What are you reading?

Jump to Latest
#82
One of the saddest things about our uncivil(well they were past talking) war
was the poor folk duped into fighting and dying for the rich people's right
to keep their wages(and the value of their crops) down.


It's hard to compete with slave labor.
 
#84
Galu said:
I reserved his recent book "The Body: A Guide for Occupants" at the library just before it suspended operations. 🙁

The book contains the chapter "When Things Go Wrong: Diseases", a topic I'm sure Bill tackles in his usual humorous style! 😉
Click to expand...
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" was my first and favourite book written by him. So educative and entartaining!
 
#86
lcsaszar said:
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" was my first and favourite book written by him. So educative and entertaining!
Click to expand...
I've a hardback copy which I keep as a handy reference source. I also have the audio version of the book read by the author - very listenable indeed.
 

Attachments

  • ASHONE.jpg
    ASHONE.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 129
#87
eduard said:
Hello,
You wanted to post a link where you can see American citizens in front of a world map and being asked to locate some countries?
Most Europeans wont be that much better but still.
Greetings, Eduard
Click to expand...


Well... While the book focuses on the history of these tendencies in the United States, I can assure you that it was not written to perpetuate stereotypes.
 
#88
I have spent a productive last couple of days learning about the American Civil War. Seems that Federal or Northern Ulysses S. Grant respected Southern or Confederate Robert E. Lee as a soldier.

You can get Grant's memoirs for "De Nada" on Gutenberg:
PERSONAL MEMOIRS U. S. GRANT, complete

I also learnt that Republican President Abe Lincoln got shot by Democrat Confederate sympathisers within 5 days of Lee's surrender after Appottomax. Lincoln was apparently severely addled by huge intake of constipation medicines containing dubious Mercury by that time. The South then entered about a 100 years of rigged elections.

It's confusing to a British reader that the Republicans were the Liberal Party in those days. And the Geography is not entirely familiar either. But the whole thing was horrible.

Ah well, let's lighten up. 😱

I always enjoy the New Yorker magazine. Was reading about (sadly-deceased) Leonard Cohen today.
Leonard Cohen Makes It Darker | The New Yorker

Even made me rustle up his current "Greatest Hits" and put them on my CD player. My favourite Leonard Cohen disk is Songs of Leonard Cohen.

A gent, IMO.
 
#92
martyh said:
If you really want to get confused... look at how the narrative of the what that war was about changed over the years.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think the current mainstream narrative is the correct one. And even if one did not agree with the wider consensus there is certainly more published analysis for both sides of the debate. I think that's true of much of history in general. Trying to stay clear of politics there was a Canadian leader not too long ago that tried to play with historical facts to appease his base and there was quite an uproar from historians. So it's universal.
 
#94
All fascinating stuff. General Eisenhower took General De Gaulle on a tour of Gettysburg post WW2:
De Gaulle and Ike at Gettysburg - Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog

Dwight said:
‘Oh, I had a few observations of my own to make. When de Gaulle told me how surprised he was at some of Lee’s blunders, I told him about the blunders of the Union Commander, George Meade. Meade could have ended that war then and there if he had pursued the rebel army as it retreated southward from Gettysburg. Lee could not get his men across the storm-swollen Potomac. If Meade has pursued him, he could have destroyed the Army of North Virginia, ending the Civil War. De Gaulle agreed, then paused. ‘Victory’ he said sardonically, ‘often goes to the army that makes the least mistakes not the most brilliant plans.’’
Click to expand...

An astute observation IMO.

Beach Combing said:
What, in fact, is most striking about that close-run part of the war is not the British playing a weak hand with panache, it is the appalling and entirely uncharacteristic mistakes made by the Germans. The Germans who had done everything right from 1936 until May 1940 starting, unaccountably, tripping over flower pots and walking into doors. Britain could play its cards as well as it wanted, but its survival depended on Germany screwing up hand after hand and the Nazis obliged.
Click to expand...

Why Did Germany Screw Up in 1940? - Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog

More comfortable to watch Football, IMO. But the same principles apply. Strategy, Tactics, Momentum and Morale and Finance and Organization. And you can still play Monday Morning Quarterback from your armchair. 😀
 
#95
leadbelly said:
Lee was quite an intimidating figure. His defeat of Hooker is basically winning by pure intimidation over a stronger opponent.
Click to expand...

Hooker beat himself at Chancellorsville. He laid the groundwork for his defeat before he was even given command by undermining Burnside at every turn.

Here is an excerpt from Lincoln’s letter to Hooker after his promotion.
“I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the army, of criticizing the command and withholding confidence in him, will now turn upon you”

If Lee didn’t know the state of the Union Army beforehand, he certainly did on the 3rd. I’ll give him credit for being smart enough to turn from the main Union force on the 4th. That would have been suicidal if he had been facing a disciplined army under competent command. It didn’t take him long to figure out things had changed when Grant came knocking.

All in all, I think he was a great general who took the measure of his opponents and adjusted accordingly. Still, the man was a traitor fighting to defend a despicable institution. He should have been shot on the day he surrendered.
 
#96
martyh said:
snip...
Still, the man was a traitor fighting to defend a despicable institution. He should have been shot on the day he surrendered.
Click to expand...

NO! Lee was an Army professional in pursuit of his duty! No crime in that. "Comical Ali", who defended the equally dubious Saddam Hussein was never indicted for War Crimes.

When Virginia seceded from the US, he saw himself as primarily a Virginian. He was very dubious about the Confederacy. But went along with the verdict.

Fate decided which side he was on.

IMO, General Hooker was a sort of "Montgomery" figure. He used the same organizational improvements on his Army. Better sanitation, Improved diet. All admirable.

I didn't want to go into it last time. but "Monty" opined that both Lee and Meade should have been sacked after Gettysburg. Little expecting the furore that followed. After all, he was going to inflame one side or the other. 😱

Anyway, all History. The Union won because it was bigger. My verdict. 😎
 
#99
During February and March I read "1491" by Charles C. Mann. I had previously read the sequel "1493", both are very good. "1491" was very apropos as it describes the destruction by disease of entire societies in the Americas in the aftermath of European contact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom