Great video! I never comment but You just recommended books about subjects that I am most interested in and never could find a good book about. Thank you❤️
The top history book I've read (and am re-reading) is: The Penguin HIstory of the World by J. M Roberts and Odd Arne Westad. I also suggest Black Lamb and Grey Falcon by Rebecca West.
TRAGEDY AND HOPE(1966): A History of the World in Our Time written by Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley. The book covers the period from 1880 to 1963. Quigley's assertion that a secret society led by Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and others had considerable influence over British and American foreign policy in the first half of the twentieth century. From The outer ring of this society was the semi-secret Round Table groups. The book is based on archived files from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Hello there. Great video. I am following your channel since some months. Your book recommandations are awesome keep it that way. Personally for me it would be interesting to know who you are and your background. I guess it would make sense for viewers to know from whom they are taking recommendations on books :)
Thanks for the support! I can eventually do a Q&A / about me video in the future! I am still a small channel, so to avoid repetition I will wait a bit.
Hmm. Interesting. But consider Frances Parkman’s History of France and England in America. How about Barbara Tuchman Guns of August? Anne Applebaum Gulag and Red Terror. You can find Gibbon in an abridged version. Plutarch? Just a few other suggestions.
Fun list, thanks! But I should note that there is no such thing as an unbiased history book. To say a book is unbiased is simply to say you agree with the book's bias.
I enjoyed your video, nice content. I am very interested in reading more about history. Do you have recommendations of history books that are somewhat lighter or shorter? More introductory but well documented :)
Do you know about SPQR by Mary Beard? I got that to learn the Romans more, hopefully it is good. The modern Middle East book sounds interesting, although I want to get a book that talks about the ancient Middle East and then read modern book. Any recommendations?
'The Thirty Years War', by Wilson along with his general book on the HRE, and of course Braudel's great history of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II.
In a book that we all might have heard of, and might even have got round to reading... that might even have been reviewed or mentioned on this channel... 'When the British governed a country there were certain distinct features of their own society that they tended to disseminate... [including] No.9 The Idea of Liberty. The last of these is perhaps the most important because it remains the most distinctive feature of the Empire, the thing that sets it apart from its continental European rivals... Does anyone know the book in question?
I would add The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. He was a foreign correspondent in Germany during Hitlers rise to power. Still considered, one of the best works on the political history of the Third Reich. Shirer is homophobic which comes into view from a few comments, but fortunately they are very few. If nothing else it is a good cure for all the nonsense that is online about the Nazi's and who is like the Nazi's and what the Nazi's did or didn't do.
Read Shirer's 'The Collapse of the Third Republic', about the ruling class mutiny against the government of France that seemed to prefer Nazi occupation to French socialist rule. His best book in my opinion.
Your comments about most Middle Eastern history books being written from a Eurocentric perspective applies to "Fortunes of Africa" as well. The book primarily focused on foreign actors in Africa. I thought it didn't give enough time on African sociopolitical organizations.
@@Learno-uy5tt Cheik Anta Diop and Basil Davidson’s work are great places to start. After them I’d recommend the following: - “Introduction to African Civilizations” by John G. Jackson - “Ancient Africa-Fully Explained” by Adam Muksawa - “Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE” by Christopher Ehret - “The World and Africa” by WEB Du Bois - “A History of South Africa” by Leonard Thompson - “African Dominion” by Michael Gomez - “Born in Blackness” by Howard French - “Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World” by John Thornton - “African Voices of the Atlantic Slave Trade” by Anne C. Bailey - “Great Kingdoms of Africa” by John Parker - “A Fist Full of Shells” by Tony Green - “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney - “A History of the Upper Guinea Coast” by Walter Rodney - “The Scramble for Africa” by Thomas Pakenham - “What Britain Did to Nigeria” by Max Siollun - “King Leopold’s Ghost” by Adam Hochschild UNESCO’s General History of Africa series is also a great resource. And there’s a lot more to be consumed.
I have read Braudel, check my other videos. I also really like reading the roman historians and muslim historians. Not to mention all the british envoys who wrote field guides of various countries. I read both modern and old. By the way, Braudel is definitely modern, he helped found the modern multidisciplinary approach to history. He's not that old, lol.
@@IdeasInHat I admit that this is my first of your videos. Braudel is one of the most lovable historians if not one of the best. Have you read Fisk's "Great War for Civilization"? Muslim history, in English, can be a mine field. Europeans tend to lose their minds when contemplating the Middle East...
@@IdeasInHat Rica ederim. Fakat okuma oburluğu diye bir kavram var biliyorsun. Bundan kaçınmak, gerekli okumalar yapmak lazım. Yoksa çok kitap hiç kitaptır.
