Although the book's organization resembles a textbook too much, the information is invaluable. Given that there is a mountain of books available on China it is extremely helpful to read something about the first Chinese democracy. While I enjoyed the book as a whole I was particularly interested in the story of Taiwan's evolution from dictatorship to democracy. This is especially cool because Taiwan is still strengthening its democracy. No other book examines Taiwan in such depth, which is not as great a compliment as it sounds since only a handful of books really examine modern Taiwan.

Many of the "facts" in this book are clearly in dispute. Other historians and researchers have uncovered evidence that contradicts or even debunks some of the supposeded events. This book seems to try and make the 1921 Tulsa Race WAR look like a very one-sided affair, with whites being "guilty" and blacks being "innocent". The truth is that both sides were at fault. A war broke out, and the blacks lost.

Rarely do we have an instance when a teller of history valiantly attempts to remain objective. The author has done well in presenting a historical perspective that does not seek unconscionable blame nor claim illusionary vindication. These acts of historical literary balance, lay the foundations upon which great civilizations have risen. Having heard the oral traditions of Greenwood, it would have been very easy to paint all white people with a broad stroke of UNDENIABLE EVIL, as it would have been with providing all blacks with a halo of SAINTHOOD. By piecemilling together facts, reminants of what many have sought to destroy, along with balancing the personal interviews, the author has provided the impetus for how we should begin discussing our history. As a Black American, I feel slighted, as if I have just been walking in circles, having never learned of moments such as Greenwood, which helps us to better understand who we are. It is strange how we have never seen war as a viable option, but have been labeled as the most violent and retched. Thanks to the author and his supporters, who have finally began removing the veil of America's History. May others, who set themselves upon pedestals, possess enough courage to pursue such a task.

Regardless of whatever facts one can produce that might make the black people involved in this travesty look guilty, America had never bombed itself before this point. I see one review talking about, there was a war and the black people lost. Yes, we lost this war, and every other war against racism. And looking at this incident allows us all to see why black people will continue to lose for a while: we don't own the bombs and we don't run the government. I don't want to see any condemnations of the truth, and the truth is that the black people were the victims in this. To sum it all up: they were too successful to be in America. We need books like these that show us all of the things that the history books that school our children conveniently forget to include, and all of the odds against black people being successful in this country. I didn't read the book but I commend the author for taking one step towards raising the racial consciousness levels of citizens.

In terms of prestige and public awareness, the American intellectual is at a low point -- except for a handful of ever more prominent African-Americans. William Julius Wilson, bell hooks, Henry Louis Gates, et al may seem a bit too eager to endorse beyond-the-fringe characters and causes, but there's no question that they're the ones forging links between public action and the proverbial ivory tower, grappling with America's stickiest questions: those of race. Lest anyone think that the black intellectual is a recent innovation, Berkeley professor William M. Banks has developed a history of black American thought over the last two centuries. His stated purpose is "to chart the contours of black intellectual life across American history and to chronicle its fluctuating fortunes."

"Black Intellectuals" is a mixed bag: Banks doesn't so much "chart the contours" of African-American thought as merely hit many of its high spots; the book is too much a history of black intellectuals and not enough of black intellectualism. And even nonscholars will notice curious omissions and oversights. Despite its flaws, though, "Black Intellectuals" is valuable -- it tells the rarely heard story of black thinkers overcoming almost insurmountable barriers: first slavery, then no education, then inferior, segregated education, then discrimination in supposedly open education, and finally -- in only the last couple of decades -- actual equal access to top schools. Though Banks doesn't overdramatize and refuses to clutter his analysis with unnecessary rhetoric, the book leaves you wondering how any African-American prior to the civil rights movement managed to procure an education and an academic job. Discrimination against intellectuals funneled learned blacks into teaching and the ministry, Banks writes; at the turn of the century, more than half of black college graduates were working as teachers. But even the education establishment narrowly restricted blacks' prospects: "The white academic world was as inhospitable ! to blacks as were all other sectors of American life." Black colleges were substandard, expecting little from students and faculty and delivering less.

