5 comments about General John Buford: A Military Biography.

1. Yes, thank goodness for the movie, Gettysburg since without that movie, this fine and very needed biography on General John Buford may never been written or published. The movie brought forward General Buford's finest day as a soldier and this biography bring forward the real man behind the Hollywood image.
   
   Its appears that writing a biography on Buford may have been a problem due to lack of first hand material. Its appears that Buford was not a writer or many of it did not survived. But what comes out from Longacre's book is story of a decent and highly motivated man who took the long road to Gettysburg. His premature death probably robbed him of greater Civil War fame since he have proved to be one of the best cavalry commanders within the Army of the Potomac by the time Gettysburg came about. What he could have done if he lived would be one of the great "what if" of Civil War trivia.
   
   Longacre's book is bit short on Buford's early life, lacking material would be my guess on this short coming. But the author was successful in bring out Buford's early military career, thus doing justice the subtitle of this book, "Military Biography".
   
   Only part I am not sure on Longacre's account was his take on where Buford and General John Reynold's initially met on that first day of Gettysburg. Most well known and movie take would be at the Lutheran Seminary Cupola where that most quote "The Devil's to Pay" came out. Although the actual words may be questioned, I don't exactly buy the author's contention that the first meeting came about in the town of Gettysburg. Why would Buford be there, away from a crucial battle? This was based on civilian eye witnesses, of course the same type of civilians even today who can't tell the difference between a new born 2nd LT and a three star general!!
   
   Other then that, this book proves to be quite readable, nicely researched and quite informative on the life of John Buford. This is the only biographical material I have read on Buford outside of that booklet I brought at Gettysburg back in 1995 written by Michael Phipps and John S. Peterson titled "The Devil's To Pay".



2. Edward Longacre's "General John Buford" is good summary of General Buford's career. It is written in straight forward language and is therefore an easy read. Anyone who has a strong interest in the American Civil War probably is familiar with Gen. Buford through such works as the book "Killer Angels" and the movie "Gettysburg". Longacre's book provides much desired pre-civil war and civil war background information. He does interpolate a certain amount of descriptive coloring, but as an attempt to get a feel for the subjective qualities of the man this is not necessarily a bad thing. One could always hope for more detail and information, but Longacre does an admirable job with the available resources.



3. John Buford is perhaps best known for his aggressive actions on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, he merits more consideration than for one day's worth of sound generalship. This book does a good, solid job of introducing readers to General Buford.
   
   Although born in Kentucky, he later moved to what was to become Rock Island, Illinois. In the late 1840s, he entered West Point and graduated in good standing. Some of those whom he came into contact with at "The Point" included Ambrose Burnside, George Stoneman, George Steuart, William Jones, John Tidball, and Hugh Ewing (William Tecumseh Sherman's foster brother). In the "old Army," he was a trooper, including serving in "Bleeding Kansas" and into the Valley of the Saints, as the United States aimed to chastise the Mormons.
   
   As the Civil War began, Buford was assigned to administration, although he wanted to be "in the saddle" as an active cavalry officer. After considerable frustration, he earned an active command. He did good service before Second Manassas/Bull Run, trying to alert General Pope of Longstreet's advance through Thoroughfare Pass, threatening Pope's flank. Alas! The significant intelligence never found its way to the right people. Indeed, this illustrates one of Buford's strength--gathering and passing on crisp intelligence (one function of the cavalry was to serve as "the eyes" of the army). However, later, he was consigned once more to administrative work.
   
   When Joe Hooker became commander of the Army of the Potomac, Buford's luck changed again, as he was given an active command. After the debacle at Chancellorsville, General Robert E. Lee began his raid northward. Here, Buford played a key role. First, in gathering intelligence. Second, for his role at Brandy Station, when his cavalry put great pressure on one wing of JEB Stuart's cavalry, beginning to tarnish the reputation of the irrepressible Stuart's command.
   
   Then, on to Gettysburg, where he arrived on June 30, assessed the land and the military features around the village, and decided to make a fight of it, fully realizing that his two cavalry brigades were facing Early's corps moving south toward Gettysburg from Carlisle and York and Hill's corps moving east along the Chambersburg Pike. As everyone knows, he held long enough for John Reynolds Union First and O. O. Howard's 11th Corps to arrive and join the battle.
   
   After, Buford continued his good work, although he would face reverses as he pursued Lee's retreating army. Once the Army of the Potomac re-entered Virginia, he continued to play a role. However, illness cut short his career.
   
