<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Inadaquate
Review: Fernandez-Armesto never offers an explanation for the wide gap that developed between North and South America in matters of economics, science, political stability, cultural influence and the like. He correctly perceives that European exploration/conquest was the single spark that ignited the modern history of North and South and notes similar natural resource advantages found throughout the entire hemisphere. Ultimately, however, the author throws up his hands and essentially proclaims LUCK to be the causal factor of the vast divergences that developed and continue to develop. Indeed, perhaps Fernandez-Armesto's identification of the cause should best be called "dumb luck," as his snotty anti-North biases color the US and Canada as undeserving village idiots who preposterously won some cosmic historical lottery. I'll give two stars for the author's occasionally engaging brand of schmaltzy pop-erudition in the beginning of the book, which deals with historical beginnings. Thereafter, one gets only fact-be-damned sanctimonious laziness.
Rating: 
Summary: Some theories on how North and South developed apart.
Review: I will not rate this book 1 or 2 stars just because it is less history and more theory, but I think some of the previous reviewers are right in disagreeing with some of the authors statements. Fernandez-Armesto comes up with some quite interesting reasons why Latin America developed so differently than the United States and Canada. This is less history and more theory and conjecture. The reader should at least be open to some of these theories, because they can explain some of the reasons north and south developed so differently. Perhaps it was economic, political, or geographical, but Fernandez-Armesto tries desperatly to point that it was not the ethnic make up of the population. I agree with the author, but he should make that point up front, rather than dance around it.
This book is an OK read. Some of the other books in this series are more history than theory, so I was a bit put off by the subtitle of a hemispheric history, when in fact it is some theories about the inequality in the continent. The reader should keep an open mind to these theories, since they may prove to be true.
Rating: 
Summary: I Don't Think So
Review: In "The Americas: A Hemispheric History" Felipe Fernandez-Armesto attempts to accomplish what, he claims, no other historian has done: portray the history of the western hemisphere as a story of unity instead of the story of difference it has become over time. It seems that Fernandez-Armesto's primary logic for his contention is that all of the Americas is the product of European colonization. Since all the American states came from European empires, we must be all alike.Of course, saying that all of the American states are similar because of our colonial pasts is as silly as contending that England and Spain were practically the same country because they were both monarchical states perched on Europe's Atlantic coast. It completely ignores that there are great variations within states, let alone between them. It seems that Fernandez-Armesto also became side-tracked about half way through his book by delving into the reasons why Anglo and Latin America became vastly different regions starting around the late 19th century. He even spends the better part of the last chapter debunking 'popular' explanations for this divergence; explanations which no serious intellect would waste any time ruminating on. "The Americas" failure in its primary objective prevents the book from blossoming. However, Fernandez-Armesto has sprinkled some interesting observations throughout the work, such as his description of the various effect that African cultures have had on varying American societies. These observations though are far too few to save the book. Finally, Fernandez-Armesto commits the cardinal error of historical scholarship (especially for an undocumented work) of getting easy facts horribly wrong. Two egregious errors that he makes are claiming that Canada is the largest country in the world and that there are as many Catholics in the United States as Protestants. In fact, Canada is the third largest country in the world and Protestants outnumber Catholics in the US by about 2-to-1. These obvious factual errors lead a reader to regard everything else Fernandez-Armesto puts to paper with a suspicious eye.
Rating:
Summary: Inadaquate
Review: Pop history has few better writers than Felipe Fernandez-Armesto and he proves it again with the new addition to the always wonderful Modern Library Chronicles series, The Americas (A Hemispheric History). It is, in essence, a comparative essay showing how the idea of one America became the concept, through time, of two Americas. He does not use any trite triumphalist thinking in writing about America and one of the most fascinating aspects of the book is the author's demonstration that the similarities between the two continents, as opposed to their usually endlessly discussed differences, are numerous and essential in understanding their histories. This book is a refreshing look at the "New World" in a more global perspective. His examples, particularly from South America, are refreshing and insightful. The writing is a pure pleasure. A wonderful new book from a great series.
