What do you think?
Rate this book
Fire & Blood: A History of Mexico
Mexican history comes to life in this “fascinating” work by the author of Lone A History of Texas and the Texans (The Christian Science Monitor).Fire & Blood brilliantly depicts the succession of tribes and societies that have variously called Mexico their home, their battleground, and their legacy. This is the tale of the indigenous people who forged from this rugged terrain a wide-ranging civilization; of the Olmec, Maya, Toltec, and Aztec dynasties, which exercised their sophisticated powers through bureaucracy and religion; of the Spanish conquistadors, whose arrival heralded death, disease, and a new vision of continental domination. Author T. R. Fehrenbach connects these threads with the story of modern-day, independent Mexico, a proud nation struggling to balance its traditions against opportunities that often seem tantalizingly out of reach. From the Mesoamerican empires to the Spanish Conquest and the Mexican Revolution, peopled by the legendary personalities of Mexican history—Montezuma, Cortés, Santa Anna, Juárez, Maximilian, Díaz, Pancho Villa, and Zapata—Fire & Blood is a “deftly organized and well-researched” work of popular history (Library Journal).
652 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 21, 1973
463 people are currently reading
2084 people want to read
About the author
T.R. Fehrenbach
43 books82 followersTheodore Reed Fehrenbach, Jr. was an American historian, columnist, and the former head of the Texas Historical Commission (1987-1991). He graduated from Princeton University in 1947, and had published more than twenty books, including the best seller Lone Star: A History of Texas and Texans and This Kind of War, about the Korean War.
Although he served as a U.S. Army officer during the Korean War, his own service is not mentioned in the book. Fehrenbach also wrote for Esquire, The Atlantic, The Saturday Evening Post, and The New Republic. He was known as an authority on Texas, Mexico, and the Comanche people. For almost 30 years, he wrote a weekly column on Sundays for the San Antonio Express-News. T.R. Fehrenbach was 88 years old at the time of his death.
Although he served as a U.S. Army officer during the Korean War, his own service is not mentioned in the book. Fehrenbach also wrote for Esquire, The Atlantic, The Saturday Evening Post, and The New Republic. He was known as an authority on Texas, Mexico, and the Comanche people. For almost 30 years, he wrote a weekly column on Sundays for the San Antonio Express-News. T.R. Fehrenbach was 88 years old at the time of his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
January 30, 2012
This is my second reading of this fabulous book about Mexican history written by my favorite historian.
Some have criticized the author for over-arguing his points, that he may have had issues with his ideas taken by others. Perhaps I misunderstood the reviewer, but I did not get that in my reading.
Be prepared: it is a detailed book in that it is full of information written in his superlative narrative style. I recommend it highly.
Mexico has often baffled me, and this book clears away much of that. How could a country seem to be so contradictory? How could it be so poor? We are not poor, nor is Canada. Why is the other North American country so impoverished and bedeviled by so many problems?
The author wanted to make a work that would make Mexico, its history and psyche, available to English readers. He has largely succeeded despite the weightiness of his tome and its close attention of detail.
He approaches these questions:
Why is corruption so common in Mexico?
Though blessed with abundant natural resources, why is Mexico so poor?
What role did the Catholic Church, good and bad, play in the history of Mexico?
What was the impact of the indigenous cultures of Mexico on modern Mexico?
Spanish influences color Mexican history. How do they shape Modern Mexico?
Is there hope for Mexico yet to become an important world player?
How has the political history of Mexico finally led to stability?
These thoughts and many more are addressed in Fehrenbach's book.
Some have criticized the author for over-arguing his points, that he may have had issues with his ideas taken by others. Perhaps I misunderstood the reviewer, but I did not get that in my reading.
Be prepared: it is a detailed book in that it is full of information written in his superlative narrative style. I recommend it highly.
Mexico has often baffled me, and this book clears away much of that. How could a country seem to be so contradictory? How could it be so poor? We are not poor, nor is Canada. Why is the other North American country so impoverished and bedeviled by so many problems?
The author wanted to make a work that would make Mexico, its history and psyche, available to English readers. He has largely succeeded despite the weightiness of his tome and its close attention of detail.
He approaches these questions:
Why is corruption so common in Mexico?
Though blessed with abundant natural resources, why is Mexico so poor?
What role did the Catholic Church, good and bad, play in the history of Mexico?
What was the impact of the indigenous cultures of Mexico on modern Mexico?
Spanish influences color Mexican history. How do they shape Modern Mexico?
Is there hope for Mexico yet to become an important world player?
How has the political history of Mexico finally led to stability?
These thoughts and many more are addressed in Fehrenbach's book.
June 28, 2018
A popular history of Mexico, easy to read but hardly a scholarly work. Fehrenbach tends toward broad generalizations, sweeping statements, stereotypes, and all without reference to specific evidence or usually even a citation. He'll give you the broad sweep of historic events (what happened when and who was involved), but his methods, while keeping the read easy, leave one skeptical about any claims concerning "why" that he might make. He covers the subject from prehistoric America, the earliest inferred migrations of Asians into the Americans, right through the Aztecs, the Spaniards, and Mexican independence. The work ends with NAFTA, but owing to NAFTA's newness at publication, Fehrenbach is unable to provide any assessment.
Fehrenbach tries to be objective, but his skepticism of religion is evident in his description of the various religions involved and the "supra-rational" motives of religious people. While that term is used even by religious philosophers, in Fehrenbach's usage it reads like a thinly-veiled replacement for "irrational." He gives short shrift to the good works of Catholic priests, friars, and religious, but focuses long on the negative impacts of the Church. In tandem (as the Spanish missions were part and parcel of this), he describes Spanish attempts to settle land north of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo as total failures, but then can't help but mention the existence of Santa Fe, San Antonio, and other places that evidently were actually settled, at least to some degree.