   All in all, a useful biography of a figure who deserves to be better known. Indeed, the author originally refused the offer to write this book, because he did not think that there was enough information to do a competent biography. Readers ought to be appreciative that Longacre's assessment was wrong.



4. as the author complains by lack of personal source material. Buford died during the war, had no surviving children, didn't write any kind of memoirs etc... Longacre did a solid job of discussing the union cavalry command but many aspects of the book like sections on Gettysburg and West Point seemed rushed. Certainly many other commanders had nice things to say about Buford unfortunately Longacre only found 1 or 2 of them.



5. This is a nice, solid military biography. It was very readable, and I was happy to see it had a strong thesis (Buford was "a true dragoon). I came away from the book admiring Buford a great deal. True, there could have been more information in here, but isn't further information one of the purposes of an appendix?
   
   I highly recommend this book to U.S. Civil War buffs and anyone interested in learning about someone who achieve success without playing many political games.

3 comments about For the Hell of It: The Life and Times of Abbie Hoffman.

1. Without question, the best of the recent spate of Abbie Hoffman bios. Lucid, well-researched, with more than 200 oral histories. What prevents it from receiving a "10" rating is that Raskin devotes only one short chapter to Hoffman's life in the late seventies and eighties. Despite the lack of attention paid to Hoffman's later life, the material leading up to the last chapter flows nicely, and tells the story of a complex, energetic, and ultimately great American.



2. Abbie survived under fake ID, after a drug bust,but succumbed to personality disorder,for which he took medications, He was America's foremost radical->Activist- of 60's, he fought for the enviroment in 70's.....watch for movie of his life.."Steal this Movie"...



3. I wonder if Raskin would ever be so hypercritical of just about every statement she has ever made, the way she is of Abbie. The book was interesting at first, but I feel she went way overboard in disecting everything Abbie said and how "factual" it really was. After a while it seemed like one big critique of everything Abbie said. Like she set out to prove he lied about everything. "Well, he said this and I went back and interviewed five different people who said it actually happened like this." To me a biography should be about how someone lived, not a dissection of everything they said. She really turned a fascinating story about a very creative and excitng person into almost a police report - "just the facts, mam."

   This book really bugged me!

5 comments about Give Me My Father's Body: The Life of Minik, the New York Eskimo.

1. Storyline is very intriguing, but the writing is a bit droll. It is also longer than necessary.



2. Kenn Harper has managed to bring together an amazing story through detailed research. Minik, the Polar Eskimo child, was brought to the US by Robert Peary and essentially placed on display. The story of his disconnected life is full of pathos and sorrow. Yet Harper weaves the story with life.

   Peary's behaviors were simply egotistic and reprehensible. He treated the Eskimos as his property. He placed their lives in harms' way by bringing them to a culture and location that assaulted their senses and immune systems. Minik was the price paid for that deed.

   I did get bogged down in names from time to time, especially as Harper recounted the financial misdealings of Wallace, who had taken responsibility for Minik. But overall, the story is entertaining and enlightening. It speaks to the ethnocentrism of Peary's generation and to the isolation of the Polar Eskimos. It took me a long time to read and absorb this book but it was rewarding in the end... to see and feel a culture so far away.




3. Kenn Harper's Give Me My Father's Body is undeniably and superbly researched; easily the book's crowning achievement. Occasionally though, I was annoyed with the "what if" scenarios. At least twice in the book Harper says what would have happened if things had gone another way. In one instance, the book describes Minik's plan to return to the Greenland and to lead a group of Inuit to the North Pole. He hoped to attain international honour for his people. Harper made the declaration that even had Minik tried, there was no way that he would have been successful. He further added that Minik's desire to prove the superiority of his race was an ethnocentric idea no doubt learned from the white people of New York, that the Greenland Inuit would balk at such ideas and that, with nothing to gain but glory for their people, they would surely refuse to help Minik. Even if Harper's learned ethnocentrism theory is correct, Harper has no way of ever knowing what Minik could have accomplished had he tried. If Minik had learned such ideas from white people, who's to say the Greenland Inuit wouldn't in turn learn such ideas from Minik? The point is, no one knows what would have happened and it is futile to guess (even for the well-informed). Also, the edition of the book that I have, has included discussion questions at the end for readers groups. These are very laughable. To paraphrase a typical question, "Kenn Harper lives among the people that he writes about and is therefore the greatest historian and writer to ever write about Northern peoples. Discuss how his portrayal of Eskimos is the most accurate description ever to be put on paper." But despite the embarrassing readers club guide at the end and the occasional subjective statement from Harper, the book is eye-opening about the victims of science and was a pleasurable read.



