Hilton

A moving odyssey and performance

Revisado: 06-17-24

The most excellent performer has renewed the author and his time to life again. I am in awe that he had the opportunity to make such meaning from his challenges; his story did share great meaning for me, on which I hope to continue to reflect.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Glibly mixes research, banal anecdote, and bull

Revisado: 12-10-19

The course claims that because we need to be smart about how nuances matter to intercultural interaction, we're going to presuppose that huge swathes of the world (especially outside Europe) are pretty much interchangeable. It's given as completely for granted that in the global scheme of things Denmark, England, France, and Germany have significant cultural differences with each other; so they're each featured in different lectures and analyzed as different. The same form of analysis shows its limits when, as easily as it made the German distinct from the Dane, it finds that shared historical experience has given Greeks a cultural similarity with Mongolians comparable to the cultural similarity it gives Brits to Canadians. (See 2 below.)

It's fair that the author says over and over again that people within the "global clusters" are very diverse. Since diversity matters, what has been the point of arranging the course to give advice about them as clusters?

That said, I'd like to think that the cultural value dimensions can be useful ways to think about cultures. I do imagine that a lot of his advice is based on appropriate research and considered experience. At the same time, I do think the lecturer make implausible claims with equal confidence. It's hard to tell what to believe, then. Below are direct quotes:


1. "One of the reasons I wanted to spend time talking specifically about this [South Asian] cluster is that too often Asia gets talked about as if there's one, pan-Asian culture. People will say to me, "What do we need to know about Asia?" Well, which *part* of Asia? It's a huge part of the world. So to refer to such a huge part of the world, the most populated continent on the planet as if it's one monolithic group is way too simplistic. [He refers to Asia instead as two groups, South and Confucian, plus another group headed by Eastern Europe and then "Arabs" shared with Africa.]" [I transcribed the audio.]

2. "But as always, we want to look at some of the overarching patterns that characterize the cultures found in this part of the world. So what is it that makes this a cluster? Some of the countries included in the Eastern European and Central Asian cluster are Greece, Albania, Poland, Russia, and, of course, Mongolia. The countries in this cluster are the ones that were most strongly influenced by the Byzantine Empire. And while the Roman Empire primarily moved west of the Mediterranean Sea, the predominant direction the Byzantine Empire moved was toward the east and that's a big part of what formed the shared values across this cluster." [I transcribed the audio.]

3. "The countries included in the South Asian cluster are places like India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka; Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, and the Philippines; and places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. ... The Ming dynasty, the Portuguese, the Romans, the Dutch, the British, and the Spanish all ruled or dominated the South Asian region at various points over the last several hundred years." [Exact words from the pdf, though the lecture says similar.]

4. "Above all, if you can, keep drinking. The more you drink, the more pleased your [East Asian] cohorts will be, because it is showing that you are willing to get drunk with them—just like you would with your friends. For some reason, Westerners can typically handle more alcohol than many Chinese or Japanese can, so at least you have an advantage there." [The audio says Caucasians, implying a different cause for the advantage than does the pdf quoted.]

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Global survey finds

Revisado: 08-15-18

I was sold on this course when the first review I saw remarked--fairly--that it'd be more interesting to someone who brings some grounding in ancient history to it than to the total novice. I do recommend this lecture course if you are interested in the details of archaeological theory and the details of peoples not easily accessible in popular and audio literature. Should my reader be interested primarily in the most famous cases such as Egypt or China, Great Courses specializing in them may be well recommended, in my experience. Whereas anyone seeking specifically for bold or comprehensive theses on how and why some people invent the state might listen elsewhere.

The strength of this course is in its (2008-2009) compilation of archaeological cases. Dr. MacEachern (as well as the course guide) gives substantial attention to less popularly studied as well as to the most famous cases of "ancient" (read something akin to Before Encountering States of Other Origins) state formations. Not every region or case one could possibly expect is covered, but the ratio of breadth to depth in the survey seems quite reasonable. The inclusion of four Sub-Saharan and one South East Asian lectures, not to mention over a dozen on Meso- and South American peoples, in the 40 civilization-focused lectures are in no way to be taken for granted in surveys of world civilization! Similarly, this course is an interesting source for another "rare pick," if you will, in its his extensive discussions of the archaeological theory, its aims, methods, and limitations. I love world history and I don't know now how many comparative works I've read from how many angles: I didn't know everything here (if you did, I accuse you of being an archaeologist).

Another commendation, Dr. MacEachern's personal passion for Sub-Saharan archaeology is truly remarkable even among the compelling lecturers I've heard from the Great Courses. One hears in his voice in his African lectures, he would feel truly gratified if he did well to make his listener appreciate some of the unsung African variants of ancient civilization. I respected the depth of his conviction greatly. I believe he succeeds.

On the other hand, I think that no one shall scold Dr. MacEachern for overreaching in his conclusions. Much of the time, he seems intent to inform us what not to think as what to think. Often he's probably right to ward off unexamined biases from days gone by. But sometimes it's a little amusing that he thinks we all know enough about South East Asian historiography, say, to require lengthy convincing to stop conceptualizing it through the term 'mandala' ;)

He can make himself sound a little One Darn Thing After Another in his resistance of bringing conclusions too hastily from his data. He does argue, ultimately, that there are no simple answers to how and why states arise generally: flood plains, urbanization, distance trade in elite goods, specialist non-food-producers and social stratification, intensive agriculture, starchy crops, and numerous other phenomena MAY be associated with early states. But Dr. MacEachern's survey finds that none is present in EVERY case, and so none is necessary, and no general explanation of the causation of states is anticipated. Amusingly, it would appear that the one thing we can count on archaeologists' finding in early states is a budding ideology to justify the state; this, though archaeologists have rather a hard time digging up ideologies.

