Nebraska Books

~An American Soldier in World War I~ is an annotated collection of letters written by George Browne, (nicknamed `Brownie,') and addressed to his girlfriend Martha. This twenty-three year old enlisted as a civil engineer in the U.S. Army at the onset of the Great War in 1917. Having enlisted voluntarily, rather than being subjected to the draft, Browne had his choice of assignments. He chose combat engineer. He was summarily assigned to the 117th Engineering Regiment. The editor of the book, David Snead, reveals his purpose by stating "[r]eading the letters within the larger context of the war's events gives a window onto what Brownie--the average American doughboy--experienced in World War I." David L. Snead offers an insightful perspective of the life of an American soldier during the Great War. In surmising the life experience of George Browne, the reader may better appreciate the day-to-day life of the American G.I. during this time. In giving the reader an insight to the war from the perspective of George Browne, the reader gains a better appreciation of the adversity and experiences common to soldiers during this time. With his thoughtful organization and informative commentary, Snead achieves his purpose.

At the onset of the Great War, American faced difficulties with mobilization, as it did not maintain a large standing army. Further it is poorly equipped and supplied initially. From George's account on November 9, 1918, one gets the picture that the American soldiers are allowed rest and relaxation to recuperate from wartime hardship. He noted, "I spent about three days right near the hospital in what they call a Convalescent Camp. Then we got on a train and rode all night. We landed in a place they call a `Rest Camp.'" He added that he was moved around again, and slept on a train and later in a Red Cross hut near the train station. Brownie lamented "this army is sure a huge and complicated machine."

Does this book, or more aptly Browne's letters, offer an accurate picture of the war experience of an American soldier? Yes and no. For starters, the context is important. George was, of course, Marty's fiancé. His underlying purpose in sustaining contact with his fiancée by letter-writing was to comfort her and assure her of his physical well-being. Marty naturally cared for George and vice versa. Accordingly, it is to be expected this letters and would not relate the wartime horrors of combat experience. So in that regard, the letters may be limited, as they do not particularly magnify the horrors of the war, but rather gloss over combat without too much graphic detail. However, with regard to the day-to-day life of an American soldier apart from combat, the reader may give credence to the veracity of Brownie's recollection of events, happenings and places, as he had little reason to embellish the truth.

For morbid recollection of the wartime terror, one most look to the editor's commentary in this volume. Where Brownie's letters are obviously lacking in details about the horror of war, the editor rallied to fill the void. Snead, for example, points out how an account about a "draftee" who is struck by a "shard of steel from a Germany artillery shell" and a private recalls that it "took off everything above his eyebrows..." and "seeing that slick, pink brain-pan on top of his truncated head didn't do any of us any good." But does such lurid detail have a purpose besides shocking the conscience? Quite frankly, yes, it does. In an outside source, Private Nathaniel Rouse implied how adequate preparations could avert the disaster of a gas attack: "Clear beautiful day... Had gas attacks two times last night. No harm done." But many Allies were not so lucky. If Americans were merely taught to recollect war without mention of men in the agony of death, than they would have an incomplete picture of the events and hardships attendant to war. The nostalgic reminiscence does not do justice to the hardship experienced by its combatants and casualties. As General Robert E. Lee wrote in 1862, "It is well that war is so terrible -- otherwise we would grow too fond of it."

One theme readers may draw from the book is that American soldiers were hopeful, and indeed very much optimistic for victory, in spite of the hardships attendant to the war. Another theme is that there was a deep yearning to triumph that animates the fighting spirit of the American soldier. Finally, the letter compilation illustrated how love can and does persevere amidst the trial of war, as both George and Martha were reunited, and subsequently married after the war.