Shut out from white intellectual circles, 19th-century black thinkers held conventions, painstakingly crafting statements and resolutions that they realized would be ignored by state and federal authorities. Even in the glory days of the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, black writers and artists found themselves hampered by the particular agendas and interests of the well-meaning white patrons whose financial support was crucial. Banks describes how writers like Zora Neale Hurston were compelled by patrons to turn their work in uncomfortable directions.

Sometimes, though, black thinkers made questionable moves all by themselves, and Banks creditably humanizes his subjects by noting contemporaneous criticism of them and pointing out their suspect opinions and actions: Frederick Douglass disparaging black women writers; Booker T. Washington using political clout to "squelch black papers that crossed him"; Langston Hughes disavowing his leftist poetry before the House Un-American Affairs Committee. And Banks describes how, when the media trained attention on black militants in the late 1960s, many self-appointed authorities fell short: "By virtue of their race, not their training or interests, all black intellectuals were considered experts on race and the meaning of the black movement. . . . Quite a few dubious intellectual pronouncements flowed as black sociologists analyzed literary texts and black psychologists explained economic history."

By exploring the full range of African-American ideas (including, strikingly, dissenters like the 19th-century blacks who "resisted the principle of separate institutions and insisted that the public schools be integrated"), Banks places thoughts and thinkers in the context of history's vagaries. It's frustrating, then, that "Black Intellectuals" doesn't follow through on this well-rounded promise. In profiling and! highlighting a plethora of thinkers, Banks tends toward shallowness: He fails to draw black intellectual history in broad strokes, making connections between thinkers and thoughts; since he summarizes thinkers' views in a couple of sentences -- and doesn't tend to set those views in a continuum -- it's difficult to recall who thought what, and what difference it made.

He notes scholars' positions on political topics without actually exploring the topics and weighing the various positions taken. And he's scrupulously nonpartisan with regard to those topics; he gives dissenters equal space, muddying his goal of explaining how currents of thought developed. And there are numerous small omissions and overlookings that leave misleading impressions. There's a photo of author Alex Haley and a passing reference to his "Autobiography of Malcolm X" but no note of his groundbreaking "Roots" (and, therefore, no mention of his plagiarism). Bizarrely, the word "Afrocentrism," the wishful-thinking belief system that has proved unfortunately popular among black intellectuals as well as solace-seeking masses, doesn't appear until the book's appendix. And the appendix itself is odd: 54 pages of "selected biographies," solo paragraphs on each of dozens of writers, activists and other figures, from Benjamin Banneker to Spike Lee to Richard Wright. They are generally too selective and sketchy to be of much use, giving more space to college graduation dates than to ideas and achievements. And many choices are strange: James Baldwin's bio dubs the novelist/essayist "a sensitive boy" but fails to note his homosexuality.

While sociologist and activist W.E.B. Du Bois is the book's key figure, Banks devotes but a handful of sentences to his 1903 book "Souls of Black Folk," still the single most important work of African-American thought. More significantly, Banks dramatically underplays the classic protest-vs.-accomodation philosophical struggle between Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, which today's writers on race -- from Cor! nel West to the odious Dinesh D'Souza -- use to explain the intellectual paths that civil-rights activists have chosen and the arguments they have wielded. The Du Bois-Washington debate, still salient and alive today, provides a useful lens through which to view 20th-century race thinking; without it, Banks leaves the reader viewing black intellectuals somewhat, well, myopically.

An excellent reference book that should become a primary source for anyone interested in the evolution of the Black Intelligentsia. Professor Bank's seminal work obligated re-evaluation of my concept of intellectualism; while I cannot wholeheartedly agree with his conclusions regarding some noted individuals, the exercise was beneficial. He has offered an arguably relaxed interpretation of intellectualism therefore, a number of the individuals he highlights may have been fortunate beneficiaries of caucasian largesse rather than bonafide critical thinkers, obviously dependent on one's subjective view. It is a somewhat free-flowing area of inquiry, in many respects analogous to the mis-appellation of *literate* to many of today's writers based on fortuitous publication and but meager substance.

