|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.02
| 15,429
| Feb 1776
| Aug 12, 2003
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 14, 2025
|
not set
|
Oct 14, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||||
| 1864485817
| 9781864485813
| 1864485817
| 4.04
| 23
| Sep 01, 1998
| Sep 01, 1998
|
really liked it
|
This book was published at the height of the "History Wars" in 1998, when conservatives accused revisionist historians of donning a "black armband" vi
This book was published at the height of the "History Wars" in 1998, when conservatives accused revisionist historians of donning a "black armband" view of history. They claimed that this new generation of historians—Henry Reynolds among them—were bleeding hearts who were wantonly tarnishing the rosy picture of Australian colonisation. Reynolds sought to dispel the myth of peaceful settlement. Australia was brutally colonised, and First Nations people bore the consequences. That said, some colonisers, namely missionaries, resisted the barbarous advance of British expansion. However, they were often hounded down and forced to flee their colonies, only to be exonerated and lamented decades later. Colonisers knew what they were doing was immoral—hence the title The Whispering in Our Hearts. Murder was committed, and the land was the prize. That prize was only partially relinquished when Aboriginal people fought for recognition in the 1990s with the overturning of terra nullius. I am often left in a quandary: participants in the Australian Wars who fought on the side of the British Empire are castigated, yet immigrants of all backgrounds continue to enjoy the fruits of that violence. What is the right way to confront this contradiction? In my view, a nation-wide, years-long truth-telling commission is a reasonable first step. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 18, 2025
|
Sep 23, 2025
|
Sep 18, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| B0DT1NM8F5
| 3.98
| 41
| unknown
| 2016
|
really liked it
|
Henry Reynolds is one of Australia’s most incisive historians. He applies his historical nous to interrogate the nation’s seemingly unconditional embr
Henry Reynolds is one of Australia’s most incisive historians. He applies his historical nous to interrogate the nation’s seemingly unconditional embrace of militarism. Reynolds traces this tendency back to Federation, when Australian colonies dispatched troops to support Britain in the Boer War. That support became nationalised midway through the conflict, following Federation. Dissent existed. Politicians and journalists argued forcefully against imperial entanglements, advocating instead for a defence-oriented military posture. Unfortunately, loyalty to the Crown and racial allegiance ensured Australia’s participation—not only in the Boer War, but in a succession of largely unnecessary conflicts. Reynolds draws on primary sources to let late nineteenth-century actors speak for themselves. Their voices are eloquent and compelling. Until Reynolds published this book, such debates had faded from public memory—so much so, that Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister, wrote Dangerous Allies criticising Australia’s subservience to imperial wars without acknowledging that these arguments are centuries old. The final two chapters of Reynolds’ book shift into polemic, condemning Australia’s imperial foreign policy and its lack of accountability—both to its citizens and to the victims of war. These chapters are powerful; Orwell-esque in tone. What remains shocking is that the power to declare war resides solely with the Crown under section 61 of the Constitution. In practice, this means the Prime Minister and Cabinet decide whether Australia goes to war—without parliamentary oversight. This concentration of power, and Australia’s enduring imperial posture, is encapsulated in Prime Minister Robert Menzies’ 1939 statement: “Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.” In the 80-plus years since, the shift has been cosmetic—Australia now follows America rather than Britain. The nation is preparing to fight alongside the United States in a potential war with China over Taiwan. Public support is lacking, yet strategic policy and the presence of US troops and infrastructure make involvement appear inevitable. Moreover, accountability remains elusive. Former soldiers face trial for war crimes in Afghanistan, but there is no scrutiny of the politicians who sent them—or who committed Australia to other tragic regional conflicts, such as Iraq. More of my thoughts on Australia's march into military oblivion with America can be found here: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/p/... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 15, 2025
|
Sep 19, 2025
|
Sep 15, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1913348474
| 9781913348472
| 1913348474
| 4.19
| 279
| Oct 27, 2020
| May 04, 2021
|
liked it
|
Not a review per se, but an essay I wrote that critiques this book. It is fifty years since Australia’s Governor-General sacked a democratically electe Not a review per se, but an essay I wrote that critiques this book. It is fifty years since Australia’s Governor-General sacked a democratically elected Prime Minister and commissioned the Opposition Leader as caretaker Prime Minister on condition of calling an election. This act followed a month-long “supply crisis”, where non-Government senators deferred appropriations bills from the House of Representatives. This had occurred the year prior and was resolved with a double dissolution election. However, with the government running out of money a second time, the Governor-General exercised his reserve powers. Jenny Hocking is arguably the pre-eminent historian of this period. She has written the definitive two-volume biography of Gough Whitlam, as well as two other books: The Dismissal Dossier and The Palace Letters (each referenced in this article). Her archival research and legal challenges have done much to bring to light the surreptitious actions of key players in this political saga. Her contributions to Australian history are commendable. However, her interpretation of the facts may not be sound. It is a fact that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, had advised the Palace that he considered dismissing the Whitlam Government prior to 11 November. It is a fact that Sir John had been advised formally by Chief Justice Garfield Barwick, and informally by Justice Anthony Mason, that sacking Whitlam was within Sir John’s constitutional prerogatives. It is a fact that the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, was privy to Sir John’s deliberations. It is a fact that Gough Whitlam refused to compromise on conditions of a half-Senate election and intended to go to an election without supply. A brief explanation of the supply–half-Senate election is required. In normal circumstances, it would have been within Whitlam’s constitutional rights to call for one when he did. However, following the deferral of supply, the government did not legally have the money to fund one; a half-Senate election would not have immediately solved the crisis, as new senators, including inaugural territory senators, would have only taken their seats in mid-1976; and even then, there was no guarantee that Labor would gain enough senators to pass supply. The aforementioned actions, however, are surreptitious because the full extent of them was, in some circumstances, only found out decades later. The Palace Letters were not released in full until Hocking took the Australian Archives to the High Court; Justice Mason’s role was not publicly known until Hocking found archival documents suggesting otherwise—Mason infamously told Hocking he “owed history nothing” when asked to comment on his revelations; and Fraser knew weeks in advance of Sir John’s plans to dismiss Whitlam and appoint Fraser as caretaker PM. Hocking outlines in The Dismissal Dossier that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK advised their PM of a possible instance of dual advice from Australian premiers and the PM about issuing writs in a half-Senate election, placing the Queen in an unacceptable position in a constitutional monarchy. She frames this as part of a British-enabled ‘coup’, designed to prevent the Queen from being bound by Whitlam’s advice, including his constitutional power to usurp the states in appointing senators. The FCO acted, she argues, to protect the Crown at Whitlam’s expense. Hocking argues that the Palace Letters reveal a secret collaboration between Sir John and the Palace that undermined Australian sovereignty. The letters, released after her High Court challenge, show Kerr informing the Queen’s private secretary about his plans to dismiss Whitlam—without Whitlam’s knowledge. Hocking claims Kerr sought reassurance from the Palace before acting, violating the constitutional principle of vice-regal independence. She views this covert communication and the Palace’s tacit support as a conspiracy that compromised Australia’s democracy. Constitutional scholar Anne Twomey challenges several of Jenny Hocking’s interpretations of the Palace Letters. She argues that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was acting within his constitutional authority in communicating directly with the Queen, and that there was no obligation to inform the Prime Minister of such correspondence. Twomey emphasises that the idea of dismissal had been publicly and privately discussed well before it occurred, including by Whitlam himself and his advisers. Contrary to Hocking’s suggestion that the Palace guided Kerr, Twomey finds that the Queen and her advisers consistently deferred to Kerr’s own judgement, reflecting his legal expertise and position as an independent constitutional actor. The Palace maintained a stance of constitutional caution, consistent with the principle of “masterly inactivity”, seeking to avoid entanglement in domestic political matters. There is no evidence, Twomey notes, that the Queen advised, encouraged, or supported Whitlam’s dismissal. Thanks to Hocking, the Palace Letters are publicly available. I have since read them, and Twomey’s interpretation seems correct. I think that the discrepancy between Twomey’s and Hocking’s conclusions stems from the latter’s pro-republican biases, and the normative view that Australia should have its own, accountable head of state. By virtue of constitutionally granted reserve powers of the Governor-General, the act of Whitlam’s dismissal was done in the name of the Crown: an antipodean and antiquated institution. Anne Twomey examined the Palace Letters through a constitutional lens, highlighting that the dismissal was legally valid. Unlike Hocking, who focuses on political impropriety, Twomey notes that once supply was blocked and Whitlam refused to call an election, Sir John was within his constitutional rights to act. The reserve powers, though rarely used, are embedded in the Constitution for exceptional cases. Still, legality does not equate to prudence—Twomey and others have argued that Sir John intervened too early in what remained a developing political crisis. G. S. Reid, former Governor of WA and a distinguished scholar of Australian politics, asserted that the supply crisis had not yet run its course when Sir John exercised his vice-regal powers. The trinitarian struggle between the Executive, the