He gives almost condescending admiration for the various indigenous cultures he covers, but he seems to hold an assumption of the inherent barbarity not only of the Amerindians, but also the later Hispanic peoples generally, such as their lack of fitness for democracy, their inability to act responsibly, etc. Little brown children waiting for a European to come and lead them, or at least one of their own strongmen to order them around, etc.
Still, his attempts to see the other side of things and try to find the good in his subject does cause him to give almost sympathetic coverage of Montezuma, Cortes, and others. For all his generalizations, that of the damage Spanish culture did to its colonies in terms of bequeathing very unhealthy habits and structures was perhaps the most convincing, as Fehrenbach at least breezily summoned not just Mexico but a wide array of Spanish colonies as evidence.
Fehrenbach almost inevitably admires strongmen, authoritarian solutions, and so on, claiming (without the slightest evidence, and, as many of his claims involved the historical "what-if" of contrasting against a hypothetical alternative history, without the possibility of evidence) that this or that course was the best possible, that the people were better off than others in other places, etc. However, he invariably has to spell out later the many negative legacies of any one of the strongmen's periods of rule, without referencing or even foreshadowing same while building up each one's many supposed merits.
Fehrenbach seems to think the natural human condition is tragedy and is complimentary of any people in any time who seem to grasp this, while expressing his regret when a people seem to miss this vital point at a given time.
If you are new to Mexican history, this makes a good start. It gives a good, sweeping picture without being too long and without being highly technical. However, one should read it with filters aimed toward Fehrenbach's own biases and flaws, and if one is really interested in Mexican history, should probably follow this up with more thorough or specialized works that exhibit a bit more scholarship.
Fehrenbach tries to be objective, but his skepticism of religion is evident in his description of the various religions involved and the "supra-rational" motives of religious people. While that term is used even by religious philosophers, in Fehrenbach's usage it reads like a thinly-veiled replacement for "irrational." He gives short shrift to the good works of Catholic priests, friars, and religious, but focuses long on the negative impacts of the Church. In tandem (as the Spanish missions were part and parcel of this), he describes Spanish attempts to settle land north of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo as total failures, but then can't help but mention the existence of Santa Fe, San Antonio, and other places that evidently were actually settled, at least to some degree.
He gives almost condescending admiration for the various indigenous cultures he covers, but he seems to hold an assumption of the inherent barbarity not only of the Amerindians, but also the later Hispanic peoples generally, such as their lack of fitness for democracy, their inability to act responsibly, etc. Little brown children waiting for a European to come and lead them, or at least one of their own strongmen to order them around, etc.
Still, his attempts to see the other side of things and try to find the good in his subject does cause him to give almost sympathetic coverage of Montezuma, Cortes, and others. For all his generalizations, that of the damage Spanish culture did to its colonies in terms of bequeathing very unhealthy habits and structures was perhaps the most convincing, as Fehrenbach at least breezily summoned not just Mexico but a wide array of Spanish colonies as evidence.
Fehrenbach almost inevitably admires strongmen, authoritarian solutions, and so on, claiming (without the slightest evidence, and, as many of his claims involved the historical "what-if" of contrasting against a hypothetical alternative history, without the possibility of evidence) that this or that course was the best possible, that the people were better off than others in other places, etc. However, he invariably has to spell out later the many negative legacies of any one of the strongmen's periods of rule, without referencing or even foreshadowing same while building up each one's many supposed merits.
Fehrenbach seems to think the natural human condition is tragedy and is complimentary of any people in any time who seem to grasp this, while expressing his regret when a people seem to miss this vital point at a given time.
If you are new to Mexican history, this makes a good start. It gives a good, sweeping picture without being too long and without being highly technical. However, one should read it with filters aimed toward Fehrenbach's own biases and flaws, and if one is really interested in Mexican history, should probably follow this up with more thorough or specialized works that exhibit a bit more scholarship.
April 18, 2020
I'm not sure I can separate my appreciation for the book from my appreciation for the subject. As an American, almost from the moment I began reading this book I had a sense of regret, bordering on shame, at how little I knew of the history of Mexico and not merely the history. The society, and the culture, all of it really, were things I knew only cosmetically. This book has cured me of that, and for this I am grateful.
The scope of the work is the whole of Mexican history, from the original indigenous inhabitant, of whom little is known right through to the beginnings of organized society. I tend to think of the pre-Columbian society of Mexico as the Aztecs, but this was only the form that it took when Cortes arrived. What became the Aztec Empire had its roots centuries before that and was actually in decline at the time of European contact. Getting to know how the people in Mexico shaped civilizations before that, how they rose and fell, and eventually brought forth the Aztecs was one of the delights of the book.
The story of the Spanish conquest I had read elsewhere but this was a very detailed and gripping account told simultaneously from both sides, and made it much more comprehensible. It also explained much of what followed. The colonial period was also dealt with in detail, and this was essential because it was something I knew virtually nothing about but has had a profound effect on Mexican society ever since and has no analog in the United States. In essence the Spanish imported feudalism to the Americas but the aristocratic elite did not even have to provide military service to the crown. There were no external enemies really, and the scale of the country was such that it could never be conquered or held by the more mercantile empires that might have challenged the Spanish.
Most interesting to me was the way in which Mexican independence came to be, it was the result actually of something of a Civil War in Spain in the wake of the conquests of Napoleon. This divided the elites in Mexico and led to a kind of internecine war among different groups of the ruling class. The early governments of Mexico alternated between reformers and what the author terms "praetorians" for many years. I have only heard the name "Santa Ana" from the American perspective and to read the full story of his life was incredible. The chaos of Mexico at the time of the American invasion was interesting and instructive, again it is a crime that I have only known this story from the American perspective. I will say that I would normally have sided with Lincoln on the Mexican-American War but given the nature of Mexican rule in the areas captured by the US, I'm inclined to think it was all for the best.
