5 comments about The Jewish Confederates (NS).

1. First, I commend Robert Rosen for his dedication to this subject and for publishing this work. I am sure that it ought to be as controversial as recent books (and film) showing dedication of Blacks to the Southern Cause for Independence. I recall as a child watching the march on Montgomery, the seat of the first Confederate Capitol, before it was moved to Richmond. And had it remained in Montgomery, what then?

   Mr. Rosen, an attorney, is clear with his research. Anyone who might wonder why Jews would fight for the Confederacy, or Blacks for that matter, will find this fascinating. Jews from South Carolina, from Louisiana, many of German or Spanish (Sephardic) heritage, were there. I hope that more books, and personal accounts, will follow, from groups whose support for the rights of the States to determine their destinies will be forthcoming. We must learn from history.

   Anyone who would hope to understand what it means to be an American should have this book on the shelf, and read it. To paraphrase Shelby Foote, before this war, the United States could only be conceived of as a plurality, after, a singularity. Yet today, we are no doubt in danger of falling into an abyss of pluralism that threatens any kind of national identity. Yet Irishmen fought one another--at Fredericksburg, and elsewhere--as did Jews, and Blacks, and Hispanics--across stone walls at point-blank range, leaving a legacy of maiming of soul and flesh. We have only to look back 3 score years to the bloodbath of Europe to see we are not yet free.

   Jews fought for home and hearth, "Pro Aris et Pro Focis"--a common Latin phrase embroidered on flags North and South. In the American South, many Jews found that was worth fighting for against an invasion from afar. That experience unites them with us, today.

   Most highly recommended for scholarship and readability!




2. The world is full of people who just don't get it, thanks to the ultra-leftist American media. They consider South "the land of bigotry" and portray the War Between the States, as some sort of referendum on slavery and bigotry. In their minds, the thought a Jew in a Confederate uniform is an oxymoron.

   Of course, the historical record is as clear as a bell-the so-called "Civil War" was a result of high tariffs and the average Southerner's fear of a new political party that sought even more "tax and spend" polices.

   During the antebellum times, Jews were an integral part of the South. A substantial amount of their contribution to the region is still part of the Southern landscape.

   When a Jewish friend of mine from the north side of Chicago recently had an opportunity to travel in the South, he was amazed to learn that the South was not the land of anti-Semitism, as the media-dominated northern urban culture had led him to believe. He was also surprised to discover how much evidence of early Jewish influence in the South still remains.

   Of course, I recommended that he read The Jewish Confederates to help him put it all into perspective. It really shows that many Jewish men and women were proud citizens of the Confederacy.

   Some of the details presented make it clear that many of these brave soldiers of the Confederacy were very serious about their faith and culture. A portion of the book that detail the way the Jewish soldiers were allowed the opportunity to celebrate their holidays was especially enlightening.

   It took a lot of courage on the part of Robert N. Rosen to write such a book. In a day and age when many people arrogantly display their ignorance by equating the Confederate flag with racism, Rosen should be considered national hero for having the guts to bring the world the truth.

   If it were up to me, Rosen's The Jewish Confederates would be required reading for any program on "multiculturalism." It would also be required reading for every liberal history professor who teaches the era of the War Between the States.




3. I've had Jewish friends in Memphis and New Orleans whom I was surprised to learn had Ancestors in the Army of Northern Virgina and the Army of Tennessee. Rosen's book shows that the Civil War truly was a War of Brother against Brother no matter the ties by social status, national origin, or religion.
   
   Rosen has done quite a bit of research and presents his narrative with the recollections, diaries, and letters of the participants and their families and friends. This kind of history by correspondance has always appealed to me more than the memoir type that is carefully thought out later to put the event or individual in the best light.
   
   Rosen presents us with Jews living a normal life in the antebellum South similar to that enjoyed by their White Christian neighbors. The same predjudices and toleration for the "peculiar institution" exist for them as it does for their neighbors but I sense there is more of a toleration amongst this community for the Abolitionists Movement among Antebellum Jews than other groups in the South.
   
   When War comes young men enlist and fight for the same cause as their Christian neighbors and with the same Gallantry. First hand accounts of the struggles and hardships of the War come from the letters soldiers write home to their families.
   
   Rosen presents Jewish Life from the viewpoints of many players from well known Lousiana politician Judah P. Benjamin who held many positions in Jefferson Davis' Cabinet to less well known immigrants from Spain and Germany who started stores in rural Mississippi and Arkansas.
   
   One story that I could not find was that of Sergeant Mordecai Solomon or Solomon Mordecai of Jackson, Mississippi who won the Confederate Medal of Honor at Spotsylvania Court House in 1864 and whose Synagogue was bombed by the KKK 100 years later
   
   The book is a must for Civil War enthusiasts and may be helpful in Geneology research.



4. This is truly a beautiful book. It occupies a prominent place on my library shelf. The subject matter is fascinating, and important. Considering how Jews came to be treated in the South after the Civil War, the story of how Jews other than Judah Benjamin loyally served the Confederacy most certainly should be told.
   
   For telling this story, Robert Rosen deserves credit. But the writing in The Jewish Confederates is pedestrian at best. Most chapters consist of paragraph after paragraph of short recaps of the military service of people with nothing in common other than being Jewish. Rosen diligently did his research, then regurgitated what he found.
   
   In short, I do recommend this book for those interested in either the history of Jews in America or the Civil War, but do not expect to be captivated -- not an unreasonable expectation given the beautiful cover artwork. You will learn, but it will be a chore. Kind of like school, but there are certainly worse ways to spend some time.



5. ....that The Confederacy had Jews. Surprise...A true story: in my exam room, there is always a book on my side table. One day, this was the book; a young girl [I take care of Army Privates] went over and picked it up as if she were touching pork. She informed me that the book was a lie, because there could not possibly have been any Jews in The Confederacy. I pointed to Judah Benjamin's picture among the other Confederate heroes on my wall and told her his story, including the slave owning. She was appalled. She soon knew that the CSA had around 2000 Jews, from Private to Colonel. Then, she asked me the question for which I still have no answer: "How is it that I, a Jew, living in America, don't know that significant a part of my own history?" Sadly, she's a very bright girl, who just didn't know. Much more sadly, BOTH of her parents are history professors. The encounter happened right before Christmas break, and she informed me that she was going to ask her mother about the matter. I gave her several references, and wished her Happy Chanukkah. After the break, she said that her Mom told her that, yes, this is something they knew, but just don't talk about. Look, all of us who deal with history can tell stories of astonishing ignorance. But I've never forgotten that girl; whenever I see ignorance, she reminds me of the obligation that all us who know have to impart [gently] unto those who don't.
   