Rating:
Summary: Looking for America -- and getting lost
Review: This is a very strange book. To be blunt, despite occasional flashes of insight, Fernandez-Armesto's grasp of facts seems shaky. Early in the book, he announced the great achievements at Chaco Canyon were "between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries A.D." In reality, the Chaco Culture (as it is properly known) began in the late 800s and collapsed about 1110 A.D. He regards the Monroe Doctrine as an American idea, enacted at a time when the United States had four frigates to enforce its provisions. In reality it was a post-Napoleonic British initiative, designed to prevent any European power developing an empire somewhere in the Americas that might someday challenge Britain. He says in Texas "you can see people in what amounts to the state dress: Stetson and cowboy boots." State dress? From personal experience, "Stetson and cowboy boots" are common throughout the Southwest US and northern Mexico. When describing the Maya, who flourished until about 1000 A.D., he writes "the system was designed not so much to communicate as to keep secrets." So? That was true of European society in the same time span; it was a common feature of most societies. People kept secrets to protect their advantages, the era of the tell-all blabbermouth didn't begin until the Protestant Reformation. The Scientific Revolution was based on sharing knowledge, not on keeping secrets. He is fascinated by Tierra del Fuego, almost ignores Canada, and completely ignores what became the industrial heartland of North America because of neaby natural resources amd a superb network of lakes, rivers and canals. It's as if a history of England said Hadrian's Wall was built in 400 A.D., emphasized the Isle of Man, ignored Cornwall and treated the Magna Carta as a quaint scrap of paper. One of his most curious assertions is that "it is a mistake to suppose that great events must have great causes or long drawn-out origins." On this basis, the Roman invasion, Queen Boudicea, Hadrian's Wall, Hastings, the Magna Carta and the Armada are relatively unimportant events in forming today's sense of English identity. Or . . . what does Christ, who lived 2000 years ago, have to do with today's church? He also overlooks the fact that for much of the European occupation of the Americas, Latin America was the richest and most dynamic region. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that North America began its rise to the dominance, a time span of 150 years out of the 500 years of European involvement. In other words, the book is packed with oddball observations, strange conclusions and whimsical flights of fancy. It made me wonder if Fernandez-Armesto has ever visited America; it reads like an Englishman's blinkered vision from the confines of his fusty, musty, dusty private club. I doubt if many Americans will recognize the view of this hemisphere that he offers. Granted, there are some rare flashes of insight, but they are few, far between, and well-disguised. To describe the contents in Texas terms, Fernandez-Armesto is "all hat and no cattle."
Rating:
Summary: Looking for America -- and getting lost
Review: This is a very strange book. To be blunt, despite occasional flashes of insight, Fernandez-Armesto's grasp of facts seems shaky. Early in the book, he announced the great achievements at Chaco Canyon were "between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries A.D." In reality, the Chaco Culture (as it is properly known) began in the late 800s and collapsed about 1110 A.D. He regards the Monroe Doctrine as an American idea, enacted at a time when the United States had four frigates to enforce its provisions. In reality it was a post-Napoleonic British initiative, designed to prevent any European power developing an empire somewhere in the Americas that might someday challenge Britain. He says in Texas "you can see people in what amounts to the state dress: Stetson and cowboy boots." State dress? From personal experience, "Stetson and cowboy boots" are common throughout the Southwest US and northern Mexico. When describing the Maya, who flourished until about 1000 A.D., he writes "the system was designed not so much to communicate as to keep secrets." So? That was true of European society in the same time span; it was a common feature of most societies. People kept secrets to protect their advantages, the era of the tell-all blabbermouth didn't begin until the Protestant Reformation. The Scientific Revolution was based on sharing knowledge, not on keeping secrets. He is fascinated by Tierra del Fuego, almost ignores Canada, and completely ignores what became the industrial heartland of North America because of neaby natural resources amd a superb network of lakes, rivers and canals. It's as if a history of England said Hadrian's Wall was built in 400 A.D., emphasized the Isle of Man, ignored Cornwall and treated the Magna Carta as a quaint scrap of paper. One of his most curious assertions is that "it is a mistake to suppose that great events must have great causes or long drawn-out origins." On this basis, the Roman invasion, Queen Boudicea, Hadrian's Wall, Hastings, the Magna Carta and the Armada are relatively unimportant events in forming today's sense of English identity. Or . . . what does Christ, who lived 2000 years ago, have to do with today's church? He also overlooks the fact that for much of the European occupation of the Americas, Latin America was the richest and most dynamic region. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that North America began its rise to the dominance, a time span of 150 years out of the 500 years of European involvement. In other words, the book is packed with oddball observations, strange conclusions and whimsical flights of fancy. It made me wonder if Fernandez-Armesto has ever visited America; it reads like an Englishman's blinkered vision from the confines of his fusty, musty, dusty private club. I doubt if many Americans will recognize the view of this hemisphere that he offers. Granted, there are some rare flashes of insight, but they are few, far between, and well-disguised. To describe the contents in Texas terms, Fernandez-Armesto is "all hat and no cattle."
<< 1 >>
| 