The chaos and calamity that followed the defeat lasted for a very long time, ending with the Episode in which Mexico had, however briefly, a Hapsburg Emperor of all things was fascinating and I don't think I can do it justice. It gives you a sense of how different the frame of reference, and one still feudal deep into the nineteenth century, the Mexican elite possessed and how sequestered in their own world they were. The book goes into great detail about the race and class differences and politics of Mexico which are absolutely essential for understanding the historical arc of the country. They are rich and complex and it is to its credit that the book explains them so well. Much of the rest of the history, and the challenge of creating a "Mexican" identity is incomprehensible without it.
The Pofiriate is well handled, and again something I knew nothing about. I'll admit that to my relatively conservative mindset this seemed like a kind of golden age for Mexico but it hamstrung in the end by the difficulty of choosing a successor and led directly to the period of chaos that resulted in the Mexican Revolution and the creation of "modern" Mexico. That story alone is worth the price of the book. It's complexity and drama is kind of amazing. It's not easy to keep it all straight but the author makes it intelligible and, having fleshed out the divisions of Mexican society, makes it comprehensible. The long struggle through the 20th century to stabilize Mexico and to formalize the revolutionary changes, and advances make a good tale. The economic mismanagment of the country, and the resulting reimpoverishment of much of the country in the late 1970s and early 1980s goes a long way toward explaining much of how Mexico is seen from the US perspective even today.
All in all, I would say this was an outstanding work though, as mentioned, it's hard for me to separate the pleasure of learning what it had to say from the pleasure of reading it. I would highly recommend it.
The scope of the work is the whole of Mexican history, from the original indigenous inhabitant, of whom little is known right through to the beginnings of organized society. I tend to think of the pre-Columbian society of Mexico as the Aztecs, but this was only the form that it took when Cortes arrived. What became the Aztec Empire had its roots centuries before that and was actually in decline at the time of European contact. Getting to know how the people in Mexico shaped civilizations before that, how they rose and fell, and eventually brought forth the Aztecs was one of the delights of the book.
The story of the Spanish conquest I had read elsewhere but this was a very detailed and gripping account told simultaneously from both sides, and made it much more comprehensible. It also explained much of what followed. The colonial period was also dealt with in detail, and this was essential because it was something I knew virtually nothing about but has had a profound effect on Mexican society ever since and has no analog in the United States. In essence the Spanish imported feudalism to the Americas but the aristocratic elite did not even have to provide military service to the crown. There were no external enemies really, and the scale of the country was such that it could never be conquered or held by the more mercantile empires that might have challenged the Spanish.
Most interesting to me was the way in which Mexican independence came to be, it was the result actually of something of a Civil War in Spain in the wake of the conquests of Napoleon. This divided the elites in Mexico and led to a kind of internecine war among different groups of the ruling class. The early governments of Mexico alternated between reformers and what the author terms "praetorians" for many years. I have only heard the name "Santa Ana" from the American perspective and to read the full story of his life was incredible. The chaos of Mexico at the time of the American invasion was interesting and instructive, again it is a crime that I have only known this story from the American perspective. I will say that I would normally have sided with Lincoln on the Mexican-American War but given the nature of Mexican rule in the areas captured by the US, I'm inclined to think it was all for the best.
The chaos and calamity that followed the defeat lasted for a very long time, ending with the Episode in which Mexico had, however briefly, a Hapsburg Emperor of all things was fascinating and I don't think I can do it justice. It gives you a sense of how different the frame of reference, and one still feudal deep into the nineteenth century, the Mexican elite possessed and how sequestered in their own world they were. The book goes into great detail about the race and class differences and politics of Mexico which are absolutely essential for understanding the historical arc of the country. They are rich and complex and it is to its credit that the book explains them so well. Much of the rest of the history, and the challenge of creating a "Mexican" identity is incomprehensible without it.
The Pofiriate is well handled, and again something I knew nothing about. I'll admit that to my relatively conservative mindset this seemed like a kind of golden age for Mexico but it hamstrung in the end by the difficulty of choosing a successor and led directly to the period of chaos that resulted in the Mexican Revolution and the creation of "modern" Mexico. That story alone is worth the price of the book. It's complexity and drama is kind of amazing. It's not easy to keep it all straight but the author makes it intelligible and, having fleshed out the divisions of Mexican society, makes it comprehensible. The long struggle through the 20th century to stabilize Mexico and to formalize the revolutionary changes, and advances make a good tale. The economic mismanagment of the country, and the resulting reimpoverishment of much of the country in the late 1970s and early 1980s goes a long way toward explaining much of how Mexico is seen from the US perspective even today.
All in all, I would say this was an outstanding work though, as mentioned, it's hard for me to separate the pleasure of learning what it had to say from the pleasure of reading it. I would highly recommend it.
January 7, 2021
DNF. I was disappointed within the first ten pages to find so many generalizations and assumptions about the ancient history of north and South America presented without evidence. Not only are there no footnotes or sources cited, but Fehrenbach doesn’t even bother to provide anecdotal information to support his claims about the anthropological and cultural characteristics of people that haven’t been alive for 7,000+ years.
“There was no place for the man who could not kill animals or fight. Probably, the widespread custom of torturing captive males that arose among many Amerind tribes (women and children when captured were normally adopted without prejudice within the clan) originated as a courage rite, merely reinforced by a primordial human love of inflicting pain. Such torture was ritualized and socialized” (p.9)
This is a pretty bold claim to make with no explanation as to how it was discovered. Surely it’s worth mentioning how modern scientists, historians, or anthropologists uncovered or deduced this socialized brutality beyond the author’s assumptions about human nature - especially after he posits that even earlier people “surely wondered about the meaning of life and worried about the future of the dead, because they were men with the conscious and subconscious minds of men” (p.6). This all feels like a very weak representation of history, even outside the world of academia.