House, and the Senate has been a defining feature of responsible government since Federation. Sir John adopted an absolutist lens in assessing budgetary proposals, focusing solely on whether they had the Senate’s support. However, he overlooked the fact that the Senate had not yet played its ultimate card: the rejection of the Appropriation Bills. “The politics of responsibility are a matter for resolution between the houses in full view of the electoral audience. No party majority in the Senate has ever risked rejection of an appropriation bill.” Sir John erroneously reasoned that “if a Prime Minister ‘cannot get supply,’ he must resign and advise an election.” By intervening on this mistaken premise, Sir John unsettled the trinitarian equilibrium of responsible government and absolved the Opposition of accountability by sparing the Senate from deciding whether to keep deferring or ultimately reject supply once exhausted. Sir John acted within the bounds of the law but violated the conventions of Australian responsible government. Separately, he withheld key information and misrepresented whom he had informed and when, creating a distorted account of events. Fraser similarly concealed what he knew and when, further compounding public misinformation. By restricting access to crucial information during a controversial election, both men undermined the mechanisms of political accountability, and prevented the electorate from fairly assessing the parliament’s conduct. What particularly angered many Australians was the Governor-General’s legal authority to act on behalf of the Queen in dismissing an elected Prime Minister. The dismissal thus fuelled the Australian republican movement, which ultimately failed at the 1999 referendum when republicans could not agree on a preferred model, and many opted to retain the constitutional monarchy instead. As a result, the reserve powers afforded to the Governor-General remain, and our head of state continues to reside in the UK. Whitlam was in power for only three years, yet his long-overdue reforms continue to underpin modern Australia. His notable achievements include abolishing the White Australia Policy; returning land to Aboriginal people; introducing free higher education; ending conscription and abolishing the death penalty; establishing universal healthcare through Medicare; instituting equal pay for equal work and no-fault divorce; becoming the first Western leader to visit China; and doubling arts funding. Whitlam stands as one of the great figures in Australian history. Support Callum’s Column by subscribing and sharing – it’s free! https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 2025
|
Oct 13, 2025
|
Sep 02, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0521436117
| 9780521436113
| 0521436117
| 4.00
| 2
| Dec 28, 1992
| Jul 30, 1993
|
really liked it
|
I read this book as part of a history unit I did while an undergrad. The chapter on Western Australia formed the foundation for corresponding essay as
I read this book as part of a history unit I did while an undergrad. The chapter on Western Australia formed the foundation for corresponding essay assignment. I have since revised and edited that essay for my Substack subscribers, but thought it was a good idea to also publish the full essay here. “I do not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves.” Mary Wollstonecraft wrote these words in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Yet it would take more than a century before this seemingly self-evident right began to materialise. Between 1890 and 1896, four Rocky Mountain states in America extended suffrage to women, while two British colonies—New Zealand in 1893 and South Australia in 1894—followed soon after. Western Australia (WA) joined this select group in 1899. What enabled WA to assume such a prominent position in the global advance of women’s suffrage? I argue that this development resulted from two concurrent forces: reactionary politics aimed at countering WA’s emerging labour movement, and a well-organised suffragist campaign led by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Thanks for reading Callum’s Column! Subscribe for free (only your email is required) for new book reviews and political commentary: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ The WA Legislative Assembly was established in 1890 after the colony secured self-government from London. John Forrest, WA’s first premier, led a conservative government throughout the 1890s before transitioning to the newly formed federal parliament in 1901. During his premiership, Forrest played a pivotal role in extending the franchise to all men by removing property-based voting restrictions in 1893. At the same time, limited female suffrage—restricted to widows and property owners—was debated but failed to gain majority support in parliament. In response, the WCTU was founded in 1892 to build, in part, momentum for women’s enfranchisement. The Karratta Club, established in 1894, also supported women’s rights but avoided overt political activism. Some members consequently shifted their support to the more active WCTU. The 1890s also saw dramatic demographic changes in WA as men flocked to the Goldfields. By the mid-1890s, 36% of WA’s population resided there, yet the region only held 20% of assembly seats. After the 1894 election, the Trades and Labor Council created a rudimentary Opposition to Forrest’s government consisting of liberal and Goldfields representatives. This coalition lobbied for greater representation and for the payment of representatives, so that the working class could serve without falling into poverty. Ongoing malapportionment and political exclusion culminated in WA’s first Trades Union Congress in 1899, which called for the formation of a WA Labor Party that would advocate for the interests of workers. The WCTU quickly became an effective lobby group with eleven branches and a central Suffrage Department. It repeatedly urged the government to support female suffrage on “the courage of their convictions”. Public debates between pro- and anti-suffragists grew increasingly common. However, the Forrest government continued to oppose female suffrage. Premier Forrest argued that it was nonsensical to enfranchise women if the “mother country” had not yet done so. In response, leading members of the WCTU founded the Woman’s Franchise League in 1899 to broaden support by offering a platform to those who disagreed with the WCTU's stance on alcohol. Picking up where the WCTU left off, the League continued to lobby men who held political power. By the late 1890s, WA’s labour movement was gaining strength, but meeting its demands threatened the political status quo. Reducing electoral malapportionment would increase representation for the Goldfields and was likely to deliver more Labor members, which posed a challenge to Forrest’s conservative government. While Labor’s demands could no longer be ignored, Forrest’s cabinet sought ways to offset its influence. It was widely believed that the mobilised Labor vote could be neutralised by women’s votes, since women, shaped by patriarchal and religious norms, were commonly regarded as a conservative political bloc. The WCTU seized on this perception, advising Premier Forrest that “the addition of women on the electoral roll would go far to minimise the extravagant demands likely to result from a large unsettled male population possessed of political powers.” In July 1899, Premier Forrest introduced the adoption of female suffrage in parliament but gave no explanation for his apparent reversal. Critics called out Forrest’s abrupt shift, with one parliamentarian remarking: “It is no secret that honourable members have declared themselves in favour of voting for the question not because … they have reversed their opinions … but because they think it desirable to give some kind of balancing weight to the increased representation of the fields.” Forrest deflected the charge by asserting that the government’s actions merely reflected public sentiment. While he undeniably played a pivotal role in advancing female enfranchisement, the move was less about principle than about political calculation in response to Labor’s rise. Achieving the vote for women is an important democratic milestone. However, few asked where Indigenous women, or Indigenous men, stood in this achievement. They were not forgotten, but their rights were deliberately denied. When male suffrage was debated in 1893, parliamentarians routinely argued that Indigenous people ought to remain in subjection. This was even as violent dispossession of their lands continued with tacit parliamentary support. Premier Forrest’s brother, Alexander Forrest, member for West Kimberley, advocated for the enfranchisement of “mixed-race” women who had assimilated into colonial society. This was widely interpreted as a cynical move masquerading in inclusive oratory to highlight that some non-white individuals could qualify to vote—an omission that was swiftly corrected. These racist distinctions not only denied Indigenous men and women the vote but actively reinforced suffrage for white women. Some WCTU members lobbied men’s support by promoting the white ideal of femininity. Pro-suffrage men likewise stressed the value of womanhood with explicit reference to white women. For instance, Henry Kenny, Member for North Murchison, stated: It is admitted on all sides that, while men are only the progenitors of our race, the women are its saviours; and that on the future of the Anglo-Saxon race to which we are all proud to belong, and on the future of the civilised races of the world, women are exercising a higher influence and playing a more important part and will continue to do so, than men can aspire to do. On these lines, I claim the right of woman to have a vote.In this way, the political rights of Indigenous people were sacrificed to advance those of white women. The Constitution Acts Amendment Act (1899) ultimately extended the vote to women, but with explicit racial exclusions. The legislation disqualified “aboriginal natives of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Islands of the Pacific” unless they were already on the roll before 1893. In practice, this meant the franchise was reserved for white women. The suffrage movement, led by the WCTU, played a pivotal role through persistent lobbying efforts. While historical trends suggest that women in WA would eventually have gained voting rights, it was the Goldfields labour movement that forced the issue by threatening the conservative establishment. Believing women’s votes would counterbalance the radical Goldfields, the Forrest Government, despite its opposition to women’s suffrage, pushed through the legislation in 1899. Racist exaltation of the Anglo-Saxon race provided a rhetorical framework for parliamentarians and campaigners alike, cementing women’s suffrage at the direct expense of Indigenous political rights. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Aug 29, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0140441506
| 9780140441505
| B002JCUBLK
| 4.13
| 3,942
| 110
| Jan 01, 1978
|
really liked it
|
The Histories is the second volume of Tacitus’ magnum opus, outlining the moral degeneracy of imperial Roman politics. Fourteen books are thought to h
