An older book that I must have begun reading 4 or 5 years ago, but I keep misplacing it, or passing it over for another book and since
I found it again, I am working on Alice Hoffman's Blue Diary
What book are you reading?
The Knights Templar by Stephen Howarth, written in 1982. Howarth is a historian so this is not fiction. Excellent, fascinating source for this terrible time in our past, much of which appears in Da Vinci Code.
I'm reading two books at once:
The Lexus and the Olive tree by Friedman
Citizen soldiers by Ambrose
Reading both -- always read two books at a time, because I misplace them so frequently -- Jonathan Black and Mr. Norrel and Bleak House. A total of 1,600 pages!!!!
Just finished American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips and just started Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis.
Democracy Matters
By Cornell West
'Harlequin' as part of the 'Grail Quest' series by Bernard Cornwell, near the end now but it's been great. There's just something about that time period, the rivalry & conquests between the English and those French rascals, gotta love it. 'Vagabond' up next and then 'Heretic' to complete the series.
Before that 'Caught Short' by David Morrison which I really liked as well.
My attention was drawn to Mapping Human History by Steven Olson, so I have for the weekend abandoned Jonathan Strange and Bleak House.
Mapping follows some of the recent work done in genetics on mitochondrial dna and y chromosomes. Olson is a science journalism so the book is for laymen.
Very readable and essential.
After reading Mr. Plainoldme's refutation of the Western Canon by the most important literary critic in the United States, Dr. Harold Bloom, I wondered why Mr. Plainoldme was so dismissive of such a highly reputable scholar. I may have found an answer in a review of "Mapping Human History"---Poliltical Sermonizing" is at the root of this book. That may be why Mr. Plainoldme may dislike Dr. Harold Bloom. It nay be that Mr. Plainoldme just doesn't like any authors who, as the book in question suggests, are not beigefied:
Not bad quick overview, but too much political sermonizing, June 28, 2002
Reviewer: Steve Sailer (Chicago) - See all my reviews
Using ever improving molecular techniques, population geneticists study the history of extended families that are inbred to some degree. In other words, they trace the genealogies of racial groups. It's an inherently fascinating subject, and science journalist Steve Olson introduces it adequately in his new book, Mapping Human History. Written in the breezy style of a National Geographic travel-log, Olson's book is a quick read, but a little too superficial to be intellectually satisfying. Still, it's not a bad overview of an important subject.
It would be better, though, without the recurrent political sermonizing. Unfortunately for population geneticists, their subject matter-race-is vastly unfashionable. So, the dean of the field, Stanford's great L.L. Cavalli-Sforza long ago developed the transparent subterfuge of defining the word "race" in the most ludicrous straw-man terms possible-as the classification of the human race into absolutely separate, never-overlapping, mutually exclusive categories. (Never specified is exactly who today believes such a thing: the Grand Kleagle's retarded brother, perhaps?) This straw-man definition allows him to deny that he's studying race, since by his definition "race" is impossible. Still, it allows Cavalli-Sforza to get back to work without being crucified for political incorrectness, so we shouldn't hold it against him.
Unfortunately, Olson never seems to grasp that this is just pro forma boilerplate. In his book, Olson stops every few pages to tell you that there are no races that have been absolutely isolated genetically since the beginning of time because-you will be shocked, shocked to learn this-humans have been known to outbreed. (The reality of course is that for any human racial group, the inbreeding glass is both part empty and part full.) This makes Mapping Human History rather like a geology book that repeatedly admonishes the reader that the Earth is not flat.
Another curious feature that Olson's book shares with many other contemporary writings about population genetics is the author's apparent longing for the abolition of his own subject matter via universal random interbreeding. Although animal and plant biodiversity is routinely celebrated as a supreme good, the conclusions of books on human biodiversity tend to treat it as a temporary evil that will soon be gone, and good riddance to it. It's as if that geology textbook ended with an ode to the blessed day when the Earth will plunge into the Sun, thus happily eliminating the need for a science of geology.
In his final chapter, "The End of Race," Olson cites Hawaii as exemplifying the future of the human race. Still, not even Hawaii has achieved racial nirvana. Despite interracial marriage blurring the ethnic boundaries, the Native Hawaiians are now campaigning hard to have themselves declared a sovereign nation like American Indian tribes.
On a vaster scale, Brazil exhibits the same tendency for class to correlate with color, and for the people at the bottom of the pile to agitate, not unreasonably, for race-based privileges for themselves. Currently, the government of Brazil is introducing racial quotas in response to black demands.
Further, the mixing of races often leads to new races rather than to no races, such as the Angles and Saxons became the Anglo-Saxons.
This notion that the entire world will soon consist of one beige race is both highly popular and highly dubious. I see little statistical evidence to suggest that there will be significantly greater racial admixture in either Asia or Africa anytime in the 21st Century ... and that's where most humans will live.
