| Title | : | Give me liberty!: an American history, volume 1 |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | - |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780393978735 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 585 |
| Publication | : | Published July 1, 2005 |
Give me liberty!: an American history, volume 1 Reviews
-
I don't really know how to rate this given that it was my textbook for my history class, but all I want to say is that it was the first (and hopefully only) time I've ever been told to read a textbook completely from cover to cover.
Also, John Green has an obsession with Eric Foner. I know. I've watched enough Crash Course videos this semester to tell. -
I learned a lot but I had to reread most of it for it to settle in for quizzes and tests. Also had to take a nap when ever I started reading it.
-
This is not an ‘American’ history. This is a very basic overview of various civil rights movements, specifically with regards to basic, American failures.
That is, the Reconstruction is mostly viewed as ‘South was mean to ex-slaves and blacks had to fight for their rights.’ Very little is made of the complex economic movements thereof. Heck, the improvement in agricultural technology between 1880 and 1915 is confined to about one paragraph and can be summarized thusly: ‘There were significant farming advancements made in the early 1900’s.’
Another example is in how Foner deals with the Panama Canal. Here are some details Foner doesn’t talk about: 1) The Panama Canal more than doubled the economy of Panama, 2) most countries of Europe benefited from the trade benefits of being able to cut through Panama, 3) the number of products on the market increased specifically due to opening that trade route. Here’s a detail Foner does mention: whites working on building the canal had better jobs than blacks working on the canal.
Not convinced? Other notches against this book:
- The guiltlessness of Sacco and Vanzetti is assumed and Foner doesn’t mention that they were connected to a terrorist organization that both almost assassinated FDR and bombed Wall Street.
- American business expansionism is connotated negatively, even though the economic influences that American businesses had on other countries was profoundly positive
- Foner does not mention any issues with the federal reserve, gives almost no lip service to conservative economists, and ultimately portrays Keynes and FDR as good guys without giving the counter-arguments.
- the Great Depression is portrayed as a failure of Capitalism despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was artificially inflating the economy in the 1920’s via the Real Bills doctrine.
- American intervention in the Vietnam War is seen as negative
- any opposition to the Social Security Act is labeled as being racist instead of focusing on the economic burden of such a policy in the wake of the Great Depression
- The Communists who ran the unions in the 1930’s are portrayed as good guys without any counter-arguments; in fact, Foner always portrays unions as good guys.
- Susan B. Anthony is listed as a hero, even though she actively fought against the 15th amendment and caused a rift in the woman’s suffrage movement, likely delaying the advent of women’s suffrage by twenty years or so.
- Margaret Sanger is claimed as a hero, despite the fact that she a) was in favor of eugenics, b) was funded by actual communists via the IWW, and c) had connections to the KKK, who loved her ideas so much, they begged to have her speak with them more often.
I could go on here, but I think the point is made. I have no issue with Foner holding to his own point of view, but a man who wants to actually portray history needs to be fairer and less biased in his portrayals of events. This is an absolutely pathetic attempt at a history. I can’t speak for too man textbooks out there, but you’d be better off finding all of Ian Johnson’s various histories of America and reading those. Whereas Foner views America as a fundamentally broken nation with potential, Johnson views America as a beautiful nation with flaws. The latter view is much more reflective of real life, as America, at least prior to 2008, has done far more good in the world than bad. -
I don't like this textbook as much as Roark's "The American Promise," but it's a lot more affordable and gets the job done. Foner stretches the themes of what liberty and freedom meant through the ages a little too much for me, but doing so is a teachable tool to make readers think about the lifespan of an idea. Ideologically zealous right wingers really hate Foner, but this textbook doesn't have a very strong political slant to it (maybe the Communism thing comes out more in vol. 2?) and I'm strongly thinking of assigning this book next semester.
-
Extremely dry information-and at times it felt it just cut off in the middle of the information. Like it would talk about "a person of importance" during "some date", and then completely trail off to another topic or not even trail off, sometimes it would just start a whole new topic when the one it was just talking about wasn't even fully finished-just had no coherency whatsoever. This book just lacked a sense of flow throughout the chapters.
-
many thoughts were provoked.
-
best book of all time
-
Lincoln said, “Freedom is one thing to the fox and something entirely different to the chickens.”
Foner states, “increasingly, the idea of liberty lost its traditional association with privileges derived from membership in a distinct social class and became more and more identified with a general right to resist arbitrary government” (142).
The early North American natives had a different meaning of freedom than other early New England settlers. The natives believed that as long as they were not enslaved, they were free. For the early European settlers, freedom was closely aligned with rights, land ownership, slave ownership, and government. The Europeans came to America for economic opportunity, religious tolerance, and land ownership. For example, the early European settlers and the Native Americans had differing opinions on property ownership. The Natives believed in the communal use of property, while the European wanted to own land.