All told, if you want to hear the very diverse descriptions of numerous famous and "rarer" early civilizations, with intellectually honest and careful attention paid to the limitations of archaeological theory, listen up!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 7 personas

A very full chronology

Revisado: 03-23-15

What made the experience of listening to Strategy the most enjoyable?

On the one hand, Strategy is simply packed with uncommon information about historical thinkers who tried to grapple with how to achieve goals for large organizations in a richly complex world. Major caveat: it is only a worthwhile history at all after the year 1800. I was interested in the topic, and I was interested in the evolution of it all throughout. As I went, I judged that I had ample historical background (I am a history teacher and I read/listen to new works in history, anthropology, and political science on a daily basis) to contextualize the thinkers, wars, etc., but most of the actual content was new to me, which was pleasant. I returned a fairly unusual judgement that I will learn more by listening to this book again: I will strike on and sink in more insights, comparisons, criticisms, etc. if I read it again now that the groundwork for comprehending the new information itself is laid. Four or five times I was very excited for an epiphany like an important puzzle piece I had never known was missing, like a line of thought I underlying a historical decision or process I had thought I understood but now understood on other levels.For the above virtues, Strategy very much satisfies my qualification for a history worth reading. I will almost certainly listen to it again, notwithstanding the below criticisms I feel obliged to make. I am an easy grader and typically give books 5 stars if they get as far as I've described without a major issue.On the other hand, it only just gets its fourth Story and Overall stars by virtue of those insights I mention. It is difficult to say if the author is adding to his presentation of his sources or if he is just stringing one anecdote after another. Certainly his bibliography must be absolutely immense and esoteric, so I make some allowance. But I say I continually wondered if he would ever bring any of his information to anything like a point. I am not one to complain of One Damn Thing After Another for the benefit of my own enjoyments, but I know I can't recommend it as highly as I otherwise would because it certainly could wear on others. The book really is more of a set of chronologies, like a set of long relays passing on a torch of momentary overconfidence to each thinker's anecdote in turn.In fairness, some discussion of the lookout from the present state of play does take place in the very last hour of the book. Perhaps very aptly, the author draws a conclusion (to very roughly paraphrase) that the history of strategy shows drawing conclusion from histories has proven systematically problematic. Though if Strategy is supposed to reflect this, an expert must have had a better way to make the point and I am sure from his own discussions that our expert, the author, knows that one must come to recognize (preferrably with the help of the professional who has compiled it, in this case) what is unique and salient throughout a mass of complex information and conditions.I might still have waved and said the two balance out except for the first part of the book. I am not aware anyone involved in the publication warns about this, but the book's coverage before and after 1800 is badly imbalanced. I really think the author should have left the premodern literature out almost entirely and simply advertised he was writing a history of strategy since 1800. After 1800, the history is rigorous, thorough, and deserving of those merits I have attributed it. Before 1800 (not counting the prehistory, which was academically worthwhile to me, at least), we're reading a long essay on Force vs. Guile in selected premodern classics. To be fair with my earlier criticisms, this part of the book has a clear thesis. However, I do not know of an audience that will benefit from underlining strategic rudiments like this for the Odyssey and Paradise Lost (never mind any successions of major innovations martial or organizational endeavors in the actual historical sources of ancient, medieval, and early modern times under names other than "strategy") and also be ready to delve into the real work later. Again, had the book been advertised to cover from 1800, the addition of such chapters might have been a bonus; but if anyone else reads the synopsis as a broader history, it oversells.

Who was your favorite character and why?

This question is not appropriate.

Would you listen to another book narrated by Michael Butler Murray?

My decision to purchase a book would not be influenced by Michael Butler Murray's participation either way. I did not take the impression that his narration added or took anything from the text.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

I listened to it without pausing to listen to any other books. Certainly it was long enough I had no idea of listening to it in one sitting.

Any additional comments?

The reader may suspect and like to know, Strategy covers Western Europe+Russia and then the United States about exclusively. It sets down that it will so limit itself early in the text and does not sell itself as a world history, so fair enough. Sun-tzu comes into for his influence on Western thinking, but that reference should not mislead into expecting a more global work.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 7 personas

Impressively follows up an interesting claim

Revisado: 04-30-14

What made the experience of listening to Lost Enlightenment the most enjoyable?

Mr. Starr paints a very interesting picture of Central Asia (say, modernly, eastern Iran through the -stan countries and western China) and for very many centuries. He does not fail his claim that the region has a "Lost Enlightenment." The numerous parallels to the better known European Enlightenment are most striking: right down to the Brethren of Purity as a rough counterpart to the 18th century Masons (my comparison, not his). The huge debt which world civilization would seem to owe the nowadays-obscure region is most impressive. And at any rate you can be confident it's a good read if you did click for pre-modern Central Asia with any idea that the subject could interest you.

What did you like best about this story?

It's always particularly titillating to learn about a time and place you know little about.I'd wonder that any Central Asian specialists browse the book on audible, so I think it's sure to be fresh to anyone who might hear it.

Have you listened to any of Kevin Stillwell’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

I had not heard Mr. Stillwell before. I thought his intonation was maybe the slightest bit idiosyncratic in how often it gave a questioning lilt, but it certainly wasn't anything objectionable: endearing after a while, even.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

I think this question disregards the length of the work. I listened to it without listening to anything else.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 12 personas