The Histories is the second volume of Tacitus’ magnum opus, outlining the moral degeneracy of imperial Roman politics. Fourteen books are thought to have originally been written; only five survive. These books detail the frenzied Year of the Four Emperors (AD 69): Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. It is a tale of power in disequilibrium and the rise of a new dynasty, the Flavian. Tacitus laments the bygone idyll of Roman Republicanism that was free from tyranny. As mentioned in my review of The Annals, this review of The Histories will analyse Tacitus’ moral historiography. I begin by providing an overview of moral historiography and how Tacitus uses it. I follow this with three brief critiques of moral historiography from Leopold von Ranke, E.H. Carr, and Keith Jenkins. I then conclude with a defence of moral historiography that partially builds on Carr’s theorisations. If you enjoy my reviews and analyses, you’ll find more on my Substack, where you can also subscribe (no sign-up required): https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ There are two types of moral historiography. First, the historical evolution of morality; and second—which is the focus of this article—how morality influences the study and presentation of history. Joel Alden Schlosser describes it thus: Moral history intends to instruct its readers on living a moral life. This instruction comes through various strategies employed by an author to teach the reader something about the ethical implications of various human actions and behaviours; moral history directs the reader toward specific actions or thought. While these directions speak first of all to the character and choices of individuals, political views follow… [with] historians [seeking] to operate at multiple levels – to entertain as well as instruct. Moral history… contain[s] didactic elements while also delivering other primary content. Tacitus does not present a formal theory of moral historiography. Instead, he interrogates the facts and delivers narrative judgements on those facts. Three edifying themes permeate The Histories. He asserts that Rome had “grown old and rotten” under imperial rule. Galba, for example, was not murdered for incompetence, as Caligula or Nero had been, but because Rome had degenerated into a normative state where murderous power struggles were perpetuated with impunity. Tacitus also evaluates individual actions, suggesting that personal vices or virtues determine one’s fate and that future leaders should learn from their predecessors. For instance, Vitellius’ reign—marked by hubris, avarice, and tyranny—ended in his decapitation and the disposal of his body in the Tiber. Tacitus ultimately concludes that checks on power can restore Roman virtue, hence his yearning for the Roman Republic—particularly a time before Gaius Marius and Lucius Sulla. Tacitus’ interrogative method is echoed in the theorisation of Leopold von Ranke. In The Theory and Practice of History, Ranke famously states that the historian should show “how it actually was.” Like Tacitus, Ranke asserts that factual history can be articulated through critical examination of sources. Ranke diverges from Tacitus by positing that historians can achieve objectivity by sidelining personal biases and moral judgements when analysing facts. By impartially presenting facts within a logical narrative, societies of the past can be judged on their own terms. A historian should not serve a specific agenda but instead represent the “naked truth without adornment.” Through this methodology, Ranke argued that he had created a “scientific” understanding of the past. In The Histories, however, Tacitus reveals the gap between imperial proclamations and reality, showing that history may not be a neutral record but is shaped by interpretation. This implicitly challenges Ranke’s notion of objectivity, a critique later developed by E.H. Carr in What is History? Like Ranke, Carr’s historiography is underpinned by fact-based sources. However, Carr counters Ranke’s claim of objective historicism with an analogy. Historical facts, according to Carr, are like fish on a fishmonger’s slab, ready to be prepared and consumed in the manner deemed best by the purchaser. This fish can be consumed and prepared in multiple ways, with new recipes possibly giving it different flavours. History is therefore “a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” A historian’s interpretation of the facts is contingent on their own time and context; consequently, Carr argues that moral judgments about the past cannot be based on universal principles. Thus, according to Carr, Tacitus’ moral analyses may not reflect a universal measure of right or wrong, but the anachronistic dynamics of power and decadence as he understood them in his own time. Postmodernist historians extend Carr’s subjective lens. For example, Keith Jenkins argues that history is inherently subjective because the ontological past cannot be directly accessed. As a result, no singular meaning or true narrative of the past is possible; history becomes a literary construction where the historian interprets events as they see fit. History is a contested discourse, shaped by autobiographical perspectives that serve the interests of different groups. Ultimately, history is relative. However, Richard Evans, in In Defence of History, pushes back against postmodern relativism. According to Evans, despite the subjectivity of the historian, historical events remain objectively true. If all history is relative, then no historical event can be falsified. Someone’s “history” that proclaims Holocaust denial is theoretically of equal validity to that of Ian Kershaw’s seminal biography of Hitler. Such relativism is inherently a threat to historical scholarship. What does this all mean for Tacitus’ moral historiography? Setting aside the moralistic element for a moment, Carr’s approach, especially when compared to Ranke and Jenkins, offers a more balanced historiographical method. He acknowledges that facts form the foundation of history, yet it is the historian who gives them meaning. This avoids the positivist oversimplification of Ranke and the relativism of Jenkins. Carr argues that historical events are shaped by the societal context in which they are written, and he illustrates this with his mountain metaphor: although one may view a mountain from different angles, it remains the same mountain. Tacitus’ work aligns with Carr’s view; he chose to tell the story of Rome’s moral decline under imperial rule. However, while Carr’s historiography shares common ground with Tacitus, particularly in recognising the historian’s interpretive role, he, like Ranke and Jenkins, refrains from endorsing moral judgement in historical analysis. This seems to be a contradiction in Carr’s thinking. If the mountain represents objective reality, then why not apply the same logic to universal morals? Carr’s refusal to cast moral judgments may inadvertently risk legitimising historical atrocities. While many moral questions involve grey areas, certain actions—such as torturing infants—are universally recognised as unequivocally immoral. In the context of politics, a liberal society is clearly preferable to one founded on terror. The purpose of history, therefore, is not only to understand the past but also to inform the present and guide the future. By sidelining moral evaluation, Carr’s method, despite its strengths, may fall into moral relativism. Although there may be different interpretations of the facts, it is arguably more responsible to make imperfect moral judgements of the past based on reasonable parameters than to avoid them altogether. Without moral historiography, society loses an important tool of ethical reflection, which is necessary for societal progress and reform. Tacitus’ historiography rejects the relativism of postmodernism and implicitly acknowledges the limitations of the historian’s craft in producing an objective account. However, Tacitus’ moralism is distinct from that of Ranke, Carr, and Jenkins; he recognises and promotes a universal morality. Tacitus sought to expose the moral decline of Rome, showing how a political system that normalised terror and murder was inherently more corrupt than one governed by civic decorum and institutional checks. This didactic approach to history—interrogating the facts and drawing moral lessons from past events—is one of the reasons Tacitus is regarded as one of the great historians. By studying the past and making moral judgements, he was better able to assess the present. His strong opposition to tyranny offered valuable lessons for posterity, highlighting the importance of civic virtue and the dangers of unchecked power. If you enjoy my reviews and analyses, you’ll find more on my Substack, where you can also subscribe (no sign-up required): https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 28, 2025
|
Sep 07, 2025
|
Aug 28, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1761507486
| 9781761507489
| B0FCXRKLVW
| 5.00
| 5
| unknown
| Nov 04, 2025
|
it was amazing
|
The Australian Wars were fought over 150 years, from 1790 to 1934. One hundred thousand people died, and the death toll was asymmetrical, with up to f
The Australian Wars were fought over 150 years, from 1790 to 1934. One hundred thousand people died, and the death toll was asymmetrical, with up to fifty Aboriginal deaths for every white death. This toll exceeds that of all foreign wars in which post-Federation Australia has participated combined. Yet a third of the country remains “unsure” of this history. Dare I say, many more would dispute the aforementioned numbers. This book is the first to provide a continental overview of the Australian Wars: wars of vanquish, wars of genocide. The book follows Rachel Perkins’ documentary series of the same name and is edited alongside Stephen Gapps, Mina Murray, and Henry Reynolds. Both First Nations and non–First Nations writers depict our harrowing history. Some chapters are entwined with personal stories from Indigenous authors who are descendants of survivors; others remain largely academic. The book is chronologically arranged in three parts. Each part marks a distinct period in the wars and focuses on the primary geographic areas of warfare during that time. The history relies on oral evidence, the traditional form of knowledge transfer among First Nations people, and primary sources. Practically all of the latter come from white people, with the consequent biases this may entail. To balance such perspectives, each chapter is preceded by a several-page introduction from a First Nations person of the region being examined—for example, Richard Franklin, a Gunditjmara man from Victoria. These preludes connect the past with the enduring present, a powerful literary device. The “Frontier Wars” has long been the preferred term to describe the conflict analysed in this book. However, in both Perkins’ and Reynolds’ view, the term inadvertently downplays the true scale of Australia’s wars. Across the Tasman, there were the New Zealand Wars, a series of conflicts between Māori and Pākehā for control of all of New Zealand. They defined what New Zealand would become. It was the same in Australia, “not because of how they were fought, but because of what they were fought about: a way of life and sovereignty of a whole continent.” Māori warriors of this period are widely considered noble patriots. So too are those who fought on the side of the