The use of some dated, and racist terminology may have been more tolerable if the research was well cited, but paired with the sort of assumptions I’ve cited, it’s not hard to see how this history might be, at best sloppy, and at worst a projection of the author’s own prejudices onto a rich topic that deserves more humility.
“There was no place for the man who could not kill animals or fight. Probably, the widespread custom of torturing captive males that arose among many Amerind tribes (women and children when captured were normally adopted without prejudice within the clan) originated as a courage rite, merely reinforced by a primordial human love of inflicting pain. Such torture was ritualized and socialized” (p.9)
This is a pretty bold claim to make with no explanation as to how it was discovered. Surely it’s worth mentioning how modern scientists, historians, or anthropologists uncovered or deduced this socialized brutality beyond the author’s assumptions about human nature - especially after he posits that even earlier people “surely wondered about the meaning of life and worried about the future of the dead, because they were men with the conscious and subconscious minds of men” (p.6). This all feels like a very weak representation of history, even outside the world of academia.
The use of some dated, and racist terminology may have been more tolerable if the research was well cited, but paired with the sort of assumptions I’ve cited, it’s not hard to see how this history might be, at best sloppy, and at worst a projection of the author’s own prejudices onto a rich topic that deserves more humility.
February 4, 2021
There are worse history books than this, but if you're looking for a perfect example of how to write history badly, you need look no further.
There are, after all, history books which set out to lie, to distort events for racist or partisan purposes. Such authors have to confuse their readers about what actually happened and rearrange truth, nonsense and stereotypes to blame and enrage.
Fehrenbach didn't need to worry so much. He appears to have written this book to tell a story and to tell it in such a way that we all buy him another round so he'll keep going.
If you want to write history badly, try to follow his example in these simple points:
1. Don't explain yourself. Tell events without showing how you came to know this, how the reader can check on your scholarship. Just keep going.
2. Use a lot of adjectives. This is really great both when you talk about individuals and when you talk about large groups of people.
For examply, say things about "Europeans" like that they are industrious, restless, vital, rational, individualistic, enlightened and curious. Then you don't have to say that "indigenes" are lazy, irrational, ignorant, morose and complacent, but why not do so anyways?
Don't worry about the fact that any group of people has variety and conflict within it, if such a group even exists outside the minds and writings of people far removed from them. This will become obvious when you use a ton of adjectives to describe smaller ethnicities or classes which make up those groups. Describe the mexicas (savage, frightened, fierce, superstitious and barbarous) and oppose those to the adjectives you use to describe the Tlatelolca (independent), the Chichimeca (isolated) or the Tlaxcalla (noble and independent). Say that conquistadores (roughshod and zealous, greedy and civilizing) are way different than clergy (patient, noble, lethargic, corrupt).
If this gets tiring, don't forget that you can still use lots of adjectives to describe the smaller groups within these groups or you can change your adjectives later.
Don't worry that you contradict yourself.
Do the same thing with individuals. Use a bunch of adjectives to describe them and then use different adjectives when they are engaged in different events and circumstances. Tell them that Cortez was exceptional, intelligent, shrewd, courageous, brave, insightful, short-sighted, maligned, and misunderstood.
What the reader needs to know is that you, the historian, know a lot, so don't let the reader draw their own conclusions based on the events and actions themselves. Just use lots of adjectives.
3. Spice things up by occasionally saying that other scholars are wrong, without explaining which scholars or why your opinion is more accurate.
4. Avoid the existence of women. If your book is 658 pages, talk about four individual women and about the situation of women in a particular time or economic situation only three times. Don't forget to use a lot of adjectives.
I'm mad that someone published this book, but not as mad as I am that I read it. I decided to read this to fill in some areas of Mexican history I know little about. I know enough to know when Fehrenbach is outright wrong. And because he wrote such a crappy book, I can't even know how to make sense of those areas I know little about.
I wrote this review to prevent anyone else from wasting their time reading such a lousy book.
There are, after all, history books which set out to lie, to distort events for racist or partisan purposes. Such authors have to confuse their readers about what actually happened and rearrange truth, nonsense and stereotypes to blame and enrage.
Fehrenbach didn't need to worry so much. He appears to have written this book to tell a story and to tell it in such a way that we all buy him another round so he'll keep going.
If you want to write history badly, try to follow his example in these simple points:
1. Don't explain yourself. Tell events without showing how you came to know this, how the reader can check on your scholarship. Just keep going.
2. Use a lot of adjectives. This is really great both when you talk about individuals and when you talk about large groups of people.
For examply, say things about "Europeans" like that they are industrious, restless, vital, rational, individualistic, enlightened and curious. Then you don't have to say that "indigenes" are lazy, irrational, ignorant, morose and complacent, but why not do so anyways?
Don't worry about the fact that any group of people has variety and conflict within it, if such a group even exists outside the minds and writings of people far removed from them. This will become obvious when you use a ton of adjectives to describe smaller ethnicities or classes which make up those groups. Describe the mexicas (savage, frightened, fierce, superstitious and barbarous) and oppose those to the adjectives you use to describe the Tlatelolca (independent), the Chichimeca (isolated) or the Tlaxcalla (noble and independent). Say that conquistadores (roughshod and zealous, greedy and civilizing) are way different than clergy (patient, noble, lethargic, corrupt).
If this gets tiring, don't forget that you can still use lots of adjectives to describe the smaller groups within these groups or you can change your adjectives later.
Don't worry that you contradict yourself.
Do the same thing with individuals. Use a bunch of adjectives to describe them and then use different adjectives when they are engaged in different events and circumstances. Tell them that Cortez was exceptional, intelligent, shrewd, courageous, brave, insightful, short-sighted, maligned, and misunderstood.
What the reader needs to know is that you, the historian, know a lot, so don't let the reader draw their own conclusions based on the events and actions themselves. Just use lots of adjectives.
