Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.
Peter Hopkirk, a former reporter for The Times of London with wide experience of the region, tells an extraordinary story of ambition, intrigue, and military adventure. His sensational narrative moves at breakneck pace, yet even as he paints his colorful characters--tribal chieftains, generals, spies, Queen Victoria herself--he skillfully provides a clear overview of the geographical and diplomatic framework. The Great Game was Russia's version of America's "Manifest Destiny" to dominate a continent, and Hopkirk is careful to explain Russian viewpoints as fully as those of the British. The story ends with the fall of Tsarist Russia in 1917, but the demise of the Soviet Empire (hastened by a decade of bloody fighting in Afghanistan) gives it new relevance, as world peace and stability are again threatened by tensions in this volatile region of great mineral wealth and strategic significance. --John Stevenson
Can European thought be dislodged from the center of the practice of history in a non-European place? What problems arise when we translate cultural practices into the categories of social science? Provincializing Europe is one of the first book-length treatments on how postcolonial thinking impacts on the social sciences. This book explores, through a series of linked essays, the problems of thought that present themselves when we think of a place such as India through the categories of modern, European social science and, in particular, history.
Provincializing Europe is a sustained conversation between historical thinking and postcolonial perspectives. It addresses the mythical figure of Europe that is often taken to be the original site of the modern in many histories of capitalist transition in non-Western countries. This imaginary Europe, Chakrabarty argues, is built right into the social sciences. The very idea of historicizing carries with it some peculiarly European assumptions about disenchanted space, secular time, and human sovereignty. Measured against such mythical standards, capitalist transition in the third world has often seemed either incomplete or lacking. Chakrabarty finds that "Nativism," however, is no answer to Eurocentrism, because the universals propounded by European Enlightenment remain indispensable to any social critique that seeks to address issues of social justice and equity. Provincializing Europe proposes that every case of transition to capitalism is a case of translation as well--a translation of existing worlds and their thought-categories into the categories and self-understandings of capitalist modernity. Chakrabarty demonstrates, both theoretically and with examples from colonial and contemporary India, how such translational histories may be thought and written. Provincializing Europe is not a project of shunning European thought. It is a project of globalizing such thought by exploring how it may be renewed both for and from the margins.
I was delighted to read the chapter on "Adda", a unique Bengali culture. In Europe, café culture comes close to it. The French had the "salon" culture. Having participated in many "adda" in my youth in Calcutta, I miss it while living in the US or in Europe. Chakrabarty does a favor to my occidental friends by properly explaining what it means and what it did for Bengali social system.
Summing up, I would recommend this book to several groups of people. First, if you want to learn about the intricacies of the Indian, particularly Bengali, culture, this book is for you. Second, of course, this book is a required reading for any serious student of India and Indian culture. Third, students of international business should also be interested in this book as it lays the foundation of the many cultural tenets that are important in economic activities.
Whither subalternity?.......2000-12-11
Pace Chakrabarty, "Provincializing Europe" is replete with intellectual antics, including an inventive chapter devoted to re-reading "Das Kapital", and charged with 'ubiquitous obliquity' (to borrow Tom Stoppard's phrase from another context). However, it is not the detailed argumentation of the book that concerns us here; its essence will suffice to indicate the direction neo-Subalternism has taken. Chakrabarty's book aims to dismantle historicism itself, identified as that evil of the Enlightenment which views social phenomena as unities and historically developed. To achieve this, it proposes the disruption of metanarratives grounded in a 'single and secular historical time' (Chakrabarty 2000, 16 et passim) - (neo)colonial, nationalist, Marxist, whatever - by introducing authentic 'difference' thereto. This difference is sought in religion and the inclusion of gods and spirits as agents of history. Meanwhile, despite the repeated insistence that this is still Subalternist historiography, the subaltern meanders in the wings of Chakrabarty's stage, while his world of the Bengali middle-class male comes to constitute his 'archive' (Chakrabarty 2000, 117-236). As for the question of power, the analysis of relations of domination and subordination internal to society has given way to the power struggle between the oppressive Enlightenment and the recalcitrant historian in the new brand of "Subaltern Studies". Here, power is indeed entirely dispersed and only appears to coalesce in the Enlightenment and its intellectual heritage.