British Empire. Both sides are duly commemorated at Auckland’s War Memorial Museum. There is also Te Pūtake o te Riri (National Day of Commemoration), which includes honours for those who fought on both sides of the New Zealand Wars. Comparable recognition is absent in Australia. First Nations patriotic courage is barely alluded to at our National War Memorial. By explicitly describing frontier conflict as the Australian Wars, such omissions become glaring. The Australian Wars were characterised by Aboriginal guerrilla tactics and brutal reprisals from settlers and colonial forces. While land was the central prize, violence flared when Aboriginal women were taken, livestock killed, or cultural boundaries crossed. In the earliest phase of colonisation, the British Army led campaigns against Aboriginal resistance. Over time, conflict increasingly involved settlers and squatters, and later the Native Police: Aboriginal men recruited, armed, and commanded by white officers to suppress their own people. Although battles occurred, “massacre” is the more accurate term in most cases. Historians have identified more than 400 massacres, defined as the “unlawful killing of six or more undefended people in one operation.” On the Aboriginal side, leaders such as Yagan and Jandamarra became emblematic of resistance. On the settler side, there were both perpetrators and bystanders, though claims to innocence are difficult to reconcile with the sheer scale of Aboriginal victimhood: people largely defenceless and fighting for their traditional lands. The book adopts a moral-revisionist historiographical lens, evident from the outset as Perkins foregrounds the injustice of colonial warfare and the erasure of First Nations resistance. It plays a pivotal role in reframing the Australian Wars by highlighting Indigenous agency, patriotism, and the ethical dimensions of colonial violence—violence aimed at dispossession rather than defence. However, by prioritising this framework, the book underplays the warfare-as-politics theoretical nexus and comparative dimensions of Australia’s warfare. Henry Reynolds used Clausewitzian theory in Forgotten Wars to frame frontier conflicts as “policy by other means.” While compelling, he admits he is not a military historian and lacks the depth for full theoretical analysis. The Australian Wars adopts his thesis of Indigenous dispossession but only briefly and implicitly explores how political aims, strategy, and tactics intersect. A military theorist could have developed this further, showing how guerrilla resistance and colonial reprisals operated as strategic tools rather than improvised responses. A Clausewitzian lens clarifies how political objectives shaped Indigenous guerrilla tactics and colonial reprisals as strategic instruments of policy. This perspective reveals calculated logic behind irregular warfare, where resistance aligned with goals of sovereignty and survival. Extending Ray Kerkhove’s vignette on military strategy and tactics through this lens would have sharpened the analysis of asymmetric conflict as a deliberate contest of power. It also frames the Australian Wars as expressions of political will, with tactics and organisation aligned to strategic aims. A chapter at the beginning of the book expanding on the New Zealand Wars comparison would have added valuable context. While I encountered these conflicts during postgraduate study in New Zealand, most Australians are unlikely to share that background. An overview of shared causes, particularly the strategic use of warfare by First Nations peoples and Māori to resist land dispossession, would have strengthened the rationale for using “Australian Wars” instead of “Frontier Wars” and highlighted trans-Tasman parallels in Indigenous resistance to colonial expansion. Some chapters stand out more than others. The Queensland and Tasmania sections offer compelling insights into Aboriginal resistance tactics against colonisers. Others, however, feel underdeveloped. For example, having read Jandamarra and the Bunuba Resistance, I expected more depth on how he psychologically and tactically outmanoeuvred Kimberley police. Such detail is what made his story remarkable. Yagan similarly receives only one or two pages of passing coverage—surprising, given his symbolic importance and the nine-metre statue in central Perth. This leads to my main critique: the book is too short. For a conflict lasting 150 years, 350 pages—especially with numerous images and chapter introductions—feels inadequate. This is striking when compared to David Marr’s Killing for Country (~450 pages, focused on a few individuals in Queensland) and Mary Anne J. Tobin’s Every Mother’s Son is Guilty (~600 pages, focused on the Kimberley). Given the ongoing “history wars,” the book’s brevity somewhat limits its ability to fully engage with and contextualise this contested national history. My critiques, however, are likely beside the point. For First Nations people, the impact of the Australian Wars is not an intellectual curiosity—it is their reality. Most Australians remain unaware of the full scope of the conflicts that shaped our nation’s founding. This book offers the first continent-wide history of the wars. It demonstrates colonisation as a brutal struggle and frames truth-telling as integral to national healing. The Australian Wars is essential reading for anyone concerned with history, justice, and reconciliation in Australia. Subscribe for free to receive new posts direct to your inbox here: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 23, 2025
|
Oct 07, 2025
|
Aug 21, 2025
|
ebook
| ||||||||||||||
| 030790685X
| 9780307906854
| 030790685X
| 4.11
| 9,816
| -400
| Dec 07, 2021
|
it was amazing
|
Xenophon’s Anabasis (written ~370 BCE) is one of antiquity’s great books. Edited by Shane Brennan and David Thomas, The Landmark Xenophon’s Anabasis d
Xenophon’s Anabasis (written ~370 BCE) is one of antiquity’s great books. Edited by Shane Brennan and David Thomas, The Landmark Xenophon’s Anabasis details the story of the Ten Thousand (401–399 BCE): Greek mercenaries stranded in Persia after their employer, Cyrus the Younger, is killed in battle in an attempt to oust his older brother, Artaxerxes, from the Persian throne. Like the Ten Thousand, this edited volume is epic in scale. It has thirty-eight maps, hundreds of clarificatory footnotes, and twenty-four appendix chapters. This book is one of the great adaptations of Xenophon’s work. Xenophon is both author and protagonist in this Homeric tale. After Cyrus the Younger’s defeat, the Ten Thousand’s generals are murdered in a deceitful act by one of Artaxerxes’ satraps, Tissaphernes. Xenophon is subsequently chosen to lead the mercenaries back to Greece. Of the roughly ten thousand soldiers, nearly three-quarters make it home. Xenophon’s success was inspirational—it demonstrated that the Persian Empire was pregnable. Alexander the Great allegedly carried a copy of Anabasis as he conquered Persia in the name of the Greeks seventy years later. By reading The Landmark Xenophon’s Anabasis in its entirety, one is able to ascertain a deep understanding of Xenophon the man, the key actors of this history, the geopolitical context of Ancient Greece and Persia post–Peloponnesian War, religion (although the Greeks did not have a word for “religion” as we know it), Xenophon’s historiography and literary canon, and the influence and impact of his work throughout the ages. Within Anabasis itself, however, there are two broad themes: military leadership and how to rule, and apologia—both personal and Socratic. Xenophon devotes significant time to the actions of leaders. Following Tissaphernes’ treachery, for instance, the Ten Thousand must cross the Zapatas River before Persian attack. Xenophon mostly examines his style of leadership rather than the crossing of the river. Moreover, he analyses the strengths and weaknesses of other leadership styles in an instructive manner. Brennan asserts that “the conclusion of Xenophon’s exposition is that the optimal style is the one he represents: the democratic exponent and the embodiment of virtuous behaviour.” Anabasis is an apologia to himself. Xenophon refutes charges of corruption and wilful arrogance levied against him while he led the Ten Thousand. He uses Socrates’ dialogue-based didacticism to introduce a charge, then justifies his actions with lengthy speeches. Anabasis is also a defence of Xenophon’s association with Cyrus the Younger, who had financed Sparta’s fleet in the Peloponnesian War. Such funding was pivotal in Sparta’s defeat of Athens. Such instability drove Xenophon to join the Ten Thousand—not a betrayal of Athens. Anabasis is also a defence of Socrates—Xenophon’s teacher. Xenophon’s near-perfect generalship is a testament to Socrates’ ethical precepts, which produced young men capable of leading their communities with honour. Brennan asserts that “by his own conduct as a young Athenian, Xenophon furnishes evidence against the charges that Socrates had corrupted the youth of the city and was impious; more generally, in the context of Socrates’ legacy, he is providing a reflected image of him to stand and be measured against other versions in circulation at the time of writing in the 370s.” Xenophon is in dialogue with Thucydides and Herodotus. Both write politically charged histories: Thucydides favours realpolitik, and Herodotus comparative politics. Yet they aim to tell things as they happened, unimpeded by speculation. According to John Dillery (author of Appendix N), Xenophon’s Anabasis differs. It is a portrait of a polis on the move—a “profoundly political story, a study of self-governance, leadership and collective action.” It is a politico-philosophical text on par with Plato and Aristotle. Its survival and interpretation, however, depend on the transmission of the text itself. David Thomas analyses the source on which the modern Anabasis is based: a ninth-century manuscript. He cautions that “reconstructing the ninth-century edition does not in itself allow us to read Xenophon’s original text.” Editorial judgment refines understanding—for instance, whether Xenophon addresses his comrades as “you” or “we.” Scribes may have effaced speech, character, or custom. Accepting later interpolations as Xenophon’s own diminishes him as narrator. This textual lineage situates the work within a broader tradition of preservation and interpretation. A lot is owed to the monks and clergymen of the Dark and Medieval Ages who transcribed ancient texts. Their labour—beautifully explained in Andrew Pettegree’s The Library: A Fragile History—underpinned our knowledge of the past. It was the pursuit of knowledge and the aspiration for justice that endures to the present day. A library is the harbinger of this, and scholars, like the editors of this volume, are the messengers. Overall, The Landmark Xenophon’s Anabasis is excellent. It makes a fine addition to my personal library and to my endeavour of continuous learning. Support Callum’s Column by subscribing and sharing - it’s free! https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 05, 2025
|
Oct 25, 2025
|
Aug 14, 2025
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| B0FSL6G7JD
| 3.99
| 9,277
| Jan 0116
| 1956
|
really liked it
|
Tacitus is considered one of the greatest historians of Rome. He wrote in the early first century AD, with his magnum opus being Annals and Histories.
