Blue collar ignoramus here. Recently disgusted by how little I read, but I've always preferred books about history to fictional literature. Is there a list of /his/ essential books? I want to buy 5 books while there's still holiday sales going on all over the place. I've heard Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by Sherer is very good and respected.
>Blue collar ignoramus here
in b4 whining about marxist left wing academics who control universities
>>451720
inb4
>yea man universities are totally not lefty cesspools haha that's a load of crap
>>451727
I'm not trying to bait shitposts just want some book recommendations, I wasnt very well gonna go to leddit or amazon recommended
>>451720
Shoo, shoo, ye cuckold.
A book thats nice and easy is Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond. It's not the most truthful book out there, and there could be some leftkek agenda, but it's a fun start anyways.
>>451714
Livy - a history of rome. Great place to start, antiquity is the beginning of the western world and it starts with rome and greece. It came out during the end of augustus' reign and there are more accurate versions of romes history out today but livy covers the basics accurately and also gets very detailed in many things.
>>451714
If you want to really get into reading history you need to read EP Thompson's "Making of the English Working Class"
If you're looking to learn how to read history from the beginning:
Cartoon History of the Universe Parts vols 1-3
Cartoon History of the United States (1 vol)
Cartoon History of the Modern World (IIRC) vols 1-2
Then if you're American read Zinn's People's History of the United States.
Now none of these are history books, except Zinn's and that's basically a year 12 / first year university text book (written in narrative form). And Zinn is criticised unfairly by the right, but fairly by people who criticise the shallow secondary nature of his work.
If you're australian read Connell & Irving's class structure in Australian history.
If you're old school read Engel's Peasants War in Germany and Condition of the working class in England in 1844 (sociology, but uses historiographical techniques).
After that you're in big boy school.
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by a journalist, not really history. You'll find a lot of journalists like to pretend at history (Applebaum's Gulag for example). If you don't know how to read history you can fall into their traps.
Guns, Germs and Steel is a book of highly controversial geography or anthropology. It can be a good substitute for Zinn but is even less trustworthy.
Other alternate entry points might include Graeber's 5000 years of debt.
If you want big boy books I'd recommend Dubofsky's IWW work, or Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia.
Needham on Chinese technology & science is good.
I also recommend that blue collar workers read Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital. It is about how the bosses screwed US workers slow style from 1910-1970.
It also helps to have a topic or interest. Tell me about books about the 17th century military history of europe. Tell me about women's history in China.
>>451714
Personal favorite of mine is No god but God by Reza Aslan.
Gives you a great perspective on the history of Islam. It's actually really interesting.
>>451886
>Zinn's People's History of the United States
don't listen to this guy OP. you're better off reading a history book that at least attempts to be objective. If you want recommendations just ask
>>452404
>objective
You wasted your fucken money.
>>453207
Zinn projects his leftist views onto the past quite explicitly and its sufferable. This is coming from a leftist too.
>>453224
>its sufferable
Oh good, if it is sufferable we can stand it.
Perhaps you meant insufferable.
If you have such a grasp on the English language, perhaps we can't trust your reading of Zinn.
>>451886
>Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by a journalist, not really history.
A first hand narrative of someone that lived under the Reich until late 1940, returned to cover Nuremberg, and has been repeatedly referenced by scholars is not history?
You try to hard man.
>>451886
>the art of not being governed
A fun read, but it's definitely not surprising seeing it next to Zinn and Diamond's stuff.
The Idea of History by Collingwood is a must read. You need to be exposed to historical theory right away.
The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler.
>>453229
>Perhaps you meant insufferable.
yes
>perhaps we can't trust your reading of Zinn.
nice ad hominem senpai, this is an internet board not a republic of letters. you use my grammar to deflect from the fact that you have no other defense for Zinn's book. Why should OP read a book that does not aspire to report facts but feels a need to exaggerate and distort them. Sounds like sensationalist crap intended to preach to the choir, namely privileged college kids (myself included). It might be to provoke thought, but if you were to read this without any supplementary works then you'll come to false conclusions about American history. And since OP is a blue collar worker with limited time, why recommend him a book that requires reading several more to understand.?
>>453692
In fairness, it's good enough for a layman, a fun read (more so than alternatives in the same niche, but YMMV), and easy enough to match up with something more vanilla-to-conservative like A History of the American People by Paul Johnson.
Books I can recommend that I've read recently
>The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt
>Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World
>Ivan's War
>How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
>The Gun
>>453733
I guess so
Op, after you've given up on most of these recommendations because the writing styles give you headaches, check out the "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas Woods. Or if you cant find it on Amazon for $4 shipped like I did, he has a lecture series of the same title on YouTube that covers most if not all the same info.
>>453233
>A first hand narrative of someone that lived under the Reich until late 1940, returned to cover Nuremberg, and has been repeatedly referenced by scholars is not history?
No, no it isn't. That makes it a "primary source."
>to hard man.
You meant "too."
>>453239
Neh. I think of Diamond's analytical position as being quintessentially whig and right wing.
>>453692
>this is an internet board not a republic of letters.
>>27939
>a high level of discourse is expected
I believe you are wrong in part.
>you use my grammar to deflect from the fact that you have no other defense for Zinn's book.
Spelling and command of language, not grammar. Grammar might be pointing out that in many Englishes you'd say defence there.
History is, in large part, about command over complex and deceptive language.
Your command over language is poor.
Your ability to "play the game" is therefore poor.
Your criticism of Zinn is also canned ham.
>a book that does not aspire to report facts
History is not about facts, or about reporting facts, it is wie es eigentlich gewesen. Why should we attend to someone's opinion on a source when they believe history is composed of reported facts?
> privileged
Oh fuck off. Read until you understand exactly what ideology you just spouted. Also seek remedial help from your institution over your language capacities, you need it.
>And since OP is a blue collar worker with limited time, why recommend him a book that requires reading several more to understand.?
>.?
Because, as I said,
>If you're looking to learn how to read history from the beginning:
>Then if you're American read Zinn's People's History of the United States.
>Now none of these are history books, except Zinn's and that's basically a year 12 / first year university text book (written in narrative form). And Zinn is criticised unfairly by the right, but fairly by people who criticise the shallow secondary nature of his work.
It is about training OP in how to read history.
>>451714
that pic is really unsettling
i didnt read your post or anything, just wanted to say that
>>454137
>I believe you are wrong in part.
your totally ignoring the context of that phrase, the sentence was
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated and a high level of discourse is expected
in other words, a high level of discourse means not spouting /pol/ memes and not being totally retarded. this is a board for amateur historians and not professional ones. most people on this board do not know historiography or precise historical terminology and so cannot be expected to converse on that level.
>History is not about facts, or about reporting facts,
Ok, it was sloppy of me to say this. Facts are important for history though, and some interpretations of those facts are not as valid as others, according to historical consensus.
>Oh fuck off.
for all your talk of "higher discourse" you come off as conceited and aggressive for no reason.
>Read until you understand exactly what ideology you just spouted. Also seek remedial help from your institution over your language capacities, you need it.
If you were to explain what "ideology" I'm allegedly espousing and show me why its wrong then I might take you more seriously. But you only make a vague and unhelpful suggestion to "read more" without offering suggestions or refuting my impression of Zinn. I get this impression because I've seen the demographic I just described rep this book the most. I also got the impression that this was their first and last book on American history, and so have an incomplete or even false understanding of the past. Considering that people's past inform their political views and decisions in the present, this is tragic and Zinn's partisan view of history fosters a greater polarization of American politics. Its the equivalent of conservatives getting all their news from watching Fox.
>History is, in large part, about command over complex and deceptive language.
muh post-structuralism
>It is about training OP in how to read history.
k, but I'm sure there's just as many other
>>454434
cont.
many other books that introduce American history in harmony with scholarly opinion as well as training OP to read history/ understand historiography.