For example, the UN's best guess is that China will have 1,462 million people in 2050. The Chinese government shows no intention of ever admitting many immigrants, so the racial admixture level in China will not change perceptibly. The UN also projects that in 2050, India will have a population of 1,572 million. Almost all of these people will be racially descended from current Indians. Why? Well, who would want to move to India? It's a country that's more than full now, even before it adds another half billion Indians.
Other populous countries that-trust me-won't be attracting huge numbers of immigrants from other continents include Pakistan (344 million in 2050), Indonesia (311 million), Nigeria (279 million), Bangladesh (265 million), the Congo (204 million), and Yemen and Uganda (102 million each). In other words, the absolute numbers of racially distinct East Asians, blacks, and non-European Caucasians will be larger in 2050 than today.
Most of the growth in racial mixing will be restricted to regions where intermarriage has been a long tradition (primarily Latin America and some remote islands) or are immigrant magnets (presumably North America, Australia, and Western Europe).
In essence, what is so enthusiastically anticipated is the admixture of people of European descent. Evidently, there is something uniquely, even superhumanly potent and evil about European DNA that means it must be diluted. Strikingly, the greatest enthusiasts for this view tend to be highly European themselves. (Olson, for example, is blonde.) This reflects that weird combination of racial self-loathing and racial egotism found in so many white intellectuals.
Finally, I doubt that the beigeification of Europeans will proceed all that quickly. I don't think it's at all inevitable that Eastern Europe will open its borders to non-Europeans. Prudent statesmen in the ex-Communist countries will be wary of reproducing Western Europe's travails with hostile immigrant minorities, although the European Union will no doubt try to bully them into it.
So, the odds are that-on a global scale-the current races will remain at the end of this century almost as distinct as they are today. Then, beyond 2100, DNA engineering and, perhaps, interstellar colonization will likely radically increase genetic differences among humans.
So, while a better book than this one could certainly be written about race, you can feel confident that if you do invest the modest amount of time required to read Olson's effort, you don't have to worry that its subject matter will suddenly evaporate.
Mr. ralpheb- If you liked "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" you'll love the new and expanded version of "The Earth is Flat", also by Friedman.
An absolutely marvelous book that explains "globalization", why it is here to stay and how we can take advantage of it.
Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson about an austic woman who rose to genius, becoming an expert on animal behavior. Well paid for her advice, too. The book ends up as a study of the brain, both animal and human. Interesting, very much so, and often funny.
BernardR -- Your racist and shallow review was out of place and does not match the tenor of this joyous thread.
Thanks bernard. I don't know why he is so transfixed on globalization, but he does bring up some very good points. I like the way he ties his dealings into his writings.
Mr. Plain Ol Me. I am very sorry- Perhaps I misread the title--What book are you reading right now--
I was under the impression that "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and "The Earth is Flat" were "books". Now, perhaps you are correct, Mr. Plain Ol Me that my review was shallow. It could be nothing else since I only wrote a couple of lines but I am completely incredulous when you say it was "racist". I may not have the incisive understanding of the written word that you do, Mr. Plain Ol Me, but would you be so good as to replicate my post and to explain to me why it is "racist"?
If I am convinced you are correct, I will, of course, endeavor to avoid such pitfalls in the future.
I thank you in advance, sir!!!!
im watching 'a clockwork orange' for the 5th time!
its the most amazing book i've ever read!
way better then the film... but most books are.
its awesome
=]
sunlover wrote:Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson about an austic woman who rose to genius, becoming an expert on animal behavior. Well paid for her advice, too. The book ends up as a study of the brain, both animal and human. Interesting, very much so, and often funny.
I've heard of this. I think she was featured in a television program on PBS.
ralpheb wrote:I'm reading two books at once:
The Lexus and the Olive tree by Friedman
Citizen soldiers by Ambrose
BernardR -- As soon as one reads your posts, the question, "Does he know what he is typing?" pops into mind. Note that Ralpheb mentioned the Lexus and the Olive Tree and Citizen Soldiers.
Temple Grandin's fascinating.
I sometimes wonder if she gives parents of autistic children too much hope. In the meantime, she provides a good read and does interesting research.
I'm still picking at the Josephine Baker biography, Naked at the Feast, during my subway rides. I'd never understood why people admired her, only knew her really for her banana costume, but reading DeGaulle's note to her (and reading of her involvement in the French underground during the Second World War) spun that for me.
Evolution Man or How I Ate My Father, by Roy Lewis.
A novel about a Stone Age family with modern British manners, attempting to accelerate the evolution of their species.
Good old fashioned dry British humor. Crunchy prose.
In print again courtesy of Vintage International.
