Top History Books in my Library

As a graduate student of History you can imagine I have read my fair share of books over the years. What makes these books among the few favorites in my library is certainly within the stories they tell, the effect and timing of when I read them and my inability to later sell them, but indeed hold on to all them despite the financial pains of book buying and selling in college.

Here are just a few that are my favorite or rather that I am rather fond of:

My favorite classical history book is none other than The Rise of Rome-Books 1-5, by Livy. Livy delivers a history of Rome early beginnings, starting with the horrible conception of Romulus and Remus and takes the reader through to the Gaul’s sacking of Rome in 390 B.C. This is a thorough book yet the information is given to you quickly and precisely. I read this book in my junior year of undergraduate in a brief ten week course on Roman History and I loved this book.

http://www.abebooks.com/Rise-Rome-Books-Five-Oxford-Worlds/9006841558/bd

My favorite World History book is Tom Standage’s A History of the World in 6 Glasses. This is by far the most interesting book I have read in my graduate studies thus far. Standage approaches the history of the world through an entirely different style of writing history, by looking at history as a cause and effect and the importance of different beverages that he states propels the world and civilizations forward to progress. It is definitely an entertaining book to say the least. I just finished reading this book for my current World History seminar course and I literally could not put it down. It really makes you want to go out and buy a beer, a bottle of wine and eventually a crisp bottle of Coca-Cola.

http://www.amazon.com/A-History-World-6-Glasses/dp/0802715524

My favorite early American History book would have to be Carol Berkin’s A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Berkin’s delivers another concise rendition of how the Founding Fathers establish the most important document in America’s history, The United States Constitution. Berkin’s really brings to life the struggles and realities of creating a government in an age without cell phones, fax or word processors. This book truly brings history alive. I read this book in my first graduate course called U.S. Constitutional History and this made me truly proud to be an American.

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/B003L1ZYQ0

My favorite early African American History book is without a doubt John W. Blassingame’s The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South.  This is more than a history on an era that typically considers just the plantation owners and a little on the slave, this book is all about the African American’s ability to survive and find some kind of normalcy during an excruciating period of their history. Blassingame focuses on the culture and experiences of the African American’s journey from Africa to America to which they had no control over. I read this book in my undergraduate with my favorite professor (Dr. Barbra Green at Wright State University).  This book really for the first time opened my eyes to the fact that the Slaves did not choose to be there, they were there without choice and as a young white woman that was appalling and made me want to learn as much as I could about the experiences of the Slaves during this period in American history.

http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Community-Plantation-Antebellum-South/dp/0195025636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380199693&sr=1-1&keywords=the+slave+community

My favorite Civil-War and post-civil War (Reconstruction) history book is unquestionably Eric Foner’s Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution. This is a book that again dives into the story of African American history demonstrating the eagerness and abilities of a culture to struggle to find equality. In many regards the period found success in the north, but in the South during the Reconstruction the obstacles and inability of the whites to allow progress to take place was too great. Foner really dives into the trials of the south and ultimate failure to assimilate the former slaves into a society attained by the Northern victory of the Civil War. I read this book in my undergraduate study of the Reconstruction period (also with Dr. Green). This is another book that was hard to put down and one that I just could not sell back at the bookstore at the end of the term.

http://www.amazon.com/Reconstruction-Americas-Unfinished-Revolution-1863-1877/dp/0060937165

My favorite go to American History book is really Howard Zinn’s A People of the United States: 1492 to Present. This is really a good read and a good source of information when you just need a book that is all encompassing concerning United States History. Zinn approaches US History tactfully but delivers the information quickly that does not draw out unnecessarily. I have used this book as a resource in many classes in my undergrad and later in my graduate coursework.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655

