Scan barcode
orangefan65's review against another edition
3.0
The writer is fairly objective and doesn't seem to take the side of these radicals but the history is far too detailed and gets involved in minutiae.
katrinky's review against another edition
2.0
I'm not actually done yet, but I'll feel exactly the same way when I'm done as I do now. The history is fascinating- I developed a crush on the Weather Underground as a hippie high schooler- but the author is a pompous ass. Obsessed (OBSEEEESSED) with Bernardine Dohrn's sexuality. She had other stuff going on than boobs, bro. And also clearly repulsed by the entire radical movement of the late 60s and early 70s, such that I kept thinking (THEN WHY DID YOU WRITE 580 PAGES ABOUT IT?!!). Some really charming uses of "the blacks" and "ghetto" as phrases, as well. Great look, Burrough.
Go back to writing for Vanity Fair, BB. Go'n ahead and re-enter your cultural bubble, buddy. It's ok. It's a scary world out here.
**done now. feel the same way, but more so.**
Go back to writing for Vanity Fair, BB. Go'n ahead and re-enter your cultural bubble, buddy. It's ok. It's a scary world out here.
**done now. feel the same way, but more so.**
carolynf's review against another edition
2.0
This book gave me a crash course in radical movements of the 1970s, which I very much needed. As other reviews have mentioned, the author's political beliefs are quite obvious and do distract from the story at times. Various people are dismissed for being an "angry lesbian" or for working as a janitor or behind a juice cart. The black power movement and prison rights movement both apparently had zero positive benefits and just served to make black men deny responsibility for their own actions. Jane Fonda and other "liberal celebrities" (that is used as a compound word throughout) made one dumb choice after another. He does seem rather sympathetic toward Patty Hearst, but makes sure to tell us that she pissed herself when police finally showed up at the apartment where she was hiding out.
I do have a lot of respect for the author's meticulous research, and that he apparently was able to secure interviews with people who had never been interviewed before. But his pride in his research has led him to give us a play by play of these six or seven different groups, without trying to find any patterns or really making any kind of a point. Constantly he will start talking about some action, and we will get the specific date, time of day, people involved, materials involved, weather, and everything except what was playing on the radio. Then it will turn out that the bomb used was a dud and the action had not impact on the movement whatsoever, after something like nine pages of dialogue and description. All details create a feeling of distance, not intimacy, like he is watching ants scurry around without trying to make any kind of collective ant theory.
I do have a lot of respect for the author's meticulous research, and that he apparently was able to secure interviews with people who had never been interviewed before. But his pride in his research has led him to give us a play by play of these six or seven different groups, without trying to find any patterns or really making any kind of a point. Constantly he will start talking about some action, and we will get the specific date, time of day, people involved, materials involved, weather, and everything except what was playing on the radio. Then it will turn out that the bomb used was a dud and the action had not impact on the movement whatsoever, after something like nine pages of dialogue and description. All details create a feeling of distance, not intimacy, like he is watching ants scurry around without trying to make any kind of collective ant theory.
guinness74's review against another edition
5.0
This book is meticulously researched and strikingly written. Throughout the book, I was continually amazed at how recent the events were, several of them happening in my own lifetime.
Two quotes from the end of the book that I think sum up things in some way. The first from Cathy Wilkerson -- "Those with privilege really do not hear or see. The oppressed ask, what does it take to be listened to? The youth ask, what does it take to change things tomorrow-not in ten years or twenty?"
And from Sekou Odinga -- "Will I be remembered? I don't really care. Let's be real. What I care about are my children, and your children, and the children of tomorrow. I want them to study the past, and learn about it and carry on."
There are real issues that we face today that these folks faced 30-40 years ago. They went about it in what might be considered the wrong way, but when you don't feel heard, you resort to more stringent measures.
Two quotes from the end of the book that I think sum up things in some way. The first from Cathy Wilkerson -- "Those with privilege really do not hear or see. The oppressed ask, what does it take to be listened to? The youth ask, what does it take to change things tomorrow-not in ten years or twenty?"
And from Sekou Odinga -- "Will I be remembered? I don't really care. Let's be real. What I care about are my children, and your children, and the children of tomorrow. I want them to study the past, and learn about it and carry on."
There are real issues that we face today that these folks faced 30-40 years ago. They went about it in what might be considered the wrong way, but when you don't feel heard, you resort to more stringent measures.
shayneh's review against another edition
4.0
Enthralling recent history book. The dust is still settling on the 70s, and this book does a good job wrapping it up.
larry1138's review
informative
slow-paced
4.0
Bryan Burrough has done an extraordinary job of historical writing with Days of Rage. The amount of research needed to construct such a relatively seamless timeline for this volume must have been immense. There is an incredible amount of detail in this book, perhaps so much that it slows the book down occasionally, but it is a worthwhile read (or listen) for those interested in a very much forgotten chapter of terrorism in America.
The story of the left wing radical underground is weaved expertly through the historical context of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as cultural, political, and law enforcement figures across America are drawn into the story of how several groups of idealistic radicals decided to declare war on their home country. One event that may be familiar to a lot of readers is the kidnapping and "brainwashing" of Patty Hearst into the Simbianese Liberation Army, where she was subsequently caught on camera in a bank robbery. That one video, which I've seen in crime documentaries before, is perhaps my only solid link to having heard of any of these groups. They are mostly somewhat forgotten today.
What struck me most was how relatively "non-violent" the entire movement actually was. For those blinded by ideological loyalty to the right wing, this may seem like a ridiculous conclusion, but it is one that is shared explicitly by the author, who mentions it in the introduction. There are indeed victims of the many bombings, shootings, and bank robberies perpetrated by the numerous groups examined by Burrough, but those were quite few and far between. The most common attack you'll read about in this volume was actually the toilet bomb, placed discreetly and set to go off at a time at night when nobody was around and coordinated with a phone call warning to authorities. Compare that to other terrorist groups that have struck American soil and the toilet bombings of the Weather Underground seem almost polite. The murder of cops by the Black Liberation Army could just as easily be folded into high crime statistics of New York City which was deteriorating into near anarchy in the 70s. In the final chapter, as Burrough's interviews the members of some of these groups decades later, he asks them what exactly they thought they accomplished. Their answers and his analysis seem to point to the same conclusion: not much.
Indeed, my own analysis of extremism in America shows that any violence perpetrated by any particular group immediately garners a public image backlash and typically swift law enforcement pressure. I wouldn't be surprised if the calculus of 60s and 70s politics meant that all these bombings by left wing groups helped propel Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to office during their respective decades. That's how it works in this country.
But as mentioned earlier, not that much came of it. They weren't constantly killing people so the response by the public was somewhat mute (and likely responsible for why nobody really remembers this era of left wing terrorism very well anymore). I chuckled when one passage mentioned that a small bomb went off in a New York City movie theater. When the police tried to clear the theater the moviegoers booed them away and wanted to keep watching the film.
A recommend from me for a compelling historical narrative, though be prepared to wade through a lot of detail.
The story of the left wing radical underground is weaved expertly through the historical context of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as cultural, political, and law enforcement figures across America are drawn into the story of how several groups of idealistic radicals decided to declare war on their home country. One event that may be familiar to a lot of readers is the kidnapping and "brainwashing" of Patty Hearst into the Simbianese Liberation Army, where she was subsequently caught on camera in a bank robbery. That one video, which I've seen in crime documentaries before, is perhaps my only solid link to having heard of any of these groups. They are mostly somewhat forgotten today.
What struck me most was how relatively "non-violent" the entire movement actually was. For those blinded by ideological loyalty to the right wing, this may seem like a ridiculous conclusion, but it is one that is shared explicitly by the author, who mentions it in the introduction. There are indeed victims of the many bombings, shootings, and bank robberies perpetrated by the numerous groups examined by Burrough, but those were quite few and far between. The most common attack you'll read about in this volume was actually the toilet bomb, placed discreetly and set to go off at a time at night when nobody was around and coordinated with a phone call warning to authorities. Compare that to other terrorist groups that have struck American soil and the toilet bombings of the Weather Underground seem almost polite. The murder of cops by the Black Liberation Army could just as easily be folded into high crime statistics of New York City which was deteriorating into near anarchy in the 70s. In the final chapter, as Burrough's interviews the members of some of these groups decades later, he asks them what exactly they thought they accomplished. Their answers and his analysis seem to point to the same conclusion: not much.
Indeed, my own analysis of extremism in America shows that any violence perpetrated by any particular group immediately garners a public image backlash and typically swift law enforcement pressure. I wouldn't be surprised if the calculus of 60s and 70s politics meant that all these bombings by left wing groups helped propel Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to office during their respective decades. That's how it works in this country.
But as mentioned earlier, not that much came of it. They weren't constantly killing people so the response by the public was somewhat mute (and likely responsible for why nobody really remembers this era of left wing terrorism very well anymore). I chuckled when one passage mentioned that a small bomb went off in a New York City movie theater. When the police tried to clear the theater the moviegoers booed them away and wanted to keep watching the film.
A recommend from me for a compelling historical narrative, though be prepared to wade through a lot of detail.
gregbrown's review against another edition
2.0
This book should have hit my sweet spot, covering an under-reported part of history where vigilante violence seemed like it might cross over into revolution. But Burrough is exactly the wrong person to write this history, reducing it to no more than a bunch of gossip and by-the-numbers recounting of what happened. On the upside, he does get a bunch of good interviews and information from members who haven't spoken in public about the events before. On the downside, well, everything else.
Any discussion of their ideological underpinnings is brief and reduced to infighting amongst the group, and there's only the slightest historical context. It seemed like the world was on a fulcrum in 1968, and Burrough is utterly uninterested as to why that was the case, or why their revolutionary violence ultimately failed to bring about any change other than an expansion in security measures. Instead, we get something that reads more like a report timeline or prosecutor's brief—mere recounting of who was involved in planning and committing each crime. Plus the prose is boring enough to make the 550 pages(!) an utter grind.
Best to just re-read Perlstein's books instead, which do everything right that Burrough does wrong.
Any discussion of their ideological underpinnings is brief and reduced to infighting amongst the group, and there's only the slightest historical context. It seemed like the world was on a fulcrum in 1968, and Burrough is utterly uninterested as to why that was the case, or why their revolutionary violence ultimately failed to bring about any change other than an expansion in security measures. Instead, we get something that reads more like a report timeline or prosecutor's brief—mere recounting of who was involved in planning and committing each crime. Plus the prose is boring enough to make the 550 pages(!) an utter grind.
Best to just re-read Perlstein's books instead, which do everything right that Burrough does wrong.
provenance's review against another edition
4.0
The 1970s were crazy, y'all. People just blew shit up ALL THE TIME.
I did find it interesting how the white (largely middle class) radicals were able to re-emerge into society and be accepted as 'heroes' and the POC radicals are either still anonymous or political refugees in other countries.
I did find it interesting how the white (largely middle class) radicals were able to re-emerge into society and be accepted as 'heroes' and the POC radicals are either still anonymous or political refugees in other countries.