3. Spice things up by occasionally saying that other scholars are wrong, without explaining which scholars or why your opinion is more accurate.
4. Avoid the existence of women. If your book is 658 pages, talk about four individual women and about the situation of women in a particular time or economic situation only three times. Don't forget to use a lot of adjectives.
I'm mad that someone published this book, but not as mad as I am that I read it. I decided to read this to fill in some areas of Mexican history I know little about. I know enough to know when Fehrenbach is outright wrong. And because he wrote such a crappy book, I can't even know how to make sense of those areas I know little about.
I wrote this review to prevent anyone else from wasting their time reading such a lousy book.
February 7, 2010
I first read this book over 30 years ago as an undergraduate at BYU. It was one of the books on my reading sylabus for a history class on the post-conquest survey history of Latin America. Of all the books that I have read on Mexico, this book is probably the best,single-volume history of Mexico from pre-Spanish Conquest through mondern day.
My second full reading of this book occurred in the summer of 2002, just after I returned to California after a 25+ year sojourn in southern Louisiana. When I began working for the Law Office of Robert Yarra in Fresno, California, in May of 2002, I immediately realized that the vast majority of our immigration/naturalzation clients were Mexicans, and I had a strong interest in reading this book again to more fuly appreciate the historical and cultural background of our clients.
I am reading this book again, but I am taking my time. I started reading this book again in January of 2010, and I hope to be finished before the month of February, 2010.
My second full reading of this book occurred in the summer of 2002, just after I returned to California after a 25+ year sojourn in southern Louisiana. When I began working for the Law Office of Robert Yarra in Fresno, California, in May of 2002, I immediately realized that the vast majority of our immigration/naturalzation clients were Mexicans, and I had a strong interest in reading this book again to more fuly appreciate the historical and cultural background of our clients.
I am reading this book again, but I am taking my time. I started reading this book again in January of 2010, and I hope to be finished before the month of February, 2010.
March 15, 2025
One of the best history books I’ve ever read. Did not enter with expeditions this high but wow
January 7, 2020
DNF - I was iffy at the opening because I got a vague feeling of "White Man explains brown man" but I'm ignorant about all of this, so I didn't want to bring my prejudices into the book. Then the author used the word "cult" to discuss the Meso-American religions, and I got three red flags all at once. Finally, the author states that the Indigenous people of Central and South America were unique in their religion (aka, wrong and barbaric) and I just got peak White Guy vibes.
Again, I'm very ignorant on the history, and I'm not here to say the author is 100% wrong, but I'm not seeking an outsider's view on how these people are wrong and bad in special ways. It's too close to "and the Europeans were right to conquer them" for my tastes.
Again, I'm very ignorant on the history, and I'm not here to say the author is 100% wrong, but I'm not seeking an outsider's view on how these people are wrong and bad in special ways. It's too close to "and the Europeans were right to conquer them" for my tastes.
May 28, 2019
The grumpus23:
Understand the Mexican political viewpoint by knowing where they came from. History from pre-Columbian to today. Appreciate the proper pronunciations in audio version.
Understand the Mexican political viewpoint by knowing where they came from. History from pre-Columbian to today. Appreciate the proper pronunciations in audio version.
September 27, 2024
T.R. Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" is a comprehensive and detailed account of Mexico's history, spanning from prehistoric times to the modern era. The book provides a scholarly perspective on the tapestry of Mexico's rich cultural and historical heritage through its gripping prose. Although, the book is rich in bringing to life the many great personalities and events that have shaped Mexico, however, I could not help but note the author’s strong Eurocentric bias and his seemingly paternalistic disdain towards the indigenous people of Mexico.
Eurocentric bias is a common critique in historical narratives, this is where European standards and the way of seeing and understanding the world is disproportionately emphasized. This perspective suggests a hierarchy where the European conquests and influences are seen as superior to the indigenous cultures and achievements. Such a viewpoint overshadows the rich and complex history of Mexico's indigenous peoples and their civilizations. It also perpetuates a one-sided view of history that does not fully acknowledge the contributions and experiences of native populations.
Despite these criticisms, "Fire and Blood" remains a significant work of history for those interested in Mexican history, providing an extensive overview of the country's past. The book is also a reminder of the importance of approaching historical accounts with a critical eye and recognizing the biases that may colour a narrative.
For readers interested in exploring this work, it is essential to read this book with an awareness of the book’s inherent biases and to supplement the reading with other perspectives to gain a fuller picture of Mexico's diverse and multifaceted history.
Eurocentric bias is a common critique in historical narratives, this is where European standards and the way of seeing and understanding the world is disproportionately emphasized. This perspective suggests a hierarchy where the European conquests and influences are seen as superior to the indigenous cultures and achievements. Such a viewpoint overshadows the rich and complex history of Mexico's indigenous peoples and their civilizations. It also perpetuates a one-sided view of history that does not fully acknowledge the contributions and experiences of native populations.
Despite these criticisms, "Fire and Blood" remains a significant work of history for those interested in Mexican history, providing an extensive overview of the country's past. The book is also a reminder of the importance of approaching historical accounts with a critical eye and recognizing the biases that may colour a narrative.
For readers interested in exploring this work, it is essential to read this book with an awareness of the book’s inherent biases and to supplement the reading with other perspectives to gain a fuller picture of Mexico's diverse and multifaceted history.
April 26, 2024
An incredible history of Mexico starting with the earliest archaeological evidence and ending with NAFTA. Fehrenbach does more incredible work here, attempting to capture a portrait of the Mexican soul and make it comprehensible for other ethnoi, especially Americans.
While such an approach is easy to take umbrage with, especially today considering that Fehrenbach’s work is somewhat dated now, I find it the most gripping part of studying history. Why learn about events if you’re not trying to understand the person?
