Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism – A Masterfully Written Work from Western Roots to Contemporary Threats

by Michael Burleigh

In this sweeping and deeply penetrating work, distinguished historian Michael Burleigh explores the nature of terrorism from its origins in the West to the current global threat fueled by fundamentalists. Burleigh takes us from the roots of terrorism in the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Russian Nihilists, and the London-based anarchists of Black International to the various terrorist campaigns that exist today. He also explores the lives of people engaged in careers of political violence and those who are most affected by the scourge of terrorism. Authoritative, illuminating, and masterfully written, Blood and Rage sheds an unflinching light on the global threat that we are likely to face for decades to come.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Terrorism, Ebooks, Sociology, Military Fiction

624 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Michael Burleigh is a British author and historian.
In 1977 Michael Burleigh took a first class honours degree in Medieval and Modern History at University College London, winning the Pollard, Dolley and Sir William Mayer prizes. After a PhD in medieval history in 1982, he went on to hold posts at New College, Oxford, the London School of Economics, and Cardiff where he was Distinguished Research Professor in Modern History. He has also been Raoul Wallenberg Chair of Human Rights at Rutgers University in New Jersey, William Rand Kenan Professor of History at Washington & Lee University in Virginia, and Kratter Visiting Professor at Stanford University, California. In 2002 he gave the three Cardinal Basil Hume Memorial Lectures at Heythrop College, University of London. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. He founded the journal Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions and is on the editorial boards of Totalitarismus und Demokratie and Ethnic and Racial Studies.

Reviews

[Vikas Datta · Rating 4 out of 5]

A magisterial and incisive sweep through terrorism in all its manifestations across the epochs in Europe, Asia, Africa and North America, chronicling its sordid details and perpetrators but in an extra-ordinarily well-written account that does not overwhelm you. Really shines towards the book's end, assesses the fault lines that lead to its genesis and makes some perceptive though trenchant observations how it can be countered. Some of the latter may - on a superficial level - may seem to be contentious but deserve careful consideration especially when Mr Burleigh details the Keystone Kops and Tammany Hall reactions of the arsenal of democracies to the scourge, evoking a despairing laugh....

[Declan · Rating 1 out of 5]

A potentially interesting subject, rendered useless by Bureleighs inability to imagine that there might ever be any reason why people are attracted to terrorism. His first chapter is about Fenian terrorists in England in the 19th Century, and some of the nasty things they got up to.

Nowhere is there any mention whatsoever of the massive, murderous and genocidal actions of the British on that Island for hundreds of years that gave rise to such actions. It renders the book's entire arguement meaningless. Its like walking into a nightclub full of drunks, seeing blokes punching each other and couples having screaming matches, without mentioning that they're all soused on alcohol. You'd be forced into imagining, as Burleigh does of terrorists, that their actions are simply the result of an outbreak of some mysterious insanity.

Secondly, Burleigh seems to think that the mere existence of the word 'Terrorism', implies that there is actually a thing being described. And that any time a small group of people takes up arms, its all roughly the same. Wasn;t there plenty of Large scale actions that could be described as Terrorist that he should be writing about? The Fire-bombing of Dresden, The pulverising of Cambodia with B52s, to give only two examples.

[Seth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can't, in good conscience, recommend this book as a cultural history of terrorism because, uh, it's not.

It is kind of a history of terrorism, not a really complete one, and isn't by any means comprehensive. It can be a good start, and what Burleigh focuses on, he goes into great detail. I haven't read anything else by this guy, but I found him to be a pretty frustrating read, largely because I like to think historians try to be unbiased, or at least want to pretend to be. I wasn't sure reading this if Burleigh thinks he is, or if he just wallows his his issues like a pig in gooey, warm mud.

It starts off with a preface/introduction in which Burleigh spells out some of his personal problems with terrorism (spoiler alert: It turns out it's evil) in which he seems to stack on top of one another logical fallacies to defend this simple argument against...well, I'm not sure. He also tellingly talks about the toll the book took on him, and I cannot blame him for that, for many of the incidents in the book are truly dark and despicable. But it's almost comical how he describes his sputtering rage; one can almost imagine him stopping a good typing binge to slowly clench and unclench his fists and grind his molars to powder as if he was the World's Angriest Historian.

So, he's biased. A lot of popular histories are biased in one way or another, you can't really escape it. At least with Burleigh his biases become pretty clear. You can tell because of the colorful language he will start to use - the adverbs and adjectives come out in force when he really hates something, as if he had a well-used thesaurus open next to his computer just to capture the different ways to say 'disgusting', and you can immediately catch on what he has smug contempt for by looking for him to describe stuff as various forms of 'silly'. This gets weird halfway through the book when he describes horrible things done by people he doesn't really care for either way in a dispassionate, clinical style, when earlier he had talked about bombings which had less casualties by informing the reader how bad it was, going into great detail about the horrible act, and then afterwards lecturing the reader on its hellish awfulness.

