Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution by Joan Landes.

Professor Joan Landes has written a book that stands as a partial rebuttal to the notion of a public sphere as democratizing. In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas explained that, in 17^th Century Europe, the Monarchical State was the center of public attention. As capitalism took hold, the bourgeoisie began to create an arena for their voice. Through books, newspapers, periodicals, coffee houses, libraries, clubs, salons and a variety of other instruments, the new middle-class produced a competing locus of communication with that of the monarchy and aristocracy. Habermas calls this arena “the public sphere.” He expounds further that “informed public opinion began to function as a weapon in the battle against the arbitrary dictates, privileged corporations and secret practices of the absolutist state (Landes, p. 41).  Those favoring wider public participation in political discourse see this as a positive occurrence. Joan Landes cautions against overly optimistic conclusions. She offers evidence that in France, as this new sphere became more prominent, women were systematically excluded from it between 1750 and 1850.

Prior to the French Revolution, “women exercised a considerable degree of power” hosting salons (Landes, p. 22). Women were writing at this time as well and, while their efforts were excluded from most public media, they did have some limited avenues such as the “Journal des Dames” (Landes, p. 57). Additionally, aristocratic women had a social rank that permitted them both greater respect and access influential men. This permitted them the ability to advance the causes of petitioners. While these powers are notably circumscribed, they represent a greater influence than women were soon to have.

The French Revolution began promisingly enough. In 1789, Women were in the streets and “at the new centers of political communication…By the summer of 1791, women were participating avidly in clubs and popular societies … attending as spectators in the galleries of section assemblies, the national legislature and radical clubs,” taking part in demonstrations and signing petitions (Landes, pp. 106-118). But the author elucidates a trajectory beginning with demands that women attend to domestic duties and ending in 1793 with women being “banned from active and passive participation in the political sphere” (Landes, p. 147).

Men’s efforts to domesticate women in this context are hardly surprising. While vestiges of that impulse exist today, it was a prominent, Europe-wide cultural feature, in the late 18^th Century. Even an early feminist like Mary Wollstonecraft, who “insists that women can be educated rationally,” cannot envision a role for women beyond “good mothers and good household managers” (Landes, pp. 131-2). While 21^st Century individuals may have difficulty envisioning a time of such limits on women, their fate was inevitable after the upheaval of the revolution had passed. Women were reattached to the private sphere of the home, minus the aforementioned powers they had during the Ancien Regime. Ironically, French women had less influence under a republic than under a monarchy.

Landes exposes this irony with organized deftness. Some examples could have been improved: It was unnecessary to spend a full chapter on Rousseau. While he discussed women’s role at length, he was just one man and an iconoclastic one who did not represent the multiplicity of educated male opinions during the 1750s. A survey of enlightenment males, and their verbal justifications for repressing women, would have been more useful. Also, there is a ten page critique of a 20^th Century movie, “La Nuit de Varennes.”  Current cinema is not historical evidence, no matter how insightful the director. Discussion of a modern film, even one about the past, can be nothing more than movie talk. There are enough misogynist male historians who still harbor the outdated view that women are unfit for an evidence-based field, without a female historian supplying them with ammunition. Aside from these minor errors, Landes stays on point with ample evidence.

Women and the Public Sphere successfully challenges “the Revolution’s claim to universality” and the notion that the public sphere, immediately resulted in democracy for all. Landes concludes “for women today, the Revolutionary era has not yet ended” (Landes, p. 201). If we define revolution using its social meaning of changing society at its root, this is clearly true. Women have not yet achieved full equality; they are still less well-paid, less well-represented and less physically safe, than men. But what Landes does not discuss is that the innovations between 1750 and 1850 (an ethos favoring democratization, along with a public sphere to discuss it), place equality within reach. While these changes caused an initial setback for women, they also opened the floodgates for future advancement. Society began to accustom itself to liberty. Women experienced this change, and today employ the tool of the public sphere and the language of democracy in their struggle. In spite of earlier obstruction under a republic, women never stopped fighting for their share of freedom. I am quite certain that they won’t stop until it is attained.

Landes, Joan. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.

For review of a book on the aftermath of the French Revolution in Europe, see:
http://greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-age-of-revolution-1789-to-1848-by.html

The Dictionary of American Political Bullshit by Stephen L. Goldstein.

