You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
This book is very timely for the whole world as our problems are globalized but also specifically for the US as we are on the eve of a potential dictatorship. I won't go into detail about some of the most important characteristics of a nation successfully navigating a crisis, but I'm afraid we are not even meeting the historical moment so far as sufficiently recognizing we are in a crisis, and there is not a national consensus as to what our problems are. However, Diamond does succinctly recognize our major problems so that is a good place to start. Plus I learned much that I did not know about other countries' experiences such as Finland.
A very thoughtful and thorough look at seven crisis points reached by six nations and analysis of what factors are necessary for nations to get through crises successfully. A very worthwhile read.
Another thought-provoking book from the interminable Jared Diamond. I particularly enjoy his comparative approach (in this book and others) to history.
This book, which deals with nations dealing with inflection points in there history, which Diamond labels "crises", comes in three parts: the framework basis, the histories, and the learnings. I think the crises are best thought of as testing the mettle of democracy against dictatorship, and the book as a whole can be thought of as a counterpoint to a favorite book of mine: "The Dictator's Handbook". (In TDH, we get rules in how dictatorships survive, in Upheaval we get rules on how democracy might avert dictatorship and itself survive.)
Where the book succeeds, it draws fascinating parallels that I have seen few authors draw as starkly as Diamond. For example, on the tenets of Outside Models (the nation adapting the solutions of other nations to their own situation), and Honest self-appraisal (the nation being brutally honest about their situation), Diamond draws wonderful comparisons and contrasts. I found the case studies of Finland and Chile to be particularly interesting on these points.
Finland had no outside models but was brutally honest about its situation with the USSR. Chile drew on outside models in adapting its laissez faire economy in the midst of Pinochet and deciding to not completely eschew it once he was gone.
The Germany chapter was also fascinating, and the idea of generational memory echoed the Japan chapter as well. (The Japanese who saw the struggles of the Meiji era weren't around to temper the optimism of the days those Meiji transformations brought. Contrastingly, the young adults of 1960s Germany were protesting the ideas of Nazi sympathy that were still around. Keeping the generational memory in mind is an interesting perspective on the directions of nations).
The Indonesia and Australia chapters were also somewhat interesting. Indonesia was a younger nation at the time of its "crisis" so it's an interesting data point. Australia, while the least interesting chapter for me, still offered a few lessons.
Now for the book's shortcomings.
I don't think the crisis framework Diamond spends a significant portion of the book proposing actually works. At best, I remain unconvinced, and at worst, he is egregiously overfitting his model.
Most alarmingly, there is no negative outcome probed here. Chile's descent into 17 years of military dictatorship is the closest we get, and we dive into the whys there, but the conclusions drawn there are weirdly outside of the framework of the book (the idea of political compromise, interesting though it is, is not a tenet of crisis as Diamond defines it). I almost think this section and its parallels deserve their own book. And though this history was obviously very negative, Chile *did* eventually recover. I think any framework needs a total negative example. This book needed a chapter on a country that totally dissolved and then to delve into why.
On top of that, the selection of crisis tenets seems arbitrary and maladroitly applied in certain cases. There's just not enough evidence presented here for me to buy in.
There are other issues besides the framework, too: e.g., his frequent lapses into anecdote and his unconvincing rundown of economic inequality seem out of place and blur the book's focus.
I kind of wish Diamond's central thesis had been regarding the importance of political compromise in a democracy, which is an interesting lesson he draws in Part 3 of this book, and which could have used more time in the spotlight. I am intrigued by this idea, and its drawing of parallels between 1970s Chile and modern USA are arresting, to put it mildly. He just needed more focus on these points to drive them home.
As it is, this book is another awe-inspiring work of comparative historical non-fiction from the polymath Jared Diamond, which winds up being somewhat scatter-shot in its goals and takeaways. Some interesting conclusions are drawn, but it remains unconvincing as an entire framework regarding national success/failure. In spite of its faults, Upheaval is a great work of comparative history. 4 stars.
This book, which deals with nations dealing with inflection points in there history, which Diamond labels "crises", comes in three parts: the framework basis, the histories, and the learnings. I think the crises are best thought of as testing the mettle of democracy against dictatorship, and the book as a whole can be thought of as a counterpoint to a favorite book of mine: "The Dictator's Handbook". (In TDH, we get rules in how dictatorships survive, in Upheaval we get rules on how democracy might avert dictatorship and itself survive.)
Where the book succeeds, it draws fascinating parallels that I have seen few authors draw as starkly as Diamond. For example, on the tenets of Outside Models (the nation adapting the solutions of other nations to their own situation), and Honest self-appraisal (the nation being brutally honest about their situation), Diamond draws wonderful comparisons and contrasts. I found the case studies of Finland and Chile to be particularly interesting on these points.
Finland had no outside models but was brutally honest about its situation with the USSR. Chile drew on outside models in adapting its laissez faire economy in the midst of Pinochet and deciding to not completely eschew it once he was gone.
The Germany chapter was also fascinating, and the idea of generational memory echoed the Japan chapter as well. (The Japanese who saw the struggles of the Meiji era weren't around to temper the optimism of the days those Meiji transformations brought. Contrastingly, the young adults of 1960s Germany were protesting the ideas of Nazi sympathy that were still around. Keeping the generational memory in mind is an interesting perspective on the directions of nations).
The Indonesia and Australia chapters were also somewhat interesting. Indonesia was a younger nation at the time of its "crisis" so it's an interesting data point. Australia, while the least interesting chapter for me, still offered a few lessons.
Now for the book's shortcomings.
I don't think the crisis framework Diamond spends a significant portion of the book proposing actually works. At best, I remain unconvinced, and at worst, he is egregiously overfitting his model.
Most alarmingly, there is no negative outcome probed here. Chile's descent into 17 years of military dictatorship is the closest we get, and we dive into the whys there, but the conclusions drawn there are weirdly outside of the framework of the book (the idea of political compromise, interesting though it is, is not a tenet of crisis as Diamond defines it). I almost think this section and its parallels deserve their own book. And though this history was obviously very negative, Chile *did* eventually recover. I think any framework needs a total negative example. This book needed a chapter on a country that totally dissolved and then to delve into why.
On top of that, the selection of crisis tenets seems arbitrary and maladroitly applied in certain cases. There's just not enough evidence presented here for me to buy in.
There are other issues besides the framework, too: e.g., his frequent lapses into anecdote and his unconvincing rundown of economic inequality seem out of place and blur the book's focus.
I kind of wish Diamond's central thesis had been regarding the importance of political compromise in a democracy, which is an interesting lesson he draws in Part 3 of this book, and which could have used more time in the spotlight. I am intrigued by this idea, and its drawing of parallels between 1970s Chile and modern USA are arresting, to put it mildly. He just needed more focus on these points to drive them home.
As it is, this book is another awe-inspiring work of comparative historical non-fiction from the polymath Jared Diamond, which winds up being somewhat scatter-shot in its goals and takeaways. Some interesting conclusions are drawn, but it remains unconvincing as an entire framework regarding national success/failure. In spite of its faults, Upheaval is a great work of comparative history. 4 stars.
medium-paced
In a nutshell, read the table of contents and put it back on the shelf. Do your own research. Save some time.
Good concept, dull writing, poor balance between anecdotes, studies and conclusions, and mid critical thinking applied.
Good concept, dull writing, poor balance between anecdotes, studies and conclusions, and mid critical thinking applied.
He quedado muy satisfecho con este libro, con una lectura sencilla logra resumir una serie de eventos que no necesariamente comparten el mismo momento histórico pero que te pone en contexto en general de grandes sucesos alrededor del mundo, esto para permitirte entender luego, que estrategias ha usado y que acciones ha tomado cada país involucrado en estos acontecimientos. Si bien su premisa se basa en hacer una comparación de las estrategias que usamos como personas en relación a las estrategias que usan los paises, desde mi perspectiva creo que esto pasa un poco desapercibido. Sin embargo el libro sigue siendo una gran lectura, recomendada para aquellos que tengan interés en los sucesos históricos de gran magnitud.
A well-considered history of how crisis has driven change in various countries, and what the implications are for our future.
I'll write a more complete review soon.
I'll write a more complete review soon.
Jarod Diamonds Guns, Germs, and Steel was a worthy read. His next book Collapse had some things of interest but seemed to be a book written for the sake of writing a book. This one does not seem to be a written for the sake of writing a book, it is a book written for the sake of writing a book. One word describes this book for me, poor.
Presented in three parts and with part one I knew this was going to be a struggle. It contained the Prologue and first chapter. The author proceeding to give the reader rather mushy and long rambling reasons for writing this book on Upheaval How Nations Cope With Crisis And Change. Diamond had lived through his own personal crisis. He also had a relationship with the 7 countries discussed in the book. He thought that it would be useful to compare these countries crisis/upheavals to his own personal crisis/upheaval with some psychoanalytical process that individuals may go through when they are in crisis, write some history on each nation, add his local knowledge and hey presto! write an idiosyncratic book about upheavals. In my opinion the personal reasons for his career upheaval (that could have ended in failure but did not) are hardly worth comparing to a national event such as the death of perhaps millions in Indonesia in the mid 60’s. Being discouraged over a scientific experiment or dying over a political upheaval? Hmmm! Go the scientific experiment any day of the week. This is just one of the many poor analogies through the text.
Part two contained the history chapters. It is very populist in the telling. When discussing Chile, the author based his assessment of Allende “…on the recollections of a Chilean friend of mine who knew him..” What? Did I read that correctly? He based all his writings in an entire chapter of a countries leader based on the recollections of a friend? Am I supposed to take this seriously?
I will add that the national upheaval of the 7 nations covered is hardly new territory. Finland from the demise of imperial Russia through to its relationship with the USSR, Japan from the Meiji Restoration, Indonesia in the mid 60’s, the rebuilding of Germany after WW2 and Australia’s so called upheaval of knowing who we are. The history telling itself lacked depth in terms of being historical accounts. I suppose that could be forgiven as this is a very long book but it was interspersed with personal anecdotal interludes that were nice in a way but just that, nice.
At the end of the chapters each nation was matched against 12 “Factors related to the outcomes of personal crisis” that matched 12 “Factors related to the outcomes of national crisis”. So for example factor 6 in the personal crisis is ‘Ego Strength’ and the national will be matched with ‘National Identity’. Each nation was rated against the factor number in a meaningless discussion on how they reacted against the factor itself. I had no idea the connection between the factors for each individual nation when compared to the next nor understood the differences between each of the nation. It just seems to be, to put it bluntly, psychoanalytical BS.
Part three included a “what lies ahead” discussion on Japan, the US and the world in general and was far too long and rambled all over the place. Conclusions were the obvious or non-existent. Strangely the author kind of admitted just that by saying that his suggestions were “….absurdly obvious!” and retorts, with the obvious, that the requirements he has suggested for utopia are being ignored. Well yes and I too will ignore them if I ever have to read the Happy Doll analogy that made me laugh out loud when he discussed climate change.
For the discussions on the historical events pertaining to each country the author has relied on a further reading section. Fair enough but for the other areas of the book when stating statistics we get no footnotes and this is justified by another friend (Jared Diamonds many friends influence on his writings and opinions are very big in this book) complained that his books hurt their neck while reading them “….in bed at night.” So no footnotes as even though the last book had them online no one read them. That I am afraid may say a lot about his readers. If anyone reading this is offended don’t take this personally but if you are not prepared to at least check consult footnoted sources in a book than how do you know the source of the information?
The lack of coherence in the narrative, presentation and the analysis is striking. Is this really by from the author of the very good Guns Germs and Steel? Populist writing at its worst. One star.
Presented in three parts and with part one I knew this was going to be a struggle. It contained the Prologue and first chapter. The author proceeding to give the reader rather mushy and long rambling reasons for writing this book on Upheaval How Nations Cope With Crisis And Change. Diamond had lived through his own personal crisis. He also had a relationship with the 7 countries discussed in the book. He thought that it would be useful to compare these countries crisis/upheavals to his own personal crisis/upheaval with some psychoanalytical process that individuals may go through when they are in crisis, write some history on each nation, add his local knowledge and hey presto! write an idiosyncratic book about upheavals. In my opinion the personal reasons for his career upheaval (that could have ended in failure but did not) are hardly worth comparing to a national event such as the death of perhaps millions in Indonesia in the mid 60’s. Being discouraged over a scientific experiment or dying over a political upheaval? Hmmm! Go the scientific experiment any day of the week. This is just one of the many poor analogies through the text.
Part two contained the history chapters. It is very populist in the telling. When discussing Chile, the author based his assessment of Allende “…on the recollections of a Chilean friend of mine who knew him..” What? Did I read that correctly? He based all his writings in an entire chapter of a countries leader based on the recollections of a friend? Am I supposed to take this seriously?
I will add that the national upheaval of the 7 nations covered is hardly new territory. Finland from the demise of imperial Russia through to its relationship with the USSR, Japan from the Meiji Restoration, Indonesia in the mid 60’s, the rebuilding of Germany after WW2 and Australia’s so called upheaval of knowing who we are. The history telling itself lacked depth in terms of being historical accounts. I suppose that could be forgiven as this is a very long book but it was interspersed with personal anecdotal interludes that were nice in a way but just that, nice.
At the end of the chapters each nation was matched against 12 “Factors related to the outcomes of personal crisis” that matched 12 “Factors related to the outcomes of national crisis”. So for example factor 6 in the personal crisis is ‘Ego Strength’ and the national will be matched with ‘National Identity’. Each nation was rated against the factor number in a meaningless discussion on how they reacted against the factor itself. I had no idea the connection between the factors for each individual nation when compared to the next nor understood the differences between each of the nation. It just seems to be, to put it bluntly, psychoanalytical BS.
Part three included a “what lies ahead” discussion on Japan, the US and the world in general and was far too long and rambled all over the place. Conclusions were the obvious or non-existent. Strangely the author kind of admitted just that by saying that his suggestions were “….absurdly obvious!” and retorts, with the obvious, that the requirements he has suggested for utopia are being ignored. Well yes and I too will ignore them if I ever have to read the Happy Doll analogy that made me laugh out loud when he discussed climate change.
For the discussions on the historical events pertaining to each country the author has relied on a further reading section. Fair enough but for the other areas of the book when stating statistics we get no footnotes and this is justified by another friend (Jared Diamonds many friends influence on his writings and opinions are very big in this book) complained that his books hurt their neck while reading them “….in bed at night.” So no footnotes as even though the last book had them online no one read them. That I am afraid may say a lot about his readers. If anyone reading this is offended don’t take this personally but if you are not prepared to at least check consult footnoted sources in a book than how do you know the source of the information?
The lack of coherence in the narrative, presentation and the analysis is striking. Is this really by from the author of the very good Guns Germs and Steel? Populist writing at its worst. One star.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced