Sam Doyel

The Good:
This book is good if you're looking for a easy to understand, general overview of some of the correlations between the killers instead of a deeper analysis of their motives. The author does not solely focus on the crimes which are constantly rehashed by today's media; he explores many of the past terrible shootings which are not as widely covered or known today. Mr. Kerr does a good job at giving a concise general overview of each killer's upbringing and potential factors leading to each crime. However, he does not really speculate or make assumptions–he just lays out the facts. With many of the killers' stories, he includes chilling quotes from the killers, giving a brief sobering insight into their minds.

The Bad:
If you know the history behind many of these crimes, you're not going to learn much. The book is simple in its style. The main issue I personally had with this book was that the author went in too many directions with the topic of school killings. He leads off the book and ends it with several stories which are more of war crimes or terrorism. The stories of these crimes don't really flow well with crimes like Columbine, Red Lake, or Texas Tower. Yes, all the types of crimes had to do with school shootings, but the mentality and motives of Islamic extremists are drastically different than individuals like Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold.

Despite being a very slow read, I loved this book. If you'd like to gain a better understanding of global interactions and the Cold War, this is the book for you. While reading this book, you begin to connect the dots and see the secondary and tertiary effects of conflicts or economic events during the Cold War. Spanier sufficiently covers events like the SALT treaties or the Vietnam War, but he digs deeper and gets down into the weeds of lesser known events. For example, he shows the effects of Soviet-Cuba intervention in Angola, the Sino-Vietnamese conflict of 1979, the Suez War, and civil war in El Salvador.

(Unfortunately, I only have the eleventh edition, which ends during Reagan's presidency. However, if Spanier covers the policies of 1990 and on as well as he covers foreign policy in this book, I'd imagine the more recent editions are just as good.)

Despite its age, this book still has much relevance today. It achieves its clearly stated goal which is to provide the reader with simple, easy to understand, and practical advice on commanding an Air Force squadron from a diversity of Air Force squadron commanders. The reader will not really find much on the philosophy behind leadership in this book. Instead, the reader will glean great information on day to day command operations and the function and structure of a squadron. Although Col Timmons targets a very specific audience, his book is full of important lessons on unit management and leadership that other Air Force commanders on various levels may find useful.

Fascinating and important first person account on one of the lesser-known significant battles of World War II. The Battle of Huertgen Forest was the longest battle the Army fought in World War II, but it was immediately followed and eclipsed by the more familiar Battle of the Bulge. Paul Boesch, an Army lieutenant at the time, provides the reader with a enthralling and often painful account of one of the most vicious, fierce, and agonizing battles in US history. As an added bonus, Boesch includes several of his poems at the end of the book. These poems give a glimpse into his personal thoughts and emotions on war. I personally rank this book up with the other great first person accounts of WWII, such as “With the Old Breed: On Peleliu and Okinawa” by Eugene Sledge. Outstanding read.

Not a huge fan of Lucado's style in this book. His overuse of folksy illustrations distracts rather than amplifies the already powerful and well-known passages he discusses. The analogies seem continually stretched in their relevance and tend to be questionable in accuracy. Often a story is told with little to no source and tends to end up being highly inaccurate, as is the case in the analogies involving the Taj Mahal, Henry Kissinger, and especially Charlemagne. He unnecessarily adds extra made-up details to passages, like what was going through a character's mind, making serious events appear somewhat comical. Some might appreciate his casual, folksy writing, but personally, it came across as shallow and detracted from the gravity of the Beatitudes.

Does an excellent job at its intended goal, giving a succinct yet fairly detailed look at the breadth of Thailand life from politics, religion, and history to familial relations and pop culture.

Two relatively minor issues:
First, this guide already needs a fairly sizable update on the Thai political section. The 2014 coup d'etat removing Yingluck Shinawatra happened not that long before publication, and the aftermath of the coup including the NCPO and its legislative reorganization isn't fleshed out in as much depth as I would like. Additionally, Thailand has seen several major political events in the few years since publication, including King Bhumibol's death and his succession by King Vajiralongkorn as well as the 2019 election and the continuance of Prayut as the prime minister.

Second, the first chapter of the guide discusses Thailand's place in the surrounding Southeastern Asian area and cultural relationships with those other countries. In the discussion, the guide explicitly states that there are five mainland and five maritime Southeast Asian nations and proceeds to list them out. Somehow East Timor is not only disregarded in the discussion, but it is also not even listed or included as a Southeast Asian nation. Seems a bit odd for a guide published in 2015. However, as East Timor is not the main subject of the guide, this issue isn't that major.

Disjointed book that isn't really worth the time for at least three salient reasons for me (although there's more than I care to get into):
1) The name of the book is a misnomer. Sekulow spends only 3 of 11 chapters talking about ISIS and the other 8 talking about Hamas or the Left.
2) During the small portion where Sekulow does talk about ISIS, he doesn't give much detail to its “rise.” The majority of details connected to ISIS are brief visceral images of brutality designed to evoke emotion.
3) Sources. I'm a little more judgmental on this one due to a self-aggrandizing quote on page 13 touting how well-researched this book is: “This book is not long, but you'll notice that it is full of footnotes to our sources. In other words, we've done our homework.” Upon scanning the sources at the back of the book, a significant chunk (at least 50) come from sources like tabloids (Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily News), blogs, and obviously biased sites that can easily serve as just an echo chamber (InfoWars, TheBlaze, etc).

Written in 2007, as American support for intervention in the Middle East continued to wane, Mr. Evans book was a call to action to wake up to the threat of Iran and an Islamic revolution. Due to the recent uprising of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the continued use of proxy war, this book still has relevance today.

First off, if you disagree with Mr. Evans' Christian worldview, you will most likely strongly dislike this book. Personally, I have mixed feelings on this book. The main redeeming factor for me was the appendices which included letters from Ahmadinejad and interviews with Netanyahu, former CIA director James Woolsey, retired IDF Gen. Ya'alon, and others.

Here's some of the various issues I had with the book:
1. As support for one of his points, he quotes Ann Coulter twice. I have major issues with Coulter and am disinclined to agree with someone who would use her as support. But that's just me personally.

2. On page 140, he incorrectly states that the Israeli strike on Osirak was in 1980 (he states it correctly as 1981 on page 150). This might seem like a minor issue to some, but if an author has errors in concrete facts, I'm less likely to agree with him on his opinions/abstract ideas.

3. Mr. Evans spends too much time attempting to prove that former president Carter was the worst president in U.S. history. He also spends too much time vindicating President Bush and it seems as if his personal biases get in the way of his research.

4. His research–he cites Wikipedia 7 times. I know that Wikipedia is a great source to get general information quickly, but using it in a book so many times makes it seem like he was just doing quick research without fully digging into the sources.

Overall, not a huge fan, but the interviews were interesting.

Outstanding account of one of the most brazen feats in recent military history. Sheldon captures the entire overarching picture of the planning and lead-up to the sensational amphibious invasion of Incheon and Seoul. However, in doing so, he does not neglect the up close and personal battles as the book is heavily laden with first person accounts and testimonies from Marine grunts to platoon leaders and tank commanders all the way up to the disputes between generals.

I loved the book, and my only complaints are primarily due to the age of the edition (1968).

1. The romanization used in 1968, McCune-Reischauer, is somewhat different from the modern Revised Romanization. This leads to issues in trying to understand overall pictures of the Korean War. For example, the beach near Pyeongtaek is referred to in the book as Posung-Myon and it took me forever to locate on a map because it is spelled drastically different (something like Poseong-Myeon). Busan is spelled Pusan, Daegu is spelled Taegu, and Deoksugung is referred to as Duksoo Palace. All the differences in locations and names make it somewhat harder to follow.

2. On Page 165, Sheldon states that the only UN allied forces individual killed in the two day bombardment of the island of Wolmido was Lt (jg) David H. Swenson. He furthermore states that Swenson was killed on the U.S.S. Swenson which was named after his uncle who was a Navy hero in World War II. However, this widely reported claim was later disproven as one Swenson was actually spelled Swensen, and the Lt (jg) who was killed in action was not at all related to the World War II Swenson.

3. A handful of typographical errors which were hopefully corrected later on.

Despite a few mistakes and some confusing details, I still greatly recommend this book.