The historical context that the editor David Snead provides in his commentary fills in the blank spots in Browne's letters about the realities of war and the many factual details. The historical recollection of facts goes a long way in helping one understand and conceptualize the nature of the Great War conflict. For example, he notes the significance of the Somme offensive, which "had a great influence on the course of the war," which conceptualizes George's excitement as the events incidental to the offensive unfolded. (For those already `in the know' about the Great War, the editor's commentary might come across as superfluous window-dressing. But context and commentary is nonetheless valuable. We see the American soldier at times experienced extreme discomfort aside from the fighting. For example, the transatlantic voyage was aboard ships amidst the most squalid conditions. Snead interjects that Browne's statement that it was "not enjoyable at all" was "an understatement." Also, the reader is reminded that the trenches were filled with vermin, and the men therein infested with lice. Here we see the Great War for what it was: excruciating painful at times and anything but enjoyable.

All things considered, the penpal courtship of George and Marty showed how love can persevere even in the midst of war. On March 7, 1919, in his last dispatch of letters, George wrote Marty: "Do you still want to marry me Marty? Let's love all the more, Marty, I want to. Don't forget me Marty." The two were married shortly thereafter in August 1919. The story of George Browne represented the triumph of human spirit. George could have been just another statistic, one of the many forgotten dead, but providence seemed to have favored him, and he came out of the conflict alive.

Did Snead accomplish his purpose? Overall, yes. He does indeed provide an accurate and comprehensive recollection of the experience of the average American soldier in World War One. Although, in order to get a more comprehensive depiction of the Great War, there is something to be said about the virtue of reading a generalized narrative history of the Great War. If one is narrow in their readings on the Great War, it would be better to start with a narrative history of the war. Snead's book nonetheless succeeds in giving the reader a window into life of an American soldier in the Great War.

The Great War was a war which I would have assumed that the U.S. never entered and left to Europeans to work out. In many ways, American entry into the Great War, American inducement to keep Russia in the war and the post-war Versailles settlement made the world safe not for democracy, but rather Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Thus the Great War was a Pyrrhic Victory, a victory won at took great a cost. But it was part of our history, and worth studying nonetheless. This book is helpful for gaining perspective alongside the generalized military histories and social-political histories from the era.

I cannot praise this novel highly enough. It taught me how to love without regret and savor the moments that make life worth living. Though originally written in German, the translation is flawless. Every single sentence is a well-crafted masterpiece worthy of quotation. Maron is able to do what so few authors can: create a story that is inexplicably human -- one to which almost anybody who has experienced love can relate.

The relationship between significant others and the construction of identity is central to the narrator's characterization. After an enthralling love affair with a married man, the narrator develops a hopeless fixation with him and is incapable of fully living life in his absence. The unreliable first-person narration gives the reader insight into the many layers of this obsession -- from selective rememberance of their time spent together to her need to preserve the most inane remnants of their relationship long after its demise. Through the use of her lover in shaping her existence, the weakness of her personality is revealed piece-by-piece as a jumbled collection of haunting memories.

Conclusion: read this book. I promise you will not regret it. (Und besser auf Deutsch! Ich las und liebte das Buch auf beiden Sprachen.)

Joette Pelster really showed the state of Nebraska something with her annual review of energy related concerns. Very strong material, indeed. It was a real wake up call for the state. Very impactful. A lively read.
Note: after she published this report, she got into a great deal of trouble. Apparently, shortly after this, she turned to the "theatre".

Written in 1895,by a very respected jewish-french socialist writer this books vividly details the history of antisemitism from ancient times to the 19th century. It's narrative and descripton are essential for any serious interpretation of the eternal question of why the world has hated the jews so much. A question that sometimes has taken different form of unspoken prejudice and direct manifestation like the mass killing in the holocust.
The strenght of the book lies in it's conclusions -that the jews are hated because they are always viewed as strangers- wich have outlasted the life of the auhtor to serve as a permanent remainder of how human beings can be guided by the wrong principles in their relationships with other human beings that may seem to be different because of their values and religion.

I was fortunate enough to snag a copy of the University of Nebraska Bison printing of this classic book back in 1987. But, must admit to some surprise the University doesn't have this classic yet in print.

