ERA Reviews

Historical imperative is mercyless:Federations do not survive.Anybody who asserts that a group of heterogenic nations in every respect-cultural,linguistic,religious,racial,ethnic.-could coexist within one virtual border and where like Brown's Movement will persist difusion of uniformitarian tendencies that serve to create common identity,is simply ignorant utopist,that fails true vision of history and "Us and They" factor as product of vigorius separatistic forces which promote diversity,quite unlike authors solipsistic "unity in diversity" social outlooks.Convergence is not the option and it could contribute towards escalation of particularistic sentiments,and it is absurd by the virtue of its own egalitarian sentiments because creolisation which will be created will exhaust itself in capability to promote generation of acceptable to all cultural modalities,unlike the model of clearly defined social coexistence,which has infinite potentials for progress within balanced preservation of complexities of group identitys.Interesting is that a new kind of identity has suplanted ancient ethno-cultural loyalities namely continental identity.Thus people speak of themselves as "Europians","Africans","Asians"-as if Irish,Greeks,Swedes or Japanese,Philipinos and Aphganistanians are something different from others,and this is clearly case of subconciouss emulation of Mondialistic identity model,nurtured by those Social Engineers like Marx,Popper,Russell and others who would assert that "global citizenship",presumably one that is born under Guiding Force-temporarily functioning enforcing center(role that U.S.S.R. tried to play once),will eliminate regionalisms and lead to Eternal Peace,where conflicting defence systems would be merged into "planetary police".It is precisely that unnatural policy that has lead to "Heider Phenomenon" in Austria.Xenophobia will ultimately show itself victorious over mediocretisationing of masses,streching their collective identity too far into wide areas of Cartesian deductionist aculturisations ,and it would be impossible to establish illusion of neutral relations in such collectives,without massive,faceless bureucratic machinery.It is living truth that majority of those people who were engaged furiously in ellimination of communism during 1989,had sympathy for the regime,that claimed virtualy the same ideals, without mental reservations.All those "dissidents" and "martyrs" who were persecuted,tortured,maligned,barefooted,derogated,maligned again,marginalised etc. are only product of their own conformism,and if some other "ism" were to be triumphant it is likely that many of them will join the mainstream,representing evilness of curent social reality.With regard to N.A.T.O., it was perhaps pragmatic nessecity of the time,but now idea of collective deffence,under the euphemism of partnership,is as absurd as Planet Earth's football team.It is clear who are Russians and who are Estonians or Armenians within the Alliance.History will witness massive resistence within the N.A.T.O member states to risk their citizens lifes and resources,for what are somebody else's problems,even when outcome may be benneficciary. Simply,Greeks and Americans are not 300.000.000.And they are partners-but only complementary up to the certain point,and rigid enforcement could provoke only ambivalent relations.Therefore,N.A.T.O. has reached its fifteen minutes of glory and speaking of its future is highly hipocritical euphemistic exposure of relation-Hungary was occupied,but now it's partner,U.S.S.R was ruthless Empire,but West is voluntary created Commonwealth.Hopefully, perhaps such globalistic ideology will transform itself peacefully,in accordance to some of its own ideals,and that there will be no need for illusions of "security guaranteed" within what seems to be a fast evolving Power Monopoly-evolving into advocate of everything that was against for.

Reviewed by NIGEL CLIVE in International Relations, Volume XIII, No 5, August 1997