Dr Stephen Goldstein is a politically progressive op-ed columnist, writing for the conservative audience of Florida’s “Sun Sentinel.” He does not shy away from a fight. Each week, his editorials are met with a flurry of reactionary anger and personal attack from the newspaper’s readership. Not all of the responses are articulate, but almost all are hostile. So when he decided to write The Dictionary of American Political Bullshit, no one should have expected him to be coy or evasive. Goldstein takes sides. While the format of the “dictionary” is sardonically arranged to mimic its more objective counterpart, complete with phonetic spelling, it rants polemically in favor of economic and social justice through a liberal-progressive bullhorn. For example:

“DEMOCRACY

(de.moc.ra.cy)  noun  [phonetic spelling] ßmy program cannot do justice to phonetic spelling

The Democratic Republic of the United States of America is dead…what masquerades as the American system of government today is a cynical perversion of its Constitution: a plutocratic, aristocratic, oligarchic mongrel” (Goldstein, p. 61). This is a fragment of a two-page definition, but you get the idea.

Dr Goldstein does raise social issues. “States’ Rights…is bullshit for bigotry, misogyny, racism, homophobia, miscegenation, and every other imaginable form of neo-Neanderthal hate” (Goldstein, p. 191). However, his main targets are corporate spokespeople, politicians and apologists for the wealthy. It is, after all, a book about the use of subterfuge and misdirection through language. These three forces are seen by the author as designers of a lexis for their own gain and power. “Globalization is the economic equivalent of having unprotected sex, a worldwide economic orgy pimped by a coalition of mega-money interests and their government enablers at the expense of ‘you and me brothers and sisters’” (Goldstein, p. 105). The author’s purpose is to expose the techniques of lying to the public that are used by these three agencies. He hopes to educate the public. In service to this aim, he is not squeamish about holding the feet of US citizens to the fire. “The Fourth of July should become a national day of penance for modern Americans’ indifference and inertia…It’s a gift to have a Declaration of Independence, an ingratitude not to live by it” (Goldstein, p. 94).

Yes it’s a rant, and it’s frequently funny. But it’s a funny rant with a goal: to enlighten the public about how they are snowed and to activate them to participate. The reader will enjoy agreeing, disagreeing, laughing with and rolling her eyes at, Goldstein’s many heated pronouncements. In the end, she will be a little wiser, a little less trusting and armed to take on the liars.

Goldstein, Stephen L. The Dictionary of American Political Bullshit. Ashland: Grid Press, 2014.

For a political novel by Stephen Goldstein, satirizing Ayn Rand, see:
http://greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com/2013/03/atlas-drugged-by-stephen-l-goldstein.html

Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Political Cooperation vs Biology.

In the 1840s it was called Internationalism. In the 1970s it was called Collective Consciousness. Today we call it Global Community or World Peace. Over the last two centuries, an attractive notion that humans might be able to put aside cultural and national differences to work in concert towards unity and the betterment of all, has flitted across the political imagination and eluded us.

During the last 100 years, political actors across the spectrum from Right, to Center, to Left, conceptualized that communist nations would work together to overthrow capitalist ones. Fearful capitalists called it “The Domino Theory.” Hopeful communists called it the universal brotherhood of the proletariat. Yet, when communist nations were established in Russia, China and Vietnam, the results were far less fraternal. Russia and China continued their perpetual border disputes and opposed each other’s doctrinaire versions of communism. Vietnam fought both Russian influence and Chinese naval vessels seizing its fishing boats. Today, Vietnam has a closer diplomatic relationship with Washington than Beijing.

The difficulty of our coming together, even when it appears to be in our best interest and under noble umbrellas like “world peace” or “political solidarity” is puzzling. Perhaps there are elements of our nature that are beyond social interpretations. Activists and politicians resist the determinism of biology. A force that cannot be altered through education and progress is hard for them to accept. Nonetheless, we are a species that rose to the top of the food chain, continually putting the seed of its most selfish, opportunistic and ruthless specimens, into the next generation. Cooperation occurred only when it enhanced individual survival. From before the time that our primate ancestors drove other primates away from an isolated watering hole or productive hunting area, we have passed-on the genetic material of selfishness and tribalism. There is no way that such ingrained biological tendencies  could keep from influencing our relationships with modern groups and tribes.

