Best historiography books according to redditors
We found 203 Reddit comments discussing the best historiography books. We ranked the 82 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 203 Reddit comments discussing the best historiography books. We ranked the 82 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Different tourneys had different rules.
Chivalry should be considered to be somewhat akin to the pirate code from the Depp movies rather than strict rules. David Hackett Fischer would get mad at you for bringing up the concept anyway.
Indeed. The Japanese government makes no effort to redress the numerous war crimes and acts of genocide (just one example from where I grew up) their predecessors committed.
Instead they're happy to sweep it under the rug and act like they were unwilling participants, forcibly dragged into a war they didn't want by western imperialists. Horseshit. Until they recognise the many horrific crimes of their forefathers, it's a bit rich to try and guilt the West about the atom bombs as they've done before (not necessarily in this instance).
Here's a good book if you're looking to explore the issue.
Edit: The book I'm linking isn't the one I remembered so my comment is basically worthless. I might have gotten the whole thing wrong.
I wonder how many people know that Hitler had dozens of Jewish Generals in his army, many were close friends with him.
Also --
Black Nazis! A Study of Racial Ambivalence in Nazi Germany's Military Establishment: Non-German Ethnic Minority and Foreign Volunteers, Conscripts, Laborers and POWs, 1940-1945
http://www.amazon.com/Racial-Ambivalence-Germanys-Military-Establishment/dp/1934703516
From the reviews.
>Ms. Clark also provides far more than enough written evidence for the fact that German racial attitudes were far more enlightened than anything in the US or British military at that time. Blacks in the German military were not merely truck drivers or ammunition handlers as in the US generally; they were highly trained for combat and for intelligence gathering, especially in North Africa.
>ei esimerkiksi toimi todisteena sille että multikulttuurisuus on pahasta.
Miksi kyseisen artikkelin pitäisi olla todiste asialle minkä tueksi löytyy jo aivan tarpeeksi tutkimusta?
Arvaatko mikä on ollut historiassa suurena syynä valtakuntien hajoamiseen? Monikulttuurisuus.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Historical-Dynamics-Princeton-Studies-Complexity/dp/0691116695
This is something that takes a lot of practice, and many schools don't or can't teach it. Fear not, it's easier than it sounds.
First, some background:
http://www.amazon.com/Global-History-Modern-Historiography/dp/0582096065
This will introduce you to most of the historical method used today. It's quite boring, but if you're going to study history, you'll need to get used to reading some pretty dry material.
For a styleguide, use Diana Hacker's:
http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Style-Manual-Diana-Hacker/dp/0312542542/
It will teach you everything you need to know about citations.
As far as getting better at source analysis, that's something that comes with time in class and practice with primary and secondary source documents. If you're just going into college, it's something you're going to learn naturally.
However, I do have some tips.
-The main goal of a piece of historiography is to bring you to a thesis and then clearly support that argument. All REAL historiography asks a historical question of some sort. I.E. not when and where, but a more contextual why and how.
-Real historiography is produced 99.9% of the time by a university press, NOT A PRIVATE FIRM. If a celebrity wrote it, it's probably not history.
-Most, if not all real historiography is going to spell out the thesis for you almost immediately.
-A lot of historiography is quite formulaic in terms of its layout and how it's put together on paper:
A. Introduction -- thesis statement and main argument followed by a brief review of past historiography on the subject.
B Section 1 of the argument with an a,b, and c point to make in support.
C just like B
D just like B again, but reinforces A a little more
E Conclusion, ties all sections together and fully reinforces A.
Not all works are like this, but almost every piece you will write in college is or should be.
Some history books that do real history (by proper historians) and are easy to find arguments in, just off the top of my head:
http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Whiteness-American-Working-Haymarket/dp/1844671453
http://www.amazon.com/Economists-Guns-Authoritarian-Development-U-S--Indonesian/dp/0804771820/
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Battalions-Crisis-American-Nationality/dp/0805081380
For the primer on social histories, read Howard Zinn:
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/
What you're going to come across MORE often than books is a series of articles that make different (sometimes conflicting) points about a historical issue: (I can't really link the ones I have because of copyright [they won't load without a password], but check out google scholar until you have access to a university library)
Virtually any subject can be researched, you just have to look in the right place and keep an open mind about your thesis. Just because you've found a source that blows away your thesis doesn't mean it's invalid. If you find a wealth of that kind of stuff, you might want to rethink your position, though.
This isn't comprehensive, but I hope it helps. Get into a methods class AS FAST AS POSSIBLE and your degree program will go much, much smoother for you.
What if we aren't white or east-asian, but still support your cause and understand the threat to western civilization, the finest on earth which has given us the most progress humanitarian and technological progress, from a human biodiversity perspective?
Even Hitler had honorary Aryan's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan
There's a series of books related to this subject, which has, unsurprisingly, been largely ignored, titled "Black Nazis!": https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
Being a strong hereditarian, HBD proponent, and anti-natalist; I would never spread my diseased genes. I'm even planning on altering my facial appearance so as not to offend your eyes.
They do. Both are individualistic belief systems.
Post Modernism:
>Post-Modernism is, in essence, an individualist philosophy. Individualists encourage the exercise of an individual's goals and desires and therefore value independence and self-reliance. They also argue that the interests of the individual are more important than those of the state or of any social group. They therefore oppose external interference by society or the government on the interests of the individual.
Neoliberalism:
>When it comes to individualization, this idea is one of the fundamental aspects of neoliberalism. In fact, Bauman (2000:34) argues that in neoliberal states “individualization is a fate, not a choice.” As Amable (2011) explains, neoliberals have realized that in order for their ideology to be successful, a state’s populace must internalize the belief that individuals are only to be rewarded based on their personal effort. With such an ego-driven focus, Scharff (2011) explains that the process of individualization engenders a climate where structural inequalities are converted into individual problems.
The reason why feminism is what it is, is because of neoliberalism/postmodernism. Still love this talk about it.
But there are other critiques like The Condition of Postmodernity or Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. I thought it was common Marxist logic that they were linked?
Rebuttal?
sigh you know you're in for a good book when there are comments like...
>"Truth Alert!" The reiteration of the same "facts" and "true events" that have been verbosely over-saturated on every form of "journalism" and news media outlet for the last 65 years are not to be found in this book.
Fukuyama vs Huntington.
Gay nazis existed
Black Nazis existed
So I'll repeat: those points don't stop someone being Nazi/fascist.
Milo was so blind to the alt-rights true intention sounds like his pathetic excuse for the karaoke video with the Nazi salutes and Spencer. For someone who knew nothing of their true face he certainly was able to court them very well.