Fehrenbach’s psychological focus also helps explain the events themselves, and helps you identify with the struggles of Mexico. It is the story of a fractured, heterogeneous country finally forging itself into a collective nation through a long, arduous process of fire and blood that creates an enduring, prideful, long suffering, and exuberant people.
While such an approach is easy to take umbrage with, especially today considering that Fehrenbach’s work is somewhat dated now, I find it the most gripping part of studying history. Why learn about events if you’re not trying to understand the person?
Fehrenbach’s psychological focus also helps explain the events themselves, and helps you identify with the struggles of Mexico. It is the story of a fractured, heterogeneous country finally forging itself into a collective nation through a long, arduous process of fire and blood that creates an enduring, prideful, long suffering, and exuberant people.
June 4, 2023
Comprehensive history of Mexico up to the early 90s with truly wonderful writing. This historian has quite the literary bent, and his facility with language kept me going even through a couple centuries of repetitive Spanish economic fumbling.
November 15, 2022
This book was problematic. I would not recommend it.
August 12, 2023
Took me forever to get through this, but very informative
May 28, 2019
This volume covers the complete history of Mexico, from prehistory to the Mayans to the Magicians through the Aztecs and then New Spain, independence, the Porfiriato, and on through true democratization. The reader can see the whole sweeping arcs of Mexican history and make sense of areas where there is continuity and discontinuity. While at times a bit condescending in tone, the author has a clear love for his subject while attempting to turn an objective lens on the individuals that shaped the history and the societies that both effected and were affected. I highly recommend.
December 10, 2018
This is a good book that was updated before the author died. It runs the gamut from Pre-Columbian Mexico to the era of Salinas. A good deal of the book is very well done. His early history (before the 1810 revolution) offers a set of theories which help to explain why Cortez was so able to dominate the country. His discussions of the 1810, the Juarez and Porfiroata eras seems to be about right. He is very respectful of the long role of Porfirio. I even think most of his descriptions of the 1910 revolution(S) and the subsequent turmoil over almost another 20 years is mostly spot on. Where I think he begins to get it wrong is in his description of the Cardenas era (where he served as President and then subsequently became a virtual power figure for another couple of decades.
Where I think he got it wrong was in the relatively modern era. The book ends with the role of Salinas who he is favorable about. I think most historians would see Salinas as a reformer.
Mexico's history is complex in all eras. That is in part because of how the power structure has operated and I think Fehrenbach has some good ideas about historical trends which continue to influence behavior in today's politicians. So for example, a counter balance to Fehrenbach is Enrique Krauze's Mexico Biography of Power which details the regimes from 1810 through 1996. But I think if you think you will understand the role of politics in Mexico by reading one or two books - you are likely to either be blissfully ignorant of the real complexity of the system. It continues to fascinate me and so I think Fehrenbach's book was a good addition to my knowledge base.
Where I think he got it wrong was in the relatively modern era. The book ends with the role of Salinas who he is favorable about. I think most historians would see Salinas as a reformer.
Mexico's history is complex in all eras. That is in part because of how the power structure has operated and I think Fehrenbach has some good ideas about historical trends which continue to influence behavior in today's politicians. So for example, a counter balance to Fehrenbach is Enrique Krauze's Mexico Biography of Power which details the regimes from 1810 through 1996. But I think if you think you will understand the role of politics in Mexico by reading one or two books - you are likely to either be blissfully ignorant of the real complexity of the system. It continues to fascinate me and so I think Fehrenbach's book was a good addition to my knowledge base.
June 22, 2018
I have to be honest this is the best one volume history of Mexico that I've ever read.
It's detailed, well organized, and the writing contains an element of literary merit that
so many histories completely lack.
It takes skill to navigate through Mexican politics especially right after independence when
the nation descended into a series of coups and counter coups, but Fehrenbach keeps it
organized, even appropriately labeling that era the age of the Pretorians.
The chapters are organized thematically but still neatly flow chronologically simply describing
the events that shaped the nation. The one that stands out the most is an entire chapter on the Mexican constitution, but given that the document's creation was the central achievement of the Revolution and that it still is the constitution used by the nation, I'm not complaining.
I wish the material had been cited in a better manner though. I was having trouble
finding more information about some of the prehistoric populations described
in the early chapters.
Also as eventually happens to all histories, the book is dated. The first edition I found only went up to the seventies and I was glad to find a newer edition going up to the nineties, but a lot has changed since then. Even the update doesn't detail the fall of the PRI from power, one of the most
interesting Mexican developments in decades.
It's still a good reference to have, and a great introduction to Mexican history.
It's detailed, well organized, and the writing contains an element of literary merit that
so many histories completely lack.
It takes skill to navigate through Mexican politics especially right after independence when
the nation descended into a series of coups and counter coups, but Fehrenbach keeps it
organized, even appropriately labeling that era the age of the Pretorians.
The chapters are organized thematically but still neatly flow chronologically simply describing
the events that shaped the nation. The one that stands out the most is an entire chapter on the Mexican constitution, but given that the document's creation was the central achievement of the Revolution and that it still is the constitution used by the nation, I'm not complaining.
I wish the material had been cited in a better manner though. I was having trouble
finding more information about some of the prehistoric populations described
in the early chapters.
Also as eventually happens to all histories, the book is dated. The first edition I found only went up to the seventies and I was glad to find a newer edition going up to the nineties, but a lot has changed since then. Even the update doesn't detail the fall of the PRI from power, one of the most
interesting Mexican developments in decades.
It's still a good reference to have, and a great introduction to Mexican history.
October 29, 2010
Excellent history of Mexico. I did not know much of Mexico's history past the Spanish Conquest so it was very interesting to gain that knowledge of what came next. Definitely a lot of sad history and I wanted to tear my hair out every time the Mexican people put Santa Anna back in power; they turned power over to him at least 4 times even after he had proven a destructive and terrible leader. The author did a great job of really explaining cultural differences and painting a whole picture rather than just describing the various events. Highly recommend this book if you are interested in learning more about Mexico.
December 11, 2012
This is just the book for an English speaker interested in a detailed history of Mexico. Fehrenbach presents a comprehensive story that doesn't compromise the details of civilization from the Olmecs to PRI. I don't agree with some of his commentary on relatively recent events, but after all the book was published in 1973. This is an excellent source of information that is written in a style that doesn't put off the casual history reader, and encourages one to continue the study of this wonderful, very interesting and eclectic culture and its past.
November 12, 2019
I stopped reading this halfway through. I rarely put down a book, but this one was not resonating with me at all.
Something about the author's writing style, and/or the audiobook narration made this book a really long, dry and arduous read. I found my attention wandering, and was losing the plot often.
The audiobook is ~36 hours long; I made it to hour 17 before ultimately deciding to pull the plug.
Although the history of Mexico is very interesting to me, I did not like this author's telling of it.
Many others seemed to like this book, but it's not for me.
2 stars.
Something about the author's writing style, and/or the audiobook narration made this book a really long, dry and arduous read. I found my attention wandering, and was losing the plot often.
The audiobook is ~36 hours long; I made it to hour 17 before ultimately deciding to pull the plug.
Although the history of Mexico is very interesting to me, I did not like this author's telling of it.
Many others seemed to like this book, but it's not for me.
2 stars.
Currently reading
April 5, 2009Comprehensive review of Mexico's history from pre columbian time to modern day. Bias is apparent by the author's use of value laden comments regarding the Mexican character and culture. On the US the author has little but good things to say, regarding American involvement in Mexican affairs, certainly a controversial view by many, including me. Still, I recommend this book as a primer on Mexican history.
October 14, 2017
This was long and dry. I definitely didn't retain it all. But it was also a good, mostly fact, not too much opinion, version of Mexican history. I felt like the author made some suspiciously pseudo-scientific conclusions about *why* things happened as they did (i.e., attributing things to racial characteristics), and that was dodgy. But overall, I learned the bare bones of what happened. Served me well just in time for El Día de la Independencia.
July 5, 2020
A grand history of Mexico.
April 15, 2022
Enjoyed the first part--prehistory much more than the latter post-conquest part.
January 3, 2018
Thorough
Only gripe is that the book could use a map. Otherwise, very detailed. Seven more words are required to post.
Only gripe is that the book could use a map. Otherwise, very detailed. Seven more words are required to post.
October 4, 2019
I tried to read this, gave it 100 or so pages. But the blatant racism and lack of footnote style made it unbearable. There has to be a better book Mexico history book than this.
January 2, 2021
So dull. A lot of vague and unsubstantiated ideas about national character and mood and the like.
April 19, 2024
Fehrenbach offers us a magnificently written voyage through the rich history of Mexico. Fehrenbach's prose is exquisite, one of the best I have read in my own career as a historian. Even the most mundane and unexciting events and statistics are presented with a contagious passion for history that makes this book a delight to read, even if you're not into history or Mexico.
However, when Fehrenbach published his book for the first time in the 1970s, it was already outdated. For one, the author is keen on using his self-coined terms to refer to aspects of Latin American ethnohistory that were already well theorized by scholars in the seventies. For example, "Mexic" is not a term that anyone uses apart from Fehrenbach, and scholars prefer to use terms like "Mesoamerican cultural area." Additionally, the author refers time and time again to "the Hispanic mentality" as if that were a scholarly term.
To keep this short and sweet, here are three other major problems I have with this book:
1) Fehrenbach skips over two hundred years of colonial Mexican history, preferring to recur to sweeping generalizations about what happened during that time. Thus, the reader won't find a deep engagement with social, political, and cultural problems during the colonial era.
2) Fehrenbach is obsessed with race and with labeling people as "European", "criollo", "mestizo", "Amerindian", or "Anglo-Saxon". This comes off as pedantic and even condescending, particularly with his assessment of the role of Indigenous peoples in Mexican history. Fehrenbach is not ashamed to think, wrongfully, that surviving Indigenous peoples and cultures are an obstacle to Mexican progress.
3) More problematic is Fehrenbach's frequent characterization of Mexico as a second-rate, backward country with no cultural, political, or economic impact on the world. I sometimes wonder if Fehrenbach only wrote this book to sing the praises of the U.S. through a disparagement of Mexican history. A clear evidence of his disparagement of Mexican culture is that he considers Mexican literature and art as secondary and derivative --- and fails to mention the huge impact on the world scene that writers like Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Fernández de Lizardi, Carlos Fuentes, Juan Rulfo, Octavio Paz, and Rosario Castellanos, just to name a few, have had on the history of world literature.
If the reader only wants to be entertained and dazzled by an amazing prose, read this book. If you really want to know the history of Mexico as the scholars know it, I recommend The Oxford History of Mexico instead.
However, when Fehrenbach published his book for the first time in the 1970s, it was already outdated. For one, the author is keen on using his self-coined terms to refer to aspects of Latin American ethnohistory that were already well theorized by scholars in the seventies. For example, "Mexic" is not a term that anyone uses apart from Fehrenbach, and scholars prefer to use terms like "Mesoamerican cultural area." Additionally, the author refers time and time again to "the Hispanic mentality" as if that were a scholarly term.
To keep this short and sweet, here are three other major problems I have with this book:
1) Fehrenbach skips over two hundred years of colonial Mexican history, preferring to recur to sweeping generalizations about what happened during that time. Thus, the reader won't find a deep engagement with social, political, and cultural problems during the colonial era.
2) Fehrenbach is obsessed with race and with labeling people as "European", "criollo", "mestizo", "Amerindian", or "Anglo-Saxon". This comes off as pedantic and even condescending, particularly with his assessment of the role of Indigenous peoples in Mexican history. Fehrenbach is not ashamed to think, wrongfully, that surviving Indigenous peoples and cultures are an obstacle to Mexican progress.