   Bob Rosen, has, indeed, imparted, and done it superbly. He gives us the story of all the major, and many of the minor, Jews who saluted the Stars and Bars. The two most prominant Jewish Confederates, Judah P. Benjamin, and Phoebe Yates Pember, were civilians, but many wore the gray uniform; Abraham Myers was the Quartermaster General, David DeLeon was the first Surgeon General [Rosen gives the bad with the good; Dr. DeLeon was a drunk, who was soon cashiered]. Major Adolph Proskauer led a charge at Gettysburg, and lived to tell it for many years. Ironically, the two highest ranking Jews killed in the war both fell at Vicksburg, and have monuments near each other. They were Colonels Leon Dawson Marks [Confederate] and Marcus H. Spiegel[Yankee]. Dr. Simon Baruch was a highly respected surgeon during, and after, the war; his son, Bernard, gained fame as a financier. Sgt. Moses Ezekiel was a VMI Cadet who fought at New Market, then was one of the finest sculptors on earth for many years. Many gave much in support; Mrs. Pember's sister, Eugenia Phillips, was a Spy who went to jail twice, and won the hearts of all Southerners by slapping Beast Butler. Rabbis Max Michaelbacher and George Jacobs were central figures in the Richmond religious community. There's even humor here; witness the "damn yankee Jew" asking a child in Norfolk for a piece of matzoah during The Feast of Unleavened Bread.
   
   Interestingly, while the Yankees had around 10,000 Jews in uniform, and the South 2,000, it was the supposedly "racist" South that had Benjamin and Mrs. Pember. Only The Confederacy put Jews in leadership positions. Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis strongly, and openly, supported the Jewish community, while Grant and Sherman were stark-raving anti-Semites.
   
   This is not just a great book, it's an artistic masterpiece. Great illustrations, well presented. The maps of Richmond, Charleston, and New Orleans even show the modern Interstates as reference points; nice touch. Bob Rosen deserves all our thanks, even those of a goyim like me. Do not fail to read this book.

5 comments about Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.

1. The best senator in Congress... and Clymer explains exactly why it is so. A flawed man, who by hard work and diligence, becomes an excellent representative and spokesman for the highest ideals of the republic. An outstanding biography, a story you need to know.



2. Adam Clymer's biography on Edward M. Kennedy is monumental: the result of fastidious research and decades-long stint writing for both the New York Times and Baltimore Sun. What is so skillfully articulated here is a sober account of the Senator's long, strange trip -- from childhood days, under the shadow of older brothers, Jack and Bobby; to the tragedy at Chappaquiddick, effectively incinerating any dreams of securing the Oval Office; to his resurgence as one of the most influential and powerful political leaders in American history.

   Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography, is what Mr. Clymer achieves. There are no speculations, conspiracy theories, or interviews with shady "informants"; only an astute biography of a man who is as brilliant and perseverant a leader as he is controversial and complicated a human.




3. He was the "last" brother, the Kennedy who, despite a (mostly) sterling reputation and record in the Senate, will never become president. And so we are delivered yet another Kennedyana kernel, this one by "New York Times" reporter Adam Clymer. The book fails to capture the spirit and humanity of the man; the insights are surprisingly shallow for such a respected journalist. On the Chappaquiddick incident, during which a young female Kennedy supporter was drowned when the car in which Ted was driving went off the road, leaves Clymer writing the shocking news that Kennedy was a bad driver who "probably" was drinking prior to the accident! A faded rose indeed.



4. In this book, Adam Clymer offers us a well-written, detailed portrait of the life and career of Edward Kennedy, a man who has long labored under the shadows cast by his ambitious family. Burdened by the expectations the came with the family name and tarnished by the self-inflicted wounds of scandal, he nonetheless persevered to become a force in the United States Senate, one whose career the author ranks as one of the greatest in the history of the institution.
   
   Such a judgment certainly reflects Clymer's bias for his subject. But he does make a convincing case for the influential role that Kennedy has played in the Senate over the past three decades. Clymer conveys Kennedy's love for the Senate, which he argues was reflected in his half-hearted attempts for the White House in the 1970s and 1980s. While some may argue that his failure to win the nomination makes any effort to minimize his presidential campaigns a case of sour grapes, Clymer demonstrates how Kennedy thrived in the Senate in a way his brothers - who seemed to treat their careers there as little more than platforms from which to launch their bids for the White House - never did.
   
   Yet Clymer's biography is not without its flaws. As some reviewers have noted, the book occasionally bogs down in the minutiae of legislative maneuvering, the deals and rules that play such an important role of Kennedy's career (and his mastery of which is one of the keys to his influence). Even more troubling, though, is Clymer's inability to reconcile successfully the powerful senator with the dissolute personal character. He acknowledges Kennedy's personal problems but refers to most of them in passing only, which has the effect of reducing Chappaquiddick to an isolated incident rather than the most tragic example of the personal conduct which has defined the man in the minds of many Americans.
   
   In spite of this, Clymer's book stands as an excellent biography of Edward Kennedy. Detailed, insightful, and well-argued, it will remain for some time the best book about the Kennedy brother who might turn out to have been the most important and influential one of them all.



5. Like all of us Teddy's life has been good and bad. I have not gone through deaths of his brothers in such a tragic way. I especially loved Robert. His long tenure in the senate is historic even though I have disagreed with a lot of his beliefs. He also lost 2 sisters tragically. and all of his children have been affected by cancer. His first marriage ended in divorce and alcohol has been a factor of many events. The event in July of 1969 influenced national and personal politics. Overall, he has been blessed with both good fortune and tragedy unspeakable. This book explores them all. And that he has been responsable for 16 children. And now he is in the fight to save his own life. Life has dealt him some really sad things and this book like life is worth your reading.

1 comments about Macmillan: The American Grain Family.

1. Great summer reading, especially if you love biographies. Tells all about the MacMillans starting in Scotland and up to the present. Another family like the Rockefellers or Kennedys but started much earlier and still going strong. Today one of the wealthiest families in the world. Most people have never heard of them.

5 comments about The Queen of Whale Cay: The Eccentric Story of 'Joe' Carstairs, Fastest Woman on Water.

1. Nonconformist is an understatement. Eccentric isn't outre enough. Over-the-top words do not adequately describe Marion "Joe" Carstairs. She was a breakneck ambulance driver in World War I France, a world record-holding speedboat racer, the supreme ruler of her own Bahamian island, and pal to notables such as the Duchess of Windsor, Tallulah Bankhead, and Marlene Dietrich.

