TRAGEDY AND HOPE(1966): A History of the World in Our Time written by Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley. The book covers the period from 1880 to 1963. Quigley's assertion that a secret society led by Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and others had considerable influence over British and American foreign policy in the first half of the twentieth century. From The outer ring of this society was the semi-secret Round Table groups. The book is based on archived files from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yes, Quigley is some real history, unlike the stuff this guy is touting. The four books he features are all attempts to narrate "the history" of periods spanning centuries -- a silly and impossible proposition in itself. Since we're Americans, also, I find it strange that he includes nothing about our own history. I'll nominate these six: Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York, Oxford, 1976) Brooks Adams, The Law Of Civilization And Decay (New York, Macmillan, 1896) Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: the Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901 (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1934 Ferdinand Lundberg, America's 60 Families (New York, Vanguard, 1937). John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler, 2004; new ed. 2016) David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government (New York, HarperCollins, 2015).
Great video! I never comment but You just recommended books about subjects that I am most interested in and never could find a good book about. Thank you❤️
The top history book I've read (and am re-reading) is: The Penguin HIstory of the World by J. M Roberts and Odd Arne Westad. I also suggest Black Lamb and Grey Falcon by Rebecca West.
Do you know about SPQR by Mary Beard? I got that to learn the Romans more, hopefully it is good. The modern Middle East book sounds interesting, although I want to get a book that talks about the ancient Middle East and then read modern book. Any recommendations?
“A Distant Mirror” Tuchman. “Guns, Germs, Steel, and History” Diamond. “the Outline of History” Durants. “A World Lit Only by Fire”. I didn’t realize this concentration was on the Middle East
Hmm. Interesting. But consider Frances Parkman’s History of France and England in America. How about Barbara Tuchman Guns of August? Anne Applebaum Gulag and Red Terror. You can find Gibbon in an abridged version. Plutarch? Just a few other suggestions.
Fun list, thanks! But I should note that there is no such thing as an unbiased history book. To say a book is unbiased is simply to say you agree with the book's bias.
'The Thirty Years War', by Wilson along with his general book on the HRE, and of course Braudel's great history of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II.
I would add The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. He was a foreign correspondent in Germany during Hitlers rise to power. Still considered, one of the best works on the political history of the Third Reich. Shirer is homophobic which comes into view from a few comments, but fortunately they are very few. If nothing else it is a good cure for all the nonsense that is online about the Nazi's and who is like the Nazi's and what the Nazi's did or didn't do.
Read Shirer's 'The Collapse of the Third Republic', about the ruling class mutiny against the government of France that seemed to prefer Nazi occupation to French socialist rule. His best book in my opinion.
Hello there. Great video. I am following your channel since some months. Your book recommandations are awesome keep it that way. Personally for me it would be interesting to know who you are and your background. I guess it would make sense for viewers to know from whom they are taking recommendations on books :)
Thanks for the support! I can eventually do a Q&A / about me video in the future! I am still a small channel, so to avoid repetition I will wait a bit.
I enjoyed your video, nice content. I am very interested in reading more about history. Do you have recommendations of history books that are somewhat lighter or shorter? More introductory but well documented :)
Certainly, but first things first. As Americans we especially need to understand our own history. "Those who do not read history are condemned to repeat it," said Bertrand Russell. American media and "educators" base their efforts on the corollary: "so if you want to repeat it on them, don't let them read it -- supply fog instead.'"
You missed the French Revolution to the fall of Napoleon. Seminally, one of the most eventful and compelling world change in the last 1,000 years. It was the litmus test that changed the world from feudal/medieval monarchical serfdom to a progressive secular democracy. Books consider reading about FR are Citizens - Simon Schama, Doyle, et al. Even better is to read it from a french auteur, from Voltaire to Alexis de Tocqueville.
None of these are actually history books. They are philosophical polemics with cherry picked support. Do yourself a favor, avoid the recommendations for any history book and stick with those that academics hate. If academics hate what is written, you can bet your sweet ass it is correct.
@@nco_gets_it hahahahaha. Are you going to discuss material from the books to substantiate your point? As academics like to say, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
In a book that we all might have heard of, and might even have got round to reading... that might even have been reviewed or mentioned on this channel... 'When the British governed a country there were certain distinct features of their own society that they tended to disseminate... [including] No.9 The Idea of Liberty. The last of these is perhaps the most important because it remains the most distinctive feature of the Empire, the thing that sets it apart from its continental European rivals... Does anyone know the book in question?