Certainly, both politics and relationship are more complex than I can elucidate in a two page essay. There are learned social factors, as well as biological ones, that determine outcomes. But politically-motivated people are largely social beings. They are more likely to understand our social tendencies. Additionally, if their goals are along the lines of beautiful concepts like cooperation, peace and world society, they are likely to ignore the uglier aspects of humanity. Unfortunately, the biology is our stumbling block. A psychiatrist would tell you that if a tendency remains unconscious, it will have more control over you. Unless political individuals can begin to address our biological nature, that Woodstock Nation Mind Meld so many seek will remain unattained. The first step is to recognize the problem. Only then can we go on to the next step of finding a solution.

Huxley. From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's High Priest by Adrian Desmond.

Huxley: From Devil’s Disciple to Evolution’s High Priest focuses on the life of a tireless, effective advocate for evolution and science. This is an impressively well-researched, highly informative tome. Its 32 page bibliography and 1581 endnotes testify to the author’s assiduous research and command of the details. Adrian Desmond does an admirably thorough job of presenting the story of T.H. Huxley’s private life and public contributions.

This representation of a life in science demonstrates the contributions of Huxley, who is overshadowed by his friend Charles Darwin in the modern public mind. But without the pugnacious activism of T.H. Huxley, there would have been a greater delay in recognition for the brilliant but meek Darwin and his Natural Selection. We would not be as far along as we are now in our understanding of evolution. While this is the chief contribution for which Huxley is known, there is so much more for which he deserves recognition.

Desmond presents Huxley’s life as one of constant hard work and achievement. In addition to lecturing and teaching, this educator chaired the Royal Society, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the Metaphysics Society and many committees too numerous to mention. His work on the London School Board resulted in the inclusion of science education in the public schools. In Higher Education, he was the driving force behind the creation of South Kensington College, a pioneering institution of science during a time when gentlemanly liberal arts were still the norm. Additionally, he published throughout his life, adding to our knowledge in significant ways. Huxley is widely credited as the discoverer of the bird-dinosaur evolutionary link.

This scientist also expanded our thinking philosophically.  Employing the root of the Greek “gnosis” (to know) he created the word “agnostic” (one who does not or cannot know) and was the catalyst for this secular philosophy. With his emphasis on “the scientific method and its sensual limitations,” Huxley determined that one could neither prove nor disprove God (Desmond, p. 374). While this approach lacks the satisfying certainty of both Theism and Atheism, it was an idea made for a historical moment, providing an exceptional foil against the intrusions of state sponsored Anglicanism on science.

While Desmond presents Huxley as an industrious achiever, this book is in no way a hagiography. Privately, the evolutionist innovator is characterized as prone to “volcanic moods” and “depressive” with periodic “breakdowns” from both overwork and his emotional demons (Desmond, pp. 84 & 537). Politically, the author is not afraid to show his subjects regressive attitudes. Huxley’s support of violent British imperialism is extreme enough to shock his family. He refers to Afghan tribes defending their land as “blood-thirsty thieves” and approves of England’s “civilizing influence” in South Africa even if it meant using a “heavy hand” (Desmond, p. 493).

Even regarding Huxley’s stellar professional life, the biographer can be rightfully critical. When Huxley fails in a speech, the Desmond explains why (Desmond, p. 478). When Huxley fails to understand Natural Selection even after Darwin works on him, Desmond elucidates how he is being dense (Desmond, p. 223). Though Huxley was an advocate for women’s education, he believed that their “natural limitations” would prevent them from competing with men for science positions (Desmond, p. 371). The career scientist’s record is not presented without blemishes.

Another consistent theme throughout the work is Great Britain’s transformation from a society of privileged gentlemen directing science, business and politics, to a meritocracy where industrious working-class and middle-class men could make a name for themselves. This new ethos is particularly evident in science which, up until this time, was the past time of wealthy aristocrats. “In came the academics and empire builders, secular sons with their B.Sc.s…out went the marginalized clergymen” and elites (Desmond, p. 424).