Dr. Stentiford presents a relatively solid overview of a unique and arguably successful case of foreign internal defense largely overshadowed by more prominent COIN operations in various locations such as Western Asia. My primary concern with this book is that while the successes seen from OEF-P in Basilan and Jolo are encouraging, the confirmation of “substantial progress in the theater” (p. 99) and reflection of “why OEF-P succeeded” (p. 103) seem slightly premature. Although viewing from hindsight, the tidiness of the success of OEF-P in 2015 and/or the brevity of time required to see true permanent progress may be overstated in this book. The period discussed covers up to 2015, and the book was published in 2018. At the time of publishing, Dr. Stentiford presents the possible JSOTF-P success of “reduc[ing]...violence to the level of a chronic law enforcement issue rather than a serious challenge to [Philippine government's] legitimacy and sovereignty” (page 90).

However, western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago continue to see significant violence from 2015 to the present date, and US forces are still involved in the region although their presence tends to be hidden from publicity. High profile incidents like the 2015 Mamasapano incident involving the MILF and BIFF which left 44 PNP members dead, the 2016 Battle of Tipo-Tipo against ASG in Basilan which left 18 AFP members dead, the 2019 Jolo Cathedral bombing, and the tens of thousands of displaced indigenous personnel from these incidents seems to typify an ongoing conflict as opposed to a “chronic law enforcement issue.” Most notably, the well-known 5-month long siege of the city of Marawi in 2017 by breakaway members from the MILF and ASG who pledged allegiance to IS indicates a clear and direct threat to legitimacy and sovereignty in Mindanao.

In addition to my primary overarching concern, the book could have also used some proofreading. Place and person names appeared to be often incorrect, unless I'm just not aware of applicable alternate spellings (I searched for these to no avail, but I welcome feedback to the contrary). Additionally, some place names were correct but very obsolete. While I can forgive a few typos, the overall sloppiness made me start questioning objective facts in the book. Examples:

Place Names:
- Page 4 refers to the famous battle of “Bud Datu” during the Moro Rebellion of the early 20th Century. While Bud Datu appears to be an actual location on Jolo Island, I don't know of a famous battle there. However, “Bud Dajo” (alternatively “Bud Dahu”) was the location for two very well-known battles between Americans and Moros in 1906 and 1911.
- Page 42 refers to the municipality of “Tururan” in Basilan, which I believe should be “Tuburan.” I could find no mention of Tururan anywhere. Out of the 13 municipalities/cities and their respective 210 barangays, I could only find the municipality of Tuburan.
- Page 49 refers to the Sultan of Sulu as the Sultan of “Sulo.”
- Maps on page 51 use outdated place names (the entire second map on this page is also physically distorted in its representation of various countries):
– Balimbing (municipality on Tawi-Tawi which was renamed Panglima Sugala in 1991).
– Celebes (old Portuguese name) instead of Sulawesi.
– Indochina (last used in 1950) instead of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
– Formosa (last used in 1945) instead of Taiwan.
– Batavia (last used in 1942) instead of Jakarta (additionally, the location marked for Batavia isn't even in the correct location).
- Page 66 incorrectly refers to a “Tamantaka River” near Cotabato and then three sentences later it is referred to correctly as the Tamontaka River.
- Page 69 lists “Malamavi” as an island near Basilan. The island being referred to is actually “Malamawi,” and the misspelling is made even worse by the correct spelling of it in the map on page 68.
- Map on Page 68 is also labeled incorrectly like the map on page 51:
– The Batanes (or Batan Islands) are mislabeled as the “Babat Islands.”
– The city of Baguio is mislabeled as “Bagulo.”
– Legazpi is labeled as “Legaspi.” From what I can find, Legazpi was named after Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, so “Legaspi” should be incorrect.
– Bongao Island is labeled as “Bongoa Island” (which is then spelled correctly as “Bongao” on page 79).
– Masbate Island is labeled as “Visayan Island.” It is a part of the Visayas, but generic regional labeling is inconsistent with the specificity of the other labels on the map.
– Masbate City is labeled as “Mastrato.” I couldn't find mention of “Mastrato” in any municipality on Masbate nor in any of the 550 barangays.
– Cagayancillo labeled as “Cagaya Island.” Cagayancillo used to be known as “Cagayan.”

Person Names:
- Page 86 refers to President Benigno Aquino III as “Benito” Aquino.
- Page 95 refers to the French king, King Philip IV as “Phillip IV.”