3) More problematic is Fehrenbach's frequent characterization of Mexico as a second-rate, backward country with no cultural, political, or economic impact on the world. I sometimes wonder if Fehrenbach only wrote this book to sing the praises of the U.S. through a disparagement of Mexican history. A clear evidence of his disparagement of Mexican culture is that he considers Mexican literature and art as secondary and derivative --- and fails to mention the huge impact on the world scene that writers like Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Fernández de Lizardi, Carlos Fuentes, Juan Rulfo, Octavio Paz, and Rosario Castellanos, just to name a few, have had on the history of world literature.
If the reader only wants to be entertained and dazzled by an amazing prose, read this book. If you really want to know the history of Mexico as the scholars know it, I recommend The Oxford History of Mexico instead.
February 20, 2024
This is a long and detailed history of Mexico, starting with Aztec civilisations. I quite like the style. It is mainly events driven, but he does take a step back every so often to talk about general trends. The continuous narrative over 500+ years is pretty cool, but honestly I've kind of forgotten the first two thirds of the book.
The most useful part was actually covering the path to independence from Spain and subsequent years. This is kind of brushed over by others because it was a creole revolution and didn't help the poor of Mexico as Diaz tried to create a European style society. It was also messy with waves of movements fighting for liberation, a bit like Mexican revolution.
This background of political instability seems to be why Fehrenbach is so positive about the PRI. I'm split to be honest. On the one hand, Mexico has been stable relative to other Latin American countries, and the North has benefitted in terms of affluence. But I also think you have to consider that Mexico borders two of the most economically prosperous US states (TX and CA) where ethnic Mexicans earn vastly more. It just feels like a low bar to say "well at least its not a war torn country". The PRI had decades of stability, vast natural resources, no belligerent neighbours, huge investment from the US and Europe, and yet large parts of Mexico are still very poor and under-developed.
Fehrenbach is critical of the post-revolution land reforms, which gutted productivity and let the rural population exist in near subsistence. He sees this as a pragmatic offer to satisfy left wing demands, meanwhile the PRI allowed huge foreign investment to satisfy more right wing demands. Fehrenbach sees this pragmatism as a virtue, whereas its also a sign of corrupt politicians clinging to power at huge costs.. there was very little emphasis on the latter, e.g. he brushes over 1988 botched election.
The most useful part was actually covering the path to independence from Spain and subsequent years. This is kind of brushed over by others because it was a creole revolution and didn't help the poor of Mexico as Diaz tried to create a European style society. It was also messy with waves of movements fighting for liberation, a bit like Mexican revolution.
This background of political instability seems to be why Fehrenbach is so positive about the PRI. I'm split to be honest. On the one hand, Mexico has been stable relative to other Latin American countries, and the North has benefitted in terms of affluence. But I also think you have to consider that Mexico borders two of the most economically prosperous US states (TX and CA) where ethnic Mexicans earn vastly more. It just feels like a low bar to say "well at least its not a war torn country". The PRI had decades of stability, vast natural resources, no belligerent neighbours, huge investment from the US and Europe, and yet large parts of Mexico are still very poor and under-developed.
Fehrenbach is critical of the post-revolution land reforms, which gutted productivity and let the rural population exist in near subsistence. He sees this as a pragmatic offer to satisfy left wing demands, meanwhile the PRI allowed huge foreign investment to satisfy more right wing demands. Fehrenbach sees this pragmatism as a virtue, whereas its also a sign of corrupt politicians clinging to power at huge costs.. there was very little emphasis on the latter, e.g. he brushes over 1988 botched election.
August 17, 2022
As others have said, this is not a scholarly work. Fehrenbach tends to engage in broad generalizations, sweeping statements, ethnic and cultural stereotypes, all without proffering much if anything by way of evidence or even illustration. For example, when he asserts that Lazaro Cardenas' land reforms were a political success but an economic failure, he brings no actual facts or figures to the table. You just have to take his word for it.
The book is also extraordinarily US centric, a tendency that gets more emphatic as the book drags on. Of course, he tries his best to justify the Mexican-American War (or the US Intervention as the Mexicans call it). His case is that Mexico wasn't able to effectively govern or populate its northern territories, so that made it "inevitable" that the US would take them over. His comparisons of US and Mexican culture leave no room for doubt as to which he thinks "superior".
The last chapters of the book, focusing on 20th century Mexico after Cardenas, were just plain boring. The focus is almost exclusively on economic policy, and the author's free market ideology is, of course, on full display. I found myself struggling to finish the book.
Having said all of this, the book does give you an overview of Mexico's history for a reasonable price. You will learn the basic facts along with the boatloads of opinion the author throws at you. Still I suspect that the Oxford History of Mexico does a better job. And if you read Spanish, I'd heartily recommend the Historia Minima de México (El Colegio de México).
The book is also extraordinarily US centric, a tendency that gets more emphatic as the book drags on. Of course, he tries his best to justify the Mexican-American War (or the US Intervention as the Mexicans call it). His case is that Mexico wasn't able to effectively govern or populate its northern territories, so that made it "inevitable" that the US would take them over. His comparisons of US and Mexican culture leave no room for doubt as to which he thinks "superior".
The last chapters of the book, focusing on 20th century Mexico after Cardenas, were just plain boring. The focus is almost exclusively on economic policy, and the author's free market ideology is, of course, on full display. I found myself struggling to finish the book.
Having said all of this, the book does give you an overview of Mexico's history for a reasonable price. You will learn the basic facts along with the boatloads of opinion the author throws at you. Still I suspect that the Oxford History of Mexico does a better job. And if you read Spanish, I'd heartily recommend the Historia Minima de México (El Colegio de México).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews