There are far too many to describe one as "the best", but here are some of my favourites.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A combination of history, science and biography and so very well written.

A few of my favourite biographies include the magisterial, and also Pulitzer Prize winning, Peter the Great by Robert Massie. He also wrote the wonderful Dreadnaught on the naval arms race between Britain and Germany just prior to WWI (a lot more interesting than it sounds!). Christopher Hibbert was one of the UK's much loved historians and biographers and amongst his many works his biography Queen Victoria - A Personal History is one of his best. Finally, perhaps my favourite biography of all is Everitt's Cicero - The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician. This man was at the centre of the Fall of the Roman Republic; and indeed fell along with it.

Speaking of which, Rubicon - The Last Years of the Roman Republic is a recent and deserved best-seller on this fascinating period. Holland writes well and gives a great overview of the events, men (and women!) and unavoidable wars that accompanied the fall of the Republic, or the rise of the Empire (depending upon your perspective). :) Holland's Persian Fire on the Greco-Persian Wars (think Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes! Think of the Movie 300, if you must) is equally gripping.

Perhaps my favourite history book, or series, of all is Shelby Foote's magisterial trilogy on the American Civil War The Civil War - A Narrative. Quite simply one of the best books I've ever read.

If, like me, you're interested in teh history of Africa, start at the very beginning with The Wisdom of the Bones by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman (both famous paleoanthropologists). Whilst not the very latest in recent studies (nothing on Homo floresiensis for example), it is still perhaps the best introduction to human evolution available. Certainly the best I've come across. Then check out Africa - Biography of a Continent. Finish with the two masterpieces The Scramble for Africa on how European colonialism planted the seeds of the "dark continents" woes ever since, and The Washing of the Spears, a gripping history of the Anglo-Zulu wars of the 1870's. If you ever saw the movie Rorke's Drift or Zulu!, you will love this book.

Hopkirk's The Great Game - The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I should imagine that's enough to keep you going for the moment. I have plenty more suggestions if you want. :)

Mesopotamian mythology (including the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians) is actually one of the better documented mythologies of the ancient world. Despite the preponderance of "ancient alien" nonsense out there, a plethora of scholarly books exist on the subject, as well as websites curated by academic groups.

• ORACC
  
  ORACC is an excellent place to start if you're interested in the major deities of Mesopotamia. Each entry contains historical information (cult centers, earliest attestation, etymology, etc), and well as mythology (genealogical, function in pantheon, etc). The entries are sourced, so you can follow up any queries you may have.
  
  
• ETCSL
  
  The ETCSL is a collection of Mesopotamian mythology in easy-to-digest format. Most of the material on here was written during the Old Babylonian period (c. 1800 BCE) but is based on earlier traditions found in the Akkadian and Ur-III periods (c. 2300-2000 BCE). A print-version of many of the myths contained on the webpage can be found on Amazon here.
  
  
• SEAL
  
  SEAL operates much the same as the ETCSL, only it is focused exclusively on literature from the Akkadian empire (c. 2350 BCE). If you follow the "corpus" link you'll be taken to the entire collection of texts SEAL has available for browsing.
  
  There are other such collections, similar to ETCSL and SEAL that are available online, but these are good starting points if you don't yet have your feet wet regarding the subject matter. You should also, if you're interested, explore print-material as well. Much of Mesopotamia's core research is published in book format, by professors and archaeologists who're still working on dig-sites or in universities.
  
  A few names and texts to consider:
  
  
• History Begins at Sumer
  
• The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character
  
  Samuel Noah Kramer, who published the above, provides an excellent introduction to Sumerian culture and mythology. His books are easily readable and often times serve as most people's introductions to Mesopotamia.
  
  
• Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia
  
  Jean Bottéro's masterwork has been translated, but is approachable and easy to read. This volume explores the emotional and psychological connection of the Mesopotamian people to their religion.
  
  
• The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion
  
• The Harps That Once: Sumerian Poetry in Translation
  
  Thorkild Jacobsen is one of the best translators of Mesopotamian material. These two books present dozens of myths, cult songs, and other works for the reader, while also exploring the patterns and motifs present in Mesopotamian religion across its 3000+ year history.
  
  There are other works I could recommend, but I don't want to overwhelm you with options. If you're interested, I also run the subreddit /r/Sumer, which is dedicated to reconstructing the religious beliefs and practices of the Mesopotamian people. It isn't the most active of places, but I'm still trying to get it off the ground. Feel free to join us over there if you wish.

Once you start accepting orphans, how are you going to feel if you have to turn away children because you've reached your limit or they don't fit your age group? This is one of those things a lot of people struggle with.

I think that having some foreign volunteers is great, but I'd caution too much about depending on foreigners volunteering (or being paid) for too many things. Remember that any time you can hire locals you're providing a much larger contribution to the local economy than when someone volunteers for a year. Not to say you won't need volunteers or use them, but try to be careful to use locals when you can.

I'm not sure what you have as far as land, but hopefully you can set up a small scale farm, so as to provide most of the food for your orphanage as well as have some to sell/trade for the things you don't grow/raise. Vegetables/bananas/Chickens/etc are all fairly easy to raise and provide a return very quickly. Also, children can learn valuable skills as well.

While their may be profit in minibuses and other ventures, remember that you're a foreigner. It can be difficult to deal with all the petty theft and extra bribes that come with the knowledge that the owner is a Mzungu. Not to say don't try-but be careful.

Africa is an awesome place, and I often long to go back. You'll learn to love it too. It does have some issues from time to time though, as you're noticing. Long term you are likely going to want to invest in a generator and perhaps some solar panels. Until you're more developed and established though you probably can't plan out that need.

These books don't quite relate to orphanages, but more in general to Africa and aid throughout the world-if you haven't read them I'd recommend you get your hands on them as it can help with understanding a lot of why things are the way they are in Africa.

Africa Doesn't Matter

The Fate of Africa

Festival Elephants and the Myth of Global Poverty

And not quite related, but a nice story from a wonderful woman (who's sadly now passed away) that went to Africa in her youth, lived there her entire life, and ran an orphanage: Land of a Thousand Hills (Disclaimer: I lived very close to her house at Mugongo and I knew her as a child; I last saw her in 2005 on my last visit to Rwanda.)

Sadly, my work keeps me busy where I am and I don't really get a chance to volunteer... I'd love to transition to working with an aid agency though instead of what I do now. No luck so far, but I'll keep trying...

A few titles on specific topics that seem uncovered:

• The Thirty Years War by C.W. Wedgwood -- Written in the '30s, this is still probably the best single volume on the topic (in English anyway). Fantastic place to start for anyone looking to get into a hugely significant though often overlooked conflict in European History. It was recently republished in paperback so shouldn't be too hard to come by.
  
  
• The Crusades: A History by Christopher Riley-Smith -- There are endless books on the various Crusades from an endless array of perspectives and focuses. To me, Riley-Smith is the best single volume on the whole subject. Again a great starting point for those new to the area.
  
  
• The Atlantic World: Europeans, Africans, Indians and Their Shared History, 1400-1900 by Thomas Benjamin -- This is a rather hefty work but serves as a wonderful encapsulation of the subject of Atlantic History. As is often the case in this field, particular attention is paid to the complex interconnections of economic and social exchange at various edges of the Atlantic World. For something a little more focused, The British Atlantic World, 1500-1800 by David Armitage is also great.
  
  
• Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Matthew Restall is an awesome take on the subject. Restall basically debunks most modern misconceptions about the conquest of South America drawing on an array of creative source material. For primary reading on the conquest of Mexico specifically, by far the most important is The Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo-- basically reads as an adventure novel.

A work I recently finished that you might find interesting was King Leopold's Ghost. It was a rigorous study and explanation of Belgian colonialism in the Congo under King Leopold in the 19th and 20th centuries; I found the book gave a very vivid summary of that, and filled in a bit of a blind spot of mine to the exact horror European colonialism could reach to. I was familiar with colonialism in the general, but I think it furthered my understanding to see such a detailed work on just one example of colonialism in history.

A couple books ago, I also read The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution which, although a work of historical analysis primarily, still informed me in the process of elaborating its historical analysis of quite a bit of history to which I was hitherto unaware. I've heard its arguments come across even better if you're acquainted with Francis Fukuyama's other political philosophy work (famously, The End of History and the Last Man), but I had not read that and its arguments still came across well. It was fairly wide-spanning in history like the title says, but as a fairly long work it was still able to go into detail. The book shined the most for me when it was exploring state building in India and China, while relating and contrasting these processes to the mechanics of European state building, something I was more familiar about. He describes the story of state building in all these areas, starting from the very beginning, and attempts to answer why it went certain directions in some places but differed in others. He makes the very convincing argument that religion was an essential factor, relating it to the rule of law and informing me in the process a lot of the details of how religion operated in India and China historically. I'm not really qualified to accurately evaluate the book's core theses, but disregarding them, the journey to those theses was still very enlightening.

Also, I think I've seen you mention elsewhere on this subreddit your interest in phenomenology and philosophy at large. I was wondering how you would recommend approaching the canon to say, have a good understanding of someone like Heidegger. It feels a bit overwhelming to look at the sheer complexity of later philosophy like that and confront it. Do you think it would be best to try to start at the beginning of Western philosophy and move up from there, work by work? I have a basic knowledge of some philosophy, mostly gained at random from secondary resources and occasional primary sources I found really interesting, but it's all very scattershot and not super rigorous. I'm currently reading through a history of Western philosophy which I hope will give me a broader perspective, and some more insight into how all the ideas relate and developed. Anyway, I was just hoping you might have some thoughts or advice on this, thanks.

Hi, here's a good list of books to get things going. https://www.reddit.com/r/Geopolitics/wiki/book

/u/alexderlion /u/n4kke /u/thucydidesnuts

Recently, there's quite a bit of interest in starting a book club in /r/geopolitics. It would be a great idea to team up.

/u/uppityworm and I were talking about working together with them, and he has contacted /u/fusionsc2 about that. /u/fusionsc2 is a fellow book lover and is interested in discussing geopolitics with people of similar interest.

Given the large amount of responses to reading a book about Africa in the thread mentioned above, we were thinking about doing a book on Africa for our next book. Let us know about your opinions.

/u/fusionsc2 has mentioned African Conflicts and Informal Power: Big Men and Networks. In the book list listed above, there are also some additional great books on Africa,

[The Fate of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence] (http://www.amazon.com/Fate-Africa-History-Continent-Independence/dp/1610390717), a critically acclaimed book that provides a comprehensive primer on political, economic, and major social developments in post-colonial African nations.

Season of Rains: Africa in the World, This book captures the broad spectrum of political, economic, and social foundations that make Africa what it is today. According to the Amazon reviews, it touches on recent economic and tech development in reviews. So might be good for future estimates.

China into Africa: Trade, Aid, and Influence Among the specific topics tackled here are China's interest in African oil; military and security relations; the influx and goals of Chinese aid to sub-Saharan Africa; human rights issues; and China's overall strategy in the region. It seems to be THE book on the relationship between China and Africa, according to many of the Amazon reviews.

So take a look at the books and also the book list, and we can discuss our next book after the our 3rd sessions. It would be great if you have any other additional books to recommend on Africa.

First thank you for the well thought out response that wasn't just "Omg don't you know that everyone who wears that is obviously abused by their husbands!"

I personally am going to throw out the "practically it doesn't work here" argument because there are plenty of people who wear things that practically don't make much sense other than burqas. The fact that I still see people walking around in my college town in just sweaters or in shorts when it is 20 degrees. A silly example, but an example nonetheless.

And although I agree that it does most likely help perpetuate certain ways of thinking about women, I don't think it's fair to take someone from another culture and tell them to immediately adapt to how we view women and the world.

I read Guests of the Sheik for an anthropology class I took (great read for the record, I'd definitely recommend it). It talked at length at times about the roll of the burqa there, including the positives it held for those women.

Having one apparently gives you a feeling of anonymity and protection on some level, and I can see and understand this being the case. It's the same reason when I have to make a speech or go to a job interview, I like to wear certain clothes, so I feel confident in myself in those moments.