Banks' text revealed itself to be moderately distinct from what I anticipated. He deals less with specific ideologies than with the chronology of people and their promulgated ideas. One particularly interesting sidelight related to the constraints on the Black Intellectual, until very recently, who elected to think "outside the box." In fact, vestigial reluctance by peers to acknowledge the contributions of individuals who give contemplation to subject matter outside the limits of Afrocentric or ethnic concerns still exists.

In sum, BLACK INTELLECTUALS is an indispensible overview, but definitely only a starting point for this area of investigation. The book is a commendable effort to consolidate referent material in convenient volume. It documents many of the pertinent parties but is admittedly not an attempt to be all-inclusive. What it does accomplish is immutable validation of the vast contributions of Blacks and specifically, Black Americans to every facet of art, literature, science and philosophy, in spite of the obstacles placed before them throughout the history of this country.

Black Intellectuals by William Banks is a landmark text in describing the history, development, paradoxes and challenges of being a Black intellectual in the United States. Banks has illuminated the historical and cultural factors which gave rise to such men and women in an environment which denied them their humanity. I enjoyed learning about African-Americans (known and unknown) whose intellectual output critiqued and challenged both white and black cultures. It was very helpful to see how these men and women stood their ground in telling it like it is regardless of whom may disagree. Even though I enjoyed the work, I found several weaknesses. First, there was a paucity of information regarding Black women and their contributions in the intellectual realm. Some are mentioned by name and pictures are shown of them but there appears to be no serious consideration given to their thoughts. Second, Banks' text was weak in dealing with the co-opting of Black intellectual thought in white institutions. Third, Banks puts too much emphasis on those in academia as being the "intellectuals". He fails to examine those who are independent intellectuals in their own right who have impacted on the community. Despite these short comings Banks has given us a book to serve as food for thought as Black Intellectuals explore their role in the community as we head for the 21st Century

This is NOT a mathematical book. It looks like a bad's students cheat-sheet. I don't know how they can learn math in England from this? Especially, when their undergraduate studies are only 3 years (actually, 3 x 8months < 3years). Conclusion: do not study in England.

I've bought this book to learn the mathematics I need for physics. I'm a high school student (currently, but I plan to study physics). I'm interested in physics and learn it on my own. This book has help understand (and solve) mathematics needed for physics. I used it to learn mathematics, now I use it for reference. A great book.

As a physicist I'm constantly scrambling to my bookcases to look something up. This text sits at the top of my shelves and is used more often than any other. I give it 5 stars as a reference text, however I cannot really rate it as a 'learning' mathematical methods text (maybe 3 stars?) since most of the methods are familiar to me.

No doubt about it, this book has a great feel to it. Typographically the book is an easy read with great full color illustrations. But as they say down South, "When you are invited to a fish fry, no one has to tell you not to swallow the bones!" First off, you gotta translate the diagrams since the Brits drive on the wrong side of the road. Franklin, sure does not belong to the Hecktor Helmet Brigade. All of his great illustrations of cyclists show them not wearing a helmet, this may gall the club/waiver folk on this side of the pond. Franklin does have a serious discussion of the pros and cons of helmet wearing. He seriously neglects "Blinkies" and the "trashmo" or utility city bike. Otherwise it is a great read, but one which does not hold a candle to our John Forester and his "Effective Cycling".

John Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ is about how to ride a bike safely and efficiently in the seemingly harsh world of motor traffic. Franklin presents the specific techniques that cyclists need to know to start off, move along, turn safely, avoid hazards of all types, and maneuver in unusual or difficult situations. The diagrams in the book are lucid, Franklin's instructions are specific without being pedantic, and his points are clearly made and backed up with evidence and experience.