@@IdeasInHat bunun hakkında değil, bunu okuyacağım. (read about değil) İngilizce düşünüyorsun, beynin Türkçe'ye geçip Türkçe düşünmeye başladığı zaman önünde yepyeni bir dünya açılacak. Türkçe son derece pratik ve matematiksel bir dildir. Daha hızlı düşünmeye başlayacaksın. Genlerinde var. 😉
None of these are actually history books. They are philosophical polemics with cherry picked support. Do yourself a favor, avoid the recommendations for any history book and stick with those that academics hate. If academics hate what is written, you can bet your sweet ass it is correct.
@@nco_gets_it hahahahaha. Are you going to discuss material from the books to substantiate your point? As academics like to say, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Your explanation of the colonial borders tells you how biased the Meredith book is?! Why make Nigeria one country? When there is a Christian south and islamic north. What might the reason be? If you give the British an intelligent benefit of the doubt, rather than dismiss them in a moment (as aloof imperialists!?). If you create two separate colonies, and thereby two separate countries on independence, what then? Where are the resources, the oil etc? And how many languages, and ethnic groups are there in all? Where does the issue of Biafra (Igbo) factor in all this? Why was Uganda created out of four main tribal groups? Presumably we have to guess, that Meredith provides answers to none of these rather important if not fundamental questions!?
Well, if you say to someone "you should want x'" and they say, "we do not want X, nor have we ever wanted x," you shouldn't proceed to force "x" onto them. Martin cites more than a handful of political leaders and community sentiment that nigeria should have never existed. But colonials know best? The civil war over oil in Nigeria can be traced back to colonial borders. I think, on the whole, the mass genocides and terrible domestic policies speak volumes about how the colonials viewed Africa. They did not care in the way you are trying to make it seem. Not to mention, the overt stifling of native political opinions. Whenever a leader in Africa had a suggestion, colonials silenced them. Not even the South African intelligence service denies this nowadays.
@@IdeasInHat Para 1. Why not? A Wall Street Crash is not a good idea. The Americans were told not to, they were told how not to... Para 2. Maybe the British knew best? Can the British government necessarily absolutely not know best?? Para 3. I did not imply anything, i merely proposed what the Colonial Office was presented with, and therefore asked a few questions as to the thinking of the British Cabinet, how they might have made the best of a difficult and complex (unenviable) dilemma. You say that, "Whenever a leader in Africa had a suggestion, colonials silenced them." How were they silenced? What sort of thing are we talking?
@@richarddelanet the colonials had the interest of their own countries in mind, not the countries in Africa. There are soo many examples of this. For instance, never funding education in Africa despite taking their resources. And they jailed or bannished any African leaders who spoke of independence, and in even earlier times they just killed or enslaved any tribes who were uncooperative. King leopold the 2nd killed 10million people to acquire rubber. Not because he wanted to develop the Congo, but to instead - by his own admission - monopolize the trade before the asian countries developed rubber factories. There are definitely cases where colonials, especially toward the transition to independence period, were right on some stuff: i.e. the troubles that would arise from giving administration to a newly formed and super inexperienced government. However, in general, they were only pursuing the interests of their countries at the cost of African countries. Unfortunately.
@@IdeasInHat para 1 - sorry mate but you're wrong. It is explicit in the public record that the British Empire dictated to its personnel that, 'the interests of the indigenous peoples are our paramount interest'. Fact of the matter. British governments did not guarantee education for the British people themselves, until the Education Act 1870, although most people were going to school or had the opportunity of formal schooling by the the 1860s. This was also for a reason(s), not merely bad by the standards of our own time. This is fundamental history-think. para 2 - Again entirely wrong. There was an old saying, with respect to indigenous peoples rebelling etc against colonial authority in any way, the Germans had the leaders shot, the French had them flogged, and the British sent them to Oxford in England. para 3 - King Leopold is not British, nor part of the British Empire. para 4 - 'When Macmillan embarked on his tour of Africa in 1960 he first used the phrase "wind of change" in Ghana in a speech prepared before he left England. The purpose was to align Britain with mainstream black African nationalism.' (W M Roger Louis 1999). And further, when Milton Obote had trouble in Uganda, (after independence) he asked the British for military assistance. He received it and his troubles were brought to an end (for the time being).
@@richarddelanet I stopped reading the second you said a piece of paper declared they had the interest in the people. Lmao. Yes, and on paper, blacks in America had equality before the law. You need to read the book. The british did not give education to Africa until the 1930s, in some cases, and for most people, the 1950s. I guess you also believe the british supported the opium trade because it was, on paper, in the best interest of China? Appeals to documents are irrelevant. Actions matter more. The british killed hundreds of thousands of Africans, if not millions. That's not being a good landlord, lol
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