While enticing in its intellectual sharpness and breadth (Chakrabarty discusses Einstein and Marx in one fell swoop), there are a number of problems with this approach. The most urgent among these is that it paralyzes organized secular politics, lends credence to the politics of the religious right wing, and hence legitimates communal and sectarian carnage - a fact of life in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Furthermore, the fact that religion is the traditional stronghold of patriarchy as well as exploitation based on caste appears to escape Chakrabarty's notice. Only intellectuals located at a distance of oceans and continents from the destructive forces they valorize can afford to be so blasé about the very real threat of annihilation faced by minority groups in the context of an ascendant right. Polemics and reality (that specious construct) aside, and on a more scholarly note, the problematic of power stands sidelined. Subscribing to the idea that power is universal, and refusing to acknowledge that it coheres in concentrated form at certain sites (between subaltern and elite) is counterproductive to understanding power as it is exercised in systems of domination and subordination. By no means is such anxiety limited to the scholarship being released under the banner of Subaltern Studies. Susan Pedersen recently voiced similar concern over the direction of feminist history. Her eloquence merits citation in extenso: "[I]nsights that have proven so productive for cultural analysis - insights about the multivalent, collaborative and web-like nature of power - tend to be less useful for the study of narrower political processes. For, once we assume power is everywhere, it usually turns out to be nowhere very much; if it is analytically directionless, it scarcely needs to be taken into account. Our acceptance [...] of the truth that power is everywhere and that the weak, like the strong, play the game of power, has led us away from grasping the other truth that the players are not equal, that even multivalent systems can have internal movements preponderantly in one direction or another, that there are degrees of power, that a middle ground exists between an assumption of total agency and an assumption of total fixity - and that it is on this crucial middle ground that the most interesting questions are found and much interesting history happens."
Finally, the fact that Chakrabarty's archive is the Bengali middle-class male and that he, along with his associates, is mired in theorizing to the neglect of substantive research of subaltern history speaks for itself. ....
Book Description
The publication of Edward Said's hugely influential Orientalism in 1981 called into question the entire history of the Western study of Islamic culture, condemning this scholarly tradition as one that presented inaccurate and deliberately demeaning representations of Islamic peoples and institutions—so much so that the words "Oriental" and "Orientalist" have come to take on the most negative connotations.
But what is Orientalism, and who were the Orientalists, and how did Western scholars of Islamic culture come to be vilified as insidious agents of European imperialism? In Robert Irwin's groundbreaking new history, he answers this question with a detailed and colorful story of the motley crew of intellectuals and eccentrics who brought an understanding of the Islamic world to the West. In a narrative that ranges from an analysis of Ancient Greek perceptions of the Persians to a portrait of the first Western European translators of Arabic to the contemporary Muslim world's perceptions of the Western study of Islam, Irwin affirms the value of the Orientalists' legacy: not only for the contemporary scholars who have disowned it, but also for anyone committed to fostering the cross-cultural understanding which could bridge the real or imagined gulf between Islamic and Western civilization. Dangerous Knowledge is a both riveting and entertaining history, a bold argument, and an urgent redress of our conceptions about Western culture's relationship with its nearest neighbor.
Customer Reviews:
A political feud with Edward Said.......2007-04-08
This book is an extension of a political feud thats been going on in academic circles since Edward Said published his book "orientalism". As a short summary, that book contended that many western scholars in their studies of the other cultures had both gotten things wrong and served as an important extension of the european imperial/colonial governments who used to rule large parts of the world.
The feud actually has little to do with actual scholarship. In some sense, its an extension of the wars in the middle east. Said was Palestinian. Harsh lines were drawn on both sides and whole dispute is almost completely political. Ironically, the almost histerical tone of attacks on Said did more to spread his ideas than he himself did. As in many of these cases, a response was not sufficent. It had to be proved that he was a criminal liar whose book consisted of fabrications. The book and its ideas had to be banished from any serious discussion. At times it seemed that the concern was really over someone from the middle east speaking about it from an academic point of view rather than europeans or Americans.
And so Robert Irwin decided to ride to the defense of Orientalism in this book. His argument is basically that Orientialism is and always has been above politics. And that the people in the field didn't agree with each other enough to have an ideology as Said suggested. Problem is that Irwin himself digs up all kinds of material that goes counter to his own arguments. For example, he shows all kinds of scholars who did serve the ends of empire and government. But he tells us without proof that they are just exceptions in a sea of scholars with unquestionable motives. It didn't quite convince me.
For his own reasons, Irwin chooses not to engage in debate with Said. As with many Orientalists, he chooses the route of avoiding debate of the subject by a direct attack on the credibility of Said and his work. This can work in some cases (See Black Athena), but it requires that the errors and misrepresentations are such that the entire premise of the work of the false. Irwin doesn't reach anywhere close to that standard. In fact, his own analysis of orientialism tends to support Said's case. Its also a very difficult thing to discredit analysis of a field of study.
The field of "orientalism" as Robert Irwin and many others had known it is simply obsolete. Travel and computers have changed the world. There isn't a need anymore for western scholars to interprate for Americans or Europeans for that matter what "orientals" are like. There are large english-speaking academic communities made up of people from those cultures both in those countries and in the west. If we want to know about Iraqi culture/history for example, its much better to talk to an Iraqi professor from the culture rather than having an "orientalist" like Bernard Lewis offer outsider theories on what Iraqis might be like.
More generally, the time of outsider academic analysis of cultures and political systems is almost over. The debate over orientalism is largely meaningless these days. Its just a leftover extension of the wars of the middle east.
