Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East

by Karl E. Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac

A brilliant narrative history tracing today's troubles back to grandiose imperial overreach of Great Britain and the United States. Kingmakers is the story of how the modern Middle East came to be, told through the lives of the Britons and Americans who shaped it. Some are famous (Lawrence of Arabia and Gertrude Bell); others infamous (Harry St. John Philby, father of Kim); some forgotten (Sir Mark Sykes, Israel's godfather, and A. T. Wilson, the territorial creator of Iraq); some controversial (the CIA's Miles Copeland and the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz). All helped enthrone rulers in a region whose very name is an Anglo-American invention. As a bonus, we meet the British Empire's power couple, Lord and Lady Lugard (Flora Shaw): she named Nigeria, he ruled it; she used the power of the Times of London to attempt a regime change in the gold-rich Transvaal. The narrative is character-driven, and the aim is to restore to life the colorful figures who for good or ill gave us the Middle East in which Americans are enmeshed today. 30; 2 maps

Genres: History, Middle East, Nonfiction, World War I, Politics, British Literature, Military History

507 pages, Hardcover

First published June 9, 2008

Reviews

[Issa Deerbany · Rating 4 out of 5]

يختار المؤلفان ١٢ شخصية رئيسية لعبت دورا كبيرا في تشكيل الدول في الشرق الاوسط وأفريقيا.
المؤلفان ينظران بإعجاب الى هذه الشخصيات والتي قدمت خدمات كبيرة الى أوطانها الإمبريالية والاستعمارية ضاربين بعرض الحائط ما أسفرت عنه هذه الأعمال من ضحايا بريئة في هذا الصراع.

التشدق بالديمقراطية وثم الانقلاب على حاكم جاء بانتخابات فقط لانه لم يوافق على سياساتهم التي كانت تحقق مصالحهم مثل الانقلاب على مصدق في ايران.

او مندوب سامي يمدحونه لانه حسن اقتصاد دولة ورفع إنتاجها في حين لم يقم ببناء مدرسة واحده او جامعة لرفع مستوى التعليم لشعبها الغارق في الجهل.

ما الذي يقنعنا ان سياسي في بلد عربي يعمل ما في وسعه لتدمير بلد ما واحتلاله من اجل ان يعيش هذا الشعب في رفاهية وحرية ثم تأتي النتائج كارثية والشعب الذي سمح لهم بإحتلال بلده يفقد احترامه لذاته.

او تنصيب ملوك ورؤساء على شعوب لا تعرفهم ولا تحبهم، بل يعملون على تلميعها وهي لا تعرف شيئًا عن الشعب الذي ستحكمه، وبالنهاية يفقد هذا الحاكم احترامه لنفسه واحترام شعبه ويبعد عنه نهائيا ويهتم باللهو. ومصلحته ومصلحة عائلته.

كان أولى من المؤلفان سرد الاحداث بناءا على الوثائق التي افرج عنها من الدوائر الرسمية الغربية ويترك الحكم للقاريء . بدلًا من اتهام الشعوب بعدم الامتنان لما فعلته هذه الدول المحتلة والتي سلبت خيرات هذه الشعوب وتركته فريسة للحروب والنزاعات.