If I came to a new country with a culture and way of thinking very different than my own, I'd want a sense of confidence, protection, and anonymity that came with my usual way of dressing. With time hopefully those people will be aware of their freedoms and the way people think and act in the new culture they are in and make choices on how to dress.

I'm aware that there are of course still people that are going to be oppressed on some level and end up still wearing the burqa for reasons related to that oppression. But the larger issue at that point is religious indoctrination and not specifically the burqa or Muslim people anymore. So banning the burqa isn't going to fix that problem. Most likely it will just push those people away from our culture even further, squashing any chance that these oppressed women will ever see a different way of living.

Tl;dr - The burqa may help continue misogynistic ways of thinking but it is also a tool of protection, anonymity, and familiarity in a new culture. It's unrealistic to expect people to immediately adapt to our ways of thinking. And at the end of the day the larger issue is religious indoctrination. Banning the burqa will probably push those people away from other cultures more than actually help them.

Glad you looked that up, last time I checked she was proposing $100 billion which MIT Grad/Duke economist Sandy Darity said was inadequate.

>Thanks for including my comments in this important article. Just one proviso; while I do think that @marwilliamson's initial proposed amount for reparations, $100 billion, is paltry, I also think she is open to modifying her proposal toward a much larger sum.

@emarvelous:

>"Universal programs are not specific to the injustices that have been inflicted on African-Americans." Talked to some smart folks on the 2020 conversation on reparations including ⁦@SandyDarity⁩. All say start with HR40, first proposed 30+ yrs ago:

SD:

>Thank you for writing this excellent article. I am especially curious about one matter: Would Whit Ayres endorse black reparations if it was not financed "by taking money away from white people and giving it to black people"?

-

He's been interfacing with Yvette Carnell and Antonio Moore and was on Ezra Klein's show a few months ago:

Sandy Darity has a plan to close the wealth gap | The Ezra Klein Show

>Published on Nov 6, 2018

> Here’s something to consider: For families in which the lead earner has a college degree, the average white family has $180,500 in wealth. The average black family? $23,400. That’s a difference of almost $160,000 — $160,000 that could be used to send a kid to college, get through an illness, start a small business, or make a down payment on a home that builds wealth for the next generation, too.
>
> Sandy Darity is an economist at Duke University, and much of his work has focused on the racial wealth gap, and how to close it. He’s a pioneer of “stratification economics” — a branch of study that takes groups seriously as economic units and thinks hard about how group incentives change our behavior and drive our decisions.
>
> In this podcast, we talk about stratification economics, as well as Darity’s idea of “baby bonds”: assets that would build to give poor children up to $50,000 in wealth by the time they become adults, which would, in turn, give them a chance to invest in themselves or their future the same way children from richer families do. Think of it as a plan for universal basic wealth — and people are listening: Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a past guest on this show, recently released a plan to closely tracked Darity’s proposal.
>
> I know, I know, the election is in a day. But right now, we don’t know who will win. So how about spending some time thinking about what someone who actually wanted to ease problems like wealth inequality could do if they did have power?

-

>Recommended books:

>Caste, Class, and Race by Oliver Cox

>https://www.amazon.com/Caste-Class-Race-Social-Dynamics/dp/0853451168

>Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams

>https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Slavery-Eric-Williams/dp/0807844888/

>Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. DuBois

>https://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573/

For Trans liberation I would read Leslie Feinberg's Beyond Pink and Blue.

For Gay and Lesbian liberation I'd read Harry Hay's Radically Gay

On Feminism there's a lot. So you may want to grab Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex and Silvia Federici's Revolution at Point Zero. Both will give you a historical and economic understanding of women's struggle.

On the African struggle I would read Thomas Sankara's The Burkina Faso Revolution.

For the Indian struggle, I suggest Anuradha Ghandy's Scripting for Change if you can find a copy somewhere.

That's it for stuff outside of the purely economic sphere.

As for fiction that intersects with communism, I suggest Iain M. Banks's Culture Series. Considering Phlebas, The Player of Games and Use of Weapons. The late Banks did a tremendous job at portraying a classless, stateless, moneyless, post-scarcity society with access to cornucopia technology.

For generally entertaining Sci-Fi that'll keep you turning pages, and is also written in a non-traditional way, you have to read the Warhammer 40,000 Ciaphas Cain series. Get yourself the two omnibi Hero of the Imperium and Defender of the Imperium you'll enjoy yourself to no end. Commissar Ciaphas Cain just kicks all kinds of arse.

If you enjoy Fantasy, and want a bit with a Marxist Dragon, then I recommend Alan Dean Foster's The Spell Singer Adventures series. Specifically books 1 and 2, Spellsinger and The Hour of the Gate. It's also laugh out loud funny.

If you're more into old fashioned adventures, like Conan the Barbarian kind, then you need to read Michael Moorcocks's Elric series. You can get your toes wet with Elric: The Stealer of Souls. The stories are great fun, Elric is an absolute Byronic anti-hero, he's physically weak, he has to dope himself up, he causes the downfall of his own civilisation, and yet he's a great swordsman, poet, philosopher, and so on. Very much a nihilist, very much a tragic hero.

Finally if you want to delve into the Paranormal, and specifically into the romance category (and why not, I say?). I think you should absolutely read Jeaniene Frost's Night Huntress series. Starting with Halfway to the Grave. Written by a woman, with a female protagonist, all from her first person perspective. It's a vampire story, and as far as the lore is concerned follows very closely to the White Wolf idea of the Masquerade. It's nothing like Twilight, you'll enjoy it and if you're like me, get hooked on the series.

I added some Achaemenid works to the r/askhistorians reading list a while back:

• From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire by Pierre Briant. From Cyrus to Alexander, written by the doyen of Achaemenid Persian studies, is the most comprehensive history of the Persian empire. Briant covers all aspects of Persian history in exhaustive detail in addition to addressing aspects of society like warfare and the structure and administration of the empire.
  
  
• Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE by Matthew Waters. Considerably shorter than Briant's book, this book provides a concise but comprehensive summary of Persian history. Waters does a good job of incorporating Greek sources in addition to Elamite and Persian texts.
  
  
• The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period by Amelie Kuhrt. An excellent companion volume to the histories of Waters and Briant, Kuhrt has provided a superb compilation of annotated translations for the major Persian texts and inscriptions as well as Greek accounts of ancient Persia.
  
  
• Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia edited by John Curtis and Nigel Tallis. This well-illustrated book is a very readable introduction to all aspects of ancient Persia, including history, language, palaces, food and dining, jewelry and clothing, religion, administration, and warfare.
  
  
• King and Court in Ancient Persia, 559 to 331 BCE by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones. This is the best overview of the royal court of ancient Persia, including chapters on high officials, royal women, and daily life in the court. Each chapter is accompanied by a variety of translated primary sources drawn from Persian and Greek texts.
  
  If you're interested in Greek sources as well, see Ctesias'’ Persica in Its Near Eastern Context by Matt Waters and Ctesias' 'History of Persia': Tales of the Orient by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and James Robson.

> It's used as an attack by some people, and you can't fault people for correctly reading a word according to its 1000 year old definition rather than your recent metaphorical meaning.

Ok, I'll bite. First you said privilege used to have a legal meaning. Well... it still does. It has multiple meanings, like most words in the English language. The first definition in the dictionary I could find is, "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." That's not an attack... it's an observation. And frankly, the legal definition doesn't explain the idea of an attack either. Regardless that first dictionary definition has been around for a long time. I don't know if you speak French, but I do. And the word privilege means exactly the same thing in French, because at the time French and Middle English were derived partially from Latin, privilege no longer exclusively or primarily had the legal definition it did in Rome. And the use of the word privilege in the context of whiteness isn't recent either. In fact the first use of the word privilege in this context goes all the way back to 1910. W.E.B. Du Bois isn't some obscure academic, but one of the most prominent members of the early civil rights movement. All of this happened before you or I were born... likely long before. And then in 1988 when Peggy Mcintosh wrote that invisible knapsack article... she continued the tradition of using the word privilege precisely because when she uses it everyone knows exactly what she's talking about. There's no confusion over the word, it means exactly what the dictionary says it means.

So it seems like people aren't unaware of what the word privilege means, they just have a hard time confronting what it means to them and to their skin color. It simply means their skin color entitles them to benefits that others do not have. Regardless of what the definition is, what does it say about white privilege that we're more concerned with whether or not we should hurt white peoples' feelings over calling a system what it empirically is?

That comment was supposedly said by Maharbal, one of Hannibal's lieutenants, after Cannae. Cannae was the third and most devastating in a series of victories Hannibal won against Roman legions immediately after arriving in Italy. Rome was genuinely crippled after the battle and the City was almost entirely undefended. Hannibal hesitated to march on Rome though, as he didn't trust his army's ability to maintain a siege against the most heavily fortified city in the world. Because he didn't deliver the coup de grace, Rome gradually recovered and ultimately defeated Hannibal and Carthage after a war of attrition that lasted nearly twenty years. You can read Livy's account here (the exchange with Maharbal is in 22.51).

Even though the hesitancy to march on Rome is sometimes seen as a strategic blunder, the decision wasn't so obviously wrong at the time. Hannibal hoped to strip away Rome's Italian allies after demonstrating his ability to crush Roman armies. He underestimated the nature and durability of those Italian alliances, but he continued in Italy for another sixteen or seventeen years, defeating nearly every army that was sent against him. He only left when Scipio Africanus invaded Africa and Carthage recalled him to defend the homeland. Hannibal's tactical brilliance is absolutely undeniable--he is one of the most imaginative and successful generals of the classical world--and his strategic missteps are I think somewhat over-exaggerated.

If you're interested in Hannibal, the two best classical sources are Livy and Polybius. I would also recommend The Ghosts of Cannae. It's a highly engaging and readable account of Hannibal's invasion written by an historian with a great deal of military expertise, and it goes into some detail about the precise tactics Hannibal employed.

The standard textbook history right now appears to be The Romans: From Village to Empire.

Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic also still seems to be the standard introduction to that period (i.e. the time period of Imperator).

If you want to read about the end of the Roman Republic and Caesar/Augustus, it's hard to turn down Caesar: Life of a Colossus which is great for the general reader, alongside his Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.

He also writes pretty solid books on other major Roman figures, such as In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire.

If you want to get a pretty good introduction to Roman History, but more of what life was like for the average citizen, SPQR by Mary Beard is actually a good choice.

Older, but still solid, is Peter Garnsey's The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture which covers a lot of things Beard doesn't.

For the Roman army, Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a solid introduction.

However you'll want to break that down into several books if you want to go deeper:

Roman Military Equipment by MC Bishop and JCN Coulston

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD by Graham Webster

A Companion to the Roman Army by Paul Erdkamp

For the collapse of the Western Roman Empire I'd recommend both Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians combined with the more scholarly Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West.

For the forgotten half of Roman History, often mistakenly called the "Byzantine Empire," it's hard to cover with just one book, but Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society has become the standard reading. John Haldon's The Empire that would not Die covers the critical transition during the Islamic conquests thoroughly.

Of course I have to include books on the two IMO most overrated battles in Roman history on this list since that's what people love:

The Battle of the Teutoberg Wald: Rome's Greatest Defeat by Adrian Murdoch

The Battle of Cannae: Cannae: Hannibal's Greatest Victory is sort of the single book to read if you can only pick one. However, The Ghosts of Cannae is also good. But if you actually want to go really in depth, you need Gregory Daly's dry-as-the-Atacama book Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. When I say dry as the Atacama, I mean it, but it's also extraordinarily detailed.

I'd complement this with Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars.

For other interesting topics:

The Emergence of the Bubonic Plague: Justinian's Flea and Plague and the End of Antiquity.

Hadrian's Wall: Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy

Roman Architecture: Roman Architecture by Frank Sear (definitely a bit more scholarly but you can probably handle it)

I may post more in addendum to this list with further comments but I think I'm reaching the character count.

I'm not aware of any academic histories that have the wide scope that you are after, but there are a few introductory texts that do attempt it. Shillington's History of Africa is the most famous one. It stretches way back to the first written accounts from Greek expansion, but is particularly interesting for trying to provide an African perspective of the colonial period.

