Jackson - Fielder 1870 - 2000 is a comparison of photographs of Colorado, showing the changes that have occurred geographically and developmentally over the past century. William Henry Jackson took pictures at the end of the 19th century. John Fielder returned to the exact locations a hundred years later to capture the similarities and differences that have taken place. The book is fascinating and nostalgic not only to Coloradans, but to historians, geologists, environmentalists, as well as anyone who just loves to view the beautiful scenery of the Rocky Mountains and the surrounding foothills. I highly recommend this book for hours of enjoyment.

This is a spectacular book! Being a Colorado native I was facinated with the concept of "then and now" photos, looking closely for all changes in natural and man made landscape. I had hoped for a little more front range material, but totally enjoyed the wonderful photo art work Fielder is known for in our beautiful state. My entire family has spent hours viewing the pages. I own several other similar books on Colorado. This is most definitely a star addition to the collection.

A fourth generation Coloradoan, I can appreciate the time and patience it must have taken for John Fielder to assemble this photo archive. Who knows if Jackson left exact notes as to where he was standing when he composed his shots? It looks as if Fielder had taken great pains to get the shot from the same or similar vantage point as Jackson. It was great to see that some aspects remained the same, and the changes were interesting too. My sister had her name on a waiting list for three months before she was able to purchase this book for me, and I'm very glad she did. If the publisher ever gets more, the next one is for my sis. It's a great book for our public libraries, too. What's with the shortage?

This is not quite as good as 1 or 2, but it is still excellent! Shakespeare grabs us with the dispute between Henry VI and York. While it seems to end peacefully it does not, and the war goes on! York's death in 1.4 is another landmark in Shakespeare's writing. The scene (2.5) where Henry finds true terror is horror, sorrow, and yet beauty and yet another moving part of the play. (The son that hath killed his father and the father that hath killed his son.) The war pauses in disaster for Henry and some comic relief is offered. But the horror starts all over again when Edward IV and Warwick have a falling out. The war starts over again, and the King of France gets involved! The scene where King Henry VI is reinstated is a scene of beauty and hope. While all of this is happening, Shakespeare carefully prepares the monstrously satanic character of Richard III. From here, the play just gets more and more bloody. A final moment of horror is offered when the eventual Richard III proudly compares himself to the one who betrayed Christ. In part 4 "Richard III," the real terror begins!

This was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays. (possibly his third) Yet, there is nothing to indicate he was only starting out. Right away he grabs our attention with the funeral of King Henry V. Henry V's brothers Bedford and Gloucester help us to see the virtues and strengths of the deceased king. The Bishop of Winchester is well drawn as a comical villain who plots and plans, but never succeeds in doing any real damage. (Not until the next play anyway.) Talbot is memorable as the selfless hero of the play. York is memorable as the hero who defeats Joan of Arc. King Henry VI himself is interesting. First we see him as a helpless infant. By the third act, we see that he has both strengths and weaknesses. He makes the mistake of dividing the command between the rivals Somerset and York. But also, we see that he does not tolerate treason or neglect of duty. There are also many memorable scenes. The garden scene that foreshadows the War of the Roses is well drawn. The scene where York comforts his dying uncle is tragic beauty. Bedford's death in 3.2 has almost a divine tone. The death of Talbot and his son is very lamentable. York's sudden rise to power is captivating. Perhaps Shakespeare's greatest achievement in this play is that he simultaneously shows us England's war with France and the dissension with England itself.

AS A DUDE FROM THE BRONX WHO IS A TRUE -BLUE NEW YORKER I FIND THIS TO BE AN INTERESTING BOOK. I LIKE THE MANY ILLUSTRATIONS AND DIAGRAMS THAT SHOW HOW PLACES I AM FAMILIAR WITH LOOKED WAY BACK IN THE DAY. IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THIS HUGE CITY STARTING OUT AS A LITTLE VILLAGE IN LOWER MANHATTAN BUT THIS BOOK GIVES YOU SOME IDEA OF WHAT LIFE WAS LIKE THEN AND HOW THE CITY GREW TO BE WHAT IT IS TODAY. A GOOD BASIC HISTORY OF N.Y.C. FOR KIDS AND ADULTS. A MUST HAVE FOR NATIVES OF "NEW YAWK" AND ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN THIS GREAT CITY. P.S. DON'T FORGET THE WTC !!

This is a good book for a quick overview of NYC history, but it skimps a bit on some detail. The collection of maps and illustrations help bring the history to life.

It would be impossible to do justice to the history of New York City in a couple of hundred pages, so approaching this book with realistic expectations is important. With that in mind, this book is a wonderful overview of a fascinating metropolis, beginning with the formation of the land mass and continuing through its inhabitance by the Manahatta, the Dutch, the Brits and the Americans. Key historical eras are covered including the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and many areas of interest are addressed such as immigration, politics, sports, the arts and architecture.

There are many photographs, drawings, charts and maps, and I appreciated that the scales were similar so that a reader can compare various maps easily.

Articles are well-written and graphics are clean and well-designed. I would call this more an historical almanac of NYC, but whatever you call it, it is a fun and interesting read.

As another reviewer said, this book makes some good points, but ultimately is too one-sided. Phil Sheridan's image may be more untarnished than it should be, but if the author wanted to bring it into proper perspective, he could've accomplished that simply by giving us an honest, reasonable portrait, pointing out the shortcomings that others have tended to gloss over. Instead he has given us a diatribe. The author is an attorney, and I happen to be a judge. When a lawyer refuses to admit that his opponent has ANY evidence or legal authority in his favor, when it is obvious that he does have some, I tend to look more askance at that lawyer's entire argument. I had the same reaction reading this book. Instead of being content to bring Sheridan's lofty reputation back down to earth where it belongs, he "trashes" him, and thereby weakens the force of his argument. Had Wittenberg simply argued that Sheridan was not as good - even not nearly as good - a general as he is commonly thought to have been, one might be readily inclined to agree. But he essentially argues that Sheridan was a bad general, and the evidence does not support that argument. Those who like so-called "advocacy history" may enjoy this book; those who believe that historians should simply attempt to present what they believe to be the truth, without having an axe to grind, will likely not.

The author is an attorney, and as he admits, this book is written like a legal brief. A lawyer's job is to present one-sided arguments, and that is what Wittenberg has done here. The result is a book that raises some valid points, but which overstates its case. It essentially is a compendium of every attack ever made on Sheridan, from his personality to his generalship.
While many of Sheridan's flaws and errors have been recognized both by his contemporaries and by historians, it is of some value to lay them out in a single book as a corrective to his largely untarnished image among casual Civil War buffs.
This could have been accomplished, however, without exaggerating Sheridan's shortcomings. Wittenberg, for example, tends to credit Sheridan's every detractor, no matter how biased they themselves might have been. At one point, he even quotes Southern newspaper reports from late in the war, which clearly smack of propaganda meant to reassure their readers that the CSA was in no danger of falling, to support his argument that one of Sheridan's cavalry raids was a failure. Likewise, he quotes Confederate leaders' postwar comments to the effect to the effect that they were unimpressed by Sheridan, without questioning whether their judgments were honestly made, or whether they were colored by resentment over the ultimate outcome of their encounters with Little Phil and his men.
Every success is chalked up to Sheridan's subordinates or colleagues, while every failure is laid at his feet, until one is left wondering how such an incompetent general could have inspired the unwavering confidence of both his commanding officer, Grant, and of his troops. A chapter near the end that recognizes Sheridan's achievements during the final campaign against Lee is so inconsistent with the rest of the book that it seems jarring to find it in the same volume.
As stated, though, Sheridan was far from perfect, and this book is not without some value for reminding us of his flaws. I can recommend it, however, only for readers with a solid background in Sheridan's Civil War career, who will be able to assess Wittenberg's arguments with a properly critical eye, much the same way that a judge would read an attorney's brief.

As stated in other reviews of this work, this book by noted cavalry historian Eric J. Wittenberg will challenge both established history as well as the preconceived notions of the reader. It is heavy-handed at times in criticism of Sheridan, but perhaps that is as it should be. For far too long, Sheridan's so-called "accomplishments" have gone down in history as unquestioned. Scholars will learn little of the truth of an operation or engagement by reading his official reports, and his Memoirs provide some of the best fictional reading the Civil War has to offer.
It is about time that a skillful researcher has balanced "accepted" history concerning this man with arguments of such a critical nature. Perhaps the true history lies somewhere in between - but one fact remains, and that is that Mr. Wittenberg is truly the first modern writer to take on the teflon persona of a man who, inarguably, crafted his own career out of the dust left from ruining others'. Several fine
American Civil War officers went to their deathbeds under the crushing defeats by Sheridan - not on the battlefield where they belonged - but within interpersonal relationships. Sheridan destroyed careers for no reason other than his own desire to capture the glory won by others. It is high time that he be taken to task for his shortcomings and ineptitude.
Sheridan certainly had a great deal of assistance, as well. He didn't have the power to accomplish his aims alone, and Wittenberg deftly exposes this as well. For anyone who is unchallenged by today's "coffee-table" type works that espouse the traditional legends surrounding those who made such an impact on the history of this country, and desire instead to be forced to both re-think and reevaluate those notions, this work will be a treasure to them. Wittenberg's book is no less than an in-your-face attorney's arguments against these notions. As with any lawyer worth his salt, all he or she asks is that you have been impressed enough by the presentation of evidence to intelligently form your own opinion. And ask yourself if what you've believed all along is your own opinion or that of another. In causing the reader to think that deeply, Mr. Wittenberg has accomplished his aims in the way they are known to be honorable - with the credit due to none other than himself.
Read this book. It will train you to ask the deeper questions and explore for yourself how history should remember those who shape it.

Eric Lincoln's text is a critical evaluation of racism in America, how began and what it is today. Lincoln takes us into his world; the world of the African American.

The journey begins in the early part of this century; in Alabama, and focuses us in the tiny town of Athens; not a bad place to grow-up, unless you're Black. Lincoln's writing illuminates the ugly prejudice behavior of whites towards (and, as Lincoln notes, the prejudice of Blacks towards "white trash") Blacks that was predominated the South during the first half of this century. He reports his sobering findings that America was and still is split into two societies:white and Black, separate and unequal. After driving this point home, Eric takes you through the changes, notes improvements, but proclaims that America remains caught in racism and class conflict.

In an unusual twist regarding blacks and Jews, C. Eric Lincoln does a admirable job showing a symbiotic relationship between the two maligned groups. To Eric the Jews were distant cousins in the fight against racism; cousins with deep financial pockets, legal expertise and limited participation that undergirded the Civil Rights Crusades. He sees the relationship as two minorities trying to gain parity in an intolerant closed-minded society.

Lincoln's call for blacks to reaffirm, (or even regain), their identity as Africans displaced in America strikes me as a rewarming of Malcom X's ideology. Though Lincoln stays short of Malcom X's call for a return to Africa, I feel that Lincoln has failed to realize that blacks in America are American and a vital part of it pluralism.

C. Eric Lincoln ends his text in a diatribe of statements, that he fails to back up with either facts or incidences of the massive injustice he reports. For example, he states that the "national focus is on the wanton elimination of the African America Male from meaningful participation in the common ventures of American Life".

The national focus? Lincoln goes on a tirade against the incarceration of "black men" at a "unconscionable rate" as if they have not broken laws, caused injury or done the crime. He makes no comment on the victims of the lawless; black or white; he just waves the flag of injustice and racism. The destructiveness of self-interest that he writes about is also found in the arena of black-interest.

Lincoln insists that America remembers that the African minority have had their lives disrupted, their national integrity as African impugned, their culture degraded, their politics corrupted and their freedoms commandeered, taken away or sold off by the white establishment. He goes on to say that too little is being asked, said or done to allay the journey from the "harsh, inflexible conventions" of the past. He states that America, especially white America, is "still in the business of niger making." He then closes with a "No-Fault Reconciliation", whereby we must get on with the task of building the dream, the dream that makes us all American. We must prepare for a new world, a new society that allows us to trust and support each other. We are all in need of God and each other. Lincoln reaches the end of his manuscript and says, "Hey, I am a Professor at Duke University and I've got to end this book on a hopeful text, not the ranting, radical diatribe that I started with, so he comes up with his "no-fault reconciliation".

Lincoln has done extremely well pointing out both the history and problems of racism in America. His insight into the difficulties then and now for a Black person to cross "the color line" is extremely useful.

However, he fails to come up with any solutions to how we can work collectively to bring change into our system and culture. He lacks answers for the pressing problems.

To say the answer is no-fault reconciliation leaves me flat. I also found him critical and short changing the black and white church. For Lincoln religion, (IE Christianity for the most part), was more of the problem that the solution. He felt that the Black church and Black preacher kept the system in place and tended to support the oppression (pg67). I wondered where he would have put the Black minister in his triad of "Good, Bad, and Smart Nigers".

I felt that the few paragraphs that he gave to Christianity were inadequate, considering the role that the Black and White church played in abolishing slavery and in the civil rights movement.

AN EYE FOR THE COAST: THE MARITIME AND MONHEGAN ISLAND PHOTOGRAPHS OF ERIC HUDSON is a work (and a labor of love by its editors)which will be primarily of interest to specialists, including those interested in small ship design and in the history of maritime New England at the turn of the century. The books consists of roughly 100 glass-plate photographs of boats, fisherfolk and shoreline scenes taken along the Massachusetts Coast and on Monhegan Island off the coast of Maine between l890 and l920. Clearly, Hudson intended to create a photographic record in his plates, and for the most part, that's what the viewer gets. While much of the subject matter is interesting and informative (the extended, businesslike captions are well done), only a few of the pictures have a significant artistic quotient. Unfortunately, the quality of the reproductions in this book is not very good, and many of the images are grey, washed out or lacking in contrast. This may be attributable in part to the poor condition of the original plates and also to the failure of the publisher to use a coated stock. For an example of a similar work with much better photographs and superb reproductions, see A PACIFIC LEGACY: A CENTURY OF MARITIME PHOTOGRAPHY 1850-1950 published in l991. Although they are represented in a number of museum collections, I am not familiar with Hudson's paintings. However, one example reproduced in color on the back cover of AN EYE FOR THE COAST suggests that he may have been a far better painter than he was a photographer. For another review of this book with a different perspective, see page 58 of the January, l999 issue of ANTIQUES Magazine.