Despite the book’s many merits, there is no nice way to say this and still be accurate: the writing is awful. Desmond opens with excessive melodrama:

“The lanky 15 year-old sidled down fetid alleyways, past gin palaces and dance halls. Sailors hung out of windows, the gaiety of their boozy whores belying the squalor around them. The boy’s predatory looks and patched clothes seemed in keeping. But his black eyes betrayed a horror at the sights: ten crammed into a room, babies diseased from erupting cesspits, the uncoffined dead gnawed by rats” (Desmond, p. 3).

When the style is not being melodramatic, it is pompous and excessively ornamental: “Nature was no capricious dame to be appeased by the gods” (Desmond, p. 85). Rarely are statements made simply. Where Huxley is consulting with factory bosses and engineers, Desmond confuses the message that hard-working professionals were replacing privileged aristocrats: Using grandiloquent imagery, he writes “Huxley was in his muddy boots, moving the centre of the world, making the dead Oxbridge outer planets revolve round the solar furnace of the Black Country” (Desmond, p. 513). A more Hemingway-esque pen could have easily trimmed at least 100 pages from the biography by eliminating overblown decoration.

Though the writing is atrocious, no literary criticism can demean the quality of the information. Desmond has researched well. There are probably other books on Huxley that waste less time with bombast. However, one would be hard-pressed to find a study as thorough. Readers will have to decide for themselves how much pretentious writing they can tolerate.

Desmond, Adrian. Huxley. From Devil’s Disciple to Evolution’s High Priest. Reading, Mass : Addison-Wesley, 1997.

Empire by Niall Ferguson.

In our postcolonial age, there is a virtual consensus that imperialism and colonialism were harmful for those conquered. Niall Ferguson has attempted an ambitious undertaking. Empire endeavors to show that aggression towards less developed nations was harmful; but tempers the story with information discussing the benefits bestowed by an advanced industrialized nation. Admittedly, these benefits pale in comparison to the abuses. But they are part of the history nonetheless and a full examination of this period requires their inclusion.

The author’s intended audience is not just fellow citizens of the UK. His introduction underlines that current US power and influence is analogous to that of 19^th Century Britain. Throughout the book, US citizens can hear echoes of the past in our current dilemmas. For example, after the massacres of British civilians during the first Indian Mutiny, Charles Spurgeon emphatically sermonizes “My friends, what crimes have they committed?” (Ferguson, p. 126). One cannot read this without remembering so many US Citizens exclaiming “Why do they hate us?” after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Nineteenth Century British subjects were no more knowledgeable concerning the brutal imperialism of their nation than US citizens are today.

This historian exhibits a number of episodes where brutality was perpetrated upon the empire’s victims. However, he also shows bright glints of humanity within the dark clouds of imperialism rolling across conquered lands. This is mostly accomplished in two chief ways. First is the presentation of humane individuals: From Livingstone’s attempt to provide medical care among the Empire’s victims, to Macaulay’s crusade against the slave trade, to Durham’s fair parliamentary report which resulted in Canadian self-rule, Ferguson tells numerous stories of personal compassion and integrity. Unfortunately, this tact strikes one as a bit weak. These were, after all, individual acts of kindness occurring alongside the empire-wide business of exploitation. Setting these examples next to the Empires destructive legacy, says “Yes, the Empire pillaged many civilizations, but here’s a nice guy who felt bad about it.”

The second way Ferguson exhibits the Empire’s brighter side is by revealing the gifts showered upon underdeveloped nations by an advanced and enlightened civilization. The British introduced efficient bureaucracy, industrial technology, advanced medicine, scientific method and improved infrastructure. Unfortunately, these qualities are never put into perspective against the much larger story of slavery, racism, domination, exploitation and military slaughter. Additionally, a common person living within a domain of the Empire rarely benefited from these gifts.

It would be an unjust oversimplification to label Empire  a conservative glance at the glory days of Great Britain. Ferguson is much too complex and perceptive in his approach to his subject. Rather, he focuses more upon the evolution and management of Britain’s empire and less (without ignoring) on the negative impact of conquest. A postcolonial historian from Africa might not take such an approach to a book on the British Empire. Some current historians from conquering nations exhibit greater skill in examining their country’s imperialist destruction. Compare Ferguson’s approach to James Bradley’s in The Imperial Cruise: Bradley, who is also from an imperialist nation, begins by describing Theodore Roosevelt’s Aryan philosophy, then applies this racist perspective to the damaging actions taken during his presidency.

