![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Book Review:
Jun. 14th, 2016 07:08 pmThomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates: The Forgotten War that Changed American History- by Brian Kilmeade and Don Yeager-
Yet another case of a Conservative commentator with a book on the best seller means that it is the inevitable gift book coming my way. Okay, I know I am going to be biased by Kilmeade, but maybe not as much as you think. Unlike his contemporaries, I think the subject of Kilmeade's books to date are very interesting and unique.
I don't remember if the Barbary Wars were taught in school. As a history buff, I knew about them, but let's be honest, it's a part of history that hardly gets covered. Also given the co-writing credit, i suspect Yeager did the heavy lifting. (Reading the acknowledgements at the end of the book, Kilmeade points out that authoring books was a good career move for Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, and one suspects that is his ambition)
I largely suspect that the book was born from cocktail party conversation. "Hey, did you know the US had a war against Islamic terrorists and we went to Libya and fought battles in Benghazi, and the country wasn't even 50 years old?"
Indeed, as you might suspect, Kilmeade paints the Barbary Pirates with an obvious brush. The Barbary Pirates ambition seems to be based off man's basest desires and a reading of the Koran as a source of conceit and barbarism, and painted in a way to suggest that nothing has changed in 200 years. One would probably not write a book about the Spanish inquisition and paint modern day Spain as anything different than those who ran things 500 years ago; or even writing a book about Germany and making the claim that the attitudes of modern day Germany has not evolved since 1945.
One thing that the book could use is a quick history of how the Barbary States got that way. It does not need to be lengthy (even could be wikipiedia sized) but essentially we're just told they are evil.
That's my problem with the book is that it is never sure whether to be a serious history book or an adventure read (and in that, it certainly reads more Young Adult than anything else). One suspects that the book may have originated in some cocktail conversation around the amazing and daring exploits of Stephen Decatur. Unfortunately in Kilmeade and Yeager's hands, there's not enough there to fill out an entire book.
Which is my main issue with the book. It's short to be sure, but it's a clunky book with boring stretches. Hate O'Reilly's books on history if you want, but they're not boring reads.
Jefferson hardly figures in. One assumes he's on the title because his name is there and he is a sexy choice. I am not an expert but I have read others criticisms that the book bypasses John Adams who is credited as "Father of the Navy" and passes along credit to the navy's expansion to Jefferson. This seems in line with making a better story as the authors credit Jefferson and downplay Adams- again, probably a conscious choice.
Another criticism I have seen is that the book seems to use only a couple of journals as its reference, whereas most books would rely on many primary and secondary choices. While there's probably arguments for each, this could have benefited I am sure from more reference.
The book really only covers the first Barbary War which leaves it finishing with an odd thrown together conclusion. I can only guess that would mean giving credit to James Madison for ending the war instead of Jefferson.
Of interest, the book spends a great deal of time talking about a situation where the Americans were planning on backing the brother of one of the ruling despots and planning a coup (that does not seem to materialize). I am not sure if that's good politics (see The Shah) but it does give the author some chance to undo the demonizing that he did early in the book, and does some propagandizing the other way at the end- suggesting Christians and Muslims work together toward a common goal.
Ultimately, i was not sure to give this one or two stars, usually reserving one star reviews for books I could not finish. Still, despite some potential spots of interest, I did not really end up taking much away from the book, and I suspect I will have largely forgotten its contents in a year. Once again, having a better experience reading what Wikipedia has to share on the topic, and getting it there without some obvious bias.
Yet another case of a Conservative commentator with a book on the best seller means that it is the inevitable gift book coming my way. Okay, I know I am going to be biased by Kilmeade, but maybe not as much as you think. Unlike his contemporaries, I think the subject of Kilmeade's books to date are very interesting and unique.
I don't remember if the Barbary Wars were taught in school. As a history buff, I knew about them, but let's be honest, it's a part of history that hardly gets covered. Also given the co-writing credit, i suspect Yeager did the heavy lifting. (Reading the acknowledgements at the end of the book, Kilmeade points out that authoring books was a good career move for Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, and one suspects that is his ambition)
I largely suspect that the book was born from cocktail party conversation. "Hey, did you know the US had a war against Islamic terrorists and we went to Libya and fought battles in Benghazi, and the country wasn't even 50 years old?"
Indeed, as you might suspect, Kilmeade paints the Barbary Pirates with an obvious brush. The Barbary Pirates ambition seems to be based off man's basest desires and a reading of the Koran as a source of conceit and barbarism, and painted in a way to suggest that nothing has changed in 200 years. One would probably not write a book about the Spanish inquisition and paint modern day Spain as anything different than those who ran things 500 years ago; or even writing a book about Germany and making the claim that the attitudes of modern day Germany has not evolved since 1945.
One thing that the book could use is a quick history of how the Barbary States got that way. It does not need to be lengthy (even could be wikipiedia sized) but essentially we're just told they are evil.
That's my problem with the book is that it is never sure whether to be a serious history book or an adventure read (and in that, it certainly reads more Young Adult than anything else). One suspects that the book may have originated in some cocktail conversation around the amazing and daring exploits of Stephen Decatur. Unfortunately in Kilmeade and Yeager's hands, there's not enough there to fill out an entire book.
Which is my main issue with the book. It's short to be sure, but it's a clunky book with boring stretches. Hate O'Reilly's books on history if you want, but they're not boring reads.
Jefferson hardly figures in. One assumes he's on the title because his name is there and he is a sexy choice. I am not an expert but I have read others criticisms that the book bypasses John Adams who is credited as "Father of the Navy" and passes along credit to the navy's expansion to Jefferson. This seems in line with making a better story as the authors credit Jefferson and downplay Adams- again, probably a conscious choice.
Another criticism I have seen is that the book seems to use only a couple of journals as its reference, whereas most books would rely on many primary and secondary choices. While there's probably arguments for each, this could have benefited I am sure from more reference.
The book really only covers the first Barbary War which leaves it finishing with an odd thrown together conclusion. I can only guess that would mean giving credit to James Madison for ending the war instead of Jefferson.
Of interest, the book spends a great deal of time talking about a situation where the Americans were planning on backing the brother of one of the ruling despots and planning a coup (that does not seem to materialize). I am not sure if that's good politics (see The Shah) but it does give the author some chance to undo the demonizing that he did early in the book, and does some propagandizing the other way at the end- suggesting Christians and Muslims work together toward a common goal.
Ultimately, i was not sure to give this one or two stars, usually reserving one star reviews for books I could not finish. Still, despite some potential spots of interest, I did not really end up taking much away from the book, and I suspect I will have largely forgotten its contents in a year. Once again, having a better experience reading what Wikipedia has to share on the topic, and getting it there without some obvious bias.