Africans and Their History has a similar scope, but also extends way back into pre-history and the beginnings of human evolution. I haven't read it myself, but I believe it is well-written.

Someone else has mentioned The Scramble for Africa, by Thomas Pakenham, which deals specifically with the period of European imperialism between about 1860 and 1910. It's probably worth while taking a look at it just because offers insight into what Africa was like when Europeans found it. Also, it's probably worth reading because it is just really rare to find a history that is so griping, despite being so ambitious.

Similar to the above, the many of he great river explorers between 1600 and 1900 wrote accounts of their journeys that form the only primary sources that we really have (although, there are certainly earlier accounts of Northern Africa and the Horn). Stanely is quite famous, but he is a product of his time. He is entertaining, and includes all sorts of interesting diagrams and charts, but he regards the native people with a fair bit of ridicule. Mungo Park's Travels is probably the most readable, and he was writing a full century prior to Stanely, prior to the racism of the Imperial era, and in a continent much freer of European involvement.

If you like fiction, Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart gives an African perspective of tribal lifestyle as it was before colonisation.

Can we instead have one on the Hashemite monarchy, and Faisal specifically. Lawrence of Arabia is blown out of proportion. You have to start with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence in 1915, but that means he won't cover it until next year.

Also, Arabs are not unified in the slightest, the Hashemites and the Wahabi Saudis' are the main contenders for power in the region.

So I don't know what you mean (or what Indy means) when he says "constant raids by Arabs". Thats like saying there were constant raids by "Slavs" against Austro-Hungary. Technically true, but doesn't say anything, about anything.

I have a great respect for Indiana, but his reporting on events outside of Europe, need a bit more knowledge behind the issues. Eugene Rogan's book "The Arabs: A History", and Cleveland & Bunton's book: "Introduction to the Modern Middle East" both have fantastic sections on WW1 for example. Not to mention wikipedia has a plethora of information on the war in Iraq, Palestine and in the Hejaz.

Also prominent Middle East Columbia professor Richard Buillet has a great podcast on WW1 in the Middle East (only one episode though), that talks about the war from that perspective. Which you can find on iTunes for free from Columbia University.

King Leopold's Ghost-Adam Hochschild

I just got a Kindle a few weeks ago and it was my first purchase :)

I read "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad in high school and loved it and this book gives a lot of historical context to the formation of the Congo Free State and the atrocities that happened there. Really really interesting read.

Also any 'classics' they have for free which is really nice (stuff like Alice in Wonderland, Faust, Pride and Prejudice, etc, etc).

First time commenting in AskHistorians, and although I'm not a historian, I am a huge Hannibal/Roman Republic fan so maybe I can offer my services.


Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time (opinion) for multiple reasons, two of which most apply to your question:


> 1. His battlefield ingenuity

>Hannibal used multiple ingenious tactics to stomp the Romans. From large scale ambushes to the double envelope at Cannae, he was always able to keep the Romans on their toes. Due to this fact, we can safely assume that due to the sheer number of "good" maneuvers, he must have known what he was doing. The Battle of Cannae was his masterpiece - he took a smaller, less cohesive army and triumphed over a Roman army on their home turf. Hannibal had mostly resorted to ambushes before, but he didn't even need one at Cannae. From the initial placing of his troops and their subsequent movements, it is clear that this was a well thought out plan determined to use the Roman advantages and hybris against them. Roman soldiers and generals were consistently the best of the ancient world, but they prefer to fight hand to hand combat, up close and personal with large shields and short shorts, so they would want a close fight. Their war-like culture encouraged daring feats in battle and rewarded accordingly. The Roman army was controlled by two consuls, Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus. Sources tell us that they had very different styles - Varro, the younger and more ambitious, wanted to make a name for himself and was more aggressive, while Paullus was more reserved. The day of Cannae it was Varro's command and he brought out the troops in battle order against the advice of Paullus. Hannibal knew all of this, and wanted to take advantage of Varro's aggressiveness. Like, they had Roman senators just chillin' at the battle cause they were so convinced their larger army would be victorious. Anddd then 80 of them died. Talk about arrogance, what if George W. Bush and 79 of his bros just decided to go watch the invasion of Iraq... from the frontlines... shooting guns... Insane.

> 2. His ability to bring all types of people together

>He had no baggage train like Alexander, yet he was deep into enemy territory with an army mixed of Gauls, Iberian, Libyan, and Numidians. Keep in mind, at this point in time the Roman army was primarily consistent of Romans, with some allied Italians. This is a huge disadvantage for Hannibal - his army speaks a variety of languages and the majority have no personal ties to him whatsoever and mostly fighting for money. I guess one can make the argument that the Gaulish soldiers probably had some vendetta against Rome, but thats beside the point. Any type of army cohesion would be incredibly hard to create, and as such the morale of Hannibal's army from the get-go was weaker than the Romans. This needs to be highly emphasized when looking at Cannae especially.


So where does this leave us? Let's look at the initial army placements - Romans in their typical 3 line arrangement, and Hannibal with his front forward and his wings slightly back. The Carthaginian center was made up of Gauls and Iberians, and both of his wings consisted of his hardened veteran Punic infantry, who most likely fought in phalanx formation. The Gauls and Iberians did not; the Iberians used a large shield and short sword and the Gauls were probably using some Roman equipment from the previous battles. And his cavalry was placed on both flanks. They deserve less focus than the infantry because there is nothing special to say about them besides the fact that they basically always beat the Roman cavalry, as we shall see, but note how they reacted to their victory.

Hannibal's center is more maneuverable due to the differing in fighting styles of his troops, for in order for his plan to work, he must put his Iberian and Gaulish, who are not Carthaginian, in his middle. Typically, the center of an army is the strongest point, but Hannibal threw that out the window. And where did Hannibal reside? It is mostly overlooked and sometimes given attention, but he was directly behind his center, encouraging and yelling out orders.

As the battle goes, the Roman attack the front, and Hannibal feints a retreat - feints as a decision. Varrus assumed that his larger, superior army could smash Hannibal's center... and look at that! They are backing up! It is only time before they fall and the Carthaginian army will be fall and run back to the Alps!

And then Hannibal gives the halt command, his Gauls and Iberians hold their ground. His veteran infantry on his flanks make a pincer move and double envelope the romans. While a smaller army and less deep, the Carthaginians have effectively completely surrounded the Roman army. Excuse me if that doesn't make you giddier than a schoolgirl because I have the biggest smile on my face right now.

Oh yeah, and those cavalry units? Of course they beat their Roman counterpart for the 50th time, and they return and effectively charge into the back of the Romans. Why is this important? Sometimes in these battles, if one cavalry triumphed over another, they would not necessarily turn and help out their infantry. Sometimes they would leave and plunder the enemy's camp, which is more rewarding for them, but thank goodness Hannibal's brother leads the cavalry and turned immediately after defeating the Romans. A full surround, 50,000 men around 85,000 men. And then they were slaughtered mercilessly.


Back to your question:
> 1. Did Hannibal tell his center to fall back?

>Yes, 100% due to the layout of his army, the maneuvers of his center and the lack of movement from his flanks, his personal placement of himself, the recalling of his cavalry, and the fact that he was just an all-around badass are all reasons why we know without a doubt this was all planned.

> 2. Did he assume it would happen?

>Probably, as well. Keep in mind he had his weakest and least trustworthy troops in his center, and so had to place himself there to personally watch over them. His plan would have been completely foiled if his center fell, and took all measures to assure that it would not. In fact, if his center had fallen, modern historians would probably think much less highly of him because - assuming it collapsed and the invasion was over - it would have been an awful decision. Why would spread his smaller army out, so it's less deep, and put his worst troops in the center, the seemingly most important part of an army. Oh because he's a genius, that's why.


Hope that helps!

Sources - The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert L. O'Connel, Hannibal by Robert Garland

*edited for grammmmar and format

This was definitely true of the socdem policy in James Baldwin's lifetime. This is a good overview of how New and Fair Deal policy was deliberately constructed, as the NAACP said of the Social Security Act at the time, "like a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through." This on top of practices like redlining that seriously limited black people's ability to build a robust middle class with the GI Bill. While I agree with Leslie's thread and I think even the most mythical BernieBro wouldn't exclude PoC the way southern Democrats did, you can't completely dismiss that skepticism out of hand.

Hi! Thanks for doing this! Reposting from the original thread that was taken down.

• Can you tell me some things about Afghan culture that have nothing to do with war or oppression? Cultural interests or commonalities? Maybe you know a good book I could read? I read this book about Iraqi women in the 50s[1] and would love to read something similar or more recent about Afghanistan.
  
• What is is like having one foot in each world, so to speak?
  Do you plan on staying in New York?
  
• What are you studying? Does your wife have any desire to go to school?
  
• Super Random: Do you have any pets? What are customs of pet ownership like in the US vs. Afghanistan?

OK, first of all, colleges do a ton of affirmative action based on students' wealth and first-generation college attendance in the status quo. Even still, all of the correlations to race that you point out are results of the racial laws that may be off the books, but left a lasting impact on minorities today.


Let's start with economics. The implementation of New Deal/WW2 veteran benefits that created the middle class in America discriminated against blacks in America, particularly in the south. We know poverty is transmitted intergenerationally, meaning that those racial laws impacted not only blacks living in America in the '40s, but generations afterward. This is particularly true with the transmission of housing wealth between generations, as the home is the central asset in most American families with any sort of wealth.


As to living in a bad area of town, residential segregation, housing covenants, white flight after Brown v. Board of Ed. (made possible by the GI bill, and other wealth benefits afforded mainly to whites), mean that there is a direct correlation between race and housing. Race is still the cause. See, for example, the distinction between de facto and de jure segregation, which ultimately re-segregated schools (in my post about Milliken v. Bradley above). A study of the five largest cities in the US found that 68% of poor whites live in areas where the majority of their neighbors are not poor. The same is true for only 15% of poor blacks and 20% of poor Hispanics. We can trace exactly how racial discrimination in laws and practice caused the poverty we see reflected in the statistics (Cite is from Racial Domination, Racial Progress by Matthew Desmond and Mustafa Emirbayer, p. 166).


Have bad parents. This is again pretty directly correlated to the issues above, like poverty. If we're talking about absent parents, things like the overcriminalization of black and Hispanic students and the Rockefeller Laws don't exactly help.


And all of this is moot, because as I mentioned, I agree that affirmative action is imperfect. The thing is, no alternatives mentioned here have yet addressed the root cause of the problem. I would love it if someone had an idea that could undo the effect of hundreds of years of explicitly and/or implicitly discriminatory policies that created a disparity in the statistics. I think opponents of affirmative action haven't put out alternative that addresses the root causes of affirmative action that is better than affirmative action. Getting rid of racial laws isn't enough to do that--it doesn't create a level playing field by itself, but instead makes an unlevel playing field appear colorblind.

Edit: formatting

I love this site. It's not "records" such as census records or tax or wage receipts, but poetry, myths, and a few letters. It's got translations as well as transliterations if you wanna see what Sumerian "sounded" like. Very cool, in my non-professional opinion.

I'd also suggest "History Begins at Sumer" by Samuel Noah Kramer. It's older; First edition was written in '56, and I've got the third edition which was published in '81- but I still found it a great introduction.

Africa: A Biography of the Continent by John Reader

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann

Both cover some of the same concepts as GG&S, but in a much more rigorous fashion. Both are better reads with a less self-congratulatory tone and much more interesting information. GG&S is a kids book compared to these works, which is fine because GG&S is a great introduction to these sorts of concepts. Now you can get down to reading the good stuff.

In college, Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East was my favorite history book about the Middle East. A little clinical and textbook-y but I thought it was very objective with a good level of detail.

Edit - I also thought From Beirut to Jerusalem was excellent. This was before Friedman became his current hacky self, and is very different from his work the last 10+ years. This book was very enjoyable and easy to read, and therefore would be very accessible for somebody just treating it as pleasure reading. The big downsides are that it may be a bit outdated and it isn't comprehensive or complete - it largely focuses on covering the highlights of the Israel-Palestine conflict and Lebanese civil war; it also isn't as academic.

How far back do you want to go? Because the West began "intervening" in the Middle East in a major way since the late 18th century. Are you interested in military interventions, diplomacy, colonization, or just economic dominance? In all honesty, I am hesitant to recommend specific materials relating to the role of Western nations in the Middle East because I believe it will give you a distorted view of the political developments of the region, (e.g. that you will walk any with an assumption that a West imposed its will on a hapless region or that the current issues in the region are caused by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, when local actors have had a far greater influence on events that are frequently far more complicated).

If you are new to the Middle East, I would urge you to begin with getting a basic understanding of the region and its history before you venture into more specific topics. Start with Hourani or Rogan (William Cleveland and Martin Bunton's book A History of the Modern Middle East is also a good place to start). They will place the West's interaction with the Middle East in a larger context, as well as provide a much greater understand of the different ways that they did, both before and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Yes! Thank you for bringing this up because it's absolutely influenced the way I engage my activism. Here's a photo of me running one of our first 5ks for Women for Women International with Utah For Congo. It's actually the first time I met /u/JohnDehlin in person because he came and supported the race!

I had read Half the Sky and was horrified to learn of the plight of women around the world. I'm not one to hear of something bad and sit around so I do what I do best, I organized. My friend Missy and I started 5k's to raise money for post-rape survivors in the DRC. It was a great, feel-good experience. We did it for a few years but as we both got more involved, we also got more educated.

I read King Leopold's Ghost which radically shifted my take on how I saw the world. What I saw was a history of white women who would hear about the horrors of the global south, clutch their pearls, and organize.

What this usually meant was women's societies (relief societies!) who felt like their white, western presence could save the savage from their heathen state.

If you know the history of Congo and the conflict there, they were colonized out of missionary work and the intentions of white westerners intent on rescuing them. It was horrifying to look in that mirror and realize I was complicit in a system of colonizing. A system that got them in the mess to begin with.

Colonization is violence. Mormonism too often engages in colonial ways of engaging the world and I can't support it. (However, fundamentalist are usually more intent on saving their own, including the LDS and that approach is better than trying to tell the rest of the world they need to be fixed).

Anyway, it's so hard to not be complicit in systems of violence since we are all part of these systems, but I do try my best to not reinforce them. I try and support charities where local people are working in their own corners of their own communities and let them take the lead. That is how I would vet charities. If they are outsiders trying to rescue other communities, I get suspicious.

I've tried to scale back on global activism and focus on the corners of my own world and my own community for this reason.

People are often like, "Why are you so focused on Mormonism?" Because that's the community I know and I know our struggles better than outsiders do and I'm committed and invested in making them healthier.

Maybe you just don't notice it. There are also a lot more Irish-Americans here. People identify strongly with it because it used to be something that was discriminated against. Many people still eat food from 'the old country' and follow cultural traditions, even if they don't recognize them as such. I am from California and got a bit of culture shock going to Boston as there is a 'UK' food aisle in the grocery store, and many pubs that play Irish music and serve Irish breakfast, which are well populated with non-tourists who've probably never been to Ireland in their life, yet think people playing fiddles in bars is 'normal'.

People aren't forced to assimilate in America. Go to the midwest and watch people eat perogi and lutefisk (EW) and go to polka dances without shame. Where do you think the Minnesotan accent came from? German was the second most widely spoken language in the United States and you could go to school in German until WWI and II, when people felt they had to cover up their German heritage.

I get a bug up my ass about it because I honestly prefer it when white people in this country recognize that they too have something 'different' about them, rather than thinking of themselves as 'normal' and 'American' and thinking of us brown and black people as upsetting the order of things by not conforming, whether by having a different cuisine or religion or cultural tradition. The bringing together of all these things is what makes America, not their obliteration.

Edit: I know you're probably like 'why won't this woman shut up' but here is a really fascinating book on Irish American culture and their acceptance into American society/white privilege.
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

This is such a broad question. I want to recommend our AskHistorians Master Book List to you as it isn't focused on American history. Maybe you will find an interesting book and subject in there.

My personal recommendation would be reading up on the colonial history of Belgium, starting with King Leopold's Ghost. I couldn't put it better than the book description: In the 1880s, as the European powers were carving up Africa, King Leopold II of Belgium seized for himself the vast and mostly unexplored territory surrounding the Congo River. Carrying out a genocidal plundering of the Congo, he looted its rubber, brutalized its people, and ultimately slashed its population by ten million--all the while shrewdly cultivating his reputation as a great humanitarian. Heroic efforts to expose these crimes eventually led to the first great human rights movement of the twentieth century, in which everyone from Mark Twain to the Archbishop of Canterbury participated. King Leopold's Ghost is the haunting account of a megalomaniac of monstrous proportions, a man as cunning, charming, and cruel as any of the great Shakespearean villains. It is also the deeply moving portrait of those who fought Leopold: a brave handful of missionaries, travelers, and young idealists who went to Africa for work or adventure and unexpectedly found themselves witnesses to a holocaust.

If that's not what you're looking for, maybe the history of East Germany with a focus on daily life and the Stasi could be interesting as well. But I don't have a good book recommendation for you here. The book Stasiland is very interesting, but maybe too narrow. The movie The Lives of Others could be a good starting point to get you interested.

I just realized I haven't read a non-fiction book other than a textbook in years. Not a huge fan of sermons, so I would probably never want to read that last one. The older history books are neat though. They are closer to old events, but they also have their own skewed view, so yeah, "abandoned window to the past" is a good take on them.



That does seem like something original Starlight Glimmer would go for.



For an interesting non-fiction book, I have a HEAVILY annotated copy of King Leopold's Ghost with me, though I haven't opened it in a while. It goes a bit into colonial Africa as a whole, but mostly focus on the Belgian Congo around the turn of the century. The author does a good job turning it into a story, but its all true (at least as far as I can tell), which is more horrifying.

I'm currently working through King Leopold's Ghost. It's interesting and well-written, but it is pretty darn dense. I haven't read Stuffed and Starved except in excerpts in a class but it's on my list to bring during service. Guns, Germs, and Steel is also on my list. Very popular and while there is some controversy around it I think it could prove to at least be a very entertaining read.

Piggybacking to link these.

Thomas Sankara's speech before the UN General Assembly Link to text

------

Good books by Sankara or containing speeches/essays by him:

Women's Liberation and the African Freedom Struggle Amazon link

Thomas Sankara Speaks: The Burkina Faso Revolution 1983-1987 Amazon link

We Are Heirs of the World's Revolutions Amazon link

Essential additions to any Marxist-Leninist's library, or in general the library of any lover of freedom and humanity.

> If they are in the same situation, that's the same situation. But until I get it, I'm ignoring anything about her parents or grandparents when it's HER situation.

Thats the thing they weren't the same. I'm 30. My parents grew up at the end of Jim crow when you could pay black people a 1/10th of what you could pay white people. They didn't have the same opportunities because of racist laws and systems.

> "And Systems"??? From what I can tell the only systems in America about race actually BENEFIT black people. What systems are you talking about?

What are you talking about? Affirmative action? The thing that has benefited white women the most? Here's a book about it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393328511/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_AaHWCbMP2ZEM8

The justice system will unfairly give black people harsher sentences to black people than their white counter parts.

Or judges litterally selling black youth to jails.

Or the wells Fargo using predatory loans on Black and Latinos.

Those systems.


> Doesn't seem like being white is a huge advantage for white trans Denise.

Yes. Yes she does. She doesn't have to deal with a school to prison pipeline. She doesn't have predatory loans based off of her skin tone. She is still likely to have had a better education than her black peers.

> . really don't get your point here. Or really how the issues are different. Please explain.

There is no way you're a trans person. Trans people have different issues than black people. And black people can also be trans and have to deal with both issues of being black and trans.

To break it down:

A black person can be shot and killed by the police and receive an unfair sentence.

A trans person can be detained in jail for the wrong gender, and lack the medical care needed while incarcerated.

A trans black person has all of the above.

Trans people and black people face different issues, and it is pointless, unless discussing intersectionality, to compare the two.

> Because my point is that being white isn't automatically a privilege.

Yes. Yes it is. Other aspects of your identity do not erase the benefits you receive. IE a white woman still benefits from the oppressive systems of minorities, while still facing the oppressive systems of sexism. A cis latino man still benefits from being cisgendered and male, while still dealing with racism. Whether they turn into a sum benefit or negative, is not the point anyone is making. Only that whitness has a benefit.

> But we shouldn't just blame everything on white people's existence for being white.

No one has said this. Stop saying this. White people benefit from a system of oppression that makes it much harder for people of color to succeed and play on an even playing ground.

> 1000% bullshit, I see it on here literally every day.

Show me please. Because what I see is people going, "Man white people gotta do better." Which to translates to, "white people are devils!"

> Disagree, help yourself don't expect others to do everything for you.

Please tell me how black people correct the racist justice system in each state with only 13% of the national voting pool.

> Black people, believe it or not, do have rights now. This isn't the civil war era.

No one is saying this. Only you are because you're not listening.

> Also, who the hell would purposely make thier own life harder to help strangers? Almost no one. I mean I doubt you have homeless people living with you to help them out.

How do you get from, we have societal issues against racial minorities to, "I bet you wouldn't let a homeless person live with you!"

I constantly vote to make my life harder to make stranger's lives easier. I want universal health care, better schools, better roads. All of that has to come out of my paycheck, and I'm fine with it. Better society means better life for me.

And don't be silly. Inviting a stranger into your home to live with you doesn't even begin to help homeless problems. I vote for additonal low income/homeless housing, as well as make monthly donations to food banks and homeless shelters. Thats way better of an impact than opening my home up to what one stranger?

> Black people aren't our slaves, they can do thier own shit if it's apparently this divided. I'll make sure my black friends know they actually can't do anything to help themselves, I have to do it for them

Again no one but you is saying this. I'm saying there are systems that make it difficult for black people to succeed in America. Its not impossible but its harder than it should be, and white people need to help fix it so we don't have to struggle as much, because the white people are the majority and majority in power.

Stop being obtuse.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004IYJEB0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I thought this was a pretty awesome book on a little known topic. Like OP says Carthage is usually talked about in contrast to Roman expansion and we tend to still view* them through this lens. This book tries to look at the history of a really interesting culture on its own merits.

Edit: thanks autocorrect

Ten Indians, fiction

Rising Tide non fiction


El Americano: Fighting with Castro for Cuba's Freedom non-fiction as well, very sad book.


When Money Grew on Trees: The True Tale of a Marijuana Moonshiner and the Outlaw Sheriff of Madison County, Arkansas Poorly written, awesome story, might be fiction, author claims it to be true.

That's just off the top of my head, I don't read much fiction but I recently read a few Carl Hiaasen books, they were fun and a good read.

"Black" has a specific ethnic and socio-cultural meaning. White does not except insofar as it means "not black" or, more specifically, "not other" where other has sometimes meant people once not thought of as white, e.g. Irish (see How the Irish Became White).

Technically, the accomplishments of, say, the Irish cannot be considered "white" accomplishments until well into the 20th century. Similarly, Jewish (although the Jewish ethnic identity is a whole nother kettle of fish) accomplishments could not be considered "white" accomplishments until even later.

It is fine to be proud of who you are as a person, but due to their history and continued oppression, black people have a special interest in holding some pride in their identity, and, mostly due to Racism (with a capital R, i.e. structural racism) that identity coincides with the color of my skin. 99.9% of the time I don't think of myself as white because I don't even have to think about it. If I buy something that is "flesh colored" it is going to match my skin. If I am not hired for a position I can be sure my skin color had little to do with the decision. If I am stopped by the cops (which is statistically less likely to happen) they will treat me with less suspicion, consciously or unconsciously.

Being white affords me a considerable amount of privilege but does not, in my opinion, confer any kind of cultural identity.

I think you're making a joke, but there's actually a really interesting book with that title that goes over Carthage's history and Phoenician origins.

​

If anyone has even a passing curiosity about Carthage beyond the surface level you learn reading about Hellenistic history, that book is probably one of the best.

​

Title of the book is Carthage Must Be Destroyed in case the previous post goes away.

Haha really? I've got Irish heritage and a rather Irish name and have been interested in the Irish as Non-White thing for a while and read this, which was pretty interesting.