Good Counter Polemic.......2007-01-29
This book seems to have been written in large part as a response to the late Edward Said's famous (some would say notorious) Orientalism. In the latter, Said argued the Orientalism (in the limited sense used by Irwin, though Said clearly had a broader use in mind), the scholarly activity of investigating the Orient, is inextricably bound up and indeed is a driver of Western racism, imperialism, and colonialism. Irwin disagrees strongly, and in this decently written book, provides some very good criticism of Said. Irwin attacks Said on a narrow but important front; is Said's account and interpretation of the scholarly tradition of Orientialism correct? Most of Dangerous Knowledge is a chronologically organized history of Western scholarly contact with Arabic traditions. Irwin limits himself primarily to Arabic studies because this is where Said concentrates his critique. Irwin makes a very good case that Said misrepresents this scholarly tradition and misunderstands much of its historic context. According to Irwin, and the examples he cites are convincing, Said appears to have done only a superficial job of examining this tradition, perhaps to the level of not actually reading some of the historic figures criticized. Its worth mentioning that this narrative is worth reading in its own right and that while Irwin has not produced an in depth intellectual history, his historical account is informative and quite readable. In the course of this narrative, Irwin addresses some of Said's broader assertions about the nature of Orientalism and the Western tradition. Most of these criticisms seem well founded. In the last chapters of the book, Irwin turns to specific discussion of other aspects of Said's book and some of his other writings. Irwin continues to be quite critical, and again his critique makes sense.
Its important to specify that Irwin, unlike some of Said's critics, does not have a contemporary political axe to grind. Said was best known in this country as an outspoken advocate of the Palestinian cause and critic of the state of Israel. Said's work has been attacked as much for his stands on these issues as for his scholarly work itself. Irwin is careful to specify that he shares many of Said's opinions on these controversial issues.
One area where I disagree with Irwin is his repeated statements that Orientalism was written in bad faith, that is to say, Said knowingly produced the distortions and errors characteristic of his book. I find this unlikely. Most great deceptions involve self-deception and it is likely that Said sincerely believed that his interpretations were correct. Said's defect doesn't appear to be insincerity but a lack of intellectual rigor and a preference for highly intellectualized constructs over real data. This conclusion would be consistent with some of Said's other positions. His proposed solution, which he advocated without any irony, to the Israeli-Palestinian problem was a single, democratic state. A proposal so impractical as to be almost humorous.
The Discontents are Dull.......2007-01-12
"Dangerous Knowledge" should serve as the standard work about those often quirky scholars in the West who pursued the difficult and mostly little regarded study of the languages and civilizations of the Middle East. However, a history of scholars is unfortunately less interesting than the history itself. "Dangerous Knowledge" seems to have been written largely for an opportunity to refut and criticize the works of the late Edward Said, who famously charged most Western scholarship as tainted by racist and imperialist attitudes. Author Robert Irwin makes a good case that this blanket condemnation is both wrong and unscholarly, and a disservice to our efforts to come to grips with problems that have suddenly become crucial.
Discredited Anecdotal Approach!.......2006-12-14
Like many other Orientalists, Irwin is bitterly obssessed with Edward Said and this book is dedicated to refuting Orientalism, the late thinker's classic masterpiece. Had Irwin read Said properly though, he would have not written this long celebration of supposedly disinterested scholarship highlighting orientalist academic achievements etc... To begin with, and to state a point that is a given in the humanities these days, Orientalism for Said was not just an academic discipline (which is all what Irwin talks about) but was a style of constructing and approaching the "Orient" as being inherently different from the "Occident" and as being static, unchanging, inferior. As such Said uses the term Orientalism with reference to literary figures such as Flaubert, philosophers such as Marx along with low grade Orientalists such as Bernard Lewis. He was not interested in writting a history of Oriental Studies. What he was concerned with was an analysis of the system of cultural representation and imaginative geography that was Orientalism in its political, academic, artisitc, and literary forms. His critque of Orientalism was not based on the idea that Oriental Studies made no academic contributions; he rather tackles the assumptions that inform it (along with other realms of cultural production such as literature) and its relationship with its imperial context etc... Ignoring Said's analysis, Irwin ends up with a weak Orientalist critique and a trite anecdotal study that has very little relevance to contemporary scholarship. In many ways this book illustrates rather than refutes Said's points (especially Said's critique of cults of specialists that refuse to recognise their contextual connections with the surrounding world)!
Hey, it's exactly the same as "For Lust of Knowing".......2006-12-11
I bought this book without realizing that except for the title, it is exactly the same as Irwin's book, "For Lust of Knowing." It has the same number of pages and the same words on each page. If you already have one of these books, you won't need the other!
Here is my review of the book. As you will see, I'm explaining the original title in this review. I think I prefer that title, but it isn't all that important.
This book is fun to read. It discusses the history of Orientalism and tells about some of the leading Orientalists. It also defends Orientalism as a legitimate scholarly field. And one may want to know why this topic of study needs any defense.
The reason becomes clear right from the start. Ed Said wrote a crazy rant against the whole enterprise. That ought to have had little effect on academia. But it did: plenty of people praised that book! And by now, to say that one is an Orientalist is to risk being branded as a servant of Imperialism, and maybe as a Zionistlover as well. I can see that Irwin is not too happy about the decline of Orientalism as a scholarly field.
Nor can Irwin be too happy with the discrediting of Middle Eastern Studies that has resulted from the acceptance of Said's nonsense by quite a few supposed intellectuals. That has resulted in Middle Eastern scholars being dismissed by some as a bunch of anti-scholarly racists and bigots who use their positions not to further knowledge but to propagandize against human rights and truth. Irwin is clearly embarrassed by the fact that his field is now associated with Said's polemical work. Yes, those who study the Middle East are under attack from both sides due to the politicization of the field.
I have to admit that I'm not the proper person to deliver an attack on Said's book "Orientalism." For one thing, the book is such garbage that I wouldn't know where to start. For another, what I say would count for very little. Not only am I not a scholar in that field, I also am an opponent of Said's entire war on human rights. I see Said as one of the biggest liars of the past century, and I feel that he was a truly evil creature. It would be difficult for me to convince most of those who like Said's works that I could write a genuinely unbiased and fair appraisal of the trash that he wrote.
That is one reason why it is good to have a view from an Orientalist who attacks Said on scholarly, rather than political grounds. Irwin certainly does not defend Israel or Zionism, and he defends Said from accusations of supporting terrorism (cleverly claiming that he merely praises terrorism "with faint damns"). I think Irwin is wrong here, but that's not the issue. The question is whether there is any merit in what Said wrote, and how much damage his stuff has done to the field of Orientalism.
Irwin says that "it is a scandal and a damning comment on the quality of intellectual life in Britain in recent decades that Said's arguments could ever have been taken seriously." And he notes that in some cases, folks sided with Said just to be anti-Zionist and anti-American. It sure must be fun for some people to taunt those who support human rights for Jews. But I think that the cost is severe if the whole field of Middle Eastern history and Orientalist studies is thus mangled. As for Said himself, I wonder why he did such a thing in the first place. Why, instead of attacking the Israelis or the Jews, or the Blacks, or the Americans, or the Christians, or whatever group he wanted to slander did he pick on those who simply studied the Middle East? After all, many of those scholars were anything but Zionists! I don't know the answer to that question. Maybe Said felt that to truly smash the rights of Levantine Jews to life, liberty, and property, he'd have to smash truth. And I guess he figured that the best way to attack truth would be to outlaw the right to study it. That would leave Middle Eastern studies in the hands of lying and taunting propagandists and give some chance to get "scholarly" approval for the abolition of human rights in the Levant. That's just my wild guess. Irwin merely says that he can't believe that Said's work was written in good faith.
I would like to see Middle Eastern studies be a scholarly field once again. If I were a few decades younger, I might even want to work in that subject to help that happen. But I now think the first task here has to be to expose and repudiate the barrage of anti-Zionist lies that have become part of the canon offered to many students. And that can't be done by partisans alone. It needs works such as this one, written by those who value truth and want the field to be rescued from those who merely want to use words to fight a tribal war.
Oh yes, the title. In "The Golden Road to Samarkand" by James Elroy Flecker (1884-1915), Ishak says:
"We travel not for trafficking alone;
By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned:
For lust of knowing what should not be known
We take the Golden Road to Samarkand."
Obviously, Irwin's point is that the Orientalists were not in their fields primarily to serve as agents of Imperialism, but, almost always, out of genuine love of knowledge.
I recommend this book.
Average customer rating:
|
Encounters: The Meeting of Asia and Europe 1500 - 1800
Anna Jackson , and
Amin Jaffer
Manufacturer: Victoria & Albert Museum
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Asian
| Regional
| History & Criticism
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Museums & Collections
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
Decorative Arts
| Design & Decorative Arts
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Arts & Photography
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Venice and the Islamic World, 828-1797
ASIN: 1851774327 |
Book Description
Vasco da Gama set sail in 1497 on a quest for highly prized spices from the East. His discovery of the sea route to India established, for the first time, direct relations between Europe and East Asia, ushering in a period of rich commercial and artistic exchange. Published to accompany a major exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum, this sumptuously illustrated volume explores the contacts between these European and East Asian cultures over three centuries.
The book shows how people from opposite sides of the world found each other equally strange and exotic, a mutual fascination that shaped both cultures and the art produced in each. Stunning images of exquisite objects in every medium are brought together to tell an epic story of commercial, personal, and religious exchange that had an enormous impact throughout the world. AUTHOR BIO: Anna Jackson is acting deputy keeper of the Asian department at the V&A. One of her main research interests is the cultural relationship between East Asia and the West. Amin Jaffer, a curator in the Asian department at the V&A, is an expert on furniture in early colonial India.
