150+ Books You Should Be Reading In Class, But Probably Aren’t


International Relations & American Foreign Policy:

Vietnam War

Norman Podhoretz, Why We Were In Vietnam

Jeremiah Denton, When Hell was in Session

Bruce Herschensohn, An American Amnesia: How the US Congress Forced the Surrenders of Vietnam and Cambodia

B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley: Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History

Lewis Sorley, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam

Mark Moyar, Triumph Forsaken

Cold War

John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History

Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards

John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr , In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage

Harvey Klehr, John Haynes, Alexander Vassiliev, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB

War on Terror

Doug Feith, War and Decision

China

Ethan Gutmann: Losing the New China

Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story

Global Studies

Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works

Deepak Lal, In Praise of Empires

Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World

Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West

-Dissenting books for Law and Literature classes are next

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

August 10th, 2010
Topic: Adopt a Dissenting Book, Uncategorized Tags: None
  • Martin K Keene

    Recommend you add the following to list under History
    1> “As We Go Marching”
    2> “The Roosevelt Myth”
    Both written by John T. Flynn printed 1954

  • http://lewitacja.com/ Imprezy integracyjne wrocław

    Often, children in schools that do not read most of the national literature. Then it does not have the sense of patriotism.

  • Nullifidian

    This list does more than any critic of reactionism (I will not degrade the term “conservatism” here) ever could to point out the far-right’s cultural illiteracy. Recommending “A Patriot’s History of the United States”? Calling “Atlas Shrugged” literature? Calling D’Souza’s comic polemic “The End of Racism” a work of sociology?

    One can see where the problem arises from your “political philosophy” section: you don’t actually know what conservatism *is*. Out of your whole list, only two names qualify, and one of them isn’t conservative but an American libertarian (Robert Nozick — and I use “American libertarian” to distinguish the term from its European connotation). Only Michael Oakeshott qualifies as a genuine conservative philosopher. You lot need to sit down with a copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana” to correct your state of ignorance (and this is another book notable by its absence).

    Do any of you actually know how academia works? Simply gainsaying some existing thought identified as ‘liberal’ is not enough to get you qualified as an academically sound conservative thinker. You actually have to apply some scholarship to your thoughts and open yourself up to the criticism of your colleagues. It’s revealing, then, that the majority of these works are right-wing polemics from the popular presses. To be taught in academia, you have to have something worth the reading. Biographies are not taught in college unless the figures have actually *done* something, which few of your selections qualify. Why the hell should a student read “Radical Son”? Just because it’s by David Horowitz and he whines about lefties? If you wanted a conservative figure to feature in your biography section, why not suggest John Henry Newman’s “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”? At least that has some cognizable reason for being included in a British literature class, for example.

    Pull yourselves together and start writing stuff with actual scholarly merit if you want to be admitted into the community of scholars.