Apart from coming across a few people from time to time who dislike the Irish, I've rarely heard people discuss it in terms of whiteness. I find that quite interesting. I assume this has to do also with Anti-catholic sentiment among evangelicals?

Well, there's a good reason they didn't destroy Jerusalem or Mecca... They would need to get to Jerusalem or Mecca first. The Mongol Ilkhan Ghazan Khan may have controlled Jerusalem for, at most, four months in 1300 before retreating out of Syria entirely (there is much debate if they took the city or not), but by then the Ilkhanids were in the process of converting to Islam and probably wouldn't have wanted to destroy the city as a result.

Even when the Mongols first entered Palestine in 1260, the leading general Kitbuqa was a Nestorian Christian and the Mongols had begun making negotiations with the Crusaders over the status of Jerusalem. There was no interest in just destroying it. (Besides, it had just been destroyed in 1244 by a group of Khwarzemian mercenaries hired by the Ayyubids.)

The bigger answer to your question is that Jerusalem and Mecca and are not strategically important for the Mongols. Mecca is way out in the middle of nowhere. Controlling it would give a Muslim ruler some added prestige, but otherwise...

Jerusalem had also lost a lot of its strategic value thanks to the Crusades. The city walls were regularly torn down (to let anyone know if they take the city, it will be taken right back), for example.

When Jerusalem was in reach of the Mongols, something much more important would be happening in another part of the empire that would require attention. In 1260, Hulagu had to go to Mongolia to deal with the succession after the Great Khan Mongke died, taking enough of the army with him that the Mamluks were able to defeat them at Ayn Jalut.

When Ghazan and his general Mulay raided Palestine in 1300, it was following a surprise victory at Aleppo and they primarily chased the fleeing Mamluks back to Egypt. After a couple of months, they decided to retreat back across the Euphrates, probably because they needed better pastures for their horses.

As for the first part of your question, what is the religion of the Mongols? Well, that's a bit of a vague question. There were lots of different kinds of Mongols at different times. During the life of Genghis Khan, they were mostly Shamanistic. The Ilkhanate successor state (the Mongols who ruled Iran and Iraq) were Christian for a period of time and then converted to Islam. The Golden Horde (the Mongols who ruled Russia) were actually the first Mongols to convert to Islam. In the east, Mongols took on different forms of Buddhism. In a lot of ways the Mongols were fairly tolerant of different religions, maybe even curious about a variety of religions.

Don't have my sources for anything specific here in front of me, but any survey of Crusading and Mongol history should get you to them. I would recommend Riley-Smith's The Crusades and David Morgan's The Mongols.

Thomas Sankara: An African Revolutionary is pretty good and I haven't read it myself but Thomas Sankara Speaks: The Burkina Faso Revolution 1983–87 sounds pretty good.

For Belgium and the Congo both, I would instead recommend King Leopold's Ghost.

The book "explores the exploitation of the Congo Free State by King Leopold II of Belgium between 1885 and 1908, as well as the large-scale atrocities committed during that period. The book succeeded in increasing public awareness of these Belgian colonial crimes." (Wikipedia)

I don't think that's the book their ambassador would want us to read, though.

Will you follow Amazon links? Amazon is MSM, at least as a provider (no original content however). Don't get me started on their "1 click patent" bullshit.

• Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America -- from a previous post. Good background. It was published prior to Katrina.
  
  
• 1 Dead in Attic: After Katrina -- collection of stories from the Times-Picayune (before they became nola.com)
  
  
• The Storm: What Went Wrong and Why During Hurricane Katrina--the Inside Story from One Louisiana Scientist -- author is a civil engineer and looks at the science
  
  
• The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast -- first hand accounts from people on the ground. 700 pages.
  
  These are books that friends and relatives have asked me about which is why I list them. there are many, many more books out there. read some reviews and make up your own mind.

There is just so much out there. Reading about Carthage is really interesting. I can suggest:

https://www.amazon.it/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294

Was a really good read. I find reading about my favorites empires' enemies is pretty useful.

I have a custom-printed Thomas Sankara bottle opener (made from this picture) on my keys that people always comment on when they see it (because it's gorgeous, and nobody knows who he is so they ask about him). I found about him last year after reading a quote from one of his speeches on women's liberation. If you haven't already, Thomas Sankara Speaks is an excellent read, and might be available for free here (I'm not actually sure how Open Library works).

Hi, new to the sub. It just so happens that I'm reading a book on the history of Carthage. I'm only a hundred pages in and have been busy with school-work, but it did touch briefly on the Phoenician "colonization" of southern Spain and there is a chapter on Barcid rule in Spain that I haven't gotten to. This book looks more like a comprehensive primer on ancient Carthage but it might be useful if you find a copy in your local library.

Carthage Must be Destroyed

Hi there! I will recommend three books, each of them with different goals. First, Pierre Briant's From Cyrus to Alexander is the history of the Persian Empire right now. It is meticulous, detailed, thorough, and dense. Thus, the book is not for everyone. Also, the visuals are disappointing, so if you're looking for glossy photos or excellent maps, this is not the book.

For a book with excellent photos, however, find John Curtis and Nigel Tallis's Forgotten Empire. The editors are renown scholars at the British Museum, and with such resources at their hands, they have published a magnificent and beautiful book. High quality photos of Persian artifacts, architecture, ceramics, etc. are to be found here.

Lastly, if you want a book that focuses on the primary textual sources of the Persian Empire, you must go to Amelie Kuhrt's The Persian Empire. She is a well-respected scholar who has meticulously translated nearly all of the ancient documents written both by and about the Persian Empire. The book is physically huge, but if you want to read the words of Persian kings themselves (in English), then this book is a must-read.

Communists are good. Exhibit A. Thomas Sankara

1. He vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles in a matter of weeks
   
   
2. He initiated a nation-wide literacy campaign, increasing the literacy rate from 13% in 1983 to 73% in 1987.
   
   
3. He planted over 10 million trees to prevent desertification
   
4. He built roads and a railway to tie the nation together, without foreign aid
   
   
5. He appointed females to high governmental positions, encouraged them to work, recruited them into the military, and granted pregnancy leave during education
   
   
6. He outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy in support of Women’s rights
   
   
7. He sold off the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers.
   
   
8. He reduced the salaries of all public servants, including his own, and forbade the use of government chauffeurs and 1st class airline tickets.
   
   
9. He redistributed land from the feudal landlords and gave it directly to the peasants. Wheat production rose in three years from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare, making the country food self-sufficient
   
   And again
   
   
10. He opposed foreign aid, saying that “he who feeds you, controls you.”
    
    
11. He spoke in forums like the Organization of African Unity against continued neo-colonialist penetration of Africa through Western trade and finance.
    
    
12. He called for a united front of African nations to repudiate their foreign debt. He argued that the poor and exploited did not have an obligation to repay money to the rich and exploiting In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army’s provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country).
    
    
13. H[e forced civil servants to pay one month’s salary to public projects](In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army's provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country).)
    
    
14. He refused to use the air conditioning in his office on the grounds that such luxury was not available to anyone but a handful of Burkinabes
    
    
15. As President, he lowered his salary to $450 a month and limited his possessions to a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer
    
    
16. A motorcyclist himself, he formed an all-women motorcycle personal guard.
    
    
17. He required public servants to wear a traditional tunic, woven from Burkinabe cotton and sewn by Burkinabe craftsmen. (The reason being to rely upon local industry and identity rather than foreign industry and identity)
    
    
18. When asked why he didn’t want his portrait hung in public places, as was the norm for other African leaders, Sankara replied “There are seven million Thomas Sankaras.”
    
    
19. An accomplished guitarist, he wrote the new national anthem himself
    
    
20. He renamed his country from the derogatory " Upper volta " to " Burkina Faso, The Land Of Upright Man"
    
    
21. His foreign policies were centred on anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalising all land and mineral wealth and averting the power and influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
    
    
22. Sankara's administration was the first African government to publicly recognize the AIDS epidemic as a major threat to Africa
    
    
23. Large-scale housing and infrastructure projects were also undertaken. Brick factories were created to help build houses in effort to end urban slums
    
    
24. In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army's provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country)
    
    
    
    He led one of the most ambitious programs of sweeping reforms ever seen in Africa It sought to fundamentally reverse the structural social inequities inherited from the French colonial order.
    
    These inequities left a majority of marginalized, mostly rural, poor and women, at the bottom of society, often under the exploitation of a minority of bureaucrats, businessmen, military officers and traditional chiefs. Sankara focused the state’s limited resources on the marginalized majority in the countryside. When most African countries depended on imported food and external assistance for development, Sankara championed local production and the consumption of locally-made goods. He firmly believed that it was possible for the Burkinabè, with hard work and collective social mobilization, to solve their problems: chiefly scarce food and drinking water.
    In Sankara’s Burkina, no one was above farm work, or graveling roads–not even the president, government ministers or army officers. Intellectual and civic education were systematically integrated with military training and soldiers were required to work in local community development projects.
    
    According to Ernest Harsch, author of a recent biography of Sankara, Burkinabe built for the first time scores of schools, health centers, water reservoirs, and nearly 100 km of rail, with little or no external assistance. Total cereal production rose by 75% between 1983 and 1986. In 1984, his government, defying skepticism from the donor agencies, organized the vaccination of 2 million children in a little over two weeks. He also championed environmental conservation with tree-planting campaigns and greening projects.
    
    His informal style of leadership was in a league of its own. Harsch quotes a former aide describing Sankara as “an idealist, demanding, rigorous, an organizer.” This discipline and seriousness started with himself. He had been first among top leadership to voluntary declare his modest assets and hand over to the treasury cash and gifts received during trips. Harsch quotes family members as saying that Sankara told them not to expect any benefits from him because he is president. In fact, by the time of his death, his kids attended the same public school, his wife was reporting to the same civil servant job, and his parents lived in the same house.
    
    Sankara disdained formal pomp and banned any cult of his personality. He could be seen casually walking the streets, jogging or conspicuously slipping into the crowd at a public event. He was a rousing orator who spoke with uncommon candor and clarity and did not hesitate to publicly admit mistakes, chastise comrades or express moral objections to heads of powerful nations, even if it imperiled him. For example, he famously criticized French president François Mitterand during a state dinner for hosting the leader of Apartheid South Africa.
    
    
    Books by Sankara:
    
    We are the heirs of the world's revolution
    
    Women's liberation and the African freedom struggle
    
    Thomas Sankara Speaks
    
    A quote from the book - " Our country produces enough to feed us all. Alas, for lack of organization, we are forced to beg for food aid. It’s this aid that instills in our spirits the attitude of beggars. " -Thomas Sankara
    
    " The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or because of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the triumph of the revolution. Women hold up the other half of the sky. " - Thomas Sankara.
    
    Sankara is often referred to as "Africa's Che Guevara." Sankara gave a speech marking and honoring the 20th anniversary of Che Guevara's 9 October 1967 execution, one week before his own assassination on 15 October 1987

I loved Rising Tide by John Barry. It covers the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, which resulted in the both the levee system and significant social changes in the south.

Can you cite some studies to support your argument? I'm not saying that I believe what I do because a lot of people do, just that there is a lot of evidence to support it and most academic publishing agrees with it. If you pick a random recent anthropology textbook you're generally not going to see things that agree with you. As you're arguing against the current scientific viewpoint (which I have no issue with) the burden of proof does kind of rest on you.

Ethnicity now isn't considered to be what you're referring to as race. It has more to do with culture, ancestry, and nationality than anything else.

> better societies

As defined by who?

> whites and Asians being the most successful

Again, according to who? Major civilizations flourished in the Americas before colonization from Europe, Egypt for thousands of years was one of the biggest players in the Mediterranean. Egypt lasted longer than Rome.

A book you may be interested in in is The Fate of Africa. It does a good job of showing how fucked over the continent got by colonialism (and the botched ending of that) any why some of your viewpoints might seem to be supported (ie: why didn't Africa become like Europe if that's what's better).

Can you try to provide some recent peer reviewed work supporting your arguments?

Hey, I'm glad to be of service! :D And again, if you need any more, please don't hesitate to ask. On to the points!