Book Description
The dramatic history of an empire that shaped the modern world in the first authoritative account written for general readers
According to the Ottoman chronicles, the first sultan, Osman, had a dream in which a tree emerged fully formed from his navel "and its shade compassed the world"-symbolizing the vast empire he and his descendants were destined to forge. His vision was soon realized: At its height, the Ottoman realm extended from Hungary to the Persian Gulf, from North Africa to the Caucasus.
The Ottoman Empire was one of the largest and most influential empires in world history. For centuries, Europe watched with fear as the Ottomans steadily advanced their rule across the Balkans. Yet travelers and merchants were irresistibly drawn toward Ottoman lands by their fascination with the Orient and the lure of profit.
Although it survived for over six centuries, the history of the Ottoman Empire is too often colored by the memory of its bloody final throes. In this magisterial work Caroline Finkel lucidly recounts the epic story of the Ottoman Empire from its origins in the thirteenth century through its destruction on the battlefields of World War I.
"Caroline Finkel effortlessly conveys the high drama of Ottoman history." (Orhan Pamuk)
Customer Reviews:
Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire.......2006-08-02
An excellent book. Very readable. A great way to compress six centuries of the great Ottoman Empire in a relatively short space. Finally the truth about Ottomans are emerging from the pens of eminent scholars, instead of garbage spewn by Armenians, Greeks, and some European powers that vied for Ottoman territories and resources for their own colonial purposes. I hate to see armenian-Americans to unfairly degrade a book that is truthful or complimentary to the great Ottoman Empire. Hope these folks grow up soon. I will not stoop to their level and demean the authors that put out lies about the "poor" armenians. Great job Caroline.
Shallow political history.......2006-07-11
I was quite disappointed by this book - its like a 19th century history with a shallow retelling of the names of Sultans, dates and major battles. I would have expected a greater analysis of the socio-cultural milieu in which the Ottoman empire arose and the institutions it spawned. I kept reading on hoping that this would follow but its really just a chronological listing of sultans, the major battles fought - if you want a political history of the empire, this may work for you. But when, why not just read the Wikipedia entry if you have no interest in the socio-political institutions.
Solid.......2006-06-20
This is a decent survey of Ottoman history. In many ways, this is traditional history from above, mainly a political history concentrating on the ups and downs of the reigns of the Ottoman Sultans. Finkel does well in constructing the basic narrative, covering centuries of Ottoman history in solid prose. The complicated dynastic politics of several periods are covered well. Finkel makes a less successful attempt to integrate social and economic history. She describes different phases of social and demographic history in the Empire as related to the political history but rarely provides enough detail to be satisfactory. For example, she mentions the declining Muslim population of the 19th century empire but never describes the size of the population or whether this was an absolute or relative decline. In many sections, she devotes more text to architectural history than relevant economic or social history. This book is largely descriptive and useful on that basis. As a basic political history, it will probably be useful for many, but its analytic shortcomings make its utility limited.
Good core, fuzzy edges.......2006-05-27
This is one more book about Ottoman history, a subject which lately semms to have become fashionable. As a general outline of the Empire's history it is pretty good, mentioning all important events, and doing so from an Ottoman perspective. This last is significant, as traditional histories tend to adopt an anti-Turkish approach by default. I have given this book 3 stars because it omits no serious events, because of the fact that it narrates them from the Ottoman viewpoint and because it utilises many sources, including Ottoman ones.
I have declined givng the last two stars because of two problems: One, many institutions and events are treated superficially or have an inaccurate description -- there is litle depth and often further research reveals the summary presented by the author to be the truth but by no means the whole truth. (or the most important part thereof -- although this also depends on what one considers to be the most important aspect of an event).
The second problem is one endemic to US/English scholarly work:
All too often, the sources cited, though numerous, turn out to consist of english-language bibliography plus some sources from the culture/people being studied. In this case the bibliography consists of Ottoman and english language sources. Yet when writing history it is oftem critical to examine the writings of a people's neighbors and enemies as well. This is sadly lacking here, the author seems not to be aware of contemporary Greek, Italian, Persian or Russian sources. An example: in discussing te 1821 Greek revolt, the author states that it is not clear whether Prince Ypsilantis's Moldavian adventure was undertaken in coordination with the Morea rebels. Yet anyone with elementary knowledge of contemorary greek writings on the issue cannot help but be aware that coordination did exist and in fact the whole point of the Moldavian affair was to provide at worst a diversion for Ottoman troops and at best cause a Russo-Turkish war.
One last thing, an appeal to my fellow Greeks, concerning reviews who give the book one star because it ignores how evil vicious and subhuman the Turks are: Can we PLEASE grow up and stop demonizing the Turks? Yes the author does not mention the Armenian genocide and the pogroms at the Ottoman Greeks expense as forcefully as many of us might have liked, but the way to draw attention to these omissions is NOT by blatantly exaggerating Turkish "cruelty" or the number of people who fell victim of the upheavals at the end of WWI. Stop automatically denigrating everything that may disagree with "our" POV!
