Scan barcode
marisbest2's review
4.0
This book gets off to a slow start and is incredibly "even handed" for the first half. The authors voice is almost entirely missing except for points where he pushes his "American Nations" thesis about migration patterns. Until the Civil War begins, the style is very much just surfacing the racist beliefs of the characters without much comment.
The second half of the book drastically changes that. Here we get a biography of Wilson that focuses exclusively on his racism, along with the story of the authors progenitor, Frederick Jackson Turner, who never quite writes the book with the thesis of American Nations.
Overall the style here is actually very good. It took some time to adjust to but it served to enlighten rather than distract in the end. I definitely learned a bunch
The second half of the book drastically changes that. Here we get a biography of Wilson that focuses exclusively on his racism, along with the story of the authors progenitor, Frederick Jackson Turner, who never quite writes the book with the thesis of American Nations.
Overall the style here is actually very good. It took some time to adjust to but it served to enlighten rather than distract in the end. I definitely learned a bunch
tanyarobinson's review against another edition
4.0
There has been so much in the news lately about Critical Race Theory being taught in schools, and it makes me think about how the traditional story of America's origins was arrived at in the first place. Union: The Struggle to Forge the Story of United States Nationhood directly addresses that question.
Woodard brings his previous ideas about America's regional cultures into his analysis, which I found very persuasive. He focuses on a handful of historians and writers who he identifies as having outsized influence on creating our national story: New Englander George Bancroft, Southern aristocrat William Gilmore Simms, escaped slave Frederick Douglass, white supremacist and eventual president Woodrow Wilson, and influential historian of the Frontier, Frederick Jackson Turner, I'm not sure how he decided that these men were the most influential; I do remember reading Turner in graduate school (for history), and of course know Douglass and Wilson, but Bancroft and Simms were less familiar to me. Anyway, Woodard shows the evolution of these thinkers' writings and teachings, and tries to show how they were propagated through universities and the country in general.
I really enjoyed the book and found the changing ideas of our nation's story fascinating, particularly in regards to the role of the South and the changing opinions of who was included in the country's aspirations for equality. After reading this, I believe more than ever that it is crucial Americans be taught not just a whitewashed version of history to make them patriotic, but a truer more complete version of the past that makes them good citizens and moral people. I don't know that Critical Race Theory is the answer, but there is no reason for this not to be introduced alongside a traditional approach. We should be using history to teach analytical skills, not just to make the majority race feel good about America.
4 stars.
Woodard brings his previous ideas about America's regional cultures into his analysis, which I found very persuasive. He focuses on a handful of historians and writers who he identifies as having outsized influence on creating our national story: New Englander George Bancroft, Southern aristocrat William Gilmore Simms, escaped slave Frederick Douglass, white supremacist and eventual president Woodrow Wilson, and influential historian of the Frontier, Frederick Jackson Turner, I'm not sure how he decided that these men were the most influential; I do remember reading Turner in graduate school (for history), and of course know Douglass and Wilson, but Bancroft and Simms were less familiar to me. Anyway, Woodard shows the evolution of these thinkers' writings and teachings, and tries to show how they were propagated through universities and the country in general.
I really enjoyed the book and found the changing ideas of our nation's story fascinating, particularly in regards to the role of the South and the changing opinions of who was included in the country's aspirations for equality. After reading this, I believe more than ever that it is crucial Americans be taught not just a whitewashed version of history to make them patriotic, but a truer more complete version of the past that makes them good citizens and moral people. I don't know that Critical Race Theory is the answer, but there is no reason for this not to be introduced alongside a traditional approach. We should be using history to teach analytical skills, not just to make the majority race feel good about America.
4 stars.
bekahbeth's review against another edition
5.0
I'm always profoundly educated and inspired by Woodard's books, and this one ranks up there with [b:American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America|11140803|American Nations A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America|Colin Woodard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347812803l/11140803._SY75_.jpg|16064248] in terms of informing me and engaging and helping to mold my thoughts on U.S. history. Many of the individual historical character narrations in this volume are especially enthralling, e.g. Frederick Douglass, George Bancroft, and even racist Woodrow Wilson, whose various infirmities make him sadly sympathetic even as they help to illuminate the many manifest ill effects he had on this nation and the world.
I'd like to request an in-depth treatment of the "roaring '20s" through the Depression, the New Deal, and the '50s next, please, Mr. Woodard!
I'd like to request an in-depth treatment of the "roaring '20s" through the Depression, the New Deal, and the '50s next, please, Mr. Woodard!
adkwriter15's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
Perhaps if I had read Woodard's other work, this would have felt more grounded to me, but the voices chosen to highlight at the beginning of the text felt both floating and decontextualized. It takes quite a bit to get off the ground, which feels like a slog, that leads into a much tighter, interesting, and connected back half or third with a rather abrupt end. That being said, I am fascinated with the act of history creation, who writes our history, and what we choose to keep reading, and that is absolutely part of this book's project - along with our sectional differences, although I think it's success at describing that was lesser than. All that aside, I would absolutely be interested in reading Woodard's more famous book, "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" to see that idea fleshed out more clearly. Once it got going, this was incredibly engaging to listen to.
aloyokon's review against another edition
4.0
What is American nationhood? What is an American? This is not a new question, but it is, in light of recent events, a very relevant one. When the US was founded, the former colonies that founded it had wildly different traditions, origin stories, political economies, etc., and the average "American" felt more loyalty to his own state than to a "United States". The struggle to form an unum out of this pluribus led to five different figures to show five different visions of American identity:
George Bancroft: Jacksonian, triumphalist, assimilationist
Willliam George Simms: Slavocratic, hierarchial, white supremacist
Fredrick Douglass: Abolitionist, egalitarian
Woodrow Wilson: Segregationist, ethnocentric, "herrenvolk democracy"
Frederick Jackson Turner: Frontiersman initially, but then regional in a manner similar to Woodard himself
The book ends on sort of a downer, as it appears that those who favor the more exclusionary, ethnostate version of nationhood seem to hold the levers of power at the moment, but as Woodard reminds the reader, the struggle to define American nationhood didn't stop with these men's deaths or with the Civil Rights revolution, and it will not stop now.
George Bancroft: Jacksonian, triumphalist, assimilationist
Willliam George Simms: Slavocratic, hierarchial, white supremacist
Fredrick Douglass: Abolitionist, egalitarian
Woodrow Wilson: Segregationist, ethnocentric, "herrenvolk democracy"
Frederick Jackson Turner: Frontiersman initially, but then regional in a manner similar to Woodard himself
The book ends on sort of a downer, as it appears that those who favor the more exclusionary, ethnostate version of nationhood seem to hold the levers of power at the moment, but as Woodard reminds the reader, the struggle to define American nationhood didn't stop with these men's deaths or with the Civil Rights revolution, and it will not stop now.
mattmcgillvray's review against another edition
5.0
Feels almost like a prequel for American Nations and American Character. By that I mean that there are a number of people in the book who struggle to come up with a unifying story as to American history and what holds us together. That story is one of the European-based and centered American ethnostate, a story that historically never seems to be able to hold water. It even ends with Fredrick Jackson Turner struggling to compose his own version that couldn't come together.
Why couldn't many historians compose a unified history of the American nation? Read Woodard's American Nations for the answer: there is more than one "nation" in the United States and they are based on very different cultures.
This book is for anyone who is interested in American history, but especially for anyone who has read his American Nations and American Character. This book is very good, give it a read.
Why couldn't many historians compose a unified history of the American nation? Read Woodard's American Nations for the answer: there is more than one "nation" in the United States and they are based on very different cultures.
This book is for anyone who is interested in American history, but especially for anyone who has read his American Nations and American Character. This book is very good, give it a read.
zackbs's review
3.0
Really interesting overview of how Americans conceive of America, from early 19th to early 20th centuries. While the overall survey is a bit disjointed (some of the through-lines become a bit murky), overall it tells a vivid and engaging picture of American self-identification. It really hammers home just how thoroughly the Confederacy took over the country after the end of the Civil War, and what an enormous piece of trash Woodrow Wilson was. I came into this book knowing a little about Wilson (including his overt white supremacy) but I was honestly shocked at the disgusting depths of his racism, and just how well he embodied the triumph of the South over American institutions. Seriously, more people need to be talking about how much Wilson sucks.
All in all, a really interesting history about an overlooked time in America. Telling it through the lens of self-identity and community construction makes it very relevant to 2020.
All in all, a really interesting history about an overlooked time in America. Telling it through the lens of self-identity and community construction makes it very relevant to 2020.
More...