1. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
2. See No Evil by Robert Baer
3. The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman
4. Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan
5. 1491 by Charles Mann

At this point, it is unlikely that I’ll ever pick up Fowles again.

• The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made by Walter Isaacson;
• Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond;
• 1776 by David McCullough; and
• The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell.

I’m not sure in what order they will be read. I will leave that decision for the pagan gods that I’ve entrusted the sanctity of my life, home and family (and the order in which I read books), the sun and moon and shit. And the Eucalyptus trees, the non-native species being forced from their homes rooted all across California because they are not deemed good enough, an argument I fail to embrace.

The book’s thesis– which is driven home through and through — is conveyed by presenting the ever-growing wealth of information and understanding that we have on what took place in America before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue, information that continues to come to light as archaeologists continue to dig up newly discovered ancient sites. And it isn’t presented in an ultra-literal linear fashion — in 2000 BC, in 1000 BC, etc. — but in a more wild or ungroomed fashion, throwing facts upon facts on the reader, burying him in details of grand cities that rivaled Paris and Constantinople, powerful kings and deities that rivaled the throne of England, and empires and cultures that rivaled Rome and Greece.

Mann envelops the readers in all this “new” information and forces the reader to come away with one major point, that what I had learned about America before Columbus arrived was all wrong: the idea that America was largely untouched by man, and the sign of humans were small nomadic tribes of Native Americans, or Indians. It was exactly the opposite.

1. And this quick post will not replace such a digestion and discharge. And a longer, more profound, most likely never read post wouldn’t quench your thirst for knowledge anyway. Read the book.
2. Essays and long-form test-taking would be another matter.

I have always had an interest in what happened in the New World — long before it was known as America, and later, Columbia — and this book should at least whet my appetite: 1491 by Charles Mann…²

1. Or what I’ll call “heady,” since the definition is anything but settled, or uniform. That being said, I could always pull a Vonnegut off the shelf to give my brain some rest for a week.
2. I accidentally purchased this book twice. When I couldn’t find it on my shelf a few weeks ago, I checked my Amazon history and it wasn’t there, so I ordered it (again). I found the second, original copy last night. It turns out I had purchased the book under my wife’s account to get her over the free shipping threshold. The book is now a gift in-waiting.

• The Germans were not thoroughly defeated in the war. Following the armistice in November, the German armies were greeted as victors in the cities, complete with parades. The communities never felt the defeat, they never saw the Allied tanks rolling through Berlin. They didn’t lose.
• The Peace Commission failed to deal with the Germans in a timely manner. It wasn’t until May that the Germans even saw the treaty (although they had heard rumors). In the meantime, they were grasping to false hopes of Wilsonian self-determination.
• The Commission was trying to do too much. Alone from righting wrongs in Europe (Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, etc.), the Commission set forth on re-drawing the map in the Middle East and southeast Asia. It went beyond its expertise and spent too much time not concentrating on finalizing the German treaty.
• Colonialism remained a strong sentiment in the European powers. They were unwilling, Germany included, to give up their historic control in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and they absentmindedly drew new borders.
• France had a great fear of German ambitions. However ultimately warranted, the mood of the peace treaty was tainted with anti-German sentiment. The Germans were forced to unilaterally de-militarize and pay reparations it was unable to afford, despite commission expert warnings that nothing good would amount from such harsh terms anyway.
• Isolationism was the prevailing mindset in Washington. The U.S. was unwilling to develop permanent alliances, unwilling to join and legitimize the mostly powerless League of Nations, and unwilling to push either France or Britain away from their claims throughout the world.
• Italy and Japan were up to no good; nationalism was spreading and nearly everyone declared their independence in eastern Europe; Bolshevism had enveloped Russia; and Greece wanted to restore their great empire of prior millennia.
• The Great Depression of the late twenties and thirties devastated the German economy, and worsened their ability to pay reparations, and made it equally financially impossible for other world powers in the League of Nations (or the U.S.) to enforce the terms of the treaty.
• Lastly, and probably most importantly, Germany was ready to erupt either way. The Treaty of Versailles was a convenient excuse. Hitler was hell-bent on world domination, and the extermination of peoples had nothing to do with the Great War and subsequent peace treaty.