Osman's Dream.......2006-05-12
The last years shelved a handful of new books that revise and overview the Ottoman history from construction to demise. Goodwin's Lord of the Horizons, Faroqhi's the Ottoman Empire and the World Around it, or Imber's the Ottoman Empire 1300-1600 already gave professors a hand with their survey cirrucula.
In similar vein though Osman's dream may be, it further serves with its lucid style as the most updated and reiterative (same-old-story-rehashing) work written in the field.
Major problems that Ottomanists have long discussed such as on periodization, methods of conquest, role of dervishes, the reverberation of tensions between center-province-local, the f/actors that in effect changed/stabilized the Ottoman trajectory deserve a better place than mere explication of the symptoms and diagnosis come forward earlier.
I do not agree with Nikephorus Phokas (a customer that previously reviewed the book) on grounds that Osman's Dream ignores the Genocide: not advertently. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that Finkel undertook her work as unpolemical and selective as possible. There are many other issues she does not touch on as she accepts honestly.
My recommend to a reader would be that s/he complement Osman's Dream with other works in the field, particularly Findley's Turks in World History and Quataert's Ottoman Empire 1700-1922. And, keep in mind that this work appeals primarily to general readers and in some ways to those that want to refresh their factual knowledge on this vast chunk of history.
There is no reason to be cynical in Osman's Dream's overall success. I am not, still, expecting a Hofstadter to write an Ottoman Age of Reform, a Foner "Ottoman's Unfinished Revolution", or a letter-day Bloch "Ottoman Middle Ages". This work may well place the history of the Ottoman Empire into a broader historical template, better than others that try hard to integrate it to the European history.
Book Description
This classic account of the French War in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is back in hardcover. Includes an introduction by George C. Herring.
Customer Reviews:
An early version of the Vietnam War.......2007-06-10
A gripping history of dedicated and professional soldiers who fought the battles of Indochina with valor and integrity, but were not supported by their countrymen. Bernard Fall "walked the walk" with the fighters of Indochina and put a lot of heart into his work.
Strange how the US was fully knowledgeable of the struggles of the French and was actively supporting them, but in spite of their advance exposure to the complexities of the political and strategic situation the US policy makers repeated many of the same strategic mistakes and also failed to rally popular support for a war in a faraway land.
Bernard Fall had it right! .......2007-03-09
As a Vietnam vet I am constantly faced with people who can't understand why we became involved in that tragic place. Bernard Fall in this book and in his others ( see "Two Vietnams" "Vietnam Reader" and "The Siege of Dien Bien Phu") accurately forcasted the demise of the French in Indo-China. It would have been nice if someone in our Government had read and headed Mr. Fall's predictions. His descriptions of the military defeat of the French was to me gut wrenching. The task will be to find some one with Mr. Fall's prescience for SW Asia.
On Deaf Ears.......2006-09-13
Mr. Fall showed how Ho Chi Minh worked his strategy to perfection against a rising red tide in post-war France. The Communist leader advanced his plans and followed them to the letter. The Viet-Minh fought on their terms, annihilating small French military outposts in Indochina. Ho knew that the enemy would eventually pass from the offensive to the defensive. He knew that the (initial) enemy would lack the psychological and political wherewithal to fight a protracted war, even as Communist advances in southeast Asia "sanctified" French colonialism there. Fall's ensuing effort, Hell in A Very Small Place, revealed that Dien Bien Phu was France's swan song in Asia. American policymakers obviously learned little from the French experience.
One of The Best. Of Viet Nam.......2006-03-04
This is one of the best books anyone will ever read on Viet Nam. It covers the French attempt to beat the forces of Uncle Ho. The book details the slow but sure beating of the French forces by a far less supplied nationalistic force that were to become the Viet Cong and North Viet regulars. The French tried to set up strong points around to control the country. It didn't work. It is too bad none of our military leaders took this book to heart as it details our own defeat because we did not learn the lesson taught by the French. They said we would lose and we did. The author was killed in Viet Nam not long after the book came out. Do yourself a favor and get it.I think you will be glad you did.
Timeless.......2005-02-26
I picked up this book after reading The Best and the Brightest, Halberstam's epic on the US involvement in the Vietnam war. Would actually recommend folks read this before Halberstam's book, then jump into more detailed coverage of the US involvement in Vietnam.
Fall was a mentor to many US journalists covering Vietnam, based on his experience covering the country during the French war, and as a reader you will recognize the tone throughout. The book starts with a description of different battles during the French Indochina war, beginning with those of the "set piece" variety and then moving to those where mobility was a factor. The more mobility involved, the worse it got for the French, and you can see the Vietnamese evolve their tactics as the war unfolds.