The end of the Cold War was not foreseen on either side of the Atlantic. The consequential need to rethink and update strategic, political and economic relations between America and Europe in a global context has spurred a contingent of leading RAND thinkers to sketch out the contours of a redefined Atlantic partnership. This welcome project has already been praised by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. No less welcome would be a similar academic initiative from the European side. The readiness of Europe to accept greater responsibility could encourage internationalism in the United States where the latest evidence shows public preference for shared world leadership. Indeed, both Atlantic partners need to raise their sights to the idea of a global endeavour. The Bosnian war has made the European Union (EU) begin to assume a leading role in the Atlantic partnership within Europe, and it is clearly in a better position than the United States to ensure the economic and political stability of East Central Europe, the Baltic States, Ukraine and the Balkans.
Ronald Asmus's examination of the new partnership after the end of the Cold War involves enlarging the EU and NATO eastward. The second enlargement means broadening the horizon beyond the European continent where the United States and Europe share vital interests. NATO should expand its responsibility from that of defending Western Europe to that of managing security in Europe as a whole, as when Alliance troops were used to implement a Balkan peace plan and prevent instability from spreading in Europe. Asmus argues that if one wants to have a strategy for fighting wars together, one should first develop a common strategy for preventing them. This underscores the need for a coordinated and political and economic strategy.
Gregory Treverton outlines an economic agenda for the new era. He puts forward ideas for a more ambitious Atlantic partnership in trade and other economic policies and examines how growing European interests in world trade might bring advantages to both parties as they exert global economic partnership. New military structures in NATO are advocated by James Thomson, who proposes a new NATO major command to deal with contingencies outside the NATO area, most importantly in the Persian Gulf. He acknowledges that there are serious problems on both sides and recalls that the Bosnian peace deployment debate was a close call. John van Oudenaren shows guarded optimism about the multiplicity of partnerships that span the Atlantic. The United States has every reason to encourage initiatives by the EU, but the fact that the US is still needed in Europe to contribute to European security introduces a major asymmetry in the American-European relationship. It means they can never be truly equal partners outside Europe.
According to David Gompert, the strength of the integrated world economy is to the new era what the containment of the Soviet Union was to the old. The more integrated the core of the world economy, West Europe East Asia and North America, the more indivisible is its security. In varying shades, the threat comes from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea. On most matters of global significance, the United States seeks the support of its European partners in the United Nations, G7 and NATO. But it will take US initiatives to persuade Europeans that the Atlantic relationship needs a new purpose, a broader scope and reformed institutions.
Stephen Larrabee describes the security challenges on Europe's eastern periphery where the main challenge in Russia is helping to stabilize the reform process and integrate Russia into the broader European structures. Restructuring NATO to focus more on crisis management (Article 4) rather than territorial defence (Article 5) would help to build a more cooperative relationship with Russia. In view of Russia's hard line on NATO expansion, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, not the United States, should take the lead in campaigning for the Baltic states to join the European Union, not NATO. Security cooperation with Ukraine would be part of the Partnership for Peace programme, This would be an indirect means of drawing Ukraine closer to NATO. Polish-Ukrainian defence cooperation could also become a useful way for NATO to enhance its ties to the Ukraine 'through the back door'. Finally, the United States and Europe need to develop a common strategy for dealing with the two issues left out of the Dayton agreement: Macedonia and Kosovo. Challenges in the Greater Middle East is the subject of Zalmay Khalizad's essay. The United States, Europe and Japan need the free flow of oil from the Middle East at reasonable prices. Regional instability in the Middle East poses the first threat to an American-European partnership. The second threat is terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Despite their common interests, there is no US-European common strategy, especially with regard to Iran.
This collection of American viewpoints calls for a European comment which is well provided by John Roper. He agrees that less attention is given in Europe than in the United States to the risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons. There have been differences in perception and approach in dealing with hard-core outlaw states, and Roper concedes that Americans are generally correct in criticizing European strategic myopia. Europeans will need a 'leap of imagination' to accept a full partnership role with the common European voice in world trade negotiations, but progress has been much slower in the politico-military field. The global partnership has to be to the mutual benefit of the United States and Europe. Greater European coherence can only make a working partnership easier to achieve.
David Gompert and Stephen Larrabee conclude that the new partnership must be both more global and more equal than the present European-American relationship. Unless NATO's strategic rationale includes the protection of common interests beyond Europe, its vitality within Europe will erode. Americans must accept that only a more cohesive Europe can be a more responsible and effective partner. If the European Union is perceived by Americans as not pulling its weight, the American world outlook and role could change in ways that could leave European economic and security exposed. As a final thought, the two editors claim: 'it is high time for European and American leaders to reflect on how a partnership would help them achieve their highest priorities. Prosperity and security, political and economic freedom on a global scale can only come through vision and leadership.'
NIGEL CLIVE

The Black Hearts of Men is a well-written and thoughtful study of four closely-associated anti-slavery figures. John Stauffer is an excellent writer, and he should be credited for taking a fair approach to Brown, free of the usual bias and thinly-veiled racial-political scorn that motivates so many white male writers on the subject.

Stauffer must also be credited for overcoming the difficulties of reading Gerrit Smith's (one of the four figures in the study) handwriting. He has also brought four men--two black and two white--together in an engaging study, something apropos of this age of diversity awareness, and something long overdue from the academy. The author introduces and reintroduces Frederick Douglass, James McCune Smith, Gerrit Smith, and John Brown in the context of partnered (or at least overlapping) struggle. He seeks to flesh out various aspects of their worldviews and interests, including their self-presentation (via daugerreotypes, a new photographic technology in the mid-19th century), their sympathy for women's and native rights, and other aspects.

