Pennsylvania Books

what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradiction, what a prodigy!"

Blaise Pascal's words seem an apt way to begin a review of Volume II of Nikita S. Khrushchev's memoirs, "Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Reformer, 1945-1964" Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev was a larger than life figure who commanded the world's attention during his more than ten year reign as leader of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev was an extraordinarily complex man with great talent and energy who was also full of internal contradictions and conflicts. The child of peasants, Khrushchev had only four years of formal education. Yet he rose up from the ranks of the proletariat (perhaps the only Soviet leader with true proletarian roots) to become the leader of one of the superpowers of the 20th century. He grew to power during Stalin's reign of terror by being an active participant and collaborator in the Court of the Red Tsar. Yet, this same man's denunciation of Stalin at the Soviet Party Congress in 1956 and the subsequent return of thousands of prisoners from the Gulag marked an incredible change in Soviet life.

The essayist John Berger once said that "autobiography begins with a sense of being alone. It is an orphan form." As I read "Reformer" I could not help but notice the feeling of ineffable sadness, a "sense of being alone" hanging like a low cloud over an aging, isolated man as he dictates his Memoirs. "Reformer", is in one sense the record of a proud man defending his life. The individual reader will have to come to his own verdict about that life; a short review is not the place for an exegesis on the triumphs and tribulations of such a complicated man. However, no matter how one views Khrushchev these Memoirs provide a fascinating look into the life and times of this extraordinarily complex `simple' man.

Volume 1, "Commissar 1918-1945" was a straight forward chronological account of Khrushchev's early years and dramatic rise to various positions of leadership during the tumultuous reign of Josef Stalin. Volume 2 continues that chronological account through the death of Stalin and Khrushchev's consolidation of power. However, the editor (Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevitch's son) has carved out Khrushchev's reflection on his foreign policy and saved that for Volume 3, due to be published in April, 2007. The remainder of Volume 2 (about half of the book) covers Khrushchev's reflections on various domestic issues. Khrushchev spends a lot of time on military/defense spending, the planned vitalization of Soviet agriculture, his desire to improve the domestic life of Soviet citizens through increased production of consumer goods and better house, and, finally, his views on Soviet art and culture.

Of those areas, Khrushchev's reflections on the USSR's military-industrial complex are likely to be of the most interest for American readers. Khrushchev understood that the massive amounts of money being poured into the military would have a drastic impact on the Soviet economy, a theory proven by later events. He suggested increasing the USSR's missile defense systems while proposing dramatic cuts in the strength of Soviet Navy and Army. He indicates that this economy measures would have enabled Soviet budget planners to devote more time and attention to the consumer sector of the economy. Khrushchev's suggestion that the ongoing economic drain on the Soviet economy caused by military spending would have disastrous consequences in the long term was prophetic. Unfortunately these proposed cuts cost him the support of the military. Believing that the future of the USSR would be guaranteed by agricultural self-sufficiency he promoted scheme after scheme to increase production. Unfortunately most of these schemes turned out to be more than a bit silly and they all failed in a very public fashion.

Khrushchev's reflection on the Soviet economy and agriculture are also interesting but this reader sometimes had trouble following some of the micro-details about corn and wheat productions. The footnotes and brief biographical sketches of the people referenced in the Memoirs are helpful but I still felt a bit lost in a maze of details about maize.

Khrushchev's reflection on his dealing with the Soviet arts' community was also fascinating. The period of relative relaxation of censorship came to be known as "The Thaw" but Khrushchev's strong preference for "socialist realism" still created quite a bit of tension between the forces of the government and the arts intelligentsia.

The Memoirs close with excerpts from the diaries of Khrushchev's widow, Nina Petrovna Khrushceva, from the time of Nikita's death in 1971 until shortly before her own death. Those excerpts are as touching as they are informative.

As noted, I cannot presume to tell any prospective reader what judgments they should make about the life of Nikita S. Khrushchev. He is far too complex a figure to be reduced to a ten-second sound bite or a 900 word essay. I can state with certainty that anyone interested in the life of Khrushchev or in Soviet affairs should read his memoirs. I think the first two volumes are of great historical value in anyone's examination of the word in the middle of the 20th century. I very much look forward to the publication of Volume 3.

Highly recommended. L. Fleisig

Not a book for one trying to obtain a concise balanced history of one of the more important figures of the last century.

But wonderful for anyone deeply interested in what was ticking in the mind of a top official of the USSR who served with, and immediately after, the tyrant Stalin. When done reading this book, one can only be amazed that the Communists held power for as long as they did given the flawed system they so resolutely defended, which failed at adequately sheltering, clothing, and feeding the common citizen.