Thia "it's just a joke" defence is flimsy too. Let's take his article on women and GPS systems for example. It's simply vitriol under a thin veneer of humour. Also if his mainessage is the internet should just be a tool for him to bully people then he's more of a tit than I thought.
So the take home I'm getting from your post is he isn't a Nazi but has no problem propping up Nazis to further his own agenda? Okay, I'll concede he might not be a Nazi, but he's just as complicit in fostering a Nazi/fascist movement. At what point is that just splitting hairs?
That Noble Dream
Peter Novick
It is a history of 20th century American professional historians and a real eye opener. One highlight: Charles Beard was the most respected historian in the country in 1940. His books were the best. His research was the tightest. People near-unanimously described him as one of the nicest people they ever met.
He became a pariah overnight because he had misgivings about the World War II project. The wikipedia article alludes to this, but if you read Novick's presentation your head will spin. And not just his telling of the Charles Beard story. The entire book is like that.
What you're thinking of is probably Fukuyamas second thesis of the 'last man'; http://www.amazon.com/The-End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550
I think your biggest problem is that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what constitutes a historical source, how historians approach these sources, and what historical evidence is. I'd suggest you read something like Marc Bloch's The Historian's Craft or Carr's What is History? to get a better grasp on these issues. Alternatively, you can seek out some scholarly work in Biblical history or other works on ancient history to get a better idea of how specifically historians in those fields approach their sources, and what their methods looks like.
> Most sociologists are critical of quantitative methods, but when it comes to qualitative research it is "deep" and "rich".
On the contrary, with the exception of some outliers (i.e. pro-quantitative Durkheim and Comte; pro-qualitative Oakley etc.) Sociologists tend to hold triangulation as the ideal regarding sociological research - quantitative and qualitative methods, in whichever proportion the sociologist in question prefers.
By all means, I have scarcely ever seen a Sociologist not cite statistics to back up their evidence, and rarely have I seen the evidence take the form of qualitative interviewing or open-ending opining. Maybe the theorists I've read differ from the ones that you have.
___
However, in theory, I agree with you - I'm no fan of postmodernism, myself, and for me, Foucault falls into the category of "pop sociology" - albeit, perhaps that is more of a testament to my opposition to whatever theory is in vogue at the time.
I have met people who have read only Foucault, concerned only with postmodernism, then claimed to have extensive sociological knowledge - I say, such claims do our field a disservice. When schools of thought are filled with such people, it can only be to their and our detriment.
I'm as much of a fan of complaining about the needlessly intricate and complex use of language as you are, and perhaps it is disguising a lack of theoretical points, but I think such a conclusion is a hasty judgement - if sociological postmodernism is really all make-believe, then Sociological criticisms will be quick to shoot it down, like it has been attempted in the historical realm.
However, for every Sokal Affair, there is a Schön Scandal, and perhaps the lesson here is simply that no academic is infallible, and there should be greater stringency in all fields as to not letting our standards slip. Postmodernism has flaws, but - as irritating as it is to attempt to give credence to such an irritating ideology - all schools-of-thought have flaws and criticisms attached to them; from Functionalism to Feminism (all sub-branches), Marxism to Interactionism.
The philosophy of science has already done plenty to show us that the natural sciences are just as fallible, additionally; if not more so, accounting for Kuhn's work on paradigms - innovation and radicalism leading to condemnation, with the refusal of new ideas, perspectives and interpretations that ultimately hinders and slows the progress of the natural sciences.
Read these two books.
Firstly one of the most important and well regarded book on the Holocaust.
Secondly the best deconstruction of the claims of Holocaust denial, which the IHR most certainly are.
> This my friends, is not the first reset done by the elites. I take it that they wait for a certain breaking point in society.
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-World-Mark-Booth/dp/1590201620
The above book describes the timeframe they operate on; although basically it's astrological. They believe that only the periods of time which correspond with certain astrological signs should be permitted to have continuous memory of each other, while there needs to be some sort of cataclysm seperating others, where the memory of the preceding time is wiped out.
They are also very strong evolutionists, and they don't tolerate stragglers. This is part of the reason why they generally do not tolerate the existence of indigenous groups, because they think that the whole of humanity should keep up with whatever they think its' current technological/cultural scenario should be, and they usually kill anyone who they consider regressive. They don't believe in dynamic equilibrium or homeostasis. They think that everything is continually moving forward, and that nothing should be permitted to ever remain the same, even if genuine stability is found.
Judaism is a major exception to this rule; it is an Aries age religion, which has operated continually for three astrological ages, and is now entering a fourth, Aquarius. Presumably the exception is tolerated due to the power held by some of its' adherents, although it probably also had something to do with the motivation behind the Holocaust as well.
This is also why I do not condone evolution as an idea, because I know who it comes from, and what its' social consequences are.
> we'd won, it was all over and capitalism and democracy would give us a bright modern future
Francis Fucking Fukuyama deserves a huge share of the blame for propagating this bullshit.
One person I know moved to a hood area directly from South China a few years after graduating from Jr High School and it sucked for her. But I have visited that area and have friends there but because I speak idiomatic English well I did not face much racism.
The main problem Mainland Chinese people face in those areas is not saying Excuse me when moving past someone, and spitting outside. Black people are VERY keen on everyone saying excuse me etc because they come from an extension of Southern culture which is heavily based on expressing politeness at all times due to a history of social volatility among all races and emulation of British aristocratic culture in the Virginia Colony. As well as having to maintain "Respectability Politics" by being more polite than whites.
This is why "hood" blacks place such a premium on symbolically being a "gentleman", code of honnor,wearing Gucci, a fedora unironically, many Gangsta women use "Lady" in their names, emulation of Italian Mafia culture, love of fashion, because they were denied this Southern aristocratic status in the past. Listening to older Rap gives this impression.
Again these people (Ghetto) are the same as Bogans or Chavs which are white hood rats. Many Asians in the inner city don't run into rednecks much, their encounters with whites are mostly with Hipster / Suburbanite / College educated whites so they conflate race and class. But a lot of Asians in the inner city can and do beef with Guidos (Italian Rednecks) if they live in a ghetto white neighborhood.
White hipsters and rich suburbanites (Including Bourgeois blacks) are nicer to Asians because they are nicer to each other and that is their mannerism in general. That is why their bias mostly comes out in micro aggressions.
You mean like this?
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
>he didn't demolish any claims, in that instance he points out that Joan Peter's interpretation of a report in the British Archives could be exaggerated
He completely fucking demolished her hoax of a book.
>he is his own undoing
So the ineffable Dershowitz had nothing to do with it, in your opinion? Finkelstein also has shown the extent to which Dershowitz himself is a fraud. Which is partly why Desrshowitz invested so much of his own declining political capital in his persecution of Finkelstein.
