Customer Review

10 of 17 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars really bad as history, February 7, 2012
This review is from: 1968: The Year That Rocked the World (Paperback)
This book is less a history of 1968 and more a long-form opinion piece on any number of topics. Its not really a complete history. Its often written from a one-sided political persepective of "us vs. them". He turns people like Reagan and Humphrey into one-dimensional stick figures.

There are also some just plain strange moments such as the idea that Lindsay and Rockefeller were the heart of the republican party. There is the aside where he tries to make corrupt Lyndon Johnson crony Abe Fortas into a victim of a republican conspiracy to take over the supreme court. And there is the point in the book where he explains that the entire 1968 "generation" saw Hiroshima and Auschwitz as essentially the same thing.

He also explains that Czechoslovakia democratically voted in 1946 to beoome a communist dictatorship. He explains that, as often in america, the problem in 1946 was simply that the politicians didn't keep their promises. That the problem with the communists was that they broke their promise on collective farms and nationalization of small business. It would be easy to dismiss such ignorance as crazy talk if the author did not so earnestly believe what he is saying.

He talks later about how many Germans loved East Germany and moved there in the 1960s from the west. He talks about the migration as being unreported. He generally buys into the idea that the states of eastern europe were somehow capable of reform. He takes seriously the idea that a party member like Dubcek had no idea that the purges of the 1950s were even going on.

And then there is the middle east. He creates a history out of whole cloth. Israel in 1968 was struggling to give back all the lands occupied in 1967. Every good person in the world outside of Israel thougth that Israel should keep the land which shows how moderate the Israelis were. He tells us that Israelis (not the government of Israel) started creating settlements in the occupied territories in 1968 because individual Israelis were giving up on peace.

He holds Colin Powell personally responsible for covering up the My Lai massacre. There are long asides into issues that have nothing to do 1968 like Cuban-American relations in the early 1960s. I mean how is it possible to take seriously the idea that "the bay of pigs was one of the defining moments in a new generation's cynicism about liberals".

There is the claim that all Spaniards submitted passively to Franco until 1968. And on and on.

Its more a book about self-deception and strange opinions than any history of 1968. Its more a catalog of foolish notions than a history.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 31, 2012 8:03:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 7, 2012 10:16:11 AM PDT
albarino says:
Frequent A-com poster Mark Bennett has left a string of spiteful, inaccurate and misleading commentary on many, many worthwhile books. His one star says "I hate it," according to A-com review criteria. This is my corrective to some points in his review of Mark Kurlansky's highly informative 1968.

MB says: "This book is less a history of 1968 and more a long-form opinion piece on any number of topics. Its (sic) not really a complete history. Its often written from a one-sided political perspective of `us vs. them'."

INSTEAD, I FOUND that 1968 is an ambitious chronological global journalistic history of the protests, riots, societal changes in the US, Europe, Mexico and a some other areas as well. It also chronicles the attitudes of the opponents of the protests, like DeGaulle, Diaz Ordaz, the Russian Politburo, Mayor Richard Daley, etc. While Kurlansky writes from an informed point of view, he strives to be fair in his narrative history of one year. Doubt me? Go to the book icon and "search inside this book," and start reading the first chapter. Contra MB, 1968 is no mere one-sided account. Indeed, MB seems angry at the subject itself, and that the year 1968 actually happened -- not good presumptions for a fair review of an otherwise highly and widely regarded book.

MB says: "There are also some just plain strange moments such as the idea that Lindsay and Rockefeller were the heart of the republican party."

INSTEAD, I FOUND on pp. 264-65, a clear explanation of how the once ascendant Rockefeller lost out to Nixon because the former abandoned the presidential race, and so Republican convention delegates were committed to Nixon because they were already secured in the primary elections.

As for NYC Mayor John Lindsay, Kurlansky reminds us that the rightward shift of the Republican Party ruled him out as VP for Nixon. Maryland's Spiro Agnew was selected instead to bolster Nixon's Southern Strategy to capture the votes of conservative segregationists, i.e racists.