Your comments about most Middle Eastern history books being written from a Eurocentric perspective applies to "Fortunes of Africa" as well. The book primarily focused on foreign actors in Africa. I thought it didn't give enough time on African sociopolitical organizations.
@@Learno-uy5tt Cheik Anta Diop and Basil Davidson’s work are great places to start. After them I’d recommend the following: - “Introduction to African Civilizations” by John G. Jackson - “Ancient Africa-Fully Explained” by Adam Muksawa - “Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE” by Christopher Ehret - “The World and Africa” by WEB Du Bois - “A History of South Africa” by Leonard Thompson - “African Dominion” by Michael Gomez - “Born in Blackness” by Howard French - “Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World” by John Thornton - “African Voices of the Atlantic Slave Trade” by Anne C. Bailey - “Great Kingdoms of Africa” by John Parker - “A Fist Full of Shells” by Tony Green - “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney - “A History of the Upper Guinea Coast” by Walter Rodney - “The Scramble for Africa” by Thomas Pakenham - “What Britain Did to Nigeria” by Max Siollun - “King Leopold’s Ghost” by Adam Hochschild UNESCO’s General History of Africa series is also a great resource. And there’s a lot more to be consumed.
I have read Braudel, check my other videos. I also really like reading the roman historians and muslim historians. Not to mention all the british envoys who wrote field guides of various countries. I read both modern and old. By the way, Braudel is definitely modern, he helped found the modern multidisciplinary approach to history. He's not that old, lol.
@@IdeasInHat I admit that this is my first of your videos. Braudel is one of the most lovable historians if not one of the best. Have you read Fisk's "Great War for Civilization"? Muslim history, in English, can be a mine field. Europeans tend to lose their minds when contemplating the Middle East...
It may be you have a wrong view of what "not biased" is. It seems you think "non biased = neutral", but it's nonsense. Non biased = true. Imagine a book about hitler's doings which would be written in a neutral tone. This book would be biased because showing evil as neutral is a biased and lying view. If you name evil evil, this is unbiased. You must name evil evil or you are biased.
Your explanation of the colonial borders tells you how biased the Meredith book is?! Why make Nigeria one country? When there is a Christian south and islamic north. What might the reason be? If you give the British an intelligent benefit of the doubt, rather than dismiss them in a moment (as aloof imperialists!?). If you create two separate colonies, and thereby two separate countries on independence, what then? Where are the resources, the oil etc? And how many languages, and ethnic groups are there in all? Where does the issue of Biafra (Igbo) factor in all this? Why was Uganda created out of four main tribal groups? Presumably we have to guess, that Meredith provides answers to none of these rather important if not fundamental questions!?
Well, if you say to someone "you should want x'" and they say, "we do not want X, nor have we ever wanted x," you shouldn't proceed to force "x" onto them. Martin cites more than a handful of political leaders and community sentiment that nigeria should have never existed. But colonials know best? The civil war over oil in Nigeria can be traced back to colonial borders. I think, on the whole, the mass genocides and terrible domestic policies speak volumes about how the colonials viewed Africa. They did not care in the way you are trying to make it seem. Not to mention, the overt stifling of native political opinions. Whenever a leader in Africa had a suggestion, colonials silenced them. Not even the South African intelligence service denies this nowadays.
@@IdeasInHat Para 1. Why not? A Wall Street Crash is not a good idea. The Americans were told not to, they were told how not to... Para 2. Maybe the British knew best? Can the British government necessarily absolutely not know best?? Para 3. I did not imply anything, i merely proposed what the Colonial Office was presented with, and therefore asked a few questions as to the thinking of the British Cabinet, how they might have made the best of a difficult and complex (unenviable) dilemma. You say that, "Whenever a leader in Africa had a suggestion, colonials silenced them." How were they silenced? What sort of thing are we talking?
@@Richard.HistoryLit the colonials had the interest of their own countries in mind, not the countries in Africa. There are soo many examples of this. For instance, never funding education in Africa despite taking their resources. And they jailed or bannished any African leaders who spoke of independence, and in even earlier times they just killed or enslaved any tribes who were uncooperative. King leopold the 2nd killed 10million people to acquire rubber. Not because he wanted to develop the Congo, but to instead - by his own admission - monopolize the trade before the asian countries developed rubber factories. There are definitely cases where colonials, especially toward the transition to independence period, were right on some stuff: i.e. the troubles that would arise from giving administration to a newly formed and super inexperienced government. However, in general, they were only pursuing the interests of their countries at the cost of African countries. Unfortunately.
