Histories of Nations: How Their Identities Were Forged

by Peter Furtado

Now in paperback, this global bestseller is an engaging and informative read on the history of a diverse array of countries.

Global histories tend to be written from the limited viewpoint of a single author and a single perspective, which results in an inevitable bias. In this book, however, twenty-eight different writers and scholars from around the world contribute, giving engaging, often passionate accounts of their own nation’s history.

The countries featured in Histories of Nations have been selected to represent every continent and type of large and small; mature democracies and religious autocracies; states that have existed for thousands of years and those born as recently as the twentieth century. Each of these countries has a different relationship with history. In the United States, for example, the myth of the nation’s “historylessness” remains strong, but in China history is seen to play a crucial role in legitimizing three thousand years of imperial authority. “History wars” over the content of textbooks rage in countries as diverse as Australia, Russia, and Japan. Some countries, such as Iran or Egypt, are blessed—or cursed—with a glorious ancient history that the present cannot equal; others, such as Germany, must find ways of approaching and reconciling the pain of the recent past.

Original, thought-provoking, and handy in its new paperback format, Histories of Nations is a crucial primer for the Global Age.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World History, Politics, Geography, Reference, Historical

393 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2011

Reviews

[Mark McTague · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an ambitious book which, perhaps because of that, doesn't quite hit the mark. Presented as vignettes of selected nations by native sons and daughters (mostly academics), the book tries to reveal major characteristics of the culture and people or describe important facts of the nation's history that shaped its character. Some of the contributors were up to the challenge (giving insightful views of Russian, Indian, and Irish history), while others missed the mark, reading more like thin summaries of major historical events. The idea behind the book is attractive, but the execution has proven difficult.

[نیما اکبرخانی · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب جمع و جور و مناسبی ست برای کسب اطلاعات دم دستی. بیشتر برای آدم‌های زیادی جاهل مثل من.
کتاب تاریخ اجمالی و خاصه ریشه‌های هویتی 28 کشور را به اجمال و قلم‌هایی متفاوت را شامل می‌شود.
به ترتیب: مصر، هندوستان، ایران، یونان، چین، ایرلند، اسپانیا، فرانسه، روسیه، جمهوری چک، لهستان، مجارستان، ترکیه، برزیل، مکزیک، هلند، سوئد، بریتانیای کبیر، ایالات متحده، استرالیا، غنا، فنلاند، آرژآنتین، کانادا، ایتالیا، ژاپن و آلمان.
اینها ریشه‌های هویتی و تاریخ بسیار اجمالی ست و کاملا مستقل از هم نوشته شده است. می‌توانید به راحتی آن کشورهایی را که خودتان بهتر می‌شناسید و مطالب مفصل تری را پیشتر درباره‌شان خوانده اید را جا بیندازید، با خیال راحت از اینکه چیزی از دست نمی دهید. البته خواندن همه‌اش هم خالی از لطف نیست. بالاخره در نوشته های تاریخ‌دان‌های مختلف زوایای دیدی هست که اصلا بعید نیست از دید شما هم پنهان مانده باشد.
مثلا کسی که در مملکت خودمان تا پایان دوره‌ی دبیرستان درس خوانده است، قطعا دانسته‌هایی بیش از فصل «ایران» در این کتاب از تاریخ کشور دارد اما فصل ایران- نوشته شده به قلم آقای کاتوزیان- علاوه بر تاریخ آن ایده‌ی جامعه‌ی کوتاه مدت ایران را هم دارا می‌باشد که برای زدن جرقه‌ی اولیه و ایجاد کمی علاقه مندی برای خواندن آن کتاب می تواند مفید باشد.
نهایتا واقعا کتاب مفیدی است، دیدی کلی از برخی کشورها به انسان می دهد که می تواند پایه‌ای بشود برای مطالعات بعدی. اما اگر فکر کرده‌اید با خواندن این کتاب در باب تاریخ یک ملت، عالم می‌شوید باید عرض کنم سخت در اشتباهید.

[Florina · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was...an awkward experiment. I think a better title would have been "The Psychologies of Nations" because it delves into how Nation A, B or C perceives itself, its history and its past. I guess it also shows how identities were forged but it does so superficially. You can't really convince me of your country's sense of identity in less than 10 pages, because every essay is short and cursory. So, I guess if you want to get a sense of how national historians perceive their country's past, it's an interesting read. But even so, it's kind of boring and stultified. Very few essays actually exhibited a personality behind them. Sadly disappointing.

[Pooya Kiani · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب یک قصد اساسی برای خود مطرح می‌کند:
ایجاد کردن بستری برای تاریخ‌نویس‌هایی از هر ملت، که بتوانند در یک مقاله شکل‌گیری انگاره‌های خودشناسی ملی هم‌میهن‌های خود را، ترجیحا به شیوه‌ای کم‌تر شنیده شده و با حفظ نگرش انتقادی، تبیین کنند.