   Assigned to write an obituary of "Joe" Carstairs for the London Daily Telegraph, Kate Summerscale soon became fascinated by the woman who held sway in the 1920's as heiress to the Standard Oil fortune. This singular individual wore men's clothing meticulously tailored for her on Saville Row, favored female lovers, was tenaciously devoted to a small leather doll whom she christened Lord Tod Wadley, and managed to thumb her nose at almost every convention.

   As Ms. Summerscale unearthed more and more amazing information about her extraordinary subject, she determined to carry her findings far beyond a terse death notice. The result is The Queen Of Whale Cay, a buoyant, highly readable biography that became a London Times bestseller and nominee for the Whitbread Biography of the Year Prize.

   Estranged from her parents and disliked by a step-father, young "Joe" was sent to boarding school in America. Of this time her diary only records, "Left family aged 11." At the age of 16 she drove ambulances in France, where "Paris was heavily shelled....whole sides of houses fell down and people lay bleeding in the streets."

   Returning to London after the war, "replenished, brimming with vigour and ambition," "Joe" and some friends opened a chauffeuring service, and took on "any driving work, far and near."

   Galvanized by machines and speed, in 1925 Joe used her wealth "to commission the best motorboat money could buy." She was a daredevil on water, competing in races in Britain, Cannes and Detroit, where she vied with the famous Gar Wood.

   Yet, racing was not enough. She sought even greater challenges by leaving England in 1934 to rule and reside on Whale Cay, the Bahamian island she purchased for $40,000. Upon arriving she found the only inhabitants were a black couple who tended the lighthouse. "Joe asked them whether they lit the beacon every night, and they replied, to her amusement, "Only when the weather's good."

   She worked alongside laborers to lay a road from one end of the island to another. A store was built, and a large hole dug then filled with blocks of ice for refrigeration. Her home, the Great House, was constructed with the help of 300 men. It was a "sturdy Spanish villa, white, with red tiles..." From there she had dominion over a colony of 500 Bahamians, and entertained friends from throughout the world.

   During the 1960's, as Bahamians became increasingly independent, the atmosphere on Whale Cay changed, and "Joe" retreated to Miami. In 1975 she sold the island for approximately 1 million dollars. Three years later, deciding she'd had enough of women, she invited a handsome older man to move in with her. Hugh Harrison "stayed with her as a friend and paid companion until she died." In 1993 "Joe" and Wadley were cremated together.

   Generous, outrageous, at times a bold prankster, "Joe" Carstairs defies description. Her life defies fiction. The Queen of Whale Cay is intriguing reading, a candid portrait of a nonpareil, an incorrigible, unconquerable 20th century woman.

   - Gail Cooke




2. I saw this slim volume in the store and was fascinated by the picture on the cover - a woman dressed as a man with a little battered doll on her shoulder - "what in the world is this?" So, I started to read. What a surprise. This is the story of Marion "Joe" Carstairs, a Standard Oil heiress, a champion speed boat driver, friend to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, an unrepentant lesbian, owner of the Caribbean isalnd Whale Cay, and the constant companion of Lord Todd Wadley (yes, a funny little doll). This is one of the most immediately engaging books I've ever read. What a character she was, and what a life she led. "The Queen of Whale Cay" is an absolute charmer from start to finish. Looking for a little slice of forgotten history to while a way some time? This is the book for you.



3. On paper, this book sounds fabulous. A rich, beautiful lesbian lives a scandalous life filled with excitement, traveling around the world, meeting lots of famous people, and making love to dozens of willing female partners. Imagine a Howard Stern sex epic with a sumptuous budget and a Merchant Ivoery feel!
   
   Kay Summerscale does a very professional job as a biographer. Unfortunately, the story is not that exciting. Yes, Joe Carstairs was a rich lesbian, and a rebel, but she was not in any sense a "fun" person. She was apparently some kind of borderline schizophrenic. All she could do to act "manly" was to throw screaming tantrums, smoke, spit and swear. Not an attractive personality. The whole thing with carrying the little doll around for 60 years comes across as sick, not funny or charming.
   
   Read the book for the sumptuous settings and try to imagine someone glamorous, like Gloria Holden (from the lesbian classic DRACULA'S DAUGHTER)having the same adventures, but in a fun way.



4. Kate Summerscale stumbled onto a treasure trove when she was asked in the 12990s to write the obituary for a British daily for M. B. "Joe" Carstairs, an eccentric Standard Oil heiress who had set speedboating records in the 1920s and who literally ruled her own Bahamian island for several decades, not only paying all the inhabitants directly out of her pocket but also establishing their rules and punishments. Carstairs also was one of the great lesbian lovers of the twentieth century, having affairs with dozens of beautiful actresses including Greta Garbo and Tallulah Bankhead--and to top off everything, was obsessed with a small leather manikin she named "Lord Tod Watley" and took with her everywhere, proclaiming him the great love of her life. The material is so terrific that this slim little biography can't help but be a fun read, but the book is held back tremendously by Summerscale's amateurish writing style, which consists of endless flatly declarative sentences and which rarely uses transitions between new ideas. Clearly Summerscale is quite erudite (her allusions to Woolf and Djuna Barnes are not only illuminating but actually quite clever), but the prose was a real drawback to what would have been otherwise a terrific tale.



5. Joe Carstairs comes off as a fascinating study of what it was like to be a moneyed lesbian somewhat outside the usual literary lesbians of the early 20th century. There aren't many stories about these women, and we can certainly use more.
   
   Alas, Carstair's definitive biography is yet to be written. Summerscale uses Freudian analysis-- badly-- and literary allusions-- somewhat better-- to illustrate who and what Carstairs was about. Summerhill basically creates a book that is about 50 years behind the time it was written. It would help if Summerscale had any actual clue about lesbian culture and cultural theory, but it seems she'd rather turn Carstairs into a freak instead of exploring her as an outsider.
   
   The most egregious example of this is early on in the book, in which she talks about how Carstairs "rejects her feminity to reinvent herself." You can't reject what you don't have in the first place. Grounding the biography firmly in the mistaken beleif that a female body will naturally be feminine creates a caricature of Carstairs rather than the fully human characterization she deserves.
   
   This is worth reading, but it's worth reading with a very critical eye on Summerscale's clunky writing and outdated analysis.

5 comments about Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet.

