Customer Reviews

National Geographic Historical Atlas of the United States

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This atlas hardly does National Geographic credit. Far better is Hammond's American history atlas, a slim 8 ½" x 11" paper- (cardboard-) bound edition. Better than either is the 1966 American Heritage atlas, a splendid maroon slipcased hardbound volume. It features superbly realized maps of all eras. Important wars - especially the Revolution and the Slaveholders' Rebellion ("Civil War") - are illustrated by clear maps as well as panoramic representations of major battles. The maps are accompanied by brief informative texts, rather an innovation for the time. This first-rate production (The American Heritage Pictorial Atlas of United States History) isn't easy to find nowadays.

The National Geographic Society atlas isn't worth taking up shelf space, much less throwing money at. Allegedly an atlas, it has few maps - only a piddly 81 in 240 pages. By comparison, the American Heritage atlas has 424 smaller pages (including text) and 278 maps.

The maps themselves are minimally useful. That illustrating the Slaveholders' Rebellion, for instance, shows the Unorganized Territory (now Oklahoma) and the New Mexico Territory (now Arizona and New Mexico) as loyal. In fact, for much or most of the war, they were held by rebel forces in whole or part. The progress of the war is shown only by lines indicating major campaigns. These give no feeling of the development of the war nor the gradual defeat of the Southern treason.

Another problem endemic to these maps is poor use of color. The book uses mostly pastels, often almost indistinguishable colors, making its maps weak in impact and difficult to read.

There are no maps covering the North American colonial system in the 17th Century. New Netherlands, New Sweden, the New England Federation, Plymouth Colony, and others have disappeared. Coverage for 1700-1800 is spotty at best. Coverage here of World War I and the rise of the Bolshevik empire contains no hint of the American military intervention at Arkhangel'sk and in Siberia. The growth of the U.S. colonial empire in the Pacific (and elsewhere) receives no coverage, although some U.S. colonies appear on some maps. Et cetera.

The choice of textual sections is puzzling. Many are relevant to an atlas, even if nobody bothered to do a map. But others ... well, take a gander at some of the titles: ** Capturing America on Film ** Pictures That Talk ** The Superheroes: Comic Books Take Flight (!!!) ** Integrating Sports ** The Small Screen ** The Internet Takes Off ** Relevant as these may be to an appreciation of American history, their relevance to a Historical Atlas is dubious, to say the least.

This atlas has only 1 map showing Presidential election returns (for 2000). The Hammond atlas rejoices in a complete set from 1790. National Geographic provides an index all of 2 (two!) pages short. American Heritage's index comes to 54!

If you want a GOOD atlas of U.S. history, get the latest edition of the Hammond. That also has a few maps relating to Latin American and Canadian history. The highly useful American Heritage is no doubt available if you can locate one. The new National Geographic entry isn't worth a well-worn farthing, much less what you're actually expected to pay.

I'll chime in with "catu11us" on this on most of the points raised in that review, but I have a few additional cautions for would-be buyers of this one.

My own copy was a gift from a sibling who knows I am always happy to receive and read history books (but not historical fiction). Unfortunately the nature of this book is at odds with its title, as the other reviewers have noted, but I'd go further: it's not a "historical atlas of the United States," it's a collection of USA-Today-simplified encapsulations of American history, with maps (some of them visually superb). This distinction is important because not only are major aspects of the U.S.'s historical development left out (as shown ably by "catu11us"), external affairs of contextually passing relevance, such as the U.S.'s controversial activities in Vietnam and Iraq, are not merely addressed but are given full spreads with *maps.*

With some of these, I find myself thinking the National Geographic should change its name to the National Sociopolitical, because it's not addressing its histories geographically at all and certainly isn't focusing on the nation in question, except in a rather "manifest destiny" sense which I consider abhorrent as well as contrary to impartial documentation of history.

Simplifications of history here often employ the lamentably popular personification style of "news" reporting -- more properly described as "journalism" -- in which, in this context, quotations from individuals' letters or diary entries are provided as being summarily representative of all people of that class at that time. This is a useful tool for historians when they back it up with further perspective but should not be abused this way, with complex and still-debatable viewpoints presented as absolutes.

Physically this book is a lavish treat, at least on a superficial level: the leather cover, the gilt edges and cover titling, the luxurious amount of space given to illustrations, the redrawn maps (although the previous criticism of the stylized pastels is just).... But large type masks small basis, and there's not even a whiff of a bibliography here to substantiate the breezy generalizations these "historical" assessments aspire to.

The issue of Slavery, for example, gets addressed but with throwaway lines such as "Americans joined in the enterprise, trading with African kings for what became more than nine million slaves." Which African kings? Where in Africa? Who has established that this even was the case? And does "Americans" mean "ALL Americans" or just some? Two paragraphs later, the second of those questions is nominally addressed: "Nearly 40 percent came from Angola, with large numbers coming from the Bights of Benin and Biafra and Gold Coast." But that's the end of the study of that question. That there was slavery within Africa itself, that other countries had slave trades, all of this (and other potentially illuminating perspectives) are dropped as if they didn't exist. And what's that tidy percentage assessment based on?

I'm sure that a lot of research and study went into much of this book's contents; it's unfortunate that the study isn't given transparently and with credentials beyond those presumed by the National Geographic Society itself. If you want a detailed Important Points in American History introduction, this is probably very handy, and if you're just trying to understand how the U.S. has evolved to become the thing it is today this will provide perspective and depth as well as personalized story. For anyone interested in History, however, this is something to refer to with knowing caution: there's enough detail and illustration to justify tapping it as a resource, but there are also enough warning flags screaming of "spin" here that it behooves one to handle it with gloved fingers and a hefty shot of guarded skepticism.

Again, I think the National Geographic Society did itself a disservice by not providing a bibliography for this book; without that, it's scarcely credible and invites cynical appraisal -- and it *should* do, because at the other end of the spectrum it's lulling general-public readers into accepting these generalizations as established facts. I appreciate that they have tried to show American history "warts and all," but even that approach is curtailed to such pat simplifications here that one must question not just each conclusion but therefore also the presentation of information purporting to be factual. The National Geographic Society is surely capable of demonstrating its scholarship, but this book makes me wonder about that.

I won't repeat the criticisms of others. What did National Geographic think they were doing when they published a coffee-table history book under the title of "Atlas"?