اغلب مقاله‌ها اما کلیشه‌ای، راست‌گرا و یک‌جانبه‌نگر هستند.

شگفت اینکه محمدعلی کاتوزیان، نویسندهٔ بخش مربوط به ایران، تنها خلاصه‌ای شلخته از «ایران جامعهٔ کوتاه‌مدت» خودش را بیرون کشیده و نوشته؛ و حتی در ثبت و ضبط رخدادهای مربوط به کودتای بیست‌وهشت مرداد دقت به خرج نداده.

در عین حال قسمت‌های مربوط به کشورهای لهستان، ایرلند، آلمان، چین و استرالیا به خوبی و خواندنی نوشته شده و به طور کامل با قصد پروژهٔ تالیف این کتاب هماهنگی دارد.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really interesting idea, but quite limited / inconsistent on paper. I found this quite useful for brushing up on both general, historiographical developments and occasional "alternative" histories. However, whilst the majority of chapters are well crafted, certain inclusions (such as the chapter on Israel and the Zionist project) are at times self-contradictory or wishy washy in their depiction of history and taste much like wasted opportunities. By including all of these pieces alongside one another, there is also the matter of stemming into a pseudo "egalitarian" placement of history (i.e. not cognizant of colonialism et al) that, as any historian will know, is at best misleading and at worst, intellectually contrived.

Having said that, as long as the above factors were considered I would consider reading something in this style in future. Perhaps something a little more comprehensive, e.g., a volume that covers lesser known histories and or peoples' histories a la the late great Howard Zinn and William A Pelz.

Still, I suppose you could do worse for a mass market "2 for 1" history 'anthology'.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very ambitious book, perhaps too ambitious. It's not easy to summarise the entire history of a country in only a few pages and compilations will always be hit-or-miss with authors interpreting the title differently. Unfortunately, some of the chapters are only as informative as a Wikipedia article and the book as a whole has a lack of analysis. The book fails to live up to the promise of its title and there isn't an explanation of how nations identities were formed.

[Mads Hansen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mr. Furtado collection of identity reflecting essays is the perfect teaser and inspiration to do further investigation into one of his selected countries. Or it could be a complete turnoff to ever revisit that country ever again.

The book doesn't provide much guidance in terms of why certain nations were picked over others and what the link is between the national stories. Not even a short chapter to round the book off. However, this is maybe one of Mr Furtados points: every nation has it's own unique history that doesn't have too much in common (except for a few World Wars and maybe a pinch of Colonization) with the each other. National identities have very little to do with supra-national institutions like i.e the EU and maybe that's a lesson for politicians trying to talk down our differences and talk up our interdependence. As long as our core identity is based on the national we (as citizens) will always be reluctant to join new and unknown communities.

Some chapters are better than others in this book purely based on the format (whether it's fair to leave the same amount of pages for describing Russia as Sweden). I especially like the following chapters:

- Holland: A very inspiring nation that, despite it's small size, has been a global superpower and a high tech nation. Some of it due to the necessity to be able to control the embankments.
-Italy: An incredible nation that really struggle to feel like "a nation". At the same time the writer describes the fascinating dichotomy between italians as religious catholic and secular democratic - which has basically led them to not be any of the above.
-Finland: Such a below-the-radar country that, in my head, is most known for death metal music and cold winters. However, this country has a great history with Russia and also internally with independent farming as a main driver.

The book is worth a read if you can live with some countries being handled very superficial and others being given too much space. Worth going through the resource list at the back.

[Carina Kaltenbach · Rating 2 out of 5]

Overall, not a bad book, but definitely not a good one either. I found the essays too hard to read, I didn't enjoy the language used, and I found the content less than satisfying. Probably more for people with a good historical background, and less if you just want to learn the basics.

[George · Rating 2 out of 5]

OK as a reference book. I had expected the writers to be more personal and subjective, rather than 'dry' history facts.

[Carlo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good idea, not so good execution, interesting at times, trivial most of the time
-------
Buona l'idea, non così buona l'esecuzione, a tratti interessante, il più delle volte banale

[Gareth · Rating 1 out of 5]

On paper it sounds like a brilliant idea. “Let’s get historians to tell us about their countries’s histories so we can reevaluate our own preconceptions!” The problem is that each historian took their assignment to mean different things. Some historians wrote about the specifics of historiography in their country, others merely provided a skimming overview of important events. These differences wiped out any chance for comparison that could be gained from their side-by-side presentation. Each essay felt suffocated by their brief length (too many historical events we know nothing about are referenced in relation to their ‘immense’ sociopolitical impact which we obviously have no means to evaluate) while the Herculean task of relating their country’s national narrative forced overly grandiloquent statements on the ‘forging of national identity’ and the ‘depth of historical consciousness’. There were some moments of insight but, by and large, it was a pain to read.

[Nick Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Now. This is a hard one to review. To start with, I was incredibly impressed with the remit - the author has sought thirty or so esteemed historians of different nations and asked them to each write their view on what makes their country what it is, what has formed the place, what is important to the people.

The first five or so chapters - which I believe included Iran, India, Egypt, China and maybe Greece - I found educational and interesting. How nations and nationalities define themselves, thought-provoking it was. However, it was not that these chapters were somehow better, it was more that after this point I started to feel the limitations of the book. Ambitious in idea, and each chapter taken in isolation perhaps it would have felt more enjoyable a read, but.. it just started to feel like most of each chapter was the same.. and the amount of information provided was just failing to stick with me or hold my attention. Little factual moments I enjoyed, the majority felt dense and disconnected (or insufficiently anchored, perhaps).

So objectively good, subjectively not so much so IMHO.

[Noah Dommaschk · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this. I have been looking for books that briefly summarise histories of the world, and this is a good book that does just that. The narrative is also very good, kept fresh because chapters are short and each has their respective authors. I was particularly engaged with the chapters on nations I have personal connections to or have been to or have lived in myself. Recommended to people who want to understand current world affairs and political climates because many chapters explain how nations have reached their political stances now.

[William Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A unique, salubrious, and mentally-fortifying collection of short-essays regarding 28 countries; while not an all-consuming portrayal of national identities, I can highly recommend this as a complement to those reading more in-depth regarding a nation's history. Aside, highly warranted for those that perhaps have the interest for more in-depth exploration, but lack the time or dedication.

[Oscar Lye · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and accessible read. An exploration on the different psychological characteristics of individual national cultures. Each chapter varies dramatically in style and focus - due to each being composed by a different author.

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting crash course in the history of selected nations written in an accessible and entertaining manner.

[D.K. Powell · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’ll come straight to it: this book is utterly pointless.

It’s a pity because it need not have been. The idea – of presenting a brief history of twenty-eight of the major nations of the world – was a good one.

There is, of course, an immediate issue with deciding which twenty-eight should be chosen out of the nearly two hundred countries broadly recognised today. What is a ‘major nation’? This is a fair point, but if you’re going to choose a small selection (for a book not to become an intimidating tome) then the selection is about as good as you’re going to get and does at least make sure that all inhabited continents are covered. With the aim of getting people to know stuff about other histories than their own, it had the right idea. This could have been a useful summary for those wanting a broad introduction rather than depth.

But in choosing ‘select experts’ to write each article, what becomes quickly apparent to those of us who have some deeper knowledge of the history of some of these nations is that each article is, at best, deeply biased. As a British person, I couldn’t disagree with Jeremy Black’s assessment of our history more, for instance, but there were several other essays where I found myself wincing or grimacing.

This shouldn’t have come as a surprise. As a teacher of history, I know that there is a great (and correct) preoccupation in education practice today to teach students how to critically assess not just the content of an historical source document but its reliability and credibility. History, as they say, is written by the victors. Today it might be better to say it is written by those who argue best their own particular bias. It is certainly amusing (I have done this) to be sat with several historians at the same time and watch them quickly find huge swathes of history to argue over and ridicule one another’s stances.

There is no ‘one history’ for any country but alas the uninitiated here would easily think there is. The compilers of this collection should have commissioned at least two, if not three, historians for each article to give at least a semblance of balance. It still wouldn’t be perfect but at least there would be some kind of nuance; a sense of grey areas of interpretation.

As it stands, I would have better invested the time spent reading this book in reading Wikipedia instead. Don’t get me wrong – that’s no slur to either – but researchers know that Wikipedia is a good place to start, getting a feel for a subject, and then find the references to use as springboards into decent primary sources. You never quote Wikipedia as a source in academia, but almost everyone knows it is your usual starting point. This book doesn’t even provide references. It’s just one person’s opinion, repeated ad nauseam.

There is some good material in here. I certainly felt like I learned something with some of the articles. But the problem is I can’t ever really be sure. Did I learn something? Or did I just read something conjured out of someone’s head, concocted from opinion? I can’t ever know without having to go check it out myself. In which case, I might just as well have gone to better sources anyway.

This should have been a useful resource for students of history. I always recommend my students try to get a breadth of world history. I often suggest Frankopan’s excellent The Silk Roads for this reason which, while it is one man’s work, has copious citations you can use to check out details for yourself. Getting a view of a country in the context of at least its neighbouring nations (though it is better to get a more global perspective if possible) is a healthy thing to do. In the UK, this isn’t done enough and thus our colonial elitism has never been excised; instead, it has grown and become belligerent. So, this book misses a trick here and does somewhat nullify its own purpose. What a great pity. It could have been so good.