Nowhere does Kurlansky say these two men were the "heart" of the Republican Party in 1968. He does correctly observe that this was the last election in which the Republican Party considered Republican liberals on the ticket, but rejected them ever since, purging them from the party.

MB says: "There is the ASIDE where he tries to make corrupt Lyndon Johnson crony Abe Fortas into a victim of a republican conspiracy to take over the supreme court."

INSTEAD, I FOUND on pp. 357 - 59, a thoroughgoing analysis of the context of the Fortas "scandal," not an ASIDE, as MB would have it. Kurlansky only cites the historical record when he says Fortas's nomination for Chief Justice was opposed by a coalition of right wing Republicans and Southern Democrats (indignant segregationists like Strom Thurmond soon to become Republicans) angry about "liberal" SC legal rulings. Sens. Thurmond and Mississippi segregationist John Stennis complained of court overreach into "states rights," a code term used to bolster Jim Crow laws and race-restrictive covenants, as well as attacking the court's recent ruling on obscenity and pornography. In Rick Perlstein's authoritative NIXONLAND, pp. 285-89, the author documents the Thurmond-orchestrated conspiracy. This pressure on Fortas was the first of its kind, and established a precedent for the right wing to gain control of the Supreme Court. Moreover, Fortas - who succumbed to the pressure and resigned -was no more of a crony to Lyndon Johnson than US Attorney General Ed Meese was to his friend Ronald Reagan, and Fortas DID have a solid judicial record.

MB says: "And there is the point in the book where he explains that the entire 1968 "generation" saw Hiroshima and Auschwitz as essentially the same thing."

INSTEAD, I FOUND this remark nowhere in the book, & it is not in the index. Even if some (the ENTIRE 1968 generation?) may have said it, MB's hyperbolic use instantly discredits the remark. Kurlansky certainly doesn't believe it. I did find, however, this indisputable fact in the prologue: the US "dropped more non-nuclear bombs on [Vietnam's] small territory than had been dropped on all of Asia and Europe in WWII," p. XVIII. This realization appalled attentive Americans and helped turn most of the US against the war.

MB says: "He also explains that Czechoslovakia democratically voted in 1946 to become a communist dictatorship."

INSTEAD, I FOUND that this is accurate, via Wikipedia, "In the May 1946 election, the KSČ (Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) won most of the popular vote in the Czech part of the bi-ethnic country (40.17%), and the more or less anti-Communist Democratic Party won in Slovakia (62%). [note: a COALITION of 3 socialist parties predominated in CZ the post WWII years]. In sum, however, the KSČ won a plurality of 38 percent of the vote at countrywide level [with additional socialist support coming from the 2 other parties.]. The Communist leader Klement Gottwald became prime minister."

MB says: "He talks later about how many Germans loved East Germany and moved there in the 1960s from the west. He talks about the migration as being unreported."

INSTEAD, I FOUND: Citing the NYT, 3/21/68, as his source, Kurlansky never uses the word "love." Rather he describes human traffic going both ways in 1968, and 20,000 West Germans (including the movie actor Wolfgang Kieling), going east as "less talked about" p. 147. That's a far cry from MB's notion of "un-reported."

MB says: " He generally buys into the idea that the states of eastern europe were somehow capable of reform."

INSTEAD, I FOUND: that he never states this. Rather he lays out a history of the stirrings of human and economic rights and democratic yearnings in Czechoslovakia and Poland, the point of 1968's narrative. In Chapter 7, "A Polish Categorical Imperative," the origins of the Polish student demonstrations in 1968 are chronicled --- and documented in the footnotes, sourced to original participants and other Polish authorities. Importantly, the Catholic Church lent its support to the students (p. 126), and these were the seeds that grew into the successful Solidarity Movement of the 1980s, as Kurlansky claims in the books closing chapters.

In addition, the most compelling part of 1968 is Kurlansky's deeply contexted treatment of Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring, Chapters 2, 5, 13 and 17, and its implications 21 years later for the Velvet Revolution in 1989, democracy, and the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union.