I was pretty impressed with the Very Short Introduction series' History, but that may not really qualify as "academic". The author of that book, John Arnold, also wrote a solid book called What is Medieval History, if you're interested in a more specific look.
Geez, where to start?
First of all, since WWII there has only been one election decided by 10% or more, and that was Reagan. Every other election has been nearly 50/50 between the two parties. No matter the changes in demographics, which states voted what, which issues matter, etc. Always basically a coin toss as to who wins.
So to say "We are imploding as a country" is just hyperbolic idiocy. We are, as we have been for 70 years, divided in half. Seriously, just stop. If the election results on one hand or the "protests" on the other cause you to think anything real has changed, grab some smelling salts, grab your fainting couch, grab a Xanax, get a therapist, whatever, but seriously stop being such a drama queen. Half the county is Republican, as it has been for nearly a century, and the Democratic left is a bunch of cry babies, as they have been since 1969 at the latest. Just stop.
Second, this whole massive angst is, again, such a great example of why democracy is not a great idea. It takes EVERYTHING related to government - law, economics, foreign policy, war, whatever - and transforms it into an ideological statement about life, the universe, amd everything. It makes it such a bigger deal than it ever would otherwise be. As everyone, from democracy's supporters to its critics acknowledge. It's not that important. Just let it go.
The last book I read was History: A Short Introduction which was assigned reading for me in college. For whatever reason I felt like re-reading it which is stupid because there are a ton of books on my shelf right now I haven't gotten around to yet. Last weekend I picked up Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and with school starting I'm not sure when I'll get around to reading it.
Even better- Michael Shermer actually did a book called Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? about holocaust denial specifically and covers a lot of the claims that Holocaust deniers make.
I read it and it is pretty good. It should help explain about why these people are full of shit.
To quote Thomas Haskell, "objectivity is not neutrality." I think one can be an objective, professional historian but still engage with one's research subjects as moral beings. I certainly don't check that sentiment at the door. Whether one has moral feelings about a subject is not what is going to account for whether one is biased about it or not. I believe that one can objectively come to strong ethical or moral conclusions about a given subject.
That being said, one wants to avoid being obviously anachronistic, or incredibly stupid about doing such a thing. One wants to avoid flip judgments that rely entirely on the benefit of hindsight. One wants to avoid being overly presentist in one's approach to the past. And so on.
My general approach is to try and phrase the hard moral issues as broad questions. For example, when talking about the morality of the bombing of Hiroshima, I like to pose my thoughts as a question rather than an answer: under what conditions do we find it morally acceptable, if any, to deliberately set large civilian populations on fire? To me this dodges that standard moral approaches, and instead frames it as a general problem (personal and societal) to be solved, rather than trying to pass specific judgment on the people at the time.
That being said, that's not the primary goal of writing history. But it's hard not to meditate about such things if one is working in areas where people are (as they often are) doing quite unpleasant things to one another.
Required reading for anyone doing any kind of serious study in history is Peter Novick's _That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession_. Worth checking out if you are interested in how historians have approach this and many other questions over the last few centuries, at least in the USA. Short version: it's complicated and contested.
Being on the political science side, the question is always for me; what creates a stable society? What creates a society in which people are willing to stand and defend it? In a way, my argument is in a sense kind of nationalist, but it is more an ideal in how we create something stable in which people are connected rather than divided.
As Macron said, "I am a strong believer that modern political life must rediscover a sense for symbolism. We need to develop a kind of political heroism. I don't mean that I want to play the hero. But we need to be amenable once again to creating grand narratives."
I think American Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are too quick to try and hail the "Last Man" has arrived, when the process is going to continue long after we've all expired. Public goods and interests unite a society to provide for the common welfare, consumerism is just stuff for individuals and the money it provides makes us more comfortable, but it doesn't unite us.
Start with a methods book. It'll give you insight into the profession and help you understand why historians say what they say.
There are many, but I think Iggers' Historiography in the Twentieth Century is as good as any. Accessible, not too jargon-laden.
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but I've been told that On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present is fantastic. It's definitely not written in the style used by Kean or Bryson, but is one of the more thorough histories I've seen - covering over 2,500 years of political philosophy.
https://www.amazon.com/Politics-History-Political-Thought-Herodotus/dp/0871404656
They’re not the quickest of reads.
some things are best to be clued into and let one discover for oneself. i've read a bunch of books & authors (still am reading) from tool's recommended reading material, like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell and Bob Frissell You Are a Spiritual Being Having a Human Experience. I even admit to owning a Drunvalo Melchizedek book on the Flower of Life which reads like a New Age Bullshit Hippy Dippy Textbook on advanced circle drawing with a compass. I like the idea on the Flower of Life but Melchizedek is waayy out there. Maynard talked about that briefly in his book. I finally got around to John Crowley's Aegypt recently, which is actually a series of 4 novels, very good and I highly recommend it. Crowley is such a great writer and there's times you can clearly see influence in mjk's lyrics. There's a book called The Secret History of the World that covers these subjects through human history, if you are curious it's a great resource.
> Netanyahu is the personification of Chutzpah.
And beyond...
I don't think they've won anything. They made fools out of us because they were fools. Read some of their "philosophy." I recommend Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man. It's nonsensical gibberish claiming that liberal democracies are inherently perfect.
By these people's thinking, we could create Iraqi and Afghan parliaments, and the problems and animosities in those countries would vanish. It's ahistorical garbage. It was this that led us into war with too few troops in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, and Iraq, a country held together by strongmen, in a region held together by strongmen, since the British left.
Good books for this sort of meta-history:
Georg Iggers: Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge and A Global History of Modern Historiography.
There's also the short, but excellent, but German book Geschichtswissenschaft im Zeitalter der Extreme: Theorien, Methoden, Tendenzen von 1900 bis zur Gegenwart (Historiography in the Age of Extremes: Theories, Methodology, Tendencies from 1900 untill Today) by Lutz Raphael. He concludes that global history is increasing, i.e. less national history, more foreign professors in history departments, the rise of former third world countries' historiography and their proponents will make history increasingly multi-polar, which, coupled with more and more diverse fields of history (gender history, history of sub-cultures, etc) will increasingly diversify and fracture historiography. I tend to agree.
Addendum: This is, I think, especially eminent in the European Union, as professors' and students' mobility increases, and even school children are introduced into a transnational way of looking at the world and at history. For example, there is a history school book that includes French and German perspectives and can be used in both countries (translated into the appropriate language, but with no changes of content).
Good points, I'll have think more about it. I remember one my takeaways from an early chapter in this book was about the failings of early democracy. Admittedly the earliest democracy was, as you say, a bourgeois democracy.