There are some very interesting chapters on life in the French army during Vietnam, as well as some closing chapters on the 'future of revolutionary war' and the like. There is a fascinating analysis on the subject of 'active sanctuary' that provides a preview of both the balance of the Vietnam war, the wars in Africa, as well as an entirely period as well: the Reagan Doctrine, the Russian experience in Afghanistan, etc.
This book is timeless, and that it was published before the US became involved in Vietnam makes it a classic. I read alot of history, and was prepared for it to be more "dry;" I actually found it pretty easy to read if you like the subject and would highly recommend it to anyone interested not just in Vietnam but in world affairs in general.
Average customer rating:
- Not a good enough reference to be worth the money
- Taking a class with the editor
- Food for thinking with
- A warning note
- Not enough visual aids, i.e. illustrations, maps etc
|
The Cambridge World History of Food (2-Volume Set)
Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
History
| Gastronomy
| Cooking, Food & Wine
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Cooking, Food & Wine
| Subjects
| Books
General
| World
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Household Hints
| How-to & Home Improvements
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
Cooking, Food & Wine
| Boxed Sets
| Formats
| Books
History
| Boxed Sets
| Formats
| Books
Home & Garden
| Boxed Sets
| Formats
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Cooking, Food & Wine
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
History
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Home & Garden
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Cooking, Food & Wine
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Home & Garden
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
The Oxford Companion to Food 2nd Ed
-
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America: 2-Volume Set
-
Food in History
-
Cuisine and Culture: A History of Food & People
-
History of Food
ASIN: 0521402166
Release Date: 2000-11-14 |
Amazon.com
Have the French always enjoyed their renowned cuisine? When did Russians begin to eat pirogi? What was the first Indonesian spice to be cultivated elsewhere in the world? Questions such as these make for good Jeopardy material, but they're far from trivial--just ask anyone with a passion for good food and a curiosity for where that food originated. That person will know instinctively that the best way to approach a culture--and, indeed, the human animal--is through the stomach. For this individual, The Cambridge World History of Food will be something of a bible, and the best of gifts.
A massive scholarly tome in two volumes and more than 2,000 pages, the CWHF encompasses a wealth of learning that touches on nearly every aspect of human life. (It also reveals the answers to the three earlier questions: No, French cuisine as we know it is a 19th-century development; in the 16th century, following the conquest of the Volga Tatar; ginger, in colonial Mexico.) Thoroughly researched and highly accessible despite its formidable layout, the set addresses a groaning board of topics past and present, from the diet of prehistoric humans to the role of iron in combating disease; from the domestication of animals to the spread of once-isolated ethnic cuisines in a fast-globalizing world. Of greatest interest to general readers is its concluding section--a dictionary of the world's food plants, which gives brief accounts of items both common and exotic, from abalong to Zuttano avocado.
The product of seven years of research, writing, and editing on the part of more than 200 authors, The Cambridge World History of Food promises to become a standard reference for social scientists, economists, nutritionists, and other scholars--and for cooks and diners seeking to deepen their knowledge of the materials they use and consume. --Gregory McNamee
Book Description
An undertaking without parallel or precedent, this monumental two-volume work encapsulates much of what is known of the history of food and nutrition throughout the span of human life on earth. It constitutes a vast and essential chapter in the history of human health and culture. Ranging from the eating habits of our prehistoric ancestors to food-related policy issues we face today, this work covers the full spectrum of foods that have been hunted, gathered, cultivated, and domesticated; their nutritional makeup and uses; and their impact on cultures and demography. It offers a geographical perspective on the history and culture of food and drink and takes up subjects from food fads, prejudices, and taboos to questions of food toxins, additives, labeling, and entitlements. It culminates in a dictionary that identifies and sketches out brief histories of plant foods mentioned in the text--over 1,000 in all--and additionally supplies thousands of common names and synonyms for those foods. The essays in this volume are the work of 220 experts in fifteen countries, in fields from agronomy to zoology. Every chapter is accompanied by bibliographical references. The volumes are organized in the following sections: 1. A determination of what our Paleolithic ancestors ate during their stay on the planet (over 99 percent of the time humankind has lived on earth). 6 chapters 2. An extensive treatment of the domestication and development of each of humankind's staple foods. 60 chapters 3. The history of our dietary liquids from beer through soft drinks to water. 13 chapters 4. Studies on the discovery of vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, and the essential fatty acids along with a look at what they do for us. 37 chapters 5. A history of food and drink for all of the countries in the world. In addition there is a chapter on culinary history. 23 chapters 6. Historical issues involving human health, such as nutrition and mortality decline, height and nutrition, infection and nutrition. 18 chapters 7. Contemporary food-related policy issues are treated in this penultimate section of the work. Examples include chapters on food labeling, food biotechnology and the RDAs. 13 chapters 8. The last section of the work is a food-plant dictionary with over 1,000 entries that emphasize history and usage. The dictionary also includes over 4,000 synonyms for the names of plant food. Here readers well-informed about potatoes or asparagus can learn about lesser-known or strictly regional foods such as ackee or zamia and--among the thousands of synonyms provided--can discover that an aubergine is an eggplant, that "swedes" are rutabagas, and that "bulgar" comes from bulghur, which means "bruised grain."
