Historically minded readers will enjoy the opportunity argument. Non-Reaganites, though, will have trouble with its premises...

GREATNESS

REAGAN, CHURCHILL AND THE MAKING OF EXTRAORDINARY LEADERS

Accept that Ronald Reagan was a genius, and the Great Communicator suddenly finds himself in august company.

In this light, American Enterprise Institute thinktanker Hayward writes, “Pondering the cases of Churchill and Reagan side by side opens a window onto critical aspects of political genius, and political greatness, at the highest level.” Conveniently, he adds, intelligence and greatness are not the same thing, which helps the argument inestimably. Now, the hardhearted may wonder at the view that Reagan won the Cold War without firing a single shot (does no one remember, say, Grenada?) or the datum that both Reagan and Churchill loved “vigorous outdoor labor,” which seems intended to plant the idea that, say, clearing brush in Texas is a sign of greatness. Other readers may wonder, too, whether the parallels Hayward draws between Churchill and Reagan could not be applied to just about any other president in recent memory. After all, Jimmy Carter liked working outdoors, had strong moral leanings, was an anticommunist and had a tough spouse. Just so, Reagan lacked Churchill’s fondness for drink, and whereas Churchill micromanaged to the tiniest detail, Reagan delegated tasks and took naps; great or no, British voters turned Churchill out of office as soon as the bombs stopped falling, while Reagan seemed bewildered at the fuss when he was caught joking before the camera that the bombs would start falling on Moscow in five minutes. But never mind: Hayward has a fluid sense of what constitutes greatness, one that includes Ronald Reagan (and perhaps the current president, who keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office) but that presumably does not embrace Bill Clinton, who, after all, failed to make many rhetorical references to Churchill in his eight years in office, which fact alone sets him apart from most other presidents.

Historically minded readers will enjoy the opportunity argument. Non-Reaganites, though, will have trouble with its premises from the outset.

Pub Date: Oct. 11, 2005

ISBN: 0-307-23715-X

Page Count: 192

Publisher: Crown Forum

Review Posted Online: May 20, 2010

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 2005

Did you like this book?

No Comments Yet

However charily one should apply the word, a beautiful book, an unconditionally involving memoir for our time or any time.

I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SINGS

Maya Angelou is a natural writer with an inordinate sense of life and she has written an exceptional autobiographical narrative which retrieves her first sixteen years from "the general darkness just beyond the great blinkers of childhood."

Her story is told in scenes, ineluctably moving scenes, from the time when she and her brother were sent by her fancy living parents to Stamps, Arkansas, and a grandmother who had the local Store. Displaced they were and "If growing up is painful for the Southern Black girl, being aware of her displacement is the rust on the razor that threatens the throat." But alternating with all the pain and terror (her rape at the age of eight when in St. Louis With her mother) and humiliation (a brief spell in the kitchen of a white woman who refused to remember her name) and fear (of a lynching—and the time they buried afflicted Uncle Willie under a blanket of vegetables) as well as all the unanswered and unanswerable questions, there are affirmative memories and moments: her charming brother Bailey; her own "unshakable God"; a revival meeting in a tent; her 8th grade graduation; and at the end, when she's sixteen, the birth of a baby. Times When as she says "It seemed that the peace of a day's ending was an assurance that the covenant God made with children, Negroes and the crippled was still in effect."

However charily one should apply the word, a beautiful book, an unconditionally involving memoir for our time or any time.

Pub Date: Feb. 1, 1969

ISBN: 0375507892

Page Count: 235

Publisher: Random House

Review Posted Online: May 14, 2012

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Feb. 1, 1969

Did you like this book?

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

Custer died for your sins. And so, this book would seem to suggest, did every other native victim of colonialism.

Inducing guilt in non-native readers would seem to be the guiding idea behind Dunbar-Ortiz’s (Emerita, Ethnic Studies/California State Univ., Hayward; Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War, 2005, etc.) survey, which is hardly a new strategy. Indeed, the author says little that hasn’t been said before, but she packs a trove of ideological assumptions into nearly every page. For one thing, while “Indian” isn’t bad, since “[i]ndigenous individuals and peoples in North America on the whole do not consider ‘Indian’ a slur,” “American” is due to the fact that it’s “blatantly imperialistic.” Just so, indigenous peoples were overwhelmed by a “colonialist settler-state” (the very language broadly applied to Israelis vis-à-vis the Palestinians today) and then “displaced to fragmented reservations and economically decimated”—after, that is, having been forced to live in “concentration camps.” Were he around today, Vine Deloria Jr., the always-indignant champion of bias-puncturing in defense of native history, would disavow such tidily packaged, ready-made, reflexive language. As it is, the readers who are likely to come to this book—undergraduates, mostly, in survey courses—probably won’t question Dunbar-Ortiz’s inaccurate assertion that the military phrase “in country” derives from the military phrase “Indian country” or her insistence that all Spanish people in the New World were “gold-obsessed.” Furthermore, most readers won’t likely know that some Ancestral Pueblo (for whom Dunbar-Ortiz uses the long-abandoned term “Anasazi”) sites show evidence of cannibalism and torture, which in turn points to the inconvenient fact that North America wasn’t entirely an Eden before the arrival of Europe.

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Pub Date: Sept. 16, 2014

ISBN: 978-0-8070-0040-3

Page Count: 296

Publisher: Beacon Press

Review Posted Online: Aug. 18, 2014

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2014

Did you like this book?

more