This "crackling, swift moving narrative" not only offers chronicle of the pursuit of the Apache marauders "across southern Arizona (Territory) and New Mexico to the Sierra Madre in Mexico in 1883", but will offer also historical reading enjoyment to any interested reader opening its pages. The book was written by General George Crook's aide-de-camp, staff officer of 16 years, John Gregory Bourke. Both this book and ON THE BORDER WITH CROOK, also penned by Captain Bourke are to be considered classics of both the frontier and Indian Wars era in the 19th century.

Captain Bourke was very much an empathetic ethnologist, having interest and great understanding of the native Americans of that time, and his writings offer great insight into the Chiricahua Apaches and others caught up in this conflict of U.S. Army cavalry and the various Apache tribes.

The towns, landscapes, people, and activities of this 1883 campaign are all written about in these pages by one who observed them first-hand. No better factual reading exits of this time, especially coming as it does from a primary source, one who both viewed and lived it. Several histories on this campaign exist but Captain Bourke's is second to none.

Semper Fi.

To read The Apache Diaries by Grenville (1907-40) and son Neil Goodwin is to enter a portal to another dimension. Through a dialogue of contemporary and historic diaries and related photographs, a vivid landscape haunted by blood, pain, fear, suffering, passion, and ancient enmities emerges. In this world all tales are entwined by tones of sorrow, loss, and a relentless quest for the understanding and peace of the dead. There is also fascination, pride, and great heroism. The plight of the Sierra Madre Apaches intrigues the youthful Grennie, destined to become a singular if short-lived ethnographer who partially chronicles their ambiguous fate. That unfinished life task is taken up by his son Neil in the research and writing of The Apache Diaries. In an effort to reach out and perhaps even touch the father who died when he was only two months old, the author recreates the journeys made by his father when he wrote the original diary entries in the 1930's. The Apache Diaries is, as intended, a dialogue built between Neil and Grennie in an exploration of the dual enigmas of the nature of the man himself and the mysterious fate of the Sierra Madre Apaches he studied. It is as though Neil, the son, hopes to uncover a mirror experience of both the true life essence of his father and the inconclusive, mysterious fate of the "wild" Sierra Madre Apaches. It is fitting that he is joined in his quest by his wife, son and his son's future wife. The Apache Diaries is a classic quest riddle, filled with real unquenchable anguish and courage mixed with evil and cowardice. It is bitterly poignant. True to life, it never resolves completely; but there is a partial lifting of the veil. The key to experiencing this strangely compelling, haunted world of the blood- feuding Mexicans' and Apaches' history is, perhaps, acceptance of the pain and wrong, the incredible wrenching anguish that is called forth again and again. But there is a second step that is as yet unfinished. One quickly learns to guess at an outline of forgiveness, perhaps ? a future resolution that still may loom yet several generations away. The deaths and the kidnappings are so brutal and vivid. Though Grenville Goodwin was a respected ethnographer and Neil Goodwin is an accomplished film-maker of Native American documentaries, the reader does not need to be fluent in either medium to appreciate the depth and complexity of The Apache Diaries. It resonates in the heart. It breaks the heart. Perhaps it remakes the heart, or the heart's vision. This is a profoundly moving book. Perhaps the book reflects the spirit of the crown dance of the Chiricahua, a holy ritual Neil witnesses in 1987 when he accompanies two grandsons of one of Geronimo's warriors on a commemorative visit to the location of Geronimo's near surrender to General Crook:

Later during that trip the Chiricahuas conducted their holiest of rituals, the spellbinding crown dance. It begins with an immense leaping bonfire. There is a line of drummers and chanters. Shockingly, out of the darkness, come the dancers. They circle the fire wearing masks with high, antlerlike crowns, short kilts, painted bodies, a thousand tiny bells, a sword in each hand - they reel, hover, sway, and as they do, they become the mountain gods. The assembled Apaches are witnessing the first crown dance held in these mountains for a very long time. It is at long last a dance for the peaceless dead, and it is overdue by a hundred years or more. (page 236)

