|
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 | 
 enlarge | Author: Andrew Roberts
Publisher: HarperCollins
Category: Book
List Price: $35.00
Buy Used: $5.35
You Save: $29.65 (85%)
New (38) Used (37) Collectible (4) from $5.35
Avg. Customer Rating:  41 reviews
Sales Rank: 121535
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 752
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.5
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 2
ISBN: 0060875984
Dewey Decimal Number: 909.097521081
EAN: 9780060875985
ASIN: 0060875984
Publication Date: February 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Giving great service since 2004: Buy from the Best! 4,000,000 items shipped to delighted customers. We have 1,000,000 unique items ready to ship! Find your Great Buy today!
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In 1900, where Churchill ended the fourth volume of his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, the United States had not yet emerged onto the world scene as a great power. Meanwhile, the British Empire was in decline but did not yet know it. Any number of other powers might have won primacy in the twentieth century and beyond, including Germany, Russia, possibly even France. Yet the coming century was to belong to the English-speaking peoples, who successively and successfully fought the Kaiser's Germany, Axis aggression and Soviet Communism, and who are now struggling against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Andrew Roberts brilliantly reveals what made the English-speaking people the preeminent political culture since 1900, and how they have defended their primacy from the many assaults upon them. What connects those countries where the majority of the population speaks English as a first language—the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies and Ireland—is far greater than what separates them, and the development of their history since 1900 has been a phenomenal success story. Authoritative and engrossing, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 is an enthralling account of the century in which the political culture of one linguistic world-grouping comprehensively triumphed over all others. Roberts's History proves especially invaluable as the United States today looks to other parts of the English-speaking world as its best, closest and most dependable allies.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 36 more reviews...
 Honest and Compelling, A Terrific Read August 18, 2008
Agree 100% with the other 5* readers, this will indeed drive liberals nuts. How the English speaking people have helped make this world livable and just is beyond argument. Unless you happen to be a revisionist Anglophobe, and they're plenty out there.
Essential read along with Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism".
You want an accurate view of the last 100 years, here it is.
BTW, I'm reading the tag selections: stupidity, right-wing, inaccurate, and parody, being the first few.
Kick the libs to the curb with factual information.
Awesome book!! August 7, 2008
I sent this book to my husband in Afghanistan he is reading this book now and is enjoying it very much. It is well written and interesting.
A refreshing change... June 12, 2008
'A History of The English Speaking Peoples' by Andrew Roberts
Andrew Roberts has penned a refreshing, enjoyable and erudite history of English-speaking nations in 'A History of The English Speaking Peoples'. Refreshing, I say, due to the fact that he is unapologetic (for the most part) for and sympathetic to these nations capitalistic economies, approaches to foreign policy and support for spreading democracy. Refreshing, because so much of the history that has been written over the last many decades have pilloried the English-speaking peoples over these aforementioned subjects.
A clear narrative this is not: the book may seem disjointed, at least at the start, however you'll soon get the feel for Roberts' voice and settle in well. He jumps from topic to topic which may take adjusting though his prose is superb and you'll find a good deal of humor as you move along. I've seen this book described as a right wing polemic, and I suppose I can understand why, though I rarely see the knives come out for Chomsky's or Zinn's new releases. For those right of center, you'll find this read extremely enjoyable; for others who reside comfortably in the center this will serve, if nothing else, as a fine alternative for the left wing polemics; those left of center will likely seethe.
 Save us from the British wingnut apprentices. April 10, 2008
2 out of 14 found this review helpful
Britain turns out some marvelous writers who can sometimes go on at great length about a world of things that Americans barely comprehend.
The is, unfortunately, a long history of some of these talented writers getting wrapped up into the politics of others and for the most part getting it wrong. There is a surplus of such writers who became expatriate parts of the neo-con revolution that catapulted conservatives into power -- and brought such shame and disgrace to the United States with torture, incompetence and block-headed stupidity.
Iraq is only the most obvious example. Someone could argue with that expression of opinion. But one thing you cannot say is that Iraq is in Africa or Latin American. It would be wrong and you'd instantly think that writer was stupid.
Mr. Roberts may be stupid or flip or just careless. This book is unworthy to be associated with a title connected to Winston Churchill, who knew how to write and how to use facts, even if he did on occasion spin them to his advantage.
The promotionary material for this book and the jacket of the one that I bought is without intention, a laundry list of inaccuracies.