>>454434
>this is a board for amateur historians and not professional ones.
Every other "amateur" history site I've seen has had a healthy fucking respect for sourcing, the past as it was, and the basic elements of historiography you can pick up in a day.
>Facts are important for history though
Oh fuck off. Unless you can tell me why you think EH Carr's opinion is really relevant.
>muh post-structuralism
No, friend, that's Ranke.
>Considering that people's past inform their political views and decisions in the present, this is tragic and Zinn's partisan view of history fosters a greater polarization of American politics.
This is a really incoherent sentence. I wasn't joking about remedial help with academic English.
>Considering that [peoples' pasts] inform their political views and decisions in the present
This is a very controversial political position about determination. It is widely held by the conservative historians, but with the "turn to language" amongst more liberal bourgeois historians there's been a greater attention to the actual methods in which culture and politics come together.
>this is tragic and Zinn's partisan view of history fosters a greater polarization of American politics.
You assume everyone shares your political position here. In particular this makes your critique of Zinn's text limited in that Zinn's political position is one of radical transformation.
>If you were to explain what "ideology" I'm allegedly espousing and show me why its wrong then I might take you more seriously.
Privilege is a code word of the politics of identity, a liberal and bourgeois politics that developed out of the politics of specific oppressions, viewed as "oppressions."
While the rest of your ideology seems more grounded in a conservative-liberal conception of limited rights of man in the context of a state comprised of educated citizens, you suddenly jump into using a code word that comes out of a radical liberal discourse.
>>454468
>many other books that introduce American history in harmony with scholarly opinion
The last review I found of Zinn in a peer reviewed journal, when I searched 2 years ago having the same shit fight with the same kind of sophomoric cunt as yourself, was positive.
Scholarly opinion is far more in favour of Zinn that you seem to think.
>>454137
It's a compilation of primary (Shirer's) and secondary sources. But fuck, what would I know, I've never read it and don't know much about Nazi Germany or the works of authors who write about it (that first edition, first printing and the 50th anniversary edition of it on my bookshelves are just for show).
But hey, don't take my word for it:
>Forty years later, historian Richard J. Evans, author of The Third Reich Trilogy (2003 to 2008), conceded that Rise and Fall is a "readable general history of Nazi Germany" and that "there are good reasons for [its] success."
Richard J. Evans is probably the most well known and, arguably, well respected historian on Nazi Germany. If he calls it history, it's history.
>>454524
You're going to have to let me disagree with Evans here. Conceded is also a pretty harsh word in a scholarly review. Obviously I'm not going to convince you, but have a think about that conceded.
>>451714
Just watch msnbc and you will come to the same conclusion as the Zionist sources presented here.
>>454536
Evans has cited the book multiple times in multiple books. Evans criticism's of Shirer's works are of Shirer's analysis and conclusions, not his facts or sources. He "conceded" (not his words of course) because despite his disagreements with Shirer's own thoughts, he recognized it as a valuable source of Nazi Germany.
>>454480
>Oh fuck off.
how are facts not important?
>No, friend, that's Ranke.
I assume he meant analyzing the language of primary sources is important, as is using precise terminology. But the way you said it it seemed that you were saying that "you cannot know anything outside language," which is post-structuralist, or as you put it, the "turn to language".
>This is a really incoherent sentence.
you clearly understood it, though, as shown in your next response
>This is a very controversial political position about determination.
I never knew this was controversial. I guess the other way around makes more sense; that we employ history to legitimize ideology or our beliefs. But I think that an impressionable mind could be shaped by literature, history or philosophy. Would students in the third world have overthrowing governments and implemented policies without having some framework that the learned from western intellectuals, for example?
>liberal bourgeois historians
do you mean this derogatorily?
>greater attention to the actual methods in which culture and politics come together.
As in culture as a function of power relations?
