diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'books')
| -rw-r--r-- | books/2017.page | 58 |
1 files changed, 58 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/books/2017.page b/books/2017.page index 15cd941..96c07b3 100644 --- a/books/2017.page +++ b/books/2017.page @@ -60,6 +60,12 @@ nugget. Walkaway, by Cory Doctorow (2017) ----------------------------------- +I liked this book, in the context of 2017 political nihilism. Doctorow's +tropes are getting a little long in tooth (raves! 3D printers!), to the point +that even while reading I started confusing this book with previous ones +(Makers, Little Brother, etc), which is forgivable, but makes me less excited +to read whatever his next book is. + Library: An Unquiet History (2015) ----------------------------------- @@ -83,6 +89,58 @@ food industry documentary "Our Daily Bread". On Tyranny, by Timothy Snyder (2017) -------------------------------------- +I guess I was enthusiastic enough to finish this pamphlet-sized volume, but +can't remember much specific about it after the fact. Gene Sharp's "From +Dictatorship to Democracy" remains, to me, a much more specific and useful "how +to resist tyranny" work. + Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell (1938) --------------------------------------------- +Tropic of Kansas (TODO: author) (2017) +--------------------------------------- + +Read on the recommendation of Rudy Rucker. Sort of meh, easy reading level, +lots of near-future distopian cyberpunk and "thriller" tropes. Felt like it was +checking all the contemporary political checkboxes, but there wasn't really +anything here that hadn't already been said in the 90s. + +A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn (2001 ed) +------------------------------------------------------------------- + +In the afterward, Zinn notes that he has been alive for about a quarter of USA +history; individuals of my generation can expect to see (over their full course +of life) a similar fraction of American history. I find this framing remarkable +and empowering. + +One critique I have of this book is it's inconsistent attitude towards voting, +democracy, and electoral politics. On the one hand the author consistently +refers to elections as a mechanism for dissipating political organization and +movements, and dismisses pro-establishment electoral results as being +meaningless and due to manipulation or low turn-out. On the other hand, he +frequently cites polling numbers and anti-establishment electoral results as +strong meaningful signals. Which is it? Certainly particular elections can be +higher-or-lower signal (eg, referenda on a specific policy or issue vs. +national two candidate presidential elections), but this sort of argument isn't +considered by the author in most cases. + +I had not learned (or remembered) the full story and degree of native peoples' +betrayal by the US government: not only negotiating unfair treaties under +duress and military pressure, and then breaking the terms of those treaties +later, but in many cases breaking the treaties immediately, and using violence +to move and renegotiate the same people over and over. + +The wobblies (IWW) or portrayed as a small (hundreds of poeple?) but extremely +influential group as organizers and public figures. I'd like to learn more +about them. The stories of rural farmer organization in the late 1800s was also +pretty interesting. + +I felt there was relatively little specific coverage of the political pressures +resulting in important social programs like medicare and social security coming +out of WWII. Also no coverage (that I remember) over popular feelings about +international governance (eg, League of Nations, United Nations), or +international organization and labor organizing in general. + +The Vietnam War and Watergate crises in the 1970s are well contextualized and +given a coherent arc. + |