Fun Stuff > ENJOY

History books.

<< < (6/9) > >>

KvP:

--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 30 Oct 2009, 03:05 ---One of those dudes was on The Daily Show a few days ago and he seemed pretty sensible. I'd need to rewatch the interview but I'm pretty sure he made it pretty clear that he was not a climate change skeptic and that he didn't think that C02 wasn't responsible for global warming. The point he made on the show was that to him it seemed irrational to not consider (admittedly, somewhat outlandish) measures that attempted to reverse climate damage and negate future emissions while we attempt to transition to alternative energy sources. Also that most proposed solutions for climate changed relied on people acting pretty contrary to basic human nature i.e; not being lazy and resistant to change.

I haven't read the book so I can't really speak to what's in there, of course. The whole interview could've basically been a big backpedal, for all I know.

--- End quote ---
That would be Steven Levitt, who by all accounts seems to be a pretty okay guy, and his professional work is quite respected. I guess the Freakonomics stuff is just how he makes his money. I don't think the other dudes have bonafides. Anyway, leaving aside whatever he said on the show, what matters is what he wrote, and the problem is that Levitt and his ilk speak authoritatively on research when their understanding of the research is limited. You get things like the Climate Change chapter, that contains embarrassing distortions and lack of knowledge. It's no different from a seminarian trying to write a scholarly book on archaeology. At best he's just going to misappropriate the research to what he knows. It leaves the people who did the research and know the implications of it struggling to have their voices heard on exactly what it does mean. Soon enough you have kids who believe that the world is 6,000 years old because they read in a book once that carbon dating is wildly unreliable.

It's like that guy you know who always admonishes people to "look at both sides" of an issue like climate change or immigration reform or gay adoption or whatever. All he's really doing is trying to support an illegitimate position in spite of evidence to the contrary.

supersheep:

--- Quote from: Aurjay on 28 Oct 2009, 19:32 ---Some of my favorite history books have been written by Jared Diamond. Guns, Germs and Steel: the fates of Human Societies and Collapse: How Societies choose to succeed or fail are the two that I've read. I want to read The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal as I hear thats his best book.

--- End quote ---
I haven't read it, but the snippets I've heard or seen of Collapse are atrocious collapsist primitivist nonsense and only make sense if you buy into the frankly laughable idea that capitalism is the only possiblity - it's less than three hundred years old for heaven's sake. England is three times older than that. Guns, Germs, and Steel was pretty good though, even if Engels covered some of the basic points a hundred and fifty years previous. Also, to be hoenst I would trust someone with anthropological, archaeological, or even historical training to write a book covering science-y bits than the other way around.

Eric Hobsbawm's quadrilogy of world history - Age of Revolution, Age of Capital, Age of Empire, and Age of Extremes - are some of the best overview works of modern history 1789-1991, even if they're getting on a bit by now. Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States and E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class are also classics. (Hint: the best history is usually written by Marxists or people of a similar background.)

The French Revolution is one of those continually contested battlegrounds in history, and we're probably around due for another reinterpretation of it (anyone doing European history at undergraduate level, there's an idea, I think it's Marxism's turn to bat again). George Lefebvre is probably still pretty good, to be honest, as is George Rudé. (Yes I have a soft spot for Marxist historians - that's because a) unlike the average historian, they don't pretend to be ideologically unbaggaged, and b) they usually have a methodology, something the average historian lacks.)

pilsner:
I'm not sure what I'm enjoying more, the fact that you called a book called Collapse "collapsist"  or the fact that the word "collapsist" has somehow escaped the purview of every dictionary of which I am aware.  

Protip:  when sneering at books, use words that exist.

Aurjay:
Its been awhile since I've read Collapse but If i remember correctly that's not what it was about at all. it was more about overusing your resources and then basically being left in a decline. I think the model he used was a town in Colorado or somewhere similar that basically poisoned their environment and couldn't sustainably live off it anymore. granted its been awile so please forgive me if im wrong but i really don't remember Capitalism being featured that prominently in the book.   

David_Dovey:

--- Quote from: pilsner on 03 Nov 2009, 19:20 ---Protip:  when sneering at books, use words that exist.

--- End quote ---

The word exists, it's right there. I can see it and read it and even understand what it's meaning is by context.

It's cute that you think that dictionaries are accurate representations of every word ever.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page