As others have noted, you could want to focus on historiography, which is the study of history as a scientific discipline. Because while there have been various approaches to historical research, there have never been any major changes in its main goal since the modern discipline was founded in the 19th century. So all the methodological trends that have emerged have all sought to find better ways to interpret historical sources, and new ways to approach history (women's history is an example of the latter).
Philosophy of history is separate from historical methodology and historiography (although many historians have changed their methodology to fit more or less philosophical convictions), and is rather difficult to pin down exactly. I suggest you find an introductory book that deals with the various approaches. It's useless to jump right into Hegel or Nietzsche without knowing their broader contexts.
After looking through the contents, this book looks like a good starting point if you want to get into historiography: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0582096065/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link.
When it comes to philosophy of history, this seems like a good starting point: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-History-M-C-Lemon/dp/041516205X. It covers the pre-Hegel thinkers, Hegel, Marx, the analytics, the postmodernists, Fukuyama, as well as some general questions related to philosophy of history.
If you really want to find a way to combine history and philosophy in a meaningful way, you might want to focus on the more general topic of hermeneutics. It relates to history in an indirect way, and my experience is that many historians and archaeologists are familiar with it. There are both "analytic" and "continental" approaches to hermeneutics, and as far as I know it's a relatively active field. You can read about it here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/
Another approach entirely is to use your philosophy major to focus on the history of ideas / history of philosophy, rather than the philosophy of history. I think this is a better idea if you are already historically inclined.
Finally, there's no real reason to try to combine your two majors unless you have a particular interest in philosophy of history. It probably won't make you a better historian. On the other hand, having a firm grasp on the history of ideas would probably make you a better historian.
> orthodoxy has always had the same beliefs and the same observances. The only changes are in regards to custom, and even then at a glacial pace.
The order in which the blessing vs lighting the candles changed in Hadlakat Nerot specifically because of the Esseans their are others but that is the one that I can think of offhand.
I have on my ever expanding reading list a book about changes in Orthadoxy called Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History by Marc Shapiro that I want to get to. The People's Prayerbook series (Hoffman) goes into some good history as well but they are easier used as a reference (IMO). Their is also a good article on the above book here.
The article points out some other items like the fact that men were not allowed to use mirrors, and one opinion in the Talmud was to allow fowl and milk to be cooked together. Orthodox Judaism does change they just do it in the Talmud, but that also allows for re-writing of things. *Rabbinic Judaism itself was only created after the destruction of the second Temple and takes a lot of it's practices from the Babylonian exile.
> The 9/11 thing wasn't something only liberals did.
In the mid 2000s (ie, when Bush was president) the amount of liberals that believed it was an inside job eclipsed the amount of conservatives that did by a huge number.
> Pretty much every modern conspiracy with a large following is conservative in nature, there are a few that apply to both sides but most of are conservatives.
I really don't think so.
> There are actually studies on this, conservative ideology tends to be more conducive to to conspiracy theories.
Those studies must've been done in the last thirty or so years. I'd encourage you to read this" https://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Histories-Conspiracy-Shaping-History/dp/1594484988
The Historian's Craft by Marc Bloch is a good start, in my opinion.
You might be intersted in this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-History-World-Jonathan-Black/dp/0857380974
I found it a ball ache of a read but sounds like it might be right up your street
heres how i understand freemasons role in the nwo/illumaniti thing. the illuminati is a club within a club that started in the late 1700s. a courrier delivering the plan to take over the world was struck by lightening and killed. he was found with this letter and the leader i think of bavaria tried to warn other leaders of this plan. part of the plan was to create a global congress. this almost happened in the 1800s but a leader who was warned that this was the plan struck down the congress of vienna. that guy who stopped it was the czar whos family got killed except for a daughter named anastaisa. yea i could go on forever, just know its the people who control the banking systems that control the world or at least are trying very hard to and they took over the vatican the jesuits used to be called illuminatti something.... again i could go on forever but instead heres where i got my stuff from - watch this lecture jack otto's lecture on the people who are trying to take over the world and this book is awesome and describes everything in more detail the secret history of the world by mark booth
It sounds comforting to say that Judaism is an immovable rock in the sea of time, and yes we have concrete proof that the text of the Torah is unchanged, but even that has some cracks (namely the case of the Three Scrolls) and the Torah itself is not the core of Jewish practice for anyone but groups like the Karaites. The Talmud, even in its unbroken sequence has proven to be a very organic, living document. That's both by design and necessity. Jews and Jewish practice has absolutely changed and adapted to a changing world. For example, prohibitions against providing aid non-Jews have been relaxed and allowances for things like polygamy and child marriage restricted. We can't pretend pre-digital laws perfectly fit into 2019 any more than we could expect to live as one did in Babylonia or Jerusalem during Talmudic times in the modern day. Judaism has evolved.
That's not to say halacha is flexible. It is absolutely rigid and unbending in a pure exercise of letter-of-the-law legalism. But the halachic process is far more organic than hardliners will admit. Rabbinic decision-making is not one of prophetic revelation or divine decree, it's made by humans in response to changing human conditions. But the core strength of the process does not lie in the verdict, as Loius Ironson points out in Angels in America, but the process of debate and investigation by which we get there that makes Judaism unique among religions. Many books have been written about the extrajudicial decisions made by rabbis over the centuries that deviate from the law based on the reality of a situation, and even some on the efforts to ignore or outright deny these halachic decisions. Herman Wouk talks about this in This Is My God, calling it the 'slow veto' of Judaism, whereby changes to modern living start with the decisions of old, but are adjusted by necessity as communities accept or reject where they must to survive.
I've come to think of the Torah less as 'the bible' and more as the Constitution. It's a framework document, the core of all the myriad of legal decisions and counter-decisions and counter-counter-decisions over the centuries. It in and of itself is not a working document for how to live life, but it's the core of the larger Jewish superstructure. We'll always be hated and viewed as backward by some and called bigots by others, and while the core is unchanging the greater Jewish lifestyle and understanding is able to adjust where it needs as it always has.
It is indeed a complex situation, but these would be a good start:
Earlier history:
For more contextual books, I would recommend:
Don't you know all the serious analysis and critique of postmodernism has come from alt-right Youtube personas like Fredric Jameson and David Harvey?
Read this. Explains a lot of why and how Japan, Germany and Austria atoned for their war crimes and why and how. Good overview, will save pointless speculation in this thread too.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Chutzpah-Misuse-Anti-Semitism-History/dp/0520249895/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1483129182&sr=8-2&keywords=the+holocaust+industry
Oh boy, haha. Way to open Pandora's box here.
