You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.19 AVERAGE
3.19 AVERAGE
It's rare that I would waste space blasting a book. Life is short and time is a scarce resource. I'd rather just drop a book unworthy of finishing and move on to a new one. This time, though, I think 1421 merits further explanation because of the sensational success it has experienced worldwide.
Simply put, 1421 is junk history posing as "real history." Gavin Menzies has spun a fantastical and interesting tale out of the very real events surrounding the massive Chinese treasure fleets of 1421. His thesis--that the Chinese discovered the New World in the 1420s, mapped it, and that it was their maps that European explorers used when sailing for the New World (including, he argues, Columbus).
Built by a Ming emperor to gather in tribute from the ends of the Earth, the fleet was one of the last acts of imperial hubris. Shortly after it set sail, the emperor died. His son, in replacing his father's policies, had the fleets destroyed upon their return, along with records gathered during the voyage. Starting with that sparse introduction, Menzies proceeds to gather bits and pieces of evidence stretching from China itself to the Indian subcontinent, from the Congo to Patagonia and beyond, and levies the evidence to tell a tale of the massive Chinese fleet charting the New World the greater part of a century before Columbus set sail in 1492.
It is an extremely interesting and, if it were true, a ground breaking discovery and thesis. Perhaps it is true. But likely, it is not.
As I started reading it, the first question that came to mind for me was this: in the almost six centuries since these events happened, why has no one else suggested that the Chinese arrived first? Menzies explanation is that historians generally lack the skill set necessary to uncover the truth, a skill set that he has as a former captain in the British Navy. Unlike most historians, Menzies argues, he can read a chart, understand what he's looking at, and glean from these 15th century charts things that no historian would otherwise notice.
Yeah. It's a little bit of a stretch. I would be surprised to find that no historian has ever had the skill set to learn maritime charts and understand how to read them (heck, Theodore Roosevelt when only an undergraduate student at Harvard, researched and wrote a book of naval strategy -- "The Naval War of 1812"--that became a classic and a text book used by both the US and British navies for decades after it was published). That being said, I gave Menzies the benefit of the doubt. I've long been intrigued with China and its history, and I think I wanted to believe that history as we have been taught might not be true. How interesting would it be for America to have been discovered by the Chinese?
As I read, though, red flags continued to pop up. Out of only sparse details, Menzies would assert "conclusive proof" that his theories were finding relevance. Finally, over two hundred pages in, I decided to check into what critical review might have said about his methods and evidence. I reasoned that if Menzies is correct, or even has a good theory, then the academic community would support his findings with further research. I went to the internet.
Critical acclaim was anything but what I found. In addition to finding entire sites dedicated to debunking Menzies myths, I also found that historical lectures had been given explaining and demonstrating that what Menzies proposed was just that--a proposal. Be it even true, the evidence was not there, not was the reasoning clearly logical.
For example:
--Menzies claims that Chinese anchors have been found off of the coast of California, but fails to document them.
--1421 says that Chinese DNA is found in North America natives, but fails to account for the influx of Chinese immigrants in the 17th century.
--Menzies finds what he claims are chickens unique to Asia living in Peru, but fails to note that Peru exported millions of tons of silver to China and brought back silk and porcelain (and presumably other things, like, for example, chickens) throughout the heyday of the Spanish during the 16th through 17th centuries.
And that's just to start.
Historian Kirstin A. Seaver says, in disecting claims about the Chinese in Vinland:
"The study of history is likely to reward anyone willing to undertake it in a quest for better understanding of who they are, how they became what they are, and what they might hope to become. The manufacture of a history that never existed rewards only those who make money by deceiving the public."
If 1421 is true, Menzies has not found the evidence to support it. If it is false, it's junk and a waste of time to read. Further, it perpetuates a falsehood that makes the acquisition of real history--real, boring, dry and factual history--that much harder to grasp.
Simply put, 1421 is junk history posing as "real history." Gavin Menzies has spun a fantastical and interesting tale out of the very real events surrounding the massive Chinese treasure fleets of 1421. His thesis--that the Chinese discovered the New World in the 1420s, mapped it, and that it was their maps that European explorers used when sailing for the New World (including, he argues, Columbus).
Built by a Ming emperor to gather in tribute from the ends of the Earth, the fleet was one of the last acts of imperial hubris. Shortly after it set sail, the emperor died. His son, in replacing his father's policies, had the fleets destroyed upon their return, along with records gathered during the voyage. Starting with that sparse introduction, Menzies proceeds to gather bits and pieces of evidence stretching from China itself to the Indian subcontinent, from the Congo to Patagonia and beyond, and levies the evidence to tell a tale of the massive Chinese fleet charting the New World the greater part of a century before Columbus set sail in 1492.
It is an extremely interesting and, if it were true, a ground breaking discovery and thesis. Perhaps it is true. But likely, it is not.
As I started reading it, the first question that came to mind for me was this: in the almost six centuries since these events happened, why has no one else suggested that the Chinese arrived first? Menzies explanation is that historians generally lack the skill set necessary to uncover the truth, a skill set that he has as a former captain in the British Navy. Unlike most historians, Menzies argues, he can read a chart, understand what he's looking at, and glean from these 15th century charts things that no historian would otherwise notice.
Yeah. It's a little bit of a stretch. I would be surprised to find that no historian has ever had the skill set to learn maritime charts and understand how to read them (heck, Theodore Roosevelt when only an undergraduate student at Harvard, researched and wrote a book of naval strategy -- "The Naval War of 1812"--that became a classic and a text book used by both the US and British navies for decades after it was published). That being said, I gave Menzies the benefit of the doubt. I've long been intrigued with China and its history, and I think I wanted to believe that history as we have been taught might not be true. How interesting would it be for America to have been discovered by the Chinese?
As I read, though, red flags continued to pop up. Out of only sparse details, Menzies would assert "conclusive proof" that his theories were finding relevance. Finally, over two hundred pages in, I decided to check into what critical review might have said about his methods and evidence. I reasoned that if Menzies is correct, or even has a good theory, then the academic community would support his findings with further research. I went to the internet.
Critical acclaim was anything but what I found. In addition to finding entire sites dedicated to debunking Menzies myths, I also found that historical lectures had been given explaining and demonstrating that what Menzies proposed was just that--a proposal. Be it even true, the evidence was not there, not was the reasoning clearly logical.
For example:
--Menzies claims that Chinese anchors have been found off of the coast of California, but fails to document them.
--1421 says that Chinese DNA is found in North America natives, but fails to account for the influx of Chinese immigrants in the 17th century.
--Menzies finds what he claims are chickens unique to Asia living in Peru, but fails to note that Peru exported millions of tons of silver to China and brought back silk and porcelain (and presumably other things, like, for example, chickens) throughout the heyday of the Spanish during the 16th through 17th centuries.
And that's just to start.
Historian Kirstin A. Seaver says, in disecting claims about the Chinese in Vinland:
"The study of history is likely to reward anyone willing to undertake it in a quest for better understanding of who they are, how they became what they are, and what they might hope to become. The manufacture of a history that never existed rewards only those who make money by deceiving the public."
If 1421 is true, Menzies has not found the evidence to support it. If it is false, it's junk and a waste of time to read. Further, it perpetuates a falsehood that makes the acquisition of real history--real, boring, dry and factual history--that much harder to grasp.
adventurous
informative
slow-paced
I won’t be picking up anymore Gavin Menzies
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Muy interesante recuento de lo que pudo haber sido la historia de la flota china en el siglo XXIII, y los logros que pudieron y debieron alcanzar entonces, entre ellos, llegar a América antes que los europeos.
Very readable and fun, especially for those interested in Chinese history. China most definitely had the capacity to do all Menzies claims - the rate of their technological advancements compared to their European contemporaries, until isolation, shows considerable disparities. As soon as it diverges from the proven history though, the book becomes a little too far-fetched for my taste. Perhaps it would have worked better as an intentional alternate history/what-if scenario rather than a weakly-supported theory.
Despite the widespread skepticism, it does make me eagerly anticipate new potential discoveries, such as shipwrecks from Zheng He's fleet, and how those might further shape our understanding of China's unrivaled power, at least spanning East Asia, that extended all the way to the end of the Ming Dynasty.
Despite the widespread skepticism, it does make me eagerly anticipate new potential discoveries, such as shipwrecks from Zheng He's fleet, and how those might further shape our understanding of China's unrivaled power, at least spanning East Asia, that extended all the way to the end of the Ming Dynasty.
God awful "historical" book. What little citation there is for Menzies claims have largely been disproven and to make matters worse he passes off speculation as facts.
Wow if this is even partly true this complete change the history of the world.
I rated this book "Didn't like it", because I don't like it. However, when I read it I thought it was awesome. A little while after finishing it, I realized how much bullshit Menzies' theories and "sources" were.
For anyone attempting to learn history or just trying to find that perfect gift for the iconoclast in his or her life, this book will not suffice. The arguments are irrational: sometimes specious, sometimes spurious. He makes reference to myriad sources, but on closer inspection many are cherry-picked or of questionable value.
However, as a character study, this book may well be worth your time. It is a story of a submarine captain so enthralled with the sex customs of the Orient that he devotes his retirement to piecing together a web of stories. At some point this obsession consumes him and like a paranoid schizophrenic he starts seeing the Chinese everywhere and behind everything. He hopes that by writing he can exorcise his demons thereby regaining some inkling of rational thought. Alas, this is not the case as we pulled along through increasingly specious and fanciful notions of what constitutes historical evidence.
The book begins with a walk through the well-trodden history of imperial China with a special emphasis on prostitutes, foreskin beads, and eunuchs. I can only hope that this part of the book is accurate. While the early chapters are quite developed his knowledge of Chinese history as a whole can only be described as skin deep.
The initial chapters about the voyages to India and East Africa seem reasonable enough, but at some point we are subjected to claims that nearly every rock or architectural curiosity on the Eastern Seaboard is Chinese in origin. These claims lack any real evidence. Often a quick Internet search will give much more plausible explanations.
In the end he claims the Chinese are responsible for almost everything, but the Renaissance. Oh wait… that’s the sequel!
However, as a character study, this book may well be worth your time. It is a story of a submarine captain so enthralled with the sex customs of the Orient that he devotes his retirement to piecing together a web of stories. At some point this obsession consumes him and like a paranoid schizophrenic he starts seeing the Chinese everywhere and behind everything. He hopes that by writing he can exorcise his demons thereby regaining some inkling of rational thought. Alas, this is not the case as we pulled along through increasingly specious and fanciful notions of what constitutes historical evidence.
The book begins with a walk through the well-trodden history of imperial China with a special emphasis on prostitutes, foreskin beads, and eunuchs. I can only hope that this part of the book is accurate. While the early chapters are quite developed his knowledge of Chinese history as a whole can only be described as skin deep.
The initial chapters about the voyages to India and East Africa seem reasonable enough, but at some point we are subjected to claims that nearly every rock or architectural curiosity on the Eastern Seaboard is Chinese in origin. These claims lack any real evidence. Often a quick Internet search will give much more plausible explanations.
In the end he claims the Chinese are responsible for almost everything, but the Renaissance. Oh wait… that’s the sequel!