<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Solid as a sponge
Review: Alexander's "official" centennial Utah history is a strong overview of the history of Utah. Their are many pictures to make the work interesting, and the narrative is flowing and enjoyable. It's only flaw its that it does focus on Mormons, but that is the majority religious group in the state so he can be forgiven. The book celebrates the people of Utah past and present and glosses over some not so pretty events. A must read for anyone interested in Utah history.
Rating:
Summary: Solid as a sponge
Review: I bought this book because it seemed the only large, comprehensive history of Utah available. Perhaps it was, but "comprehensive" is a bit misleading. It does indeed dabble in most every aspect of Utah's history: cultural, religious, political, economic. But the good professor does get, suffice it to say, tiresome...Instead of actually delving into the history of Utah he seems to mostly be engaged in personal commentary, with thorough history left as an afterthought. If only he could lay off the adjectives. History is supposed to be filled with more verbs and nouns. ....In his summation of the 1945-69 era he writes: "Any state blessed with the artistic talents...encases itself in a solid armor against the blows of those Philistines who belittle the arts and humanities as of little consequence." This said referring to people who oppose not art but taxpayer funding of it. See? Commentary, not history. Perhaps it's being too optimistic to assume that a good, comprehensive history can be written in a 459 page book with large print. But at least the Utah State Historical Society, which commissioned this [book], could have found a better author to attempt it. Take my advice: Search for a better book on Utah history. Wait around, if you have to.
Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Start, but not the Last Word in Utah History
Review: I have long been wary of any book that uses the term "official" and "history" in its title. It connotes a certain sense of self-adoration and celebration at best and exhibits rather blatant spin-doctoring and perhaps even untruth at worst. If any historian could write an outstanding official history, however, it is Thomas G. Alexander, one of the leading historian of the Great Basin. Because of his skill, he often succeeds here, but the blinders of centennial celebration and religious heritage limit what could have been a magnificent synthesis to what is merely a good one. "Utah, The Right Place" was commissioned by the state government in commemoration of the centennial of statehood. In a fit of largesse, the state legislature appropriated funds for this overview, a four-volume chronological history each written by a different scholar, histories of each Utah county, and several other publications and events. In this new state history, Alexander presents Utah as a crossroads where cultures met, conflicted, assimilated, and ultimately changed forever. Although there is some discussion of aboriginal peoples, the vast majority of the book deals with the cultural interaction between European-Americans and Native Americans, as well as between various groups of European-Americans. Alexander heavily emphasizes the period since 1847, with well over three/fourths of the book dealing with this chronological period. A group that is both overrepresented and handled with a surprisingly positive alacrity is the Mormons. No doubt the members of the Mormon church have fundamentally influenced the development of Utah since 1847, but Alexander's too-easy acceptance of the church's conventional position is troubling. For instance, with the many other issues appropriate for this state history given incomplete treatment or omitted altogether, presumably because of space limitations, why does Alexander devote nearly a chapter to a narrative of Mormon origins and development prior to the 1846 exodus to Utah? And, having chosen to do so, why is the treatment so reflective of the Mormon leadership's beliefs about the church's origins? Alexander, as a believing, practicing Mormon, handles most Mormon issues in this Utah history in a "faithful" manner, in most instances reflecting the church's beliefs about itself. A notable example of Alexander stepping beyond his religious convictions, however, is his use of the lessons of the Mountain Meadows Massacre to chide present-day mid-level Mormon officials about overzealous execution of presumed policies from the church leadership. In 1857, a combined Mormon and Paiute party brutally murdered a wagon train of Arkansans stopped at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah who were on their way to California. At the time, middle-management Mormon John D. Lee misinterpreted comments from Brigham Young and his chief lieutenants about possible war with the United States as a license to carry out this heinous crime, and successfully covered up the church's involvement for a number of years. Twenty years after the fact, Lee was executed for his role in the massacre but no one else was punished; in ritualistic manner he became a Christ-like figure absolving Mormonism of its great crime through his blood sacrifice. Alexander uses this event as a launching pad to deride extremism among the Mormons. Presently, the church has publicly broken with its intellectual community and demanded complete subservience to an increasingly narrow party line. The church's middle-managers have zealously excommunicated some of the best-known Mormon intellectuals, and the question has been repeatedly asked, "Who is responsible for this crackdown?" Are local church officials taking obscure cues from high Mormon leaders or acting under their direct orders? Such intellectuals as Alexander probably hope that it represents incorrect cue-taking from higher officials, and he suggests this is improper. It happened in 1857, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre was the result. At one point, he wrote of the massacre, "Such underlings will abuse and murder others if they believe their leaders really want them to do so. Neither James Buchanan nor Brigham Young wanted people to suffer or die needlessly, but...[their underlings] believed that their leaders really did want these things to happen" (p. 133). They acted on that belief. Alexander might well conclude, just as surely as in 1857, that underlings in the present Mormon church have acted to punish intellectuals. There are difficulties in the book, despite its usefulness overall. For instance, Alexander is at best cursory in his discussion concerning the development of air transportation and the aerospace community in Utah. A fair amount of U. S. western history has much to do with transportation, and in the twentieth century the air transport structure has been critical to regional development. Utah leaders were early and persistent advocates of air transportation, yet this area is barely mentioned. Likewise, the rise of large-scale aerospace activities in Utah-Morton Thiokol, Hercules Powder Co., and others-receive superficial treatment. These activities have fundamentally transformed the state's economic, and to some extent the political and social, landscape and cry out for analysis. At the same time, lengthy, but less important, discussions of sports teams in Utah, complete with photographs of sports celebrities, grace several pages. Despite my apprehensions about what is missing in the book, there is much to praise in "Utah, The Right Place." It is a serviceable state history that emphasizes the themes of the "new social history"-race, ethnicity, class, and gender-and the "new western history" with its emphasis on social and environmental issues. It is sympathetic without being hagiographic, and Alexander's conclusions are usually well-measured. It can be profitably read by anyone interested in the development of the American West.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Start, but not the Last Word in Utah History
