Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned (Don't Know Much About Series)

Like a great baker, a great writer can turn even what might have been stale into something not just digestible, but delicious. Clever turns of phrase and crisp, engaging writing style (in an easily referenced question and answer format) allow historian Kenneth Davis to chart American history and debunk many of its myths in this exceptional update of his 1990 best-seller.
Drawing on reports of the period and on revisionist histories, Davis concisely shows the humanity in American icons known only by one name: Lincoln's views on race relations, Washington's at times bawdy sense of humor, Franklin Roosevelt's thirst for power and gift for political (and apparently, personal) compromise, Ford and Lindbergh's disquieting bigotry and animosity. (Robert E. Lee's quote on slavery's positive effects show him, despite honors afforded him in the Civil War's losing cause, very much a man of his time.) Davis also provides short biographies of historic's outstanding black voices, from Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois' passion to the Mohammad Ali's athletic urban poetry.
Davis also shows a refreshing desire not to be objective, a rarity in books like this. He attacks the nation's great shames (treatment of Native and African Americans, Japanese-American internment during World War II), targeting history's cynics and opportunists whose names still ring of American royalty: Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, even the Kennedys. (Davis' coverage of the reasons and results of 1898's Spanish-American War will disturb those always thinking Americans fought defensively and for the right causes.) Davis also explains the interlocking events which started WWI, which (should you choose to read the book cover to cover) pour into every other tragic conflict which followed up to and including September 11.
Davis misses some steps covering the last 30 years. He covers Watergate in depth, including an events timeline, which he does for every war covered in the book. But he glosses over Richard Nixon's historic trip to China and for that matter, much of the Ford-Carter years. He again retells Monica Lewinsky's affair with President Bill Clinton but fails to capture (in fact, hardly mentions) the Whitewater and Travelgate scandals inspiring Ken Starr's investigation and staining Clinton's administration and legacy.
Davis` summary of American tragedies tying into September 11's horror is heartfelt but forced. But he also explains Electoral College and US Constitution, charts the US presidents, and provides an exhaustive list of referred readings to complete an exceptionally exciting retelling of history. "Don't Know Much About History" is a title only true until the book is completed; it is exceptionally helpful as a primer and essential as a supplementary history book.

It's not what Mr. Davis DOESN'T know about History that makes this such a dangerous book for it's intended audience, it what he DOES know that just aint so. For example, he "knows" that Karl Marx was really on to something in making class struggle the driving force behind historical change. But that's just not true.

He "knows" that the next most important things you can say about any historical figure are how they measure up to 21st century orthodoxies on questions of race and gender. This tells us something about Davis, but not much about the historical situations that he claims to be talking about.

A quick way to verify these overall assertions is to pick a subject that he deals with that you already know something about and flip to the end of the section where he gives his "must reads." Even when he waffles a bit in the text (or more often hides behind another historian), his bias almost always shows up here.

One question:
What good results from reading an "interesting" history book that confuses facts and opinions?
One opinion:
If you like historical opinion, buy a book by an author who writes historical fiction or acknowledges he is biased.
One solution:
The encyclopedia will help you separate established facts from Davis's opinions.
Here are a few corrections for those who read this book.
1. Washington did not nudge Henry Knox with the tip of his boot as he stepped into his boat to cross the Delaware. Knox did not travel in the same boat as George Washington. Knox was in charge of transporting the horses and artillery on the big ferry boats.
2. Most of the men crossed the Delaware standing up. Big river ferries and freight boats (Durham boats) had few seats or none at all. If a man sat on the bottom of one of those boats in the winter he would have been sitting in ice water.
I got these facts from "Washington's Crossing," by David Hackett Fischer.