Yet Stauffer's study is deeply flawed insofar as he attempts to yoke the four men in a similar style of religious belief---particularly insofar as John Brown is concerned. In fact, Stauffer's analysis of Brown as a religious figure is thin, generalized, and largely self-serving in its speculation.

In essence, Stauffer contends that John Brown, like his three friends, moved away from conventional religion. The author would have us believe that Brown repudiated his Puritan theology for some Perfectionist form of millennnialism. The problem with this thesis is that its author has ignored millennialism in its orthodox forms in Puritanism, and the fact that Brown was immersed in millennial belief from his childhood. The issue is not millennialism, as Stauffer would suggest, but the type of millennial viewpoint that Brown had. In fact, Brown's millennialism was Puritan and orthodox. Clever terms like "sacred self-sovereignty" notwithstanding, the author's soup is very watery and highly problematic. Unlike Gerrit Smith, John Brown in fact remained firmly based in his Puritan Calvinist theology, as his associates (like T. W. Higginson) recognized, even until the last.

There are other dangerous speculations that Stauffer employs to extend the religious portrait of Brown---sort of like painting with a broad brush, too broad to do justice to Brown's religious life. Certainly, Stauffer needs to look more closely at his sources, which he sometimes fudges on to make a point. He clearly does this in his strong suggestion that Brown was involved in a series of seances in Kansas in late 1857. If he had done his work more carefully, Stauffer would have seen that Brown was not at those occult practices. And if he understood Brown's religious life, he would not even have tried to put him there in the first place.

The Black Hearts of Men is welcomed as a study, much as thirsty man may receive a glass of water with gratitude. We need more works like this, and less like the typically biased narratives that have come from academia about John Brown. Yet this glass is only half full--or is that half-empty?

John Stuaffer has one of the finest minds and finest prose styles of any contemporary historian. This book is both brilliant and a wonderful read. It won the prestigious Frederick Douglass Prize "for the year's best non-fiction book on slavery, resistance and/or abolition, the most generous history prize in the field, and the most respected and coveted of the major awards for the study of the black experience" ... That fact alone should answer any comments of the book being deeply flawed by any less respected historian with his own religious ax to grind about John Brown. No one who buys and reads this book will be disappointed.

Let me start off by saying that I was disappointed when I started reading this book. What I was hoping for was a well written, constructed and documented book talking about the major policy points of the Reagan administration and the mature Democratic response to the issues. Instead what the author has given the reader is basically a reprint of selected speeches, letters to supporters and op-ed pieces, all by year. Given that I had the book and the author is a rather good writer I kept reading and it turned out I was the better for it.

What I found was some very interesting, but short arguments against certain Reagan era policies mainly focused on the deficit and missile programs. The arguments were not knew if you have read some on the Reagan years and the predictions are proving to be on the money as the years go by. It was interesting, given the author's history and position, his view of the 80's and some of his arguments were not what I would have expected from a Democrat. Given these few positives I finished the book but ended thinking that I gained very little from reading it. If you are a huge fan of the Senator or just want a starter book on the arguments against some of the Reagan positions then you might enjoy the book, if you have read a number of books on the topic then you will be disappointed.

The master shows his metal.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan shows that there was mature dissent during the Reagan years. Mature in that he took on the Reaganites on there own terms and avoided the simplistic ranting of those who saw no problem with the explosion of government during the 1970's.

Moreover, this collection serves as an encyclopedia of political wit (see the Gridiron Club address), prophecy (i.e. triple digit deficits and the fall of the Soviet Union), and the function of government.

Highly recommended for those seeking sophisticated agruments to demonstrate that Reagan and "Reaganism" did not have a positive influence on this country.

This book is a collection of SOME of the works of William Howard Taft but the title is quite misleading, as it does NOT include State of the Union Addresses. Also the author has not taken the time or effort to provide the reader / researcher with an INDEX, which, of course, means that one has to read the entire collection to find references to a particular subject matter. In short, this book is merely a reprinting of some of Taft's speeches and addresses and nothing more!

This collection of Taft's public papers is the first such endeavor, and a praiseworthy one. Readers looking for analysis won't find it here any more than any other "letters of" or "papers of" any other historical figure.

What they will find is William Howard Taft in his own words. The Taft papers at the Library of Congress number into the tens of thousands, and as such are useful only to serious researchers. The student or casual reader of the Taft era will benefit enormously from David Burton's collection of Taft's public papers.