• Carthaginian history is awesome - and I'm counting down those days to Rome II, myself! My preferred go-to when it comes to Carthaginian history (and the Punic Wars, for that matter!) is Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization. However! I pride myself on being open-minded, and a user I really admire (/u/ScipioAsina) has suggested Dexter Hoyos' The Carthaginians. I personally (unfortunately!) haven't had a chance to read it quite yet, but I'll put it out there! :D Next, as I said before, I'm a big fan of Adrian Goldsworthy, so I'll go ahead and recommend a couple of his books - The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146 BC and, more simply titled, The Punic Wars. Finally, it's not a book specifically about the Punic Wars, per se...but Barry Strauss' Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership is EXTREMELY good.
  
  
• First off, remember that the civil wars in Rome had started a long time before Caesar's Civil War ;) But yep, you're correct! Probably the best book on the time period is Tom Holland's Rubicon. For a second suggestion, I'll add in Goldsworthy's (SHUSH) Caesar: Life of a Colossus. I'm drawing blanks on more books, but the books that are just as important as Rubicon, in my opinion, are Caius (Gaius) Julius Caesar's own works.
  
  
• Teutoburg, I'm hesitent to advise too much on - I haven't done extensive research into it, myself. Sorry!

1. He vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles in a matter of weeks
   
   
2. He initiated a nation-wide literacy campaign, increasing the literacy rate from 13% in 1983 to 73% in 1987.
   
   
3. He planted over 10 million trees to prevent desertification
   
4. He built roads and a railway to tie the nation together, without foreign aid
   
   
5. He appointed females to high governmental positions, encouraged them to work, recruited them into the military, and granted pregnancy leave during education
   
   
6. He outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy in support of Women’s rights
   
   
7. He sold off the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers.
   
   
8. He reduced the salaries of all public servants, including his own, and forbade the use of government chauffeurs and 1st class airline tickets.
   
   
9. He redistributed land from the feudal landlords and gave it directly to the peasants. Wheat production rose in three years from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare, making the country food self-sufficient
   
   And again
   
   
10. He opposed foreign aid, saying that “he who feeds you, controls you.”
    
    
11. He spoke in forums like the Organization of African Unity against continued neo-colonialist penetration of Africa through Western trade and finance.
    
    
12. He called for a united front of African nations to repudiate their foreign debt. He argued that the poor and exploited did not have an obligation to repay money to the rich and exploiting In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army’s provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country).
    
    
13. H[e forced civil servants to pay one month’s salary to public projects](In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army's provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country).)
    
    
14. He refused to use the air conditioning in his office on the grounds that such luxury was not available to anyone but a handful of Burkinabes
    
    
15. As President, he lowered his salary to $450 a month and limited his possessions to a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer
    
    
16. A motorcyclist himself, he formed an all-women motorcycle personal guard.
    
    
17. He required public servants to wear a traditional tunic, woven from Burkinabe cotton and sewn by Burkinabe craftsmen. (The reason being to rely upon local industry and identity rather than foreign industry and identity)
    
    
18. When asked why he didn’t want his portrait hung in public places, as was the norm for other African leaders, Sankara replied “There are seven million Thomas Sankaras.”
    
    
19. An accomplished guitarist, he wrote the new national anthem himself
    
    
20. He renamed his country from the derogatory " Upper volta " to " Burkina Faso, The Land Of Upright Man"
    
    
21. His foreign policies were centred on anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalising all land and mineral wealth and averting the power and influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
    
    
22. Sankara's administration was the first African government to publicly recognize the AIDS epidemic as a major threat to Africa
    
    
23. Large-scale housing and infrastructure projects were also undertaken. Brick factories were created to help build houses in effort to end urban slums
    
    
24. In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army's provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country)
    
    
    
    He led one of the most ambitious programs of sweeping reforms ever seen in Africa It sought to fundamentally reverse the structural social inequities inherited from the French colonial order.
    
    These inequities left a majority of marginalized, mostly rural, poor and women, at the bottom of society, often under the exploitation of a minority of bureaucrats, businessmen, military officers and traditional chiefs. Sankara focused the state’s limited resources on the marginalized majority in the countryside. When most African countries depended on imported food and external assistance for development, Sankara championed local production and the consumption of locally-made goods. He firmly believed that it was possible for the Burkinabè, with hard work and collective social mobilization, to solve their problems: chiefly scarce food and drinking water.
    In Sankara’s Burkina, no one was above farm work, or graveling roads–not even the president, government ministers or army officers. Intellectual and civic education were systematically integrated with military training and soldiers were required to work in local community development projects.
    
    According to Ernest Harsch, author of a recent biography of Sankara, Burkinabe built for the first time scores of schools, health centers, water reservoirs, and nearly 100 km of rail, with little or no external assistance. Total cereal production rose by 75% between 1983 and 1986. In 1984, his government, defying skepticism from the donor agencies, organized the vaccination of 2 million children in a little over two weeks. He also championed environmental conservation with tree-planting campaigns and greening projects.
    
    His informal style of leadership was in a league of its own. Harsch quotes a former aide describing Sankara as “an idealist, demanding, rigorous, an organizer.” This discipline and seriousness started with himself. He had been first among top leadership to voluntary declare his modest assets and hand over to the treasury cash and gifts received during trips. Harsch quotes family members as saying that Sankara told them not to expect any benefits from him because he is president. In fact, by the time of his death, his kids attended the same public school, his wife was reporting to the same civil servant job, and his parents lived in the same house.
    
    Sankara disdained formal pomp and banned any cult of his personality. He could be seen casually walking the streets, jogging or conspicuously slipping into the crowd at a public event. He was a rousing orator who spoke with uncommon candor and clarity and did not hesitate to publicly admit mistakes, chastise comrades or express moral objections to heads of powerful nations, even if it imperiled him. For example, he famously criticized French president François Mitterand during a state dinner for hosting the leader of Apartheid South Africa.
    
    
    Books by Sankara:
    
    We are the heirs of the world's revolution
    
    Women's liberation and the African freedom struggle
    
    Thomas Sankara Speaks
    
    A quote from the book - " Our country produces enough to feed us all. Alas, for lack of organization, we are forced to beg for food aid. It’s this aid that instills in our spirits the attitude of beggars. " -Thomas Sankara
    
    " The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or because of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the triumph of the revolution. Women hold up the other half of the sky. " - Thomas Sankara.
    
    Sankara is often referred to as "Africa's Che Guevara." Sankara gave a speech marking and honoring the 20th anniversary of Che Guevara's 9 October 1967 execution, one week before his own assassination on 15 October 1987

I was told by a historian that Jonathan Riley-Smith is one of the leading academics on the Crusades.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287

Just as interesting and, from what I've been told, respected (to me, even more interesting, since the Arabs tend to be real drama-queens and the book seems to enforce that)

http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Essentials/dp/0805208984

I would recommend Richard Miles' Carthage Mvst be Destroyed. It may focus too much on Carthage for your liking, but much of the beginning sections are focused on a summary of Phoenician civilization. In particular there is some good information on their religion, how they interacted with their neighbors and the establishment of various colonies.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0143121294

In political science there are two great books about this:

• When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America - In the book the author argues that while white ethnics from eastern and southern Europe experienced a revolutionary transformation in their status as American citizens because of their participation in World War II, blacks experienced segregation in the armed forces. In the years that followed the war this exclusion resulted in a cruel catch-22, as most African Americans were denied access to the resources of the Selective Service Readjustment Act (1944) because they had not served in the military. The federal government stepped in to pay mortgages for white veterans and upgrade educational institutions throughout the country, but most African Americans watched these developments from the sidelines. The cumulative effect of these policies was the widening of the economic gap along racial lines.
  
• Soldiers to Citizens: The G.I. Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation - The author argues that although African Americans were excluded from the housing and higher education components of the GI bill black veterans still received vocational job training which boosted their incomes and participation in civic life. Thus leading to greater equality by mobilizing black veterans for the Civil Rights movement.
  
  I would highly recommend reviewing the two books so you can see what sections are useful for your lesson plans.

I'd like to caution you that "reconstruction caused this mess in the first place" is a bit of a weird way to frame such a complicated political period.

If you want to get a good understanding of the period here are some good books you can read that are either on the period or have some material that overlaps with it.

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution by Eric Foner. I've linked you the abridged version, but there is a 600p version if you're really interested.

Nothing But Freedom by Eric Foner.

Capitol Men by Philip Dray

Deep Souths: Delta, Piedmont and Sea Island Society by J William Harris

A Nation Under Our Feet by Steven Hahn

At the Hands of Persons Unknown by Phillip Dray

Black Reconstruction in America W. E. B Du Bois

Speaking of melanin merit, whites were in favor of affirmative action programs when they were the prime beneficiaries.

whitevictimhood

A History of the Modern Middle East

> This comprehensive work provides a penetrating analysis of modern Middle Eastern history, from the Ottoman and Egyptian reforms, through the challenge of Western imperialism, to the impact of US foreign policies. After introducing the reader to the region’s history from the origins of Islam in the seventh century, A History of the Modern Middle East focuses on the past two centuries of profound and often dramatic change. Although built around a framework of political history, the book also carefully integrates social, cultural, and economic developments into a single, expertly crafted account. In updating this fifth edition of the late William Cleveland’s popular introductory text, Martin Bunton provides a thorough account of the major transformative developments over the past four years, including a new chapter on the tumultuous Arab uprisings and the participation of Islamist parties in a new political order in the Middle East.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0618001905

This refers to rule under Leopold well before the time this picture was taken, but it's a great read.

John Reader's Africa: A Biography of the Continent is the book I turned to when I decided that I didn't know enough about the place. It's a good foundation on which to start towards a number of Africa-related topics. I'd recommend starting with something like that, then branching out to more specific locales, time periods and events.

joseph Conrad arrived in the Congo in period before it got really bad. It inspired him to write "Heart of Darkness" which is good read. and this:

http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208965024&sr=1-1

is King Leopold's Ghost which is a history of the whole awful mess. And also a good read. Its not all bad. There are some heros. The catholic church is not one of them. Niether are any "western" governments. They behave dispicably. Mark Twain spoke out against it as did many afro americans. But its mostly pretty wretched. And not many people know about it.

So I did an episode on my podcast about the Carthaginians, and while I didn't talk a lot about their government, I read a fair bit about it in the book Carthage Must Be Destroyed.

As far as their government goes, the Roman authors called it a "Senate" though it wasn't really "Senate" in the Roman sense. The Carthaginians themselves called it a Council of Elders, and while money was a factor, I believe having a pedigreed family name was also key. I suspect they didn't just let in any old Joe whose net worth was above a certain line.

It's also important to note that Carthage also had a Popular Assembly too. Before the Second Punic War, it was the Popular Assembly that supported the Hannibal's shenanigans in Spain.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Womens-Liberation-African-Freedom-Struggle/dp/0873489888

https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/1974/PR1974-10b.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leftrgpz9Jw

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1906/tragedy-women.htm

"The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph" - Sankara

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/nov/19.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/apr/27.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/06.htm - "Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

literally what.

If you wanna read about soil, I'd recommend Dirt: The Ecstatic Skin of the Earth by William Bryant Logan. If you're looking for a soil science textbook, I'd go with Brady & Weil. If you're looking for just general reading recommendations, I've really been loving King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild.

Ditto on Dan Carlin. Probably the most comprehensive thing you'll find since he sources so much and does such a thorough job.

I'm currently listening to the Ghosts of Cannae audio book off of Dan Carlin's recommendation. Great stuff: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Republic/dp/0812978676

The evidence is spotty and I am no specialist, but there is a top notch monograph on the whole period which I believe will remain the best on the subject for decades to come.
"From Alexander to Cyrus" by Pierre Bryant is the most exhaustive study ever done on the region of that time period, taking in everything from ancient documents to physical archeology and linguistic issues.
https://www.amazon.com/Cyrus-Alexander-History-Persian-Empire/dp/1575060310

All good--for context in terms of my favorite non-fiction reads, this one is pretty high on the list, and it's not exactly riveting reading.

Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn is pretty good.

Obviously there's Arabic but there's a bunch of other scripts : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_systems_of_Africa

There's no such thing as "truthful history" because history is always viewed through a prism, but I've heard good things about John Reader's Biography of the Continent:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/067973869X/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZC56YTYN2PH4VYTDAQCT&dpPl=1&dpID=51vnkPaUS6L

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

Quite a good book. I highly recommend it.

The book King Leopold's Ghost is all about this genocide. It's a very good read and I highly recommend it.

I don't know about pictures, but the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson is fantastic and covers US involvement thoroughly.

Also the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Ron Rosenbaum is downright chilling. He actually lived in Nazi Germany.

The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham

Fantastic book on the colonization of Africa. Impartial, well written and thorough.

Just did a quick search on Amazon and found this:

http://www.amazon.com/Africa-Biography-Continent-John-Reader/dp/067973869X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416807357&sr=8-2&keywords=history+of+africa

It looks like a good overview of the entire continental history (both North African and Sub-Saharan), and it's not written like a textbook. That's usually a plus in my opinion.

I might actually pick it up myself as my knowledge of the continent isn't too strong.

Starting at $1.22 used doesn't hurt either.

Check out King Leopold's Ghost for a really interesting non-fiction book about Leopold in the the Belgian Congo and the men who brought the genocide to light- it's an incredibly engaging read.

Some schools of thought use majority and minority in the terms of power, as opposed to population. So the Belgium's colonizing the Congo for rubber would be the majority because they hold the power. A group with a lot of power can then systematically discriminate against a certain race because they believed that they are superior.

http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

This book is an excellent resource for those wishing to learn more about Belgian tyranny and genocide in Congo.

My sources? History books on the modern middle-east!

Here's a good start: http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Modern-Middle-East/dp/0813348331

You know, a book that contains a vast comprehensive analysis of the entire issue from the beginning and not just an opinionated news article?

For HB broadly, the most accessible and standard Intro is John J. Collins.

For Canaanite Religion, I'd go with something like this volume.

For the historical side of thing for Persia, and the fallout thereafter, you could go with something like From Cyrus to Alexander.

This is how America works.

Once affirmative action started being applied to black people, somehow all the courts magically found it illegal or curbed it heavily. Affirmative action was implemented for and majorly benefited by white women. I know you guys are almost all far rightwing psychopaths, but this book is a great historical overview on affirmative action.

It's pretty metal. By "fire whirl" they mean "gigantic city burning fire tornado."

EDIT: btw, if cannae is something you're into, I quite liked this. Not as easy to read as Tuchman or Beevor, but still good.

My choice would be King Leopold's Ghost. I would want them to read a book that is somewhat less academic because I would want as many people as possible reading it to understand it. I also deal with many people who do not understand the costs of colonialism and the deep scarring impact of colonialism. I remember reading this book a while after reading some of the pro-colonialism work by Niall Ferguson and wanting to force him to read this book and justify his views on benevolent colonialism.

Rick Atkinson has a trilogy of books he is working on about the US liberation of Europe in WW2. The first two are out and come highly recommended by many I speak with. I just started the second ("The Day of Battle") and can say it's pretty slick. The first book is called "An Army at Dawn."

If you're interested check out King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hothschild. It's really a great book and isn't up its own ass. I read a few chapters for a class and ended up reading the whole thing. Very interesting in a non-nerdy way.

Black Reconstruction in America by WEB Dubois is, hands down, the best book about this period in American history from a Marxist perspective.

Indeed, there is a lot of history to it. Essentially it's all about oil and geo-politics. I recommend reading this book if you're interested in middle east politics.

King Leopold's Ghost is a great read on the subject.

King Leopold's Ghost is an engrossing read that would be a great companion book to Heart of Darkness, which I saw you're reading now. Even if you weren't reading HoD, King Leopold's Ghost is a book I would still be recommending.

> "King Leopold's Ghosts

Do you mean King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild? I have that one, it's great.

Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America

Link to Rising Tide on Amazon

The Ghosts of Cannae does a great job of describing Hannibal's methods.

Not saying FDR didn’t work to improve the lives of the working class, but it’s important to note that he didn’t really challenge the position of white supremacism in American politics, and so the New Deal disproportionately benefited white people while ignoring many black communities.

I highly recommend everyone read When Affirmation Action was White, by Ira Katznelson.

Thanks? I certainly don't think I've got an astounding knowledge of history. I've just been reading a history of postcolonial Africa (which everyone should read) and it's really shocked me with how the systemic issues of colonialism affected postcolonial African states.

I'm a dude.

A seriously good read if you're interested in this sort of stuff.

https://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

Adam Hochschild wrote an excellent book about it

King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild is really good. Its about the Belgian King's rule over the Congo.

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevich is an account of the Rwandan Genocide of '94.

That's more recent history, but the fact is little is written about pre-colonial Africa (not dealing with Egypt). I haven't read much, but I'm sure theres some decent readings about the Mali Empire (maybe start with Mansa Musa?).

I just have to mention that the Irish weren't really traded as slaves. That's become a weird meme amongst white nationalists in the states. There's an amazing academic on twitter who's doing his PhD on slavery who works very hard to disprove the "Irish slavery" myth. Definitely worth a read, it's interesting stuff.

Regarding the question of how we climbed up the racial/social ladder in the US, the book "How the Irish Became White" covers it well. Long story short, we cuntishly threw black people collectively under the bus to distance ourselves from them, and worked hard to be more WASPy than the WASPs themselves (see: Lace Curtain Irish).

It's not a nice history.

Regarding race relations in Ireland now, they're not bad. Definitely better than most of Europe. To be honest, having an Irish accent is better than a passport, regardless of skin colour. If someone grew up here, they're unquestionably Irish.

"An Army at Dawn" The Battle of Kasserine Pass is only a small part of the book, but it's a great read that I highly recommend. It really puts in perspective how ill prepared for war the US army was and how egocentric a lot of the general in the US and British armies were. It also shows how awful it would have been to be a soldier during it, e.g. walk 2 kilometers over open group towards a fortified hill and try to take it.... Great book.

This book is one of the most valuable tools in learning about the context of modern events in the middle east

May I suggest Jared Diamon's "Guns, Germs and Steel" to you? Good book that in very clear, detailed and well-sourced way address how Sociohistorical factors explain differences between groups/cultures in their development and why the genetic explanation is wrong in many levels.

Just briefly, and only as it pertains to modern U.S. history, the very same concerns you bring up are the ones that have been brought up about basically every immigrant group to the U.S. since its inception and people who today consider themselves "white" were once upon a time not considered so, and they were feared and seen as an existential threat to the nation. Ben Franklin fretted about the "swarthy" Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, Swedes and Germans. The Irish were considered subhuman and decidedly not "white' by their English overlords and the stigma continued in America for at [least three generations] (https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251). Don't have to tell you about the negative views about Jews but many did not make it to America as the holocaust unfolded because of restrictive quotas and fears of "miscegenation" with all sort of eastern Europeans coming to America. Hell, the "Polish" joke is not about how intelligent they are, is it? The Chinese were literally excluded from the country because their supposed inferiority was a "yellow peril." The Japanese were considered so alien that we rounded 12,000 into internment camps during world war II. And yet, all of these groups through time and assimilation became "white" or a model minority.

The supporters of genetic differences in IQ measures, including the creators of such measures, would go though some interesting intellectual acrobatics to explain how these Southern Europeans who had scored so low on their tests, after only 10 years had caught up to the average of the "native" Anglo-Saxon(another made up term after deciding Germans counted as white in America). They went through even more acrobatics when trying to explain why these Italian, Polish, Jewish, Spanish, Greek, kids whose parents' inferior genes would create hordes of inferior Americans, did not differ once they had access to same education as those of the dominant culture of time. Might there be lessons for our present in how we consider managing our current immigration anxiety?

Finally, there is a real danger in equating scores on IQ measures with intelligence. We owe much of what we know of science and math to civilizations and empires that are not "white" in the Anglo-saxon sense in the least. The Maya had a concept of the number zero 1700 years before Europeans, and they had to receive it from Arabian scholars. There are many reasons for the differences you ask about, but inherent genetic factors linked to intelligence do not appear to be it. Still don't believe me? The measured IQ of American born Mexican-Americans has been steadily increasing in the past 30 years, and at a much faster rate than that of "white" Americans which will put it at parity probably in 5-8 more. Has some mutation made just Mexican Americans be on track to be our intellectual overlords? Is Tex-Mex the ultimate brain food? Or might the same phenomenon of assimilation that happened to the Germans et al be at play? I'll let this lengthy column from American Conservative fill you in on the Flynn effect for further contextualization.

Best wishes,
A part "white"(Swarthy Southern and Northern), Part Asian, Part Native brown guy.

EDIT: Added a line for clarity.

I really liked Guests of the Shiek. It's a personal account of an anthropologist's wife living with the women of a rural Iraqi village. It's less about the political history of the country and more a snapshot of the old ways (social structures, politics, religious codes) meeting the new. Take it with a grain of salt (being written in the fifties, it has some problems with both "noble savagery" and closed-mindedness) and you'll really enjoy it.

I read and enjoyed this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474766447&sr=1-1&keywords=carthage+must+be+destroyed

Well, I would highly recommend renting some textbooks on American politics, American political history, and American political theory. Perhaps start here and work your way up: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-American-Politics-Samuel-Kernell/dp/1568028911

If you find textbooks too dull, then here is a good list of books to get you started:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Federalist-Anti-Federalist-Papers/dp/1495446697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453181599&sr=1-1&keywords=federalist+and+anti-federalist+papers

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Penguin-Classics-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Inside-Secret-Supreme/dp/1400096790

http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Electoral-Connection-Second-Edition/dp/0300105878

http://www.amazon.com/What-Should-Know-About-Politics/dp/1611452996

http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-between-Education-Technology/dp/0674035305

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491534656

*If you actually take the time to read these, you will be better informed than 99 percent of the voting public. <-- And after you read these, that sentence will terrify you because you will realize each of these books is just an introduction, and the world is being run by technocrats. JK, but not really.

Edit: But really.

King Leopolds Ghost 3 books in one: rivetting Indiana Jones about the Stanley-Watson expedition, history politicial, how Belgium got this enourmous colony, and a detective story on how the world discovered Leo's atrocities (a lowly clerk in an Antwerp shipping company wants to know why full ships come in and empty ships go back)

https://www.amazon.com/Fly-Cathedral-Cambridge-Scientists-International/dp/0374157162/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=fly+in+the+cathedral&qid=1566474821&s=books&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/D-Day-June-1944-Climactic-Battle/dp/B00A2ATJ1Y/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=d-day+ambrose&qid=1566474874&s=books&sr=1-1 or anything by Stephen E Ambrose (also great is his history of the first railway through the US, or the Lewis expedition.

If you haven't read them, you may also be interested in some of this author's previous work... specifically, The Wages of Whiteness and Working Toward Whiteness.

Also, Noel Ignatiev's How the Irish Became White.

PS The promotional flyer for the new book includes a code for 20% off preorders from the Oxford University Press website.

I am a fervent atheist, but that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Many of Africa's problems stem from outside exploitation of its people and resources, and yes, much of that exploitation, through colonization, was initiated under the banner of "saving" Africans by introducing Christianity to Africa. And radical Islamic regimes haven't exactly improved the lives of many Africans either. But outsiders would have plundered Africa whether they had the excuse of religion or not, because greed exists independent of religion.

Economic exploitation has historically caused many more problems in Africa than religion. This Wikipedia article sums up part of that history pretty well. I recommend this book as an interesting read on the subject of the (mostly) post-slavery exploitation of Africa by colonizing nations (and greedy corporations).

After finishing Heart of Darkness, I immediately picked up a copy of King Leopold's Ghost, a history of Belgian colonialism in the Congo. Really puts things in perspective.

> it coudl be argued much of africa has a better life and opportunity under colonialism

Read King Leopold’s Ghost from cover to cover before you ever make this claim again.

A really good book on the subject of the time was King Leopold's Ghost

I was going to ask a pretty similar question re: just how well these ideas apply to an African context. (Basically I think they're lacking in nuance).