"Don't Know Much About History" is as hard a book to recommend as it is hard to truly scorn. Author Kenneth Davis succeeds in offering a single-volume, broad view of American history, covering most major events and eras in simple, accessible language. Yet Davis fails to craft a balanced book, his own political viewpoints and biases too often intruding upon the text. It's unfortunate.
As it purports to do, "Don't Know Much..." runs the gamut of American history, from the earliest explorers to September 11, 2001, and just about every major event in between. Events are summarized and explained in easy to understand language, making this book a great starting point for those just developing a love for history, or those just looking to refresh their memory of lessons learned long ago. Interspersed throughout the tome are timelines on major events (the Civil War, World War II) and quotes from key historical figures. Overall, the presentation is wonderful and will be a boon to those with even a passing interest in history. A well-formatted piece.
Unfortunately, despite his claims otherwise, the author fails to leave his own political viewpoints out of the text. (Certainly the preface in the revised edition, where Davis spends pages telling you why the book is NOT biased, screams of protesting a bit too much). His viewpoint intrudes too often, increasingly so as the book grows closer to modern times.
As far as Davis is concerned - or at least as far as he writes - business in America is a Great Evil, never having done anything that wasn't corrupt, dishonest and brutal to the working man. Not once does he offer a success story about business improving the American way of life through technology or economic means, yet dozens of examples are given about what mean-spirited murderers businessmen are. The transcontinental railroad, for instance, did not link the two coasts and thrust America into the future, it murdered thousands of workers for the petty gain of greedy rich industrialists. An objective writer would have noted that it did both.
Such is Davis' vision for all of American history. America saw no instances of bravery, or sacrifice, or grand vision, or good intentions in Davis' America (even those who fought slavery did so out of greed, not a desire to free slaves, he writes). America saw no inspiration, no can-do spirit, no hands-on building of a new world. Certainly nothing worth being proud of. Only greed, murder, racism, and more greed. Davis harps on these themes repeatedly. It a pattern he repeats throughout the book. There is only one side of the American story Davis presents; that of greed and racism.
Davis' propensity to inject racist motivations into event after event, even when the historical record supports no such motivation, is equally troubling. America's history with racism is disturbing and shameful; that it is well-chronicled here is unquestionably commendable. Yet the author also seems to chronicle racism in almost every action taken by America since its inception, whether or not there is any indication that race played a part in the event. He assigns racist attitudes to some not out of proof, but out of his own assumptions. The message is clear: If it's a white male, it must be racist.
Don't Know Much's take on more recent history is most troubling in its bias. It would be difficult to chronicle here without sparking a political debate, but suffice it to say, Davis has a side of the story he wants to tell, and he tells it. Even if it's only half the story. (The best `for instance' is that during Reagan's eight years in office, the only thing that ever happened was Iran Contra. Reagan slept through the rest, according to the Davis version of the 80s. While some would agree, it's hardly an objective or balanced view of history).
None of this is to say the book does not have merits. It does. The writing is crisp, fast-paced yet detailed, and informative. The humor is light and welcome. Most eras in America's history are covered, including very good coverage of the pre-Revolution years, a period often overlooked in history books. The pace of the reading is brisk, yet the information rarely stops flowing, a feat few historical writers can manage. Davis also makes an effort to put events in the context of their times, and to contrast events with what came before and after. Putting history in its place helps us understand it better, and here the author does well. It is an engaging book to read.
Bias aside, Don't Know Much About History is easy to recommend to a casual reader just looking for a quick primer on American history - with the caveat that they are getting a skewed view of things. The book will be all but worthless to the student of history - you won't learn anything new here, though you may be entertained. And the book may well be abrasive and irritating to those who want their history with a little more balance. But as a single-volume chronicle of American history that is both complete and well-written, it would be difficult not to recommend this. The bias is there, but for readers willing to look past it, this is a solid selection.
A great idea by Davis, and a fine enough effort that fails only because of too much editorializing, and even then the failure is not so big as to spoil the whole thing.

This is the liberal view of history. (They never see anything good.)
This is the whole book.
We hurt the Indians.
We hurt blacks.
We hurt the Viet Cong.
Conservatives are bad.

Kenneth C Davis presents an unvarnished look at the history of America from Columbus to mid-2002. His viewpoint incorporates modern scholarship and sensibilities and avoids the traditional oatmeal that America is always right and good, but not in a particularly accusatory or condemning way. For example, it exposes Jackson, Sherman, and others for their mistreatment of the Indians but doesn't actually condemn them. It explains Washington and Jefferson's ownership of slaves without apologizing for them.

That said, Davis makes some of the traditional mistakes, such as mistaking presidential politics for history, treating peace as just the uneventful time between wars, and focusing on meaningless scandals (his conclusion after a long discourse on Jefferson and Sally Hemmings? "We don't know.") Davis fails to address the rise of high technology any more than the rise of heavy industry. There's not one word about developments that define modern American culture: cinema, rock-and-roll, suburban sprawl, e-mail, and so on.

Still, Davis addresses the major events we all learn about in school but forget the details of and does so in an engaging and meaningful way. A note to audiophiles: I listened to the unabridged version on CD and found the frequent lengthy timelines to be hard to follow, especially since the narrator doesn't reiterate the year for each event.

Thorough understandings of history come only after reading many many books on the subject, including a few in neighboring subjects. If you take your history from pop culture (books like this one), you will have a contorted understanding. Let's look at a passage from Davis's book. He's talking here about the Industrial Revolution and Robber Barons:

"Another of the era's giants was John D Rockefeller (1839 - 1937), a bookkeeper by training who was once hired to investigate the investment promise of oil. Rockefeller told his employers it had 'no future' and then invested in it himself, buying his first refinery in 1862. With a group of partners, he formed the South Improvement Company, a company so corrupt that it was forced out of business. Rockefeller responded by forming Standard Oil of Cleveland in 1870. Standard bought-off whole legislatures, made secret deals with railroads to obtain favorable rates, and weakened rivals through bribery and sabotage until Rockefeller could buy them out with Standard Oil stock.
"The trusts and enormous monopolies kept prices artificially high, prevented competition, and set wages scandously low. These monopolies had been built through graft and government subsidies, on the backs of poorly paid workers, whose attempts to organize were met with deadly force.."

Each of the above sentences (there are seven in all) is demonstrably wrong, but since most college texts (ones I've seen) agree generally, nobody would likely second-guess any of them. But is the truth important? Please let me number and correct each sentence:

1. Any man interested in going into business in those days took an apprenticeship as a bookkeeper. Wouldn't you say that accounting is important to a business man? A "bookkeeper by training" is not right. It leads the reader to think that he was a bookkeeper by trade before he went on to rip people off.

2. Who hired him to investigate the investment promise of oil? No answer is given. Why? If J.D. saw no investment potential in oil in the 1850's, it was only because everyone else did too. Oil was difficult to pump from the ground and expensive to refine. But Mr Davis doesn't care about this; he wants his readers to think that J.D. turned right around and, behind the backs of his employers, began quietly to invest in it himself, secretly believing in oil's promise.
In reality, there's a five year gap between Rockefeller's "investigation" and his "purchase" of a refinery in 1862. And it was in this 5 year period that Edwin Drake devised a method of pumping oil from the ground (1859). Then, suddenly, oil was all the rage. Now J.D. was interested in oil, and he began studying it with another enthusiast, Samuel Andrews. The two men did not "purchase" their first refinery, they BUILT it.

3. J.D. did not "form the South Improvement Company" with a group of partners. He joined the already formed trust thinking that he could save on shipping and cut some waste. He later said that it was the biggest mistake of his life. That company was actually stillborn, having its charter revoked without ever having shipped a single barrel of oil. It never conducted ANY business at all.

4 & 5. This business about buying off whole legislatures exists only in Mr Davis's imagination. I guess Mr. Davis has a kind of momentum by now, throwing around words like "graft" and "corruption," that he can't help himself. As for obtaining favorable rates from railroads, what's wrong with that? When you purchase in large volumes, you can get discounts. I can go to Amazon right now and buy envelopes. I can buy a dozen at one unit price but a gross at smaller unit price. Is this graft, Mr Davis?
He never bribed or sabotaged rivals. He did offer to buy them out, often. Sometimes they would sell, sometimes they would not. J.D. went his way, often becoming good friends with the very men whom he had bought-out.

6. I've already refuted the premise of this sentence. The trust was dissolved before doing ANY business, and his giant Standard Oil was not a coercive monopoly, it was just BIG. And it was BIG because of it's efficiency and ability to bring refined oil products to market at prices that were hard to compete with. It was not CORRUPTION, Mr Davis, it was EFFECIENCY.

7 Standard Oil led the industry in pay and benefits. They took good care of their employees, saw to their medical care when they were sick, and pensioned them in old age.

Could it be that Kenneth Davis, and the college professors who agree with his general assessment, wish to teach people that business is evil? How else could there be a popular view that Bill Gates was a "Pirate of Silicon Valley?"
And just look at all the work that it took to clean up the mess made by only seven sentences... sentences that would be taken at face value by most any neutral mind. Then consider the severe messes that must exist elsewhere in his book, such as his treatment of C.Vanderbilt and his denial of the existence of cowboys, not to mention his defense of Algier Hiss!
I don't know Davis's sources, but mine in defence of JDR are from 3 books: "Study in Power" by Allan Nevins (1953), JDR's own short autobiography "Reminiscences of Men and Events" and "The American Petroleum Industry; The Age of Illumination" by Williamson and Daum (1959).

The notion of a complete history of the USA broken up into small segments is a great idea. Call it the Readers Digest for history, or call it a bathroom book. But other reviewers are correct about the bias. I'd rather have the same pages devoted to just what happened and how, rather than guessing at why.

I found it ironic that the author found a way to criticize both choices that leaders could make. For example, he criticizes "big business" for dragging the US into a war with Spain. Then he criticizes Henry Ford for being an isolationist before WWII.

Overall, I'd recommend the first half of the book.

Upon picking up Kenneth C. Davis' book "Don't Know Much About History : Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned", I expected exactly what this informative book claims: History made Fun! And while it did certainly live up to it's billing, the author especially towards the latter turns slightly Left in his writing.
In a delightful question/answer style a reader can rip thru this book picking up the basics and less known facts about our great land. As a book it is easy to read and is a valueable reference source. Davis does a great job on events leading up to the Civil War. Really this book is at it's best between the "major" conflicts and events.
As the book winds down (1970-present), we unfortunately see a slight lean towards left wing ideology. While this book is certainly a strong suggestion to other readers...the politics in the end must be addressed.
All in all, a good buy. Strongly recommended!

When studying history you should do it without prejudice, and when writing about it you should ESPECIALLY do it without bias - this is something that Mr. Davis certainly did not do. He added his personal take on many historical events discrediting the participants of the historical event and slamming them for the decisions they made. His liberal predisposition was blatantly obvious. I suppose he never heard the old cliché hindsight is 20/20? His political opinion was voiced too much and entirely too often. While reading I rolled my eyes more than once simply wanting to read about history not his personal take on the situation. I also thought this book would take more of an in depth perspective on history, and reveal some lesser know fun useless knowledge facts not discussed in your run of the mill history book. I found it to be really just a routine run of the mill review of US history - no surprises and nothing interesting.