The lone drawback to this book for anyone who lives outside the United Kingdom or Ireland might be that some of the information is specific to traffic standards in those countries. The most obvious of these is driving on the left, and Americans like me will have to think "right" whenever Franklin writes "left."

This is a very minor nit, however. There is no book yet published in North America that is so succinct yet so complete on the practice of cycling for transportation.

Living in Barrow, Alaska, the farthest north community in Alaska, I love to curl up in our little house with a book such as "Ice Blink" during a nasty Arctic storm and read away. But this latest in a series of books about the famous failed Franklin Expedition to discover the Northwest Passage did not warm me up very much.

There is one paragraph on p. 71 where veteran explorer Sir John Ross raises significant questions before Franklin and his 134 men sailed: "Why so many men? (including eight stewards to serve the officers)"Why such big and heavy ships to navigate winding and often shallow high Arctic waters? "Why no contingency plan in case the ships got stuck in the ice?"

Author Scott Cookman, like the British Admiralty, never answers such questions. I could ask a few more. Why didn't the British ever learn from the Native Inuit and use dogs to pull light sleds, instead of seamen to pull extremely heavy sledges? Why not hunt and fish for food and use Native-type clothing?

There is some interesting background to the expedition, including diagrams of the ship's interiors and photos from Shackleton's Antarctic expedition to show how Franklin's ships might have looked as they were hopelessly trapped in heavy ice.

Buy the book if you must, but you could keep warmer with a caribou blanket, and learn more about the Arctic by talking with an Inuit or Inupiat elder, or reading one of their biographies, including "Sadie Brower Neakok --An Inupiaq Woman," by Margaret Blackman.

Earl Finkler Barrow, Alaska

There has been a flurry of Polar exploration books published recently. (Personally, I recommend "The Ghosts of Cape Sabine" by Leonard Guttridge). "Ice Blink" isn't bad, but it could have used some more meat on its bones. There is a lot of speculation by the author, which figures given that there are no survivor accounts of the Franklin expedition. The book is well written, and particularly facinating is Cookman's descriptions of how botulism poison came to contaminate the expedition's canned food. Overall, I wish Cookman had gone into a bit more detail, but I still found the story fascinating.

The Arctic expedition of Sir John Franklin is one of the most infamous incidents in a series of infamous incidents that was Arctic exploration in the 19th century. This book retells his story, and the story of his men. In this, it is no different from the many other books on the subject, including Buried in Ice, a recent archeological study of the Franklin expedition. However, this book gives a name to the enemy: Stephen Goldner, who sold the canned food to the expedition. It is the perfect book for the novice, like myself, who just wants a basic overview of one of the more fascinating and tragic episodes in exploration history.

I am intensely interested in Franklin D. Roosevelt and his times, so I figured this book on a little-explored aspect of his career couldn't miss. Colorful characters straight out of "Guys and Dolls" rub elbows with the patrician Roosevelt in this account of the transition between the free-wheeling era of Tammany Hall to the do-gooder era of the New Deal. Too bad that author Mitgang lacks any sense of story-telling ability. The organization of the book is sloppy and confusing and robs the story of any drama. The humorous aspects fall flat. Great idea for a book, but the execution is a misfire.

Mitgang's presentation of the scandals involving NY Mayor Jimmy Walker, leading up to the Seabury Commission investigations and Walker's removal from office by then NY Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, offers a story that should be captivating. The personalities involved were among the major American political figures of their time. Walker's precipitous fall from power was one of the major political events of the era. But I laid down the book feeling that I had somehow been presented the story, but only at the most superficial level. Perhaps I should have known better given the book's brief length. But Mitgang has a good reputation as a journalist, and I expected more. For example, none of the major actors is presented with much depth at all. Their motivations are not explored in sufficient degree. The implications of FDR's action in this case for his Presidency are not explored. Walker's failure to run again for the mayoralty--if for no other reason than self-vindication--is not analyzed. Some major political figures--including former Governor Al Smith and succeeding Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia--are given what might be walk-on parts or cameo roles, if this were a movie, despite the fact that they were clearly major power brokers at the time. All in all, this book is a reasonable BASIC introduction to the story, but left me wanting more. It is hardly history; it is more a narration.

This thin book is a quick, breezy read. It shines a spotlight on an interesting time in American life -- the tail end of the Roaring 20s and the onset of the Great Depression -- and the long-cherished "spoils" system of municipal government.

Many larger-than-life characters are here: FDR, Jimmy Walker, Fiorello LaGuardia, Al Smith. Smith's metamorphosis from trail-blazing liberal to the anti-Roosevelt in four short years was particularly eye-opening for me. (In school, they only taught us about the "Happy Warrior"of 1928, conveniently foregoing the not-so-happy iteration of 1932 and beyond.) I was also struck by the enmity toward the pre-presidential FDR which was evident in many quarters.

When the colonies broke away from the mother country the new republic was based on the principles of democracy and equality. But as long as slavery was the cornerstone of this republic the ideas of democracy and equality were tainted. The Emancipation Proclamation set in motion the actions, which would make these principles true for all. In the book The Emancipation Proclamation, the author John Hope Franklin, tells a story of the emancipation of slaves through as it pertained to the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, President Abraham Lincoln. He leads us through the action before, during, and after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to give us a greater understanding of the actions taken by Lincoln in the freeing of a race.

Early in 1862 many people were calling on Lincoln for the emancipation of the slaves. But at that time Lincoln didn't think it wise to emancipate them for a few reasons. First of all, he knew that emancipation would culminate in a crisis in the Border States, because many weren't willing to fight to free the slaves. Secondly he doubted the legality of emancipating the slaves. Also he wasn't really sure if whites and Negroes could coexist in peace.

But by late summer of 1862, Lincoln was convinced that the time had come for a change in policy toward slavery. Several foreign governments sympathized with the South. But they condemned slavery as evil, and thus did not dare support the Confederacy. Freed slaves could serve as Union soldiers. Besides, many Northerners who had been indifferent to slavery now believed that it had to be stamped out. Lincoln decided to issue a proclamation freeing the slaves. He did not ask the advice of his Cabinet, but he did tell the members what he intended to do. On Seward's advice, he withheld the proclamation until a northern victory created favorable circumstances.

The Battle of Antietam, fought on Sept. 17, 1862, served gave Lincoln his chance. He issued a preliminary proclamation five days later. Lincoln declared that all slaves in states, or parts of states that were in rebellion on Jan. 1, 1863 would be free. He issued the final proclamation on January 1. Lincoln named the states and parts of states in rebellion, and declared that the slaves held there "are, and hence-forward shall be, free."

This was met with a wide variety of reactions. Some people sympathized with the Confederacy. Others doubted that it was even legal. But as Union victories fell into place a vast majority of people came to support the proclamation.

Actually, the proclamation freed no slaves. It applied only to Confederate territory, where federal officers could not enforce it. The proclamation did not affect slavery in the loyal Border States. Lincoln repeatedly urged those states to free their slaves, and to pay the owners for their loss. He promised financial help from the federal government for this purpose. The failure of the states to follow his advice was one of his great disappointments.

The Emancipation Proclamation did have a great long-range effect. In the eyes of other nations, it gave a new character to the war. It gave the North a new weapon in Negro soldiers. Also in the North, it gave a high moral purpose to the struggle and paved the way for the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment, adopted in December 1865, ended slavery in all parts of the United States.

Overall I found the book to be well written and very delightful. It gave an accurate account of the time during the Emancipation Proclamation. You could tell that the author held Lincoln in very high esteem, and that he felt Lincoln was the greatest instrument in the freeing of the slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation John Hope Franklin

When the colonies broke away from the mother country the new republic was based on the principles of democracy and equality. But as long as slavery was the cornerstone of this republic the ideas of democracy and equality were tainted. The Emancipation Proclamation set in motion the actions, which would make these principles true for all. In the book The Emancipation Proclamation, the author John Hope Franklin, tells a story of the emancipation of slaves through as it pertained to the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, President Abraham Lincoln. He leads us through the action before, during, and after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to give us a greater understanding of the actions taken by Lincoln in the freeing of a race.

Early in 1862 many people were calling on Lincoln for the emancipation of the slaves. But at that time Lincoln didn't think it wise to emancipate them for a few reasons. First of all, he knew that emancipation would culminate in a crisis in the Border States, because many weren't willing to fight to free the slaves. Secondly he doubted the legality of emancipating the slaves. Also he wasn't really sure if whites and Negroes could coexist in peace.

But by late summer of 1862, Lincoln was convinced that the time had come for a change in policy toward slavery. Several foreign governments sympathized with the South. But they condemned slavery as evil, and thus did not dare support the Confederacy. Freed slaves could serve as Union soldiers. Besides, many Northerners who had been indifferent to slavery now believed that it had to be stamped out. Lincoln decided to issue a proclamation freeing the slaves. He did not ask the advice of his Cabinet, but he did tell the members what he intended to do. On Seward's advice, he withheld the proclamation until a northern victory created favorable circumstances.

The Battle of Antietam, fought on Sept. 17, 1862, served gave Lincoln his chance. He issued a preliminary proclamation five days later. Lincoln declared that all slaves in states, or parts of states that were in rebellion on Jan. 1, 1863 would be free. He issued the final proclamation on January 1. Lincoln named the states and parts of states in rebellion, and declared that the slaves held there "are, and hence-forward shall be, free."

This was met with a wide variety of reactions. Some people sympathized with the Confederacy. Others doubted that it was even legal. But as Union victories fell into place a vast majority of people came to support the proclamation.

Actually, the proclamation freed no slaves. It applied only to Confederate territory, where federal officers could not enforce it. The proclamation did not affect slavery in the loyal Border States. Lincoln repeatedly urged those states to free their slaves, and to pay the owners for their loss. He promised financial help from the federal government for this purpose. The failure of the states to follow his advice was one of his great disappointments.

The Emancipation Proclamation did have a great long-range effect. In the eyes of other nations, it gave a new character to the war. It gave the North a new weapon in Negro soldiers. Also in the North, it gave a high moral purpose to the struggle and paved the way for the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment, adopted in December 1865, ended slavery in all parts of the United States.

Overall I found the book to be well written and very delightful. It gave an accurate account of the time during the Emancipation Proclamation. You could tell that the author held Lincoln in very high esteem, and that he felt Lincoln was the greatest instrument in the freeing of the slaves.

This book is written by two men, one a doctor and the other a jouralist. Some people will find this a fun read, but it is written almost in the format of a novel rather than a history or biography. I think the authors felt the need to make the lives that these men lived and the curiosity and honor with which they chose to do their research needed to be expanded and told in ornate narrative, rather than telling the simple truth. When history is told in such a manner, and the authors tell things that they have no proof of happening (they are merely surmising) the story becomes a story. It is not history. The story of self-experimentation is filled with foolishness, courage, and concern for patients. It does not need to be enhanced by suppositions.

A much better and more recent book on this history of medical research is by Lawrence Altman. That book should be read prior to reading this one, which is unsatifactory in the historical sense.

Karen Sadler, Science Education, University of Pittsburgh

Artwork is definitely for a couple with children. However, I intend to use the ideas within my "own paradigm," so to speak. I would use or adjust the wording, and, perhaps, decorate the sheets with my own inovations. After all, my husband, MY lipstick, with, of course, MY lips (for that one particular sheet). I hope this is okay with Mr. Covey, but, I have a sneaky suspicion that somehow this is just what he intended.