My favorite History book of all time is without a doubt is Alison Weir’s The Children of Henry VIII. When it comes to Tudor history Alison Weir is the master of the era. In this book Weir tactfully approaches the succeeding years of the British monarchy following the death of the beloved yet tyrannical King Henry VIII and his four heirs. Beginning with his son King Edward VI, followed by a distant relative Lady Jane Grey, then the barbaric duration of Mary I who history would remember as Bloody Mary, and ending finally with Elizabeth I that would then lead into Weir’s next book The Life of Elizabeth I. This book means a lot to me and I have grown rather fond of the Tudors (not the television series) as a result. When I read this book I had just graduated from college in 2008 when the bottom fell out of the economy and I was working a dead-end job that was not, shall we say, intellectually stimulating. This book showed me that I was more than where I was at and that I should pursue my dreams. Beyond my own revelation this book is a thoroughly researched and amazingly articulated history of the rollercoaster of the lives of Henry VIII’s heirs.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/children-of-henry-viii-alison-weir/1101378971?ean=9780345407863 

A Rambling Mama: A Proportional Response

A Rambling Mama: A Proportional Response: Today our, United States Representatives, are discussing what ought to be done about Syria. Obviously President Obama has chosen to take th...

Response to Putin: Ramifications are Necessary

In the past few weeks there have been strong opinions coming at home and abroad towards the United States proposition to react in a direct military strike on Syria for its use of Chemical warfare on its own citizens. Perhaps, the most inflammatory remarks from abroad are the words of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s New York Times Op-ed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hpw).  In the article Putin outlines his opinions clearly though without any clear confirmation. Nonetheless, the article brings to life what many foreign nationalist are saying about the United States in less bold manner as submission in an American Newspaper.

            In the article Putin states that the world should choose inaction as their reaction to acts against humanity, why? Because Putin fears the US going at it alone will essential be imposing an American decision on the rest of the world and will spur “increased violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism.”[1] Putin’s plea comes as an appeal to the American people to honor their commitment to The United Nations and its own international neighbors/allies. Putin believes a US strike at Syria in response to the August 21^st, 2013 mass Sarin gassing of civilians (including men, women and children) would adversely affect the stability of international edicts and regulations.  Putin describes the civil war in Syria as an intercultural domestic battle with no pro-democracy assembly fighting against the government and other interest groups for power. He considers the battles that are being waged in Syria to be simply “fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition” including terrorist groups. [2] Putin states that their negotiations with Syria are simply an act of preservation for all International integrity and law. Putin wonders if US policing of the world is truly in the United States “long-term” concern or if the US merely hopes to continue to bully the rest of the world through what he described as “brute force.”[3]

Putin goes on to speculate why the United States would want to risk another endeavor that has correlating aspects to US military action in Iraq, what Putin seems to miss is the point outline in President Obama’s September 10^th, 2013 national address. In his address President Obama clearly outlined the fact that this was a limited military effect, to leave a lasting impression upon those who may consider ever using chemical warfare, not as an act of war or revenge (as some may understand), but a proportional response to acts against humanity that is clearly outlined in the United Nations charter:

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims. Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.[4]

            What President Putin does not seem to understand is what it is to be an American, which is okay, but he should not tell us who we are and how we are to react. Our nation is not new to international conflict. The United States has often times been the leader on the World’s stage simply because we are a country of conviction and ethics. The United Nations was not created to head a coalition of negotiators only, but as a unified taskforce to protect present and forthcoming generations from the horrors demonstrated in the First and Second World Wars respectively.  We must uphold justice with dignity and honor yes, but we must protect our neighbors from acts against humanity; because what affects one member of mankind affects us all.

Putin goes on to tout his superior beliefs in the manners of American foreign involvement as nothing more than acts of bullying to be wrong in this modern age as only that calm rational diplomatic settlements should be the only option. President Putin again misunderstands. It is a fact that sometimes countries must be aggressive to reiterate their policies and rules of engagement. If someone is wrong you discuss it. If someone drops Sarin gas on a civilian population killing hundreds of civilians for political or military gain they have made a choice that affects all of us by essentially opening the door to acts against humanity, which does not implore peace but terror. These acts against humanity cannot be tolerated in this day or any age. These are not children to whom you put in the corner; these are grown adults making decisions against the natural course of humanity. As a body of the international community the United Nations and its members that stand against a military response should be ashamed, if only to shame them into action and their clear violation of the United Nations Charter’s code of ethics they have stood to uphold.

In Putin’s final remarks he takes a stab at describing the inaccuracy (as he sees it) of the lessons of equality and the qualities of what makes America exceptional.  Putin warns President Obama that encouraging others to see themselves as exceptional is simply dangerous, as “God created us equal.”[5] This from the man that has trudged against steps towards equality in his own country, but let us not get side-track shall we? President Putin, American’s are exceptional and we know it. It does not take our President to tell us this for us to already know this. We are exceptional, not in everything, we plunder many things, but we do try to learn from our own mistakes and mistakes of the world. Exceptional by its definition is to be “better than average.”[6] The United States of America is exceptional and our citizens are indeed “better than average” in our ability to uphold our convictions and “promote social progress and better standards of life.”[7] President Putin you must see the importance of a reaction if only to uphold international peace and civilities of war. Acts against humanity should not, especially post holocaust, be swept aside, but reacted to as if those victims were our sons or daughters laying in the streets or in the hospital begging for life and wishing the pain away. The United Nations promised to uphold justice for our world so our children would not know the horrors of all-out war. We must unite against the foes of generation and the next and make it clear that ramifications are necessary when acts against humanity are taken.

---

[1] Putin, Vladmir V. "A Plea for Caution From Russia." The New York Times. Sept. 11, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hpw (accessed Sept. 12, 2013).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Coate, Roger A., Donald J. Puchala, and Katie Verlin Laatikainen. United Nations Politics: International Organization in a Divided World. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Rentice Hall, 2007. 203.

[5] Putin.

[6]  Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2013. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceptional (accessed September 13, 2013).

[7] Coate, 203.

A Proportional Response

Today our, United States Representatives, are discussing what ought to be done about Syria. Obviously President Obama has chosen to take the high road and give the people a voice through their representatives, but in doing so the ignorance of people seems to come out. It is important that all citizens of our country have an opinion, but it may be to much to ask that they be well-informed. People have taken to social media to note their outrage and disappointment with the President and his plan for action against Syria seemingly without all the facts in check.

Though it may not have the same magnitude it once held, thank you President Bush, but United States Intelligence has demonstrated that Chemical Weapons were used on innocent civilians as a retaliatory strike against a region that sprung an assassination attempt against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. This included over four hundred people including women and children. As the images of the deadly attacks spread across the media and onto social media the nation wept and shook their heads, now we turn our backs on humanity as we continue on with our daily routine.

As an American shame is the only word to describe those opposed to action. Beyond the principle of injustice, inhumanity and genocide the purpose of a strike against the al-Assad government is justified as a national security endeavor. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized the importance of setting precedence to stop further similar attacks and the possibility of putting our direct foreign interest, neighbors and allies in peril. Should we strike back at Syria? It is the definition of a proportional response against non-humanitarian activity. Why else are we the greatest nation in the world, but to set a standard and stand by our moral convictions. Wrong is wrong. The end.

Michael Reagan Misses the Point on 'The Butler'

Lee Daniels' The Butler was greeted by Hollywood and America as a remarkable film about a man who rose from the bottom to the pinnacle of what the American Dream is suppose to look like. Lee Daniels' presents a man to his audience that resonates with much of America, a man who struggled, as many Black American's continue to struggle, in a world that is still dominated in many ways by the race that once held their own captive and still some how Cecil Gaines made his way off the plantation and into the status of a working middle class family man.

If one could only stop to realize the significance of this film and story they would understand that it is simply more than a story based on the life of a real White House Butler. This story is not just about the character or the person, it is about every Black man, women and child that came out of the attrition of the early 20th century Black poverty and became someone. This is the story of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dreams becoming a realty.

The Butler is greater than the supposed accusation of a racist past-President, it is not about the validity of the Black Panthers, or about the real Butler. The Butler is much bigger than that, it is a history of the 20th Century Black Persons journey. The trials, the errors, the dreams and the accomplishments.

Michael Reagan, you simply missed the point. Surely the decisions of President Ronald Reagan were not made off-handed and I am sure the man had many black friends, but surely you see the correlation of what backing the South African Apartheid said to all African Americans around the country. The Apartheid was a racist regime, which kept a racial group down simply because of the color of their skin and you cannot tell me that was not wrong, especially not now in hindsight. I understand protecting your family, but own up to the truth that the political decision to do so was racially discriminatory. Backing a regime that believes one racist is superior to that of another is wrong ethically and morally, surely there is something to gain from hindsight.