>Privilege is a code word of the politics of identity
I don't even give a thought to identity politics. I meant it in the sense when you say "he lives a life of privilege", or "he lives a privileged lifestyle." It was reference to social class rather than race or gender.
>state comprised of educated citizens
yes
>conservative-liberal conception of limited rights of man
what makes you say conservative-liberal, or limited rights? what ideology do you speak from?
>>454570
Historians regularly cite low quality material. It is why they're historians, and why they produce history rather than merely inheriting the quality of the material they cite.
The question is, whether Evans is citing Shirer as a historian or not. The thing to look at, to determine this for yourself, is how Evans uses Shirer when he uses him. You already know this from what you say next.
>Evans criticism's of Shirer's works are…not [of] his facts or sources.
Be really careful about using the word "fact" casually when discussing history. But let's take this, that Evans is comfortable with the contents of Shirer's narrative about the happenings of the past at a certain level, but at another level:
>Evans criticism's of Shirer's works are of Shirer's analysis and conclusions
Can you write a narrative without your analyses and conclusions penetrating it at every level? I don't think you can. But, I will agree you can READ someone's narrative and disentangle their analyses and conclusions in the penetration of a narrative about, say, the timing and location of the first major German offensive against the Western allies.
The problem for the beginning reader is that they're less likely to be able to read for these traps. One of the reasons why I habitually recommend Zinn is that the traps in Zinn are fucking obvious, and it helps the beginning reader learn to identify traps in secondary sources.
And here I'd remind you about my one line review:
>Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by a journalist, not really history. You'll find a lot of journalists like to pretend at history (Applebaum's Gulag for example). If you don't know how to read history you can fall into their traps.
I expect that part of my detestation for journalists' and other professions' attempts to write history is because of their pathetic failures in my area of expertise where they're more often than not writing ideological hack jobs from out dated sources and theories.
>>454579
>how are facts not important?
They're non-existent.
The records of the past that we have are inherently deceptive, partial, partisan. When we read them and make claims about them, our claims can't extend any further than the texts. We tell stories. We try not to tell bad ones. We try not to tell ones that can be refuted by others reading the documentary records of the past. But claiming that we produce "fact" is like a scientist claiming she produces "truth." Conceited and epistemologically wrong.
>"you cannot know anything outside language," which is post-structuralist
It really isn't. The structuralists thought we were mired in language. So did Marx. The contribution of the post-structuralists was to claim that language means nothing. [more complex, no room]
>you clearly understood it
Don't rely on the expertise of your reader. Be the best writer you can be. I know you can.
>I never knew this was controversial.
I apologise for being harsh then, but not for my high expectations of you. Whether "ideology" determines "social relations" or "social relations" determine "ideology" is a major debate about causes in history and other disciplines.
>Would students in the third world have overthrowing governments and implemented policies without having some framework that the learned from western intellectuals, for example?
Now that is a really good question. From the perspective of the Vietnamese rural proletariat 1936-1975, they habitually learnt through their exploitation and to a lesser extent from party cadre trained by cadre vaguely influenced by Marx. Is this ideology causing a revolution? Is this the French Fish-sauce Tax causing revolution? Nice little historiographical honours thesis there.
>do you mean this derogatorily?
Less and less as time goes on. There's almost no derogatory content left. People like Schama still shit me to tears, but its more characterisation.
1/2
>>454610
Well, you can continue to believe what you wrote but I will read you a quote from David Irving, oddly enough, that Richard Evans put in his book "Lying About Hitler":
"Was Pliny a historian or not? Was Tacitus? Did he get a degree in university? Thucydides? Did he get a degree? And yet we unashamedly call them historians - we call them historians because they wrote history which has gone down the ages as accepted true history."
But you keep on splitting hairs; have a good night.
>>454579
>As in culture as a function of power relations?
I wish. Most of the narrative turn stuff has been real dreck positing that culture is independent entirely rather than performed, or fixated on performances of culture that are inherently individual and so fall outside of Foucault's arguments about the expressions of power entirely. We're not talking The return of Martin Guerre or Hayden Whyte here.