Taft was a proficient and thorough speech writer, and one can follow his era precisely according to this collection. History shall benefit tremendously from these volumes.

A future edition will make available State addresses and, one hopes, a full and final index.

I love history, so naturally this book sounded interesting to me. I learded a lot from it. It was a very informative, well written book about one of America's strongest Slaves. I admire his ablility to stand behind his beliefs, and this book interprets his life with grace and integrity. I recommend this book to anyone who likes reading dense books packed with history.

This is a terrific book. The introduction is particularly insightful. This is a good book for anybody interested in the history of slavery and slave rebellions.

This book is rather ambitious, its attempt to condense Sociological theory into one volume was well tried. His knowledge of the canon was excellent andcriticisms on Durkheim, Comte, Weber, Marx and Parsons were limited. Additionally, I found that it became predictable at times and that his analysis of black and other minority groups was marginal. Even his analysis of Feminism was unrounded.

In this book, Seidman displays the arc of sociological theory, starting with Comte and the Founding Fathers of sociology (Marx, Durkheim, & Weber). He then moves through to more contemporary theory, including post-structuralism (post-modernism). The purpose beghind this book is to look for the moral beliefs that are inevitably imbedded in any abstract theory of sociology. It is only one book, so it would be impossible for him to cover everything, but he does provide a starting point, and a very good one at that. I HIGHLY recomend reading the biographical information at the beginning of teh book, as it gives great insights into this work.

The info and analysis on the Clovis period is pretty good. However, the emphasis on the "authoritative" position that the Clovis people were the first settlers in the face of a tremendous quantity of mounting evidence that Homo sap. settled North and South America at least 20,000 years before Clovis, greatly detracts from the value of the book.

This book was a thoughtful reinterpretation of the existing data pertaining to the nature of Clovis lifeways and settlement in the New World. Rather than concerning himself with the nature or timing of the first Americans, Haynes introduces an ecological perspective to the study of Clovis, a population movement model in which adopting a very specialized adaptive strategy would enable a 'fugitive' culture such as Clovis to spread rapidly throughout the New World.

In The Enlightenment, Norman Hampson describes the period in European history where a more reasonable and scientific view of the world was being developed. "The object of this book, in other words, is not to attempt a scholarly and systematic investigation of this or that aspect of the Enlightenment. My aim is to convince the general reader that the authors I have quoted are well worth his reading for himself and my ambition, to help him towards a better understanding of what they were saying. I trust he will regard it, not as intellectual nourishment in its own right so much as an invitation to a banquet of his own." (p13).

Mr. Hampson must be given credit for his modesty. The introduction does relieve some of the tensions and address any apprehensions a reader might have when picking up a book like this. It seems to say "don't worry, I'm not intentionally going to make this book difficult. I'll try my hardest to keep it light." To some extent, Hampson succeeds. Norman Hampson's purpose for writing his book was to promote the reading of the primary historical texts on which it is based. It was not intended to be the end-all-be-all Enlightenment survey, but in fact an advertisement for books written during the period. Promoting primary sources is a noble purpose, but one that leaves the reader wondering why it takes 300 pages to generate such enthusiasm. This being established as the purpose, it now must be asked if Hampson accomplished his goal. The reader will not be impressed by his style, which is bad, or his attempt at wit, which is worse. The pages are filled with abstruse paragraphs, and archaic language. It is questionable whether, after finishing The Enlightenment, a reader is likely to run for the primary sources. In fact, after the book is finished, the reader's head is so full of Enlightenment information that if he or she hears one more piece of information about it, a great deal of goo will pour out of the reader's ear and form a puddle on the floor which reads "ENOUGH! I am enlightened already!" This effect is assuredly one of the book's good qualities, but it is contrary to the purpose stated by the author. The first sentence (and presumably the thesis) of the book reads as follows: "The generation that separated the wars of Louis XIV from those of Frederick the Great was not, in any meaningful sense, an age of transition."(p43). This is a very broad thesis, and sets the stage for a survey that is does not attempt to "prove" anything. The thesis goes along with the purpose of the book, which is not to have radical and profound insights into the Enlightenment period, but to spark interest in the reader. With a purpose like this, it is obvious that the work was not intended to be built around a central thesis. The Enlightenment describes various aspects of European society from the years 1715 to 1789. It begins by describing the social and political environment between 1715 and 1740, and then addresses the relationship between the scientific and the divine in the eyes of Enlightenment thinkers. He summarizes certain Enlightenment thinkers' views on human nature, and speaks of the Enlightenment as a way of life. In Part Two of the book, the focus shifts forward to the years between 1740 and 1789. In this part, after covering the social and political environment, the book moves to the scientific and philosophical thought of the time, and ends with a brief prelude to the French Revolution. It includes a very helpful bibliography at the end for all the readers that, after having their whistles sufficiently whet, want to move on to more serious primary literature. Organization is obviously a difficult task for Hampson, as he constantly jumps around with page references and cross-references galore. He covers the social and political environment, with strong emphasis on the contrast between the effects of the Enlightenment on the nobleman and on the peasant. However, at times he seems to want to slip into a chronological style of organization. In The Enlightenment, there is an organizational struggle between chronology and theme-by-theme analysis that is very distracting. This problem may be due to the broadness of the book. It takes on the whole Enlightenment, including the dominant themes as well as the contemporary political and social climate. The book attempts to conclusively link intellectual and social history, which, although a good concept, has its share of problems. This book was not written for a general audience. The reader who picks up Mr. Hampson's work and expects a gay and enjoyable romp through the Enlightenment will be very disappointed. This is not to say that it is impossible to read as a novel. The reader must simply be so hungry for factual information that the bad readability of the work is of no importance. Realistically, this book would do very nicely as a tool for reviewing for the AP exam, but makes a lousy free reading book.