My own work is primarily on British riots, but I have a broader interest in mass movements in general. I'll recommend the book I mentioned in my comment - Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and Bill Ayers' Fugitive Days to start. Ayers is somewhat controversial because Ayers, but that book is incredibly thought-provoking and valuable.
Less controversial but no less thought-provoking (and currently relevant considering our depressing state of climate-change denial) is Keith Thomas' Man and the Natural World - it's a book about our changing perceptions of the world around us.
Finally, before I give you an 80-page list, I'm going to recommend this one. Peter Novick's That Noble Dream - I don't expect anyone but nerds like me to read this, but if more people understood the study of history itself as a constantly changing profession and philosophy (as well as science) I think the general population would see the value in it more. History isn't a static thing, and the way we approach it has changed dramatically in 150 years.
The Collapse of Complex Societies
War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires
Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall
Genes, Peoples, and Languages
The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution
The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood
If I absolutely had to recommend a single book to familiarize someone with what historians do and the study of history itself, I'd probably go with John Arnold's History: A Very Short Introduction. It's commonly assigned in undergraduate history programs for that purpose.
It's definitely not ideal to restrict yourself to a single book, but you've got to start somewhere and Arnold's book is a good place to begin. Beyond that, the /r/AskHistorians book list is a great resource.
has anybody read this book ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-History-World-Jonathan-Black/dp/0857380974
i read it last year it was quite interesting.
Are we the illuminati ? at times I dont feel very illuminated and my ideas and thoughts on the world seem to be at odds with many people i meet.
i often get asked where Im from and my reply of Earth seems to annoy/offend many...
The Secret History of the World
Thanks! I really appreciate your reply. I'm just a couple chapters away from finishing Secret History of the World and I most definitely will dive into Illuminatus Trilogy as soon as I'm done!
From the little I just read on Discordianism, I'm pretty fascinated. You may have just converted me :) Seems like a religion based on paradox, which really interests me. I may be understanding it completely wrong, but that gives me an excuse to check out Principia Discordia!
You should look into the [Very Short Introduction] (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/series/VeryShortIntroductions/ series) series. About 342 books that are all in the range of 100 to 200 pages. They cover anything from [History] (http://www.amazon.com/History-Introduction-John-H-Arnold/dp/019285352X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346605671&sr=1-2&keywords=a+very+short+introduction) to [Mathematics] (http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Short-Introduction-Timothy-Gowers/dp/0192853619/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346605671&sr=1-4&keywords=a+very+short+introduction) and even really specific topics like [Relativity] (http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Short-Introduction-Russell-Stannard/dp/0199236224/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346605803&sr=1-15&keywords=a+very+short+introduction). It's a gold mine of information and the best part is that all of the books are usually under $10.00's. They're perfect for what you're looking for.
I can only relate to you what I've experienced and realized and only hope that it can offer something to your journey. What I tell you is very subjective.
When I said a universalist approach towards religion and spirituality, I mean that doctrine and creed do not hold me back from the quest for knowledge (Truth is after all an endless pursuit of higher knowledge and realization). If I read a book on philosophy or spirituality, credibility, authority, and citation are not as important as the message the author is trying to convey. After all, the former three are principles of the material sciences which is only a limited lens into which we can peer into spiritual reality. Science cannot measure or describe a soul or what happens to you after you die (maybe how your body decays but that assumes that you are only your body and not a soul or a spirit).
Even though I lament on how overly scientific modern religion is, I also go on to say that I treat religion and beliefs like education. I constantly seek knowledge or experiences that will challenge and expand my beliefs and faith in a way similar to studying and passing class examinations in order to move to the next stage of learning. Nothing is lost in what I learned, it is only expanded upon (we can learn from our mistakes or wrong beliefs). I rely on logic and reasoning (just like the scientific method) to guide myself through all things spiritual and religious just like all things scientific and all things of immediate concern (like budgeting, relationships, pros and cons of something...). I'm being consistent is what I'm saying.
I highly recommend The Secret History of the World by Mark Booth as a good read to really change your perspective on the world and life. It opened my eyes to a whole other way of seeing reality.
If you really want something intellectually challenging yet spiritually captivating, the Urantia Book has it all and more.
Well, according to Veronica Clark, they became Nazis.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
>Make note, I'm just a high schooler. I don't have any significant experience in academic IR studies, and I get most of my information from books, magazines, and journals. To be honest, I'm a little fuzzy on theory
I was the same in high school, trying to self-teach. If you have the opportunity to take a college intro-IR course it clears up sooo much. If you did it like me, you are teaching yourself out of order and context, and in a way that biases strongly towards some things and not others. Anyway, if you can't take an organized class, try to pick up a book on theory and that starts at the basics. I haven't read it yet, but if you like Realism then The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is supposedly excellent. Likewise, The End of History is the go-to Liberal book. Haven't read that either yet, so someone correct me if I'm way off-base with these recommendations. There's also Constructivism as the new thing, but I'm not really familiar with it. Anyways, getting theories down more helps a ton, it definitely changed my views on whether or not certain wars were good/bad ideas. But from your post you seem to have a good grasp on things, so IDK if this advice will help that much.
(^ this isn't related to your question, I just thought it might be helpful)
Anyways your question is basically Liberal Vs Realist it seems. A liberal of the Neoconservative (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, ect.) branch would say Saddam violated the liberal order first, and now the newly democratic Iraq has removed the threat. Iraq will join the other democracies and only attack dictators til there are none left and we have world peace. (this is really dumbed down, but you get the point)
Other less militaristic liberals (the Clintons, Woodrow Wilson especially) would say that that was an expected occasional break-down in the liberal order, and that liberal institutions for the most part prevent this sort of thing from happening more often, as it would if there was no UN or WTO ect. In their eyes, if Bush were ever put to international court and tried then it would be proof of the liberal order's success. The liberal order includes international free trade, which liberals say makes war unprofitable, and so they say, unlikely.
Realists (George HW Bush, Nixon, Kissinger) would agree with your middle paragraph, that the 'global order' is a manifestation of American hegemony, and that liberal institutions are set up to maximally benefit the USA, which is why other powers become revisionists; Iran/China/Russia does not feel it benefits from a US-led order (the WTO, World Bank, ect), and wants to set up an new order that maximizes their own power instead.
So its depends on who you ask, there is no real consensus here. For what its worth, I think you are dead on about the 'liberal order' really being the 'American order', and like you said, its mostly been a good thing.