Tacitus is considered one of the greatest historians of Rome. He wrote in the early first century AD, with his magnum opus being Annals and Histories. The former covers the Julio-Claudian Dynasty post-Augustus, from 14–68 AD, and the latter covers the years from 69–96 AD. Both are featured in the Great Books of the Western World by Encyclopedia Britannica. This review focuses on the Annals; a review of Histories is forthcoming, which will focus more on Tacitus’s moralist historiography. Unfortunately, large tracts of Annals have been lost, including all sections related to Caligula’s reign and most sections related to Claudius’s reign. Nonetheless, what survives provides terrifying insight into Roman imperialist tyranny. Thanks for reading Callum’s Column! Subscribe for free (only your email is required) for new book reviews and political analyses on Australia and the United States: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ Tacitus used both primary and secondary sources. He had access to the Acta Senatus (Roman Senate records), collections of contemporary letters and writings, earlier histories from people like Pliny the Elder, Fabius Rusticus, and Aufidius Bassus, and personal knowledge of the machinations of Roman politics. Tacitus does not take these sources at face value. He instead interrogates the historical record, auguring, “So obscure are the greatest events, as some take for granted any hearsay, whatever its source; others turn into falsehoods, and both errors find encouragement with posterity.” Tacitus’s conclusions are heavily influenced by Thucydidean realist historiography, which is augmented by a moralist lens—often juxtaposing his historical subjects with the more virtuous time of Republican Rome. The Annals begins with Tiberius’s ascension to princeps of Rome. Initial republican caution and senatorial liberty proved fleeting. Tiberius quickly descends into paranoia and cruelty; murder is normalised, senate authority deteriorates, and the praetorian guard grows powerful. These phenomena lead to Claudius—chosen to rule by the praetorian guard after Caligula’s murder. Claudius’s reign was shrouded in intrigue, crescendoing with his second wife, Agrippina, killing him so her son, Nero, could rule. Nero’s Rome descends into spectacle, barbarism, and moral decay. Nobles, philosophers, and even his own mother are murdered at his behest. Tacitus’s anthology ends shortly before Nero’s death. This abrupt ending underscores the costs of autocracy—personal degradation, terror, and murder. The decline of liberty and the rise of tyranny is a persistent theme throughout Tacitus’s Annals. The Roman republic was in living memory when Tiberius rose to power. However, those who stood the most to gain from its return—senators and nobles—were the most supine. They sought his favour but also feared his displeasure. Tiberius despised them for it, yet accepted this power. The gradual concentration of unchecked power created a vicious circle. Imperial profligacy and wanton murder tyrannised Rome, with murder of the ruler seeming to be the only recourse. Fearing for their own lives, the emperors ruled more tyrannically, and so on. Rome’s nobility was also culpable for this decline; many families used this new political norm of violence to purge their rivals on false charges of treason. As Lord Acton stated: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Another decline in liberty is that of neighbouring civilizations. Over the course of the Annals, Germania and Britain were conquered, and Parthia was subjugated. Roman expansionism endured despite its head rotting. However, Tacitus extols honourable acts of resistance. Boudica, a British woman, led an unsuccessful campaign against Roman imperialism. Agrippina the Elder—granddaughter of Augustus and mother of Caligula—refused to bow to Tiberius’s descent into tyranny. Thrasea, a senator, led a stoic opposition to Nero, exclaiming his disgust at Nero’s behaviour and the senate’s obsequiousness. However, Tacitus not-so-subtly reminds the reader that honourable resistance had become impossible in imperial Rome; all those placed on Tacitus’s pedestal of liberty were killed. Nonetheless, they were martyrs. Another recurring theme is the erosion of Roman morals. Tacitus contrasts the decaying virtue of Rome with the resilience of the Germanic tribes, who fiercely resisted Roman domination. He further laments the transition from republic to empire, observing that Rome’s early greatness was rooted in both military power and republican virtue. The diffusion of power between the senate, consuls, tribunes, and more led to personal liberty and relative prosperity. What passed for imperial rule often bordered on the absurd—elaborate displays of loyalty to the sovereign and ritualistic proclamations became commonplace, turning governance into a spectacle that might seem comical if its consequences were not so tragic. Lives, careers, and families were destroyed over petty grievances. Tacitus closes with Nero serving as the final act in a tragic drama, where any lingering pretence of republican order gives way to murderous tyranny. America’s authoritarian drift is often compared to Rome’s shift from republic to empire. The Founding Fathers themselves drew inspiration from the Roman Republic, as seen in the Federalist Papers. Yet this historical analogy is misleading. Rome’s republican institutions were shattered by a series of bloody civil wars that cleared the way for despotism. While America is deeply polarised, it is not teetering on the edge of civil war. Nonetheless, with the ongoing attacks on liberal-democratic institutions, there are some historical echoes. Like imperial Rome, America’s descent into authoritarianism is wrapped in republican rhetoric; the first to kiss the ring in Trump’s second administration were America’s richest and most powerful individuals; Congress’s servility is concerningly similar to Rome’s supine senate; and the continued concentration of power in one man is leading to the moral disintegration of the state. There are two lessons from Tacitus that are applicable to the present day. The first lesson is that once-great republics can fall into tyranny, and belated honourable resistance may prove futile. Instead, liberty must be fought for as soon as a threat to it arises. This requires civic virtue. There are millions of Americans opposing the second Trump administration. However, more needs to be done. Political renewal in the Democratic Party is required, and more people need to be mobilised. The second lesson is that American empire may endure under autocratic inanity due to its military and economic pre-eminence. Indeed, Rome’s empire reached its zenith during its imperial period and lasted several hundred years. Tacitus’s Annals is a cautionary tale for despotism. His observations on the corrosive nature of unchecked power, penned nearly two millennia ago, echo with undiminished relevance today. Tacitus’s writings are a must-read for students of politics and lovers of liberty. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 04, 2025
|
Aug 11, 2025
|
Aug 04, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
| 180081495X
| 9781800814950
| B0BTK1SLDV
| 3.78
| 352
| Oct 05, 2023
| Oct 05, 2023
|
liked it
|
Books and libraries are the fulcrum of society, and are used and abused during times of conflict. They may be used to ascertain knowledge of a new ene
Books and libraries are the fulcrum of society, and are used and abused during times of conflict. They may be used to ascertain knowledge of a new enemy, battle strategies and tactics, historical lessons, geographic understanding, or literary escapism when reality is too much to bear. They may also be abused to disseminate vilifying propaganda, pillaged as loot, or burned to destroy someone's culture. Despite this duality, the integral role of books in war is often overlooked. Books, and the ideas encapsulated in them, are powerful metaphorical weapons. How one uses them, however, depends on one's morality—for books are nothing without human agency. This complex role of books in wartime is the focus of Andrew Pettegree’s The Book at War. Despite its broad title, he concentrates primarily on their use during World War II. Pettegree also digresses to provide some analysis of books during other conflicts, like the American Civil War, World War I, and the Cold War. The book would have been stronger had the author focused solely on WWII, as this would have provided greater historical clarity and precision. Additionally, the book is very Eurocentric. This is normally fine if indicated in the title, but the title’s broad scope gives the reader a false impression of the book’s content. Books will remain integral to conflict—for good or ill—into the future. Bosnia and Herzegovina's national library was bombed by Bosnian Serb separatists in a brazen act of cultural terror. Russia has destroyed or damaged thousands of libraries in Ukraine. In civil conflict, books are perennially under threat from authoritarian zealots. The Trump administration has dismissed librarians from the Library of Congress and the National Archives. Thousands of books have also been banned from public libraries. These are not isolated incidents. The fight for free speech is never-ending. Books are both a weapon and a message for liberty and justice. Do not protect them at your own peril. I have started a Substack where I’ll be posting longer reviews alongside contemporary political analyses. Full reviews will still go on Goodreads, but if you enjoy my writing, feel free to subscribe. It is free, and you do not need an account to sign up—only your email. The url for my substack is here: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 29, 2025
|
Aug 03, 2025
|
Jul 29, 2025
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 0063258021
| 9780063258020
| 0063258021
| 3.86
| 2,873
| 2021
| Nov 15, 2022
|
liked it
|
This book was disappointing. You gain an understanding of the family-run business, but not much else. There was a curious dearth of information throug
This book was disappointing. You gain an understanding of the family-run business, but not much else. There was a curious dearth of information throughout. For instance, Denmark was invaded in 1940, but the book skips a couple of years to 1942. Lego's founder played a minor role in the Danish resistance, yet Lego thrived throughout the war—how? Moreover, the impact of sporadic mass layoffs was glossed over, and there was no mention of the effect plastic has on the environment. No company is perfect—hard choices need to be made during times of economic turmoil or war. Including such detail would have made this book vastly more interesting. Instead, it felt ingratiating.
...more
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 15, 2025
|
Jun 17, 2025
|
May 19, 2025
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0374157359
| 9780374157357
| 0374157359
| 4.19
| 25,756
| Oct 19, 2021
| Nov 09, 2021
|
really liked it
|
Was humanity’s civilisational evolution to the present day inevitable? According to David Graeber and David Wengrow, no. In The Dawn of Everything, th
Was humanity’s civilisational evolution to the present day inevitable? According to David Graeber and David Wengrow, no. In The Dawn of Everything, they argue that one of the fundamental characteristics of humanity—our playful experimentation with different forms of egalitarian politics, grounded in the freedoms to move, to disobey unjust authority, and to shape or shift between social realities—has ossified under state-centric, agriculturally bound systems of stratification. Through this book, the authors want to reassert that humanity has the political agency, and proven capability to engage and thrive in fundamentally different political realities. Graeber and Wengrow begin by challenging the long-standing binary assumptions about human social evolution: that civilisation arose from either a Hobbesian or Rousseauian “state of nature”. The authors argue that this is an ahistorical false dichotomy. Prior to European colonisation, the Americas offered vivid examples of diverse political and social possibilities. Archaeological and anthropological evidence shows that ancient societies in regions like the Levant were similarly diverse in constitutional arrangements. This multiplicity, they suggest, stems from schismogenesis: a process where societies evolve in conscious contrast to their neighbours. They further contend that the Enlightenment itself was shaped by Indigenous critiques from the Americas. These critiques, carried back to Europe by colonists, ostensibly had a significant impact on rationalist thinkers who questioned traditional hierarchies. They argue that these critiques eventually influenced the American and French revolutions. Indigenous commentators critiqued European society’s apparent lack of personal freedom and happiness, which were qualities they saw as abundant in their own. Moreover, their ability to convey these ideas stemmed from rich traditions of political dialogue within their societies. Alongside these political arguments, Graeber and Wengrow challenge the supposed inevitability of the Agricultural Revolution. Rather than a singular transformative event, they argue it was a drawn-out process spanning millennia. Some societies rejected agriculture altogether, others blended it with foraging, and some embraced it. Evidence suggests that hybrid communities formed loose confederations, gathering seasonally in semi-hierarchical cities before dispersing back into egalitarian bands. These brief interactions enabled the transfer of ideas or solidification of their own ways of life via the aforementioned process of schismogenesis. To their credit, the authors’ argument that human civilisation has always been open to multiple pathways is compelling. However, they write as though these possibilities have been completely lost and must now be rekindled (there is an immediate tension here: if lost, how come they have written a book that authoritatively aims for its revival). While the capitalist state dominates and alternative civilisational models are largely extinct, I disagree with the notion that the desire for change is also lost. Marxists, for instance, advocate the overthrow of capitalism and foresee the eventual withering away of the state after the proletariat seizes the means of production. It is also worth noting that Graeber himself was a founder of the Occupy Movement and a committed anarchist. Anarchism, too, aims to abolish the state in favour of voluntary, decentralised associations. Curiously, despite closely aligning with this philosophy, the book never mentions anarchism explicitly. Perhaps this is because modern anarchist thought traces its roots to ancient Greece and China and not Indigenous societies. Additionally, the authors embody Aristotle's claim that we are political animals, yet a lot of people are either apolitical or conservative. If there was an option for change, most people would likely be content with the status quo or marginal change. Indigenous critiques did reach Europe. However, they were, at best, marginal influences to Enlightenment philosophers. For example, Rousseau denied being influenced by Indigenous thought, instead pointing to being influenced by the Genevan republican tradition. Montesquieu drew on Roman political theory, not Indigenous sources. Despite this, Graeber and Wengrow speculate with flimsy circumstantial evidence that both theorists' ideas were shaped by Indigenous thought. Moreover, the authors go a far to say that because the United States' Founding Fathers were influenced by Montesquieu, Indigenous critiques shaped the US Constitution. This claim seems like wishful thinking. Another issue is the inconsistent use of evidence. The authors often acknowledge that we can not be certain how ancient societies functioned, only to assert in the next sentence that such societies must have operated in a particular way. I am no anthropologist, but this kind of argumentative non-sequitur raised red flags. Their brief reference to Dark Emu (a similarly revisionist work on Aboriginal Australians that has been heavily criticised by scholars) heightens my suspicion that The Dawn of Everything may be selectively citing evidence or omitting contrary data. Indeed, reviews I have read elsewhere have said as much. Furthermore, while the authors fairly critique Western political institutions, they are largely uncritical of Indigenous societies. They paint an almost utopian portrait, which ironically mirrors Rousseau’s noble savage trope. Instances of Indigenous slavery are mentioned in passing, and gender inequality is similarly downplayed. They also claim that Europeans who joined Indigenous societies never returned when given the option. This generalisation is not true. It is well documented that those who joined young tended to stay, while older individuals often returned to their own communities if the opportunity arose. In sum, The Dawn of Everything is a provocative and worthwhile read. Its revisionist perspective is refreshing, and it expands our understanding of democracy’s antecedents beyond ancient Greece. The book reminds us that our civilisation was not inevitable and that we retain more agency than we might assume. However, the authors’ tendency to cherry-pick evidence and draw speculative conclusions weakens their case. Nevertheless, it will likely be remembered as a landmark work for challenging orthodoxy and prompting further inquiry into human history. I would recommend it to anyone interested in humanity: both its past and future. The url for my substack is here: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 31, 2025
|
Jun 15, 2025
|
May 18, 2025
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1788163427
| 9781788163422
| 1788163427
| 3.83
| 1,973
| Nov 09, 2021
| Oct 14, 2021
|
it was amazing
|
The library: repositories of papyrus scrolls in antiquity that transformed into ecclesiastical book collections, and later into public institutions of
The library: repositories of papyrus scrolls in antiquity that transformed into ecclesiastical book collections, and later into public institutions of knowledge and cultural centres we know today. Libraries primarily consisted of works of non-fiction—transferred through the ages to a literate few. The rise of fiction in the nineteenth century was initially resisted but ultimately embraced by the library as the major draw for patrons. The Gutenberg Press and its evolution over the centuries made books more accessible and libraries more ubiquitous. Private and public libraries became places of personal and national pride. Libraries are among the great institutions of humankind. Thanks for reading Callum’s Column! Subscribe for free (only your email is required) for new book reviews and political analyses on Australia and the United States: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ Andrew Pettegree and Arthur der Weduwen provide a comprehensive history of the library in Europe and North America. This is primarily due to the prominence of this institution in this geographic region—a relatively recent phenomenon in the post-colonial world. That said, there is a rather conspicuous dearth of information on China, where paper was invented. They argue that books and libraries have triumphed despite tribulations like neglect, war, ideological censorship, or the rise of the digital age. The library, the authors argue, is a place for entertainment, emancipation, knowledge, and succour. This book was everything that another book I read recently—The Bookshop: A History of the American Bookstore—was not. The library as an institution is a product of its times. You can not understand the Library of Alexandria without an understanding of Greek and Roman scholarly enterprise; you can not understand the rise of the British Library without an understanding of the rise of the British Empire. Fortunately, this historical depth is provided by the authors. Moreover, they do not shy away from the more malevolent aspects of the library, which The Bookshop did—notably, that it was also a place of censorship by totalitarian states, and even in the so-called free world. I have added this book to my own personal library. It is a collection I hope to expand my for the rest of my life. I was fortunate to receive the entire Great Books collection as a gift, and over time, I have gathered works primarily from classical literature and the humanities. I hope to share my books with my children if I am fortunate enough to have them. Still, I believe the public library is one of the truest reflections of societies values. I look back fondly at my time studying at Reid Library at the University of Western Australia, and walking through the aisles of the local library a short walk from home. To me, all libraries—public or personal—are places of joy. I am fortunate to live in a liberal society where books are freely available. Books and the library are a flashpoint of current culture wars where zealots attempt to bully and silence the freedom of thought of others. Yes, there should be limits on what can be read by children (I echo the sentiments of paternalism expressed by Mill in this regard). For adults, however, one should be able to read what they please—whether licentious or politically controversial. This is what makes liberal society great: the ability to accrue knowledge freely and without recourse. It is the uncensored word and repository of knowledge that facilitates this. Ultimately, liberty resides on a library bookshelf. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 25, 2025
|
May 31, 2025
|
May 18, 2025
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 198217661X
| 9781982176617
| 198217661X
| 4.51
| 17,290
| May 14, 2024
| May 14, 2024
|
it was amazing
|
"We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bo
"We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God." President Raegan uttered these poignant words soon after the destruction of the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986. It was an avoidable tragedy. Engineers had warned NASA's leadership the night prior to launch that the O-rings that sealed joints in the solid rocket boosters would fail in cold weather. These warnings were ignored. Seven people died: Francis Scobee, Michael Smith, Judith Resnik, Ellison Onizuka, Ronald McNair, Christa McAuliffe, and Gregory Jarvis. This book was meticulously researched and written. It was also riveting to read; although I knew the outcome, I was in suspense the whole time reading it. The author, Adam Higginbotham, provides a history of not only this disaster but the entire shuttle space program. The personalities of all those involved are vividly portrayed: the heroism, the anguish, the sorrow. Furthermore, his historical analysis was fair and impartial. The only time when Higginbotham's personal views became apparent was when discussing the Raegan Administration's attempts to militarise NASA's space program. In short, this book is excellent. Despite disaster, there was almost unanimous support for ongoing space exploration. Politicians and the public alike recognised that being pioneers is inherently dangerous, and setbacks are inevitable. We should continue this pursuit into the never-ending final frontier, including colonising planets like Mars. As President Kennedy said regarding the ambition to land on the moon, "not because it is easy, but because it is hard." However, I would also add that we should expand space exploration because it is the epitome of human intelligence, temerity, and grit. It is a proclamation of our rationality and yearning to know the unknown. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 04, 2025
|
May 23, 2025
|
May 04, 2025
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0679721754
| 9780679721758
| 0679721754
| 4.26
| 4,429
| 1987
| Apr 23, 1989
|
really liked it
|
Hobsbawm describes the decades prior to the Great War as the Age of Empire. This age cemented the global capitalist order. Britain led the way but was
Hobsbawm describes the decades prior to the Great War as the Age of Empire. This age cemented the global capitalist order. Britain led the way but was challenged by the newly formed German Empire. These tensions led to global war and later the fall of empire. This age also saw the political rise of the working-class agency, which was evinced by the advancement of democracy and socialist movements. However, it was the solidification of nationalism that ultimately defined the age. This phenomenon sowed the seeds for the Age of Catastrophe that erupted in 1914. It did not end until 1991, if at all. This book is the third in Hobsbawm's trilogy of the Long Nineteenth Century—a must-read read for history buffs. The author deploys a Marxian historiographical lens. This is both illuminating and limiting. It is illuminating because it provides a dialectical materialist lens of individualism, society, and geopolitics. However, it is limiting because Marxism is inherently deterministic. It generally prioritises politico-economic motivations at the expense of other feasible explanations like culture or ideology. Moreover, it sidelines the autonomy of the state, which acts in the interests of power and self-preservation. Nonetheless, Hobsbawm's analysis remains thorough and impactful. This period is colloquially referred to as the Belle Époque. We may be living through the twilight of a second Belle Époque. Optimism and prosperity flourished in the West for several decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Such optimism has dissipated following the Global Financial Crisis and rise of authoritarian populism. Prosperity is becoming increasingly concentrated, and the drums of war are beating. It was the rise of Germany and the relative decline of Britain that underscored the Great War. Today, the US is threatened by a rising China. Bismarckian diplomacy is required; instead, we have Trumpian diplomacy. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 30, 2025
|
May 14, 2025
|
Apr 30, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0805066691
| 9780805066692
| 0805066691
| 4.26
| 101,609
| Apr 1970
| Jan 23, 2001
|
really liked it
|
The United States of America committed genocide against Native Americans. It was initially piecemeal; as Manifest Destiny took hold in the mid-ninetee
The United States of America committed genocide against Native Americans. It was initially piecemeal; as Manifest Destiny took hold in the mid-nineteenth century, it became exponential. The vast plains of the West were conquered by the US in one generation—1860-1890 (the focus of this book). There was nothing the Native Americans could have done to assuage the US. Treaties were made and ignored. Native Americans were left with no choice but to engage in warfare. They fought valiantly, but mostly in vain. The outcome was inevitable: the destruction of Native American life. Thanks for reading Callum’s Column! Subscribe for free (only your email is required) for new book reviews and political analyses on Australia and the United States: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/ Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee was first published in 1970. It remains relevant to the present day. Large tracts of the American population remain ignorant of this history. Brown uses primary sources to give a voice to Native Americans that desperately tried to placate their conquerors. Each chapter focuses on a particular tribe that resisted the advance of the US army and is mostly ordered chronologically. The content of each chapter is juxtaposed by a very brief prefix of US/world events that highlight the political, artistic, or scientific advancements of humanity. This is a subtle but powerful literary device to illuminate the barbarity of US conduct. This book has made me think about the casus belli for the American Civil War. President Lincoln declared war on the South to save the union and to end slavery. At the same time, Native Americans were being slaughtered in the West by "bluecoats." The concurrent liberation of one people and destruction of another is inherently contradictory. A dialectical lens sheds light on this (Hobsbawm has influenced my thinking here). What both conflicts have in common is the advancement of Northern industrial capital into the South and West by force. Thus, manumission may have just been a facade for capitalist imperialism. Addendum: Australia is having a federal election tomorrow. First Nations Australians share a similar history to Native Americans. On ANZAC Day last week (our national day of commemoration for military personnel), a Neo-Nazi booed a Welcome to Country - a brief ceremony from a First Nations person that acknowledges that the meeting is occurring on traditional First Nations land. This turned into a culture war issue with the conservative opposition party criticising this practice from a point of ignorance. This example really drives home the importance of books like this. Historical recidivism has a critical role to play in advancing social justice. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 26, 2025
|
Apr 28, 2025
|
Apr 26, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0679772545
| 9780679772545
| 0679772545
| 4.26
| 4,605
| 1975
| Nov 26, 1996
|
really liked it
|
The failed revolutions of 1848 were the culmination of the dual revolutions—French and Industrial. The liberal bourgeoisie were the victors. European
The failed revolutions of 1848 were the culmination of the dual revolutions—French and Industrial. The liberal bourgeoisie were the victors. European empires controlled much of the world, and where they did not, supplied much of the capital. The subaltern class, which would become the proletariat, was forced to adapt or die, yet many died anyway (famine, war, etc). This age also saw the solidification of nationalism—German unification is an exemplar. It also saw the nascent creation of class-consciousness, scientific advancement, closing of frontiers, and the ascendancy of the "free market," which both liberated labour (e.g., slavery), and subjugated the worker. The Age of Capital is Eric Hobsbawm's second volume of his trilogy on the long nineteenth century. He uses a Marxian historical lens to view this period. His analysis is piercing and illuminating, covering topics of war, economics, art, and sociology. A Marxian lens is apt for this period, considering Marx was theorising through this time, and industrial capital was the zeitgeist of the age. Marx's politico-economic theories may have been erroneous (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism), yet the dialectical materialist view remains compelling. Rationalism is subordinate to materialism, and it is material dialectics that drives historical change. What is our current age? I posit that we are in the Age of History. The End of History by Francis Fukuyama was published around the same time that Hobsbawm published a fourth book, The Age of Extremes (early 1990s post-Soviet collapse). Fukuyama looked forward, whereas Hobsbawm looked backward. There were inherent contradictions (e.g., mass globalisation, corporatisation, identity politics, etc) in the triumph of liberalism as "the final form of human government." The gap between economic realities and political ideals underpinned political alienation and discontent. Liberalism is consequently in retreat, yet politics—particularly authoritian—will always be interested in you. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 21, 2025