Empire’s “Conclusion” is a bewildering departure from the rest of the book. Here, Ferguson abandons the restrained historical analysis that had thus far served the reader. In its place is a breathtakingly obtuse, Western-centric set of political pronouncements: 1) The Empire served its unwilling subjects by giving them consistent government. 2) We need an empire to police rogue states and terrorists. 3) The attack of “9/11” might not have occurred if there had been an empire. 4) The US should accept the mantle of empire. In brief counterpoint: 1) The unwilling subjects chose to trade servitude under a consistent  government for self-determination. 2) Policing rogue states and terrorists is now more difficult since they employ fourth-generation warfare. They don’t meet armies head-on; they attack clandestinely. 3) The “9/11” attacks were a direct result of imperialism. The terrorists were middle-class Saudis who resented the imposition of western culture and economic influence. These Saudis attracted the poor and angry from former British and French protectorates who also resented the West. 4) Regarding Ferguson’s attempt to coronate the next World Emperor, US citizens of all political stripes, (for reasons ranging from morality to money) respectfully decline.

Empire is valuable for its examination of the workings and evolution of this 19^th Century behemoth. It is a finely written, well-researched, exciting story. Ferguson has an excellent eye for illustrative vignettes and humor. Describing Lord Kitchener’s marksmanship, the author mentions that the aristocrat had named his three hunting dogs “Bang, Miss and Damn” (Ferguson, p. 224). More attention to the subjugated would have created a better balance. But this book has a great deal to recommend it.

Ferguson, Niall. Empire. New York: Basic Books, 2004.

For reviews on more books concerning British History, see:
http://greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-peoples-history-of-london-by-german.html
which is a politically progressive history of London.
and
http://greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com/2014/09/eminent-victorians-by-lytton-strachey.html
which is a classic set of biographies on British Victorians.

The Houses of History by Anna Green and Kathleen Troupe.

The Houses of History is an epistemological examination of the 12 major theoretical perspectives that have informed historical study over the last century. The twelve schools are: Empiricism, Marxism, Psychohistory, Annales, Historical Sociology, Quantitative History, Anthropological/Ethnohistory, Narrative History, Oral History, Feminist/Gender History, Postcolonial and Poststructuralist.

Each of the twelve gets a two-part chapter. Part One is composed of a thorough explanation that is as immensely informative and desert dry as one would expect. Part Two presents a writing sample or chapter by an exemplary proponent of the school discussed.

The authors are both college professors in New Zealand. Indeed, this book is from an introductory History and Theory course they co-teach at the University of Waikato. As a result, Professors Green and Troup are used to explaining the intricacies of historical theory to undergraduates. Neither writer is forceful in putting-forth a favorite theory, or damning a foolish notion. However in the Part One descriptions of their chapters, the authors will present conflicting views between and within the schools. This presentation permits the reader to draw her own conclusions regarding the effectiveness of varying perspectives.

In their presentation, the professors sometimes fail to illustrate newly introduced terms and ideas with examples. For example, when they discuss how, in the 1940s “A.R. Radcliffe-Brown combined functionalism with a structural perspective,” a morsel of his writing, illustrating what this looked like would have been useful (Green & Troupe, p. 173). This is less a problem in a classroom using the text, where a student can raise her hand and ask for an example or a fuller explanation. But a little too much abstraction is perhaps a forgivable occupational hazard with theorists.

Another area of concern is some anti-intellectual, political correctness in the work. New Zealand, like the US, has a tragic history of genocide and oppression towards pre-colonial native populations. As a result, there is a tendency in academia to bend-over backward, showing how open-minded we are regarding native views, even at the expense of accuracy. In the “Postcolonial Perspectives” chapter, the Part Two writing sample chosen is mythical, racist and lacking citation or confirmation. Henrietta Whiteman, discussing her great-grandmother White Buffalo Woman, is comparable to promoting The Bible as history. Religious beliefs, for example “Cheyennes keep this earth alive through their ceremonies” are presented with reverence and without examination (Green & Troupe, p. 289). Hatred towards whites is expressed first, in the judgment that their tight clothes make them “narrowly exclusive, insular and illiberal.” The discussion degenerates from there to a description of the repugnant “strange odor” of whites described as a “murderer’s stench” (Green & Troupe, p. 290). I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” where he talks about the “disagreeable odor” of his slaves. Whiteman is similarly bigoted. There is a great variety of Postcolonial history-writing that is analytical, scholarly and from the perspective of the invaded peoples. A better choice could have been made. But this is just one writing sample of a single “Part Two.”