The Calvinist settlers identified freedom as religious tolerance and the ability to practice their religion without persecution. Many of the New England colonies were founded for the very purpose of seeking religious freedom, and promoting tolerance. After Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1636, he went on to create Rhode Island as a land for people to participate in religious activities of their choosing without government interference. William Penn created Pennsylvania for those fleeing religious persecution in Europe. He promoted religious tolerance and co-existence with the Native Americans in the Pennsylvania colony.
Abolitionism was a social movement of the pre-Civil war era that advocated for the immediate emancipation of the slaves and their incorporation into American society as equal citizens. Freedom to abolitionists meant freedom from slavery. This view was similar to that of the Native Americans. Abolitionists and Radical Republicans saw emancipation as necessary to weaken the South’s ability to sustain the war. Emancipation became the target of the Union war effort. Freedom of Women’s rights advocates meant equal ability to participate in the public sphere, and gaining the right to vote. Women voiced their opinions at the Seneca Falls Convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott.
Former slaves’ ideas of freedom were directly related to land ownership. Many former slaves insisted that through their unpaid labor, they had acquired a right to the land. Freedom as defined by former slaves held a similar meaning to that of white Americans. They equated freedom with self-ownership, family stability, religious liberty, political participation, and economic autonomy. Freedom “was an open-ended process for blacks, involving a transformation of all aspects of their lives and of the society and culture that had sustained slavery in the first place” (Foner 527). No matter what the definition of freedom, for whites it was a given birthright to be defended.
Americans envisioned freedom with the availability of open land in the West. John L. O’Sullivan coined the phrase “manifest destiny,” meaning Americans believed it was their divine right to occupy the entire continent and continually expand the area of freedom. “Those who stood in the way of expansion—European powers like Great Britain and Spain, Native Americans, Mexicans—were by definition obstacles to the progress of freedom…Like its predecessors, this generation of Americans believed that the United States had been selected by God for the greatest experiment in human history, the achievement of liberty, and that westward expansion was part and parcel of this destiny” (Foner 323-324). In the older states the population and the price of land were rising. Therefore the chances of a young man setting up a farm or creating his own artisan shop were dwindling. The West held out chances for the achievement of economic independence and freedom.
In the nineteenth century freedom was identified with economic opportunities, physical mobility, political participation, and slavery (Foner, 303). Freedom to the Democrats meant a weak central government and the preservation of states’ rights. The Federalists were supporters of Washington’s administration who supported Hamilton’s plan. They had close ties with Britain, did not believe in self-government, and deferred major decisions to authority. They feared too much liberty and unstructured government would result in anarchy. -
This book really deserves a 2.5, but I'm being generous. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to be harsh. The information was factual and the book got my attention at times. AT TIMES, mind you. It's just, the way this book is set up is painful. I would rather have appendicitis, then have an appendectomy than read this again. Harsh sounding; I know. However, who has time to actually sit and read 40 plus pages of a dull book? Be honest; none of us do. It drags on and on for so long.
I had to read this for class and it's sad, but it's one of the few textbooks I just hated after the first chapter. Again, it drags on. There may be sections to it where you can take breaks, but I had to read this over the weekend for class Monday. That's on top of the various other errands I had to do (no, errands is not another word for party with friends. I have had next to no social life this semester whatsoever). So it is a killer to read all that. One chapter could have been summed up in a page or two.
Conclusion
If you're a fan of history, then I probably knocked a book you would enjoy. If you are not a history person or history major, be very wary when this is put on your syllabus as the class textbook. You will probably try to find someone who would be willing to make sparknotes for this thing, but it won't happen. So skim as fast as possible.
Bottom line: This thing should have been shorter and I am sure as heck not recommending it. Sorry. -
People who complain about this book (and Vol. II) do not understand that it explains history in terms of freedom. It highlights the changes in the meaning of American freedom over time. Native Americans had a very different definition of freedom than the Europeans who left England in search of their own freedom. Southern plantation owners had a very different definition of freedom than Black slaves. Unions have a very different definition of freedom than robber barons. American history is dirty and unpleasant and, for much of its history, a great many of its citizens have been anything but free. This text highlights this disparity, and apparently, that angers a lot of people who don't want to admit that the America many of us learned about in high school is just an illusion.
-
This got 3 stars solely because I read the whole textbook and it was pretty easy to read. I liked the excerpts from notorious figures in the past.
As far as the American history goes, it didn’t cover as much as I hoped and glossed over many atrocities. But I’m not surprised anymore. Still disgusted of course.