Review: I have long been wary of any book that uses the term "official" and "history" in its title. It connotes a certain sense of self-adoration and celebration at best and exhibits rather blatant spin-doctoring and perhaps even untruth at worst. If any historian could write an outstanding official history, however, it is Thomas G. Alexander, one of the leading historian of the Great Basin. Because of his skill, he often succeeds here, but the blinders of centennial celebration and religious heritage limit what could have been a magnificent synthesis to what is merely a good one. "Utah, The Right Place" was commissioned by the state government in commemoration of the centennial of statehood. In a fit of largesse, the state legislature appropriated funds for this overview, a four-volume chronological history each written by a different scholar, histories of each Utah county, and several other publications and events. In this new state history, Alexander presents Utah as a crossroads where cultures met, conflicted, assimilated, and ultimately changed forever. Although there is some discussion of aboriginal peoples, the vast majority of the book deals with the cultural interaction between European-Americans and Native Americans, as well as between various groups of European-Americans. Alexander heavily emphasizes the period since 1847, with well over three/fourths of the book dealing with this chronological period. A group that is both overrepresented and handled with a surprisingly positive alacrity is the Mormons. No doubt the members of the Mormon church have fundamentally influenced the development of Utah since 1847, but Alexander's too-easy acceptance of the church's conventional position is troubling. For instance, with the many other issues appropriate for this state history given incomplete treatment or omitted altogether, presumably because of space limitations, why does Alexander devote nearly a chapter to a narrative of Mormon origins and development prior to the 1846 exodus to Utah? And, having chosen to do so, why is the treatment so reflective of the Mormon leadership's beliefs about the church's origins? Alexander, as a believing, practicing Mormon, handles most Mormon issues in this Utah history in a "faithful" manner, in most instances reflecting the church's beliefs about itself. A notable example of Alexander stepping beyond his religious convictions, however, is his use of the lessons of the Mountain Meadows Massacre to chide present-day mid-level Mormon officials about overzealous execution of presumed policies from the church leadership. In 1857, a combined Mormon and Paiute party brutally murdered a wagon train of Arkansans stopped at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah who were on their way to California. At the time, middle-management Mormon John D. Lee misinterpreted comments from Brigham Young and his chief lieutenants about possible war with the United States as a license to carry out this heinous crime, and successfully covered up the church's involvement for a number of years. Twenty years after the fact, Lee was executed for his role in the massacre but no one else was punished; in ritualistic manner he became a Christ-like figure absolving Mormonism of its great crime through his blood sacrifice. Alexander uses this event as a launching pad to deride extremism among the Mormons. Presently, the church has publicly broken with its intellectual community and demanded complete subservience to an increasingly narrow party line. The church's middle-managers have zealously excommunicated some of the best-known Mormon intellectuals, and the question has been repeatedly asked, "Who is responsible for this crackdown?" Are local church officials taking obscure cues from high Mormon leaders or acting under their direct orders? Such intellectuals as Alexander probably hope that it represents incorrect cue-taking from higher officials, and he suggests this is improper. It happened in 1857, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre was the result. At one point, he wrote of the massacre, "Such underlings will abuse and murder others if they believe their leaders really want them to do so. Neither James Buchanan nor Brigham Young wanted people to suffer or die needlessly, but...[their underlings] believed that their leaders really did want these things to happen" (p. 133). They acted on that belief. Alexander might well conclude, just as surely as in 1857, that underlings in the present Mormon church have acted to punish intellectuals. There are difficulties in the book, despite its usefulness overall. For instance, Alexander is at best cursory in his discussion concerning the development of air transportation and the aerospace community in Utah. A fair amount of U. S. western history has much to do with transportation, and in the twentieth century the air transport structure has been critical to regional development. Utah leaders were early and persistent advocates of air transportation, yet this area is barely mentioned. Likewise, the rise of large-scale aerospace activities in Utah-Morton Thiokol, Hercules Powder Co., and others-receive superficial treatment. These activities have fundamentally transformed the state's economic, and to some extent the political and social, landscape and cry out for analysis. At the same time, lengthy, but less important, discussions of sports teams in Utah, complete with photographs of sports celebrities, grace several pages. Despite my apprehensions about what is missing in the book, there is much to praise in "Utah, The Right Place." It is a serviceable state history that emphasizes the themes of the "new social history"-race, ethnicity, class, and gender-and the "new western history" with its emphasis on social and environmental issues. It is sympathetic without being hagiographic, and Alexander's conclusions are usually well-measured. It can be profitably read by anyone interested in the development of the American West.
Rating: 
Summary: Commissioned history
Review: One of the other reviewers here suggests that Alexander is the wrong man to write a comprehensive history of Utah. This statement is patently absurd! Alexander is one of the most important historians of Mormonism and Utah since Leonard Arrington. Unfortunately, this book is commissioned history, and as such, Alexander's heart doesn't really seem in it. The book is overly verbose at times, and at other times it seems as if the introductions and conclusions to chapters are tacked on. Also, the book is almost entirely narrative with very little interpretation. (Another misstatement of this same reviewer.) In short, this is a workman-like narrative history, but it is not edited or written with the excellence and care that Alexander's other works exhibit. I know that this book was expanded and updated in 2003, so if you are inclined to purchase this book, get the newer edition. If you are looking for a tightly written, superb one volume history of Utah, try Dean L. May's, Utah: A People's History.
<< 1 >>
|