Thus MB's narrow view of "reform" in 1968, crushed in the short term, is better understood as the continuous discontent that heralded the popular revolutions (Kurlansky's point, pp. 377-78, citing Gorbachov and others) that would sweep through the old East Bloc and into the Soviet Union itself, collapsing the stagnant communist regimes.

MB says: "And then there is the middle east. He creates a history out of whole cloth. Israel in 1968 was struggling to give back all the lands occupied in 1967. Every good person in the world outside of Israel thougth that Israel should keep the land which shows how moderate the Israelis were. He tells us that Israelis (not the government of Israel) started creating settlements in the occupied territories in 1968 because individual Israelis were giving up on peace."

INSTEAD, I FOUND: While initially there were those who thought Israel should keep the land it won (and Kurlansky reports this, too -contra MB), this was not "every good person," and the numbers supporting annexation soon began to fall. Here's one reason why: I cite Wikipedia on Jewish settlements in the occupied territories: "Just after the Six Day War, in 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister:" "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." Nevertheless, settlements began to be built.

Kurlansky's summary remarks about post-War Israeli settlement motivations on p. 257, though generally true, should have gone further. While the government was trying to get guaranteed peace for land return, as he says, it actually was ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups (NOT "individual Israelis," per MB) who saw the Israeli victory as a literal godsend - not the secular govt. GROUPS of conservative Jews initiated the post-war occupation because they believed it was religiously justified - IN ADDITION to giving up on peace with the rise of Palestinian resistance. Further, under the Allon Plan, a proposal drawn up shortly after the 1967 war under which Israel would retain that section of the West Bank which would allow it to maintain defensible borders, readers need to be aware that the LABOR GOVERNMENT eventually created some 21 settlements along the Jordan Valley and Eastern slopes of Samaria during that period.....a corrective to MB and clarification of Kurlansky's accurate conclusions (This is from the Palestine Facts site). Indeed, Kurlansky cites Ammon Rubenstein's prophetic warning in the daily Ha' Aretz about settling in military occupied territory: "Israelis will have to learn the art of living in an indefinite state on non-peace." Concluding, Kurlansky's summary of the "middle east" is common knowledge, not MB's false accusation that 1968 is "history out of whole cloth."

MB says: "He holds Colin Powell personally responsible for covering up the My Lai massacre."

INSTEAD, I FOUND: Kurlansky (p. 373) wrote: "...Major Colin Powell [deputy operations officer] was asked to write a response" to a report that a massacre occurred in March, 1968. The massacre of at least 347 infants, children, women and the elderly (lasting 4 hours) came to light when a soldier's report of the incident - Tom Glen - made its way to the Americal Division HQ by Fall of the same year. This letter broke the cover-up, and an investigation commenced in fits and starts. Powell was assigned to investigate Glen's letter.

Kurlansky: "Without interviewing Glen, he [Powell] wrote that there was nothing to the accusations - they were simply unfounded rumors." Nevertheless, another infantryman, Ron Ridenhour, personally investigated the massacre reports upon his return to the US, and forwarded eyewitness accounts to the Army IG. Investigations at this level bypassed Powell's whitewash, and in September 1969, Lt. Calley was charged for his role in the massacre and later convicted. Kurlansky cites Newsweek, Sept. 11, 1995, where Powell's role in the cover-up was first revealed 23 years later.

In another news account of Powell's role in the cover-up, Robert Parry & Norman Solomon, Consortiumnews.com, say Powell "reported back exactly what his superiors wanted to hear," citing his 1968 report: "In direct refutation of this [Glen's] portrayal," Powell concluded, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Sorry, MB, Colin Powell (to his discredit) did have a role in the cover-up of the My Lai massacre, and Kurlansky is correct.

MB says: There are long asides into issues that have nothing to do 1968 like Cuban-American relations in the early 1960s. I mean how is it possible to take seriously the idea that "the bay of pigs was one of the defining moments in a new generation's cynicism about liberals".