Try the following, it's somewhat of a reference book but it's interesting to read through if you have the patience and desire:
http://www.amazon.com/Historians-Fallacies-Toward-Historical-Thought/dp/0061315451/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1317918013&sr=8-1
For the innocent and at the same time fundamental question, "what is history actually good for?", I would recommend:
Marc Bloch: The Historian's Craft (Apologie pour l'histoire ou métier d'historien)
Written by Marc Bloch, a historian, french patriot, jew and member of the Resistance during the german annexation of France. He was killed by the bullets of a german firesquad in 1944, mere weeks before D-Day. For me, he is sort of a historian "rolemodel", standing up for his convictions both in academic controversy and in matters of life and death, while never giving in to blind "ideologism" and always putting forward a sincere wish to understand.
>The noise, industrial, and esoteric circles are filled with people who have pretensions of knowing things about history, sociology, religion, philosophy, etc. But all they know is tiny smattering of fringe trivia. Robust knowledge on any of the topics they claim interest in is rare, and they have a stripped down cartoon view of history shorn of any and all context. It can be useful and enlightening to examine the fringes and the extremes and learn things about society from those, but a lot of people seem to ONLY be interested in the fringes and the extremes. To the point that they have no idea how it interacts with the larger social conversation or its place in this historical dialectic.
I would definitely agree here. The problem I think is not just that focus on the extremes; you can make good art out of the extremities of human experience, it's more the lack of depth, of any sort of intellectually serious engagement. I mean, there's two types of people interested in the occult and it's history; there's people who read books like this and this, and there's people who read books like this and this. The same with any 'dark' topic; murder, sexual fetishism, war and genocide, and so on and so on; the lurid and extreme attracts lurid and extreme writing, often penned by Garth Marenghi like characters who've 'written more books than they've read'. You need to be able to hack through the bullshit, and a lot of that comes, as you say, from having a knowledge of the broader history. I mean, I say this as someone who has made art books about true crime and the occult, for full disclosure.
> (and one single in particular, and you might know which one I mean) have REALLY put me on edge.
As you're American, I'm going to guess Klan Kountry, which I haven't heard actually. I only have a couple of their albums; unfortunately not only are they obviously either fascists or tasteless, they're not actually very good. Anenzephalia is a little better. Actually, looking at the details of that release, I can definitely see why you'd steer clear. In fact, most of the stuff on Tesco Organisation is kind of second rate, and I've heard bad things about the label generally. As for Deutsch Nepal, I'm really not sure; I've never read much about them, but the name seems to be a possible nod to Nazi mysticism, plus there's the use of swastika-like imagery on the covers of A Silent Siege and Erotikon. It's not that much, compared to some of the others, but enough perhaps.
> He would probably find it even more strange that he's so admired by a person like me who does My Little Pony fanart.
Now that, I'm sure s/he'd get completely; GPO knows the ins and outs of fannish obsession with h/er Brian Jones thing. Read the liner notes to Godstar: Thee Director's Cut sometime if you get a chance.
>I so agree. Coil...I used to be obsessed with them, and from 1999-2001 tried to gather up as much of their discography as I could. I think most of it is in my closet right now since our apartment doesn't have a lot of places to store cd's. One of my goals is to eventually go back and get as much of their complete discography as I can. I've been fascinated with them ever since I was in high school and read an interview in Trent Reznor in which he discussed how much they influenced his music. Something about what he said intrigued me, and when I finally heard them I was entranced.
My obsession goes back a similiar way for me, though I'm a touch younger than you I think...I started listening to Coil just in time for Jhon's death, but not that I could actually get to see them, which I will probably always regret. The footage of those late gigs... and of course the recordings...can you imagine having been there in the audience during the recording of ...And The Ambulance Died in His Arms? Just thinking about it gives me chills. I think they were just a perfect musical duo; Christopherson had a very sophisticated and innovative approach to electronic music, and Balance just had that...intensity. I think that's something that so many of the pale imitators in industrial and related things miss. It's one thing that has always made the best Current 93 stuff stand out to me as well; especially listening to some of the best live recordings, it's clear that, whatever else you might think about Dave Tibet (nutter, crypto-fascist, can't sing, too Christian, not Christian enough) he's really not phoning it in. His performance is so utterly demented and broken at times (Black Ships Ate The Sky is a great example) that personally I can't help but be compelled. Maybe that's a bit of a trick, but I don't think so.
>these guys actually knew a lot about art and music history, and understood a lot about modern art and why it was important. Even a guy as abrasive and intentionally silly and lo-fi as Monte Cazazza, I'm pretty sure, actually went to art school.
Yeah, Cazazza definitely went to art school; such an overlooked hero of early industrial for me. I love how damned entertaining he makes his cartoon misanthropy; If Thoughts Could Kill is a great song to listen to on the bus on a rainy morning. And of course, GPO and Cosey Fanni Tutti had been doing gallery shows and performance art as COUM Transmissions for years before TG was even a thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Defence-History-Richard-J-Evans/dp/1862073953/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299861496&sr=1-5
>There are no such attempts. Only naïve people and idiots can believe in such, or see such in Iraq War, lol. US and the West repeatedly tried and partially achieved transforming places into both countries where the Islamists, reactionaries and all kinds of distasteful bunch rule though, as well as distorting countries and of course through backing weird factions or using divisions, carving out both huge internal conflicts and extremists bunch out of those. Just like the Iraqi issue you have referred to, or the terrorists you've referred to. Of course same goes for Syria, but also the very core ideology of those terrorists have been spreading from, backed and financed from and originated from, you know, very one being supplied, backed and supported by the West.
You give them too much credit to believe that Iraq, or Syria was some sort of Machiavellian master plan.
No, the neo-cons really do believe their own garbage.
>They're openly conservative, and backing the American conservative attitude about the guns, while being full of conservatives, having organic ties with conservatives and the whole structure is about conservatives. You're trying a bit hard on that but anyway. Given the stance is coming from conservatives though, just like attackers being Muslims and conservatives, again, let's ban conservatism with your logic anyway.
Actually mass shooters in the USA tend to be either a) black thugs or b) nihilistic white/asian teenagers from liberal homes. I wouldn't say there's a "conservative" or "NRA" shooting problem, just a general lack of pragmatism on the issue of guns.
This is getting to be a pretty boring conversation. I'm not gonna admit that we need to ban "conservatism". Deluded as you are, even you must realize that the next mass murder or sexual assault in Europe ain't gonna be commuted by a "conservative".
If you've got nothing more to add then let's call it a day here.
This is not an atheist recommendation by any stretch of the imagination, but you should both get and read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-World-Mark-Booth/dp/1590201620
This doctrine is neither atheist nor orthodox judaism. It's a perfect mediary for you two to funnel beliefs through.
John Dee comes up a lot in this: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-World-Mark-Booth/dp/1590201620
I don't know about 'magic', but the practice of alchemy is that of self-improvement and freedom from controlling dogma and the current limits of humanity. There's no doubting that newton was brilliant, as was John Dee. I would say a safer bet is to study math over magic.