4. This book is a must-read. The reader must come into it ready to make his or her own conclusions about the material, though, as it is written to persuade a certain viewpoint. With no other viewpoints offered to compare this one to, it is difficult to say for certain if this one is correct. The story is one that anyone interested in humanity, globalization, anthropology or just an interesting story should read.



5. Poor Minik, captured by white traders and brought to Manhattan to be a freak! It was the age of freaks, when everyone who was different was first taken away from their home, and then put on display. Minik found out that his beloved father had been stuffed and mounted for all to jeer at the New York Museum of Natural History.
   
   Author Harper has been through the files of the Museum and what he has come up with will convince even people who love the Museum, that reparations are in order. Eskimo people are not the only ones outraged at the long ago disposition of native relics. It is still worthy of outrage. What puzzles me is actor Kevin Spacey's interest in this affair. His preface to the book is well-written, not that I believe he actually put pen to paper to write it up, but clearly he has an emotional investment in this material and, from what I understand, he is planning to play Minik himself once his duties as Lex Luthor are finished in the new Superman movie. But why not let a native actor play the part? My in-laws who know Kenn Harper by reputation, and who have seen him speak in public, say that Spacey is part Inuit and hgas had a long interest in Peary's expeditions.
   
   Peary himself emerges from Harper's well-researched book as a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand he showed true courage in surmounting obstacles and sub zero temperatures. On the other hand he was not particular gifted in solving human personnel difficulties, and seems to have grown impatient if his will was crossed by others (or by the hand of God). We have all known men like Peary--impetuous, self-assured, and gifted. But few of us have known the crushing tragedy of Minik of Qaanaaq, of Greenland's icy shores.

4 comments about Tuscan Countess: The Life and Extraordinary Times of Matilda of Canossa.

1. Victorious warrior, careful scholar, profound believer, linguist, devoted lover, ruthless ruler and gentle nurse of battlefield wounded, the Matilda Michele Spike presents to us is a complex person, whose internal contradictions are as it were writ large across the history of Italy. She and her man Hildebrand, the adulteress and the unchaste pope, enforced clerical celibacy. The reforms by a Jew's descendant brought about the persecution of that people. They who so ardently desired to enshrine the power and glory of Rome caused its devastation. Together Gregory VII and the Tuscan countess were a formidable team, yet undone. But in the end, one woman's love triumphed, and the world has never been the same since. No wonder that another, much later pope ordered her body stolen and enshrined in St. Peter's, Rome, in a gorgeous sarcophagus by Bernini surmounted by his vision of Matilda, Athena-like in her power and grace.
   
   The bishops of Rome certainly owe Matilda. It took her very formidable biographer to uncover just how much.



2. After reading this book, I had to ask myself, 'how is it that a woman who had such an impact on the church and western culture, has been unknown to me for all these years...and I consider myself a fairly bright and knowledgeable person. Where I've been?...Or more, WHERE HAS MATILDA BEEN???
   
   A great read... I'd recommend to anyone (who wants to be "in the know")!
   
   Jim Kauffman



3. I've just finished reading this compelling book about a woman who has shaped history. A history I had known very little about, and now understand what it means to us in today's world. I read the book as though I were reading an adventure story. Matlida's world stayed with me in my daily life as I walk and live in places she has been. I highly reccomend this book



4. Matilda of Canossa was one of medieval Europe's most iconoclastic characters. Her life and events are not widely known in America, but she was as much responsible as anyone for the political environment that engendered the Italian Renaisance. Matilda not only was involved in most of the great conflicts of her day, and was allied with or against men like Pope Gregory VII, Duke Robert of Normandy, and Henry IV of Germany; she also, by reason of these conflicts and alliances, came to influence the institutions these men represented. Certainly unusual for a woman, this was unheard of for a woman without a strong power base, a legitimate inheritance, or even significant military influence.
   
   Michele Spike's treatment of Matilda is scholarly, but not pedantic. An attorney on sabbatical, Ms. Spike brings a quite skillful sense of drama as well as verissimilitude in relating events from the various sources purporting to recount Matilda's struggles, and manages to retain the readers' interest without making amateurish attempts at historical reconstruction. Spike is especially skilled at conveying the events of Matilda's life within the larger tapestry of Northern Italian politics.

5 comments about From Manassas to Appomattox: General James Longstreet.

1. General James Longstreet, who has been unjustly accused and slandered for over a century, gives a factual account of the war and its effect on the South. He also gives invaluable biographical information on his early life and career, particularly the Mexican War, which has been overlooked by historians. A must-read for serious students of the War and for anyone else looking for accounts of a soldiering life in the nineteenth century.



2. General James Longstreet, who has been unjustly accused and slandered for over a century, gives a factual account of the war and its effect on the South. He also gives invaluable biographical information on his early life and career, particularly the Mexican War, which has been overlooked by historians. A must-read for serious students of the War and for anyone else looking for accounts of a soldiering life in the nineteenth century. Also recommend Jeffrey Werts' James Longstreet: Lee's Most Controversial Soldier



3. Longstreet was subjected to criticism for his performance at Gettysburg as well as Lee, Longstreet survived and wrote his memoirs to be read and he made it a focus of the book to justify his actions and put the blame on others. Lee never wrote his memoirs, probably to his credit. At the end of the war Lee was of the opinion that it is over and needs to be put in the past. That is not to say that he did not blame Longstreet and others for the mishap at Gettysburg, he just never voiced his opinion. It was not in the man's nature. The character of his main critic also has to be questioned, Jubal Early was renowned for being hotheaded and alienating other people. he was referred to by Lee as "My bad old man."
   
   It cannot be criticized of his work that the piece centers on himself, they are his memoirs about the war. It also cannot be critisized that he did not cover extensively his post-war years because the book is not called Manassas to Reconstruction. It has to be taken as what it is, a valuable insight into a man who was there when it all happened and a study into the man who understood trench warfare before its true advent.



4. From Manassas to Appomattox by James Longstreet is an excellent example of a Post-bellum memoir, and it is written in clear and dignified voice. The memoir is of course the account of the actions of General James Longstreet, CSA during the American Civil War, his thoughts on various events, and recollections of his command and various individuals whose names are household words to the Civil War historian. As a person with only a passing interest in the American Civil War, I read this book for its purely biographical information, in other words, to get a feel for James Longstreet, who appears to be the underdog of Confederate commanders. I found the book easy to read, though at times I felt mired down in the military minutiae that fills most of the pages, but quickly recovered by small personal tidbits interspersed therein. I also enjoyed reading about his relationship with Robert E. Lee, and the way Longstreet handled himself in a very blunt, upfront manner. I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to read a fine example of memoir writing from the period, Civil War buffs (who of course have undoubtedly already enjoyed this book), and to researchers wanting insight to the major battles of the American Civil War.



5. and much else. However I found Longstreet's style dry bordering on the mind-numbing. That said, I have always been in the camp that didn't hold Longstreet to blame for the problems of the second and even the third day at Gettysburg. Lee delegated too much authority and seemed lazy during those few crucial days to survey the ground (if he had I believe he would have concured with JL). Also Gettysburg was one of those times when a great army had a few bad days starting with the location of the battle, the quality of the ANV commanders first on the scene (poor), lack of intelligence, overconfidence etc... If JL had been in Ewell's position on the first day there wouldn't have been a second or a third day. Finally, if JL had been allowed to take over for the disaster that was Braxton Bragg, the battle for Tennesse may have ended very differently.

No comments about Campesino: The Diary of a Guatemalan Indian.

5 comments about William McKinley (The American Presidents).

1. Kevin Phillips has been a political and economic commentator for more than 30 years, and written many books. William McKinley was elected to two terms and avoided any major scandals. America became a world power in his terms. McKinley was the best of the seven Ohio-born presidents. McKinley's reputation declined after 1932 with the changes in tariffs, the gold standard, and the power of corporations. Phillips lists six beliefs about McKinley that he calls "calumnies" (p.4). McKinley's inscrutability, avoidance of written commitments, and oratorical style shows "great political skill" says Phillips (p.5). McKinley was a progressive Republican (p.6) and deserves a better reputation. McKinley's children died young, his wife developed epilepsy (p.25). [This book lacks a map of Ohio in McKinley's times.]
   
   Chapter 1 tells about Ohio and William McKinley. After the Civil War McKinley became a lawyer and entered politics. Chapter 2 describes a Modern McKinley. He was sold "like soap" in 1896 (p.30). Victrola records passed on speeches. He was the first president to visit California. The first permanent national labor union (printers) and the AFL started in Ohio, so did the United Mine Workers (p.32). McKinley defended striking coal miners in 1876. Tariffs kept American wages high (p.37). McKinley refused to profit from his political policies (p.39). The tariff questions of revenue and protection were recurring political issues (p.43). Then came the issue of silver currency (pp.51-52). Phillips explains the interests behind the conflicts.
   
   McKinley was popular with the party rank and file, and was nominated on the first ballot. The many recessions affected voting for Congress (p.64). Phillips doesn't mention the reason for Bryan's many campaign stops (p.75). It was to talk directly to the voters. Major northern cities backed McKinley (p.77). There were similarities between Bryan and McKinley (p.83). McKinley's term saw America become a world power (p.87). [This seems a little premature.] There was an entente with Britain. Expansionism was an American tradition (pp.88-89). The naval victories at Manila Bay and Santiago Cuba helped McKinley's popularity (p.96). It was a short and successful war. The Platt Amendment kept Germany out of Cuba (p.105). The annexation of Hawaii was to keep Japan out (p.106). Fear of Germany affected Britain's politics. McKinley's plans for tariff reciprocity died with him (p.123). McKinley intended to recommend an income tax (p.124). McKinley was friendly with labor (p.125). McKinley's cabinet continued with Theodore Roosevelt (p.127). McKinley had introduced Granger resolutions (p.128). Roosevelt enacted the Elkins Act and the Hepburn Act. There were threats to nationalize the coal mines and steel industry (p,129). McKinley enacted an arbitration system in Ohio. McKinley also began the naval increase (p.132).
   
   Chapter 6 concludes the reconsideration. Senators were chosen by state legislatures and were against progressive legislation (p.135). McKinley's assassination prevented him from achieving his political objectives (p.136). McKinley sought affection and popularity, but this was mistaken for weakness (p.138). McKinley's strength was shown by his running the State Department and the War Department (p.139). [Or did he put men there who he could override?] Those who knew him admired him (p.140). McKinley's thinking was formed by the Radical Republicans (p.141). Politics changed with the theories of Herbert Spencer (p.142). Phillips compares McKinley to Lincoln or FDR (pp.156-157), but admits McKinley was a "near great". This short chapter explains why. [McKinley's portrait was on the $500 bill, I think it should be re-issued.]



2. I was very disappointed by this book. As someone who didn't know much about McKinley, I read it with the aim of finding out all the basics about him - who he was, what he did, how he died. Yet after reading it I feel like I know little more than before.
   
   The entire book seems to be written as a rebuttal of other biographers' lackluster opinions of McKinley. Liberally interspersed throughout the narrative are refutations of supposedly popular beliefs about McKinley, from his education to his influence on his successor, Teddy Roosevelt. This would probably appeal to someone who has read several books on the topic, but it is a strange pick for the American Presidents series, which should be a basic primer for the uninitiated. The book says little about what specifics McKinley accomplished in his presidency, says little about the Spanish American War, and says nothing about his assassination, except for where it happened. I feel like I now have to go and look him up on Wikipedia to find the information that was not included in this book. If you are not already quite familiar with the topic, I'd recommend reading something else on the subject first.



3. This is yet another entry into The American Presidents series of brief biographies, under the general editorship of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. One of the more intriguing facets of this series is the sometime use of eminent authors. Here, Kevin Phillips, a political commentator who once projected a Republican majority, writes an interesting work on McKinley, to some extent a political essay as much as a biography. His contention is that McKinley was one of the few really top notch presidents from Lincoln's assassination to FDR's service.
   
   The book argues that McKinley's rise in politics--from the Ohio state political world to president--was largely self-orchestrated. That he took control over his political ambitions (and was not a mere puppet of Mark Hanna, his key political operative later in his political career).
   
   Earlier in the book, his family background is described as is his solid service in the Union Army during the Civil War (indeed, he served with Rutherford Hayes, another American president--and another Ohioan).
   
   As his political career developed, Phillips argues that his political views were more "enlightened," for want of a better term, than many of his Republican peers. He had some sympathy and provided some support for workers; he seemed to have recognized the value of blacks and women having political rights; he exhibited a much more nuanced view of tariffs than standard pro-capitalist Republicans.
   
   When he became president there was one new aspect to his administration--no owing political bosses Cabinet positions and so on; some predecessors were hamstrung by deals made with party leaders in order to gain the office. His defeat of Bryan in the critical 1896 election helped realign politics. Phillips argues that there was another realignment--of America's international role after 1896, presided over by McKinley.
   
   All in all, an interesting take on McKinley as a person and as president. I think that Phillips does make a case that McKinley, while not a great president, might well be ranked as near great. One can be critical of McKinley's imperialism, illustrated by the Philippines and Hawaii. But he laid the groundwork for Teddy Roosevelt's presidency (indeed, Phillips says that Roosevelt's presidency needs to be coupled with McKinley's for something like a McKinley-Roosevelt extended administration from 1897-1909). At any rate, a useful short biography of William McKinley. A strong addition to the series.



4. Kevin Phillips is an odd choice to author a biography on Republican William McKinley but not a surprising selection given that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. is the general editor of this presidential series. The author is a former Republican who worked in the Nixon administration and, like many Nixonians, grew disillusioned with the party and chose to serve penance as a far-left commentator for NPR and other leftist organizations.
   
   The author pursues a thesis that elevates McKinley to the rank of Near Great presidents as judged by occasional polls of historians (polls championed originally by Schlesinger's father, a progressive professor at Harvard who selected fellow progressives to rank the presidents with the unsurprising result that progressive presidents topped the list, ipso facto).
   
   With his bifurcated background, the author denounces McKinley's "middle class" heritage and views, instead touting a hidden progressivism the author espies in McKinley that coulda, woulda, shoulda emerged had only the president not been assassinated. The entire argument is off-mark not only because the author attempts to rebrand McKinley as a liberal progressive but also because recent polls of historians are no longer skewed completely to progressives and have already elevated McKinley, which is the cause célèbre of this biography (i.e. the two most recent polls both list McKinley at #14 all time, which is the rough position the author champions). The author's passion for developing this thesis is the reason that some reviewers lament that the second half of the book is less a biography and more a disjointed argument that McKinley is really a progressive.
   
   As a youth, the author developed an affinity for McKinley. While a member of the Nixon administration, the author shared many values with McKinley but, once he grew older, the author identified with progressives. In this book the author has attempted to translate his own philosophical journey to McKinley. I was not convinced by the argument but then I believe it is fatuous to hold that a president needs to be progressive to be considered successful.
   
   For those interested in McKinley or Teddy Roosevelt, the book is a decent introduction. The author does a good job painting a portrait of the culture and times that forged McKinley. The writing, especially in the beginning when he explores McKinley's Ohio heritage, Civil War service, and initial foray into politics, is well-crafted. Also, the author does an excellent job explaining why the Republicans pursued tariff protections so vigorously during this time period - a position at odds with the party today but understandable given the context of an emerging industrial nation.
   
   Bottom-line: I recommend the book for a quick read given the caveats detailed above but note that the second half of the book is more of a dive into the psyche of the author than an overview of the president.



5. I have read 18 of the books in this series, and this one is by far the least satisfying. Most of the other volumes maintain a balance between the personal life of the president, and his administration and policies. Phillips leans so heavily in the latter direction that I hardly felt I knew anything about the man himself. And can you imagine a book about an assassinated president that contains NO ACCOUNT of the actual crime, and not even a mention of the assassin? Phillips was too busy trying to raise McKinley's sagging reputation (especially in relation to his successor, TR) to give us more details about his life, family, and untimely death. I learned a lot about tariffs, the gold standard, and our relationship with Britain, but not much about McKinley.

5 comments about Ho.

1. This book was less about Ho Chi Minh, and more about why the United States should not fight him. This reader was hoping for a more detailed discussion of Ho's life, his philosophy, etc. This book does over some insights into Ho Chi Minh's character and life, but I was left with the feeling that the book was written for other purposes. The book was originally published in 1970, a year after Ho's death so the book also smacks of the eulogy, glorification of the dead variety.



2. Ho Chi Minh was, in many ways, a mysterious figure. This book reveals some of those mysteries. But also, his stalinist tendencies which caused the death of many of his fellow countrymen and women. Although a revolutionary, he was a stalinist in many ways. Halberstam is such a brilliant writer though, its worth a read.



3. Nations at war like to demonize the leader of their enemy as part of propaganda. This is fine as long as the nation's leaders themselves do not believe in their own propaganda, but instead do their homework and get to truly understand their enemy. This crucial step was missing from America's policy makers during the Vietnam War. Every president involved; JFK, LBJ, to Nixon, did not bother to fully understand Ho Chin Minh, the leader of the Vietnamese Communists. This is why books like this one are so important; written by private individuals, they offer unbiased, insightful glimpses at the other's leader.
   
   This book by David Halberstam is one of his less read books, but being so short in length, it is probably the most focused of his books. This book describes the life of Ho, both private and public, his role in the Vietnam War, and his relations with other world leaders and governments, both before, during, and after the Vietnam War. The treatment of his private life is shorted at the expense of covering more of his public life.
   
   The book does a good job of describing his personal traits that made him a leader: patience, self-sacrifice, humility, and foresight. The book also does a good job of contrasting his personality with others he encountered in battle; Western generals, Western soldiers, and Western politicians. The book is also worth reading because it offers a viewpoint of the Vietnam War as seen by Vietnamese, specifically Ho and his leadership.
   
   I highly recommend reading this book; it is short and easy to read. It is also impartial and straight-to-the-point history, as expected from an author like David Halberstam.



4. I wouldn't order the item if I did not want it or think it of merit. I wanted a copy of the book formyself, and one for my nephew in Oregon. Seemingly your Web page would not allow me to enter two different shipping addresses. Is there a trick, when I entered my home address, my nephews would default to that address. When I entered my nephew's address, then my address would be overwritten by his. Is there a remedy for future orders?



5. David Halberstam was a reporter in Vietnam from 1962-1964 and revealed what was happening. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964. Halberstam used his knowledge of Asia and his abilities as a political reporter to write this biography of Ho Chi Minh. The 'Bibliography' lists his sources. Bernard Fall seems to be his main source. This book lacks an index, a table of contents, and photographs. This 1971 book is basically a magazine article. There are history books that go into more detail and have the advantage of hindsight. Ho Chi Minh liberated his country from colonial rule, a feat that is unusual in history.
   
   Chapter 1 tells how French colonialism began in 1856. In precolonial Vietnam taxes were low, landholdings were small and dispersed, and there were few rich people. The French brought heavy taxes, loans and usury, an increasing poverty among the peasants with rich owners of lands (p.11). The defeat of the French at Dienbienphu was an example to other colonial peoples (p.15). Ho eschewed a cult of personality in favor of simplicity. Chapter 2 tells of his life in France and his becoming an advocate for Vietnamese freedom (p.31). In France Ho sided with those who took the side of people in colonial countries (Chapter 3). Ho lived a clandestine life while traveling to Russia, Western Europe, and Asia. Ho cleverly eliminated a rival (p.44). The VNQDD started a revolt against French rule but they were suppressed and eliminated (p.48). Industrialization increased the number of laborers and strikes.
   
   Vichy France allowed the Japanese occupation of Vietnam (Chapter 4). The Vietminh were the only group that was against both the French and the Japanese (p.69). They also had their military force (p.70) under the leadership of Giap (p.72). The surrender of Japan allowed the Vietminh to take over Hanoi and Vietnam as the legitimate power. A weak France was preferred to a strong China (p.83). The rest of Chapter 5 discusses and explains the victory against the French. The Vietminh won because they had the support of the Vietnamese people. The costs of the war to the French was too great (p.101). Chapter 6 tells about the American involvement in South Vietnam. The land that had been distributed to the peasants was taken away; this created enmity for the Diem government (p.109). Diem depended on American support; when this was withdrawn Diem was finished. The Vietcong was winning by 1964 (p.113). American escalated the war in 1965. The Tet offensive had both a military and a political aim (p.115). Ho Chi Minh died before Vietnam won its independence.

5 comments about The Life of an Ordinary Woman.

1. In an age when autobiographies are considered fascinating only if the writer survived abuse, rape, incest or murder, Ms. Ellis' account is refreshing because she survives life.



2. No matter what your own life experience has been you will find things in this great book that you identify with. This true life experience is from a woman who lived a heroic experience from penniless poverty to being elected to public office, rising above all her own expectations, A wonderful book full of comedy, tragedy, drama, supence, you won't be able to put this book down.



3. With ingenuous humility, Anne Ellis recounts the first phase of her difficult life as if it were a cakewalk. Several passages convey such emotional impact that I remember them months later. A great read for anyone wishing to understand how women really lived in mining towns of the American West around the turn of the century.



4. Ann Ellis is the real deal! She's raw American...living, working, loving, and raising children in the gruelingly hard world of the mining towns of the Rocky Mountains, years before the amenities that we American women take for granted today...things like running water, ample heating, and doctors always available for very sick children.But Ann is tough and savvy, witty, and has a great sense of fun, even in the toughest of times. Her life is richly-laden with deep emotion.Her descriptive style is pure and simple, but takes us right to her heart. She never complains...only explains.You read the book with a great sense of admiration for these strong women who raised strong families,loved their men, had dreams and joyful aspirations, even in times when they were struggling to find their way in this sometimes brutal world of their husbands' lust for gold and silver.This lady was a true pioneer in every sense of the word. Her story should be shared with anyone who finds strength in true accounts of brave American men and women.