Other Minor Mistakes:
- Egregious typos that made sentences confusing, such as “reMost” (p. 3), “recestanding” (p.4), and “effots” (p. 49)
- Dates of “Operation Ultimatum” are listed as Aug 2006 – Apr 2007, whereas the source referenced (US Special Operations Forces in the Philippines, 2001-2014 by Linda Robinson) lists August 2006 – October 2007 (p. 52)

Given the amount of information placed in a short 97 page guide, the guide is overall beneficial to a person like me who is new to Malaysian history. However, there were a few content issues that lowered my rating.

Malacca's Conversion to Islam
On page 23, the guide states that “in 1444, Malacca's sultan (king) Muzaffar Shah converted to Islam and declared his sultanate (kingdom) a Muslim state.” The way this statement is presented, it appears that the timeline of Malaccan conversion to Islam is clear and tidy. However, in reality, not only is the exact timeline of Malacca conversion to Islam debated, but also the succession of the first four or five sultans is unclear. Depending on historian, Muzaffar Shah may be the fourth or fifth Sultan of Malacca. Richard Wilkinson posited in A History of the Peninsular Malays, pp 31-37, that Muzaffar Shah was the fifth sultan, but that Muzaffar Shah may have been the third or fourth Muslim leader of Malacca. On the other hand, Richard Winstedt later argued in The Malays: A Cultural History that Muzaffar Shah was the fourth Sultan and that Parameswara (the first sultan from 1402-1414) converted to Islam and changed his name to Iskander Shah, thereby the first Islamic leader. The variety of modern viewpoints derives from the inconsistencies between Portuguese (Suma Oriental), Malay (Malay Annals) and Ming (Ming Shilu) written sources of the period. One of the best compilations of the various views on this period in Malaccan history can be found in Christopher Wake's “Malacca's Early Kings and the Reception of Islam” in Journal of Southeast Asian History, 104-128 (www.jstor.org/stable/20067505).

Ultimately, Muzaffar Shah's reign did solidify the presence of Islam in Malacca, and the Malay peninsula never looked back from Islam from that point on. However, the conversion may have been more gradual and nuanced, and the guide's appearance of certainty on the matter can be misguiding. Additionally, Wake lists Muzaffar Shah's reign as 1446-1459, while other authors list it as 1445-1459. The year 1444 used in the handbook can also not be conclusively determined.

Casualties of Japanese War Crimes
Page 27 quickly details some of the major atrocities committed by the Japanese, namely Sook Ching and the Railway of Death, during their World War II occupation of Malaya. The numbers and victims presented are also somewhat misrepresented though. The guide states over 50,000 Chinese-Malaysians were killed in Sook Ching, but a concrete basis for this number seems impossible to find. The Japanese claim only 5,000 died, while LKY gave a range of 70,000 to 90,000 in an interview with Discovery Channel. However, again, no clear foundation is given for these claims. Kevin Blackburn in “The Collective Memory of the Sook Ching Massacre and the Creation of the Civilian War Memorial of Singapore” in Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Asiatic Society (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41493428) states that LKY's numbers are “undoubtedly exaggerated” and argues of “strong evidence for a figure somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000.”

The main issue in this section however is more the treatment of the victims of the Thai-Burma Railway. The guide states that the Japanese forced “Chinese and Malays to work on the infamous Thai-Burma Railway, where an estimated 100,000 laborers died.” While the figure are more verifiably accurate than the Sook Ching deaths, glaringly omitted from this section is the fact that Tamil-Malaysians appear to be the primary victims. Survivor Rohan Rivett's book Behind Bamboo: Hell on the Burma Railway refers to the Asian laborers on the railway as “mainly Tamils from Malaya” and states that “at least 100,000 and probably as many as 250,000 [Tamil-Malaysians] perished” (p. 266). However, the guide fails to even include a mention of the Tamil-Malaysians as present on the railway, much less being a majority of the workforce/casualties.

MRLA or MNLA?
On page 28, the guide discusses the “Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA)” in the context of Malaya's post-World War II civil conflict or “emergency.” However, MRLA is a mistranslation of the Chinese name for the group which is correctly translated as “Malayan National Liberation Army” (MNLA). Karl Hack in “'Iron Claws on Malaya': The Historiography of the Malayan Emergency,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20072108), refers to the group using the MNLA title and states in footnotes that “in 1949, [the group] switched to ‘Malayan National (Min-tsu) Liberation Army'; the term min-tsu was unsatisfactorily translated as ‘Races' by Special Branch.” Furthermore, Chin Peng, the actual leader of the MNLA stated that MNLA was the correct translation.

Mouse or Deer?
In referring to popular myths in Parameswara's founding of Malacca, page 32 states “One of his dogs found a white deer mouse (notably alert mouse and not to be confused with mousedeer...)” However, in the Malay Annals, page 89, it states “One of his dogs roused a white pelandok, which attacking the dog, drove it into the water.” The clarification in this guide to state that Parameswara was observing a mouse and not a small deer appears to be inaccurate. “Pelandok” refers to a “mouse-deer” or “chevrotain,” specifically “Tragulus javanicus” which is an ungulate, not a mouse/rodent.

Inaccurate History of Malaysian Flag
Page 33 says that the blue in the Malaysian flag is the traditional color of Malay rulers, but Malaysia.gov (https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/138) states otherwise saying that the yellow of the crescent and star is the royal color of Malay rulers. Furthermore, the handbook states that the Malaysian flag was modeled on the design of the US flag. I couldn't find anything conclusive to support that. On the other hand, the white and red stripes seem to derive from the flag of the East India Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_East_India_Company) which further derived from the much earlier Majapahit flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majapahit) while Johor's flag seems to provide the crescent and star design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_and_coat_of_arms_of_Johor).

Minor Complaints...
On pages 6-7, the guide does not mention Timor-Leste while listing out the nations in Southeast Asia. Most sources, such as the CIA Factbook list Timor-Leste in Southeast Asia. The decision to consider Timor-Leste in Australia and Oceania rather than Southeast Asia seems rather arbitrary as the author agency did not provide an explanation for the decision. Possibly this decision is based on the fact that, like Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste falls entirely on the eastern side of the Wallace Line.

Page 41 refers to the “Organization of Islamic Conferences.” This title changed to “Organization of Islamic Cooperation” in 2011, 4 years prior to the publishing of the guidebook.

Malaysia and Brunei's border is only around 165 miles according to the CIA Factbook, unlike 237 miles stated on page 33.

A couple minor typos including the Malay word for “councils” as “majilis” instead of “majlis.”

One of the most incredible books I have ever read. Louis Zamperini's story is an emotional rollercoaster. Every chapter seemed to bring twists that left me incredulous. Laura Hillenbrand's excellent writing and thorough research did this great story justice. This story of perseverance, indomitable will, and unbelievable forgiveness is a great read for many audiences. I highly recommend this book...5 stars isn't enough.

I had heard some negative things about David Barton's writing, but I decided to read through it with an open mind. What I discovered really disappointed me. It was even worse than I had heard.

1. Before even discussing the content, I will say that the structure is awful. 138 pages with no clear divisions, like one long disjointed article. It's just one paragraph after another, and it doesn't always follow a clear chronological or topical progression.

2. The overall premise. I incorrectly assumed by the cover, introduction, and a paragraph on the back that this book would be about African-American political involvement. As it says on the back, “‘Setting the Record Straight' reintroduces this generation to the forgotten heroes and untold stories from our rich African American political history.” While it does include some references to actual African American leaders, that's not its main focus. By “forgotten heroes,” Barton means good Republicans who helped civil rights, and by “untold stories,” Barton means explaining the terrible history of the Democratic party. In essence, the entire premise is Republicans v. Democrats, not African American history.

3. Yes, Barton includes a lot of facts and backs them up with sources. However, he cherry-picks the facts and omits other facts that might be contrary to his views. I agree that a lot of wrong was done by Democrats in the Civil War era/Reconstruction era, and I'm not even addressing his conclusion. I'm simply disappointed with his unethical way of getting to that final point. If you don't fact check everything he says, most of it sounds really good, but really isn't. For example:

a. On page 66, speaking of African Americans being elected to political offices, Barton says, “Significantly, the first three black U.S. Senators–Revels, Bruce, and Brooke–were all Republicans. Carol Moseley-Braun (of Illinois) was the fourth black American to serve in the U.S. Senate, but only the first Democrat; and Barack Obama (also from Illinois) was only the second black Democratic U.S. Senator).” This statement is completely accurate. However, the way that statement is written makes it sound like the Democrats are way behind Republicans historically in terms of racial diversity amongst U.S. senators. At the time of the writing of this book, only five African-Americans had been elected as a U.S. senator–three Republicans and two Democrats. Seeing that in perspective diminishes the impact that Barton was intending. In addition, the current total of African-Americans who have served as U.S. senator is nine–four Republicans and five Democrats. Here's how Barton would word that if he were a Democrat: “In the past 130 years, Republicans have only had two African-Americans serve as U.S. senator. Not only has the Democrat party had five African-Americans serve as U.S. senator in the last 20 years, but also one of those is the only female African-American senator and another went on to become the first African-American president of the United States.” That statement would also be correct, but it improperly skews the perception of true historical reality.

b. On pages 88-89, Barton points out that Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 was a reinstatement of the education desegregation that Republicans had fought for back in 1875. He then continues to hit Democrats by speaking of the Southern Democrat backlash against the Supreme Court's decision. Again, Barton makes it seem as if Republicans were solely responsible for the desegregation of education and that Democrats were the only ones opposed to it. Perhaps he should have also mentioned that the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was a unanimous 9-0 decision by six Democrat, two Republican (one, Warren, was Chief Justice), and one Independent justices.

c. Around pages 120-127, Barton writes on the civil rights acts in the late 50s through the 60s. He speaks glowingly of President Eisenhower's contributions to civil rights acts while diminishing any reference to the civil rights views of Democrat Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. He indicates that all of the civil rights acts were only passed because of the strong support of Republicans in spite of the fierce opposition by Democrats. He points out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a Republican support rate that was nearly 20% higher than the Democrat support rate. This statistic clearly shows Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right? Well, let's take a look at two different ways to look at the numbers for support of the Civil Rights Act. First, you can look at it by party voting. In the Senate, the overall vote was 73-27. Democrats voted 46-21 (69% in favor), and Republicans voted 27-6 (82% in favor). In the House, the overall vote was 289-126. Democrats voted 153-91 (63% in favor), and Republicans voted 136-35 (80% in favor). According to this way of looking at the numbers, this confirms Barton's point of view. However, the second way to look at the numbers is voting by region–Northern and Southern states. For this point of view, the Southern states are those states which seceded and the Northern states are all others states. In the Senate, Southern Democrats voted 1-20 (5% in favor) and Southern Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). However, Northern Democrats voted 45-1 (98% in favor), while Northern Republicans voted 27-5 (84% in favor). In the House, Southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7% in favor) and Southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0% in favor). However, Northern Democrats voted 145-9 (94% in favor) and Northern Republicans voted 138-24 (85% in favor). Overall, Northern Democrats voted 190-10 in favor while Northern Republicans voted 165-29 in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Southern Democrats voted 8-107 against while Southern Republicans voted 0-11 against. Looking at the numbers from a regional perspective gives a much more accurate view. When you look at it from this perspective, you should realize that David Barton is falsely portraying reality–it wasn't Democrat v. Republican like he wants to deceive you.

4. David Barton is somewhat hypocritical in his book. On page 125, he calls out the DNC because their website leaves out their history from 1848-1900. He states, “Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900? Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about–perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website.” Do I think that's an accurate statement? Yes, I think there could definitely be legitimacy to that statement. But while Barton calls out the DNC, he commits the same mistake. He spends nearly the entirety of the book going over racist Democrat policies from the Reconstruction Era in the South. Near the end of the book, he finally gets into civil rights in the 1900s, but he only spends roughly 16 pages out of 138 on any time period outside of 1848-1900. Why would Barton skim over that history? Perhaps because that's not the kind of civil rights history that reinforces the heavily biased points he's trying to convey. In the 16 pages discussing non-Reconstruction Era civil right, he only has weak, baseless attacks on Democrats like the points I've already explained in 3b and 3c.

5. My last main frustration with this book is that making civil rights a Democrat v. Republican issue just turns into an endless, pointless debate. Barton's book doesn't achieve anything; it just panders to one side. According to MLK Jr (who Barton barely even mentions), “Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights.” That roughly 70 word statement by MLK Jr. encapsulates more truth on Democrats v. Republicans regarding civil rights than the amount of correctly portrayed truth in the entirety of Barton's 138 page book.