Nancy Lorraine Reviewer

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

PHYSICS--Aristotle addresses the "why" questions. Aetia= causes, there are 4 causes. Only 1 cause actually sounds what like we call a cause today. A better translation is "explanation." 4 ways to explanations. Arche=origins/principles, something that is 1st, or rule, or, commanding, or beginning. Thus 1st thought that leads us to understand something and how we proceed. Begin how we think and rule or govern how we think. Phusis= "nature," like physics. He understands nature differently than we do today. For Aristotle the planets orbits never change so not part of nature. Everything below the moon, "lunar," is nature. Thus everything below lunar is not perfect and goes through change. Phusis root= to grow or bloom. Thus, emerging like birth. This term has to do with movement and change. Also connected to "coming to light." Also, connected to "being."

Physics (nature) is an arche (rule) of motion and change. Concept of physics (nature) has to do with motion and change. Paramedes denies change. Aristotle takes umbrage with this. Plato says change is a deficient condition; Aristotle is against both men's notion of change.
IMPORTANT--Aristotle talks about how we talk about how we talk about change all the time. Aristotle says no such things as "being" itself. For Aristotle there is change we always talk about it.

Potentiality and actuality- 2 terms that dominate Aristotle's thinking. Change is potentiality to actuality. Potentiality is a "not yet." He criticizes premises of philosophers for denying or denigrating change. His physics is his thought to explain change. Ousia can't mean something unchanging, it is always a changing phenomena. For Aristotle and the Greeks the "world" has no beginning or end it is always here. No God or creator. Big and small are opposites, but are only conceptual. Small things become big Aristotle sees this. Our language is the guide here. The fact that there is change doesn't mean it is chaotic, you plant a seed, and it grows from small to big, this is normal change.

3 senses Aristotle uses phusis or nature. IMPORTANT- 1. "Always or for the most part." 2. Telos-end, purposes. 3. Movement is self-generated toward something. When a seed falls to the ground it grows and moves towards growing. Contrast Phusis with techne="produce something by humans." Both have to do with change and movement. 1 is self-moving, 1 is moved by us. Trees are not brought into being by themselves; beds out of trees are made by us. What is a bed? For Aristotle it has no nature or physics, it can have an essence. Everything other than Techne "things of production" are physics, nature. It is natural that humans have productive capacity and skills. Techne and physics are distinguished to understand change. Aristotle is important in philosophy and science because he uses language of science. He sees that change is internal within phusis in their own nature, not from myth or storytelling.

His phenomenology says our primary access to things is the "whole" like a dog, once we analyze them we can break them down. This is different from the premises of philosophers who believed in "inarticulate wholes." This is a dramatic difference from Platonists and atomists ideas. Atomist says all things made up of individual stuff like atoms. Aristotle is against atomist doesn't accept describing atoms as real. Like atomist the "whole" or dog is real for him. He isn't a Darwinist because the earth is always the way it was, is and will be. He talks about elements earth, fire, water, air.

IMPORTANT- For Aristotle, "being" of a thing comes 1st, knowledge 2nd. He says knowledge comes to rest in the soul. The soul is calmed by knowledge. When the soul or the mind comes to rest this is out of a natural turbulence of the mind. When he says "by nature" it is intrinsic in us we are by nature turbulent like children, this is part of us. Knowledge achieves calming it emerges out of the turbulence like "wonder."

Techne and physics are not opposites they are distinct different ways to explain movement. Both parts of our world can illuminate each other. He doesn't have idea of a creator God but understands if their were nature it would come by way of god. He says nature is self-manifesting. Techne completes nature (physics) Art doesn't quite imitate nature but talking about shapes like a bed or cave like a house. More like impersonates nature. Craft or Techne our natural capacity to make things, we are elated by being able to craft we do have to be taught to produce things. When we build houses, we are completing something nature can't do. Today, modern science rejects idea "nature" has a purpose. Thus, Aristotle doesn't see physics, nature and techne craft as that different.

Aitia=Causes better definition is "explanation."

1. Material Cause, answers question "out of what"
2. Formal Cause, answers question "into what"
3. Efficient Cause, answers question "from what"
4. Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what"

Qua= Latin for "as." We understand something by questions we ask. He uses ordinary language. This arms us with information to look at whatever phenomena by deduction. Fill in the 4 causes and categories and then you have knowledge.

IMPORTANT- Most important is #2 the Formal cause. Efficient and Final cause fall under it. Usually he uses artifacts crafted by man to explain this. Example of a house:

1.Material Cause, answers question "out of what" Wood
2.Formal Cause, answers question "into what" A certain shape of house
3.Efficient Cause, answers question "from what" the builder
4.Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what" to provide shelter

Things of phusis can be explained by 4 causes a little tricky. Form isn't just shape for Aristotle.
He uses different works for form, like logos = ordering, or pattern, or structure, in this case, organization in living things it is richer our bodies are our being cause. A corpse is no longer organized for a functioning body. Same with material cause. Aristotle distinguishes between wood or real matter and less tangible, he uses idea of material cause thus doesn't just mean stuff like matter. Thus, in his book Politics, what is the material of the polis? The citizens. Material is just a way to explain it. The word matter works like "What subject matter are you taking"? Thus, Aristotle uses matter in the rich and varied linguistic way. Thus, he provides guides and 4 categories and causes to gain knowledge. He thinks his approach is an improvement over Plato and pre-Socratics like materialists.

IMPORTANT- Everything is what it is in combination of matter and form in the world except God. There is a difference between dogs and beds, thus he is against the atomists. If you don't know what a cake is ahead of time you don't ever get to the molecular structure to get you there. To talk about matter without form is to miss something. Any 4 causes alone doesn't work, all together give an apt account of how things are. Modern science breaks with him on #4 the Final cause; scientists say this doesn't exist in nature.

For Aristotle, if it is evident and real in nature it must be real. The Telos shouldn't be understood as "push pull." Understanding can shift based on different issues and topics so Aristotle is a "pluralist." Never think of telos, or end, or purpose as "design." Not all forms of telos are "conscious design" for Aristotle. There is no intelligent design of nature for Aristotle. (No God). He rejects it, no beginning, or end of nature. However, he believes nature has purposeful elements to it, so it is mind like. Therefore, when we think purposefully we are not violating nature. We are rational animals. There is no mind before or behind nature. For Aristotle idea of telos is built into nature. Aristotle's idea of an unmoved, mover is archaic. He believes that movement in nature must ultimately come to stop, can't go to infinity, thus unmoved mover. This is his idea of God. Doesn't mean first cause or creator but more a "draw" not a "push" like draw of a lover. Thus, he doesn't believe in universal laws of motion. This is a limitation in his philosophy.

IMPORTANT-Basic distinction between matter and form, form has efficient and final cause as subsets. Matter and form are separable in analysis but not in reality. Two sides of the same coin, always present together. You can't have a sculpture without matter like clay. Aristotle criticizes Plato and others for delinking form and matter. Form isn't just shape, form is structure and organization. Corpse has same shape as a human but Aristotle says, "The form is gone in the corpse" so form is more than shape. Matter is unknowable; form gives us something that we can gain knowledge with, example a hunk of clay vs. a bowl.

Bottom line of modern physics and science is math, Newton, Kant, etc. said this. Thus, H2O is proportions of elements. A "towards which" is not a phenomena to examine. Here he is saying math is legitimate form of knowledge but it is not primary way or status of understanding how things are. Natural motion has nothing to do with line and math, etc. for Aristotle. One can't explain natural motion with math. We never come across geometric shapes in nature. Form is natural phenomena but different from mathematical form. Thus, you can't understand nature by math, as primary knowledge only secondary. For Plato, math is real for Aristotle they only help explain nature.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

There is no other text that even comes close to this book. It is the definitive book on Arkansas politics.

What a man to admire. We should all make a pilgrimage to Beyreuth to pay our lifetime respects to this great man.

Anyone advertising this privately-published government grant report is probably trying to sell a copy stolen from a library.
- James A. Thorson