Hampson is a historical missionary. He tries to convince the reader (whom he most likely intended to be a lowly college or APEH student) that reading primary sources is a far better path to obtaining a true flavor for the period than reading a dry, wordy survey like his or Mr. R.R. Palmer's. This said, the reader is not given much reason to read past the introduction. However, the brave reader who dares to ignore the original warning that the book is of little importance will find a very conclusive and well-researched survey.

In this book, prof. Hampson attempts to discuss a number of very diverse topics within the movement of the Enlightenment. This makes the book very interesting but perhaps also unclear in the purpose of the chosen structure and the subjects of the book. Because it tries to span the entire 18th century in only 300 or so pages, it is bound to run into unhelpful generalisations and creating a lack of coherence of the general subject discussed. Yet the book supplies some interesting insights into the Enlightenment not found elsewhere. However, for those looking for the broader historical view of the period of the Enlightenment, I would recommend turning to W. and A. Durant's "The Age of Voltaire" and "Rousseau and Revolution", which are huge but exhaustive in historical background, while for the philosophical perspective, one should turn to Peter Gay's "The Enlightenment, an Interpretation". Thus, Hampson's book is a good starting point, but not much more than that I'm afraid.

If you are not already well-steeped in the vocabulary and concepts of feminist theory and American history, don't bother picking up this book -- you won't understand a word of it.

Isenberg studies women's political and social activism in antebellum America. In her study she demonstrates how through various mediums such as public speaking, conventions, publications and fashion women expressed a unique feminist perspective. Feminists of antebellum America more importantly, attempt and perhaps succeed to an extent to define their own gender roles and defy those ascribed them by men. With a keen understanding of rights and representation feminists challenge the normative assumptions of citizenship.

Nancy Isenberg has written one of the finest examples of political history to emerge from the field of women's history. Her work underscores the importance of the women's rights movement and situates that movement within the political culture of the antebellum period. The book is a little weak on narrative but its sophistication and ability to contextualize the women's rights movement within the broader political culture of the period makes this book a worthwhile read for all historians interested in pre-civil war America.

in the mid-90s i bought this book.... i found over 600 mistakes, then quit... mistakes of every imaginable type.... and these were internal mistakes, where the same information in the book was different in 2 different places... especially bad were the all-time and single season category listings in the back.. i wonder if things have improved?...---stolf---

This guide contains a wealth of information not easy to find in other sources. It is good at providing historical individual stats, but particularly good at providing comprehensive historical TEAM stats, which I find surprisingly hard to come by. There are a few mistakes and a few stats that s/b added (like time of possession where available), but overall the best of its kind made. Too bad it appears to no longer be published annually. (Also, the cover of the last edition was thinner and less durable than in prior editions.)

Forget about it-- no more arguments, this book has it all, the history, players, scores and stats in the NFL and AFL since 1960. There are updated editions available, but they only cover the league since 1972. Nearly 800 pages in an 8.5" x 11" format, you won't be dissatisfied. Buy this one if you can find it and buy the updated edition for the recent seasons. A fantastic sports encyclopedia.