On the Irish front, I suspect that /u/jazzarchist will bring up the idea that the Irish weren't always considered "white"

A good book along similar topic lines I would suggest reading is, *When Affirmative Action was White"

https://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393328511

[I hear good things about this] (https://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573)

haha, you're going to talk about Planned Parenthood? I bet you only know a few choice stats and out of context quotes. Go read Sanger's biography and you'll why she did what she did. It isn't about genocide, it's giving poor women control over their bodies and taking it away from the patriarchal system of religion and conservative politics. But conservatives would rather women just stayed at home and popped out babies. How dare they desire a fulfilling life of their own choosing.

And it isn't handouts, it's hand ups. Perhaps you should read about when Affirimative Action was white.

Conservatives now caring about Labor?! That's a laugh. When have conservatives ever given a shit about improving the lives of Labor? As for immigrants, you do realize that the only presidents who have authorized a general amnesty were Republicans- Reagan and GW Bush. Capitalism is what drives down wages, perhaps you need to reread your Adam Smith.

As for racist fascism, you've got me there because neither of your articles support that stupidity. The thing is that you have a fact free existence. Perhaps you should calm the fuck down and read a book. Step away from the AM talk shows and Fox news. Go read a book by a professor or some peer reviewed studies because you have no idea what is going on. I bet you hate Obamacare but support all of its parts. Or maybe you supported it when it was a republican policy but hate it now that the black democrat is in the white house?

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself as much as you can.

Read the ethnographic book Guest of a Sheik

Elizabeth Warnock Fernea spent the first two years of her marriage in the 1950s living in El Nahra, a small village in Southern Iraq, and her book is a personal narrative about life behind a veil in a community unaccustomed to Western women.

It will give their point of view through a console academic source.

Notice I said "de Gaulle" in my post, not "the French people". I got my information from actual books (maybe you've heard of them? Hey, if you can be condescending, so can I...) like An Army at Dawn and The Day of Battle for instance. And no, it did not just become popular after 2001; see "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (1995).

I appreciate that the people of France have virtually always been friendly to Americans, but the same is decidedly not true of the French government.

If you want to understand the Geo-politcs better I'd recommend maybe digging into the history a bit. If you read some good survey books about the ME a lot of things/groups in Syria gain context.

Also no need for a foreigner to 'pick a side' -- it's a tragedy not a sporting event.

Man I just want to say that this is an incredibly white-washed view of modern racism. Throughout the course of American history, Black people have suffered from institutional racism that has barred their access to the voting process, property, land access, economic opportunity, social security access, veteran's rights, personal freedom, you name it. This continues into the modern day. These modern issues will not be fixed by colorblindness; instead, they can only be fixed through race conscious affirmative action.

Here are some great books if you want to get more informed on historical and modern racism, proper reactions to it, and why "colorblindness" is not an acceptable form of dealing with it:

• Fredrickson, George M. 2002, Racism: A Short History
  
• Higginbotham, A.Leon, Jr. 1996, Shades of Freedom: Racial Politics and Presumptions of....
  
• Foner, Eric. 1990, A Short History of Reconstruction
  
• Packard, Gerald M. 2003, American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow
  
• Katznelson, Ira. 2005, When Affirmative Acton Was White: An Untold History of...
  
• Massey, Douglas S. 1993, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underc

For sure, the text we read was When Affirmative Action Was White by Ira Katznelson

Two history books I've read recently that really knocked my socks off:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Plantagenets-Warrior-Queens-England/dp/0670026654

The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England by Dan Jones

http://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization-ebook/dp/B004IYJEB0/

Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization by Richard Miles

A recent history book I'm dying to read is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Bridge-Fall-Nixon-Reagan-ebook/dp/B00HXGD5CE/

The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan by Rick Perlstein

He wrote the book Nixonland which I absolutely loved. If you want to understand modern American politics you need to understand that Nixon defined it in many ways.

Not an article, but King Leopold's Ghost is a great book, as is The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila

Or if you have an hour to kill White King, Red Rubber, Black Death is a very well made documentary.

Actually, I have kind of been following the comments and there are some fine texts that have been suggested in the comments. If you are interested in the topic:

• Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.
  
• The Prize by Daniel Yergin.
  
• A History of the Modern Middle East: Fifth Edition by William Cleveland.
  
  I would also say that part of my perspective is from somewhere else. I have read 26 biographies of American Presidents. Most are boring but there are two people who shaped US political ideology much more than others: Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams. They defined the century that followed (particularly Roosevelt). In telling their stories, the authors must describe the context--you learn a lot about history by simply seeing the people and the ideas that did not win. The other thing that modern biographers do--they tell the truth about the real goals. Once a person has the power... what do they do with it and why.
  
  
  
  

> So you're telling this human being, that he should not base his view of people based on his own experience?

I don't think that personal experience should, on its own, dictate how people see the world. Hell, that's what OP was saying before he started deleting all of his downvoted comments.

> Now, based on "evidence" in the US, black people commit 6 times more crime than white people. This indicates that they are, generally, lower educated, disregard the law, lack respect for authorities, and in general match what OP is saying.

Crime statistics are surprisingly flawed. They don't really measure how many people are committing crimes, but rather who got caught. Drug busts are a great example. Black people tend to get busted much more often for drug possession even though white people use drugs just as much (if not more). That's because it's much easier for police to bust people in poor black neighborhoods than in affluent white suburbs. Poor black people tend not to be well-connected.

Here's the thing: ghettos are not mistakes. West Baltimore, North Philadelphia, the South Bronx, Watts, Compton, and so forth all exist because of public policy decisions made years ago. African-Americans didn't choose to live in these places - they were basically forced to live there because banks wouldn't lend them money to live anywhere else. If you look at how the New Deal was constructed, you can see black people being written out of it. It was essentially affirmative action for white people. The New Deal is generally credited for building the American middle class - is it any wonder that black people might wind up behind the eight ball if they weren't able to take advantage? This is just one example - there are plenty more.

EDIT: And now I see that OP has not only deleted his downvoted comments, but also his account. Good.

[Here's one covering both on Amazon, or check your library] (http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Sankara Speaks-Burkina-Revolution/dp/0873489861)

[Also refer to works and further reading in Wikipedia's article about him.] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara)

There is a good book about the Congo and King Leopold, called King Leopold's Ghost.

https://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

I'm no expert on this subject, but History Begins at Sumer might help you out. From what I remember, the Sumerians did not have much in the way of chronicle or history, let alone historiography. So, the answer is, they probably weren't really aware of the past behind a few generations.

If you want to know more about the Middle East this book is what my college professor, a former diplomat for a Middle Eastern regional power, used as our major textbook.

The American underclass has always been defined by lack of wealth. Race was just an excuse to maintain an underclass. The difference now is that we're all being primed to join the underclass. We are the 99%.

When Affirmative Action was White

I literally read an entire book on the subject earlier this year.

https://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393328511

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

Um... this

You should read this book called How the Irish Became White

Relevant: http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

http://www.versobooks.com/books/1048-the-invention-of-the-white-race

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white11.htm

Everyone repeat after me: Race is socially constructed. "White" as a racial identity was manufactured by the ruling classes following Bacon's rebellion in the late 1600's in order to divide lower class whites/blacks, the former who were eventually freed of indentured servitude, the later who went from being indentured servants to chattel slaves.

Catholics have only been white since the 60s.
Read this.
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

Wait, they're not white, they're Irish!

Dagfari has just finished reading "How the Irish became White"

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

How is that not what they're talking about? Race is a social construct, and for a long time, the Irish and Italians (among others) weren't considered white enough.

Related: How the Irish Became White

we are now apparently http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251

>Irish, Italian, or Jewish

All of whom went through an extended period of not being considered white.

>Wtf? Ya pas de différence entre le Congo sous les Belges et le Québec (autrefois canada-français) sous l'Angleterre.

Oui, c'était exactement la même chose. Et c'est moi qui faut apprends mon histoire...tu peux commencer ici http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

>Parler français...Être indépendantiste...

La Charte n'a rien de faire avec parler Français ou l'indépendantiste. Si tu es un Anglophone fédéraliste qui soutien la Charte je dirai la même chose.

http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

Cough Cough

This book discussed Hoover's role.

I think I read in the truly excellent "An Army at Dawn" (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805087249/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=aeebc627-7ecf-4129-8c0c-1d437f271eca&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=080508861X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=GE74JN245RCFKT338B2R&pf_rd_r=GE74JN245RCFKT338B2R&pf_rd_p=aeebc627-7ecf-4129-8c0c-1d437f271eca)

that Massachussets had a bunch of stockpiled 20 years old shells along. Which explains some of the problems early in the war.

I know the whole second Punic war's first history was written 70 years after... Second some 120-130 years after. the only actual physical evidence that Hannibal existed? a passing reference on a piece of tablet that was a dedication.

Source: Ghosts of Cannae

https://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Middle-East-5th/dp/0813348331

I recently read this book and it is really what you are looking for.

The Fate of Africa

Recommended reading for those interested on the background of this:

Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform

Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

i picked up his one on the fall of rome and couldn't finish it. it was terrible.

i highly [recommend] (http://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294) that. i highly recommend that.

The last time I saw this image someone commented and recommended the book King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Someone gave it to me as a gift recently and it's on my stack, but I haven't gotten to it quite yet. I think I'll move it to the top. Before I saw this image last time I had no idea these things had happened.

Highly recommend reading "King Leopold's Ghost" to anyone interested in the history of Belgian colonialist atrocities in Africa. Warning: it makes for grim reading.

https://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1G6I5DTX3TBOH&keywords=king+leopold%27s+ghost&qid=1574558091&s=books&sprefix=king+leo%2Cstripbooks%2C143&sr=1-1

Pick up a copy of King Leopolds Ghost or The Kaiser's Holocaust. Both very readable although not much fun.

Sure. This is not a list of what I consider the most important books on the subject but rather my attempt to select good works with similar profiles to the books found on the list.

The Fate of Africa - Meredith

The Boer War, Pakenham

Britain's Gulag, Elkins

Neoliberal Frontiers, Ethnography of Sovereignty in W. Africa, Chalfin

Africa in World Politics, Harbeson

African Perspectives on Colonialism

So I recently came across this awesome book:

https://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294

It's basically about how Carthage got a bad rep in Ancient times amd by scholars today. Good read!

If you want to learn about our colonial history in the Congo you should read "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochschild.

Amazon Link.

>Slaves didn't have to worry about starving constantly which doesn't make a lot of sense in reality, but instead were subject to brutality...They chose to go to a strange country ... They had no political presence but could VOTE (1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote ) before Native Americans

FTFY

You clearly aren't familiar with the black codes of the South. Not to mention those events in Irish-American history is a mere dustup. You don't have the entire South identifying itself with locking up Irish and abusing the Irish. You also don't have the Northeast trying to secede to preserve their "peculiar" institution of subjugating the Irish.

Here is the rub, the Irish eventually became WHITE, thereby shedding all of the negative status connotations held by their forefathers. Assimilation works best when you look like the dominant group.

Please Richard Miles book, Carthage Must Be Destroyed.

You'll find that most of your statements were incorrect. References make up about 1/3 of the book, so have at it.

To be clear, the Roman and Greek historians account for large swaths of history still, but their automatic authenticity is largely discredited in this book with more local and timely sources that weren't available until somewhat recently.

I just finished King Leopold's Ghost, which was one of the most eye-opening historical books I've read. Though not about the Americas, it goes into great depth by which the European colonists committed savage atrocities against relatively peaceful indigenous populations to enslave them to produce goods and services to fuel their war machines. In this case it was rubber in the Congo.

All of this sets the stage for our current global geopolitics. It often seems like the narrative hasn't changed much, it's only pushed out of the mainstream foci, conveniently. Apparently, we're condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past due to, as you implied, revisionist histories that are spoon-fed to the young.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization - Richard Miles

If anyone wants to learn more about this topic, there is a book called King Leopold's Ghost. It has a very well-researched and heartbreaking view on the crimes committed.

http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

For anyone wanting to read the whole story https://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

It's not often you get to say "Fuck Belgium"

Read up on your history before making assumptions

King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618001905/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_aB8TBbCQ7Q6M1