Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
An anecdotal and comparative exploration into points of societal crises in 7 different nations, as well as future crises arising on a global scale. Certainly lots of parallels can be made with the conflict occurring in Ukraine. Quite dense, but definitely contains more than a few nuggets of wisdom. I’ve enjoyed other publications by Diamond more, but don’t regret taking up this read
informative
medium-paced
‘Upheaval’ by Jared Diamond is a narrative-style book about crises and subsequent upheavals in 7 case-study nations - from different continents - of which the author has sufficient personal experience as well.
Upheaval starts with an incident of community-level crisis prodding us to think about crises with optimism. Further, Jared devotes a lesson on individual crises to let users draw analogies between national crises and personal crises. Jared also chalks out 12 different parameters on which upheavals depend after a crisis, and he makes it a point to highlight each upheaval in that framework, which is helpful for a non-academic reader to grasp the process of an upheaval.
Jared focuses on covering different government types as well - democratic, autocratic, capitalist, socialist, etc. And each country can learn from the most relatable examples. The majority of nations are democratic and most of them face erosions of democratic traditions as well. The coverage of the crisis unfolding before the United States can help other democratic nations in revamping the democratic traditions for the greater good.
As a responsible global citizen, Jared elaborates on the major world problems, some of which have started posing tough challenges, and the others are still unfolding a crisis gradually. He also suggests ways to tackle those global problems because major parameters forming the background of an upheaval do not apply in the case of global problems - the primary one being lack of an example.
Jared’s work deserves serious attention by global leaders as a wide scope of examples help one to come up with really innovative solutions, and every entity, ranging from an individual to a planet, faces crises and requires upheavals.
There are more than 200 nations in the world and each one has its unique problems and Jared should come up periodically with sequels to this book - the primary case study in one of them being Russia-Ukraine relationship. It’s an optimistic contemporary read!
Upheaval starts with an incident of community-level crisis prodding us to think about crises with optimism. Further, Jared devotes a lesson on individual crises to let users draw analogies between national crises and personal crises. Jared also chalks out 12 different parameters on which upheavals depend after a crisis, and he makes it a point to highlight each upheaval in that framework, which is helpful for a non-academic reader to grasp the process of an upheaval.
Jared focuses on covering different government types as well - democratic, autocratic, capitalist, socialist, etc. And each country can learn from the most relatable examples. The majority of nations are democratic and most of them face erosions of democratic traditions as well. The coverage of the crisis unfolding before the United States can help other democratic nations in revamping the democratic traditions for the greater good.
As a responsible global citizen, Jared elaborates on the major world problems, some of which have started posing tough challenges, and the others are still unfolding a crisis gradually. He also suggests ways to tackle those global problems because major parameters forming the background of an upheaval do not apply in the case of global problems - the primary one being lack of an example.
Jared’s work deserves serious attention by global leaders as a wide scope of examples help one to come up with really innovative solutions, and every entity, ranging from an individual to a planet, faces crises and requires upheavals.
There are more than 200 nations in the world and each one has its unique problems and Jared should come up periodically with sequels to this book - the primary case study in one of them being Russia-Ukraine relationship. It’s an optimistic contemporary read!
Man, I found this a slog. On the positive side, I did learn a couple of things but I don't feel like there's anything in this book which isn't covered in a more detailed, interesting way by other, less grating authors. My main issues:
A) He keeps name-dropping people he knows; senators, young people, etc. So much of the rhetoric about what people felt in all these countries he talks about just seem to be from his mates.
B) The writing is quite arrogant. Diamond is clearly privileged and doesn't mind telling you about his various trips to places. It's like talking to your boring boomer relatives.
C) The writing is shallow. He talks about his own personal crisis for pages (something about gallbladders) and doesn't talk about crises affecting other people.
D) Lack original ideas
Better books on this topic: Prisoners of Geography, The Precipice.
A) He keeps name-dropping people he knows; senators, young people, etc. So much of the rhetoric about what people felt in all these countries he talks about just seem to be from his mates.
B) The writing is quite arrogant. Diamond is clearly privileged and doesn't mind telling you about his various trips to places. It's like talking to your boring boomer relatives.
C) The writing is shallow. He talks about his own personal crisis for pages (something about gallbladders) and doesn't talk about crises affecting other people.
