Historical Book Recomendation Thread

[Tahuti]

He's British. Or does he live in the States?

Both are true, my bad.

 

[Hygro]

I just don't understand why he's famous. The only times I hear about him its making a bad economic argument I don't commit to memory and forget about him until he's brought up again. I've never read his stuff but from what I've heard I have no compelling reason to. Someone who fancies themselves a historian who understands economic history but fails to understand economics, and uses economics for his argument is probably a pretty lackluster historian even if they have redeeming qualities.

 

[Glassfan]

A brilliant but flawed historian most noted for his WWI revisionism. He's been on several (BBC-PBS) documentaries.

 

[Masada]

His WWI revisionism is probably his least objectionable work. The thrust of his argument is correct, Germany was not the sole aggressor, but it was partly wrong in the particulars he chose to use to make that argument.

 

[The QC]

Well "killer apps" was a phrase used for the mass audience on a British television channel in a documentary. It was designed, albiet poorly, to attract the plebs into learning about history.

If that's the case against him, it is incredibly weak.

Seriousy? The killer apps argument, which I read on the back of his book, was one of the most stupid things I ever read. Among other things, he attributes the 'rise of the West' (a dubious concept in itself), to work ethic, basically calling all Asians lazy. That's not a good reason to despise and ignore the guy?

 

[H4run]

I want a general world history book, not specific more general. I need that for comparison, and to make me able to follow and understand the argument that author or other address. Like for example when one talking about King Leopold did in Congo I really cannot recall any information regarding it except genocide. Or when someone addressing on other event that I not well acquaintance yet it also quite hard for me to follow, hence I need this kind of book.

If the book is per section but still general in nature it still find for me, but a specific book talking specific event I get too to read for that kind.

Thanks!

 

[Quackers]

Seriousy? The killer apps argument, which I read on the back of his book, was one of the most stupid things I ever read. Among other things, he attributes the 'rise of the West' (a dubious concept in itself), to work ethic, basically calling all Asians lazy. That's not a good reason to despise and ignore the guy?

I don't recall all of the "killer apps". I'm sure some of them were nonsense.
I thought the point about competitiveness between states was a worthy idea.

 

[Quackers]

He's British, but he'd much prefer to be English. "Ferguson" he could live down, that merely indicates ancestry, but I don't think he'll ever forgive his parents for "Niall".

yuck.

why is it always race/nationality/identity with the far left?

Does it just make it easier to discredit opponents if they have an unfavourable background? It seems like the go-to route to discredit anybody who deviates from their beliefs.

EDIT: You'e English, of Irish extraction who lives in Scotland? Imperialist! All of your ideas are nonsense and formed from evil, discriminatory thoughts!

 

[Traitorfish]

I just don't understand why he's famous. The only times I hear about him its making a bad economic argument I don't commit to memory and forget about him until he's brought up again. I've never read his stuff but from what I've heard I have no compelling reason to. Someone who fancies themselves a historian who understands economic history but fails to understand economics, and uses economics for his argument is probably a pretty lackluster historian even if they have redeeming qualities.

He's a flabby Thatcherite talking head, and the British media can't get enough of flabby Thatcherite talking heads. The American media is not so readily impressed with flabby Thatcherite talking heads, but is readily impressed by best-selling Oxbridge professors, particularly when they spout questionable right-wing political beliefs and appear to be covered in a thin but noticeable layer of slime. So they import the flabby Thatcherite taking head to spout questionable right-wing politics beliefs and look slimy, everyone applauds, and Dachs nurses himself to sleep with a bottle of Ol' Benjamin Rotgut's Mountain-Man Moonshine.

yuck.

why is it always race/nationality/identity with the far left?

Does it just make it easier to discredit opponents if they have an unfavourable background? It seems like the go-to route to discredit anybody who deviates from their beliefs.

Wait, hold on, you're saying that pointing out that Ferguson is Scottish is an attempt to "discredit" him, because being Scottish is an "unfavourable background"? Did you really think that through?

 

[Mouthwash]

He's a flabby Thatcherite talking head, and the British media can't get enough of flabby Thatcherite talking heads. The American media is not so readily impressed with flabby Thatcherite talking heads, but is readily impressed by best-selling Oxbridge professors, particularly when they spout questionable right-wing political beliefs and appear to be covered in a thin but noticeable layer of slime. So they import the flabby Thatcherite taking head to spout questionable right-wing politics beliefs and look slimy, everyone applauds, and Dachs nurses himself to sleep with a bottle of Ol' Benjamin Rotgut's Mountain-Man Moonshine.

I can't make heads or tails of this.

But that's fine because it sounds funny.

Wait, hold on, you're saying that pointing out that Ferguson is Scottish is an attempt to "discredit" him, because being Scottish is an "unfavourable background"? Did you really think that through?

Herp-a-derp.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can't make heads or tails of this.

But that's fine because it sounds funny.

Dachs has previously expressed a strong distaste for Ferguson's civilisational approach to history, so I imagine he must find Ferguson's increasing prominence in American pop-history somewhat.

 

[Mouthwash]

Dachs has previously expressed a strong distaste for Ferguson's civilisational approach to history, so I imagine he must find Ferguson's increasing prominence in American pop-history somewhat.

Any epic rant you could link me to?

 

[Quackers]

Wait, hold on, you're saying that pointing out that Ferguson is Scottish is an attempt to "discredit" him, because being Scottish is an "unfavourable background"? Did you really think that through?

You gave the impression that Ferguson is some self-hating Scot, and that can explain his new approach to the BE. That if he wasn't a "self hating scot" he wouldn't have such a dangerous view. The question is: why does anything about his background got to do with it? His name? So effing what! It is a pathetic way of argumentation.

Nobody has given me refutations of his work. I just have Traitorfish's pop psychology that Ferguson resents his parents for calling him Niall because it wasn't English enough!

 

[Antilogic]

Nobody has given me refutations of his work. I just have Traitorfish's pop psychology that Ferguson resents his parents for calling him Niall because it wasn't English enough!

What specific refutations are you looking for--the claims in AoM, or elsewhere? It's been a long time, but I can dig up the stuff I read on his book if nobody else will.

 

[Masada]

You'd subject yourself to that for Quackers?

 

[The QC]

What specific refutations are you looking for--the claims in AoM, or elsewhere? It's been a long time, but I can dig up the stuff I read on his book if nobody else will.

I already refuted one thing from one book, to which Quackers replied that he doesn't know about what Ferguson wrote in that book . I suspect he isn't asking for refutations in good faith, so you'll be wasting your time.

 

[dutchfire]

Thread from 2011 on Niall Ferguson http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=420536

But you knew that of course, you posted there.

 

[Traitorfish]

You gave the impression that Ferguson is some self-hating Scot, and that can explain his new approach to the BE. That if he wasn't a "self hating scot" he wouldn't have such a dangerous view. The question is: why does anything about his background got to do with it? His name? So effing what! It is a pathetic way of argumentation.

I wasn't making an argument about Ferguson, I was making fun of him. I find him repulsive, as a public figure and as a human being, so it amuses me to take the piss out of him. No tricks, no pop psychology, no reason to get excited.

Any epic rant you could link me to?

Not that I can bring to mind- the thread Dutchfire linked is probably your best bet.

 

[dutchfire]

If you want some general insulting of historians, there's this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=488383&page=2

And then there's also a little bit here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=503213&page=14

 

[Quackers]

I wasn't making an argument about Ferguson, I was making fun of him. I find him repulsive, as a public figure and as a human being, so it amuses me to take the piss out of him. No tricks, no pop psychology, no reason to get excited.

So I was..right!

Whoop!