I agree with many reviewers saying there wasn’t a strong stance towards anything- which actually is problematic in this case as this book is primarily discussing slavery, the Civil War, and emancipation. -
Read most of this for an upcoming class for which it is assigned. The entire text is rife with opinion stated as fact with spurious, unclear citations.
-
"Anti-Capitalist, oh communism and socialism aren't that bad" American History textbook. Borrowed for the class.
-
I keep checking Wikipedia as Foner breezily refers to events then glosses over them. I feel like I'm reading a long-winded, especially condescending bedtime story.
-
I had to read this for my first college history class. Being newly exposed to the study of history, I do not have other textbooks to which to compare its choices of what information to include, besides my conservative high school textbooks, so I feel unqualified to evaluate whether it tells an accurate account. Instead, since history professors want to choose the book that brings the most students into the subject they love, I will focus on how well it interested me in history and gave me an understanding of the subject. It accomplished its purpose in interesting me in history but probably was not the best, especially since it is lacking in economic history.
What I enjoyed is the analysis of how people's ideas led to events. Just the opposing stances of the South and North on slavery led to such contention that it culminated in civil war. The textbook made it clear that events are just the dynamics of relationships magnified, something my high school textbooks' emphasizing memorization did not do. This aspect is perhaps not unique, and other textbooks do it better, but in itself, it was enjoyable.
What I disliked was how it skimmed over the economic disasters' causes and their implications. For example, each Panic had dedicated to it usually only a page. It was not a total disaster, for since the class was a winter class, I was tired of the barrage of information from reading a 600-page textbook in four weeks. However, I doubt that the author wrote the textbook to help students like me skim the book. More of an analysis on the economic aspects of history would improve my understanding of history. Since people are influenced by their finances to discard the politicians who create those aspects, such as how the recent inflation floored the President's approval rating, the economic conditions influence the course of nations. The textbook did not prioritize the economy properly. Though perhaps the author could give acceptable reasons for this planning, such as its focus on freedom or its page limit, the lack of economic events is not removed from nagging at me, pointing to a place where I must strengthen my knowledge.
Overall, it is tolerable. Perhaps there is a better textbook out there for history. -
Over the summer I took online American History 101 at Sinclair University. I really enjoyed this book because it is so in-depth and covers all viewpoints of history. This is not a history that washes over the atrocities that shaped the forming of America and I appreciate that all the horrible things that colonists and citizens did to Native Americans, black people and African Americans is included in this book. It is important that if we are to learn about history that we learn about what really happened and that even though the Constitution and founding of America is pretty awesome, it also at times was created by garbage people.
-
This is a textbook. I like the textbook, but I do not like the subdivisions within each chapter, it made the text choppy and was, I felt, unecessary. As a professor it was not the most user friendly text from which I have taught.
I found it too cumbersome for a traditional 16-week course, editing content is required.
The textbook does contain very good information not usually found in textbooks, I am just of the opinion it gets lost in the verbosity. -
This was the book for my Early American History class. The 2nd volume (1877-present) is the book for my new class this semester, American History (post-recon)
Eric Foner is a good historian, he tries to throw in the public opinion of the times as often as he can. His work is thorough like that of Zinn. The imagery on every other page is appealing too.
I would recommend this if you’re looking for a thorough American History read. -
Eric Foner
ΦBK, Columbia University, 1963
Author
From the publisher: Freedom, the oldest of cliches and the most modern of aspirations, is the unifying theme in the new survey of American history by Eric Foner, the well-known historian and author of The Story of American Freedom. Give Me Liberty! examines the changing meanings of freedom, the social conditions that make freedom possible and its shifting boundaries from colonial times to the early twenty-first century. -
I hope I never have to read a textbook nearly cover to cover again, but at the very least I learned something, I guess. I enjoyed that he presents the information from the other side that is usually ignored if not outright erased. But it gets 3 stars because it's a textbook. And, much like someone else who provided a review, I literally always ended up needing to take a nap when I started reading the week's chapter.
-
given it's an assigned textbook, this was an enjoyable read! and if i had to take U.S. History II, i wouldn't mind reading vol. 2. at all! easy to read, formatted well, and right to the point ✨
interesting read if you want to understand the dimensions of american freedom and the parts of history that our school system refuses to teach us -
I think a person's being politically right means that s/he knows vaguely of American history, but does not know the reasons, details, and progress with it, hence stupid "politically right", and by nature has racism or white superiority in his/er less-educated mind.
-
One of the best if not the best History book I have ever read. It may brief edition but it is jam packed with American history. It gets all the nitty gritty stuff to like indentured servants and religious prosecution. If you want the true American history, this is as close as it gets.
-
If you are looking for a historic book that focuses mainly on the lack of freedoms for African Americans, Women and Native Americans, this is the right book. It is comprehensive in showing how freedoms were deprived and then established for all.