Mr. Andrews announces that in the early years of the 20th century, the United States liberated great sections of the globe from an oppresive European power. You could stop right there.
Whatever you think about the Spanish-American war, it was not fought in the 20th century. it as fought in 1898, a closing year of the century previous. It was over before 1899 dawned.
The last thing we need is more fact-careless imperial writers, especially one who is noted for his connection with a Tory Party in Britain that has destroyed itself to the point of irrelevance. But perhaps the lack of luster of Labor will allow them to return to power.
Some did happen in the early years of the 20th century. The United States discovered it really wasn't fond of imperialism after all, even when most of the truth about it was hidden. The "possessions" we acquired from Spain did not willingly become American colonies. They were coerced. They were quite pleased to have our help in breaking colonial ties, but our causes for war were slight, coming in a fury of Yellow Journalism and war fever. It starts to sound familiar.
We don't have a problem with Cuba just because of Castro. It's much deeper. We seem to have made progress in Puerto Rico, but our citizens there, while better off than most of the caribbean, are hardly great examples of our skills in Imperial remnants.
But it is in the Philippines where our war in the early years of the 20th took place. It was a war to put down the forces of independence. The Phllippines had declared independence before the first American soldier set foot there. Our conservatives of that period demanded that we put the insurrection down. So it began. Hundreds of Thousands of Filipinos died. Their leader, Aguinaldo, was captured through deceit and coerced into agreeing to support American occupation.
The War had been raging since hostilities with Spain had ceased. The depth of the conflict and the expectation of a long bitter war were concealed from the American public during the 1900 campaign to re-elect McKinley. The methods of warfare were brutal in the extreme and rationalized by claiming they did it first.
Prisoners were routinely tortured. One Army account, in sworn testimony, was that of more than 160 men who were waterboarded, aka the water cure, only 25 survived. The Army was forced to investigate and discovered that war crimes were common. There were courts martial and a few careers ruined and others suffered not a burp -- as judgments were ignored in some cases of the connected.
The U.S. Government's own Philippine Commission was sickened by the extent of the problem. Among those who acted was General Nelson Miles, a distinguished Civil War veteran who was probably the most efficient killer of American Indians during the wars against them. He was no Custer and those were dirty wars as well.
But as the Commander of all U.S. Army forces, he could not accept what happened in the Philippines. He retired and the Imperialist officials spurned him.
The Philippine War officially ended in 1902, but it actually continued for more than a decade beyond that. There were rebel strongholds and they were rooted out. Some of the Islands could not be controlled, so everyone looked the other way after 1913. By then, the Imperialists in the United States were in disfavor everywhere.
When it was all over, we were forced to commit ourselves to independence or Filipinos. It eventually happened after the delay of WW2. But that long dirty war came at the cost of American dead not that far from what Iraq has cost us. And like Iraq, it was an open sore, the war between the people who did not care that we had strayed from our own ideals -- and embraced the worst.
Britain is a lovely country with a load of room for its own Tories to fulminate inaccurately. But perhaps Mr. Andrews could trouble himself with acquiring some facts instead of a right wing list of talking points based on fantasy.
He seems to have almost as much trouble with the facts as David Irving.
 Double standards February 25, 2008
3 out of 7 found this review helpful
Roberts book paints a very black-and-white view of anglo-saxon 20th century history. Attacks on 'the Left' are scattered throughout the book, as if 'the Left' was a single unifying philosophy that is characterised by Marxist revolutionaries.
Certainly there have been great achievements by some of those on 'the Right'. And some terrible policies from some of those on 'the Left'. But Roberts insists on promoting successes of 'the Right' and trying to justify their failures, while lambasting the Left at every turn.
The real world has shades of grey; it is in fact the political diversity of anglo-saxon democratic countries that have made them successful during the 20th century. Roberts would have us believe it is solely because of the leadership of Tory/Conservative visionaries - who succeeded despite the nefarious Lefties undermining their efforts. This view is pushed so much in the book that it detracts from the many more interesting insights he makes. The book reads best when it sticks to facts but Roberts emotive 'analysis' goes much too far and it becomes a sycophantic tribute to conservative leaders of the 20th c.
Aside from the obvious bias of 'Right' over 'Left', Roberts doesn't appreciate or acknowledge that most people do not fit neatly into those two groups.
+4 stars for the interesting coverage of the 20th century with (for me) new facts and insights.
-2 stars for the tiresome Tory/neoCon propaganda.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