5. There are some books about the women of the old west that are far more interesting. The one overwhelming impression I had from this book is how uncaring her family was and how she herself really was a very selfish woman, even wanting to go to a dance the night her child was deathly ill. I would recommend other books such as Doc Susie: The True Story of a Country Physician in the Colorado Rockies and also Tomboy Bride. Both of these books are about intellegent, caring individuals in the same parts of the country and in the same time.

1 comments about The Memoirs of Princess Dashkova.

1. The Memoirs of Princess Dashkova are unique in that they are a first hand account of eighteenth century Russia from the point of view of a noblewoman close to the centers of power at the court of Catherine the Great. As all memoirs do, Dashkova's words present a particular bias-that of an intelligent and privileged upper-class woman in a deferential society who has an agenda she wishes to impress upon the reader. Yet within this memoir are glimpses of Russia in a time of radical and fast-paced changes, in some of which Dashkova herself has a hand.

   It is difficult to credit Dashkova's convictions that she was the first to even conceive of the possibility of Catherine's overthrow of Peter III since Dashkova was eighteen and one of the younger members of Catherine's circle. Although Dashkova was a supporter of Catherine and did have a hand in the plot to over throw the czar, Catherine's memoirs imply that such a coup was envisioned long before the death of the Empress Elizabeth and that Catherine herself was merely waiting for the right moment to act. More plausible is the idea that Catherine had cultivated the young Princess purposely to have a ear in the Vorontsov camp. Dashkova's rendition of events would have her personally picking the conspirators, sending for Catherine's carriage, ordering the Orlovs to bring Catherine to speak to the regiments and almost single-handedly arranging the entire series of events. The most noteworthy point in this account of the coup of 1762 is the fact that it could take place at all in a monarchial state. That the Emperor with the appropriate Russian bloodline could be overthrown by his wife, a Princess of Germany, is remarkable in itself and speaks more of Catherine's perspicacity than of Dashkova or any other supporter.

   Dashkova paints a picture of the Russian court under Catherine as both a place of sycophants and personal favor seekers and of great new ideas and plans for the state as a whole; of wealth and luxury taken for granted by the aristocracy while at the same time there are ongoing economic problems of national significance. Dashkova's Russia has two faces-that of an elegantly coifed and gowned Europeanized noblewoman and that of the peasant-serfs, themselves living in hovels, who out of gratitude for being allowed to work volunteer their labor so that she could build a fine house. The clearest impression of Dashkova and her contemporaries is that typical of the majority of eighteenth century aristocracy-of the disparity between the classes and of the general obliviousness of the upper-class to the misfortunes of the lower.

   Dashkova's lesson to Diderot of the importance of serfdom-as a method by which the enlightened aristocracy protects the hapless peasants for their own good-gives a clear perspective of the hierarchy between the social classes in eighteenth century Russia. Whether the conversation actually took place is less believable than the fact that she, like the vast majority of Russian aristocracy, wholeheartedly subscribed to the theories of absolute sovereignty and enlightened despotism. Even less believable are Diderot's thanks to Dashkova for educating him on the advantages of serfdom. When she meets Voltaire she describes him as being infatuated with her and begging her not to leave. A possible explanation of Dashkova's need to portray herself as such a close confidante and friend to Diderot and Voltaire may lie in a desire to be seen in some respects as Catherine's equal.

   The Princess portrays herself as a highly-educated liberal thinker about ideas she is not willing to put into practice; while at the same time her intention is obviously self-serving propaganda and a desire to share with her audience the esteem she feels she is held in by nearly everyone she meets. In one aside she states: "I would remind my readers that this will only appear after my death, so they cannot tax me with vanity because I repeat things as they were said." This intent to impress is typical of the Russian Court as a whole, especially in their pursuit of Western European approval.

   To give Dashkova some benefit of the doubt it must be pointed out that much of the style of her writing, particularly the overt humility that comes across as insincere, is actually an affectation typical of women writers of the eighteenth century. For women to be accepted as authors or thinkers of any note was rare indeed, and most women of that period, whether writing on political issues like Mary Wollstonecraft or on women's lives like Frances Burney, found it necessary to preface much of what they had to say with some apologizing for simply being female. In that respect Dashkova's memoirs are fairly similar to some of her contemporaries. Where Dashkova must be taken with some skepticism is in those areas where her own accounts differ with the historical record and fortunately Jehanne Geith, Kyril Fitzlyon, and A. Woronzov-Dashkoff have done an admirable job of reporting such issues in the introduction, afterword, footnotes and index of the text. To them belongs the real praise for this fascinating glimpse into eighteenth century aristocratic Russia.