D) Lack original ideas
Better books on this topic: Prisoners of Geography, The Precipice.
Man, I found this a slog. On the positive side, I did learn a couple of things but I don't feel like there's anything in this book which isn't covered in a more detailed, interesting way by other, less grating authors. My main issues:
A) He keeps name-dropping people he knows; senators, young people, etc. So much of the rhetoric about what people felt in all these countries he talks about just seem to be from his mates.
B) The writing is quite arrogant. Diamond is clearly privileged and doesn't mind telling you about his various trips to places. It's like talking to your boring boomer relatives.
C) The writing is shallow. He talks about his own personal crisis for pages (something about gallbladders) and doesn't talk about crises affecting other people.
D) Lack original ideas
Better books on this topic: Prisoners of Geography, The Precipice.
A) He keeps name-dropping people he knows; senators, young people, etc. So much of the rhetoric about what people felt in all these countries he talks about just seem to be from his mates.
B) The writing is quite arrogant. Diamond is clearly privileged and doesn't mind telling you about his various trips to places. It's like talking to your boring boomer relatives.
C) The writing is shallow. He talks about his own personal crisis for pages (something about gallbladders) and doesn't talk about crises affecting other people.
D) Lack original ideas
Better books on this topic: Prisoners of Geography, The Precipice.
The author did a great job in narrating modern history for Finland, Japan, Indonesia, Chile, Germany and Australia. As a Malaysian Chinese, I didn't quite understand the reason why China and Korea are still angry for the atrocities that Japan committed. One of my former Chinese colleagues defended Japan. In his opinion, Japan had apologized many times over the matter. The comparison between post World War 2 West Germany and Japan makes it clear that Japan apologies were at best half-hearted. As a Malaysian, I am also quite ignorant of the politics of our neighbour and I am surprised to learn about the 1965 coup and the subsequent massacre in Indonesia.
Great book on understanding how certain countries have adapted to crises over the past few hundred years
독일, 미국, 인도네시아, 일본, 칠레, 핀란드, 그리고 호주. 재레드 다이아몬드 교수는 앞의 7개 국가들이 과거 겪은 국가적 위기 상황들과 이들을 극복 해나가는 과정들을 (정성적으로) 분석한다. 그리고 한 발 더 나아가 현재 인류 앞에 놓인 여러 문제들에 대해서도 논의한다 (기후변화). 이 책이 나에게 유독 흥미롭게 다가오는 이유는 한 국가의 위기 대처 능력을 평가하기 위해 개인적 위기 (예를들면, 어떠한 이유로 우울증을 겪는 한 사람을 위한) 분석 지표가 사용됐다 점이다 (표 1.1). 유물론적 관점에서 보면 다소 실체가 모호해 보이는 '국가'라는 개념. 그 '국가'를 마치 고차원의 사고를 하는 지적 생명체처럼 이해하고 해석하려는 시도는 언제나 흥미롭다. 표 1.1에 나열된 열두가지 항목중 '나'라는 사람은 몇개나 만족할 수 있을까? 대한민국은? 미국은? 그리고 인류는?
Table 1.1 Factors related to the outcomes of personal crises
1. Acknowledgement that one is in crisis
2. Acceptance of one's personal responsibility to do something
3. Building a fence, to delineate one's individual problems needing to be solved
4. Getting material and emotional help from other individual and groups
5. Using other individuals as models of how to solve problems
6. Ego strength
7. Honest self-appraisal
8. Experience of previous personal crises
9. Patience
10. Flexible personality
11. Individual core values
12. Freedom from personal constraints
Table 1.1 Factors related to the outcomes of personal crises
1. Acknowledgement that one is in crisis
2. Acceptance of one's personal responsibility to do something
3. Building a fence, to delineate one's individual problems needing to be solved
4. Getting material and emotional help from other individual and groups
5. Using other individuals as models of how to solve problems
6. Ego strength
7. Honest self-appraisal
8. Experience of previous personal crises
9. Patience
10. Flexible personality
11. Individual core values
12. Freedom from personal constraints
Upheaval is one of those books you wish you would have read after the author's other books because it gives you the feeling that those other books weren't so hot despite their praise and accolades. Written like a series of overwrought blog posts, Upheaval sounds better as a premise than it ever does in its execution — especially when Jared Diamond stops looking back and attempts to look forward.