Khrushchev was at heart a mostly good man (he did serve at the murderous Stalin's knee and did arrange the death of his own rival, Beria). He wanted to, by strong management, energize the economic command and control system devised by Lenin and, thereby, bring a better life (measured against America) to the workers and peasants. His energetic, but ultimately futile, work in agriculture takes up much of this memoir.

The book is enhanced by the writings provided in its appendix by an insightful Anatoly Strelyany and a very human Mrs. Khrushchev, as well as by the excellent detailed chapter notes provided by Sergei Khrushchev -- a most able editor and the type of son all major historical figures would be blessed to have.

Be warned: with two companion volumes, these memoirs are a major undertaking for the average person. However, this book is essential reading for those with a keen interest in 1950s-60s world political history.

The editors have done a very nice job here with thorough chapter notes, chronological listings of Mr. Khrushchev's comings and goings, and excellent references to further readings.

Nikita Khrushchev was not a brilliant writer of prose (actually the book was dictated), but this is his straightforward account of his own foreign policy thoughts as a major world leader at a very critical time.

Never one to mince words or gloss over difficulties, Nikita Khrushchev tells everything he remembers of international events during his time in power. His take on conflicts with the Western powers gives a refreshingly different approach from all the Western propaganda that filled our airwaves and newspapers at that time. From Gary Powers to the Cuban Missile Crisis, he calls all these events as he saw them.

This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in the history of that time, from 1953 through 1964.

Leave it to Charlie to find even more Pennsylvania streams! He even includes notable waters in NJ and Ny. This book gives you the opportunity to fish streams that don't get the pressure of some of the more famous waters. The author's cover waters large and small. The book is a bargain, and at retail price equates to 39 cents per stream! Try to find a guide for that.

One of the most interesting books I've read. It has been great for someone that has "cabin fever" this winter. I read about a different stream every night before bedtime. Great reviews on Pocono, Manada, and McMichael Creeks! J. Edwards

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

Modern Mongolia: Reclaiming Genghis Khan is a lovely book, in four parts,with lots of color pictures. The first part called, 'My Mongolia', tells about Mongolia, the people, places and their history up to the 1900s. The second part, titled 'The Twentieth Century: From Domination to Democracy', tells the story of Mongolia under the China and, later, Russia's control. The third chapter is called 'Deel, Ger and Altar: Continuity and Charge in Mongolian Material Culture' which shows us the changes in what the people used, lived in and wore (sometimes based on what they had and sometimes based on what they were ALLOWED to have). The last part is called 'Genghis Khan, Father of Mongolian Democracy' and shows that, while Mongolians did not have Democracy under Khan, they did have many democratic principles even before Genghis Khan showed up. Under the Khan many of this ideas (rule by law, equality of citizens, participatory government and human rights) were made more powerful by the fact that he united them and made them independent from outside powers. Genghis Khan is a Founding Father ANY nation could be proud of. AT least he had all his teeth and didn't wear a white wig!
The book itself was written by four authors who used a mixture of fact and first person accounts to make a book that you can tell they all enjoyed making. The only thing missing is a copy of the Mongolian constitution. But I did like the beginning of the preamble which they showed in the book:

"We the people of Mongolia...." Always a good start!

this book on mongolia, is worth it..it takes the reader on a trip to one of the most beautiful countries around...there are lots of detailed information on the culture, people, and lots more..it will give you a education..pick this one up

"Mouring Glory" is certainly one of my favorite historical accounts of the French Revolution because it reaches beyond the conventional interpretations of this frightening (but fascinating) period of history. Huet gives the reader an informative analysis of the Revolutionary ideology of the sublime, and an incredibly well researched look into how and why the Revolution's idealistic leaders are portrayed as they are. The author gives insight into the Revolutionary will, and how it has been dramatized and incorrectly interpreted in an effort to remember the Revolution and its disturbing but hauntingly mesmerizing effects.

Marie-Helene Huet's collection of essays is a thought-provoking and fascinating account of the ways in which the past two centuries have dealt with one of the most controversial and multi-faceting events of all time; the French Revolution. Combatting Furet's bold "La Revolution est finie," Huet's work examines various aspects of the revolutionary myth, a myth that continues to influence popular culture to the present day. From a brilliant discussion of the meaning of the sublime in the late 18th century to the "feminization" of Robespierre and other Terrorists in historical accounts in order to embody the Chaotic as Feminine, Huet not only synthesizing previous studies of the Revolution but, most importantly, tells us how the perception of the Revolution always reflects upon the culture that created that perception. This is a fantastic combination of comparative mythology and history which should be read not only by those interested in the French Revolution but by anyone who wants to learn how society treats its dead and how that mirrors itself.

Yes, this is a history book, but it's so much more than that. Don Fitzkee writes with a style that makes the bare facts INTERESTING. While all the pertinent facts are contained here in detail, this is written by one who is obviously a great storyteller.

Since "oral tradition" plays such a huge part in the history of religion in America as well as the current climate of most congregations not only in the Church of the Brethren, but in all other denominations as well, this book is a jewel.

Every member of the Church of the Brethren should read it for sure, but those of other faith traditions will find it interesting and learn a great deal from the author's ability to tell the tale in such a way as well!

Part of the message here is: Aren't we swell for recognizing the error of our ways so soon? But more than that, it's about how we can hurt one another along the way if we are not very careful and considerate and PRAYERFUL. Fitzkee doesn't take sides, but simply and beautifully tells the story of what happened so that we can all learn and learn well.

This well-researched and well-written book was a pleasant surprise for me. I was raised in the Church of the Brethren, but left it over 40 years ago. Now in reading this, I'm understanding and appreciating my heritage. The story of the Brethren, and the enormous changes they made in 100 years...the struggle to remain separate from the "world", yet to witness to the world...the questions of dress; of biblical interpretations; of love feasts and baptisms and church architecture...are well discussed and very interesting. I imagine all denominations have had to struggle with similar questions. I think this book would be enjoyed by anyone who is interested in Protestant church history. It is a MUST for all Church of the Brethren members!

The Murderer by Felice Holman is a very fascinating book. It takes place during the Great Depression in a small town called Ashlymine, Pennsylvania. The Murderer is about a thirteen year old boy named Hershel Marks, or Hershy. Hershy is subject to racial prejudice because of his Jewish religion. The Polish boys call Hershy and his friends degrading names such as "Christ Killer" and "Zydek." In retaliation to this, Hershy and his friends throw rocks from a rooftop down at the Polish boys. The Murderer is a good book for quiet afternoon reading; it is a real page-turner. There were many exciting and funny parts in this novel such as when Hershy uses his "fish act" to make a "hypnotized" girl in a window laugh just to receive a free night's stay at the hotel. But more importantly, the historical content in this book is authentic. Felice Homan often times refers to Adolf Hitler's rise in power and the effect of this. Also, an overriding theme in this book is the effect that the Great Depression has on Hershy and his family. In response to the Great Depression, the Marks family has to make many adjustments, such as saving more things and being more conservative. All in all, The Murderer by Felice Holman is a good book because of its readibilty and historical content.

The Murderer by Felice Holman is a good representation of the question of what is the truth and how do you know it. This is because of the racial tension between the Poles and the Jews. Although the Poles call the Jewish boys "Christ killers," Hershy doesn't believe that this is true, so he decides to find the truth. The quest becomes a subplot to this book. Hershy decides to ask his family for the answer to the question of if his religion really did kill Christ. His family gives him a vague answer which isn't good enough for him. He seeks out to find Rabbi Gold to find the answer. Hershy asks the Rabbi, "Did we really kill Christ like the kids say?" (Holman 92). The Rabbi's response is how and that "crucifixion was not a Jewish way of execution" (Holman 93). Hershy is satisfied with this answer and his guilt is alleviated. Clearly, this example shows how Felice Holman related her book to the question of what is the truth and how you know it.

Felice Holman has done it again. This wonder full novel is about Hershey Marks, a young boy trying to find where he fits in, and yet living in Pennsylvania coal country. This wonderful novella is a great read. I also highly recommend Slake's Limbo, by Felice Holman

A well thought out and researched work on the intent of the constiutional framers concerning religion and state. We hear so much nonsense these days from ACLU and others which would make one think our country has just recently invented this need to let religion coexist without government constraint and interference. These jurists have well researched and well presented the case for contemporary jurisprudence to return to its founding roots concerning the separation and establishment clauses. Particulary ringing in my reading will be this quote: "The Constitution, the nation's fundamental law, cannot be legimately be construed to afford redress to every citizen who takes offense at public expressions, whether religious or secular in content. Although the establishment clause forbids the state from sponsoring religiously coercive symbols and practices, it does not require the state to excise public symbols and practices merely because they may be offensive to some."

Charles Emmerich and Arlin Adams use an unbiased approach to document the original goals of our founding fathers: A Nation that can only function properly as a righteous one. The book is a must read for anyone interested in First Amendment Law or anyone who needs a fresh focus on the rights we have as Americans.