A review by goldentortoisebeetle
199 Cemeteries to See Before You Die by Loren Rhoads
I have a lot of thoughts about this book. Mainly it's a great example of how topics that try to present themselves neutrally often do a bad job.
First, let's break down who gets the most coverage and number of entries. I'm rounding up the percentages.
95/199 United States =48%
5/199 Canada = .03%
11/199 Central America, South America, and the Caribbean = .06%
45/199 Europe = 23%
10/199 Eastern Europe = .05%
10/199 Middle East = .05%
6/199 Africa = .03%
14/199 Asia = .07%
3/199 Australia = .01%
So....these numbers are embarrassing! The author should probably have dedicated the book just to the United States, as it dominated with almost half the entries. If I'm being generous, I would say she could have done the United States and Western Europe. Making it seem like this is a guide for the world is disingenuous. Asia is home to 60% of The world's population, but you could only dedicate .07% of the entries to it? So, prepare for the centering of white settlers, white colonization, white Americans, white confederacy, and white history.
The book is factually incorrect in some places and revisionist/denialist in others. The cemetery it claims as the second largest in the United States and the woman it claims as the first to run for president are both incorrect. It categorizes Kansas, Missouri, and North and South Dakota as in "the Midwest". Often when discussing Native Americans, the author chooses not to mention the nation or tribe. During the invasion of North America and subsequent genocide, it uses passive language like "this tribe was moved", or says things like "Native Americans fought settlers and attacked forts" but does not give a reason, leaving it up to interpretation that perhaps Native American people were unnecessarily aggressive instead of the truth of they were being encroached upon.
I also have a personal beef with the entry for my hometown cemetery. It devotes a whole paragraph to talking about the Confederate Rest plot and some random woman who decided to maintain it. I live in Madison, WI. Why would this be the most interesting or relevant information to include? Wish they'd update it to note the monument to the soldiers was recently removed...It also talks about the Effigy Moundbuilders. I think it should use less passive language to talk about how they were desecrated and partially ruined by white settlers.
Things I learned:
- I learned about the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York. As I remarked to my partner, I'm used to historical graves being discovered due to construction in London, Paris, etc - I forget it can happen in the states, too. The trend of paving over burial grounds of Black folks continues. I just saw a news article about the same phenomenon on Florida.
- I want to visit garden cemetaries. I like horticulture and arboretums and interesting monuments, but not really celebrities or famous people.
- New words: dishabille, mullions, cenotaph, tumulus.
I have a few other thoughts about specific entries, but I think I'm going to leave this as is. what started off as a mildly interesting book disappointed me with errors and an aggressive focus on settler colonial history.
First, let's break down who gets the most coverage and number of entries. I'm rounding up the percentages.
95/199 United States =48%
5/199 Canada = .03%
11/199 Central America, South America, and the Caribbean = .06%
45/199 Europe = 23%
10/199 Eastern Europe = .05%
10/199 Middle East = .05%
6/199 Africa = .03%
14/199 Asia = .07%
3/199 Australia = .01%
So....these numbers are embarrassing! The author should probably have dedicated the book just to the United States, as it dominated with almost half the entries. If I'm being generous, I would say she could have done the United States and Western Europe. Making it seem like this is a guide for the world is disingenuous. Asia is home to 60% of The world's population, but you could only dedicate .07% of the entries to it? So, prepare for the centering of white settlers, white colonization, white Americans, white confederacy, and white history.
The book is factually incorrect in some places and revisionist/denialist in others. The cemetery it claims as the second largest in the United States and the woman it claims as the first to run for president are both incorrect. It categorizes Kansas, Missouri, and North and South Dakota as in "the Midwest". Often when discussing Native Americans, the author chooses not to mention the nation or tribe. During the invasion of North America and subsequent genocide, it uses passive language like "this tribe was moved", or says things like "Native Americans fought settlers and attacked forts" but does not give a reason, leaving it up to interpretation that perhaps Native American people were unnecessarily aggressive instead of the truth of they were being encroached upon.
I also have a personal beef with the entry for my hometown cemetery. It devotes a whole paragraph to talking about the Confederate Rest plot and some random woman who decided to maintain it. I live in Madison, WI. Why would this be the most interesting or relevant information to include? Wish they'd update it to note the monument to the soldiers was recently removed...It also talks about the Effigy Moundbuilders. I think it should use less passive language to talk about how they were desecrated and partially ruined by white settlers.
Things I learned:
- I learned about the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York. As I remarked to my partner, I'm used to historical graves being discovered due to construction in London, Paris, etc - I forget it can happen in the states, too. The trend of paving over burial grounds of Black folks continues. I just saw a news article about the same phenomenon on Florida.
- I want to visit garden cemetaries. I like horticulture and arboretums and interesting monuments, but not really celebrities or famous people.
- New words: dishabille, mullions, cenotaph, tumulus.
I have a few other thoughts about specific entries, but I think I'm going to leave this as is. what started off as a mildly interesting book disappointed me with errors and an aggressive focus on settler colonial history.