In some ways, Upheaval is really two books. One that attempts to reconcile the past by looking at Finland, Japan, Chile, Indonesia, Germany, and Australia. The Upheaval of all but one stems mostly from World War II (in one way or another), automatically making the book a much narrower lens than one might expect and leaving a much better discussion open for ancient historians. We could have all gleaned so much more from Rome, Babylon, Aztecs, the United Kingdom, etc. had Diamond applied analysis to any number of countries.
More concerning is Diamond's personal bias, which tends to feel heavy as he assesses the various outcomes of the six countries chosen for act one. One of the most telling is his praise for Finland, which he loved living in, and its resolve to elevate educators and placate its neighbor Russia (a decision that Ukraine might not appreciate). Maybe so, but in cherry-picking his narrative, he doesn't tell you that Finland has outspent its ability to pay social security benefits, fails in preventing sexual assault against women, and continues to tighten immigration policy.
I won't even touch on all the problems in his analysis of Chile as there are too many to list, having just read a few books that took a deeper dive into that country than Diamond did. I'll suffice to say instead: Alas, no country is perfect, and all of them rather face one upheaval after the next, which leads us to book two.
Book two, while including a reassessment of Japan, is really dedicated to dismantling the United States by claiming it is in the midst of a crisis as defined by left-leaning policy (some of which may be right and some of which may not be right). His take on elections, inequality, education, climate change, etc. all lean in one direction, despite contradicting statements he praised earlier. In short, he often calls for a national or global referendum despite saying the United States' ability to test ideas at the state level before adopting them on the national scale is a strength (one we continually see weakened).
The biggest issue in American politics today is books like these, pretending to be neutral when in fact, they only serve to help polarize the public even more — giving people the false illusion that they are in the middle when they are not. Case in point, Diamond presents the idea that voter ID is somehow wrong while praising countries that don't require it (despite the fact that those countries track the identity of their citizens even more stringently). In doing so, we're always back the right and left argument that one side says Voter ID is necessary to prevent voter fraud, and the other side says three million of 330 million don't have IDs, so we shouldn't ask for them. Really? There is a more neutral solution, you know. If we can go door-to-door for a census, we can probably get three million IDs printed and delivered to people who are likely already accepting federal aid.
The same can be said for the so-called wealth inequality argument, which Diamond says will only be cured when more affluent people like himself feel less secure. Look, I get the argument of this point as framed by the right and the left. But why isn't anybody being more inventive in looking at this phenom in the United States? Maybe there comes a point when you have so many rich people that the super-rich just grows exponentially (a fact we all learned in grade school discussing compound interest) because money begets money. The more you have, the more it works for you. And sure, maybe that makes it less likely for the bottom 1 percent to reach the top 1 percent (although many of the richest billionaires are rags to riches stories), does it matter? Maybe climbing from the bottom 1 percent to the top 50 percent is good enough, especially in a country where the bottom 10 percent consumes as much as 32 times the amount that people in developing countries do. If anything, the real threat to economic mobility isn't what it is now but rather what people like Diamond want to enact, a system where experts flatten everybody out.
In sum, I generally don't like to provide a negative review, but my general disappointment in the book delivering on its promise drew it out. Sure, I'm happy I read it to see someone like Diamond's perspective. He gives the reader plenty to think about. Just remember that this isn't the work of merely a smart historian, Upheaval is surprisingly political.
In some ways, Upheaval is really two books. One that attempts to reconcile the past by looking at Finland, Japan, Chile, Indonesia, Germany, and Australia. The Upheaval of all but one stems mostly from World War II (in one way or another), automatically making the book a much narrower lens than one might expect and leaving a much better discussion open for ancient historians. We could have all gleaned so much more from Rome, Babylon, Aztecs, the United Kingdom, etc. had Diamond applied analysis to any number of countries.
More concerning is Diamond's personal bias, which tends to feel heavy as he assesses the various outcomes of the six countries chosen for act one. One of the most telling is his praise for Finland, which he loved living in, and its resolve to elevate educators and placate its neighbor Russia (a decision that Ukraine might not appreciate). Maybe so, but in cherry-picking his narrative, he doesn't tell you that Finland has outspent its ability to pay social security benefits, fails in preventing sexual assault against women, and continues to tighten immigration policy.
I won't even touch on all the problems in his analysis of Chile as there are too many to list, having just read a few books that took a deeper dive into that country than Diamond did. I'll suffice to say instead: Alas, no country is perfect, and all of them rather face one upheaval after the next, which leads us to book two.
Book two, while including a reassessment of Japan, is really dedicated to dismantling the United States by claiming it is in the midst of a crisis as defined by left-leaning policy (some of which may be right and some of which may not be right). His take on elections, inequality, education, climate change, etc. all lean in one direction, despite contradicting statements he praised earlier. In short, he often calls for a national or global referendum despite saying the United States' ability to test ideas at the state level before adopting them on the national scale is a strength (one we continually see weakened).
The biggest issue in American politics today is books like these, pretending to be neutral when in fact, they only serve to help polarize the public even more — giving people the false illusion that they are in the middle when they are not. Case in point, Diamond presents the idea that voter ID is somehow wrong while praising countries that don't require it (despite the fact that those countries track the identity of their citizens even more stringently). In doing so, we're always back the right and left argument that one side says Voter ID is necessary to prevent voter fraud, and the other side says three million of 330 million don't have IDs, so we shouldn't ask for them. Really? There is a more neutral solution, you know. If we can go door-to-door for a census, we can probably get three million IDs printed and delivered to people who are likely already accepting federal aid.
The same can be said for the so-called wealth inequality argument, which Diamond says will only be cured when more affluent people like himself feel less secure. Look, I get the argument of this point as framed by the right and the left. But why isn't anybody being more inventive in looking at this phenom in the United States? Maybe there comes a point when you have so many rich people that the super-rich just grows exponentially (a fact we all learned in grade school discussing compound interest) because money begets money. The more you have, the more it works for you. And sure, maybe that makes it less likely for the bottom 1 percent to reach the top 1 percent (although many of the richest billionaires are rags to riches stories), does it matter? Maybe climbing from the bottom 1 percent to the top 50 percent is good enough, especially in a country where the bottom 10 percent consumes as much as 32 times the amount that people in developing countries do. If anything, the real threat to economic mobility isn't what it is now but rather what people like Diamond want to enact, a system where experts flatten everybody out.
In sum, I generally don't like to provide a negative review, but my general disappointment in the book delivering on its promise drew it out. Sure, I'm happy I read it to see someone like Diamond's perspective. He gives the reader plenty to think about. Just remember that this isn't the work of merely a smart historian, Upheaval is surprisingly political.
The overview of history and crises in various countries was interesting.
However, the author tries to marry the analysis of- and approach to personal crises with the analysis of- and approach to (inter)national crises. It remains perfectly unclear why the author thought this was a good idea. The framework for personal crises is presented and then immediately applied to nations, without explaining why a model for personal crises might be of any use to nations. The only reason seems to be that the word "crisis" is applied to both nations and individuals. Yes, individuals and nations "act", have interactions, and so on. But they are not necessarily interchangeable concepts.
Let me give a counter example with the word "broken". Broken can apply to: a person's bone, a car part, and interpersonal relationships. A bone needs to be healed by preventing movement for a while, a car part needs to be replaced (not healed), and a broken relationship can only be improved by evolving the relationship into a different kind of relationship-not by a cast or part replacement.
However, the author tries to marry the analysis of- and approach to personal crises with the analysis of- and approach to (inter)national crises. It remains perfectly unclear why the author thought this was a good idea. The framework for personal crises is presented and then immediately applied to nations, without explaining why a model for personal crises might be of any use to nations. The only reason seems to be that the word "crisis" is applied to both nations and individuals. Yes, individuals and nations "act", have interactions, and so on. But they are not necessarily interchangeable concepts.
Let me give a counter example with the word "broken". Broken can apply to: a person's bone, a car part, and interpersonal relationships. A bone needs to be healed by preventing movement for a while, a car part needs to be replaced (not healed), and a broken relationship can only be improved by evolving the relationship into a different kind of relationship-not by a cast or part replacement.