And as it turns out what he hates is communists. This makes the chapter on the anarchist movement in Czarist Russia almost comical: you won't find a better portrayal of the Czar's secret police anywhere, and it's with great pain that he has to mention there were some bad seeds in there. Much later, when describing the Basque problem and ETA, he suddenly, and uncharacteristically lectures on repressive government crackdowns and how it just inflamed tensions -- a page later he admits the new Spanish government post-Franco was a socialist one. Hrmph.

So part of my bitchy rage in this review is when Burleigh isn't consumed by spiteful fury, he's got a good eye for describing major problems. His chapters on the Jewish revolt and the creation of the state of Israel, the chapter on the PLO and the rise of global terrorism, and a few other chapters really excel and are quite informative. And he describes the issues in a neutral fashion, allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions, and brings a wealth of information to the table. It was worth me slogging through the rest just to read the good stuff -- I just wish Burleigh could have found some remote bit of distance for the rest of the book.

He closes with the rise of Islamist global terrorism, and the chapters are deeply flawed with some really good bits. He has a big long speech about how some people call it Islamo-fascism but really, as far as he's concerned, it's more like Islamo-bolshevism, which should give you an idea of what he thinks of these guys. And from there he lays it on pretty thick. Even so, there's some great bits about Bosnia and Chechnya and other hotspots.

The bits where this guy reigns in his rage are good, informative reads, but I don't know if it's worth it to slog through the rest. For me, yeah. Mostly.

[Ana-Maria Bujor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, I found out stuff, which was my plan for reading this book. I was familiar with some of these phenomena, especially RAF and anarchist terrorism, but I still learned a lot about terrorism. Now, as thick as this book is, it can only treat the subject superficially due to how complex it is. I see it as an introduction before researching one aspect or another. In the case of IRA I really got confused at some point, I had to go back to figure out who was who. So more books needed I guess?

[Pieter · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2008 schreef Michael Burleigh dit werk over modern terrorisme. Hij schenkt dus geen aandacht aan oudere vormen zoals de Assassijnen of de joodse zeloten. Wel behandelt hij terreur van groepen die streefden/ streven naar zelfbestuur in (Noord-) Ierland, Baskenland en Palestina. Ook extreem-links geweld in 19de eeuws Rusland of recent Duitsland (Rote Armee Fraktion) en Italië (Rode Brigades) passeren de revue. Communistische terreur in heel wat andere landen (België, Nederland, Frankrijk,...) komen niet echt aan bod.

Een belangrijk deel van het boek spendeert de auteur aan moslimterrorisme. Hoewel de laatste tien jaar geweld niet kunnen vermeld worden (Parijs, Nice, Brussel,...) is de lijst al behoorlijk indrukwekkend. Prikkelend is dat Burleigh zich waagt aan een poging deze nog actieve vorm van terreur in te perken.

Anno 2017 blijkt de schrijver te optimistisch. Hoewel elk West-Europees land zijn specifieke aanpak heeft, lijkt geen enkele terreur te voorkomen. Ook permissieve landen in Scandinavië, Duitsland en Engeland blijven niet gevrijwaard. Ook hogeropgeleide en rijke moslims (zie daders 11 september 2001) zijn bereid geweld te gebruiken. Het communistisch geweld stierf uit toen de inlichtingendiensten beter werkten en er strengere straffen kwamen.

Ik ben het eens dat links dient moreel verantwoordelijk gesteld voor het moslimgeweld via haar anti-Europese politiek en economische belangen ondergeschikt dienen gesteld aan onze veiligheid. Het is immers absurd de taal van moslimterroristen te geloven over het 'decadente Westen' wanneer blijkt dat velen zelf voor criminele feiten zijn veroordeeld.

Het is een illusie te denken dat de moslimwereld zal verdwijnen zoals het Oostblok. Daarom moeten partners gezocht worden. Seculiere regimes die door een ondoordachte Amerikaanse politiek zijn aangevallen, terwijl Amerikaanse bondgenoten zoals Qatar, Saoedi-Arabië en Turkije terreur sponsoren. Ook ware democraten in de islamlanden dienen gesteund. De Arabische Lente toont de complexiteit van dit laatste. Realpolitik (bvb. Egypte onder Sissi of Syrië onder Assad) lijkt meer haalbaar.

De auteur 'vergeet' enkel te vermelden dat de massa-immigratie dient gestopt. Europa, maar ook Australië en andere landen hebben allang hun verzadigingspunt bereikt. Sociologisch is gebleken dat massa-immigratie moslimgeweld faciliteert ondanks Europa's naïeve gastvrijheid.

[Jess · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am reviewing this now because I don't think this book is ever going to get off the currently-reading shelf. In a time when terrorism is still a major issue, I was hoping to read a good overview into the history of terrorism. I picked up this book knowing nothing about the book (except the back blurb) or the author.

What a mistake! First, the author fails to define terrorism and suggests that the context and rationale of terrorists make no difference in doing so he denies the legitimate issues which give rise to terrorist acts as well as the culture in which they occurred. This becomes obvious in dismissing the legitimate issues surrounding Home Rule in Ireland and the birth of the IRA. Second, Burleigh delves into misogyny to describe Vera Figner and the Russian Nihilists. His shallow and biased reading of Populism is difficult to assess because he includes no footnotes or endnotes.

Between the condescending tone, lack of historical objectivity or even normal rational response to historic events, and cherry-picking of data, I couldn't read any further. Maybe at some point, he actually puts together some semblance of something interesting, but I doubt his style gets any better.

[Dermot Nolan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, as a work of history it is lacking in some respects, namely objectivity and accuracy. Whilst there are some interesting topics covered this book reads as a rant rather than a serious work of history. There are other glaring ommissions like the suggestion that the sixteenth anniversary of Lockerbie was in 1994 and not 2004, whilst this might be a typo it signifies a lack of attention to detail that runs throughout this book.

As a work of culture is fairly bereft of cultural analysis. Instead Burleigh constantly plays up the terrorists are bad card. If he were serious, he would narrow the focus of the book and look at the issues that lead to the commiting of terrorist acts.

If one wants a so so introduction to the topic that is wide in range and shallow in depth then this is acceptable. But if academic rigour, or impartiality are importantI would suggest that one read David Kilcullen, Richard English, and if objectivity is not important then watch some Adam Curtis, your time will be better spent.

[Paul Pessolano · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Blood & Rage, A Cultural History of Terrorism” by Michael Burleigh, published by Harper.

Category - History (Terrorism) Publication Date - 2009.

This book is, without a doubt, meant for the serious student of Terrorism. It is a difficult read with way too much information for the casual reader. Although it is filled with a wealth of information regarding how terrorism started and how it is kept alive.

The author takes the reader back to the start of the IRA and up to the modern era. One gets great insight into such groups as the Stalinists, the Red Brigade, Black Panthers, and the Badger Meinhof Gang, to say nothing about the modern day terrorist from the Middle East.

These groups were able to stay active by money donations, robbery, and people willing to die for a cause.

An excellent read for those truly interested in the subject but one most casual readers will leave on the bookshelf.

[Luis Cardenas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Una historia cultural del terrorismo no pretende profundizar en las variantes políticas e ideológicas sobres las motivaciones por las cuales los terroristas decidieron tomar el camino armado, por el contrario es una historia biográfica sobre sus protagonistas, sus partidos, y los acontecimientos mas relevantes de las células terroristas que definieron el final del siglo XIX y XX.

[E. Kahn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't get beyond the first couple chapters, gave up on it. This guy seems to think the major problem with Tsarist Russia was that it was too soft on liberals.

[Julia · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've been trying to give myself permission to not finish books I'm really not enjoying and this one is an excellent one to start with. I did actually almost finish it, so I think I have a fair idea of what's going on here.

As some previous reviewers said, this isn't so much a "cultural history" as it is a mostly dry retelling of events, often with very little context as to why people might want to so something as extreme as becoming terrorists. Most of them just decide it seemed like a good idea at the time, I suppose? The point where I decided to give up was right after the author had suddenly come alive, going on for several pages about how naive and, frankly, dumb multiculturalism is, and that clearly the reason for Islamist terror is that liberals are afraid to do anything about it because they might get called racists. (It really was stated about as baldly as that.) It put earlier chapters, where the author talk about how genteel the prisons for Russian anarchists were like, and his incredulity IRA members were allowed to continue their educations in prison, into a context that made me quite sure I would learn nothing for continuing.

[Dna · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'd only be interested in a book that tells the truth about terrorism, which is that white supremacist oppression -- a worldwide framework designed to lock masses into oppression -- is what "causes" terrorism. Geez, I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this slop, honestly. I'm sick of white intellectuals and men with money yammering on about the causes of devastation and grief and spiritual bankruptcy.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

superficial

but there are things are mild interest in here
well somewhere

..........

for my money Burleigh is much better when he tackles one topic in depth, and does a pretty good job with some facets of the Third Reich

but when he starts to generalize about stuff, i think he's truly miserable
and the errors in judgement and fact multiply

maybe he's writing cultural opinion pieces
and not cultural history

[Melanie]

I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14439917

[Greg van Dyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

history of terrorism from 19th century fenians to 21st century religious extremism - fascinating and succint

[Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's not often that I set aside a book before finishing it and unheard of to review an unfinished book but this is really one to be avoided. I really can't do it justice so I'll quote from a randomly selected page.

"The prosecutor was predictably inept, while the defense lawyers acted like activist demagogues, a recurrent pattern in the history of terrorism. The liberal-minded chief judge indulged the accused, allowing them to read newspapers and wave to the admiring audience. A squalid little gang of murderers were emboldened by whispers of 'brave boys and girls, they do not lose heart.' In those circumstances, four of the accused received mild sentences of seven and fifteen years hard labor. "

And please do not misunderstand and think this guy is some sort of populist. He routinely disparages peasants and aristocrats alike.

As for his insights into terrorism, the book does an adequate job covering terrorist events in post-Crimean Western Europe. However, he does nothing to offer a cultural understanding of the phenomenon. If you're reading a history of Terrorism because you're curious about what makes a highly educated engineer blow up a lot of innocent people, this isn't the book you are looking for. If you're looking for some trivia about terrorism while repeating the mantra "terrorists are evil psychopaths who have no thoughts and may indeed have rabies," then I'd go here.

[Susu]

After the first chapters - I have to say I´m still disappointed about the way the author treats the subject. Since he´s British the first chapter is about the IRA - but it doesn´t mention once the source of all the terrorist action. Just listing terrorist activities and state´s reprisals is not enough to call the result a cultural history. The whole approach seems rather biased. I have skipped to the chapter on the German RAF - and OK it´s just a few pages and it surely cannot encompass all the details - but the whole presentation is much too simplified for my taste. This is a book I can only read with constant access to background information at hand - simply because I don´t trust the author to present me with an objective picture.

.... a few weeks later: The first impression didn´t change - biased and very much an introduction to a clash of civilisations.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only read chapter 8 which focused on Islamist terrorism as we know it today. I give this part of the book 4 stars. Burleigh does a good job connecting the dots from the historical roots of jihad to the political and religious dimensions from which it has been revitalized today, and the people and organizations involved in its application.

[Andrea Pins · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing read, as the title had so much potential. What little insight I gleaned from this book was in between falling asleep and feeling as if the author was ranting at me in the most condescending tone. For something dubbed a "cultural history" I found it to be lacking both cultural context and accurate historical reference. Boo!

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

An enthralling and infuriating book in equal measure. Burleigh excels when he sticks to pure historical fact, but far too often he lets his right-wing axe-grinding get in the way. As it was, I felt that I may have enjoyed it more if I were a regular reader of the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph.

[Diane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting history of terrorism in the 20th and 21st centuries. Very detailed and somewhat dense, but filled with lots of information. Good analysis of the overall problem at the end.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Polemical but well worth reading.

[Cimuchowski]

Thanks armchairgeneral.com

[Matthew White · Rating 3 out of 5]

The bloodthirsty and deranged, and the cold and calculating - they're all there. Sobering reading, but don't devour too much at once - there's thousands of appalling events described.

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't finish and don't want to. I'm going to give myself credit for reading it as this book was very small font and I got through 201 pages. Way to meticulous and drab of writing.

[Manuel Barrios]

Interesante repaso para no expertos de la historia del terrorismo durante los siglos XIX y XX. Especialmente pobre, eso sí, el capítulo dedicado al País Vasco

[False · Rating 2 out of 5]

I suppose I hoped for more. Disappointing...for me, i.e. maybe not for "you."

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

a profound study that has changed my opinion on some deeply held prejudices - I recommend it but not for the feint hearted

[Garrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Valuable for understanding how the Islamic terrorism that's currently all over the news fits into a larger social and political context.

[Nate Schab]

overall i liked the book, because of its examples of terrorism as a culture. also it was a great book to learn about the history of terrorism. the whole book is examples of terrorism in different places, whether its from the irish, the russians, to radical islamists. The book gives examples of how terrorism has been used, by who, and why. The book follows areas of tension relating to individuals and organizations that use terrorism. I also liked the book because, it doesn't just relate to the terrorist groups but who they affect. Another reason i liked it is because it explains how these groups gain support, and how learning from these can give us effective ways to counter terrorism