|
Apr 26, 2025
|
Apr 21, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0670025321
| 9780670025329
| 0670025321
| 4.25
| 28,115
| Oct 02, 2014
| Jan 01, 2014
|
really liked it
|
Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most renowned military generals and statesmen of all time. Born in relative obscurity in Corsica, he quickly rose thr
Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most renowned military generals and statesmen of all time. Born in relative obscurity in Corsica, he quickly rose through the ranks of the French military during the French Revolutionary Wars. He would eventually become emperor in a coup d'état and control much of Europe. He was an "enlightened despot," spreading the ideals of the revolution and implementing the Napoleonic Code. However, his hubris got the better of him. The Seventh Coalition finally defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Napoleon was exiled to St Helena in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He died there soon after. This book is rich in detail and analytical depth—a characteristic of any book written by Andrew Roberts. Relying primarily on original source material, Roberts fairly peruses the archives to bring Napoleon back to life once more. The book is not a hagiography. Roberts concludes that it was a myriad of self-imposed military blunders that led to Napoleon's downfall. It is also riveting reading—once I started, I could not stop. At over 800 pages, such entertaining prose is necessary to maintain the attention of the reader. I would recommend it to anyone wanting to know more about the time and the man in a single volume. Roberts concludes with Napoleon's death on St Helena. However, the Napoleonic Code was implemented in 1804 and remains in use today, yet with significant amendments over the centuries. This, among other reforms, has shaped the political history of various states throughout the world. In terms of military geopolitics, Napoleon underpinned the outcome of the Congress of Vienna, which produced relative European peace for the next century. As Hemingway wrote, "Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name." Thus, a concluding chapter examining Napoleon's influence post-death would have been apt. The title of my version of this book is "Napoleon the Great." I do not think he is worthy of such adulation. Napoleon's idols were Alexander the Great and Caesar—whom both died at their imperial zenith. Napoleon may have deserved a similarly exalted status if he had died prior to the Russian campaign of 1813-14. Instead, his disastrous retreat and later defeat to Lord Wellington underpinned France's total surrender in 1815 to the Allies. Someone who leaves his empire at the mercy of others can not be considered worthy of the epithet "the Great." Nonetheless, in an ironic way, the adjective "Napoleonic" has had the same teleological outcome. It must be remembered that millions of soldiers and citizens died for Napoleon's ambition to control Europe. Can any person who kills such vast numbers of people really be considered great? Roberts points to Napoleon's political reforms as what sets Napoleon apart from other conquerors. However, that was only secondary to Napoleon's raison d’être for conquest evinced by his idolisation of the ancients: to be an emperor. In short, he was a consequential warlord, but in our hopefully more righteous age, not one to be lauded over. One of his marshals said as much in 1814, stating Napoleon's ambition and waste of blood were for his own vanity—and should have died in battle. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 31, 2025
|
Apr 22, 2025
|
Mar 31, 2025
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0871404222
| 9780871404220
| 0871404222
| 4.08
| 6,880
| Oct 24, 2023
| Oct 24, 2023
|
really liked it
|
"Suetonius's imagination takes us right back to the very beginning of one man rule. It tells us so much about autocracy that the founding father of th
"Suetonius's imagination takes us right back to the very beginning of one man rule. It tells us so much about autocracy that the founding father of the imperial system [Augustus] was said to have summed up his career as a piece of theatre, as an act." Emperors of Rome have left an enduring imprint on the West, either through their ability to rule with stability or their rule with capricious incompetence. Nonetheless, all ruled as tyrants in some way or another, and although deified after death, they were mere mortals like the rest of us. They relied on a delicate apparatus of help—either free or unfree—to maintain power and to uphold their sham image. Mary Beard weaves together the life of a Roman emperor with poise in this book. She does not focus on just one emperor but on the first thirty or so after Augustus' rise to princeps. She puts the man back into places he spent his time, what he ate, how he travelled around the empire, who he slept with, how he governed, and so on. Beard's analysis relies on classical ancient texts, modern scholarship, and archaeological evidence. Her assertions—that we simply do not know the truth in some instances or that ancient sources likely embellished the truth—are refreshing. Her prose also flows easily, making for an engaging read. Beard concludes that autocracy of all ages as fake or a distorting mirror. We are witnessing it among the three most powerful nations—Russia, China, and America. One may say that America is not an autocracy. However, with the Republicans forfeiting their congressional powers to the current president and the increasing sway of unitary presidential theory, the President increasingly acts as an elected dictator. Almost everything the current president says is an idiotic falsehood spun by his toadies as another move in a game of 4D chess. Striving for truth is the antidote. As George Orwell apocryphally stated: "In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 06, 2025
|
Mar 12, 2025
|
Mar 06, 2025
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1864710403
| 9781864710403
| 1864710403
| 4.27
| 3,833
| Feb 28, 2011
| Mar 01, 2011
|
really liked it
|
Batavia: the epitome of Dutch empire and bearer of great treasures, yet corrupter of souls. The skipper Ariaen Jacobsz and junior merchant Jeronimus C
Batavia: the epitome of Dutch empire and bearer of great treasures, yet corrupter of souls. The skipper Ariaen Jacobsz and junior merchant Jeronimus Cornelisz had fantasies of taking control from Commander Francisco Pelsaert and sailing the seven seas, living off the riches of the Dutch East India Company. However, their plans were thwarted. Skipper Jacobsz severely miscalculated their location and wrecked the ship on the Abrohlos Islands off the coast of Western Australia. As Jacobsz and Pelsaert sailed to Java to get help, Cornelisz unleashed a reign of murderous terror and rape upon the survivors. This book is not original scholarship. For those interested in more scholarly works, one should read the books by either Hugh Edwards or Mike Dash. Rather, this book is an inventive retelling of one of the most appalling stories of maritime history. Every moment is gripping, and I could not put the book down once I started. I believe Peter Fitzsimons is the Tom Holland of Australian history and an exemplar of historical narrative. Fitzsimons also bookends the tale with a brief historical overview of the rise of the Dutch East India Company and how Batavia's wreck—and the skeletons of the murdered—were discovered. Cornelisz was undone by the heroism of Webbie Hayes. I visited the island where Hayes captured Cornelisz, and a makeshift fort built by Hayes and his men remains to this day (the wreck and some skeletons can also be viewed at Geraldton's maritime museum). Cornelisz and his co-conspirators were hung after Pelsaert returned to rescue the survivors and retrieve the treasure. These gallows were the first permanent structures built by Europeans on soil that would one day become Australia—an apparatus that meted justice, but also portended the murderous advancement of European civilisation that would devastate Indigenous life in coming centuries. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 24, 2025
|
Mar 02, 2025
|
Feb 24, 2025
|
Hardcover
|
Callum's Column
>
Books:
history
(148)
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.02
|
not set
|
Oct 14, 2025
|
||||||
|
| 4.04
|
really liked it
|
Sep 23, 2025
|
Sep 18, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 3.98
|
really liked it
|
Sep 19, 2025
|
Sep 15, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.19
|
liked it
|
Oct 13, 2025
|
Sep 02, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.00
|
really liked it
|
not set
|
Aug 29, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.13
|
really liked it
|
Sep 07, 2025
|
Aug 28, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 5.00
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 07, 2025
|
Aug 21, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.11
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 25, 2025
|
Aug 14, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 3.99
|
really liked it
|
Aug 11, 2025
|
Aug 04, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 3.78
|
liked it
|
Aug 03, 2025
|
Jul 29, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 3.86
|
liked it
|
Jun 17, 2025
|
May 19, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.19
|
really liked it
|
Jun 15, 2025
|
May 18, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 3.83
|
it was amazing
|
May 31, 2025
|
May 18, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.51
|
it was amazing
|
May 23, 2025
|
May 04, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.26
|
really liked it
|
May 14, 2025
|
Apr 30, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.26
|
really liked it
|
Apr 28, 2025
|
Apr 26, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.26
|
really liked it
|
Apr 26, 2025
|
Apr 21, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.25
|
really liked it
|
Apr 22, 2025
|
Mar 31, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.08
|
really liked it
|
Mar 12, 2025
|
Mar 06, 2025
|
|||||
|
| 4.27
|
really liked it
|
Mar 02, 2025
|
Feb 24, 2025
|
Loading...