>It was reference to social class
It has other connotations at the moment. Also you'll want to fine tune your opinion on what "class" is eventually.
>what makes you say conservative-liberal, or limited rights?
As opposed to Jacobinism or the "rights discourse" inside Stirner or identity politics. And limited in the sense that identity politicians seek universal especial rights which would trammel your own rights. "Your rights end where my property/body/mind begins." as opposed to the thoughtcrime policing of identity politics.
>what ideology do you speak from?
A worn out clapped out autonomist marxist who prefers a bit more theory than EP Thompson, but a lot less than Althusser, and who thinks that stable meaning can be read from language through hermeneutic methods.
>>454669
No problem. You will find that a lot of historians subscribe to a strong disciplinary sensibility rooted in Ranke's methods as a definitive change.
I certainly don't call Pliny a historian any more than I call Bacon a scientist.
>>454681
>Jacobinism
I don't see anything wrong with strong state power overriding rights from time to time. I'm ambivalent to identity politics because the idea of marginalized groups agitating for equal rights is fine, but their desire to bring an attitudinal change through laws will backfire and is very easy to stir people up against. I'm for equal opportunity, but it seems to me that identity politics, if successful, will just replace a discourse that elevates men for one that elevates women. I wonder if this opinion is too /pol/tier and dystopian though.
>A worn out clapped out autonomist marxist who prefers a bit more theory than EP Thompson, but a lot less than Althusser, and who thinks that stable meaning can be read from language through hermeneutic methods.
interesting...would you recommend reading the making of the working class? do you recommend any works that might help me understand ideology better?
>performances of culture that are inherently individual and so fall outside of Foucault's
Isn't this the opposite of jacobinism though? sounds like a kind of liberal discourse to me.
>>454811
From my perspective jacobinism is a liberal discourse. As opposed to reaction, fascism, centrism, labourism or communism.
I always recommend people read Making of the English Working Class. It is the seminal text of social history and the most important of the Communist Party of Great Britain Historian's Group's publications. [Thompson left the CPGB's line over Khrushchev issues, and was expelled over Hungary 56 IIRC]. Other good texts by Thompson include Industrial Time and Work Discipline (free on libcom) and The Poverty of Theory where he lays out a humanist methodological attack on Althusser's schematicism.
As far as understanding the role of ideology in society I tend to be strongly against ideology as a causative agent, so you're pushing me. There was a quite good history of popularism in the US which I can't quite place. Mill's Power Elite & White Collar might be good here.
Theoretically it is obviously Lukacs and Gramsci who respectively play the role of schematicist and autonomist.
>>454137
>Neh. I think of Diamond's analytical position as being quintessentially whig and right wing.
I wouldn't say they agree with each other so much as that they're in a similar genre.
>material and geographic circumstance and its impact on state formation
>sort of on the accessible pop-his end of the spectrum
>really fucking broad thesis that seems to overlook some important counterexamples
I'm a fan of the genre (as I perceive it) and maybe not well read enough to have missed some crucial distinction. Feel free to enlighten me.
I've also read stuff like Understanding Early Civilizations by Trigger, and The Evolution of Human Human Societies by Johnson and Earle. If anybody has any recs on the same lines I'd be happy to hear them.
>>455133
>>whig and right wing
>crucial distinction
Diamond goes from observing which strategies didn't fail*, to normalising them as desirable.
*And even here he makes a shitload of interpretive failures.
I just finished The Great Wave by Christopher Benfey, and I really enjoyed that. It does get overly flowery in places, but it's a fun read for anyone interested in Meiji era Japan. It's basically stories about a handful of westerners and Japanese and the cultural exchange going on at the time.
>>455145
Certainly not disagreeing that it's a pretty flawed work.
>>455439
I thought you were talking about David Hackett Fisher's The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History