@@IdeasInHat para 1 - sorry mate but you're wrong. It is explicit in the public record that the British Empire dictated to its personnel that, 'the interests of the indigenous peoples are our paramount interest'. Fact of the matter. British governments did not guarantee education for the British people themselves, until the Education Act 1870, although most people were going to school or had the opportunity of formal schooling by the the 1860s. This was also for a reason(s), not merely bad by the standards of our own time. This is fundamental history-think. para 2 - Again entirely wrong. There was an old saying, with respect to indigenous peoples rebelling etc against colonial authority in any way, the Germans had the leaders shot, the French had them flogged, and the British sent them to Oxford in England. para 3 - King Leopold is not British, nor part of the British Empire. para 4 - 'When Macmillan embarked on his tour of Africa in 1960 he first used the phrase "wind of change" in Ghana in a speech prepared before he left England. The purpose was to align Britain with mainstream black African nationalism.' (W M Roger Louis 1999). And further, when Milton Obote had trouble in Uganda, (after independence) he asked the British for military assistance. He received it and his troubles were brought to an end (for the time being).
@@Richard.HistoryLit I stopped reading the second you said a piece of paper declared they had the interest in the people. Lmao. Yes, and on paper, blacks in America had equality before the law. You need to read the book. The british did not give education to Africa until the 1930s, in some cases, and for most people, the 1950s. I guess you also believe the british supported the opium trade because it was, on paper, in the best interest of China? Appeals to documents are irrelevant. Actions matter more. The british killed hundreds of thousands of Africans, if not millions. That's not being a good landlord, lol
Your author, Meredith, forgets the fierce resistance of Libyan under Mukhtar to Italian colonialism and Algerian resistance to savage French colonial settler state in Algeria.
I cannot remember, I read the book soo long ago now. But Meredith covers a lot for one book. It's like 800 pages. I believe the Fortunes of Africa is a general history of Africa, and then his book "the state of Africa" is from independence onwards. Maybe that book will address the topic if he missed it in the fortunes of Africa.
@@IdeasInHat Rica ederim. Fakat okuma oburluğu diye bir kavram var biliyorsun. Bundan kaçınmak, gerekli okumalar yapmak lazım. Yoksa çok kitap hiç kitaptır.
@@IdeasInHat bunun hakkında değil, bunu okuyacağım. (read about değil) İngilizce düşünüyorsun, beynin Türkçe'ye geçip Türkçe düşünmeye başladığı zaman önünde yepyeni bir dünya açılacak. Türkçe son derece pratik ve matematiksel bir dildir. Daha hızlı düşünmeye başlayacaksın. Genlerinde var. 😉
capitalism can not fail a priori. It's not an ideology, it has no purpose and no targets so it can not fail by the definition. Capitalism is just another name for "economy".
Uhh. So communism is capitalism? Do communist economies just not exist? Seems like you are changing definitions so heavily that you are erasing hundreds of years of established debate, tbh.
@@IdeasInHat comunism is an ideology. How is it an economy, like capitalism? Comunism is an ideology which wants to manipulate the economy for pursuit of its own goals. While "capitalism" is a second(obscene) name for the economy itself. How is "comunism is capitalism"? I use only the scientific definitions and they are really rigid. If they weren't they would have been changed to the other that are this way. It looks like you are just uneducated, you probably heard the words "comunist(ic) economy" and by your own judgment made a conclusion that "well it seems comunism is a part of the economy". No it isn't. It's an ideology and it wants to manipulate the economy, just like politicians want to manipulate policies but politicians are not the policies and so comunism is not the economy. Don't confuse a subject with an object.
@asbest2092 here are the google definitions of communism and economy Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs Economy : careful management of available resources. Or The state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money. You can play with words all you like, but if your definition falls outside of google, Im gunna ignore the debate for practical reasons.
@IdeasInHat Do you understand that the definitions you gave here refute your position that comunism is the economy? Also where is the definition of capitalism here? You wanted to prove that my words "capitalism is just a name for the economy" are false. Then you should have given the definitions of the economy and the definition of capitalism and see if they fit each other or not. You did not do this but for some reason you refuted your own words that comunism is the economy by providing two unfitting definitions. Is it some cunning? To disprove yourself and to forget the topic?
@asbest2092 How are those definitions mutually exclusive? And the definition of capitalism is directly against your own view, I was simply using your own definition. But we can also rely on google, if you want. capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. So, if communism is public ownership of means of production, and capitalism is private ownership of means of production, that seems to be mutually exclusive. If you want, you can equivocate on the word "community" and say all communities are inherently private, but then people could of course equivocate in return and say groups that exclude others in society are private groups rather than public communities. Of course, I won't care either way since it's just useless metaphysics. Anyways, I don't have a position here. I asked you a question, because I think the conclusions drawn from your own worldview are absurd. If economy is just capitalism, then communist organization of the economy is capitalism to you. Furthermore, all economists are just capitalists, then? Seems kinda weird to call a Marxist economist a capitalist. Unless, of course, you have some definition of communism that allows for this? But as I said before, if your definition is completely out of alignment with ordinary meaning, I will just ignore you. I am not going to throw away hundreds of years of established concepts because you say so. lol.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
All history has a point of view, i.e. "bias"....there is no "unbiased" history. You, therefore, must read skeptically.
He was making a joke saying he has no bias to these books being the best. Are you really that dense?
Yeah ... but some are more biased than others ...
.
Some points of view are objectively correct, your position is self refuting
@@ExpiditionWild Name one.
@@MrElliotc02 the dates that shit actually happened are objective
TRAGEDY AND HOPE(1966): A History of the World in Our Time written by Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley. The book covers the period from 1880 to 1963. Quigley's assertion that a secret society led by Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and others had considerable influence over British and American foreign policy in the first half of the twentieth century. From The outer ring of this society was the semi-secret Round Table groups. The book is based on archived files from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yes, Quigley is some real history, unlike the stuff this guy is touting.
The four books he features are all attempts to narrate "the history" of periods spanning centuries -- a silly and impossible proposition in itself.
Since we're Americans, also, I find it strange that he includes nothing about our own history. I'll nominate these six:
Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York, Oxford, 1976)
Brooks Adams, The Law Of Civilization And Decay (New York, Macmillan, 1896)
Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: the Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901 (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1934
Ferdinand Lundberg, America's 60 Families (New York, Vanguard, 1937).
John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler, 2004; new ed. 2016)
David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government (New York, HarperCollins, 2015).
I'm getting ideas from the books in your background! Good video!
Great video! I never comment but You just recommended books about subjects that I am most interested in and never could find a good book about. Thank you❤️
Great video man! “A History of Rome” seems like a great read, as Rome has such an impact even today. Will definitely start my home library with it!
It's a must read for Roman history. That book covers it all!
@@IdeasInHatwhat do you think of SPQR?
@@fsabouni Haven't read it yet! But it has popped up a million times in my amazon algorithm!
Give the authors their props
He gives a list and links in the written description.
Thanks man, I really needed unbiased books. Really appreciate it
Thanks for the recommendations man, keep the good work.
I would also recommend "Guns, Germs and Steele." which talks about factors which influenced and shaped history.
Great list. Will definitely pick these up.
The book on China sounds fascinating. Thank you for the heads up.
I love your background!
That is an interesting new concept; an unbiased book.
I love your videos. They encourage people to read good books. Keep it up Bro. ♥
Thanks! I hope the nonfiction community on booktube expands, especially into history!
Perfect!!! 💯💯💯 I was on the lookout for something on the Middle East. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Thank you!!
The top history book I've read (and am re-reading) is: The Penguin HIstory of the World by J. M Roberts and Odd Arne Westad. I also suggest Black Lamb and Grey Falcon by Rebecca West.
Love the content, love the taste in books!
Thanks! Some of these gems took years to find!
Thank you for this list
Do you know about SPQR by Mary Beard? I got that to learn the Romans more, hopefully it is good. The modern Middle East book sounds interesting, although I want to get a book that talks about the ancient Middle East and then read modern book. Any recommendations?
Arabs: a history of a people.
And SPQR is fine. But I have not read it.
When reviewing ahistory book, giving the Author's name along with the date published and title would be helpful.
“A Distant Mirror” Tuchman. “Guns, Germs, Steel, and History” Diamond. “the Outline of History” Durants. “A World Lit Only by Fire”. I didn’t realize this concentration was on the Middle East
All three of these are what's called "popular history" -- history lite. Adult readers who want adult history will look elsewhere.
@@jimpowell6789 LOL
The Outline of History is by H.G. Wells.
@ You are correct. I am thinking of “The Lessons of History”. I’m getting old😆
Hmm. Interesting. But consider Frances Parkman’s History of France and England in America. How about Barbara Tuchman Guns of August? Anne Applebaum Gulag and Red Terror. You can find Gibbon in an abridged version. Plutarch? Just a few other suggestions.
@@robertebbs3294 I have unabridged gibbon, I know of guns of august, and Plutarch I also have. I don't have Parkman yet.
3294 Good choices !
Fun list, thanks! But I should note that there is no such thing as an unbiased history book. To say a book is unbiased is simply to say you agree with the book's bias.
It’s not about being biased or not it’s about how close is it to facts and truth.
What books would you recommend for learning about the Holy Roman Empire?
I haven't studied the holy roman empire in specific yet. So idk! But it is a topic I want to go through!
'The Thirty Years War', by Wilson along with his general book on the HRE, and of course Braudel's great history of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II.
"Absolute Monarchs" by John Julius Norwich, while ostensibly a history of the Papacy, contains a lot of information about the HRE.
Big history; Maps Of Time, David Christian, 2004.
I would add The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. He was a foreign correspondent in Germany during Hitlers rise to power. Still considered, one of the best works on the political history of the Third Reich. Shirer is homophobic which comes into view from a few comments, but fortunately they are very few. If nothing else it is a good cure for all the nonsense that is online about the Nazi's and who is like the Nazi's and what the Nazi's did or didn't do.
I have since bought that book. Lol.
I bought that and richard evans 3 volume set.
@@IdeasInHat You will enjoy it. I found it an easy read, albeit a long one.
Read Shirer's 'The Collapse of the Third Republic', about the ruling class mutiny against the government of France that seemed to prefer Nazi occupation to French socialist rule. His best book in my opinion.
@@sherriziegel I will check it out
Do you have any links? I can't find A History of Rome.
Read Gibbon's "A History of..." instead.
Hello there. Great video. I am following your channel since some months. Your book recommandations are awesome keep it that way. Personally for me it would be interesting to know who you are and your background. I guess it would make sense for viewers to know from whom they are taking recommendations on books :)
Thanks for the support! I can eventually do a Q&A / about me video in the future!
I am still a small channel, so to avoid repetition I will wait a bit.
I enjoyed your video, nice content. I am very interested in reading more about history. Do you have recommendations of history books that are somewhat lighter or shorter? More introductory but well documented :)
I think ajp taylor writes shorter books. Try him.
what book do you recomend for a complete history of the middle east?
A complete? Like some super indepth 3000 page book?
@@IdeasInHat yeah exactly
@@theguy7467 hmm. I don't know. Never got that indepth. I have a lot of overviews/general histories.
P.s. If you don't know the date of publication, check the title page.
Before European Hegemony is a must
Certainly, but first things first. As Americans we especially need to understand our own history. "Those who do not read history are condemned to repeat it," said Bertrand Russell. American media and "educators" base their efforts on the corollary: "so if you want to repeat it on them, don't let them read it -- supply fog instead.'"
Dude i suffer from adhd and ocd . When i some1 suggest me a book of plus 200 pages i would get panic . I feel im not gonna finish it up.
You missed the French Revolution to the fall of Napoleon. Seminally, one of the most eventful and compelling world change in the last 1,000 years. It was the litmus test that changed the world from feudal/medieval monarchical serfdom to a progressive secular democracy. Books consider reading about FR are Citizens - Simon Schama, Doyle, et al. Even better is to read it from a french auteur, from Voltaire to Alexis de Tocqueville.
thank you for this!
I was just about to get into history books yesss
History has snuck up and taken the most space on my bookshelf, lol.
Tt55t
I'm trying to understand history from beginning to where we at now. What books would you recommend?
Cambridge world history set is amazing fot this
@@IdeasInHat thank you! Can you please send me a link where I can get them.
@@emilysantos33 my only guess would be amazon or if cambridge has a printing press that selle their books.
I found them on Canadian Amazon.
Lots of books with this title or subtitle. Livy is the author of this one. See also Mary Beard, SPQR.