Customer Reviews:
Not a good enough reference to be worth the money.......2004-10-29
This is a tremendously expensive reference that one should expect to be trustworthy. But it isn't. Nor is it as definitive as should be expected, though it does have some fascinating entries, such as the role of dogs in the history of food. For the price, there should be line drawings for some of the more unusual fruits and veg, because as it is, the verbal descriptions would lead a reader to think that something looked quite different than it does. So I use these two volumes with caution, referencing further anything said here before I take it as a given. Although some other reviewers here have criticized the dryness of style, that is what I want in this sort of thing, so I have no complaints there. Of far more importance is the slant that many of the articles have, which clearly have a political agenda that the information is wrapped around. So, while the bibliographies for same are useful, they also are selectively chosen. Given the guides to food now, and the many histories, I would think that a few books judiciously chosen are better value than this one reference, though if you are monied, this is an interesting addition to your library, to be read with a grain of salt in every 'Oh, my! I didn't know that.'
Taking a class with the editor.......2003-05-01
Argghhhh I have Kenneth Kipple for a teacher, arghhhhh. The greatest use of this book is in the bibliographies at the end of the chapts. Skip the articles and look for the books in the bibliography.
Food for thinking with.......2001-08-07
Part of the dissatisfaction among some reviewers is that this book is not a light, cheerful cook-book/dictionary. For those who want something more along those lines, there are plenty of light-weight volumes that purport to tell the story of this or that cooking tradition with lots of nice glossy pictures and maybe more than three accurate facts if you're really lucky. Try Jane and Michael Stern's road trip food voyages for example.
This two volume set is not for the faint of heart. It is a book for the enthusiast and the professional food historian alike: people who are looking for the social, biological and historical context to the food they enjoy. It is not completely encyclopaedic and there are a few inaccuracies in the identification of plant names and such but these are minor quibbles in the face of the sheer comprehensiveness of the work and the undoubted scholarly care that has gone into its preparation.
I for one appreciated the early chapters on the archaeology of food. People tend to forget the time depth that surrounds eating as a human activity. This is not surprising in a modern world that emphasizes fast food over aesthetics or knowledge. It's my observation that those who are most interested in food purely as a consumable item seem to have little interest in where it really comes from. For example, one of the great tragedies of modern industrial living is the increasing absence of knowledge of or even respect for the fact that real animals died to provide you with your McChicken Burger, or your Poached Sole in Tuscan Orange Sauce.
This book is an invaluable reference. I recommend it to all my students in my Anthropology of Food and Eating class, and I myself use it all the time. The Oxford Companion to Food is also a fine volume, and while it is sometimes more useful with regard to specific foods, it is much lighter on analysis and unneccesarily flippant in places. I would recommend that you buy both the Cambridge volumes and the OCF. Together they almost completely fill the reference spot on the bookshelf of the serious student of food.
To dine well is to touch the face of God
A warning note.......2001-06-12
This is a bumper book, stuffed with good articles by leading authorities in the field. As other reviewers have pointed out, this is a relatively dry volume that concentrates overmuch on archaeology and evolution (well documented elsewhere) and not enough on food history, on which there is a huge amount of misleading literature.
Sadly these volumes require a warning notice for their dictionary of plant foods (a hefty part of the book: pages 1711-1889). Evidently a last-minute attempt to widen the appeal of the book, this is woefully and grossly inaccurate. For example, pink peppercorns are wrongly identified as Piper nigrum, rather than Schinus terebinthifolius (and their mild toxicity is not noted either). Almost every entry in the directory is wrong or questionable. There is further evidence of underinvestment in editing elsewhere in the book; for example, botanical names are not consistent between chapters.
Most readers would fare much better with Alan Davidson's amusingly written, comprehensive and (above all) accurate "Oxford Companion to Food". This Cambridge volume belongs on library shelves - where it will occasionally be very useful.
Not enough visual aids, i.e. illustrations, maps etc.......2001-06-01
I bought this book recently and really enjoy reading the various articles. The style is quite scholarly, like articles published in refereed scientific journals, complete with a reference list at the end of every article. Being an engineer and not a medical doctor or biologist I usually have to look up several words per article. So this is not necessarily light reading.
Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, the chapters of the book are almost devoid of illustrations. This is my big gripe and the reason I rate this work 4 stars instead of 5. I guess I should have been warned by the absence of the word "illustrated" from the title. Especially where more exotic food stuff
Lonely Planet Turkey
Greek Islands (Eyewitness Travel Guides)
Just Enough Turkish (Just Enough)
Greece Athens & the Mainland (Eyewitness Travel Guides)
Istanbul (Eyewitness Travel Guides)
