Review: Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes

Destiny Disrupted has a simple goal: make a Islamocentric history edible for the Eurocentric, Western citizen. Ansary, having come from Afghanistan, tells how the mythos of Europe- Birth of Civilization, Rome, Dark Ages, Enlightenment- does not map onto the rest of the world, and how a similar but radically different story of history is told a few thousand more miles to the east.

It does this efficiently (the history is only around 350 pages) and it does it with "Big Picture" people in mind. If you're looking for the history of Yemen or Morocco, you will be dissappointed, but if you're trying to understand the historical mindset of regional powers, then Ansary delivers.

Whats also great about the book is how it isn't completely a geopolitical yarn: It talks about the lower classes, the middle class and the intellectual history of Muslim civilization without seeming like the boring social history you'd find in a textbook. In fact, that is one of the great things about this book- it has all the valuable information you'd expect in a textbook without the pages and pages of crap.

Like William Manchester's "A World Lit Only By Fire" is perfect primer for AP European History, Destiny Disrupted probably should be used in AP World History classes to implant upon students the ability to conceive of non-European histories and societies.

Review: A History of Western Philosophy

History of Western Philosophy is huge tomb. It begins in the era of the Greeks and ends with Russell pronouncing that Analytic philosophy looks like it will dominate for some time to come. The history of Europe, and a bit of Muslim history, is outlined throughout the text, as Russel goes from philosopher to philosopher. Russells says at the beginning he is not trying to find the best of philosophers, he is trying to emphasize those that have had the most influence.

The chapters are generally (a) biographical/philosophical, or (b) historical/cultural or (c) some hybrid of both. Of the first kind, he outlines a philosophers' life. He then explains this persons' philosophy and tries to interpret them as concisely as possible. Of the second kind, he tries to explain why he isn't talking about any philosophers! For example, he doesn't really consider the Romans to have produced any philosopher of note, having adopted the Stoic/Cynic philosophical systems en masse. Of the third kind, he will rapidly progress through time creating several philo-biographies.

The only criticisms levied against him is that Russell, a philosopher himself, is biased. I think he does a good job at hiding and checking his bias up until after Kant. His review of Nietzsche is most scathing. Apologists for the German will point out two things: (1) that Russell had the copies of Nietzsche's works that were editted by his pro-Nazi sister, and that Russell hated the Nazis- they were bombing his house! and (2) there are some misinterpretations of the idea of "Will to Power". However, from my own experience with the modern followers of Nietzsche, Russell's criticisms remain right on target.