Not a great deal of new insight here. I did learn a bit more than I knew, however, about Meade's failure to pursue at Gettysburg. Mr. Boritt is the editor and author of one essay; other essays are by four historians: Stephen W. Sears, Mark E. Neely, Jr., Michael Fellman, and John Y. Simon. (Alan J. Jacobs

For people who are interested in resolving the question whether there is some truth behind the image of the "smart Jew", this book is NOT to be recommended. One would expect that Gilman sets out to test the hypothesis "Are Jews (on average) more intelligent than gentiles?" on the basis of the available evidence. And this is certainly a testable hypothesis. However, as the book's subtitle suggests, Gilman's review is not intended as such a test. On the contrary, from the beginning, Gilman starts out with the conviction that the idea of a Jewish superiority in intelligence is absurd and solely motivated by racist thinking. Correspondingly, he treats all the reviewed studies alike, as though there were no differences in their quality, be it conceptually or empirically. Instead of evaluating the particular merits and pitfalls of each single study one by one, Gilman presents us a hopeless mix of reported science and morals. He paints a picture of a scientific enterprise which is hopelessly lost in its preconceptions and which from the outset was bound to fail, because (as Gilman just knows) there ARE no differences to be found.

Several times, Gilman responds to scientific arguments with non-scientific, moralistic ones. For example, after introducing the work of Raphael Patai (The Jewish Mind, 1977) and Kevin MacDonald (A people that shall dwell alone. Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, 1994), he accuses these authors of being tactless in using the term "selection" as likely process which has shaped Jewish IQ, because it reminds Gilman of the "selection" in the Nazi concentration camps during the holocaust. Here, the author clearly instrumentalizes the suffering of Nazi-victims, because the kind of genetic selection Patai and MacDonald propose is one acting through traditional Jewish practices in choosing a suitable partner for marriage, not one through between-group homicide. After presenting this (scientifically invalid) moral argument Gilman doesn't make any attempt to present scientific arguments against the actual evidence for Jewish eugenic practice on intelligence as a heritable trait. To him the idea is obviously too absurd (and obscene at that) to deserve serious consideration, and empirical evidence doesn't seem to count anything in Gilmans social constructivist approach.

For Gilman, even to hypothesize that there may be differences between groups such as Jews and gentiles amounts to no less than racism. To be sure, there have been several scientists with strong racist views, but certainly not all of them were of that kind. Here, Gilman is unable or unwilling to make any distinction between bad and better science. Any scientifically untested racist statement made by some historic scientist is scored equal to obviously more serious studies undertaken by (often Jewish) researchers. Gilman seems also unable or unwilling to distinghish between the study of group differences and group discrimination which strongly implies that he is not used to making a difference between the "is" and the "ought". This feature alone disqualifies him for handling the subject, because from his personally favored "ought" only one of two possible "is'" can follow.

In conclusion, Gilman fails to show that there isn't any truth in the idea of Jewish superior intelligence beyond social construction. Therefore, only readers who share Gilman's preconceptions about the topic will enjoy reading this book, while all other readers will find this book hardly challenging. But then: what is the use of a book which doesn't have the power to challenge one's mind, but only to please it?

There's little I can add to the German reviewer's excellent summation of this huffy puffy tract, except that nearly every sentence on the audiotape edition should be read with the proper gasping inhalation. (As in, "How dare you! ")

I also want to balance the number of stars the poor Deutscher mistakenly awarded it!

interesting book. it discusses how the myth that jews are smart, has developed. It does'nt answer the question 'are jews smarter?' and actually, in a very academic unbiased research, it concludes that such a question can't be answered.

This book is one of the worst I've come across about the Civil War era. The chapters on Lincoln will suffice in showing the overall value of the work. While some characterizations of Lincoln are on the money, the author completely and inexcusably overlooks the fallacies in Lincoln's views on slavery. For example, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates the author ignores Lincoln's view that blacks should be free yet shouldn't vote, intermarry, serve in the militia etc. The author also invokes too many times the worn-out cliche of the stereotypical southerner who wants to lynch blacks at every turn. Also a negative point in the book is the weird inclusion of a chapter on the myth of the Old West. The author strangely attacks John Wayne and Paul Harvey (!?) for daring to believe that individualism reigned in the Old West. Also the author exposes some liberal racism in implying that blacks and Indians don't need to "make it on the own." Pick up some other book on the Civil War and it will surely be worth your time.

This work of essays about Civil War era people isn't well done at all. While some material, especially on Lincoln, is good the tome lags in many areas. For example, the author entertains the asinine theory that the Southern states were plotting to extend slavery into the North prior to the Civil War. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Also the author ignores the possibility that the reason that the South seceded from the Union was not that they didn't believe Lincoln's promise about not interfering with slavery but that they were afraid of loosing the balance of power in the senate. This scenario would have surely happened if slavery was prevented from spreading. Another example of how lackluster the book is the chapter on the Old West included for no apparent reason other than to provide the author an opportunity to needlessly attack John Wayne, Nixon, and Paul Harvey about individualism. The author contends that it didn't exist in the Old West but he is wrong. While certain things brought people together, most settlers were too far away to do this on a daily basis. This is a prime reason why the pioneers were such easy pickings for Indian war parties, outlaws, and others like them. General Sherman, who was in charge for the defense of the West for a time, stated this as a prime reason why the army couldn't protect all of the settlers. There are many more books worth a serious reader's time than this book.

Being a computer engineer, I have never touched half the FE material. This book barely touched on the subjects, and some not at all. Full of misspellings, grammatical mistakes, I highly do *NOT* recommend this book. The only thing I used was the practice exam which is available in other books.

Being a computer engineer, I needed a book that would summarize the fundamentals of electrical engineering. This book barely touched on most of the subjects, full of misspellings, grammatical mistakes and sentences that start and don't finish. Highly do NOT recommend. The only thing I really used in this book was the practice afternoon exam.

Wordy editorial by Russell. He talks about many things other than Lincoln's life. Interesting to people that are VERY familar with the era (history professors), but not to the person looking for an historic account of Lincoln's life. Did not even want to finish this book it was so boring.

For those interested in the early maritime movement, this is an easy read, provides good background,and may serve to help one grasp the early maritime struggles. However, there are no notes, nor a bib. Berwick paints Furuseth as pratically the greatest man since Jesus Christ. Well, I suppose it is mentioned that he was stubborn, and could not differentiate between a communists, and a wobblie, however Old Andy's flaws are underplayed. Try seeking William Camp's San Francisico; Port of Gold for information on the 19th century and Bruce Neslon's Workers on the Waterfront, for a more detailed, and balanced view of the maritime movement in the 20th century.

ummm...I guess it was okay. Not what I was expecting though. Particularily the story about the strange lady who collected dead animals. . . wierd.

This book has SEVERAL errors in it. Formulas are written incorrectly - some topics are totally absent! One particular passage tells the reader to "refer to a textbook on classical control" to review a certain topic. I thought that was the reason for purchasing the book!?! It is faster for me to read an entire chapter in the textbook than to go through a one-page review in this book. Wading through the botched formulas and skipped topics is a waste of the reader's time.

When will you have 1999 models for sale. Thank you. I have to rate a book I have not read.

I have not read this book and on the advertisement for it there is no information other than the title to help decide whether it might be interesting to me. But, if the use of 'psychohistory' in the title is anything to go by, perhaps I could suggest having a little mountain of salt on the side, to take at judicious moments, if you read this book. The only reason I say this is that I imagine the book maybe has some connection with Lloyd deMause's Internet stuff on psychohistory.

On the other hand, because of the first word 'Pseudohistory' maybe the book would be a debunker of various myths, and maybe it would be worth a look!

Since I am not familiar with Lincoln and am a non-US-citizen, the lack of any further information about the book on ......... is a great nuisance.