On the whole, this is a valuable text for history lovers. It is useful to be able to look at an historian’s writing and determine her influences. Being able to critically examine the critical examiner will improve one’s insight. While dry and occasionally arcane, The Houses of History contributes to our understanding of our past. No greater compliment can be extended to a history book.

Green, Anna & Troup, Kathleen. The Houses of History. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

Genocide. A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones.

Adam Jones has written a condensed, informative study of Genocide. In the space of 400 pages, he has presented the major mass killings since 1900, and elucidated the primary issues facing genocide politics, scholarship and activism. His study begins by discussing the first known genocides, moves on to philosophical and legal definitions of the term, and ends with a chapter on the effects of imperialism, war and revolution. Jones does not shy away from controversial topics that might make religious people uncomfortable. As a scholar of intellectual honesty, dedicated to preventing genocide, he discusses Old Testament scripture where God repeatedly commands his followers to murder all of the residents in a particular locale. Borrowing from sociologist Helen Fein, he refers to God’s motivational speaking as the “religious tradition of contempt and collective defamation” (Jones, p. 4).

The next part starts with pre-20^th Century genocides of indigenous peoples around the world. This is followed by a series of chapters on the more recent genocides of the 20^th and 21^st Century with which we are all so sadly familiar. These chapters necessarily lack the comprehensive qualities of a book that focuses on a specific incident. But they will provide the reader with a helpful overview, which is the purpose of an introductory work. Each instance of genocide is followed by a useful bibliography of the major texts on each topic, so that a reader may delve more deeply based on her or his preference.

There is some superfluous political correctness, deflecting from the main point of the book, in the form of oversensitivity. Yes, “The Redskins” is a racist name for a football team (Jones, p. 82). There would be loud objections if the team were called “The Dirty Jews.” But in the context of a discussion of Native American genocide, such language corrections are trivial by comparison and detract from the subject. There are some claims along these lines that are unexamined and exaggerated.  The suggestion, that US auto companies name their gas-guzzling products “Winnebago” and “Cherokee” to negatively associate Native Americans with technologies that damage the environment, is an over-think. Car companies also name their autos “Gremlin” and “Impala;” which does not imply an attempt to blame African wildlife or tiny mythical beings for Co2 emissions.

A third and important section of the book focuses on understanding the social, psychological and political factors, which result in genocide. There is some excellent information here condensing the ideas of various thoughtful professionals. While these experts seek to find and understand the commonalities among mass killings, they are quick to point out that each occurrence has its individual character. This is a good time to caution the reader that, no matter how much you have delved into the study of genocide, or how well-armored your sensibilities, you still run into information that will flatten you. The unique nature of each genocide is what allows even the most experienced individuals to be struck by new images and characteristics.

The last section of the book covers post-genocidal incident issues of remembering and justice. These are full of useful information. This section ends with the weakest chapter in the book, “Strategies of Intervention and Prevention.” Not only does it contain all of the tried and un-true past solutions to prevention, but also it fails to address the evolutionary causes of genocide: we are biological creatures. We clawed our way to the top of the Food Chain through aggression and competition. Our first genocides were on a smaller scale, when our hominid ancestors massacred other groups, or chased them away from hunting grounds and watering holes to perish. Killing “The Other” is in our DNA. Until we include this sober fact in our equations, it will be difficult to innovate effective prevention strategies.

Genocide. A Comprehensive Introduction is a brave early attempt in a poorly understood field. It is, as explained by the author, the first “comprehensive introductory text” (Jones, p. xxii). Therefore it is an historic innovation. Though, like all firsts, it contains flaws and gaps, it is admirably informative. This work permits the reader to establish a fine overview and strong foundation for further study.

Jones, Adam. Genocide. A Comprehensive Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2006.

For review of another book on Genocide, see:
http://greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com/2013/04/eichmann-in-jerusalem-report-on.html