> https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-World-Mark-Booth/dp/1590201620
Have you read that? How is it.
> I would say a safer bet is to study math over magic.
You're probably right, but the image of Newton doing rituals to get in touch with multi-dimensional beings to gain knowledge is pretty seductive to me. A sicnece man, or THE Science Man, practicing magic is an alluring image.
>https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Arabian_Legion
>In the armed forces
A number of blacks served in the Wehrmacht. The number of German blacks was low, but there were some instances where blacks were enlisted within Nazi organizations such as the Hitler Youth and later the Wehrmacht.[20] In addition, there was an influx of foreign volunteers during the African campaign, which led to the existence of a number of blacks in the Wehrmacht in such units as the Free Arabian Legion.
From wiki.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Ghetto_Police
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Archives for the Archive God! ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
I am so glad that I ordered Veronica Clark's books before they went out of print. Someone gotta get the rights to that and fill up all the unis with copies, their heads would explode!
I'm sorry, what were you saying?
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
This one? http://www.amazon.com/On-Politics-History-Political-Herodotus/dp/0871404656
Where? I listened to the first 5 minutes or so and got utterly bored as JP climbed aboard his usual rambling nonsensical bandwagon when he talks about things he has no understanding of.
He references Derrida and makes an assertion (phallo-logo-centric again) regarding his work without evidence or argument. Derrida was only one "postmodernist" among many in any case (and by no means all that interesting, either). He doesn't mention any other names of postmodern thinkers. He mentions Sartre, but Sartre was an existentialist (like JP) and also a Marxist. Read the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
So, nope. Nothing of substance there again. He again then makes some bizarre link between Marxism and Postmodernism again without evidence or explanation when, philosophically, they are opposed.
Here are two works by actual Marxists (David Harvey and Alex Callinicos) which critique postmodernity:
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Postmodernism-Critique-ALEX-CALLINICOS/dp/0745606148
https://www.amazon.com/Condition-Postmodernity-Enquiry-Origins-Cultural/dp/0631162941
What's funny is that he begins his talk by saying that he actually doesn't know much about it, and he hasn't read enough but then proceeds to make an argument as if he had! And you buy that! Without question!
Seriously. Read and think for yourself. Then decide if what he has to say has a leg to stand on.
The answer, as everyone else has pointed out, is YES. The best example of this actually comes from the colloquialism 'Whiggish history' meaning history that is written in a teleological mode with an excessively celebratory tone about the current institutions in power.
If you are really interested in this, standard reading in many history masters and PHD programs is a great book by historian Peter Novice called That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession
> International Peace Museum
Yeah, that and the one in Hiroshima are anti-war primarily. So yes, that would be the main content.
It's not the bare minimum. I recommend War Guilt and World Politics after World War II by Dr. Berger. There is open discussion on the topic, I've seen it in classrooms and this book provides evidence outside of my anecdote.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1107674956
"That simply seems like a poor methodology. At some point, we have to draw a line for what is sufficient evidence."
For the love of all that is holy, NO!!! One should ALWAYS assume bias with ANY historic account and thus there should be almost no such thing as "sufficient" to remove all skepticism.
Read this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Historians-Craft-Reflections-Techniques/dp/0394705122
Someone already beat you to it:
https://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550
He wasn't right either.
from what I remember this book suggested that it was (though I read it a while back so don't hold me to it!)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-History-World-Societies/dp/1590200314/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
Dershowitz polarizes, with many deeming him either an eloquent bona fide Zionist or a ruthless fraudulent shyster. (Given the amount of downvotes my comment received for naming just one book among three that goes against the pre-1988 narratives, it's quite foreseeable with which view /r/israel largely agrees.)
You've probably heard of the controversy surrounding The Case for Israel, how it was the target of another book (Beyond Chutzpah) by Dershowitz's arch-enemy Finkelstein — you might be interested in listening to this direct debate between the two.
>While he may have brought NSH to a wider audience
This is why my point was about influence more than anything else.
As to your point about objectivity, this is central question that has been challenged by post structuralist writers. (I reject your premise that this is a product of the counterculture.) Zinn is extremely upfront that he is assuming a position in his work. He spends several pages establishing what is perspective is and why.
While most historians since Zinn have settled on a sort of "reasonable analysis" rather than "purposeful commentary," ideas about objectivity in historical writing are notoriously contentious. "Objectivity" should not be thrown around as though there is objective history as opposed to opinion history. See Novick's That Noble Dream
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
Veronica Clark (also known as V. K. Clark) earned her bachelor's degree with High Honors in Liberal Studies w/Global Political Science in 2005; her master's degree with Honors in Military History in 2009; and she completed a year of PsyD courses with a 4.00 GPA in 2010.
What you're describing is the esoteric history of the world. Check out this book (link below) it's worth a read. It basically says the same story you wrote above. It's pretty cool and give an alternative perspective on our concept of religion.
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-World-Mark-Booth/dp/1590201620
>What the Hatham Sofer wrote is straightforward enough. The Haredi velt has a long history of whitewashing history when it inconveniences the contemporarily accepted social narrative.
It is not disparagement, it is an acknowledged sociological fact that has been documented time and over again. For a lengthy study of the phenomenon see Dr. Marc Shapiro's "Changing the Immutable".
If in this specific context, you would like to understand how I believe it constitutes whitewashing, see this excerpt:
>Perhaps the posek most responsible for creating resistance to accepting the Hatam Sofer at face value was the Maharam Schick... There is certainly no one capable of denying the status of the Maharam Schick as a leading posek and communal leader of the second half of the 19th century, and as the Gadol who came closest to inheriting the mantle of leadership of his teacher, the Hatam Sofer. But... The Ḥatam Sofer certainly did not consult Rabbi Schick (who at that time was still engaged in private study in Halitsch) before composing his 1837 reply to another former student ― Rabbi Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Vienna since 1829. Rabbi Schick certainly did not receive any direct information on this issue from his revered teacher, for if he had, he most certainly would have mentioned
it at some point in the two Responsa that he composed regarding MBP [mesisah b'peh].
.
As for a "rule one warning" - I have not been a "jerk" (though your suggesting I have been seems kind of jerky). If the moderators feel the need to now censor me after years (longer than you've had your account) of demonstrated civil participation on this forum, I will definitely have to reconsider my participation in /r/Judaism.
the 101st has already floated my favorite nonfiction book. So I'm going to go out on a limb and give you something, uh... unofficial. Whether it is true or not is so far beyond what I can answer even the internet could not exaggerate it enough. BUT, it's fascinating.
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-World-Mark-Booth/dp/1590201620
For the big picture, I can't recommend this book highly enough: The Secret History of the World, as laid down by the Secret Societies.
I also recommend reading The Fish that Ate the Whale. It's a biography of a man named Sam Zemurray, who ran one of the largest corporations in the world and personally instigated at least 3 south american coups, who personally guaranteed the establishment of the state of Israel. This is a great background on how things actually work; sometimes it's not as grand a conspiracy as you might think-- it might just be someone with a whole lot of money to be made.
History: A Very Short Introduction
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/019285352X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519248671&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=history+a+very+short+introduction&dpPl=1&dpID=514Uq4p%2Bt4L&ref=plSrch
You want studies or a book?
One of the most profound books i have ever read is this on how states rise and fall. It's the most enlighting thing I have ever read, it changed how I view the world fundamentaly
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0452288193/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0452288193
Its a popular book without the mathematical models behind it
Here is the mathematical version
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691116695/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0691116695
But its quite expensive and only available as hardcover but there should be a different version coming out soon
For the study on cooperation this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0996139516/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517513099&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Peter+turchin&dpPl=1&dpID=41Ux9xQvfIL&ref=plSrch
On cultural evolution this books makes an incredible strong argument
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691178437/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0691178437
On how religion influences pro social behaviour this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691169748/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517513482&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Ara+Norenzayan&dpPl=1&dpID=61TgLU80vIL&ref=plSrch
David Aaronovitch is a spoofer and mouth piece for the Murdock empire. He once wrote a book about "conspiracy theories", in it he mocks anybody who may believe such conspiracies as idiots and bunches all conspiracies together, from 9/11 to lizzards, he even throws in the MLK murder by the US, denying the court reports saying that the government was involved and calling it a conspiracy. He laughs at "such idiots" who believe these conspiracies, yet he himself fell for the biggest conspiracy of all, that Iraq had WMD, and was one of the loudest supporters of the Iraq war. The guy is a clown who profits from propaganda!
This isn’t about “non intervention.” The arguments are solid arguments for why liberal internationalism has failed. This is far broader than a handful of failed interventions.
And I mean honestly, read some of the low-ranking reviews. "This is an academic's view of what 'liberalism' is and ignores what the founding father's said!". These are absurdly contradictory opinions that seem to have missed the entire point. Here's another example the value of book ratings on political ideas: Francis Fukuyama's The End of History. Reality has clearly defied this bit of anarchistic nonsense (yet I suspect many of you want to disbelief that), and here it is with soaring accolades.
It was my pleasure. And thank you for taking it to heart. Interpretive bias is a serious problem for historians, and only in th last fifty or so years has anyone really taken it seriously.
If you're interested in it there are two books that I could recommend. Both classics in the field, but their examples are somewhat dated.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-Veronica-Clark/dp/1934703516
>mas não era nazis
Eram sim. Mas vais ter dificuldade em encontrar material sobre isso.
I find this to be an excellent paper that tries to debunk postmodern methodologies: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
The philosopher Roger Scruton has written a whole book devoted to critiquing various postmodern thinkers: https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1408187337/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1468857400&sr=8-1
For postmodernism's relation to the field of history, you could try this volume by Richard J. Evans: https://www.amazon.com/Defence-History-Richard-J-Evans/dp/1862073953/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
In its relation to science, you could try this book: https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
> You give them too much credit to believe that Iraq, or Syria was some sort of Machiavellian master plan.
It wasn't, yet putting backing such lowlifes was planned, as well as backing KSA or supporting scum or using divisions was pretty much intentional.
> No, the neo-cons really do believe their own garbage.
Yes, I'm sure they also believed in mass destruction weapons. I'm sure many naïve bunch also believes in that they were spreading democracy, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. Both the real intention wasn't that, nor it cancels the responsibility. Let's not pretend that all have been done since the WWI or WWII was with some good intent.
> Actually mass shooters in the USA tend to be either a) black thugs or b) nihilistic white/asian teenagers from liberal homes. I wouldn't say there's a "conservative" or "NRA" shooting problem, just a general lack of pragmatism on the issue of guns.
There is a structural problem which many conservatives are the main cause with their stupid agenda. So, I can see American conservatism there.
> This is getting to be a pretty boring conversation. I'm not gonna admit that we need to ban "conservatism".
Why mate? If you can ban Muslims for some Muslims, I'm sure you can ban conservatives with the same logic. Actually, when it comes to mass bombings or mass murders, the folks did those were again conservatives of many kinds.
> Deluded as you are, even you must realize that the next mass murder or sexual assault in Europe ain't gonna be commuted by a "conservative".
Highly probably will, for the next murder. Rather by a Christian one or a Muslim one. Sexual assaults, not sure but sure that both conservative Muslims and conservative Christians are more prone to such acts. Of course, we can give a go to conservative Catholic clergy as well, who knows?
> If you've got nothing more to add then let's call it a day here.
Sure, yet I'm still insisting the total ban on conservatives, given your logic. To be honest, it really would solve many issues but hey.
Norman Finkelstein has also written eloquently about this in his books "The Holocaust Industry" and "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History".
http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/185984488X
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Chutzpah-Misuse-Anti-Semitism-History/dp/0520249895
If you want to know a skeptics perspective Micheal Shermer's book on this topic is worth a read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0520260988?pc_redir=1407231362&robot_redir=1
> Guns, Germs, and Steel
I would not be so quick to dismiss Guns,Germs..etc, as I feel much of the criticism oozes jealousy and ideological sniping. I imagine any book written by an outsider that was so dismissive of their work would inspire this level of loathing.
I am reminded of the reaction to David Hacket Fishers book "Historians Fallacies" in the early 70s. It called a lot of people fools, and what was most intolerable it was proven right over time.
http://www.amazon.com/Historians-Fallacies-Toward-Historical-Thought/dp/0061315451
I have put below a defence by the author and the original review in the UK view of books.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/26/guns-germs-and-steel/ - a reply to some critics
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/51
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Chutzpah-Misuse-Anti-Semitism-History/dp/0520249895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405874948&sr=8-1&keywords=Beyond+Chutzpah
It's a good book if you want factual documentation, and read the reviews.
Not only were there blackand Jewish Nazis, there were also Polish Nazis and an American Nazi Party. Said Nazis also offered Aryan status to the Native Americans if they would spy on the US Government, thats real history. For an example of a good Nazi, educate yourself about Oskar Schindler.
You are grossly misusing historical metaphor if you are attempting to make all of these events equivalent. Here are some books that may offer needed historiographical context: "Lessons" of the Past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy, Ernest May and Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, Richard Neustadt and Ernest May. Also, David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies.