared to without, and some of these issues continue to plague Africa today.
"Expatriot" groups returning to Africa about 15,000 years ago transformed human development on the continent by introducing foreign species which had been domesticated in Asia. Most important of these were cattle. Skeletal remains have shown two different pathways that Africans took with this new resource:
a) cattle raising for meat (in which skeletal remains show an equal number of males and females in the herd). and
b) cattle raising for milk: (in which skeletal remains show most males in the herd were slaughtered)
The two patterns have different land-use and social development implications, which were fascinating to read.
There is an entire section dedicated to exploring how conditions, particularly around present-day Nigeria, led to the development of acephalous social structures... some of the largest and most sophisticated examples of completely decentralized human communities with essentially no leaders. It was a development which fit the local environment well, at the time it developed, but made Africa in general extremely vulnerable to foreign attackers with heirarchical social systems concentrating, commanding, and directing resources against them. This began in earnest with contact with Arab slavers on the East coast of the continent, beginning about 800 years ago, and really picked up pace with European contact in the 1500's.
...Which brings us to the subject of slavery. It is an indigenous African practice, which evolved from traditions of adoption and extended family (mutual) obligations. Going back to what I said about malaria and Africa's slow population growth... this created a demand for labor which was sometimes answered with warfare and enslavement of the vanquished, or with peaceful indentured servitude agreements (some coerced, some not; some for a lifetime, some for more limited terms). The upshot of all this is that a well-established social acceptance of slavery, and a well-developed economic system of slave acquisition and trade was in place by the time Arab slavers arrived in the 1200's or so. Later, beginning with the Portuguese, Europeans fed this system, and in a sense "addicted" the economies in present-day Congo and Angola to the slave trade. Outright slavery continued in Africa into the 20th century, and many of the proto-slavery practices (i.e. adoption of orphaned relatives, in exchange for limited periods of enforced servitude) continue today. One interesting observation: plantations in North America tried on several well-documented occasions to force Native Americans into slavery, but the enslaved never cooperated. They simply refused to work, even on pain of death. The reason is that slavery was a foreign concept to them. Slavery is not a useful institution to hunter-gatherer societies, which don't cultivate or hoard large amounts of food (or any other possessions). It is only in pastoral or agricultural civilizations that large amounts of manpower are needed to work the land. Africans brought to North America as slaves were mainly from agricultural areas of Western Africa which unfortunately understood well the concept of slavery, and culturally accepted it sufficiently to participate in it, in a way that Native Americans did not.
3) Human History:
This is the names and dates History that I had expected the entire book to be. There is little well-documented history before Arab contact.. the Great Zimbabwe, the Egyptian pharaoh dynasties, and the Biblical-era Ethiopians being the standout exceptions. Once Arabs entered the continent, with their written systems of recording, History as we think of it really takes off. The book is necessarily superficial, covering an entire continent for about 800 years. As expected, there is a lot about colonialism, particularly the Dutch and British in South Africa, the Germans in Tanzania, and the British in Kenya and Egypt. The book follows through to the many independence movements in the 1950's and 60's, and ends ominously with the Rwandan genocide and the probable CIA assassination of Patrice Lumumba- first elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Overall this is a definite Five Star book, and on my personal Top Ten History Books list.
Meh. A hit-or-miss collection of short stories, mostly taking place between the 1920's and 1970's, about different authors' personal experiences and reflections about identity, regionalism, class, race, and the South. I don't doubt the authenticity or sincerity of these, but some of them seem almost too stereotypical.
The best one, for me, was more like an essay than a story, by Randal Kenan: "Where Am I Black?" In which the author's experience with anonymity on the early (1993) internet clarified his ideas about race. He was initially excited that everybody could be "colorless" or racially undefined on the net, and that held a promise of realizing MLK's dream of a community that truly did see only the content of one's character; not the color of their skin, etc. A series of experiences led him to realize that he didn't want that; he wanted to be black on the internet, but wrestled with what that exactly meant and how he could achieve it.
In all of human history, no infectious disease has claimed more human lives than Tuberculosis ("TB"). The reason for the large numbers is that unlike other big killers (e.g. malaria) it exists in all climates. TB has causes epidemics among Eskimos, in the Sahara Desert, in New Guinea... etc. Everywhere. So that's why I picked this book up.
Technically the book delivers what it promises, but it does so in a very distant, unengaging way. I'm sure all the information here is correct, but delivered in such a dry style as to make it tedious and forgettable.Medical history doesn't have to be that way; three nonfiction medical history books with far superior narrative come to mind:
The Hot Zone: The Terrifying True Story of the Origins of the Ebola Virus (Richard Preston);
The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History (John M. Barry);
and The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time (John Kelly).
The fix, I think, is one of either two things: (1) give the book a more human element to make it more readable as a mainstream nonfiction book; or (2) give more technical detail and just make it a full-blown textbook that most people outside of the field probably wouldn't read for personal enjoyment.
That said, I thought the first 1/3 of the book had some pretty good parts, describing how tuberculosis (TB) is actually a family of organisms, some of which infect humans, but some which live apart from us in the animal kingdom. Identifying DNA from TB can be recovered from ancient bones, and they show that a form of TB called Mycobacterium bovis resided in cows long before cows were domesticated by humans. TB was not seen in ancient humans before the time cows were domesticated, but afterwards a human-infecting form called Mycobacterium tuberculosis evolved.
So cows gave us tuberculosis. Something to think about, when you're standing in line at McDonald's, I guess.
The complexity of the tuberculosis family, and the many different subsets of Mycobacterium tuberculosis has confounded a lot of research over the years. Different strains have different resistances to various medications, and different geographic distributions. When immigrants from different places came to the "melting pot" of New York in the late 1800's, this created some weird patterns, where some populations seemed to come down with much more aggressive strains of TB than others... leading doctors of the time to believe that some populations had more "natural resistance" to TB. As you can imagine, this fed in to some ideas about race and eugenics which are pretty horrifying and embarrassing by 2017 standards.
The book wraps up with interesting developments in India (a leader in TB research) just since 2000, which shows that short-course, aggressive (high-dose, high-intensity), home-based treatments (i.e. oral medications, as opposed to i.v. based or surgery-based) directed at the newly-infected have a much greater efficacy than long-term, sanitorium-based treatments.
TB has not gone away, and may resurge with great force, if poverty, overcrowding, war, or evolution of the organism to more drug-resistant forms give it the opportunity. What probably has gone away is the age of large TB sanitoriums like are written about in The Rack (A.E. Ellis) or The Magic Mountain (Thomas Mann).
This wasn't what I expected at all, but ended up being a decent read nonetheless. It is packaged as an account of the failed 1871 U.S. Navy expedition to reach the North Pole- and it begins that way. The first 1/3 or so is dedicated to how the trip was conceived, sold to the Navy, funded, manned, and what preparations were made. Nobody had reached the North Pole yet (nor would anybody until 1909), and it was one of the few unclaimed obvious prizes to be won, in an era where only the very furthest reaches of the Earth remained to be mapped, conquered, and civilized.
Charles F. Hall was Captain of the ship U.S.S. Polaris, and is the leader of the expedition. As one would expect, he is obsessive about reaching 90 degrees North; it is the culmination of an unlikely (for a kid from Brooklyn in the mid 1800's, with no maritime experience until well into his adult life) lifelong mania about it. Like Roald Amundsen would later do with the South Pole, Hall meticulously studied Eskimo survival skills, and liberally appropriated them, enhancing them only cautiously with modern technology when it seemed prudent to do so. There's quite a bit of detail about ways that Eskimo traditions are so perfectly evolved to suit their environment.
The mid portion of the book details how all the careful preparations go to hell, when Hall's obsession clouds his judgment about how to handle his crew, and discipline brakes down to chaos. Carefully-rationed resources are plundered, distinctions of rank are ignored, etc... which is deadly dangerous in the unforgiving environment. So far, it is a cautionary tale about prizing personal relationships and political expediency over technical proficiency, in an environment which demands expertise from every team member. It is also a tragedy about the needless death-spiral of a poorly-constructed team which lacks discipline and leadership to overcome their internal personal difference.
The Captain dies under very mysterious circumstances. The ship is lost. Half the crew is set adrift on a mile-wide ice floe which drifts South for 5 months, until they are rescued by a whaling ship. Miraculously, none of this party dies, as the Eskimos among them are able to hunt seals to feed the group. The remainder of the party makes land and meets up with local Greenland Eskimos, who generously house and feed them over the winter, until they are rescued the following Spring.
The last third of the book details the official inquiry into how the whole thing fell apart. There is conflicting testimony, and the book suddenly becomes a possible-murder mystery.
The last 20 pages details the 1968 Canadian expedition which discovers Capt Hall's burial site, digs up the body, and brings it to a medical examiner in Toronto, who solves the mystery of the good Captain's death.
None of the cover blurbs really convey the whole murder mystery aspect of this book. I can't say I'm disappointed; overall it was very satisfying.
Meh. These are short stories from the 1840's to the 1860's, telling about colorful characters the author presumably met (or synthesized from people he met) while living in and around Sacramento at that time. It's like a more rustic version of "Little House on the Prairie" (more marital infidelity, venereal disease, illegitimate kids, etc) or a lamer version of the Hollywood Westerns of the 1940's, 50's and 60's (less gunfights, more legal disputes over water and land rights; no pony express, no stagecoaches or trains getting held up, lots of hard work in the mines and trying to make ranches profitable, etc.)
It's probably quite realistic. (What do I know?) I just wish it was a little more entertaining.
Side note: I always thought the big innovation that Mark Twain brought to literature was writing dialogue in a way that brings out the accents and vernacular of the speakers. Isn't that what made Tom Sawyer such a hit? That was published in the 1870's. These stories predate that... some by 30 years, and they're FULL of that kind of dialogue. I wonder why Harte never got any credit for that.
This seems like a niche history about nine German-Jewish families (well 8 German Jewish families and 1 Germanic-Swiss Jewish family... the Guggenheims) in New York City, from 1840 to 1930, but in the telling of it, the book delves into general history of America and Germany in that time period, exploring (because of the families' various businesses) the rise of the large railroad combines and the rise of "finance Capitalism" (i.e. capitalization of the country's industry through large Wall Street brokerage houses and consumer banks)
There is also an interesting exploration of Jewry in NYC going back to the period of Dutch rule in "New Amsterdam". The Spanish Inquisition expelled Jews from Spain in 1492. Most of these were Sephardic, and found refuge in Brazil (a Portugese colony with liberal immigration policies towards anybody who looked like they would develop the land and firmly establish the Portugese claim on it.) Portugal lost Brazil to Spain in 1668, under the terms of the Treaty of Libson. With the Inquisition still in force, the Sephardic Jews were expelled, and most of them found refuge in New Amersterdam.
As a result, the face of the Jewish community in New York was decidedly Sephardic from the 1600's until the 1840's, when a revolution in Germany resulted in a mass influx of German immigrants to New York. Most of the Jews arriving in this wave were Ashkinazi, and they were not warmly welcomed by the Sephardics.
This is a large undercurrent narrative in the book, with Germans having to build parallel synogogues, Hebrew schools, etc, and the cultural characteristics of New York Jewry transforming from the Latin, more insular, Sephardic subculture into the decidedly more open (i.e. assimilationist) Germanic, Yiddish-speaking, Ashkinazis.
One thing this book is NOT, is a telling of the Jewish experience across the socioeconomic spectrum. The book is dedicated to nine of the wealthiest families in the City, whose names are tied up in the founding, running, and in some cases decline of some of the largest and most successful companies of the 1800's, including: Goldman and Sachs, the Guggenheims (whose metalworking and mining fortunes persist today in holdings of US Steel, Newmont Mining and Barrack Gold), Kuhn & Loeb, Solomon Brothers banking and brokerage, Harriman Brothers, Macy's department stores, and a railroad empire which has since been absorbed into Union Pacific.
In this sense, it is a specialty History with a narrow focus, but probably still broad appeal. Who doesn't love hearing about the dramas and infighting of the super-rich? Every chapter is like an episode of "Dynasty" or "Dallas." (Do those references date me? I don't know what the current-day equivalents are.) Still, as noted above, the telling of it all covers a lot of general history which should be of interest to a wide audience.
If you haven't heard it all before, I guess this is worthwhile. Basically the standard complaints about capitalism- which is failing in present day precisely because it is no longer free market capitalism, but rather an increasingly regulated (by international "managed trade" agreements like NAFTA and the now-defunct TTP) crony capitalism. Discussion about Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, the history of "commons" and the Enclosure Acts. The British East India Company. Negative and positive rights. Useful value of an object vs. Transactional value of an object. (i.e. water is useful and necessary for life but also extremely plentiful so has a high useful value and a low transactional value; gemstones are pretty and rich customers may pay top dollar for them, but don't fulfill any dire need so they have a low useful value but a high transactional value.) The nature of corporations (i.e. as "legal fictions" endowed with rights akin to human beings, but immortal, unsleeping, and dedicated to a single purpose: acquisition of more.)
The title refers to corporate cost-avoidance strategies which allow companies to push unseen expenses on to third parties (usually the public), which reaping profits. An example would be taxpayer-funded subsidies for corn, which knocks $500,000/year off the cost of raising cattle to maturity, resulting in lower cost of beef, which allows McDonald's to get beef cheaper than they used to, while keeping the price of their sandwiches the same. End result: McDonald's realizes a large profit selling hamburgers to taxpayers who subsidized the end-product, but do not profit from the subsidy... in fact, they are effectively paying twice for each burger they buy.
If you've been interested in these things for more than 5 years, I doubt there is anything new in here to stimulate you.
My respect for Winston Churchill as a writer continues to grow. This is a well-told account of how British and Egyptian forces reconquered Sudan from a semi-theocratic (semi- because it was nominally Muslim, but an odd branch of it, and really more of a personality cult surrounding the leader) uprising calling itself the "Dervish Empire".
The Setup: The book covers 1893-1899. Britain owns the Suez Canal, which it protects jealously as its main conduit to British India. Egypt supposedly exists as its own country, but is really part of the British "sphere of influence". The Sudan is regarded as an undeveloped wasteland whose only value is the Nile River running through it. For decades, Sudan is neglected. Stretching back into history, and continuing until 1899, Arab slavers, mostly from present-day Yemen, have raided the area, selling captured Sudanese into slavery throughout the Arab world.
The Trigger: In the late 1880's, a Sudanese Muslim cleric becomes politically active, mainly as a result of his failure to advance in the clerical system, making a popular cause out of breaking away from British Egypt, which has offered no protection to locals from the aforementioned slave raids.
The Battlespace: Sudan is roughly 1200 x 1600 miles, yet >90% of the population lives within a few miles of the Nile River. Thus, the entire evolution of the war is a continuous push southward by British forces along the banks of the river. Each battle progresses just a few miles down the river (south) from the last, climaxing with the fall of Karthoom, and concluding with "sweepup" operations south of there.
The seasonal quirks of the river completely define the course of the war. Typically the river level drops in winter, as the Kenyan mountains which feed into Lake Victoria freeze up. In the spring, meltwater from those peeks flow again, and the river floods. Low "tide" allows for passage across the river in areas, and prevents passage of all but the shallowest-draft boats, which must either wait for the river to rise again, or which can be deconstructed and portaged upstream to a point which is again deep enough to accommodate them.
Technology: Three relatively new technologies played a large role in British success:
One would hardly expect gunboats to play a large role in the conquest of such an expansive territory which comprises mostly desert, but this is exactly the case. New heavy artillery gunboats were specifically designed with sufficiently shallow draft for use in the Nile. Perfecting field gun technology from the Crimean and American Civil Wars, the new boats can accurately lay down heavy artillery fire from over 1700 yards, devastating even the most fortified (by mud brick) Sudanese strongholds. The "Dervish" forces have absolutely nothing comparable to answer with. It is one of the decisive factors in British victory. Even in the middle of a desert, British force projection relies on its navy!
Churchill lovingly details the construction of a railway from Cairo, running the length of the river, providing a much-needed secure supply chain to the battlefront. It is a heavy investment which pays off handsomely, and the promise of use of the line for commerce, after the war, persuades the Egyptian government to contribute financing. It is on the occasion of the "River War" that the British army creates a Railway Battalion of specially-trained men who can keep the engines running, and make repairs to rail or engine, as needed, on the spot. A small, limited-capacity manufacturing shop in one of the rail cars, reducing dependence on distant factories for parts, etc.
Construction of a telegraph parallel to the river, which keeps forces in touch with commanders back in Cairo, and more importantly: allows the frontlines to place orders in realtime for needed material, munitions, and men. (Even though the goods would still take weeks to arrive)
The Battle: It gets a little bit monotonous here, with troop movements here and there, etc. I found myself skimming through some parts.
The Resolution: Britain wins. The Nile between British Egypt and British Kenya is secure and cleared of radical anti-British forces.
Outside forces: The Italian presence in Abysinnia is mentioned here, and plays a minor role in some early battles, where Italian troops are freed up to assist the British cause.
The "Fashoda Incident" is mentioned, in which France advances an expedition to claim a portion of the Nile in Sudan. It is a purely cynical move to get negotiating power against Britain, as France would have no reasonable chance to actually defend their claim by force. The "incident' ends with a treaty protecting British sovereignty throughout the entire drainage area of the Nile, in exchange for giving France a free hand to develop colonies unmolested in Northern Africa.
Overall, this was a decent read. Monotonous in parts, but the best account I could find of this conflict.
That was pretty much my attitude going in, and the author seems to agree.
So far so good.
The book was an impulse purchase, which looked "interesting" because it promised to validate all my preconceptions. (I love when books do that.)
Sadly, the text is dry. Dry as a bone.... in a convection oven... in the Sahara Desert, so I stopped reading after 90 pages.
I guess if I really want confirmation of my biases, it is best to have a meticulous, scientific-sounding, thorough, academic exploration of the subject, to give it weight.
But that's no fun. This isn't an important subject to me, so it isn't worth the effort. I would have been perfectly happy with a more animated and engaging, less academic screed taking down the Nobel Prizes, the Oscars, the Pulitzer, and about 100 other awards.
The many ways these prizes are disingenuous, inconsistent, subjective, and distorted by a host of corrupting influences are faithfully cataloged herein.
I hate giving low reviews to books I agree with, but there it is.
I'm not sure how best to characterize this. It's more elaborate and narrative than a catalog, but less detailed, unified, and coherent than you would expect from a history.
This is a reprint from a 1922 text documenting, supposedly, at least fifty secret societies throughout history and around the world. If there is a thesis or overaching theme here, it's that all of these societies are interrelated, have complicated intermixed histories and lineages, that they sometimes fight sometimes cooperate, and that they sometimes serve (wittingly or unwittingly) important political and social/religious functions which have largely gone undocumented in mainstream history.
It starts way back with religious groups... the Vedic origins of Hinduism, the evolution of Brahminism and Jainism acting as a sort of a reforming counterforce/resistance offshoot (like Protestantism to Catholicism). On to a whole bunch of mystic religions, cults, and deviant variations of better-known religions: Zoroastrism, Cabalistic Judeasm, weird sects of Islam (most famously the Assassins), Druidism, Gnosticism, and a bunch of Egyptian pseudo-religious underground secret societies- which seem to probably have begat Freemasonry. The common thread here is that these cults, etc were not well-received by the mainstream of society, so had to worship underground, establishing a lot of methods of secret communication, ways to identify each other in public, ways of compartmentalizing their organizations so the whole thing would not be compromised if one member went astray or if the group was infiltrated by a spy, etc...
Having established all these secret methods, there was a natural evolution for some of these to use their framework of secrecy to enrich the group or its members, or to achieve political ends. The Knights Templar evolved a sort of secret banking protocol which became useful for funding covert operations during the Crusades. The Knights of Malta too. They also seemed to operate a private spy organization (?) Freemasonic lodges have been hotbeds of subversive political activity in Spain, England, Scotland, and the USA. They may also have been a means of funding and otherwise supporting early figures in the Protestant Reformation. It's kind of surprising to me, but the book maintains there was a robust secular resistance to the power of the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages, which was only able to evade discovery and destruction through the international web of Freemason lodges throughout Europe. (Freemasonry's cover story, and probably once legitimate function, was as a trade guild for builders and stone cutters... a growth industry in the 11th and 12th century when a surprising amount of European GDP went towards cathedral construction.)
The Illuminati have lately made a big splash in popular culture... the originals were in Bavaria, but were discovered and broken up. They resurfaced as the Jacobins (named for Knight Templar Jaques de Molay), whose role in the French Revolution is pretty well documented and accepted. Not only were the Jacobins a supply and information network for anti-monarchical French revolutionaries; they were also a financial network through which British money flowed from sources offical and unofficial, who felt a destabilized and war-torn France was in British best interests.
Later in the 19th century, Italian Freemasonic lodges seemed to play a large role in the political maneuvering leading up to Italian unification. There are a large number of political assassinations tied to Masonic groups. I was surprised to learn that the Mafia didn't (doesn't?) have a monopoly on hitmen in Italy.
It's interesting stuff, but impossible to verify. I have no idea how much of it is true, beyond the well-known mainstream religion stuff. Of course it is no secret that the Masons still exist, and we at least know of the existence of other secret societies, like the famous "Skull and Bones" club, whose exact purpose isn't clear, but which seems to involve installing its members as Presidents of the United States.
Popular media loves to make fun of stuff like this; to laugh at it in smug self-assured tones, and to mock it as "crazy conspiracy stuff", but there's really no reason to think any of this is implausible. People act in their self interests, and clubs of all sorts thrive. If a person could get a business edge by joining a corny club with funny hats and secret handshakes, hey why not? If disenfranchised people in nations which deny them access to meaningful political participation can effect changes they want by joining a lodge with secret initiation rituals, why wouldn't they? With money, politics, and secrecy in the mix, who can be surprised if some of these groups go off the rails into criminal activity, violence, and even revolution?
Could groups like this shape our world in ways we don't immediately appreciate, or which are kept secret from us? Why the fuck not? You've heard of the Bilderberg Group, haven't you?
Short (150 pgs) story following the life of the criminal Barabbas pardoned by Pontius Pilate and the crowd in Jesus's stead, for about 30 years following the crucifixion. Non-canonical, obviously. I think the point is to be a springboard for discussion about the nature of being an adherent to an institutionalized faith vs. following a personal philosophy not sanctioned and validated by ritual and mass worship.
I guess Dino de Laurentiis made this into a film in the late 50's/early 60's, which I can't even begin to imagine, as the only work of his I am familiar with is Barbarella, in which Jane Fonda is nearly pecked to death by parakeets.
Personally, I don't think they gave enough information to solve this crime before the Inspector reveals his solution at the end. Then again, I don't read too many crime novels, and I pretty much never manage to solve them on my own, so "your milage may vary" as they say.
The fun/interesting thing about this book was little details unique to Japan, or Japan in 1960. In any American detective story, you can pretty much rely on observance of the 4th Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizures)... detectives need a search warrant! Not so much with Inspector Imanishi. On several occasions, he tricks landladies into letting him into a renter's apartment to look around... tricks a maid to letting him into a hotel room... etc. On one single page, he makes mention of getting a search warrant, but it's not clear what circumstances would require getting one. Certainly the requirements were looser in 1960 Japan than what we are used to.
Another very Japanese thing: the Inspector pretends to be from an agency making arranged marriage recommendations to families, as a ruse to get information about one of his suspects. He just shows up at the home of one of the suspect's employees, and says a family is considering making a marriage proposal of their daughter to his parents, but he just wants to discreetly find out whether the guy is a heavy drinker, whether he frequents bars X, Y, or Z, etc... and the employee is glad to tell him what she knows! She likes her boss, and wants him to marry the best possible woman!
One other good one: a fairly major plot point is that one person isn't who he seems to be, because he has created a completely new identity. How did he do it? He knew of a town so completely destroyed in World War 2 bombing run that City Hall had no intact birth/death/real estate/census records. After the war, when stuff was rebuilt, he showed up at City Hall and said "My house was burned up in the war, but my name is (whatever), and my birthday was (whatever), and if you're rebuilding the census records, you can put down that I've lived here since 1922, etc.."
It makes sense that after the war, destruction of records probably allowed a lot of document falsifications like this, for all sorts of reasons. It probably isn't even a spectacularly innovative plot device; readers in Japan 1960 were probably well-familiar with those sorts of bureaucratic snags in their own lives.
The story itself is okay.
Oh, one other thing, not unique to Japan, but to the late 50's/ early 60's: there is an eccentric artist character... kind of an Andy Warhol type, who thinks so far outside the box that he is able to shock and amaze audiences by playing traditional music on some newfangled instrument which generates sounds using electric components like transistors! Good stuff.
We’re covering about 4000 years of history in 350 pages, so you know it will be very superficial and introductory. As it happens, that’s what I needed, because my knowledge of Indian history was pretty much zero. The book is roughly divided into five Eras: Prehistory, the Age of the Hindu Princes, the Age of the Mughal Rulers, the Age of British Rule, and the Postcolonial Era.
The biggest misconception I had about India was dispelled in the first 50 pages. For some reason, I thought India lie hidden and inaccessible behind the Himalaya Mountains, relatively unknown and isolated throughout ancient times. I knew that Alexander the Great’s armies briefly reached India, but I pictured it as an aberration, and thought maybe they reached some far-off hilltop, from which they might have gazed at India, without actually trespassing.
Wherever that idea came from, it was absurd, and plainly wrong. Going back thousands of years, Uzbeks, Kurds, Persians, and Afghans all frequently penetrated into India, both as traders, scholars, proselytizers, and military invaders. The Romans traded frequently with Gujarati merchants on the Northwestern Indian shore- as attested by the discovery of tens of thousands of Roman Empire mint coins there, as well as 1st Century Roman writings which describe the “monsoon passage” across the Arabian Sea, and the spice traders of Gujarat waiting to trade on the other side.
Alexander did reach India, and his armies battled the Hindu princes and their fantastical (to Greek eyes) cavalries of war elephants on the flood plains between the Indus and Ganges rivers. Of interest: Alexander did well against the less-organized Hindu princes, and might have had a more lasting presence in India, but was forced to turn back to Greece by his armies, who began to suspect that his higher-than-expected casualties was a ploy to avoid paying them.
The Era of the Hindu princes was a time of small agrarian (mostly rice-based, but some wheat-based in the North) city-states, and Hinduism was a disunified patchwork of different local beliefs.
Moving into the period of the European Middle Ages, India thrived. Mongol invaders and traveling Chinese scholars facilitated cultural exchange with the East, while Persian invasion brought Islam and the more elaborate system of bureaucratic rule from the West. The Era of Mughal princes marks a period of consolidation, social polarization between converts to Islam and Hindus, attendant homogenization of Hindu beliefs, expansion of domestic trade, and divergent evolution of the “Dravidic” character of the South compared to the “Aryan” character of the North. The South develops extensive trade with Indonesia and Indochina (particularly the Angkor Kingdom in present-day Cambodia). The North gravitates towards Afghan and Persian influences, particularly in the Kashmir and Punjab regions… which persist in modern day as hotspots of territorial and cultural conflict between (Muslim) Pakistan and (predominantly Hindu) India.
The chapters about British rule focus mainly on how England got its foothold into India through the British East India Company, which found favor among traders in Bengal and Orissa by introducing a much-needed stable and non-counterfeitable medium of trade: silver. Using cheap labor paid in silver, the East India Company set up spinning factories to spin cotton (locally grown, and later imported from Egypt and the American South) and later (after the Industrial Revolution) to weave them into textiles. While local princes fought each other and diminished each other, East India Company made itself indispensable to the Bengali economy. As East India Company officials were taken into confidence of the local rulers, they began to assert British principles of jurisprudence into local laws, and established courts based on British law, and largely attended and run by the British. From there, British schools were established, and the East India Company began to exact payment from local leaders for the “services” it was providing.
The history of the British in India seems to be a story of “mission creep”. Even the founders of the East India Company never envisioned it as a vehicle for conquest. Yet… by the mid-1700’s, Bengali princes who opposed the British were easily removed, and more friendly puppets installed in their places. British “fees” became taxes, and payment to East India Company shareholders as well as to the Crown became institutionalized as tribute paid by a colony. Technological advances such as the railroads, telegraphs, better-developed port facilities, and electricity were all installed, wholly owned and maintained by the British. Eliminating the Dutch and Portuguese presence in India, and setting up a controlled national government were easily achieved at this point. Offical rule by the British government, as opposed to the British East India Company, was formalized in the mid-1800's after a series of rebellions were put down, which strained the resources of the Company, and exposed the absurdity of a textile and spice trading company ruling a nation of (at the time) 200 million.
As an aside, the municipal history of Calcutta is covered here, which is an unlikely story of a small rice-farming village which just happened to be situated in the right location to become a sprawling metropolis and the epicenter of British government on the subcontinent for 350 years.
Gandhi and the separatist movement is covered, and the part I found most surprising it how long it dragged out. In some ways, the British seemed to know that they could never hold power over so many subjects, located at such a distance from England, without their consent. From the earliest days of the East India Company, the Company sought (by necessity) to rule with minimal application of force, and when such force was needed, it was subcontracted out to hired "muscle" -often from Punjab, whose geography on the frontier to the Persian Empire caused them to develop their martial practice to a much more sophisticated degree than many other regions.
Throughout the India and Britain were starting to negotiate separation as early as World War 1, but always with dallying and British excuses. (Personally, I think this is how the European Union plans to stave off the British “Brexit”.) The modern era is better known to most of us, and the 1982 movie “Gandhi”, starring Ben Kingsley, complements this portion of the book well.
Overall this is a good introductory book which assumes very little foreknowledge of Indian history. My one complaint is that it lacks adequate maps to accompany the text, and the maps which are provided have such small text that they are practically unreadable.
I was just trying something new here. Horror isn't really my genre, but a friend really liked this book so I gave it a try. I like aspects of it... the idea of never really being sure what the nature of the monster actually is. I can imagine that if Earth were invaded by aliens, or if monsters were created in some government experiment gone wrong, or if some portal opened up between Earth and (??somewhere??)... we wouldn't necessarily know the whole backstory of the threat, and how it came to be, and what might be done about it... before society completely collapsed, leaving the survivors scratching their heads wondering what the hell just happened.
The book captures the claustrophobic mood of people trapped together in close quarters very well. And there is a particular plot point I don't want to spoil, but I am reminded of Nightmare on Elm Street, where the victims can never let themselves fall asleep. Also, something about this has a vibe of Day of the Triffids, but I can't quite put my finger on it.