Xavier Fredericks > Recent Status Updates

The dissonance of agreeing with main premises but being baffled by the evidence.

From what I can tell, this book definitely struggles with the modernist ‘grand, sweeping narrative.’ I can get behind communication systems and their infrastructure as being “extensions of man,” but to identify them as THE driver of history seems far-fetched, especially in the ancient and medieval periods.

For anyone who gives a fuck, this book is so fucking boring, Jesus Christ man. I have listened to TWO other audiobooks in the time I’ve been working through this one. How many times can you tell someone that the answer to ALL our problems is family values and “enlightenment liberalism” is bad. In the words of Sheldon J. Plankton: “ALL RIGHT I GET IT!”

From what I can tell so far this seems to be a rehashing of traditionalist conservatism with the intent of breaking fusionist idealogical dominance. Trump has largely smashed that coalition in real-world politics with his uniquely antagonistic populism. If Hazony thinks that any of his NatCon values will be represented in the contemporary Republican Party, he is a fool.

“It should be noted that promotion of national liberation amongst colonial and minority peoples, was almost exclusively the work of the Axis.”

This is such a ludicrous anecdote that it makes me question whether or not this is a work of scholarship. Did the Germans promote liberation of French Africa after defeating France? Did the Japanese liberate the Philippines?

“The Communist dictatorship of Lenin provided a model for the totalitarianism of emerging Fascist states on the continent.” On first read I find this interpretation confusing. It seems not to address Russia’s long history of autocracy, nor the historical precedent for the Third Reich’s behavior during the German Empire’s colonial period…

“That was George HW Bush, the statesman, not his son George W Bush, the maniac.” 😭

The lack of acknowledgment for that deadbeat, face of unemployment King Ferdinand is a strong start for this book. Like, this author doesn’t even consider him a “key term.” 😭

Questionable analysis of Arab nationalism (perhaps a misunderstanding of nationalism generally), not acknowledging the Armenian genocide as such, no definitive callout of Israeli policies of terrorism in the late mandatory period and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. Yet I wonder how much time will be spent on “radical Islamic terror” post-1980.

And now for the actual historical debates…

Should really be titled “A History of the Modern Middle East” given that Mansfield blitzes through thousands of years of history. But this is still solid up to the late 19th century, though he hasn’t covered anything up for significant debate so far.

Said has implied that American coverage of “Islam” was so poor that the media coverage of the former old colonial powers (Britain/France) which drew on scholarship that motivated him to write Orientalism originally, is favorable.