It was illuminating to read of the great efforts (in detail) that were made to right the past wrongs, and to re-draw the map of the world in order to preserve the peace. Unfortunately, almost everything in the treaty has since been undone (except for maybe the Iraq boundary, which may not be a good thing), and the treaty has been cited as the principal cause of the Second World War. That may be too harsh an assessment, but that does not matter. The treaty did not work, and the world is still dealing with its aftermath.

1. By “professorial,” I mean acting as though I know what I am talking about, declaring this or that as fact or fiction, leveling opinion as absolute truths. I read a book. It was fascinating. This is what I learned, or I believe I’d learned. These are my take-away points. Take them as they are; but believe me, it’s true and I’m right.

And now some history. The creation of Iraq; the restoration of Poland. So much happened at the Treaty of Versailles, and many aspects had huge implications for decades (e.g., Yugoslavia, the purportedly-related rise of Hitler, even Vietnam). Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan.

Image: Amazon.com

I think I bought this in a Barnes & Noble (those still exist?) a few years back. The cover certainly looked cool, and the content intrigued me. I was actually looking for a different book on my shelf this morning — another history book — but I couldn’t find it. I have a series of historical books in the hopper, and this one fits the bill, plus the politics involved should be captivating, even with regards to present-day policy and reality.

Now, some in-depth analysis of these three parts…

The first quarter of the book is the getting accustomed phase. This is characterized by slow, stuttered reading, trying to become familiar with the author’s writing style, language, characters and subject. This is also the get-out-of-jail-free portion of the book. If the first quarter doesn’t entice you to keep reading, it is safe to assume you were not invested enough in the book and you can stop reading altogether without feeling guilty.**

The middle half is the meat, and time flies. In fact, less time will be spent on this longer section than either of the other two (the first or last quarters). Characters and subject are well-known, writing style and language are accepted and second-nature. You get lost in the moment. Twenty-minute train-rides go by in an instant. Chapters open and chapters close. Full steam ahead.

The last quarter requires hedging. Is this really the end? Did I miss something? Was this the character that did that or say that in the beginning (or middle)? This part takes some time to read, a lot like the first quarter. Chapters are read more slowly, and flipping back (a page or two, or even a few hundred) to re-read is sometimes crucial to finishing the book, to understanding what is happening, what the author is trying to tell you. This is the end, but the end is never fitting.

I have never been truly satisfied by the ending of a book. I’ve simply moved on to my next book. And the cycle starts again.

* I preface book with ‘good’ because bad books just shouldn’t be read.

** This is recommended for any John Fowles’ book that was foolishly started.

On to my next book — a collection of columns by Paul Krugman, the best-selling The Great Unraveling…

Image: Amazon.com

There are two things that make my copy of this book different from the image above. First, it includes a fancy shiny sticker that says “Nobel Prize Winner.” Second, it is signed by the author. I received this as a gift from my sister-in-law. I thought about buying and reading one of Krugman’s books the past several months, but I could never choose a specific book, so I was happy that that responsibility has been lifted. Thank you, Edyta.

The content of the book — Krugman’s columns from 1998 through 2004, an indictment of the flawed Bush economic policies — may seem to be outdated in the wake of current financial crises, but based on the introduction and foreword* it seems that the lessons learned from the dot-com bubble were in fact not learned, and the corporate malfeasance that provided such unexplained and irrational exuberance has not been curtailed. The only significant difference is a change in the administration, and hopefully that will be a big factor in the development of long-term changes in our financial system.

* One other reason I love paperback editions of books is the “new foreword or afterword” by the author that is often added, with just a little bit more information that may be useful (sometimes critically so) since the publishing of the hardcover edition.

On to my next book, Robert Baer’s best-selling memoir, See No Evil…

Image: Amazon.com

I was interested in reading more of Robert Baer after reading Sleeping With the Devil. Policy-wise, I am on the fence with regards to re-building, dismantling, or blindly supporting the CIA as-is. It is obvious that the country needs what the CIA is supposed to do — provide real-time, accurate intelligence, and carry-out covert operations — but like so many government functions, bureaucracy may have destroyed the agency to the degree that it can not be salvaged.

1. The Fourth Bear by Jasper Fforde
2. The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper
3. The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
4. The Two Percent Solution by Matt Miller
5. The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman
6. Sleeping With the Devil by Robert Baer
7. Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke
8. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

Overall, a pretty good mix of classics and policy. Someday, I’ll pick up Fowles again.