[Alastair · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a big fan of learning new history, learning new things and particularly learning about new countries. This book, therefore, appears to be almost designed for me. In its own words, it examines how "writers and citizens in different countries ... view their own pasts" and comprises 28 essays covering 28 countries. The introduction whets the appetite even more: it promises "personal essays" whereby historians are invited to "write about how history is understood in the culture of their homelands at large". Notably, the introduction states that each historian has "not written encyclopaedic histories" though later on we are told that the writers have set out "to present their national histories, warts and all".

I believe it is this uncertainty in intent on the part of the editor, Peter Furtado, that explains why the book ultimately fails. The 28 chapters are an incoherent mixture of lists of a nation's major events (Spain, Hungary) - satisfying the 'national history' ask; and essays that cover less ground but describe better the sentiment of a people (Russia, Czech Republic) - satisfying the 'how history is understood' ask.

Given the way I read the introduction, I fully anticipated a series of essays in the manner of the Russia chapter. While still covering a fair amount of the factual history of the country, it utilises a structuring device - the West - to hold the thread of historical events together and to give a sense of national feeling (as best as can be expected in a few short pages). The chapter even includes a handful of statistics on how the Russians view themselves which was as close to a scientific attempt to consider how a nation views its history as I saw anywhere in the book.

Other chapters too take up the mantle of getting at how a country sees itself: the Czech Republic chapter - perhaps the most pessimistic in the book after the Italian - really gets at the sentiment of a people. The Netherland's chapter starts by asking "any dutchman" a question, and closes with general statements about what the Dutch think and their general attitude. The chapter is wonderfully structured around the Dutch obsession with water and its influence on their lives through the course of their history. Lastly, the Sweden chapter exemplifies what book could have been: it speaks of the Swedes' view of themselves and European views of the Swedes. At a suitably general level for about ten-pages worth, the chapter provides an overview of how the country uses its history in its construction of its self-image.

A couple of chapters step away from the theme of self-image without stumbling into encyclopaedia-making. The chapter on Brazil gives an overview of the country by way of a polemic on the twin outrages of slavery and environmental destruction. The essay on China intriguingly turns the brief on its head by describing not the history of China but the history of history itself, showing how integral record keeping and official history-making has been to the country.

But such chapters - that either really tackled the brief of describing how a country views itself or took an innovative spin on the question - are in the minority. Too many resemble the Hungary chapter, with its tedious lists of events and discussions of obscure historical figures. The author gets mired down in the details that they are likely very conversant with, utterly missing the forest for the trees.

Which is not to say the more encyclopaedic chapters cannot be enjoyable. The chapter on France contains some anecdotes and a personal touch that is much appreciated in what is an extremely dry book in the main. The chapter on Ireland is a wonderful primer on the country's recent history. Yet this is also a failure: you'd be far better off watching a well-edited YouTube video on Irish (or any country's) history than buying this book just to read a jam-packed discussion of a nation's past.

This is all so much a failure of editing, I believe, not the authors themselves. Issues with editing show up in other ways too, beyond the discordant styles of the essays: there is a lack of women represented - only six out of 28. There is only one sub-Saharan African country (Ghana) present but two Scandinavian ones. Lastly, there are some dreadful sentences that ought to have been picked up by the editor. Much as you might think this would be a reasonably issue in a book written by dozens of people for whom English may not be a first language, the most egregious example came in the Great Britain chapter: "National identity was moulded during war with France and Spain. In a period of little over a hundred years, from the early 18th to early 19th century, there was declared war with the former no less than seven times and undeclared war twice, with hostile relations existing at other times"! I was bemused, therefore, to notice a 'box quote' stating that the book was "immaculately edited"; I cannot but raise the question of a conflict of interest when a History Today quotation is emblazoned on a book by a former editor of History Today.

Even the chapters that I enjoyed in this volume still felt encumbered by the need to cover, at least briefly, the major beats of a country's history. This means even these better chapters were weighed down by what was likely editorially-imposed baggage. Far better to give the authors free rein to describe a feeling of a people and see where that took them than to put the notion of giving a "national history" as a key part of the project. This would have solved many of the issues in the book even if there was always likely an upper limit on how good a book comprising discussions of 28 countries by as many different authors could be. It is, perhaps, simply too many voices on too many themes in too few pages.

[Heba · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, I thought it was a good book. It teaches you the history of 28 countries from the perspective of their own nationals. It gives you a summary of how the citizens of how those countries perceive themselves, their history, their past, and the parts of their culture that they cherish the most. It is definitely too ambitious of an idea to present an entire people's perspective in 10-12 pages; however, it was still eye-opening to get a glimpse of that picture.

With most governments, if not all, working dexterously on manipulating an identical self-image internally for their own citizens' sense of national identity through public commemoration, media, and control of education curricula, it is definitely a very important read.

Where the book fell short is that it tried to present subjective takes on history in a very objective way, so it ended up being neither subjective enough nor objective enough. I am also curious about the thought process that went into including and excluding certain countries from the book. Most notably missing is Palestine. After reading the essay on Israel, I was surprised not to find one about Palestine also included. I personally thought it would have been better to either include both or neither.

