In "Sugar and Slaves," Richard Dunn shows not only the brutality of the West Indies slave trade that revolved around sugar, but also how slave owners "created a society...radically different from the one they left at home." He notes that while these planters brought with them to the islands their laws, church and social institutions, these settlers early on "developed their own lifestyle...bent by their eager embrace of African slavery." (46) Dunn persuasively argues that European planters who came to the West Indies traveled literally and figuratively "beyond the line" of normal, British social conventions, and created a world in which "everything goes," particularly the exploitation of slaves and natives in the creation of a dominant master class. These rapacious men, he argues, quickly adapted to harsh climatic conditions by abandoning the use of lower class but white indentured servants in favor of exploitable, controllable Negroes once the sugar boom created a demand. "The rape's progress was fatally easy," Dunn notes: "from exploiting the English poor to abusing colonial bondservants to ensnaring kidnaps and convicts to enslaving black Africans." (73) Unlike his Chesapeake or Lowcountry counterpart, the West Indies sugar lord produced nothing but his staple crop, and relied instead on imports for all other necessities. "In short, the English sugar planter was more strictly a businessman than the senhor de engenho of Brazil." (65) This was a marked difference from other English settlement and colonization patterns, which Dunn concludes is evidence of the atypical class of planter the Caribbean islands fashioned.

Richard S. Dunn examines the British colonialization of the West Indies. Dunn considers numerous colonies, but Barbados takes early preeminence. Dunn discusses the adventurers of the first twenty years, mostly small-scale farmers; the cavalier-planters of the 1640s and '50s, Royalist exiles who fled the English Civil War; and the slaves who became a majority of the population in the period Dunn considers.

Dunn offers a detailed contrast between the lives of the planter elite and the enslaved majority. This is a landmark work in the history of plantation agriculture in the West Indies.

The work should also interest readers of Southern history. Dunn compares the rise of a cavalier elite in Barbados to the same development in Virginia. Planters from the West Indies, especially Barbados, dominated the early years of the colony of (South) Carolina.

Other works on this period of West Indian history are Richard Sheridan's Sugar and Slavery and Gary Puckrein's Little England. Works by Hilary Beckles examine the lives of women and Blacks in this period of West Indian history.

This book is a real eye-opener for anyone, like me, who thought that slavery was not an issue at the time of the American Revolution. Did you think slaves did not understand what was going on? Have a look!

In the 90's I taught 4th and 5th grade in Baltimore, Maryland. I was so delighted with this textbook--with all of its stories and illustrations--that I just had to have it for teaching my own children.

It is a lot like a good literature book with "DK" style illustrations. My male students used to be mezmerized by the full-page, full-color diagram of a continental soldier---I confess I was too. That's not all though, the book is very easy to use-for student and teacher alike.

Far from being a dry,social studies text, this book has excellent photographs, illustrations, maps, diagrams, charts, time-lines, and primary-source literature.

This book teaches social studies the way that children prefer to learn it----visually!

The primary concern of Benjamin Quarles in his work The Negro in the American Revolution is to bring greater attention to the Negro as an overlooked role-player during the revolutionary period. Quarles postulates that the American Negroes actually personified the movement for independence through their own desire for freedom, and were moved to action not by loyalty to any particular flag or place, but rather by a freshly awakened hope for personal independence and individual "unalienable rights". It was logical, Quarles suggests, that the Negro would gravitate toward the side that made the best promise of freedom, even if this side was often the British, the very nation that the white colonists were rebelling against under cries of enslavement. Using extensive research and many specific instances to portray the sentiments of Negroes as a whole, Quarles is successfully able to prove this thesis.

Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn have written a fascinating book that looks at the problems which occur when politics and the teaching history clash, as they inevitably will. The specific event described is the fight over the National History Standards which were established to give states and local school boards voluntary guidelines. The idea blew up when Lynne Cheney wrote an op-ed piece damning the standards. All three authors were involved in the project and bring their personal views and insights to the book in a helpful way.

The most interesting aspect of the book is both the historical and international aspects applied to the history wars. It allows the reader to put this recent battle into a more helpful historical perspective as many examples from the past are presented. The examples from the other countries are also useful in giving a global approach to the issues. This is how it should be for a book that covers the battles over what should be taught to children concerning U.S. and world history. A good book that shows the problems that begin when politicians get involved in the teaching of history.

The dedication reads simply, "This book is dedicated to the nation's history teachers". Being a member of such an oft-maligned group, this reviewer could not fail to read every word of History on Trial with critical interest. Nash and company give a fascinating overview of the debates that have raged regarding the teaching of America's history and continue to torment our national conscience today. As a history of history alone the book would be worthwhile. The primary controversy explored involves the uproar that arose over publication of the national history standards. These had been developed by the National Center for History in the Schools, established and funded by the NEH, headed by Lynne Cheney from 1986-1992. While some of the writing does seem a defense of the embattled authors being assaulted by right-wing conservatives, both critics and defenders of the NCHS are quoted liberally. In fact, it is noted that there were few defenders in the early days of the attacks. The reader is allowed to make up his/her own mind. The initiative to develop standards came at a time when many were charging that our nation's schools were failing. George Bush had developed the Goals 2000 plan and education committees, governors, state legislatures, and local education boards began to seek solutions. The problems were not with the idea of setting standards, but with a perceived emphasis on social history and historical interpretation skills at the expense of rote memorization of traditional names, dates, and events. The US history standards were the most viciously attacked. Critics did not want teachers to discuss failures or faults with the system. They preferred glorification of national heroes (adult, white males) and national institutions. In World History, critics objected to what they considered excessive inclusion of contributions from Asian, African and Latin American nations to the detriment of the traditional Western Civilization emphasis. Surprisingly, the standards received little criticism at the elementary and middle school level. Critics included Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lynne Cheney (once an ardent supporter) and Lamar Alexander. The attacks were leveled largely not at the standards themselves, but at sample lesson plans that accompanied them. Many critics did not seem to have read the standards. Having been a participant in the implementation of these controversial standards in a secondary public school US History classroom, using materials that had been developed by the NCHS, this reviewer can assert that the war is ongoing. However, the very conflict-laden nature of the teaching of history is one of the characteristics that keeps it so vital and interesting. For hope, all readers should look forward to the final chapter, "Lessons from the History Wars". This should be required reading for all potential history teachers now in college classrooms.

This is the kind of book I'd like to have written - the kind of book that would really clarify a lot of public debate, not to mention academic work done in the discipline of history, if it were widely read. It does three things at once: meticulously defend the proposed U.S. National History Standards against their often savage right-wing opponents; make the case that history teaching is an important forum for the working out of cultural anxieties; and provide a chronicle of debates over historical meanings and teachings since the founding of the Republic, and earlier. A really well-written and important work, both for history students and teachers and for the interested public (of which, readers will realize, we are all a part).

Like a few others on here I could not read this book. It did help me fall asleep though, lol. Anyone who's looking into reading this book, Id suggest checking it out of the library before you buy it.

This is by far the worst book I have ever needed to read for school ever. When I attempted to read this book, I must've fallen asleep at least 10 times and I haven't even got past the first 2 chapters. I have no idea what my teacher was thinking when he saw this book. If it was a choice, I would choose negative 5 stars for this waste of paper and ink. It is, hands down, a boring book with absolutely not point at all except to critizice the immigration of the early Europeans. It almost seems like Nash couldn't give about the Europeans coming over here. Well, I would be quite upset if they didn't come over here, unless it would have prevented the publishing of his redundant, afwul book.

RWB by Nash attempts to present a more accurate picture of colonial society. However, in the end, I believe Nash fails to do any real justice to his examination of this society's underpinnings. Essentially, Nash abandons this pursuit very quickly into the book and deals mostly with the facts of the era. Additionally, Nash's views seem all to decidedly Neo-Progressive. He simply will not concede a point or discuss a point, which does not fit this mindset. Another perhaps more disturbing issue is Nash's like of primary sources throughout his work. The majority of his sites are from other historians' works. But before you think of moving on and passing this work up understand a few basic things about it. First, by no means am I questioning Nash's historical ability or accuracy. Second, this work provides a novice student of history and excellent foundation to start to build an understanding of the Colonial Period on. Moreover, Nash's analysis though I find fault with it is still holds water in the historical community through refinements and redefinitions of his point. I suggest that any one seeking to get a handle on the Colonial period or start a study of this era should start here. However, do not read this work and take it as anything other then a meager beginning; instead, use it as a stepping stone to branch out into other works by Winthrop Jordan, William Cronon, Edmund Morgan, Bernard Bailyn, and Laurel Ulrich.

it was a great book that depicts our lives in the twentieth century and is extremely interesting. i love all of gary nash's books and find them all extremely important to have.

In the Urban Crucible, Nash attempts to demonstrate that the American Revolution was a duel revolution against England and the traditional ruling classes. He shows how the economic effects of the boom and bust cycles following the various wars of the 18th century affected the colonies, specifically the port cities. The result of these increasingly disruptive economic cycles--especially after the French and Indian War--caused the colonists in the port cities to rebel against England and the American elites because of economic concerns. However, Nash offers very little evidence that socioeconomics was indeed the main motivation for revolution or that class warfare really existed.

This book was horrible. I was forced to use it in a mandatory brainwash...er, history course for school. The book essentially goes like this:

We settled Massachusetts, and the indians, blacks, gays and women were persecuted.

Then, we started a westward expansion which led to persecution for indians, blacks, gays, and women.

During the revolutionary war some white guys fought or something, but it is important to note that the indians, blacks, gays...

This book is a proselyting tool, a transparent piece of propaganda. I didn't convert.

This book tries to teach history without actually including any concrete information. It outlines general trends without emphasizing the historical facts on which the trends are based. While it's certainly important to recognize progressions in history, it's extremely difficult to learn about them based only on the text's vague, 50-page summaries, all of which fail to mention any form of historical evidence.

As a student, I found this book's approach to teaching history disastrous and mildly insulting. First of all, it fails to convey even the most cursory knowledge of history by shunning, at all costs, cruel Old Regime teaching methods that might require DATE memorization or familiarity with historical FACTS. With nothing to "Lock On" to, it's very hard to retain anything. Even worse, however, are the implications of the book's approach. I like History because I enjoy being able to look at a set of evidence and trying to figure out, based on otherwise stale information, what *actually* happened, what life was like. Somehow, I got the sense that by describing outright "what life was like," the book implies that to force students to learn INFORMATION is useless, that students are unable to think for themselves and interpret historical information with any accuracy.

I think I should comment, also, on one reviewer's dismissal of this book as "Nouveau History." I come close to BEING one of the "Tenured Radicals" this reviewer had so much disdain for, and I still hated this book. I would hate it if I were communist. There's so much wrong with it that to criticize it for its left-wing perspective is plain silly.

I would recommend "The American Promise," by James L. Rourke, Micheal P. Johnson, and a few others instead.

This book provides a balanced overview of U.S. History up to 1877. The treatment of social and cultural history is particularly stong. The prose is, for the most part, quite lively.

I lived in Mexico for about a year as an English teacher. The chapter on race relations in Mexico in this book is somewhat flawed.

Mexicans who are not objective, and are basically jealous and contemptous of "gringos" will sometimes bring up the supposition that "we Mexicans married our Indians, and you Americans killed yours." This book tends to support that view.

I had a 3x great grandmother who was pure Indian (from Virginia). To my knowledge, our family never tried to hide this fact. Many Americans that I know ARE part Indian, maybe not very much, and never to my knowledge feel ashamed of it. Among Americans, Indian heritage is often a source of pride.

I found that when living in Mexico City, if I referred to the house maid, who was a native Indian, as an "Indian", 'that I would get chastised for using a term which most Mexicans consider to be the equivalent of the "N" word. "Call her 'the girl' for God's sake, just don't say 'Indian'!", I was told.

In addition, my Spanish was good enough to overhear some Mexicans denigrating the local Indian population - for example "You eat like an Indian!" (chuckle chuckle). Whenever I asked my students how much native "blood" they had, they would look embarassed and claim that they were white Spaniards, and "just a little" Indian. The book "A Vagabond in Mexico" also makes mention of an encounter the author had, where the locals all deny any "contamination" with Indian heritage, in spite of the fact that that brown skin they had didn't get imported from Spain.

This book give the impression that the Spanish influence of racism got removed once Mexico became independent of Spain. Hardly. If you've ever noticed, there is barely one president of Mexico who is of native blood. Most of the people in the upper echelons of politics, business, and show business in Mexico are clearly white Hispanics, with maybe just a little race mixing. And all those Mexican cocoa cereal boxes with the black face on the cover, Mexican kids making fun of blacks because they "look funny" - you can't tell me that Mexico doesn't have some serious race issues to contend with.

My Mexican friends came to my "rescue" when they found out that a Chinese guy I met there was interested in me. "Not good for you.", they told me.

Mexicans now living in America seem to think that they have a right to take over California because of their "Aztec" heritage. Aztecs were not the majority of the tribes in pre-hispanic Mexico, and certainly never made it into California. What makes this idea even weirder is the fact that the average Mexican does not identify with any tribe, but considers himself European. And last time I looked, the Comanches were the people who originally inhabited California, not the Aztecs.

All of this just goes to show how screwball politcal correctness is.

America tends to get blamed for all the race ills of the world -I think it would help if people did a little traveling (I've been to about 50 countries, and lived in 2 long-term), that they would see racism as a world-wide issue and not just as an American one. America is at least trying to work its problems out. Other countries sweep them under the carpet - cases in point - India, with its caste system based in part on skin color and its frequent religious riots, and Japan, where there has been discrimination against the native Ainu (a caucasoid race), ethnic Koreans born in Japan (the govt. refuses to grant them citizenship), foreigners in general, and oddly enough, against the Burakumin, who are native Japanese.

There obviously hasn't been a whole lot of legwork in terms of actual in-the-field research in this book, just a rehashing of "facts" from other politically correct tomes. Thus, the information is flawed. 2 stars.