مع ذلك فالكتاب جيد ويكشف خفايا مهمة لتأسيس بعض الدول والاحداث التي رافقتها والمؤامرات التي حدثت.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac’s Kingmakers provides a dozen portraits of British and American colonialists whose actions shaped the Middle East, for good or (mostly) for ill. The book starts with Lord Cromer’s tenure as Proconsul in Egypt, establishing a much-copied system of “indirect rule” where the British allowed local rulers to manage a country’s day-to-day workings while “advising” behind the scenes. From there, the authors chronicle a variety of colorful figures, using their lives as a window into specific regions, countries and peoples impacted by their actions. Some of the figures discussed here are well-known, like T.E. Lawrence of Arabia and his distaff counterpart Gertrude Bell, who played a crucial role in the creation of modern Iraq, or Paul Wolfowitz, whose 2003 invasion wrecked the same country. Meyer and Brysac also discuss less-remembered individuals like H. St. John Philby, the diplomat and explorer who converted to Islam and became an adviser to Ibn Saud (his son, Kim Philby, gained even greater notoriety as a Soviet spy); John Glubb, the stolid soldier who organized Jordan’s Arab Legion which served as a safeguard of that Kingdom’s independence and an assurance of continuing British influence; Sir Percy Sykes, who engineered a coup d’etat in 1920s Persia and Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA operative who repeated the performance against Mohammed Mossadegh three decades later. Meyer and Brysac’s cameo portraits of these and other figures (Charles Gordon, Sir Percy Cox, Emir Faisal, Chaim Weitzmann and others flit through chapters not directly involving them) are colorful and convincing, showing how imperialism was driven by a variety of motives. Capitalist exploitation, paternalist liberalism, geopolitical fears of an enemy (whether Ottoman Turkey, Imperial Germany, the Soviet Union or various pan-Arab and Islamic movements) gaining power in the region, expediency (as in the Balfour Declaration, portrayed here as the brainchild of Sir Mark Sykes who elsewhere carved up the Middle East with France) and often inscrutable personal motivations. Not all of the chapters are equally compelling; Arnold T. Wilson is credited with creating modern Iraq when his own featured chapter puts more emphasis on Sir Percy Cox, while the chapter about imperial “power couple” Lord and Lady Lugard focuses strangely on a digressive account of the Jameson Raid in South Africa. Still, Meyer and Brysac’s account reinforces Forster’s comment that “Englishmen like posing as Gods”; even those with good intentions or noble motives treat Arabs, Turks, Persians and Jews as pawns or playthings with little regard for how they might feel about, or react to foreign meddling. As such, Kingmakers offers a case study in the long, corrosive impacts of imperialism, and how the impersonal machinations of states are compounded by shortsighted cynicism, individual egos and personal folly.

[Khaled Abu-Romman · Rating 4 out of 5]

ابتدأت الحكاية مع المستشرقين الذين مهدوا لحركة التبشير في نهايات القرن التاسع عشر، هؤلاء المبشرون الذين وضعوا الخطوط العريضة ومهدوا لامبراطورياتهم لاقتسام تركة الرجل المريض في اسيا (الدولة العثمانية)، عندما بدأت التطلعات الاستعمارية الى هذه المنطقة تم ارسال عملاؤهم وجواسيسهم ليدرسوا ويخططوا ويتآمروا ومن ثم ليضعوا الخطوط على جسد هذه المنطقة ويقتسموها. كانوا دبلوماسيون من الدرجة الثانية، صحافيون،علماء آثار، مؤرخون؛ سمِّهم ما شئت، بدأت اللعبة وتم تحضير العملاء واستمرت المؤامرة، كانت مصالحهم فوق كل مصلحة، تغنوا بالديموقراطية والحرية التي سوف يجلبونها لاهل البلاد، ضربوا على وتر الجهل والتخلف الذي سيرفعونه عن عاتقنا، ولكن ابداً لم تكن نظرتهم لنا الا نظرة السيد المتكبر الذي لن ولم ينظر الى نفسه نظرة المساواة مع من يظن انهم دونه في العرق.
هل انتهت اللعبة، هل توقف الغرب عن نظرته الاستعلائية، هل توقفت اطماعه في هذه المنطقة؟ لا اعتقد ذلك فما زالت الكعكة كاملة الدسم تُغري الجميع بأخذ قطعة منها، ولا عزاء لاهل الكعكة الذين فرطوا بحقوقهم وامكنوا المستعمر من رقابهم، لقد آن الاوان ان يستيقظ العالم العربي وينهض في طريق التحرر من ربقة الاستعمار، وكما قال الشهيد المرحوم سيد قطب: ذهب الانجليز الحمر واتى الانجليز السمر. واتى من بعدهم كل أفّاق الى هذه الارض الطيبة الطاهرة ليدنسها واهلها ما زالوا نائمين.