[Batur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fresh narratives with outstanding pictures; a comprehensive modern history studies...

[Eva Van Lieshout · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. The book offers a concise overview of the history of around 30 countries and how the people of each country perceive that history. What’s great is that each chapter is written by a historian from the respective country. This gives you valuable insight into the subjective experience. It’s a nice change from what you usually learn about a country through the history books in your own country.

Each chapter is about 8 pages long, so quite brief, but still, I now feel like I’ve had a general history lesson on each country and learned a bunch of ‘fun’ facts (not really fun; unfortunately history is mostly about war). I feel like I understand the world just a little bit better now.

I do have to say that I liked some writers better than others. At times, I found the explanations too general—more like a list of chronological events. In contrast, I found the chapters that focused more on how people in those countries themselves experienced their history to be much more interesting and a real added value of the book. It was also not an easy read, with a lot of names and places being mentioned, and you had to constantly dig into your memory to keep up. But all in all, definitely a worthwhile book!

[Oran Burns · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its good easy reading, essentially an anthology of many countries histories and the perception that their populations have about themselves. Certain countries are definitely more interesting than others, with Argentina, Japan, Australia & Turkey being particularly interesting from what I can remember. Definitely cant escape some of the authors having quite clear biases towards their own countries, in particular Israel, China and the UK, but aside from that it was a decent read and very easy to just pick up randomly.

[Michal Hocikto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Na moj vkus prilis strucne. Radsej by som mal tych narodov menej a rozpisanych na 100 stran.

[Raoul Tomaselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's definitely an ok book and does its job of being informative, but it had poorly written essays, grammatical errors and is not for beginners.
I read 2/3 of it with the wrong approach: trying to study it taking notes. It was really some piece of work. It didn't feel enjoyable and it felt forced.
The last 1/3 of the book I just read it without any expectations or aim. It was more enjoyable although still not for beginners and therefore difficult to understand all the political and historical situations with all the different dates and names.

Anyway, I'm happy I read it and learnt new things. Thank you Egle for lending me the book :)



Below are the notes I took:

Egypt
Persistence, renewal, continuity
- Muslim Arabs, islamic caliphate, until 19th century when Albanian soldier Muhammad Ali Pasha founded the modern state of Egypt.
The Free Officers Movement ended the last monarchy (Farouq I, last king) in 1952.
+ Gamal Abdel Nasser 1954-1970
Tyrannic leader, human rights ignored, fear of new revolution. Shocking loss against Israel 1967
+ Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat 1970-1981
1973 glorious victory against Israel. But then dealing with Israel got him assassinated.
+ Muhammad Hosni Mubarak 1981-2011
Military regime. Corrupt dictatorship under his police state. 18 days of protests and demonstrations across countries made Mubarak abdicate.
India
+ Hindu-Muslim conflicts
+ Indian history written by foreigners due to lack of historical scripts or proofs. Although India has Millenial history, only a quarter of it is proven. There is no history of pre-Muslim India written by the ancient Indians except Kalhana's Rajatarangini (less detailed than others like Roman's or Greece's).
Alberuni wrote the first Indian history as Muslim.
+ Muslims (Mahmud of Ghazni) invaded and enslaved Indians during the 11th century and created the modern Afghanistan.
+ India derives from the Greek and Persian corruption of river Sindhu' name. After 2nd WW they use 2 names, foreign and an internal one: Bharat.
+ Britain denuded India of its pre industrial manufacturing dominance, converting it into a raw material British provider.
+ George Everest = British colonel who helped map India (1865 mount Everest). Hid the fact that Radhanat Sikdar, a Bengali mathematician, was the one who actually calculated the mountain.
+ So.. Britain came and conquered India but sold the idea of being a benefactor, improving not only the economy but also the moral. Meaning that they treated Indians like barbaric, decadent people. Indians fought back. But Brits acquired other Indians to fight against each other. 1857 First Indian War of Independence.
+ New year day is different even within India: mostly during Diwali, but in East and North it falls in April.

+ 15 August 1947 Indian independence day
Ghandi, the father of the nation, seized power through non violent resistance and tried to calm tensions between Hindus and Muslims.

Iran
+ Until 1935 was known as Persia. Nazi made it change to Iran (Aryan origins).
+ 2500 years of history through multiple conflicts, historic interruptions and perennial revolutions. How it held up together?
Iranianism or Iranian-ness.
Consciousness of a social and cultural collectivity distinguished them from Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese and Indians. Their identity was maintained because of: Persian language; Shia Islam religion; territoriality.

Greece
Became a modern nation after revolting from the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s.
Constantly facing its great history with its Hellenistic culture. Falling short when compared to the great past. Trying to cope with it in modern era by keeping old language, changing back geographical places names and keep the culture.
1910 -> 1945 Ethnic conflicts, wars, ethnic cleansing.
Claimed Macedonia over Bulgaria.
Disputed Constantinople over Turkey.
Violent and unwilling mass expulsions or population exchanges between Turkey and Greece.
1929-32 depression -> social unrest.
1936 General Ioannis Metaxas established a dictatorship imitating fascism, but allied with Britain in WW2.
After war it limboed between independent country and Brit's and American's colony.
Until 1967 was a weak democracy
1981 joined EU
1989 constant flux of immigrants, fear of loosing culture = xenophobia
2004 joined Euro + Olympic Games + Economic depression = debt, lost confidence, depression

China
Longest continuous tradition of formal history writing from 1600BCE as shown in Confucius' compilations of history. (Father of Chinese writing)
Great respect for historical memory and ancestry as evident in the practice of caifeng: the people's experience of the current government. If it is good then the ruler is indeed a manifestation of the mandate of heaven.
The method and mean of writing history has changed into the Western way only in the past 100years. Firstly adapting Marxist material history then conforming to the science of Western history in the 90s.

Ireland
Didn't like the author of this essay. I found it very dry and just a sequence of dates and names with very few engaging notions.
Long fights with Britain for independency. Britain try to control Ireland and promising things which will not provide during the past 500years.
1845-47 the potato Famine: 1- halved the population 2- people emigrated 3- housing crisis
War continued after 1918 in guerrillas and civil uprisings.
Conservative Party rules
Avoided WW2, being neutral.
1949 Republic of Ireland
1998 Good Friday agreement, good behavior by UK

Spain
Rome controlled most of Hispania by 27 BCE
By 2nd century CE got integrated into the Roman Empire and spoke vulgar Latin.
6th century barbarian rule: Andalusia from Vandals.
711-732 Islamic invasion from North Africa, stopped on the Frank border.
Carlo magno pushed till Barcelona but the Moors (Muslims) took it back after his death.
10th century modern languages developed.
Aragonese-Catalan kingdom, developed through the 11-12th century, expanded to Sicily (1282) and Naples (1442).
Black death plus civil wars between the Crowns (Castile, Aragon, Navarre). To fix the wars in 1469 cousins Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabel of Castile married creating a superpower and annexed Muslim Granada in 1492 with Columbus faithful journey in the Caribbean.
Jewish/Muslim ethnic cleansing, culminating in 1609 with a series of wars in the Granada mountain the last Spanish Moriscos were shipped out by force.
Spain colonized the West Indies, Mexico, Peru and much resto of the americas with their biological warfare bringing diseases like smallpox to kill an immense number of people. Replaced by African slaves and introducing Catholicism.
A 80years war against the Dutch drained Spanish bellic forces causing them to slowly receed their conquests. 1648
17th/18th early century golden age/ dynastic wars after Philip's heir.
19th century war with itself. Spanish liberals opposed the ultra Catholic, extreme-right Carlists in a succession of internal wars.
USA in 1898 ended Spain's overseas empire (Cuba and Philippines)
Fight for Morocco left Spain unstable. Was neutral during both World Wars
20th century silver age
1936-39 civil war ended in the Franco dictatorship that crushed the left party (1936-75).
1978 democracy + 1985 entry in EU = Fast globalization to catch up with the other developed and more stable countries.

France
Written in first person, didn't like that much. Was not well narrated nor had a thread.
Hexagon divided in 10 ethno-linguistic areas or regions. 1 - the biggest language d'oil (modern French) born of Roman invasion and seasoned with Germanic elements. 2 - the oldest Pays Basque language date back to the Paleolithic era, next to the Pyrenees. 3 - French Flanders Flemish speaking, Germanic invasion, former southern Netherlands. 4 - Lorraine and Alsace fought between Germany and France. 5 - Brittany Celtic language, Anglo Saxon invasion, Breton history. 6 - Romance-speaking Latin roots, south. 7 - Occitan speaking, north, trying to revive it. 8 - Catalans of Pyrenees-Orientales thanks to Louis XIV. 9 - Corsica Italianate romance language, strong nationalist, terrorism, 'Isle of Beauty'. 10 - Franco-Provençal region, French and Occitan language along the Rhône-Alpes (Lyon, Saint Etienne, Grenoble, Savoie and French speaking Switzerland.
1789-92 French Revolution

Russia
Inferiority complex underlines Russia's national identity.
The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 launched an epoch of permanent terror. During the years of Soviet rule 50-55 million people became victims of repression and were physically and morally maimed; 11-13 million were executed or perished in prison.
Lack of accurate data = neglect humanity
1918 civil war, forced collectivization, deportation of nationals, Great Famine of 1932-33, 1937 Purges, 1941-44 Siege of Leningrad and the Great Patriotic War = symbols of destruction of civilians and soldiers by enemies and their own government and people.
The Soviet regime lasted 74 years burying 3 generations as well as traditions.
It's Russian general opinion that the Stalin rule, 1922-1953, was a Golden Age. Schoolbooks justifies Stalinism as a necessary measure to achieve modernization.
It is not apathy, it is a denial of fundamental cultural values, humanism and humane Society.
Basically, Russia is hostile towards culture and civilization because of 2 fundamental events: the founding of the Russian State and the adoption of Orthodoxy. Russia is fascinated by the West but wants to overcome it to escape it's influence.
Vasily Klyuchevskiy
Foundation of Russian State: Norsemen (Vikings/Varangians) stopped the anarchy of Rus because the Slavs weren't able to to do so. Moreover, they didn't conquest it, they were asked by the Slavs to help them.
But Russians didn't like that story because they wanted to give the pride to the Slavs in order to follow the path of Independence from the West.
Adoption of Orthodox faith: 1- conversion and mass baptism of the Rus by Prince Vladimir the Great in 988; 2- the East-West Schism in 1054, Rome and Byzantium cursed each other; 3- the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 ---> Moscow (third Rome) proclaimed itself the only bearer of the Orthodox mission and heir to the Byzantine empire.
Western reforms by Peter the Great (1676-1725) similar to Holland advanced model. Modernity was achieved through tyranny. Population fell by 2million. Drastic contrast between the tiny elite and the mass illiterate peasantry.
Second half of 19th century was the beginning of the social unrest. Literature and culture and social movements were starting to boil the pot. Everything culminated in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and the beginning of the Stalin government.
After the Soviet era and the globalization of 1990, in only 20 years the general opinion fell into nationalistic beliefs regarding Stalinism as a Golden Age.
The inferiority complex and the uncertainty about their origin made Russia avoid the general comprehension of humane consciousness.

Czech Republic
- The Czechs are the ancient inhabitants of the Bohemian lands (Slavs)
- Prague was the center of the Roman Empire in 1346
- 1348 first university in Central Europe, Prague
- Hussite religion: Jan Huss became a martyr because he was burned by the Church after complaining of their moral decrepitude.
- Hate German and Austria, because of the Habsburg conquest after the Thirty Year's War in 1618, forcing Czech to Roman Catholicism. Age of darkness.
- Czechoslovakia independency 1918
- Masaryk first president and national revivalist.
- 1938 Munich agreement, Brits gave Czechoslovakia to the nazi.
- became communist in 1946 but it later regretted
- Not nationalist not patriotic anymore as Czech lost their will to find their identity in history. Being at the periphery of Central Europe and the connection between West and East, Czechoslovakia always felt neglected or used. Preventing from having a national unity.

Poland
A bit boring, not engaging
16th century - Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - noble democracy (first predecessor of the modern democracy)
1791 First European modern Constitution, lasted one year and then Russia overthrown it.
Lots of failed uprising in the 19th and 20th century + unhelpfulness from Europe = conspiracy theories, every one against Poland.
After 2nd World War took it's Soviet roots and became communist.
The election of Karol Voitiljua as pope brought pride and a sense of community and nationalisn to polish people.

Hungary
1000 - Christian monarchy
Until the 15th century, Hungary, survived invasions and plagues. Also, because unlike the western Europe, Hungary didn't over expand during the 13th century.
Decay: 1526 Battle of Mohacs triumphed by the Ottomans and tripartite Hungary among the house of Habsburg, the Ottoman and the fledgling principality of Transylvania. Also introduced paganism.
17th century - Ottomans expelled by Habsburg. Resettlement was necessary due to the decaying state in which Hungary was left (2℅ of land was cultivated).
18th century - since resettlement, Hungarian proportion dropped by 40℅.
19th century - age of reform (improvement, competitiveness, education, national awakening) culminated in the Revolution and War of Independence of 1848-49 (abolition of serfdom, equality before the law, representative government with liberal suffrage).
One year later Austria backed up by Russia invaded Hungary and annexed it. Creation of the Austro-hungarian monarchy. Hungary fast forwarded into industial capitalism.
1918 collapse of monarchy -> 1920 Peace Treaty of Trianon (dismemberment of historic Hungary). Tragedy.
Anti-jewish legislation were introduced in 1920 before Hitler. Hungary joined Germany in WW2
1944 Hungarian Holocaust
Communist and Soviet invasion, establishment of Stalinism. Repression and Sovietization.
1956 revolution, same pattern as previous events. Hungary deprived to decide for its own future.
Diffidence as a second nature. Current political laziness.

Turkey
The story of the Turkish people lies in the nation's swift transition from being the executioners of God's vengeance to the 'sick man of Europe'.
Osman's dynasty lasted till the 19th century (start beginning of 14th)
Endured everything, seemed invincible, however the Battle of Lepanto 1571 showed the fallacy in the empire rule.
From the late 17th century it slowly lost its power and reputation.
1830s Modernization brought Turkey to failure creating a sense of inferiority towards the West.
20th century Foundation of Turkish Republic
1980 military coup gave way to Islam (religion drawn from Ottoman history).

[Ugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really interesting, easy read. Well, not all 28 histories are interesting: the Chinese guy seems to have misunderstood the assignment, for example. But overall it's an engaging little book.

[Stephan · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the whole, mixed feelings about this book. Some were well written and highlighted interesting aspects of the nation's history which I had little prior knowledge about, while others felt a little directionless and superfluous in their writing.
Some of the essays could have focused more on fewer but major events/periods in the nation's history rather than very briefly covering many aspects, which would have been more helpful for readers unfamiliar with the topic to form a foundation upon which to build further understanding.
I would say that it's a gamble whenever you start reading an essay about any country in this book. Some were pleasant surprises while others fell well short of expectations. Then again, everyone's personal interests are different and therefore their expectations and I would say just dive in and see what you find.

My personal favourites were:
- The Netherlands (some interesting inventions and discoveries, and their maritime prowess)
- Finland (very interesting account of its shared history with Sweden and Russia, and how it has been caught between the west and the east)
- Argentina (mentions the fairly recent state terrorism and the long shadow it has cast over the people)

[Olivia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some chapters presented decently well-balanced views (or at least made an attempt to) while others were absolutely appallingly written.

In particular, the chapter Great Britain by Jeremy Black includes this laughable paragraph:

“The commonly understood account of the British Empire is also an overly critical and somewhat ahistorical one, which reflects the extent to which the overthrow of British rule is important to the foundation accounts of so many of the world’s younger states."

Overly critical? Ahistorical?! My guy, colonisation brought along war, death, and diseases and impacts upon generations to the places that the British felt like they had the right to colonise. "Overly critical" and "ahistorical" are fighting words from someone who doesn't even bother backing those claims.

"In particular, critics often forget that Britain was not the sole imperial power in the 19th and early 20th centuries..."

Just because Great Britain didn't do all the colonising by their merry selves (remember, there were colonial forces because countries were fighting over the colonies so it wasn't as if GB didn't want more) doesn't make it any better, and Britain was THE main colonial force with more colonies than any other European country. It reads so much like "but they did bad stuff too:(".

"...or that the native peoples conquered by the British were not, for the most part, previously the beneficiaries of democratic self-government."

Great Britain went in and killed whoever didn't agree and gave power to those who were more willing to creat power dynamics which suited them and made them easier for GB to control e.g., the history of Nigeria with the Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa peoples. Just because the different colonies didn't necessarily have democratic self government doesn't make colonisation magically alright or defendable.

"Moreover, it is sometimes forgotten that Britain and its empire combated rival empires, notably that of Nazi Germany, which are correctly seen as genuine tyrannies.”

This is a pathetic argument and you know it. Just because GB fought against Nazi Germany doesn't make them wonderful and great, the same way that Hitler being an animal lover doesn't make his atrocities on the Jewish population okay. And the phrase "genuine tyrannies" is laughable, because you're suggesting the GB was not a genuine tyranny to those who lived under colonial rule and oppression.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many reviews seem to focus on a lack of depth/length within each of the essays the contributors provide for their nations. I think this criticism is unfair. An overview of the 28 different nations is to be expected, and contributors only cover the sections relevant to the modern interpretations and focuses of their nation's histories. Histories of Nations aims to explore the modern impact of different nation's histories and the state's attitude to its own history, and it does so.

What is certainly a valid criticism is the range of essays we receive. It's fair to say that the collection is fairly eurocentric, which is a shame as there was great potential to explore the psychology of 'obscure' nations here. Perhaps future editions could remedy this. Nevertheless, the big hitters are all here - USA, China, Russia, etc. and they all offer wildly different perceptions of history, and its place in the world.

Overall, I enjoyed this book greatly and would encourage anyone interested in History's impact across the globe to read. One I will reread in the near future.

[Jake Goretzki · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5.

Good, time-poor concept; little disappointing in the delivery.

I absolutely love the idea of a book of 'how we see ourselves. I wish someone would do something really demotic that played back national delusions and self-stereotyping, but few of these essays approach that. Some do a pretty good job (Germany, Israel, Australia, Brazil, Turkey...actually, plenty are pretty decent). Others are all a bit 'The Boreite tribes populated the fertile plains of the Yawna as early as 5000 BC' and then head to abstraction, with few references to 'what people from there think and celebrate'. So with Japan: nothing on dropping the ball after the eighties (Japan was the future when I was growing up). Meanwhile, the Chinese one is the usual dynastic historiographic bore you'll so often get on China. (Tell me how Chinese people see China now, please).

Dunno. Neat idea. But - oh - somebody do *that* book., please.

[Mart · Rating 5 out of 5]

An eye-opening and intriguing collection of essays written by people from different countries explaining their national identity as seen from within. It's a great idea and in an age where we are told we are all being subsumed by globalisation it's nice to be reminded that there's a place for benevolent parochialism to help keep us grounded. A book I'll keep bobbing into, I imagine.