INSTEAD, I FOUND: that the best history is done by providing prologue or context. The worst is done by only looking at the present and in isolation from the larger picture. The Bay of Pigs fiasco, planned under a liberal president, was a prologue to his successor's arrogant and costly intervention in Vietnam - that's why Kurlansky discusses the BOP. Let's remember, Lyndon Johnson obtained signature liberal legislation via the Civil Rights Act AND laid the groundwork for the reforms of The Great Society, while ESCALATING an unwinnable war overseas. With Johnson and liberalism's legacy in tatters in 1968, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were swept into office while reactionaries voted for segregationist George Wallace and Gen. Curtis "nuclear first strike" LeMay (ret). The latter pair carried 5 states and won 46 electoral votes! Talk about an anti-liberal backlash!

In conclusion, Mark Kurlansky's 1968 is as fine a general introduction to that tumultuous year as you will find. It reads easily and is full of incidental but relevant surprises that leaven his lively narrative. Further, readers seeking deeper knowledge of 1968 have a rich bibliography from which to pursue further studies. Kurlansky is one of our best all-around journalists and maintains a website where he occasionally takes readers' questions.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 4, 2012 10:08:24 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 6, 2012 2:11:14 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 6, 2012 2:08:56 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Sep 6, 2012 3:54:19 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 6, 2012 6:12:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 6, 2012 10:58:03 PM PDT
Mark bennett says:
This is a second attempt at a response.

What Gordon has done here is to write his own review of the book and insert it into the comments to my review. He has been doing things like this obsessively in my reviews for over a year now.

To Gordon, there are no differences of opinion. There is only truth and lies. Therefore because I don't share his views of history or his politics, I have to be wrong. I have to be a liar. Like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984, Gordon exists to "correct" incorrect thoughts by insuring that any dissenting views disappear down the memory hole.

Gordon says with regard to the author's statement that the 1968 generation viewed Hiroshima and the Nazi death camps as the same thing : "INSTEAD, I FOUND this remark nowhere in the book, & it is not in the index. Even if a few radicals (the ENTIRE 1968 generation?) said it, the hyperbole instantly discredits the remark. Kurlansky certainly doesn't believe it."

To quote the book:

"The great lesson of Nazi genocide for the postwar generation was that
everyone has an obligation to speak up in the face of wrong and that
any excuse for silence will, in the merciless hindsight of history, appear
as pathetic and culpable as the Germans in the war crimes trials, pleading
that they were obeying orders. This was a generation that as children learned of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....While an older generation justified the nuclear bombing of Japan because it had shortened
the war, the new generation once again, as children, had seen the pictures and they viewed it very differently."

Gordon wants to argue over the pressing matter as to if it is proper to describe two pages on Abe Fortas in the book as an "aside". Gordon seems unaware that Fortas later resigned from the court as an associate justice in complete disgrace.

Gordon strays out of the book to make arguments via his readings of Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia is not being reviewed here. And stating the obvious as if it means something while ignoring the points of the review is meaningless.

I can understand that Gordon politically supports the views of the far right in Israel. That he shares their views on the settlements in the west bank. But it would be better to elaborate on those ideas in his own review rather than calling me a liar (false accusation) because my views are different.

He spends several paragraphs saying what I said about Colin Powell in 13 words. He doesn't seem to have even bothered to read those 13 words.

I point to a statement that I think is silly: " "the bay of pigs was one of the defining moments in a new generation's cynicism about liberals" and he goes off on a long rant about Nixon and the Vietnam War. That makes even less sense than the author's original comment.

In conclusion, writing your own reviews in the comments of someone else's reviews is a rather silly thing to be doing. If you can't accept that there are people who think differently than you, maybe Amazon just isn't your thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2014 1:27:05 PM PDT
RA Meeks says:
Thanks for this analysis of a review that apparently had an axe to grind. Addressing, point by point, the comments made by the reviewer helped put things into context and focus. I'm leaning towards purchasing this book as a result of your taking the time to set the record straight.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 9, 2014 10:29:42 PM PDT
"In conclusion, writing your own reviews in the comments of someone else's reviews is a rather silly thing to be doing. If you can't accept that there are people who think differently than you, maybe Amazon just isn't your thing."