“Wherever the European had trod, death seemed to pursue the aboriginal.”-Charles Darwin
Have you actually read all of the books on your bookshelf?
Absolutely not. There are 1,500ish books on my shelf. I am at 300 and something.
over a period of 15 years, as well!
@@IdeasInHat just asking. I have a friend who has read maybe 10,000 or 20,000 books, but it is not normal and he reads 6-12 hours per day
Did I miss the author of The History of Rome?
Thanks.
.
None of these are actually history books. They are philosophical polemics with cherry picked support. Do yourself a favor, avoid the recommendations for any history book and stick with those that academics hate. If academics hate what is written, you can bet your sweet ass it is correct.
@@nco_gets_it hahahahaha. Are you going to discuss material from the books to substantiate your point? As academics like to say, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
In a book that we all might have heard of, and might even have got round to reading... that might even have been reviewed or mentioned on this channel...
'When the British governed a country there were certain distinct features of their own society that they tended to disseminate... [including] No.9 The Idea of Liberty. The last of these is perhaps the most important because it remains the most distinctive feature of the Empire, the thing that sets it apart from its continental European rivals...
Does anyone know the book in question?
"Zero bias it's truth, less go"
Dude at least mention the author when you mention the book.
He did bro😭🙏
Ever heard of google?
It‘s in the description
Bruh, that is absolutely absurd that you don’t realize that it shows the author.
Dude, at least use google (boomer alert)
Don't have anything to add just commenting for the algorithm
Finally find your channel............👍👍👍👍
Weeeelcome!
What do you think about Gibbon’s Decline & Fall? I’m contemplating on buying a 3 Volume s of the latter. Should I?
If you like Roman history, you will not be disappointed! But, it is obviously 6 volumes of reading on a niche topic, so it might get dry.
Your comments about most Middle Eastern history books being written from a Eurocentric perspective applies to "Fortunes of Africa" as well. The book primarily focused on foreign actors in Africa. I thought it didn't give enough time on African sociopolitical organizations.
Hello, can I ask what kind of book would you recommend on Africa please? I would greatly appreciate it sir.
@@Learno-uy5tt Cheik Anta Diop and Basil Davidson’s work are great places to start. After them I’d recommend the following:
- “Introduction to African Civilizations” by John G. Jackson
- “Ancient Africa-Fully Explained” by Adam Muksawa
- “Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE” by Christopher Ehret
- “The World and Africa” by WEB Du Bois
- “A History of South Africa” by Leonard Thompson
- “African Dominion” by Michael Gomez
- “Born in Blackness” by Howard French
- “Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World” by John Thornton
- “African Voices of the Atlantic Slave Trade” by Anne C. Bailey
- “Great Kingdoms of Africa” by John Parker
- “A Fist Full of Shells” by Tony Green
- “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney
- “A History of the Upper Guinea Coast” by Walter Rodney
- “The Scramble for Africa” by Thomas Pakenham
- “What Britain Did to Nigeria” by Max Siollun
- “King Leopold’s Ghost” by Adam Hochschild
UNESCO’s General History of Africa series is also a great resource. And there’s a lot more to be consumed.
Good shit
You might want to go back and read the greatest history books ever written and not just the latest ones. I suggest you start with Braudel.
I have read Braudel, check my other videos. I also really like reading the roman historians and muslim historians. Not to mention all the british envoys who wrote field guides of various countries.
I read both modern and old. By the way, Braudel is definitely modern, he helped found the modern multidisciplinary approach to history. He's not that old, lol.
@@IdeasInHat I admit that this is my first of your videos. Braudel is one of the most lovable historians if not one of the best. Have you read Fisk's "Great War for Civilization"? Muslim history, in English, can be a mine field. Europeans tend to lose their minds when contemplating the Middle East...
@@sherriziegel I have it, but it is not yet read. Its a pretty big book.
History volumes 1 and 2 by Jackson J. Spielvogel. Amazing.
What it is about
This guy keep things simple
It may be you have a wrong view of what "not biased" is. It seems you think "non biased = neutral", but it's nonsense. Non biased = true.
Imagine a book about hitler's doings which would be written in a neutral tone. This book would be biased because showing evil as neutral is a biased and lying view. If you name evil evil, this is unbiased. You must name evil evil or you are biased.
I counter by saying that you may have a wrong view of what sarcasm is. Lol.