1. If you've read one Akhenaten title you've basically read them all. As with the countless versions which have preceeded Mr. Reeves treatment of the socalled False Prophet, the author reproduces and supports many of the curious claims surrounding the Amarna periods infamous ruler. One area the author appears to make headway is in identifying Amenophis III with the Aten. In detailing Amenophis III and his adoption of the Aten personna as his "deified physical manifestation", Mr. Reeves appears to defend Akhenaten from the status of "False prophet", but he quickly backpeddles and returns to the normal persecution completely ignoring his own statements.
   
   So was Akhenaten a mad religious zealot or merely a devoted son expressing loyalty and love for his departed father? Was Akhetaten a new capitol city or simply the grandest form of tribute to the man whom truly gave him life? If Akhetaten was indeed the capitol city as is claimed then it appears that the new Pharoah was more of a visionary than many of his predecessors as the location of this new city was a centralized location. Halfway between the old capitols of southern and northern Egypt "as Mr. Reeves points out". This would serve to unify the country and make the Pharoah and his court more accessible to the population and not isolate them as is claimed in this book. Another curious and unverified claim adopted by the author from previous sources is the decline of the Egyptian empire under Akhenaten. As I have said this is an often repeated claim which is never verified. None of the authors who preach of the Egyptian empires decline under Akhenaten ever present verifiable facts to support their claim and Mr. Reeves is no differnt.
   
   Most desturbing is the introduction of often repeated claims of incest on behalf of Akhenaten, again I would ask where except in the mind of the author is the proof of this? What Mr. Reeves does is introduce some very interesting ideals only to shrink back into long excepted ideals and accusations. I can only speculate as to the reason for Egyptology's deep animosity toward Akhenaten as he is befar the most reviled figure in Egypt's history. The hatred expressed for the man and his ideals by those who study him from a distance seperated by thousands of years is almost always skewed in the most vile manner. The use of bricks and usurption of temples constructed by Akhenaten by later rulers is helf up as proof of the hatred the man engendered with his ideals. Yet it is completely ignored that Ramesses "the offending Pharoah" did the same to his own father's constructions. So was Akhenaten anymore hated than any of his predecessors by his own or he simply viewed as a threat by outsiders struggling to make sense of a history long ago written?



2. If you are fascinated with ancient Egypt, do not miss this non-fiction book about Pharaoh Akhenaten,which reads like a well-written novel. The mysterious Pharaoh Akhenaten, who tried to introduce one god, Aten, and overthrow the all the other gods, and became known as the "great heretic" is one of the most interesting and debated historical figures of all time. It is beautifully illustrated with photographs. It also has an early section that summarizes the history of the period up to that point, and it continues on to the reign of his son Tutankhamun. Worth the photographs alone, but well written, not dry.



3. The subject of Reeves' book is Akhenaten; a Pharoah who attempted to remake Egyptian society from country where a host of gods and idols were worshipped to a monothiestic society which recognized only one god: the Aten, or sun disc.
   
   Reeves looks further back than most other authors for the origins of the Aten cult, seeing not just the trend of a priesthood that was becoming more and more politically powerful but also in other events during the 17th and 18th Dynasties which might have effected Akenaten's thinking. Reeves also discusses archeological proof as he tells the story (as it is known) and writes about different theories to explain this or that. Reeves does NOT fall into the trap of discussing the Aten cult as predecessor or influence on Judaism, which has become fashionable as of late. Overall, a good book.



4. Akhenaten has to be one of the most fascinating characters in Egyptian history and the deliberate destruction of much the documentation of his historical legacy by subsequent Pharaohs often leaves the Amarna period open to the wildest of speculations. Nicholas Reeves presents a wealth of information in this book, often including many quotes from original sources and photos of original art work so that the readers can judge some of his conclusions for themselves.
   
   The book is carefully researched and the general argument that Akhenaten used his religious beliefs to legitimate his power is well supported by the evidence quoted. This does not of course preclude the notion that Akhenaten was sincere in his beliefs and Reeves does not suggest this. In fact it seems far from illogical that a ruler of ancient Egypt could have believed he was the son of god.
   
   Many of the conundrums of Amarna history are argued in a very balanced way in the book. Reeves effectively debunks the theories that Akhenaten was homosexual or that his appearance in statuary was due to Froehlich's syndrome. He provides interesting evidence in relation to suggestions that Akhenaten may or may not have suffered from Marfan's syndrome and that Nerfertiti may or may not have been promoted to the status of co-regent. At times, however, Reeves takes fairly extreme positions based on somewhat flimsy evidence. He claims that Akhenaten's 'dictatorial rule' led Egypt to the 'brink of disaster', that Akhenaten's rule involved 'wanton destruction' and 'deliberate neglect'. He describes the later years of Amarna as a 'terror' and suggests that Pharaoh's lover Kiya had an evil personality and may have been pulling strings behind the scene. These extreme positions are supported with arguments based on evidence where the author and purpose of the documents quoted is often ignored. One document marshalled in favor of the sorry state Egypt had descended into was written by a priest of Amun, who would obviously have had a significantly biased agenda.
   
   Overall though, the book is extremely readable and paints a fascinating picture of power politics in Egypt, where priests, generals and the Pharoah himself vie for power and influence in a manner so typical of politics throughout the history of mankind that it certainly rings true.



5. If you are remotely interested in the reign of Akhenaten, which most of us interested in Egyptology are, you can find enough different depictions of the man to leave you thoroughly confused. Was he a pragmatic politician out to break the power of the Amun priesthood (Aldred)? A megalomaniac who enjoyed watching his people broil in the noon-day sun (Redford)? A predecessor of Moses seeking truth in monotheism (Hornung and Lorton)? The deranged gay lover of his brother Smenkhkare (Allen Drury?) Or something else? Where Reeves sticks to the generally-agreed facts provided by recent research, he produces a good and very readable book on the Amarna period. But his own theories, many of them still controversial among Egyptologists (that Smenkhkhare was really another name for Nefertiti, that the late 18th Dynasty were a homicidally dysfunctional family in which Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Tutankhamen were all murdered in succession, that the skeleton found in a disordered tomb near Tutankhamen's is actually that of Akhenaten, and that the woman's mummy found in a side room of the tomb of Amenhotep II is Nefertiti) keep getting in the way of the facts. In order to get a really thorough view of Akhenaten, I recommend reading all of the above treatments (well, maybe not Drury, since it is admittedly a novel), which will show you not the whole truth about Akhenaten, but how much we DON'T know about him after over a century of research.

5 comments about The Kennedys: An American Drama.

1. One of the first things you will see are family-trees at the beginning of every part, where you can see all the members of the family, their children and their birth- and deathdates. Unfortunately for the Kennedy family many died prematurely, as is well recognized.
   