Your review was rife with mistakes of fact, which albarino did a good and thorough job of pointing out. If you can't accept that there are people willing to point out your mistakes, maybe Amazon just isn't your thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2014 6:06:28 PM PDT
Mark bennett says:
"Your review was rife with mistakes of fact,"

As I have already said, I don't see mistakes of fact being pointed out. I see differences of opinion about the book. In the case of the item where there was potentially a question of fact (genocide), I provided an elaborate response with quotes from the book in support. I'll give you two more examples:

"This book is less a history of 1968 and more a long-form opinion piece on any number of topics. Its (sic) not really a complete history. Its often written from a one-sided political perspective of `us vs. them'."

An opinion about a book is not a matter of "fact" nor can such an opinion be subjected in an easy way to "factual" analysis. There are, granted, people who do consider opinions to be matters of fact. But I'm not one of them. The value of these book reviews to me is in their different points of view, different analysis and different approaches to reviews. There are those who believe in the enlightenment and there are those who believe in authority.

"He holds Colin Powell personally responsible for covering up the My Lai massacre."

Since that is what is what the book argues and says, I'm at a loss as to see the factual error in pointing out exactly what the book claims.

"If you can't accept that there are people willing to point out your mistakes, maybe Amazon just isn't your thing."

Its been pointed out in the past by others that I have often wasted an enormous amount of time responding to things that either don't deserve a response or are from people to which a response will be of no value. But I still respond back out of respect or the hope that people are serious even when they don't seem to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2014 6:56:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 6, 2014 10:26:42 AM PDT
albarino says:
Bennett: "..... people who do consider opinions to be matters of fact. But I'm not one of them. The value of these book reviews to me is in their different points of view, different analysis and different approaches to reviews. There are those who believe in the enlightenment and there are those who believe in authority."

An opinion that is not in some way based upon factuality and knowledge of the material at hand is worthless. A differing point of view that misreads and misrepresent a book or critique is worthless. When looking at such a momentous global year as 1968 and not seek to arrive at an authoritative and integrative understanding of the meaning of its multi-valent events means the discussant is a pseudo-reviewer and not serious. Mark Bennett has a penchant for reviewing books from the standpoint of "expressive individualism." This leads to the sin of pride, and as they say, "pride goeth before a fall." Watch out for the first step, Mr. Bennett: it is a long one.

Last month CNN did a documentary series on the 1960s. One of the "talking heads" who spoke with AUTHORITY on the meaning of those years was Mark Kurlansky. He did so with confidence earned from wide-ranging study and long rumination on that epochal decade, and not mere opinion or the Bennett-ian compulsive need for self-expression.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 10, 2014 10:14:21 PM PDT
Mark bennett says:
Opinions are not facts. An opinion must, in general, be based on axioms and reason. But it is the nature of opinions for multiple of them to exist and in contradiction to each other. There is not one correct opinion.

The concept of "misreading" implies that there is one correct way to read a book or one correct set of conclusions to come to at the end of a book. It excludes the possibility that two people in good faith and can read the same book and come to radically different conclusions.

I reject the idea of authority in all its forms. Nothing, no one and no idea is beyond question. CNN and its talking heads are meaningless.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2014 8:59:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 6, 2014 10:17:57 AM PDT
albarino says:
MB says: "Two people in good faith and can read the same book and come to radically different conclusions." This is not my experience. 2 informed people critically engaged with a comprehensive/definitive text -- and in good faith -- more often than not overlap in their reviews. The only differences are ones of emphasis. Bennett's misrepresentation of 1968 makes him an outlier, and in this case, an unreliable and self aggrandizing discussant.

"I reject the idea of authority in all its forms." says MB. This is narcissism, translating into: since I wrote it, my opinion is valid. As Saturday Night Live's "church lady" character used to say: "we like ourselves, don't we."
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Review Details

Item

3.7 out of 5 stars (77 customer reviews)
5 star:
 (33)
4 star:
 (16)
3 star:
 (12)
2 star:
 (6)
1 star:
 (10)
 
 
 
$17.00 $13.83
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Reviewer


Location: Everywhere

Top Reviewer Ranking: 25,240