Three more books read
Decided to make this a separate post; the other wound up being longer than I thought and I think at least of these book reviews will be rather lengthy. Maybe even all three. Besides, the last post was also more depressing than I intended as well. I actually had a nice week off- vacation, a time to recharge and catch up a bit.
But at any rate, I have three books I recently completed, including one I've been working my way through since early in the year. Yay!
The Book Mouse's Book Report:
12. Grant, by Ron Chernow. This took me much of the past several months, it's more than 900 pages of reading material, but it was worth every moment. Now I want to get my hands on Chernow's biography on Washington. "Grant" is a real eye-opener in terms of understanding our history. I'm having a hard time trying to think of a more unfairly maligned individual than Ulysses S. Grant, after reading this.
Chernow uses a huge amount of reference materials, from letters and telegrams to other books, to paint a comprehensive portrait of this famous Civil War general and president. While the book is long, it is always engaging and colorful. Those interested in a thorough account of Grant, the Civil War and the aftermath should take the time to read this.
It is certainly thought provoking, and even infuriating, to realize just how badly sugar-coated this time period and some of the key players are. But it's also telling on society on how Grant has been so ridiculed, particularly for his alcoholism, which is almost a punch line at times. Was Grant perfect? No, no one is. But is biggest problem was not the bottle, it was that he was honest to a fault and expected everyone else would be as well. This led to more than a few scandals among his cabinet, most particularly the Whiskey Ring, because he just trusted the wrong people despite early warnings, and trusted until he had no choice but to believe the evidence before him.
About his trouble with alcohol. Yes, he was an alcoholic but by the time the war ended he was known for his temperance. It was mostly an issue during his academy days and well before the Civil War. But here's the thing: he wasn't an alcoholic in the commonly understood sense. He wasn't someone to tried to drink others under the table. He wasn't a one tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor type. He was a one tequila...and floor. He had no tolerance for it. I suspect that is why he is ridiculed for being an alcoholic, while other historic figures have generally gotten a free pass, including other Civil War generals. Including one general who died because of too much drink. Even now, it's "unmanly" not to be able to hold one's booze. Sad commentary on the country and it's sometimes puerile mentality on some issues.
13. White Fragility, by Robin Diangelo. This has become popular and is on all sorts of best seller lists due to the racial tensions of late. I recommend reading it...with reservations. I think there are other books, most notably Taking on Diversity by Rupert Nacoste and Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria by Barbara Daniel Tatum are far better at getting into issues about diversity, starting discussions and building bridges.
There are some good points brought up in this book. One that really stuck with me is that we often refer to Jackie Robinson as the one who broke the color barrier, and that women won the right to vote 100 years ago. But think of the phrasing this way: Robinson was the first black player the white management allowed to play, and white men allowed white women to vote 100 years ago. A bit depressing but it shows the pernicious and subliminal issues with white privilege.
I get it- it's going to be tough to open dialogues on white privilege because it's seen as an attack on people who consider themselves good, non-racists, and Diangelo goes into why this can be a problem. That we all have our prejudices and we often don't realize it and won't until we talk about these issues.
However, this book has some serious issues. One, she relates a lot of stories on how and why people would get offended during her workshops, some of them storming-out-the-door mad. But she doesn't weigh in on any "ah-hah!" moments, and that's troubling. It's good to point out the problems, but there is a serious lack of solutions, and given the examples she gives with how things went sour, I have to wonder how effective a teacher she truly is. The whole chapter, White Women's Tears was really off-putting. I get the points overall, but it came across as needlessly abrasive and, again, no solutions, no success moments. The bulk of this chapter was about a workshop she ran, which took place shortly after a police shooting of an unarmed black man. A black woman told her beforehand if there were any tears from white women she'd leave, and went into why. OK, I can understand this, I can understand, to a degree, why she'd be upset (although I'd argue this could have been a good topic- why would she have assumed the worst from a group that was coming together for support? Does that mean that she, too, had her own issues with prejudice that could have been deconstructed?) But Diangelo just asked for no tears- without the explanation until much later (which was too little, too late, in my opinion). I know had I been in that particular class, with what she said and the way she said it, I would have been puzzled at best and even insulted.
Another issue. There is one point where Diangelo is talking about desegregating schools, and how it was white families who did all the objecting. That you didn't hear black families (or really, POC families) objecting to desegregation efforts, leading to the conclusion that they were fully, 100 percent in support of desegregation. That's one heck of a leap of logic. While POC families may not have publicly objected to desegregation, I'm sure there were a lot of neighborhood, dinnertable and watercolor talks from parents and other adults wondering if desegregation efforts were putting targets on the backs of their children. Read Guest of Honor by Deborah Davis, about the famous dinner between Booker T. Washington and President Theodore Roosevelt. Friends and family of both men warned against the meeting and dinner, with black families afraid of Washington rocking the boat and provoking the white citizens.
So do I recommend this? Again, with reservations and the recommendation to read Nacoste's and Tatum's superior and more optimistic books first. White Fragility fleshes out some of the deeper issues of trying to tackle race issues, but should be seen as a Disassembling White Privilege 2.0 book, with some inoculation and understanding beforehand so readers don't dismiss her message because they are turned off by her pessimistic tone.
14. Flu, by Gina Kolata. I can't recommend this book enough; it should be required reading for high school and/or college students- and it can fit into science and history. I admit I thought I'd be getting more of a history about the events of 1918, but what this book provides is better. Instead of a history on just the disease itself and its impact on that time, the book goes into the study of that virus and similar flu viruses (particularly swine and bird), and the scientists behind their study. One of the strongest suits of this book is taking difficult science procedures and terms and explaining them in such a way that you can understand it with little difficulty. Kolata's book also is engaging; I finished it in about a week. Another good takeaway is presenting the various theories on what made the virus so dangerous (something that is still not entirely well understood, but there are many ideas), showing the strong points and weaknesses, like a good scientist would. It shows how at times scientists tried different tacks, but ultimately would fail. Or, they wouldn't find success or a breakthrough for several years - or even decades. There are many things we don't know even now, and might not ever know for certain. Readers will get a glimpse of the scientific process, what to do, how to weigh evidence and, in at least one tale, what not to do. She also includes information on the Swine Flu and efforts in trying to inoculate the entire populace, which turned into a public relations nightmare. It's an interesting tale with a lot of different angles. It also highlights the dangers of correlation and causation, and how sometimes, there's just no easy answers. It's hard to read this section and conclude that, despite the difficulties, that, if you were a scientist facing a possible viral threat but could make a vaccine in advance to stave off massive deaths, that you wouldn't at least contemplate a vaccination attempt in advance of the hypothetical outbreak. Those who like science, history, or even a mystery (Kolata makes frequent mention that these scientists are trying to pin down a murderer and figure out why it was so lethal), will enjoy this book.
Currently reading: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by Hunter S. Thompson.