   Most Kennedy books will be focused on John F and his brother Robert F who were both shot. But in this book they still play main parts, but not the only ones. The book starts when the Kennedy's, and Fitzgeralds, came to America and how they quickly rose in first Boston and later American society, even though they had one big disadvantage; they were Irish.
   
   JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz became mayor of Boston by using the Irish vote. Joe Kennedy Sr. started out selling newspapers but was soon a movie producer, even having an alleged affair with movie star Gloria Swanson, something his sons would later copy with Marylin Monroe of course.
   
   Then came the biggest move in Joe Kennedy's life; he became Ambassador in England under Roosevelt, with whom he had a somewhat strained relationship. He would ever since be referred to as the Ambassador, even in his own family.
   
   Collier and Horowitz make it clear that the Ambassador is the most important member of the Kennedy family and that every child's actions are in some way related to him. The story is sometimes a little TV-movie sentimental, but whould would you do if you lose 4 children when you are still alive. The oldest son Joe dies in a WWII plane crash, his oldest daughter marries but loses her noble husband soon and dies herself in a plane crash a few months later.
   
   And of course there are the deaths of JFK and RFK.
   
   It's certainly not a hagiography telling how great the Kennedy's were. Old Joe Kennedy is sometimes shown as a towering figure who completely dominated his family's life until his stroke. JFK got his last rites twice and was often very sick with pain in his back and Addisson's desease. His medication is mentioned in the book and also are his numorous flings with women in the White House, his own house, even Airforce One. RFK seems to have been the most moral person and I believe the authors feel that way too. They explain his religion, his fight against organized crime and Jimmy Hoffa and also his meetings with minorities all over the world. He seemed to have had the Kennedy promise even more than his brother Jack or later Ted.
   
   The last part of the book is devoted to the next generation who cannot seem to deal with their heritage and often get into trouble, it seems as if everyone in the family is doing drugs, the last Kennedy death in the old edition, even loses his life because of it.
   
   It's a gripping story that sometimes reads like a novel. I think it gave a balanced story of the family with the good but also the bad, which made them even more human. It's a lot clearer now why the family was so loved and hated at the same time.
   
   A must-read for Kennedy-admirer and Kennedy-hater alike.



2. Well written and engaging, the book surveys three generations of Kennedys over four sections, beginning with how Joseph Patrick Kennedy shaped his family and gave his sons a calling (Architect of Their Lives) then moves on to how his sons Jack and Bobby developed their public careers following Joe, Jr.'s death in WWII (The Stand In) then moving to the peak Kennedy years of Jack's Presidency and Bobby's campaign (Brothers Within). The drama ends as both a sad farce describing Teddy's troubles and as a tragedy invading the lives of the lost generation of Kennedy children (The Lost Boys).
   
   The book centers, as did the family, around the elder Joseph Kennedy and his wife, the queenly Rose Fitzgerald. JPK's generosity and his sincerity surprise the reader given his raw ambition, his selfishness, his manipulation of people, his womanizing, and his incompetence as a diplomat. All this was equaled only by his talent as a business man and in the end surpassed by his devotion as a father. On the other hand, Rose comes off rather dry and unappealing, which is a little difficult to believe given that she had nine children.
   
   A disturbing revelation of the book was how high on drugs (usually prescribed) Jack was during his presidency. His awful health mandated pain killers and other drug therapies to allow him to function, but at the same time must have affected his judgment and his ability to work. Given the confrontational character of the Kennedys, one shudders to think of how badly the Cuban crisis could have turned out.
   
   I have two strong criticism of the book. First, not enough space is given to JPK's most important contribution to the United States: he created and established the Securities and Exchange Commission, which gave the USA for decades a virtual monopoly on fair and transparent financial markets. (President Roosevelt apparently responded to critics of this appointment that "it takes a crook to catch a crook".)
   
   Second, in the interest of protecting privacy, the material on the last Kennedy generation should have been left out. The book was published in 1984 when the lost Kennedys were still in their teens and twenties. The authors needlessly (though with sympathy) sensationalized sad stories, at too early a time in those lives to pass any sort of critical judgment.
   
   The most interesting discovery for me was Lem Billings. He basically followed all three generations: best friend to Jack Kennedy, reassuring JPK that his son had someone supporting him outside the family, and surrogate father to some of the young Kennedys after Bobby's assassination until his death in the early 80s. A short book on Billings would be welcome.



3. I read this book in 1984 and found it quite relevant and enlightening at the time. I am glad that the third generation has gotten itself together and are doing good things.
   
   I have also notice that any books written after Jackie's death have a wealth of information! President Kennedy is a real person (not some far off statesman). Jackie's plus and minuses are explored and she becomes human too! The way she raised Caroline and John was amazing and they seemed to have avoided any of the pitfalls of their other cousins. Except the most devastating one of course and that was will always be a great tragedy of a young life unfinished.
   
   Another excellent book written at the same time is Doris Goodwin's: The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga. John B. Davis, Jackie's first cousin has written serveral books on Jackie, Kennedy's and the Mafia. You will not be disappointed.



4. Heard the taped version of THE KENNEDYS: AN AMERICAN
   DREAM by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
   
   This was a controversial NEW YORK TIMES bestseller when
   it was published in 1984, and I can see why . . . it tells the
   story of a dysfunctional family over three generations, centering
   around the elder Joseph Kenney and his wife Rose Fitzgerald . . . it then
   moves on to tell how his sons Jack and Bobby moved into the
   limelight via their careers in elected politics . . . and the book
   concludes with an account of Teddy's troubles, as well as those
   of the younger Kennedy children.
   
   Along the way there was adultery, drug usage (particularly by
   Jack during his presidency), alcoholism, and a variety of characters
   who mostly come across as not very lovable . . . perhaps only Lem
   Billings, JFK's best friend and subsequent family advisor, comes
   across in any sort of favorable light.
   
   My main criticism of THE KENNEDYS had to do with the last
   part . . . many of the younger Kennedys were portrayed in a negative
   fashion and though they may have had their difficulties while in
   school, several settled down and went on to careers in public
   service . . . consequently, I could have done without some
   of the dirt that seems to have been found.
   
   Yet that is probably what gives this book its appeal, so I'd
   recommend it if you want both the good and the bad about the
   Kennedy family . . . in addition, the narration by Joseph
   Campanella was outstanding and added to my enjoyment
   of listening to this tale about a dynasty that had to face
   so much tragedy over the years.



5. I was pretty disappointed. I have read a lot on individual Kennedys, and was looking for something to tie them all together. This book is very surface level, and practically ignores the women in the family. I know it is more interesting to cover the successful politicians (all male at the time of first publishing in 1984) and the drug abusers (apparently also all male, but still not sure), but a word or two about some of the other Kennedys would have been nice. For example, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who founded the special olympics, gets only passing mention. All in all an interesting read, but mostly because the family (faults and successes) is so compelling, not because of the writing.

3 comments about Manchurian Legacy: Memoirs Of A Japanese Colonist.

1. Manchurian Legacy is the book,I wished that I could have read when I was in the sixth grade.Readers of that age group could easily identify with the character of Kazuko as a young woman. It is rare to find a book that can appeal to both young and old readers. The author, Kazuko Kuramoto apologizes for her writing, as English is her third language. I believe, this is what makes the book so readable. She does not bog the reader down with flowery language. What Kazuko does give the reader is a feeling of what it was like to have lived in Manchuria as a colonialist before and doing WW II.The real charm of the book is that it does not assume the reader has any knowledge of the historical events that shaped the narrative.A brief explanation that doesn't bog down the story gives you a context to understand and enjoy her memoir. The immense popularity of a book, "Angela's Ashes" shows that readers have a desire for personal stories of the ordinary man. Kazuko's story deserves to be read by as wide a audience as "Angela's Ashes"



2. Recently I was given this book to read by a friend who is preparing to teach a university course on Japanese culture and women's narrative. I am voraciously reading the books that she is considering for her course and giving her feedback. I couldn't put this book down and cried at the end. What more can one say? I sit here now as a foreigner living in Japan and find this book offers me a window into Japanese history, culture and the voice of women that is not normally acknowledged. Everyone should read this book.



3. I ended up reading the book, Manchurian Legacy, in one sitting even though I had a lot of other things to do. That is rare for me. The story mesmerized me as I felt like I was learning something about my roots, my mother.
   
   My Japanese mother, to get away from the merciless firebombing of her city, at the age of 19 volunteered as a member of a repatriation team assigned to travel to Manchuria and to help in the repatriation of Japanese colonials there. After training for about a month, she flew to a city in the center of Manchuria on what happened to be the same day that the Russians invaded. She had quite an adventure hiding, being captured, incarcerated, starving, transported by rail in box cars and then force marched thru Korea, to be saved ironically by the enemy American soldiers that she was trying to escape. I am amazed at what she had to go through to get back to Japan.
   
   Not only did this book gave me an insight to what life was like in Manchuria for the Japanese during the end of World War II, it also gave me a glimpse of post-war Japan where both my father and father-in-law were stationed as part of the occupation forces. The stories about the period during the Russian invasion and how they and the local Chinese treated the Japanese colonials was very revealing. Even though Mrs. Kuramoto's experience was not so harrowing as my mother's adventure, the description of the area and the everyday life of the colonials helped me to understand this period of history in this part of the world.
   
   Even though the second part of the book about post-war Japan did not relate to my mother since she had a support system in place when she returned to Japan, the description of Mrs. Kuramoto's experiences with members of the American occupation force helped me to understand the situation that my father lived through during his term of duty in Japan.
   
   Enough of how the book impacted me. Here is a synopsis of the book: The Manchurian Legacy is a story about the life of a young woman born in Manchuria to Japanese parents living there during World War II. Her father is a minor Japanese government official which gave the family trappings of luxury which were not enjoyed by the local occupied Chinese residents. Kazuko was a patriotic 17 year old and to her parent's dismay, volunteered to join the Red Cross to aid in the war effort against the corrupt capitalists and communists. When Japan surrendered, the Russians invaded and the Chinese revolted, sending the Japanese colonialists into hiding. How the colonialists fared over the next year is a testament to their entrepreneurship and tenacious desire to survive in a culture hostile to their former oppressors. The post-war portion of the book focused on how Kazuko coped in Japan after being shipped there on U.S. transport ship and after being rejected by other relatives. This is also a story of her relationship with soldiers and contractors with the American occupation forces, and her struggles in a country not so accepting of the returning colonialists.
   
   A great read and highly recommended.

5 comments about John F. Kennedy: A Biography.

1. Michael O'Brien's magisterial book offers a necessary rejoinder to the "Dark Side of Camelot" school of thought. While still criticizing Kennedy's reckless behavior, O'Brien presents Kennedy as a thoughtful and engaged politician with tangible accomplishments including arms control, civil rights, and tax policy. O'Brien explains how political realities limited Kennedy's ability to implement more liberal policies.
   
   O'Brien aims for a comprehensive understanding of Kennedy and his political work, which includes addressing past writers. Consequently his length is understandable. Non-academic readers will appreciate that the book is not cluttered by footnotes, but scholars may find them on a website.



2. Michael O'Brien is to be commended for writing a lengthy, well-written tome at this late juncture on the late, great JFK, especially post-Robert Dallek's masterful "An Unfinished Life", a VERY hard act to follow, indeed. O'Brien's book is a worthy companionn to Dallek's and, while it treads a lot of familiar ground, it is worthwhile for all Kennedy fans. Get this!



3. I read this book after reading the Caro series on Lyndon Johnson and this book fell short of my expectations. I felt that too many facts and stories where thrown together without a supporting theme or purpose. Also, I thought a disproportionate amount of time was spent on Kennedy's private life.



4. This great biography was written by an academic historian who gathers and compares several sources, yet the publisher to cut costs cuts the footnotes, which are of essential and greatest interest. In our era of intellectual property and knowledge as commodity, the publisher did not wish to provide the reader with specific indications for further study through the footnotes. With the collapse of the Internet we may never know what amplifications and insights the author may have included in these footnotes, which were no doubt as exhaustive as the work itself. How could the once great St. Martin's have been so academically irresponsible for commercial purposes? It is as inexplicable as our once great nation's journey from the intelligent JFK to the solipsistic W.



5. The 1960 election was one of the closest. John Kennedy was Catholic, and many voters were against him for that reason. Kennedy's critics still question whether the Vietnam War would have been fought had Nixon won. It may not have been. On the other hand, there may have been a nuclear war. We will never know. It is part of the controversy of those years. Kennedy is remembered for his moon speech to Congress in 1961: "I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." In 1962, Kennedy confronted Khrushchev over Cuba. The U.S. could not allow Soviet missiles 100 miles off the Florida coast. John Kennedy and First Lady Jackie brought an elegance to the White House emulated by successors Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Kennedy's assassination in Dallas in 1963 is something America is still dealing with, like Pearl Harbor before it and 9/11 after it. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he assassinated Kennedy. Conspiracy theories are false. The grassy knoll is a figment of the imagination. Oswald was a loner and a misfit. He was a marksman. He shot Kennedy from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository as his motorcade passed below. He fled and hid in a theater but was quickly apprehended. Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald. He said he did it out of sympathy for Jackie. There was no reason not to believe him.

5 comments about Mrs. Robert E. Lee: The Lady of Arlington.

1. I always find it interesting to read about famous people's lives, but especially about the people who have been behind the scenes so to speak and little is told about them. That is why I found this book so interesting. Robert E. Lee is well known as the civil war general who surrendered and the war ended, of course, but to read more about his wife and get an insight to his family life made it hard to put the book down. There are some basic history rehashed somewhat in this book, but over all I found the book very personable and engaging in letting me know something about this woman whom I had never really heard of before. It also will show readers that no matter how famous a person may be, all people have their troubles and sorrows- and a lot of how life turns out to affect you depends on your reaction to what has happened in one's life. If you enjoy anything about the Civil War, this book would be a definite must !



2. This books give the reader a facinating insight into a woman who is too often over looked in history. It is the story of a woman, who's family members were on the front lines of America's early history, and who was a loving and supportive wife to the famous Robert E. Lee. History is full of stories of his life, especially during the Civil War, but the reader of this book will find that his wife was courageous in her own right, and worthy of historical note.
   After reading this wonderful book, I found two other books which were just and wonderful and insightful about the Lee Family. They were "Growing up in the 1850's", the jouranl of Agnes Lee, and "The Lee Girls".



3. I read this book in three days as it was very well written, but did not, in my opinion give a very favorable view of Mary Lee. It portrayed her as self-centered, and like her father, more obsessed with the Washington connection than with the Lee connection. It pictures him as madly in love with her, I just cannot figure out why? I think it is very telling that none of their daughters chose to marry. Already a huge fan of his, the book only reinforced my good opinion of him.



4. THE BOOK WAS VERY WELL WRITTEN.MADE ME THINK I WAS LIVING IN THE TIME. I COULD NOT LAY THE BOOK DOWN,I EVEN GOT ON THE ARLINGTON SITE AND LOOKED AT SOME GREAT PICTURES OF ARLINGTON AS I WAS READING THE BOOK AND THIS MADE THE BOOK ALL THE MORE INTERESTING. GREAT AUTHOR.



5. In this outstanding biography, Mr. Perry introduces the reader to Mary Custis Lee, the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington and the wife of Robert E. Lee. She was a well-educated, strong, loving, caring woman, who, during the Civil War, lost her home, kept her family together, and supported her husband. Through his extensive research, Mr. Perry has been able to disprove many of the rumors and myths about Mrs. Lee. Once you start this book,you won't be able to put it down. It is a must read for anyone who is interested in the personal stories of this critical time in American history. Bob and Cherie Allen-Authors A "Guest" of the Confederacy The Civil War Letters and Diaries of Alonzo M. Keeler, Captain, Company B, Twenty-second Michigan Infantry

5 comments about Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi.

1. In a democracy every one has a right to voice his opinion something 'a reader' doesn't understand... instead he jumps to the obviously childish accusations and insinuations which makes his review all the more entertaining. Unlike the 'reader' I actually gave historical facts. Instead of countering any of those facts, Mr anonymous reader has used incendiary vocabulary which has only helped to strengthen my case ...

   Having been educated in the United States, the World's GREATEST democracy, I highly doubt that my history has been 'military guided' or the product of onesided theology(To which as a secularist I take strong exception). If the 'reader' feels that my treatise on Jinnah is fiction, be advised that the material I used was from 'Jinnah of Pakistan' by Stanley Wolpert the same author whose current book he is giving 5 stars to...

   Gandhi might have been a great leader, but no one can deny that he is responsible for bringing religion and superstition into politics for the purposes of mobilization. No one can deny that one of the man's massive appeals is his 'exoticism' (his half naked antics, his dhoti, his religious mumbo jumbo) which gives the warm tingly feeling to a sensitive but unaware westerner... In contrast the well dressed Barrister Mohammed Ali Jinnah seems quite ordinary ....

   That is the irony of the study of History in our times... ofcourse you have to be Winston Churchill to look beyond such facades... it is well known that Churchill held men like Jinnah and Ataturk in much greater esteem than walking wonders of the world like Gandhi.

   Next time instead of petty accusations choose the facts please...




2. Stanley Wolpert looks behind the enigmatic icon of India's "Great Soul" and paints a lucid picture of what motivates Gandhi to invite suffering for political, religious and environmental causes? The historian offers numerous interesting insights that are gleaned from Gandhi's privileged childhood, barrister days, and early campaigns in South Africa. Wolpert dissection of various clues reveals how he became a living god. Hinduism, Christianity, and Buddhism were early influences that lead him to develop a philosophy of nonviolence.
   
   Wolpert exposes inner conflicts that plagued Gandhi while he maintained the difficult road of "ahimsa" (nonviolent love). One such inner conflict was his battle with lust (a naked Gandhi slept besides his assistants). However, Gandhi's faith in "ahimsa" for India and the world proved to be stronger.
   
   Fasting, imprisonment, boycotts were some of the peaceful weapons he imposed. Behind every action was a message of love and peace. Gandhi's vision to free India, banish untouchability, and make India viable rested on a crux notion: there is no gain through the horrors of modern war and power. The frail thin man warns, "Retaliation is no remedy. It makes the original disease much worse." Gandhi's legacy list luminaries such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama and countless other leaders. Wolpert's biography is a page-turner that competes with the best of fiction. "Gandhi's Passion" will give the reader a crisp view of the complex man and his times.
   
   Bohdan Kot



3. This book dwells more on the failures of Gandhi's methods than others I have read. It describes how he tried unsuccessfully over several years to reach an accommodation with Jinnah over Hindu-Moslem relations in India. Curiously - more than other books - Wolpert says there was a wide split between Nehru and Gandhi. It also mentions the attraction that several Westerners had for him - Margaret Slade, Charlie Andrews... Wolpert dwells on some of the negative (or questionable) aspects of Gandhi's behavior - his repressed sexuality, the relationship with his children and his sleeping with young woman (strictly on a platonic level says Wolpert as well as several other authors).
   Gandhi's quest for change in a peaceful and truthful way is what has made him a great leader who will be remembered for centuries. He has left a timeless legacy in India. It is one reason why India is at the forefront of developing countries today. This willingness for open dialog and conflict between leaders (which Gandhi encouraged) is seldom seen in developing countries.
   The book also has an interesting bibliography of writings on India.



4. Overwhelmed by the hundreds of books already available scrutinizing, criticizing and or eulogizing the controversial life of Gandhi, Wolpert's dilemma when he thought of writing a book about Gandhi was what would he write that others have not written yet. Nevertheless, after so much introspection he has decided to write this book tempted by the significance of Gandhi's teachings in the wake of India's nuclear test of 1998. But, unfortunately, his attempt is falling woefully short of providing any new information on the life of Gandhi or is unable to challenge a critical mind on the life of one of the great and yet controversial figures of the 20th century.
   
   In his work, Wolpert portrays a dutiful Gandhi of esteemed ideas and vision. But by often succumbing to Gandhi's saintly aura, Wolpert is unable to provide valuable insight from a historian's perspective on the circumstances and events leading to the spiritual development of Gandhi that we saw in him starting in South Africa, a topic that not many historians (may be except Judith Brown) tried their hands on and succeeded. Without any analysis of that sort, his work is nothing but yet another addition to the mundane category of political biography of Gandhi.
   
   Contrary to the popular belief that Gandhi is the culprit for the partition, Wolpert has given many proofs from history for how the partition could not have been avoided despite Gandhi's many overtures and thus was absolving Gandhi completely from the crime. While that should be the right thing to do, Wolpert is also pointing out Gandhi's reluctance to listen to C.R. Das's (one of Gandhi's staunch supporters) candid and most plausible plea to Gandhi to accept Jinnah's proposal and work towards a peaceful partition. Gandhi who knew British's indifference to India's plea for political reforms after the First World War was not quite optimistic nor was he willing to sway from his stubborn position on the idea of unified India. Then at the end, Gandhi was completely sidelined by Nehru from the final politics of Mountbatten and was not even been consulted for his advice on partition. Wolpert could have done an excellent comparative study on the positive impacts of a partition with the whole Muslim population transmigrating leaving India's fate in the hands of its Hindu majority who nonetheless is the true denizen of the land. None of the historians I know have used this lost chance judiciously in repudiating Gandhi for not having taken that stance when Jinnah could not be budged from his insistence on partition. The partition should not had to be bloody had the leaders of both India and Britain shown more patience and done more planning. Though the freedom may have come late, the constitutional method for achieving India's freedom would have been less bloody.
   
   Another `failure' that is blamed on Gandhi and which Wolpert roughly touched on is his handling of his family affairs. When he was trying to bring up a whole country in line with his principles, doing anything contrary for his children would be very un-Gandhian, and none can deny the fact that he loved all his kids and given basic education and support. One has to look into the details of the events leading to the alienation of some of his kids before putting blame on Gandhi. Wolpert having surely known some of these events has not attempted to put blame on Gandhi. In his wife's case, Gandhi had given complete liberty for her to break away from him if she chosen so. Kasturba, being an illiterate and having nothing to stand on her own, have nothing else to do than supporting her husband. It was too late by the time Gandhi realized that a man devoted to the service of people should never have a family or indulge in pleasures.
   
   Gandhi had many qualms for western civilization but was not quite so for industrialization. What he against was machines stealing the jobs of millions of India's idle hands. He found imperative that these idle hands had to be employed first before bringing in machines. In fact Gandhi said that he was not against machines and would welcome it for anything that is beyond the capacity of people. He was wary about accepting a civilization, of which industrialization is a part of, that was (still is) in it's infancy in the place of a seasoned civilization that is thousands of years old. Gandhi's was a vision in which everything had its own time and place. For him one step at a time was good enough.
   
   Even for freedom, Gandhi gave a proper time and place for its happening. He asked what difference it makes whether India is ruled by British or Indians as long as both have little knowledge of the real problems of India. Gandhi had a clear vision of India's future where both India and Britain work together as equal partners in a commonwealth enterprise not in a system of masters and slaves. Jalianwala Bagh massacre, Rowlatt act and the atrocities that followed in Punjab made him realize that British was not willing to see India on par and there started his opposition to the crown. Wolpert is unable to substantiate this most crucial transformation of Gandhi's political life that had had far reaching repercussions in the India's freedom struggle.
   
   On the controversial topic of Gandhi's experiments with girls, Wolpert is groping in the dark unable to grasp the spiritual and psychological connotations of such experiments. One would have to believe that Gandhi never had any physical relations with any of his female disciples because none of the historians have made any indication on the contrary. In Manu's (one of the girls with whom he slept) book on Gandhi too she considered him only as her own `Mother'.
   
   Wolpert's work is not devoid of blemishes either. He seems to have mistaken the meaning of Surendranath (in Hindu mythology it means king of all skies) as `Surrender Not' while referring to Surendranath Banerjea, a foremost political leader of British India. The fact is `Surrender Not' is the nickname that the British had given to Surendranath Banerjea (because Surendranath sounded more like `Surrender Not' when pronounced by the British) for his steadfast support for political reforms in British India. On another occasion Wolpert erroneously assumed Gandhi a true nationalist as early as in 1905 while referring him for indirectly supporting the British rule in the West Bengal by the statement Gandhi made in which he said it was the responsibility of British to quell the communal riots that broke out in Bengal in the wake of the partition, than blaming British for the partition itself. Gandhi considered himself as a true British loyalist as late as 1919 and on no account his loyalty to the crown had ever been questioned as early as in 1905.
   
   Topics on Gandhi should not have to run out especially when our world is in such a sad state of affairs (I am not trying to be cynical here) in spite of all the `advancements' we made. What we need is a new generation of writers who have gone through the effects of modern wars, proliferations of nuclear weapons, impact of globalization, disintegration of morals, effects of depletion of natural resources, environmental pollution, economical imbalance, starvation of millions etc. to take a fresh look at his teachings and interpret them in the context of aforementioned impacts in the world. Gandhi said that so much advancement is made in the field of `violence' and equal amount of advancement could be made in the field of `non-violence' also. What Gandhi did was laying the foundation of that institute. Sadly, in the last 50 years since his death, not many studies have been conducted in that institute.
   
   Despite its cerebral shortcomings, Wolpert's book on Gandhi could be recommended for anyone who is looking for a rudimentary introduction to Gandhi and the struggle in which he was part of during the early 20th century.



5. This is an uneven and oddly structured biography of Mahatma Gandhi. The author is well-versed in Gandhi's letters, books and speeches, from which he quotes at length to tell the story of Gandhi's amazing personal life and political career. He is less successful, however, at painting in the background information needed to make sense of all the details. Readers unfamiliar with Hinduism, untouchability, Hindu/Muslim communal relations, Congress Party politics, or Britain's imperial system would have a hard time making sense of the narrative. For specialists only.