Good
Your explanation of the colonial borders tells you how biased the Meredith book is?! Why make Nigeria one country? When there is a Christian south and islamic north. What might the reason be? If you give the British an intelligent benefit of the doubt, rather than dismiss them in a moment (as aloof imperialists!?). If you create two separate colonies, and thereby two separate countries on independence, what then? Where are the resources, the oil etc? And how many languages, and ethnic groups are there in all? Where does the issue of Biafra (Igbo) factor in all this? Why was Uganda created out of four main tribal groups? Presumably we have to guess, that Meredith provides answers to none of these rather important if not fundamental questions!?
Well, if you say to someone "you should want x'" and they say, "we do not want X, nor have we ever wanted x," you shouldn't proceed to force "x" onto them.
Martin cites more than a handful of political leaders and community sentiment that nigeria should have never existed. But colonials know best?
The civil war over oil in Nigeria can be traced back to colonial borders. I think, on the whole, the mass genocides and terrible domestic policies speak volumes about how the colonials viewed Africa. They did not care in the way you are trying to make it seem. Not to mention, the overt stifling of native political opinions. Whenever a leader in Africa had a suggestion, colonials silenced them. Not even the South African intelligence service denies this nowadays.
@@IdeasInHat Para 1. Why not? A Wall Street Crash is not a good idea. The Americans were told not to, they were told how not to...
Para 2. Maybe the British knew best? Can the British government necessarily absolutely not know best??
Para 3. I did not imply anything, i merely proposed what the Colonial Office was presented with, and therefore asked a few questions as to the thinking of the British Cabinet, how they might have made the best of a difficult and complex (unenviable) dilemma.
You say that, "Whenever a leader in Africa had a suggestion, colonials silenced them." How were they silenced? What sort of thing are we talking?
@@Richard.HistoryLit the colonials had the interest of their own countries in mind, not the countries in Africa. There are soo many examples of this. For instance, never funding education in Africa despite taking their resources.
And they jailed or bannished any African leaders who spoke of independence, and in even earlier times they just killed or enslaved any tribes who were uncooperative.
King leopold the 2nd killed 10million people to acquire rubber. Not because he wanted to develop the Congo, but to instead - by his own admission - monopolize the trade before the asian countries developed rubber factories.
There are definitely cases where colonials, especially toward the transition to independence period, were right on some stuff: i.e. the troubles that would arise from giving administration to a newly formed and super inexperienced government. However, in general, they were only pursuing the interests of their countries at the cost of African countries. Unfortunately.
@@IdeasInHat para 1 - sorry mate but you're wrong. It is explicit in the public record that the British Empire dictated to its personnel that, 'the interests of the indigenous peoples are our paramount interest'. Fact of the matter. British governments did not guarantee education for the British people themselves, until the Education Act 1870, although most people were going to school or had the opportunity of formal schooling by the the 1860s. This was also for a reason(s), not merely bad by the standards of our own time. This is fundamental history-think.
para 2 - Again entirely wrong. There was an old saying, with respect to indigenous peoples rebelling etc against colonial authority in any way, the Germans had the leaders shot, the French had them flogged, and the British sent them to Oxford in England.
para 3 - King Leopold is not British, nor part of the British Empire.
para 4 - 'When Macmillan embarked on his tour of Africa in 1960 he first used the phrase "wind of change" in Ghana in a speech prepared before he left England. The purpose was to align Britain with mainstream black African nationalism.' (W M Roger Louis 1999). And further, when Milton Obote had trouble in Uganda, (after independence) he asked the British for military assistance. He received it and his troubles were brought to an end (for the time being).
@@Richard.HistoryLit I stopped reading the second you said a piece of paper declared they had the interest in the people. Lmao. Yes, and on paper, blacks in America had equality before the law.
You need to read the book. The british did not give education to Africa until the 1930s, in some cases, and for most people, the 1950s. I guess you also believe the british supported the opium trade because it was, on paper, in the best interest of China? Appeals to documents are irrelevant. Actions matter more. The british killed hundreds of thousands of Africans, if not millions. That's not being a good landlord, lol
I am reading Christianity: the first 3000 years
How's it going?
@@IdeasInHat really enjoying it!
The only part of world not represented is Central & South America.
Your author, Meredith, forgets the fierce resistance of Libyan under Mukhtar to Italian colonialism and Algerian resistance to savage French colonial settler state in Algeria.
I cannot remember, I read the book soo long ago now. But Meredith covers a lot for one book. It's like 800 pages.
I believe the Fortunes of Africa is a general history of Africa, and then his book "the state of Africa" is from independence onwards. Maybe that book will address the topic if he missed it in the fortunes of Africa.
Sir, guten Morgen, ich bin Inder
Sir, können Sie den Namen des indischen Geschichtsbuchs nennen?
Kudüs Ey Kudüs (O Jerusalem) oku.
bunun hakkında okuyacağım, teşekkür ederim
@@IdeasInHat Rica ederim. Fakat okuma oburluğu diye bir kavram var biliyorsun. Bundan kaçınmak, gerekli okumalar yapmak lazım. Yoksa çok kitap hiç kitaptır.
@@ozgurleblebicioglu2056 Evet. Şu anda iki haftada bir kitap okuyorum. Ve genellikle çok fazla not alır ve bir inceleme yazarım.
@@IdeasInHat bunun hakkında değil, bunu okuyacağım. (read about değil) İngilizce düşünüyorsun, beynin Türkçe'ye geçip Türkçe düşünmeye başladığı zaman önünde yepyeni bir dünya açılacak. Türkçe son derece pratik ve matematiksel bir dildir. Daha hızlı düşünmeye başlayacaksın. Genlerinde var. 😉
@@ozgurleblebicioglu2056 teşekkür ederim. Pratik yaptıkça Türkçem daha iyi olacak. Hala İngilizce düşünüyorum ve sonra Türkçe'ye çeviriyorum.
capitalism can not fail a priori. It's not an ideology, it has no purpose and no targets so it can not fail by the definition. Capitalism is just another name for "economy".
Uhh. So communism is capitalism? Do communist economies just not exist? Seems like you are changing definitions so heavily that you are erasing hundreds of years of established debate, tbh.
@@IdeasInHat comunism is an ideology. How is it an economy, like capitalism? Comunism is an ideology which wants to manipulate the economy for pursuit of its own goals. While "capitalism" is a second(obscene) name for the economy itself. How is "comunism is capitalism"? I use only the scientific definitions and they are really rigid. If they weren't they would have been changed to the other that are this way.
It looks like you are just uneducated, you probably heard the words "comunist(ic) economy" and by your own judgment made a conclusion that "well it seems comunism is a part of the economy". No it isn't. It's an ideology and it wants to manipulate the economy, just like politicians want to manipulate policies but politicians are not the policies and so comunism is not the economy. Don't confuse a subject with an object.
@asbest2092 here are the google definitions of communism and economy
Communism:
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs
Economy :
careful management of available resources.
Or
The state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money.
You can play with words all you like, but if your definition falls outside of google, Im gunna ignore the debate for practical reasons.
@IdeasInHat Do you understand that the definitions you gave here refute your position that comunism is the economy?
Also where is the definition of capitalism here? You wanted to prove that my words "capitalism is just a name for the economy" are false. Then you should have given the definitions of the economy and the definition of capitalism and see if they fit each other or not. You did not do this but for some reason you refuted your own words that comunism is the economy by providing two unfitting definitions.
Is it some cunning? To disprove yourself and to forget the topic?
@asbest2092 How are those definitions mutually exclusive?
And the definition of capitalism is directly against your own view, I was simply using your own definition. But we can also rely on google, if you want.
capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
So, if communism is public ownership of means of production, and capitalism is private ownership of means of production, that seems to be mutually exclusive.
If you want, you can equivocate on the word "community" and say all communities are inherently private, but then people could of course equivocate in return and say groups that exclude others in society are private groups rather than public communities. Of course, I won't care either way since it's just useless metaphysics.
Anyways, I don't have a position here. I asked you a question, because I think the conclusions drawn from your own worldview are absurd. If economy is just capitalism, then communist organization of the economy is capitalism to you.
Furthermore, all economists are just capitalists, then? Seems kinda weird to call a Marxist economist a capitalist.
Unless, of course, you have some definition of communism that allows for this? But as I said before, if your definition is completely out of alignment with ordinary meaning, I will just ignore you.
I am not going to throw away hundreds of years of established concepts because you say so. lol.
“The Fortunes of Africa” Is woke revisionist history of Africa….
@@garbonomics explain? What makes you say that?
Nothing fortunate about Africa, remove that one
What BS…
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.