[David R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating treatment of a complex subject. Meyer's study encompasses over twelve decades and the theatres of Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon, seeking understanding of how the Near East states evolved from oppressed Ottoman provinces to the unstable polities of the 21st century. His principal mechanism is to center chapters on specific personalities (e.g. Bell, Copeland, Lawrence, Wolfowitz -- almost all engaging, attractive and noble) who pushed for outcomes that invariably turned sour. I was intrigued by the myths and misconceptions that this narrative exposes - among them that Euro-American interventions were typically choices between unpalatable indigenous factions, that interventions were as often engineered by the political left as the right, that oil politics came into play well after foreign interventions reached their maturity, and that a great deal of damage had already been done by the Turks. Meyer reaches a bleak and even patronizing conclusion: that no matter how pure the motive, there was no way to "win": that these polities were too far degraded by the end of WW1 to expect anything other than corrupt and brutish regimes to characterize the Near East.

[Mustafa Abbas · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب جيد
غني بالمعلومات
وهو يتحدث عن صناع الشرق الأوسط الحديث منذ القرن التاسع عشر وحتى احتلال العراق في 2003
يسرد الكتاب كم هائل من المؤامرات والاتفاقات السرية والمشبوهة التي أدت إلى الشرق الأوسط بشكله الحالي
المعيب في الكتاب هو خروجه عن الموضوع في مواضع كثيرة,
وحديثه عن أخبار شخصية, أو سفسطات فلسفية لاتفيد القارئ (حسب رأيي),
وهو ما جعله يقع في هذا الحجم الكبير (616 صفحة(
كذلك الكتاب يعرض وجهة النظر الغربية في مواضيع تهم القارئ العربي,
مثل قضية فلسطين, ويبدي آراءه في شخصيات غيرت مجرى التاريخ العربي
وفقاً للرؤية الغربية, دون أن يعطي أدنى اهتمام للنصف الآخر من الصورة ( الرأي العربي(
إنّ القارئ للكتاب يلحظ مدى التقارب في الوقائع والأحداث
بين ما يجري اليوم في العراق وسوريا ومصر, وماجرى قبل قرن من الزمان
الكتاب غني بالوقائع التاريخية, إلأ إنه يجب أن لا يؤخذ كوثيقة,
خاصةً عندما يتعلق الأمر بمن يمثل الخير (الغرب وجواسيسه:حسب رأي الكتاب)
ومن يمثل الشر (المشرق الإسلامي)

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was expecting a history of Western influence on the modern Middle East, but that's not quite what I got. Meyer and Brysac instead have written a dozen short biographies of various British and Americans who had a hand in shaping of the Middle East. It almost works, but there's a good bit of overlap and plenty of holes. It also focuses more on the British than the Americans (nine to three). The biographical material is interesting, but there's not always a lot of depth and where there is depth it's often the result of tangents rather than the main subject.

[أحمد فتحى سليمان · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكثير جداً من "الرغى " معلومات كثيرة لا أجد سبباً لذكرها فى هذا الكتاب الذى لا يتناول تاريخ المنطقة بقدر ما يتناول الشخصية الامبريالية البريطانية من خلال نماذج متعددة لجنود و قادة و مغامرين وعملاء استخبارات صنعوا بسيوف الامبراطورية و ذهبها واقع نعيشة ..
*الكتاب مسلى وثرى معلوماتياً و لكنة ملىء بالاخطاء الفادحة صحح الكثير منها المترجم و ترك بعضها

[Ramil Kazımov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Orta Doğu tarihi üzerine okuduğum en ilginç kitaplardan biri diyebilirim..
Kitab 1882-de İngilizlerin Mısırı işgal etmesi ile başlıyor. Aslında Mısır İngilis ve Osmanlı delegesinin birge yönetimine tabi kılınır ama bunlar aslında bir örtmece. Gerçekte ise ülkeyi sadece İngilizler yönetiyor ve sıklıkla Mısırda çıkacaklarına dair sözler verirler. Ama Mısır Osmanlıların Alman safında Birinci Dünya Savaşına katılması ile resmen İngilier tarafından işgal olunur. Mısırın ilk genel valisi Lord Cromer (Evelyn Baring) olmuştur. Mısırda milliyetçilerin ezeli düşmanı olmuş bir adamdır Lord Cromer. Kitap Orta Doğuda kral yaratmış yabancı şahsiyetler üzerinden, bir nevi biyografi temelli Orta Doğu tarihi kitabıdır ama bu sizi aldatmasın. Zira şahsiyetler sıralaması bölgenin tarihi ile kesin uyumludur. Osmanlıya isyan etmiş arapları ve Mekke şerifi Melik Hüseyni yönlendirmiş T. E. Lawrence (namı-diğer Arab Lawrence), Hüseyinle 1916 boyunca Mısırdan mektuplaşmış Henry McMahon, Faysalı Irak kralı yapan, Irakın sınırlarını düzenleyen ve Faysal için taç giyme töreni düzenleyen Gertrude Bell ve daha başka birçok ingiliz ve amerikalıyı anlatıyor. Günümüz Orta Do��usunun yaratılmasında emeği geçen yabancı ve emperyalist zihniyyeti, Mark Sykes ve George Picout tarafından Orta Doğunun parxalanmasını temel alan Sykes-Picout anlaşmasını Orta Doğuyu kana boyayan Balfour deklarasyonunu da unutmamak gerek. Kitap Amerikanın Irak işgalinin mimarı Paul Wolfowitz ile son buluyor. Yazarlar olabilidiğince tarafsız olmaya çalışmış ve Orta Doğunun kana bulanmasının nedenlerinin adı geçen şahıslar olduğunu anlatmaya çalışmışlar. Orta Doğu konusuna ilgi duyan herkesin rahatlıkla okuyabileceği bir kitap.

[Matt Kuhns · Rating 2 out of 5]

Full disclosure, I skipped about 100 of this book’s 420 pages, and then read the conclusion, but I’m calling it close enough. Mostly because chugging through the 300-some pages I did read was punishment enough that I feel I’ve earned it.

Which is not to say that this is a bad book. I think the book was a good idea, badly handled. The title sort of illustrates the problem, as “the invention of the modern Middle East” implies a historical narrative, while “Kingmakers” implies a series of biographical portraits. The book ends up trying to do both and the outcome is a muddle.

I imagine that the book nonetheless works for many people; I however was not among them. A story of the shaping of the Middle East over a century or so would be interesting to me, but in Kingmakers the thread of that story was chopped up and maddeningly difficult to follow. One of the biggest problems was, probably, that many of the figures profiled were contemporaries whose kingmaking activities overlapped, and as a result the same events were repeatedly half-told two or three or four times, rather than told well, and clearly, once.

Another problem is that the biographies largely failed because they were also choppy but, moreover, just weren’t interesting. Lawrence of Arabia I’ve heard of, and I knew the name Sykes, but most of the other kingmakers were not individuals I had a personal interest in. This can be overcome if one first clearly introduces why a person should be interesting, after which even relatively pedestrian details of that person’s life can become interesting because they are about that interesting person rather than the schmoe down the street. But Kingmakers didn’t pull off this trick.

Which is a pity, not only because of how I was disappointed with a book I’ve had on my list for some time, but because there is good and important information and analysis in this book. I will admit that, as a citizen of one of the imperialist nations whose misdeeds figure prominently in Middle Eastern history, Kingmakers is strong drink. Reactionaries might never imagine it, but even a liberal American like myself gets little joy out of recitation of our government’s fucking over of people and nations. It’s still demoralizing even if you believe it’s accurate.

And I was familiar with much of this, already; fact is I don’t think I was really put off this book because it said bad things about America so much as by the awkward and clumsy way in which it said them. The first half of the book is largely about British meddling, and I found most of that at least as painful in spite of having a perverse ability, I will confess, to read about British imperialist aggression with a sort of cheery, sports contest perspective. Didn’t help, here; Kingmakers was just a tiresome slog regardless of whose country was doing the kingmaking.

Still, as I say, there is informative and intelligent content to be found in here. The epilogue to the book was a stirring, if too-late, redemption of the clumsy main chapters. One quote in particular stands out:

Taking hostile ideologies seriously does not preclude seeking the sources of their popular appeal. […] If you were an Iranian, what would you make of the United States? Yes, it is outwardly a free country, and Americans do elect their leaders. But who elects the spy agencies, the Pentagon, the multinational corporations, the masters of the media, the think tanks, and lobbies that—in the eyes of many Iranians—form an interlocking and impenetrable mosaic?

Kingmakers, indeed.

[M Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Meyer and Brysac tell the stories of the founding of the modern countries of the Middle East and their current regimes using the "Great Man" style of history. Beginning with the work of Lord Cromer in Egypt and continuing through to the actions of Paul Wolfowitz in destabilizing Iraq, they relate the backgrounds and adventures (and, yes, that really is the right word) of British and American diplomats, bureaucrats, and spies, mostly unknown to the general public save for Wolfowitz and the famous T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). The arrogance of these men and women is quite breathtaking. Hardly any of them took the time to understand the people whose fates they were so carelessly plotting and yet their impact on this least stable region of the world is still being felt today.

The authors make some interesting stylistic choices. They have deliberately written the book so that chapters can be read in any order -- though the printed order is roughly chronological and makes good sense. They also, wittingly or not, pick up on the literary styles of the subjects of each chapter. Much of the book reads like British Victorian or Edwardian "Boys Own" tales, not surprisingly given the subjects (even the two Englishwomen). The last chapter on Wolfowitz is cold, detached and analytical, much like the man himself and his writing.

If you are interested in the history of how the British and then American Empires have played at running the world where they were not invited, this is an excellent study. If you'll hear no inconvenient truths about the U.S. and our closest allies, you won't like this at all.

[Preston Floyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting approach to a complicated subject. The author never fails to make his 'characters' interesting. As an American I was surprised at how many British subjects had a hand in shaping the region that I have never heard of. The sections on the Americans I had heard of were just as informative. I do feel that the author has a tendency to over simplify how each figure he examines controlled or influenced their respective situations. Obviously the Easterners faced significant challenges in standing up to their Western benefactors/antagonists but the author at times mitigates and down plays how their choices influenced how the West dealt with them. Saying all that, it is still a wonderful and educational read and I would recommend it to anyone with any interest at all in the region, history, or diplomacy.

[Kathleen McKim · Rating 2 out of 5]

I gave up. Very slow-going. It defeated me.

[Farid Medleg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I could give this 3.5 stars because I am truly torn between 3 and 4.... Suffice to say this is a maddening read by brilliant authors who couldn't get out of their own way.

On the positive side, the structure of approaching this from a character-centric point of view is brilliant. Superficially, it is a refreshing change from most history texts covering events or periods of time which often use the unoriginal, but practical, chronological approach to book building. There are tangible downsides to an explicitly chronological approach; firstly, the writing is not explicitly thematic, which is troublesome from a learning perspective; secondly, it is boring. In that respect, Kingmakers hits a home run with its format by disguising its topics within the story of one influential character in each chapter. Another benefit of this approach is that it highlights just how reliant history is on the individual decisions of fallible men and women. McMillan in "Paris 1919" does a wonderful job of highlighting how the Paris Treaty fomented many modern day political quagmires simply because men with egos in dimly lit rooms made impulsive decisions. Kingmakers succeeds in this respect, showing how the very humanness of major players affected their decisions, with repercussions decades later.

The text is, however, unwieldy. The downside to focusing on characters unilaterally, is that some topics/chapters don't fit the mold. The result is some chapters scarcely focus on their namesake and devolve into discussions that are at best related to, and at worst, violently tangential to, the individual you thought you would be learning about. To the learner themselves, this can feel disorienting; a paragraph that branches off to discuss a minor player suddenly turns into a ten page "explainer" making the reader feel like they're lost at sea. The Cromer, Lawrence of Arabia, and Wolfowitz chapters are more mechanical and straightforward while others lack the same discipline, and ultimately, any appeal. The authors also tend to engage in a style of writing that is akin to history professors chatting about a favourite topic at an after-work social, rather than a text meant to objectively delineate a historical topic. Some chapters therefore feel like they're intended for insiders only, with casual name drops and whimsical references about dress style and personality traits. To an expert, this might be enjoyable, and even seen as whimsical; to the common reader seeking to learn, it's maddening to follow.

Ultimately, this book should be read. It is informative, and its underlying thematic goals are achieved. However, one needs to be ready for chapters that are poorly written and disorienting, to gain from other parts of the book that are truly wonderful. On first reflection, I found myself wishing the whole book was more like the epilogue, which was organized and succinct, as if the authors had sobered up from their night of revelry talking about their favourite topic, the making of the Middle East.

[Brent L · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having previously read another book by the same authors on the Great Game (competition between Imperial Russia and UK for dominion in central Asia) I was intrigued when I saw they had written another one. Examining how the countries and governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia came to be though the lives of important ‘behind the scenes’ British and American people of influence was fascinating. Kingmakers would be great for anyone wishing to gain a greater understanding of the history and politics of this complex region. I would highly recommend it.

[Matthew Sartor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kingmakers was a solid piece of history, going over the major western individuals in the formation of the modern Middle East. What I wished it did better was be more comprehensive and focused on a narrative that did not leave as many gaps. Also wish had chapters focused on individuals from the Middle East rather than just imperialists.

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Narrative/personality driven look at Anglosphere involvement in the Middle East - mostly the many, many mistakes. At times challenging to follow for someone (like me) with limited background on the history, especially British colonial history, in the region.

[Doris Raines · Rating 4 out of 5]

NICE BOOK.

[May Sinclair · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is in-depth enough to offer an easy to follow guide on how the western powers used the difficulties already in place and then did their worst to form many of the additional on-going problems in the Middle East.
Well researched. Excellent comparisons. Fine conclusion expressed in this excerpt: “…American…self-flattering image of a City on the Hill whose special qualities has made the United States freer, wiser, and purer than its sovereign sisters…”, sums up the continuing misdirected political philosophy of many leaders in the United States who make the policy for the entire country.
Consciousness raising, yes. Well worth the read. I’ll be keeping it in my personal library.

[Eleanor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an important, well researched book - I just could not get into reading it throughly - perhaps because I had just read two non-fiction, well researched books that were written in a more "reader friendly, less text-book kind of style ... I think I should try this again later and I'll bet I give it a way better rating ... sometimes, for me personally, what I have just read influences what I think about other books.

[Hugh Heinsohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating series of sketches about the lives and actions of the Europeans and Americans who created the modern Middle East during and after the First World War, including TE Lawrence, Gertrude Bell, Churchill, and many more. Absolutely fascinating. Well research and well written. Each chapter focuses on a single person and you can read them in any order. Well worth reading for anyone trying to understand the motivations of the people there and the history of the region.

[Naeem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautifully written and with aspirations to finding wisdom in the study of history. I have read the chapter (12) on Paul Wolfowitz and the wonderfully understated epilogue.

I hope to read more of this and will report back.

[Do · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, but I found parts of it a little hard to read. There was so much information in some of his sentences I had trouble following them! Someone with a better knowledge of the history of this area might do better!

[David Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very readable history of the modern Middle East, narrated in the form of short biographies of the Western "kingmakers" from Lord Cromer to Paul Wolfowitz, who have influenced modern Middle Eastern history.

[Fenixbird SandS · Rating 4 out of 5]

Looked interesting. Well written! In depth history. Different than Robert Lacey's House of Sa'ad..yet covers some common history.

[Lauren Adams]

stories about countries as buffers in the great game and some of the (mostly british) people that made these stories.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun read about how the Brits shaped the modern Middle East.

[Zack · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the chapters are good. Some suck. Could have used another passover by a good editor.

[Jun Peralta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book. But writing is a bit slow.

[Gamal]

يصف الكتاب كيف تم انشاء الشرق الأوسط تحت هيمنة الغرب ومن أجل تحقيق مصالحه وكيف تمكن بعض موظفى هذا الغرب من صناعة قيادات بلدانه ثم تدعى هذه الأقطار الحرية والاستقلال

[داليا روئيل · Rating 2 out of 5]

معلومات كثيرة و قصص اكثر
لم تجد ابلغ من العبارة الواردة في نهاية الكتاب كخلاصة للكتاب كله :
الماضي بلد اجنبي يفعل فيه الناس الامور بشكل مختلف