What do you think?
Rate this book
The Story of Mankind
Winner of the first John Newbery Medal, this renowned classic is now updated for the millennium. Hendrik Willem van Loon's ability to convey history as a fascinating tale of adventure has endeared this book to countless readers. 280 drawings.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1921
About the author
Hendrik Willem van Loon
294 books75 followersHendrik Willem van Loon (January 14, 1882 – March 11, 1944) was a Dutch-American historian and journalist.
Born in Rotterdam, he went to the United States in 1903 to study at Cornell University. He was a correspondent during the Russian Revolution of 1905 and in Belgium in 1914 at the start of World War I. He later became a professor of history at Cornell University (1915-17) and in 1919 became an American citizen.
From the 1910s until his death, Van Loon wrote many books. Most widely known among these is The Story of Mankind, a history of the world especially for children, which won the first Newbery Medal in 1922. The book was later updated by Van Loon and has continued to be updated, first by his son and later by other historians.
However, he also wrote many other very popular books aimed at young adults. As a writer he was known for emphasizing crucial historical events and giving a complete picture of individual characters, as well as the role of the arts in history. He also had an informal style which, particularly in The Story of Mankind, included personal anecdotes.
Born in Rotterdam, he went to the United States in 1903 to study at Cornell University. He was a correspondent during the Russian Revolution of 1905 and in Belgium in 1914 at the start of World War I. He later became a professor of history at Cornell University (1915-17) and in 1919 became an American citizen.
From the 1910s until his death, Van Loon wrote many books. Most widely known among these is The Story of Mankind, a history of the world especially for children, which won the first Newbery Medal in 1922. The book was later updated by Van Loon and has continued to be updated, first by his son and later by other historians.
However, he also wrote many other very popular books aimed at young adults. As a writer he was known for emphasizing crucial historical events and giving a complete picture of individual characters, as well as the role of the arts in history. He also had an informal style which, particularly in The Story of Mankind, included personal anecdotes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 495 reviews
February 25, 2024
The origins of mankind in a nutshell.
Considering it was originally published in 1921, Van Loon's voice is still surprisingly accessible.
And while the information is not 100% accurate, this has a quick and dirty look at the history of the world as historians kinda-sorta understood it when Van Loon wrote this. I use the word world in the loosest terms because a lot of cultures were left out and you're mostly getting the European version. However, the author does admit that there is quite a bit missing and urges readers to fill in the gaps.
The main draw of this book (for me) is the way Hendrik tells children to look into the history of everything. I think history is incredibly important to understanding the present.
And yeah, people say that all the time.
But it's true.
Looking back you really can see cycles repeating themselves. And the truth is that we are not special. Every generation thinks theirs is the last because of wars, famine, disease, and political upheaval.
It's fascinating to see how predictable we are, and it's also much less frightening when you realize we've done this all before.
Having said that, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for an actual history lesson. This is more of something I would recommend for someone who wants to look in a window of the past to see how our view of history has changed. <--if that makes sense?
Not going to lie, it was also cool to hear him talk about Hitler as a present-day issue in the epilogue.
Recommended. <--but not for kids because it's not accurate. And let's face it, reluctant readers aren't exactly going to be thrilled by a history lesson. Give those kids a comic.
Considering it was originally published in 1921, Van Loon's voice is still surprisingly accessible.
And while the information is not 100% accurate, this has a quick and dirty look at the history of the world as historians kinda-sorta understood it when Van Loon wrote this. I use the word world in the loosest terms because a lot of cultures were left out and you're mostly getting the European version. However, the author does admit that there is quite a bit missing and urges readers to fill in the gaps.
The main draw of this book (for me) is the way Hendrik tells children to look into the history of everything. I think history is incredibly important to understanding the present.
And yeah, people say that all the time.
But it's true.
Looking back you really can see cycles repeating themselves. And the truth is that we are not special. Every generation thinks theirs is the last because of wars, famine, disease, and political upheaval.
It's fascinating to see how predictable we are, and it's also much less frightening when you realize we've done this all before.
Having said that, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for an actual history lesson. This is more of something I would recommend for someone who wants to look in a window of the past to see how our view of history has changed. <--if that makes sense?
Not going to lie, it was also cool to hear him talk about Hitler as a present-day issue in the epilogue.
Recommended. <--but not for kids because it's not accurate. And let's face it, reluctant readers aren't exactly going to be thrilled by a history lesson. Give those kids a comic.
March 7, 2011
My journey through the Newbery winners begins here with the Story of Mankind. I’ve never been a great book review writer. It’s hard for me to talk about a book without giving too much away, so for these Newbery winners, I think I will stick to a format. I will answer the following questions. What did I like about the book? What did I dislike about the book? Did this book deserve to win the Newbery? Why or why not?
What I liked about the book:
Imagine that your grandfather was a retired history professor, and he was in town for a week. You ask him,”Grandpa, why is the world the way it is now?” His eyes light up. He taught history for years, and no one has ever bothered to ask him a question like that. So every night that week, he sits you down and tells you the story of the world and how mankind got to be where it is now. That’s the sense I get from this book, yes, it is very flawed. This is the history of the world with no sources cited. It is very biased, (the author acknowledges this) but it is exactly what you would get if you asked your history professor grandpa for a fireside lecture and I think that aspect of the book is very charming.
What I disliked about this book:
Yes, there were boring parts, but I have always believed that’s not a reason for a book to be reviewed poorly. What is boring to one person could be extremely interesting to another, depending on his or her interests. What I didn’t like about this book is the fact that I don’t know a single kid who has or would read it. It is the winner of the most prestigious award for children’s literature, and honestly, I don’t know what the first Newbery committee was thinking. I don’t have a single middle schooler in a school of over 700 that I could get to read this whole book through. There might be a chapter (like the one on Napoleon) I could get them to read, but as a whole work, I think it is a book written for adults. Maybe the children in 1922 had less to choose from,or they were better readers, but I don’t think they read this book either. I honestly think adults read it, and thought that children should, so they gave it the Newbery.
Did this book deserve to win the Newbery: No
Why not: Well, I’ve gotten into this question already. This is not a book I think many children would read. I can see why the world needed history books at this time. In 1922 World War I (or the Great War as it’s still called in this book) was just ending. The world has just gotten through fighting the worst war it had ever seen. Naturally, people were stepping back from the situation and asking Why did this happen? How did we get here? How can we keep this from happening again? Of course, history holds the answer to all of these questions. I understand that the Newbery committee was thinking about the children, our future leaders. If they could understand why a war like this happened, maybe in the distant future horrors like this could be prevented. I just think that this wasn’t the best book for the first Newbery. It set a bad precedent for future Newberry committees. Instead of picking the book that children are reading and enjoying, they picked the book that they thought children should be reading. This has happened time and time again with the Newbery Medal, not every time, but quite frequently.
Closing thoughts: I liked the book. I really did. Just not as the first Newbery Winner, ever.
Next up: The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle I’m actually very excited about this one.
What I liked about the book:
Imagine that your grandfather was a retired history professor, and he was in town for a week. You ask him,”Grandpa, why is the world the way it is now?” His eyes light up. He taught history for years, and no one has ever bothered to ask him a question like that. So every night that week, he sits you down and tells you the story of the world and how mankind got to be where it is now. That’s the sense I get from this book, yes, it is very flawed. This is the history of the world with no sources cited. It is very biased, (the author acknowledges this) but it is exactly what you would get if you asked your history professor grandpa for a fireside lecture and I think that aspect of the book is very charming.
What I disliked about this book:
Yes, there were boring parts, but I have always believed that’s not a reason for a book to be reviewed poorly. What is boring to one person could be extremely interesting to another, depending on his or her interests. What I didn’t like about this book is the fact that I don’t know a single kid who has or would read it. It is the winner of the most prestigious award for children’s literature, and honestly, I don’t know what the first Newbery committee was thinking. I don’t have a single middle schooler in a school of over 700 that I could get to read this whole book through. There might be a chapter (like the one on Napoleon) I could get them to read, but as a whole work, I think it is a book written for adults. Maybe the children in 1922 had less to choose from,or they were better readers, but I don’t think they read this book either. I honestly think adults read it, and thought that children should, so they gave it the Newbery.
Did this book deserve to win the Newbery: No
Why not: Well, I’ve gotten into this question already. This is not a book I think many children would read. I can see why the world needed history books at this time. In 1922 World War I (or the Great War as it’s still called in this book) was just ending. The world has just gotten through fighting the worst war it had ever seen. Naturally, people were stepping back from the situation and asking Why did this happen? How did we get here? How can we keep this from happening again? Of course, history holds the answer to all of these questions. I understand that the Newbery committee was thinking about the children, our future leaders. If they could understand why a war like this happened, maybe in the distant future horrors like this could be prevented. I just think that this wasn’t the best book for the first Newbery. It set a bad precedent for future Newberry committees. Instead of picking the book that children are reading and enjoying, they picked the book that they thought children should be reading. This has happened time and time again with the Newbery Medal, not every time, but quite frequently.
Closing thoughts: I liked the book. I really did. Just not as the first Newbery Winner, ever.
Next up: The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle I’m actually very excited about this one.
January 22, 2022
The Story of Mankind was written and illustrated by Dutch-American journalist, professor, and author Hendrik Willem van Loon and published in 1921. It was the first book to be awarded the Newbery Medal for an outstanding contribution to children's literature. Written for Van Loon's children, The Story of Mankind tells in brief chapters the history of western civilization beginning with primitive man, covering the development of writing, art, and architecture, the rise of major religions, and the formation of the modern nation-state.
This book is an accessible chronological account of history for children. It is a good introduction to many interesting periods and events that might inspire further research in its young readers.
This book is an accessible chronological account of history for children. It is a good introduction to many interesting periods and events that might inspire further research in its young readers.
December 30, 2011
We found this in my grandma's basement after she died. I picked it up again at my folks' house, when I was looking for bedtime reading, and I went through it in bits and pieces, over the course of several visits.
I went in with an open mind: I always try to love the book I'm reading, but then I always questioned Grandma's taste. This time, I was pleasantly surprised.
I skimmed the other reviews on Goodreads: the most misguided of these claimed that "anyone could have written this book." That's the opposite of the truth, and it points to the best feature of The Story of Mankind -- the writing is natural, and conversational. This sort of writing looks easy; it isn't.
As a first approximation, you could think of The Story of Mankind as Cliff's notes to Western history, but that would need to be amended. This is history of the good old school, almost in the oral tradition. Van Loon is a storyteller; the plot is intriguing and plausible, and the characters come alive.
If you'll read this quote, you'll know whether or not you'd like the book.
Don't look here for systematic history; do read the book.
I went in with an open mind: I always try to love the book I'm reading, but then I always questioned Grandma's taste. This time, I was pleasantly surprised.
I skimmed the other reviews on Goodreads: the most misguided of these claimed that "anyone could have written this book." That's the opposite of the truth, and it points to the best feature of The Story of Mankind -- the writing is natural, and conversational. This sort of writing looks easy; it isn't.
As a first approximation, you could think of The Story of Mankind as Cliff's notes to Western history, but that would need to be amended. This is history of the good old school, almost in the oral tradition. Van Loon is a storyteller; the plot is intriguing and plausible, and the characters come alive.
If you'll read this quote, you'll know whether or not you'd like the book.
He was a little fellow and during the first years of his life his health was not very good. He never impressed anybody by his good looks and he remained to the end of his days very clumsy whenever he was obliged to appear at a social function. He did not enjoy a single advantage of breeding or birth or riches....
But he overcame all these difficulties through his absolute and unshakable belief in his own destiny, and in his own glorious future. Ambition was the main-spring of his life....
When he was a half-pay lieutentant, young Bonaparte was very fond of the "Lives of Famous Men" which Plutarch, the Greek historian, had written. But he never tried to live up to the high standard of character set by these heroes of the older days. Napoleon seems to have been devoid of all those considerate and thoughtful sentiments which make men different from the animals. It will be very difficult to decide with any degree of accuracy whether he ever loved anyone besides himself....
He followed the advice of [Machiavelli] and never kept his word when it was to his advantage to break it. The word "gratitude" did not occur in his personal dictionary. Neither, to be quite fair, did he expect it from others. He was totally indifferent to human suffering. He executed prisoners of war (in Egypt in 1798) who had been promised their lives, and he quietly allowed his wounded in Syria to be chloroformed when he found it impossible to transport them to his ships....
And yet, having said these many unpleasant things about this strange tyrant, who looked after every other department of his army with the utmost care, but neglected the medical service, and who ruined his uniforms with Eau de Cologne because he could not stand the smell of his poor sweating soldiers; having said all these unpleasant things and being fully prepared to add many more, I must confess to a certain lurking feeling of doubt.
Here I am sitting at a comfortable table loaded heavily with books, with one eye upon my typewriter and the other on Licorice the cat, who has a great fondness for carbon paper, and I am telling you that the Emperor Napoleon was a most contemptible person. But should I happen to look out of the window, down upon Seventh Avenue, and should the endless procession of trucks and carts come to a sudden halt, and should I hear the sound of the heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse in his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am afraid that I would leave my books and the kitten and my home and everything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own grandfather did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero....
[Napoleon] was never out of the mind of friend or enemy. When illness and despair had at last taken him away, his silent eyes continued to haunt the world. Even to-day he is as much of a force in the life of France as a hundred years ago when people fainted at the mere sight of this sallow-faced man who stabled his horses in the holiest temples of the Russian Kremlin, and who treated the Pope and the mighty ones of this earth as if they were his lackeys.
Don't look here for systematic history; do read the book.
April 24, 2014
This book is exceptionally Eurocentric, which makes sense for the period in which it was written, but does not excuse the racism and the belief that little of "historic importance" ever came out of the non-western world. I also found the tone extremely patronizing and the many strange asides, quips, and at times laborious rants van Loon would include made me want to throw the book across the room.
While the edition I read had been updated to include events branching into the 21st century, and the parts written by John Merriman were more balanced and less patronizing, I still find it hard to believe that at any point in time this was considered the paragon of children's literature.
Additionally, the amount this book assumes the reader must be a white protestant is extremely off-putting. Christianity is treated both as the norm and as the correct belief system, and while I agree that the bible is an important work of historical and literary significance, for a book that seems to care so much about scientific accuracy it gets preachy and uncomfortable.
While the edition I read had been updated to include events branching into the 21st century, and the parts written by John Merriman were more balanced and less patronizing, I still find it hard to believe that at any point in time this was considered the paragon of children's literature.
Additionally, the amount this book assumes the reader must be a white protestant is extremely off-putting. Christianity is treated both as the norm and as the correct belief system, and while I agree that the bible is an important work of historical and literary significance, for a book that seems to care so much about scientific accuracy it gets preachy and uncomfortable.
July 29, 2022
ENGLISH: This is a history of mankind for children, and therefore it has been simplified a lot. However, in some cases I think it has been simplified too much: the crusades, or the ascent of medieval cities, were due to situations much more complex than shown. I think something has been lost by presenting it in this way.
On the other hand there are a few historical errors that shouldn't be there. Such as saying that Constantinus divided the Roman Empire among his two sons. This was done by Theodosius, over half a century later.
Although he doesn't say it clearly, I think the author's stance on Christianity is post-Christian. According to him, the Christians were to blame for the persecutions they suffered in the days of the Roman Empire, because they were intolerant... and refused to go through the formalities of paying homage to the emperor. They refused to appear when they were called upon to join the army. The first assertion hides the fact that the emperor was considered and payed homage as a divine being; and makes the mistake of asserting that the Jews did it, when they were exempt by law. The second is false. And when talking about the world view during the European Middle Ages, based on the belief in the afterlife, he implies that we no longer believe such things because we have progressed.
Van Loon shows himself to be ignorant of the origin of Western science and a follower of the false Black Legend against the Middle Ages. He says, for instance: The people who were in power [during the Middle Ages] believed that "progress" was a very undesirable invention of the Evil One and ought to be discouraged... Here and there a few brave souls sometimes ventured forth into the forbidden region of science, but they fared badly and were considered lucky when they escaped with their lives and a jail sentence of twenty years. This is pure nonsense. In fact, modern science was born in Western Europe during the Low Middle Ages as a consequence of Christian thought, and scientific research was rarely persecuted.
I find it amazing that an author who has written a popular historical book makes these mistakes and shows such ignorance on elementary historical issues. And I also find it amazing that he was awarded the first Newbery medal in history. Which shows that this type of ignorance is widespread.
Of course, some things stated in this book have become obsolete: such as ascribing the fortresses of Mycenae and Tiryns to the Minoan civilization, when in fact they were Greek.
All these things are the reasons why this book has disappointed me.
ESPAÑOL: Al ser esta una historia de la humanidad para niños, se ha simplificado mucho. Sin embargo, en algunos casos creo que se ha simplificado demasiado: las cruzadas, y la ascensión de las ciudades medievales, se debieron a situaciones mucho más complejas que las que se describen. Creo que se ha perdido algo al presentarlas de esta forma.
Por otro lado, hay algunos errores históricos que no deberían haberse cometido. Por ejemplo, cuando dice que Constantino dividió el Imperio Romano entre sus dos hijos. Esto lo hizo Teodosio, más de medio siglo después.
Aunque no lo dice claramente, la postura del autor respecto al Cristianismo me parece post-cristiana. Según él, los cristianos fueron los culpables de las persecuciones que sufrieron en tiempos del Imperio Romano, porque eran intolerantes... y se negaban a realizar el acto puramente formal de prestar homenaje al emperador. Se negaban a presentarse cuando los llamaban a filas, en el ejército. Lo primero esconde el hecho de que al emperador se le consideraba y honraba como a un dios; y comete el error de afirmar que los judíos lo hacían, cuando estaban exentos por ley. Lo segundo es falso. Y al hablar de la visión del mundo durante la Edad Media europea, basada en la creencia en la otra vida, da a entender que nosotros ya no creemos esas cosas porque hemos progresado.
Van Loon demuestra ignorar el origen de la ciencia occidental y seguir la falsa Leyenda Negra contra la Edad Media. Dice, por ejemplo: Los que ostentaban el poder [durante la Edad Media] creían que el "progreso" era un invento muy indeseable del Maligno y debía ser disuadido... Aquí y allá algunas almas valientes se aventuraban a veces en las regiones prohibidas de la ciencia, pero les fue mal y podían considerarse afortunados cuando no les quitaban la vida y sólo les caía una sentencia de cárcel de veinte años. Todo esto es una pura estupidez. De hecho, la ciencia moderna nació en Europa Occidental durante la Baja Edad Media como consecuencia del pensamiento cristiano, y la investigación científica rara vez fue perseguida.
Es asombroso que un autor que escribe un libro de divulgación histórica cometa estos errores y demuestre tamaña ignorancia sobre temas históricos elementales. Y también me parece asombroso que le concedieran la primera medalla Newbery de la historia. Lo que demuestra que este tipo de ignorancia está muy extendido.
Como es natural, algunas cosas de las que dice el libro se han quedado obsoletas: como adscribir las fortalezas de Micenas y Tirinto a la civilización minoica, cuando en realidad eran griegas.
La suma de todas estas cosas es la razón por la que este libro me ha decepcionado.
On the other hand there are a few historical errors that shouldn't be there. Such as saying that Constantinus divided the Roman Empire among his two sons. This was done by Theodosius, over half a century later.
Although he doesn't say it clearly, I think the author's stance on Christianity is post-Christian. According to him, the Christians were to blame for the persecutions they suffered in the days of the Roman Empire, because they were intolerant... and refused to go through the formalities of paying homage to the emperor. They refused to appear when they were called upon to join the army. The first assertion hides the fact that the emperor was considered and payed homage as a divine being; and makes the mistake of asserting that the Jews did it, when they were exempt by law. The second is false. And when talking about the world view during the European Middle Ages, based on the belief in the afterlife, he implies that we no longer believe such things because we have progressed.
Van Loon shows himself to be ignorant of the origin of Western science and a follower of the false Black Legend against the Middle Ages. He says, for instance: The people who were in power [during the Middle Ages] believed that "progress" was a very undesirable invention of the Evil One and ought to be discouraged... Here and there a few brave souls sometimes ventured forth into the forbidden region of science, but they fared badly and were considered lucky when they escaped with their lives and a jail sentence of twenty years. This is pure nonsense. In fact, modern science was born in Western Europe during the Low Middle Ages as a consequence of Christian thought, and scientific research was rarely persecuted.
I find it amazing that an author who has written a popular historical book makes these mistakes and shows such ignorance on elementary historical issues. And I also find it amazing that he was awarded the first Newbery medal in history. Which shows that this type of ignorance is widespread.
Of course, some things stated in this book have become obsolete: such as ascribing the fortresses of Mycenae and Tiryns to the Minoan civilization, when in fact they were Greek.
All these things are the reasons why this book has disappointed me.
ESPAÑOL: Al ser esta una historia de la humanidad para niños, se ha simplificado mucho. Sin embargo, en algunos casos creo que se ha simplificado demasiado: las cruzadas, y la ascensión de las ciudades medievales, se debieron a situaciones mucho más complejas que las que se describen. Creo que se ha perdido algo al presentarlas de esta forma.
Por otro lado, hay algunos errores históricos que no deberían haberse cometido. Por ejemplo, cuando dice que Constantino dividió el Imperio Romano entre sus dos hijos. Esto lo hizo Teodosio, más de medio siglo después.
Aunque no lo dice claramente, la postura del autor respecto al Cristianismo me parece post-cristiana. Según él, los cristianos fueron los culpables de las persecuciones que sufrieron en tiempos del Imperio Romano, porque eran intolerantes... y se negaban a realizar el acto puramente formal de prestar homenaje al emperador. Se negaban a presentarse cuando los llamaban a filas, en el ejército. Lo primero esconde el hecho de que al emperador se le consideraba y honraba como a un dios; y comete el error de afirmar que los judíos lo hacían, cuando estaban exentos por ley. Lo segundo es falso. Y al hablar de la visión del mundo durante la Edad Media europea, basada en la creencia en la otra vida, da a entender que nosotros ya no creemos esas cosas porque hemos progresado.
Van Loon demuestra ignorar el origen de la ciencia occidental y seguir la falsa Leyenda Negra contra la Edad Media. Dice, por ejemplo: Los que ostentaban el poder [durante la Edad Media] creían que el "progreso" era un invento muy indeseable del Maligno y debía ser disuadido... Aquí y allá algunas almas valientes se aventuraban a veces en las regiones prohibidas de la ciencia, pero les fue mal y podían considerarse afortunados cuando no les quitaban la vida y sólo les caía una sentencia de cárcel de veinte años. Todo esto es una pura estupidez. De hecho, la ciencia moderna nació en Europa Occidental durante la Baja Edad Media como consecuencia del pensamiento cristiano, y la investigación científica rara vez fue perseguida.
Es asombroso que un autor que escribe un libro de divulgación histórica cometa estos errores y demuestre tamaña ignorancia sobre temas históricos elementales. Y también me parece asombroso que le concedieran la primera medalla Newbery de la historia. Lo que demuestra que este tipo de ignorancia está muy extendido.
Como es natural, algunas cosas de las que dice el libro se han quedado obsoletas: como adscribir las fortalezas de Micenas y Tirinto a la civilización minoica, cuando en realidad eran griegas.
La suma de todas estas cosas es la razón por la que este libro me ha decepcionado.
December 2, 2008
I have finished The Book. Mr. van Loon's Narcoleptic Affect (thanks for that, Jen) notwithstanding, I enjoyed it. Seriously, I have never in my life fallen asleep reading a book as many times as I did this one. I lost count, but am pretty sure it was upwards of 10.
That said, I marked a TON of things I wanted to refer back to. We'll see how many make it into this review. Of course, my first thought, about 30 pages into this book was, "exactly who was this book written for?" A bunch of scholars who thought it a brilliant book for their junior high students to read, or the students themselves? I'm pretty sure no students actually read and enjoyed this. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I, however, thought his dry sense of humor rather charming, and his gift for understatement had me chuckling often (in between naps, of course).
Of course the first thing I must mention was the dead chicken passage: And then one evening a dead chicken fell into the fire. It was not rescued until it had been well roasted. Man discovered that meat tasted better when cooked and he then and there discarded one of the old habits which he had shared with the other animals and began to prepare his food. LOL when I read that! If it was dead, how did it fall?! Was it dropped? Did it fall in and then die? I was giggling at that for quite a while.
I loved the explanation of the things placed in an Egyptian grave: ... the body was surrounded by pieces of furniture and musical instruments (to while away the dreary hours of waiting) and by little statues of cooks and bakers and barbers (that the occupant of this dark home might be decently provided with food and need not go about unshaven).
You think van Loon isn't understated? How about this description "they were very ill-mannered" in describing "They lived like pigs and threw the bodies of their enemies to the wild dogs who guarded their sheep."
I LOVED the description of how "Draconian laws" became ... well, "draconian". And of course, it was fun to come to the part about Leonidas, as 300 is a very popular movie in my house lately.
And then in the fall of Rome, we come across "The rich people had been thrown out of their villas which were now inhabited by evil-smelling and hairy barbarians." Seriously, how can you not giggle at this historical account? Actually, perhaps he asks the question better himself -- right after the year 1066 when "the grandson of a Norse pirate was recognised as King of England." He asks, "Why should we ever read fairy stories, when the truth of history is so much more interesting and entertaining?" Why, indeed.
Because a kid reading this might wonder, he addresses things like the weather -- "Henry, dressed as a penitent pilgrim (but with a warm sweater underneath his monkish garb), wait[ing] outside the gates of the castle of Canossa."
I learned a lot in this book. For example, Gutenberg of the printing press was really Johann zum Gänsefleisch. You don't hear that in a normal history class! Something else you don't normally hear in history class: don't study; just listen to a song!
Almost last, I loved this part of "The Age of the Engine", partly because I have a friend who works in the U.S. patent office: In Washington, the story is told of a director of the Patent Office who in the early thirties of the last century suggested that the Patent Office be abolished, because "everything that possibly could be invented had been invented." Well, that made me giggle, anyway.
And last, I have to say that I enjoyed his defense of why he did or didn't include things that people might ask about. "I'm not writing a history of America," he'd say. How very plain-spoken and Dutch of him :)
So. I've read the first of the Newbery-award-winning books. Now for 1923-current!
That said, I marked a TON of things I wanted to refer back to. We'll see how many make it into this review. Of course, my first thought, about 30 pages into this book was, "exactly who was this book written for?" A bunch of scholars who thought it a brilliant book for their junior high students to read, or the students themselves? I'm pretty sure no students actually read and enjoyed this. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I, however, thought his dry sense of humor rather charming, and his gift for understatement had me chuckling often (in between naps, of course).
Of course the first thing I must mention was the dead chicken passage: And then one evening a dead chicken fell into the fire. It was not rescued until it had been well roasted. Man discovered that meat tasted better when cooked and he then and there discarded one of the old habits which he had shared with the other animals and began to prepare his food. LOL when I read that! If it was dead, how did it fall?! Was it dropped? Did it fall in and then die? I was giggling at that for quite a while.
I loved the explanation of the things placed in an Egyptian grave: ... the body was surrounded by pieces of furniture and musical instruments (to while away the dreary hours of waiting) and by little statues of cooks and bakers and barbers (that the occupant of this dark home might be decently provided with food and need not go about unshaven).
You think van Loon isn't understated? How about this description "they were very ill-mannered" in describing "They lived like pigs and threw the bodies of their enemies to the wild dogs who guarded their sheep."
I LOVED the description of how "Draconian laws" became ... well, "draconian". And of course, it was fun to come to the part about Leonidas, as 300 is a very popular movie in my house lately.
And then in the fall of Rome, we come across "The rich people had been thrown out of their villas which were now inhabited by evil-smelling and hairy barbarians." Seriously, how can you not giggle at this historical account? Actually, perhaps he asks the question better himself -- right after the year 1066 when "the grandson of a Norse pirate was recognised as King of England." He asks, "Why should we ever read fairy stories, when the truth of history is so much more interesting and entertaining?" Why, indeed.
Because a kid reading this might wonder, he addresses things like the weather -- "Henry, dressed as a penitent pilgrim (but with a warm sweater underneath his monkish garb), wait[ing] outside the gates of the castle of Canossa."
I learned a lot in this book. For example, Gutenberg of the printing press was really Johann zum Gänsefleisch. You don't hear that in a normal history class! Something else you don't normally hear in history class: don't study; just listen to a song!
[about Napolean]: ... if you want an explanation of this strange career, if you really wish to know how one man could possibly rule so many people for so many years by the sheer force of his will, do not read the books that have been written about him. Their authors either hated the Emporer or loved him. You will learn many facts, but it is more important to "feel history" than to know it. Don't read, but wait until you have a chance to hear a good artist sing the song called The Two Grenadiers. The words were written by Heine, the great German poet who lived through the Napoleonic era. The music was composed by Schumann, a German, who saw the Emperor, the enemy of his country, whenever he came to visit his imperial father-in-law. The song therefore is the work of two men who had every reason to hate the tyrant.
Go and hear it. Then you will understand what a thousand volumes could not possibly tell you.
Almost last, I loved this part of "The Age of the Engine", partly because I have a friend who works in the U.S. patent office: In Washington, the story is told of a director of the Patent Office who in the early thirties of the last century suggested that the Patent Office be abolished, because "everything that possibly could be invented had been invented." Well, that made me giggle, anyway.
And last, I have to say that I enjoyed his defense of why he did or didn't include things that people might ask about. "I'm not writing a history of America," he'd say. How very plain-spoken and Dutch of him :)
So. I've read the first of the Newbery-award-winning books. Now for 1923-current!
January 3, 2012
I did it!!!!
June 7, 2015
I might be a little crazy, but I would like to try to read all the Newbery Medal winning books. There are over 90. I have already read several, but I decided to start at the first medal book for this journey. This book got the award in 1922. I think it is cool that it is a non-fiction book about history. Seeing it was written in 1921, I knew it would only take me to about WW1. What sold me on this book was that it covers the history of man, but in 300 plus pages.
I teach where we read a couple of volumes of The Story of the World, by Susan Wise Bauer. Bauer has undertaken writing history for those interested in a classical education. It takes her about 4 volumes to get to the end of the USSR. I have tried reading her books and listening to them. Some chapters are pretty good and some just drag. So I thought the van Loon book would be perfect...a short synopsis in one volume. Oh, it was quite fun to read. His writing style pulled me into the moment without dragging most of the time. Quite delightful.
I must say, however, that since Bauer is a Christian she interprets history differently and records priorities differently. Van Loon, an evolutionist, starts off with life evolving into apelike beings who start to talk to each other. But other than his personal views, once we got to humans, I felt he was fair in discussing religion throughout history.
Van Loon does stop and talk to the audience every once in a while...and this was strange compared to current writing styles. His aim in part was to inspire questions and interest in the development of mostly western civilization in a younger reader who might then read more about that period by actual historians. He kept saying that he included a book list, but I did not find it in the Kindle edition. Nor were the pictures there. Too bad, since this was a big part of the books purpose...to develop further inquiry.
Overall I really, really liked the book. It made me think about human development and the struggles people have had. Some might complain that he skipped too much. But he was trying to just move quickly from the start of man to WW1...only covering events and people who significantly impacted the world. And if he were to write it today, I'm sure he would write other countries and cultures in because the world has changed so dramatically since WW1. I actually did find myself looking online for more information about some of the periods or people mentioned in his book. And I suppose this means he was successful in inspiring my curiosity about history. I would recommend this book to anyone. (L1260)
I teach where we read a couple of volumes of The Story of the World, by Susan Wise Bauer. Bauer has undertaken writing history for those interested in a classical education. It takes her about 4 volumes to get to the end of the USSR. I have tried reading her books and listening to them. Some chapters are pretty good and some just drag. So I thought the van Loon book would be perfect...a short synopsis in one volume. Oh, it was quite fun to read. His writing style pulled me into the moment without dragging most of the time. Quite delightful.
I must say, however, that since Bauer is a Christian she interprets history differently and records priorities differently. Van Loon, an evolutionist, starts off with life evolving into apelike beings who start to talk to each other. But other than his personal views, once we got to humans, I felt he was fair in discussing religion throughout history.
Van Loon does stop and talk to the audience every once in a while...and this was strange compared to current writing styles. His aim in part was to inspire questions and interest in the development of mostly western civilization in a younger reader who might then read more about that period by actual historians. He kept saying that he included a book list, but I did not find it in the Kindle edition. Nor were the pictures there. Too bad, since this was a big part of the books purpose...to develop further inquiry.
Overall I really, really liked the book. It made me think about human development and the struggles people have had. Some might complain that he skipped too much. But he was trying to just move quickly from the start of man to WW1...only covering events and people who significantly impacted the world. And if he were to write it today, I'm sure he would write other countries and cultures in because the world has changed so dramatically since WW1. I actually did find myself looking online for more information about some of the periods or people mentioned in his book. And I suppose this means he was successful in inspiring my curiosity about history. I would recommend this book to anyone. (L1260)
June 15, 2017
Newbery Medal: 1922
It's amazing that this rambling version, with little significance to some major events of history, was awarded the Newbery Medal. Thankfully, we have some wonderful children's literature today that is worthy of the medal. Hendrick Van Loon attempts to capture The Story of Mankind for his grandchildren and future generations. Too bad the writing is horrible and the words are boring.
I struggled with giving this book two stars. I looked back at the books I gave one star to, and those books were REALLY bad. I must say that Van Loon had a passion for history and tried his best (?) to impart his wisdom and knowledge...it is just that no self-respecting kid would ever pick this book up with the intention of reading it (maybe to throw it at an annoying sibling but never to read it).
At least now I have fully begun my quest to read all the Newbery Award Winning Books. I am confident each and every one of them will be better than this one.
It's amazing that this rambling version, with little significance to some major events of history, was awarded the Newbery Medal. Thankfully, we have some wonderful children's literature today that is worthy of the medal. Hendrick Van Loon attempts to capture The Story of Mankind for his grandchildren and future generations. Too bad the writing is horrible and the words are boring.
I struggled with giving this book two stars. I looked back at the books I gave one star to, and those books were REALLY bad. I must say that Van Loon had a passion for history and tried his best (?) to impart his wisdom and knowledge...it is just that no self-respecting kid would ever pick this book up with the intention of reading it (maybe to throw it at an annoying sibling but never to read it).
At least now I have fully begun my quest to read all the Newbery Award Winning Books. I am confident each and every one of them will be better than this one.
August 12, 2014
It's amazing how bad this book is. It's anti-semitic, condescending to previous generations, hardly filled with fact, but contains lots of opinions and some outright falsities. Loon likes to go on and on about his opinions of people/groups/etc and then skips over major historical events. For example, he opined about the horrible state of people in the middle ages and how it must have been due to their religious beliefs for about 15 pages and then devoted only one sentence to Joan of Arc. During some chapters my wife and I (I was reading it aloud to her), would stop and look at each other with faces full of that absurd "What!?" expression. After close to 250 pages, we decided to cut our losses and move on to something else. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone and I certainly wouldn't read it to a child (supposedly that's who this book is for). Had C.S. Lewis been referring to a history book in "The Abolition of Man," I certainly would guess he was talking about this piece of rubbish. It's only value is in the fun comic-style history outlines.
March 21, 2011
This is a book that belonged to my grandfather, it's the 1947 edition. I fell in love with the illustrations and is probably one of the reasons I love history. I've added 3 photographs of pages with illustrations that took my fancy. The first - of the universe with the sign (Here we Live) at first worried me a little - the vastness OUT THERE but I was very very young at the time. Now it reminds me of something that might come from a Douglas Adams book...perhaps he read Van Loon too. ;)
July 24, 2020
This book reads like a text book. I listened to it, and the reader did a great job, but I cannot say as much for the writer. Only an adult wanting to brush up on European history (particularly Napoleon) should read this, and doing so with the knowledge that they won’t be encumbered by learning too much about notable women in history, or anyone with skin past the palest of white. No child should read this book.
Here’s why:
1. Aside from Carthage and Egypt, Africa barely gets a mention. The author once uses language like “Booga-booga” to describe something in Africa and then comes up with this quote:
“[There were] the heathenish tribes of Northern Africa who worshiped sticks and stones and dead trees,” when he spoke of world religion.
2. The only mentions of Asia are what we call the Middle East (only along the Mediterranean Sea) Russia, and a passing mention of Marco Polo. Genghis Khan showed up later and was a “yellow devil.” Gunpowder “was invented” and somehow got into the hands of the Europeans. Here is quote in his “world religion” section: “As this is a story of mankind, and not an exclusive history of the people of Europe and our Western Hemisphere you ought to know something of two men whose teaching and whose example continue to influence the actions and the thoughts of the majority of our fellow travelers on this earth.” He goes on to introduce Buddha and Confucius. We learn nothing of China or South East Asia.
3. Nothing happened in North America until Columbus “discovered” it, and it seems it was largely unpopulated at the time. The part on the American Revolution was so short I nearly missed it, and he made slavery sound like indentured servitude.
4. South America doesn’t exist. The Aztecs, Mayans and Incas and other civilizations never happened, except there were Peruvian silver mines somewhere in there, and a revolution in the 1800s.
5. The author mentioned that “Don Quixote” was the last knight. Was Van Loon aware that it was a work of fiction?
I realize that this was written in 1920, right after the Great War and the author had a high-minded vision of what his book could be, helping to reinforce the lessons of the war to end all wars. I also recognize that the style is in keeping with the times. Here is a quote from the book.
“There was but one rule. ‘Did the country or the person in question produce a new idea or perform an original act without which the history of the entire human race would have been different?’ It was not a question of personal taste. It was a matter of cool, almost mathematical judgment. No race ever played a more picturesque role in history than the Mongolians, and no race, from the point of view of achievement or intelligent progress, was of less value to the rest of mankind.”
That being said, the book is not entirely without redeeming grace. It is a time capsule of the 1920s. I learned a lot about European history, down to specific battles, and way too much about Napoleon. The Medieval age and Renaissance of Europe are well explained as was the Reformation. The author makes some interesting links like the similarities of the words Caesar, Czar and Kaiser. I liked the chapter on art and the author makes a point of the fact that recent history will seem different when seen through the eyes of a couple decades.
I did some looking around online for reviews and discovered The Book Smugglers and their blog, “Decoding the Newbery,” which I will be looking at more as I finish up my Newbery quest.
To my dismay, I also found some homeschooling sites and other reviews circa 2017 that recommended “The Story of Mankind as a great history book, except apparently some added chapters at the end are too liberal for the reviewer. I guess the “Booga-booga” part didn’t trip them up too much.
*sigh* If this is what homeschoolers are using as a history resource, well...things don’t look good.
If Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name can be stripped from a children’s book award, I think this book should be stripped of its Newbery. The title should be “A White Guy History of European MANkind.
Here are some positive reviews of this book.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book...
"A must-have for the home or classroom library"
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homesch...#
"The Story of Mankind seems to be used as a core or spine world history by an increasing number of homeschoolers, particularly those looking for a history written from something other than a Protestant perspective."
https://marveloustales.com/2018/03/04...
"This book didn’t give me a lot of new information about history, but I did like the way it gave a basic, broad overview of a great sweep of history. It did seem like a good one for kids, an accessible grounding in the general shape of history."
Here’s why:
1. Aside from Carthage and Egypt, Africa barely gets a mention. The author once uses language like “Booga-booga” to describe something in Africa and then comes up with this quote:
“[There were] the heathenish tribes of Northern Africa who worshiped sticks and stones and dead trees,” when he spoke of world religion.
2. The only mentions of Asia are what we call the Middle East (only along the Mediterranean Sea) Russia, and a passing mention of Marco Polo. Genghis Khan showed up later and was a “yellow devil.” Gunpowder “was invented” and somehow got into the hands of the Europeans. Here is quote in his “world religion” section: “As this is a story of mankind, and not an exclusive history of the people of Europe and our Western Hemisphere you ought to know something of two men whose teaching and whose example continue to influence the actions and the thoughts of the majority of our fellow travelers on this earth.” He goes on to introduce Buddha and Confucius. We learn nothing of China or South East Asia.
3. Nothing happened in North America until Columbus “discovered” it, and it seems it was largely unpopulated at the time. The part on the American Revolution was so short I nearly missed it, and he made slavery sound like indentured servitude.
4. South America doesn’t exist. The Aztecs, Mayans and Incas and other civilizations never happened, except there were Peruvian silver mines somewhere in there, and a revolution in the 1800s.
5. The author mentioned that “Don Quixote” was the last knight. Was Van Loon aware that it was a work of fiction?
I realize that this was written in 1920, right after the Great War and the author had a high-minded vision of what his book could be, helping to reinforce the lessons of the war to end all wars. I also recognize that the style is in keeping with the times. Here is a quote from the book.
“There was but one rule. ‘Did the country or the person in question produce a new idea or perform an original act without which the history of the entire human race would have been different?’ It was not a question of personal taste. It was a matter of cool, almost mathematical judgment. No race ever played a more picturesque role in history than the Mongolians, and no race, from the point of view of achievement or intelligent progress, was of less value to the rest of mankind.”
That being said, the book is not entirely without redeeming grace. It is a time capsule of the 1920s. I learned a lot about European history, down to specific battles, and way too much about Napoleon. The Medieval age and Renaissance of Europe are well explained as was the Reformation. The author makes some interesting links like the similarities of the words Caesar, Czar and Kaiser. I liked the chapter on art and the author makes a point of the fact that recent history will seem different when seen through the eyes of a couple decades.
I did some looking around online for reviews and discovered The Book Smugglers and their blog, “Decoding the Newbery,” which I will be looking at more as I finish up my Newbery quest.
To my dismay, I also found some homeschooling sites and other reviews circa 2017 that recommended “The Story of Mankind as a great history book, except apparently some added chapters at the end are too liberal for the reviewer. I guess the “Booga-booga” part didn’t trip them up too much.
*sigh* If this is what homeschoolers are using as a history resource, well...things don’t look good.
If Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name can be stripped from a children’s book award, I think this book should be stripped of its Newbery. The title should be “A White Guy History of European MANkind.
Here are some positive reviews of this book.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/book...
"A must-have for the home or classroom library"
https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homesch...#
"The Story of Mankind seems to be used as a core or spine world history by an increasing number of homeschoolers, particularly those looking for a history written from something other than a Protestant perspective."
https://marveloustales.com/2018/03/04...
"This book didn’t give me a lot of new information about history, but I did like the way it gave a basic, broad overview of a great sweep of history. It did seem like a good one for kids, an accessible grounding in the general shape of history."
October 27, 2015
The Story of Mankind is the 1922 Newbery winner, and the first book to receive the award. It chronicles the history of "mankind" from its single cell origins through the end of World War I. I'm not sure what inspired the Newbery committee to choose a nearly 500 page book with such an ambitious scope, and I really can't see how this book would have gotten children excited about either reading or history.
First off, the book is incredibly Eurocentric. There is barely a mention of the world beyond Europe. There is brief discussion of the Middle East and one chapter entitled, "Concerning Buddha and Confucius" that deals with Eastern religions. Egypt is mentioned in chapters detailing the beginning of civilization, but the rest of Africa may as well not even exist, except for the "heathenish tribes...who worshiped sticks and stones and dead trees." The Native Americans also do not merit a mention. At times, Van Loon is apologetic about this, saying, "I wish that I could tell you what happened to Norway and Switzerland and Serbia and China. But these lands exercised no great influence upon the development of Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I therefore pass them by with a polite an very respectful bow."
Towards the end of the book he talks about how he had one rule for deciding what to put in his book. "Did the country or the person in question produce a new idea or perform an original act without which the history of the entire human race would have been different?" It seems like a nearly impossible question to answer, but Van Loon doesn't hesitate to answer this question in regards to the Mongolians. "No race ever played a more picturesque role in history than the Mongolians," he writes, "and no race, from the point of view of achievement or intelligent progress, was of less value to the rest of mankind." Yikes. Not so much of a polite and respectful bow there. I can't decide if I prefer the patronizing, the condemning, or complete omitting of certain groups.
I will also mention Van Loon's cringe-worthy discussion of slavery in the Americas. He writes the "negroes were strong and could withstand rough treatment...[and] association with the white man would give them a chance to learn Christianity...so from every possible point of view, it would be an excellent arrangement both for the kindly white man and for his ignorant black brother." Wowzers. Soon after, Van Loon condemns slavery as practiced in the Americas, but his condemnation seems to be mostly an, "oops, maybe we went a little to far trying to save these ignorant heathens." (I am putting these words in his mouth.)
This review is already long, but so I won't discuss my issues with Van Loon's portrayal of the Jews killing Jesus or the fearless Muslims so excited about paradise they are running directly into European machine gun fire. Nor will I dwell on the fact that I could probably count the number of women mentioned in this book on one hand.
In spite of these things, I found some parts of the book to be surprisingly progressive. The book was written just before the Scopes Trial, but evolution is presented as a fact and there is no mention whatsoever of creationism. Van Loon also states the the Bible is not a reliable source of scientific knowledge and the most important messages in the Bible are those of love, charity, and forgiveness. He encourages his readers to question their own stereotypes, ask questions, and see history from all angles. A good student of history should attempt to uncover the hidden motives behind people's actions, because it is only through understanding that we can truly make the world a more peaceful place.
I think that Van Loon was well-intentioned, but very misguided in writing this book. He wanted kids to understand and love history, and most importantly to learn from it. If the book were written today, I would be more adamant that is an infuriating, condescending, and worthless piece of literature. Since it was written nearly one hundred years ago, I will exercise some restraint. It had its good moments.
That being said, the book was very dense, mostly very boring, and I would not recommend it to anyone unless you have taken on the senseless project of reading all the Newbery winners.
First off, the book is incredibly Eurocentric. There is barely a mention of the world beyond Europe. There is brief discussion of the Middle East and one chapter entitled, "Concerning Buddha and Confucius" that deals with Eastern religions. Egypt is mentioned in chapters detailing the beginning of civilization, but the rest of Africa may as well not even exist, except for the "heathenish tribes...who worshiped sticks and stones and dead trees." The Native Americans also do not merit a mention. At times, Van Loon is apologetic about this, saying, "I wish that I could tell you what happened to Norway and Switzerland and Serbia and China. But these lands exercised no great influence upon the development of Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I therefore pass them by with a polite an very respectful bow."
Towards the end of the book he talks about how he had one rule for deciding what to put in his book. "Did the country or the person in question produce a new idea or perform an original act without which the history of the entire human race would have been different?" It seems like a nearly impossible question to answer, but Van Loon doesn't hesitate to answer this question in regards to the Mongolians. "No race ever played a more picturesque role in history than the Mongolians," he writes, "and no race, from the point of view of achievement or intelligent progress, was of less value to the rest of mankind." Yikes. Not so much of a polite and respectful bow there. I can't decide if I prefer the patronizing, the condemning, or complete omitting of certain groups.
I will also mention Van Loon's cringe-worthy discussion of slavery in the Americas. He writes the "negroes were strong and could withstand rough treatment...[and] association with the white man would give them a chance to learn Christianity...so from every possible point of view, it would be an excellent arrangement both for the kindly white man and for his ignorant black brother." Wowzers. Soon after, Van Loon condemns slavery as practiced in the Americas, but his condemnation seems to be mostly an, "oops, maybe we went a little to far trying to save these ignorant heathens." (I am putting these words in his mouth.)
This review is already long, but so I won't discuss my issues with Van Loon's portrayal of the Jews killing Jesus or the fearless Muslims so excited about paradise they are running directly into European machine gun fire. Nor will I dwell on the fact that I could probably count the number of women mentioned in this book on one hand.
In spite of these things, I found some parts of the book to be surprisingly progressive. The book was written just before the Scopes Trial, but evolution is presented as a fact and there is no mention whatsoever of creationism. Van Loon also states the the Bible is not a reliable source of scientific knowledge and the most important messages in the Bible are those of love, charity, and forgiveness. He encourages his readers to question their own stereotypes, ask questions, and see history from all angles. A good student of history should attempt to uncover the hidden motives behind people's actions, because it is only through understanding that we can truly make the world a more peaceful place.
I think that Van Loon was well-intentioned, but very misguided in writing this book. He wanted kids to understand and love history, and most importantly to learn from it. If the book were written today, I would be more adamant that is an infuriating, condescending, and worthless piece of literature. Since it was written nearly one hundred years ago, I will exercise some restraint. It had its good moments.
That being said, the book was very dense, mostly very boring, and I would not recommend it to anyone unless you have taken on the senseless project of reading all the Newbery winners.
June 21, 2009
Having recently read this year's Newbery Medal book, I thought it would be interesting to read the winner of the first Newbery (awarded in 1922). I was a bit taken aback to find that it was a 662-page volume of history (what manner of children were these 1920s munchkins?) but I was pleasantly surprised by Van Loon's approach and style, which is clear and straightforward, witty and expressive. Delightful, detailed line drawings accompany the text. Occasionally the author steps away from the chronological narrative to address the reader on topics such as the bias of historians, or marvels with us at particular moments (ex."Why should we ever read fairy stories, when the truth of history is so much more interesting and entertaining?"). The volume I read was updated since the '20s, including chapters on WWII and other more recent events.
September 7, 2019
Ugh. This was a slog. I read it for a personal Newbery reading challenge. Maybe it was great when published in the 20s, but it does not hold up with time. It ignores most places that aren't Europe. Barely skims over slavery. Is at times inaccurate. At others the author goes on long rants that are boring and at times arrogant. Also makes colonialism sound like it was great and necessary because of the "efficiency" of countries like England, France, and the Netherlands. Gross.
January 25, 2022
When I decided to read all the Newbery Medal winners in chronological order this year, I knew I would have to start with this one, and I was a little intimidated. I have checked it out at the library before, read the first couple of chapters, and then returned it, thinking it wasn’t for me. I have very strong feelings about history texts for children, and I just didn’t like the way this one started. The initial section on pre-history seemed to be presenting as fact things about which we know very little.
However, since I have had a goal to read all the Newbery Medal winners (I made this plan when I was in college more than twenty years ago, and still haven’t finished), someday I would have to make it back to this, the very first medal winner. And I was pleasantly surprised.
Let me state first my opinion about old books and old books for children, specifically. Now, a book is not inherently good or bad just because it is old, but there are some things inherent in being old that are valuable and some things inherent in being old that are uncomfortable. And these things are linked. Human beings have strengths and weaknesses; they are both wise and foolish. This is true for societies as well as on the individual level. And just as individuals have individual strengths and weaknesses, so do societies. And what these strengths and weaknesses are changes over time. So, when we expose ourselves to old books, we will be getting both the good and bad of former times. I consider this a benefit of wide reading. We expand our viewpoint beyond the narrow limits of our present day.
This is especially true for children, whose view is by nature of their inexperience even narrower and more limited. People worry that children, because of their youth, will not be able to pick out what is wrong or bad in stories from the past, and so they must be protected from being exposed to them. But I think children are more in danger of being unable to see what is wrong or bad in our current ideologies, because they are so close. Children quickly pick out what is unkind and hurtful in books, often more quickly than adults. They might need the broadening of old books even more than adults do.
So, as I review The Story of Mankind and the other medal winners going forward, I am not going to spend much time warning about possible objectionable or problematic content. I am working from the position that it is good to wrestle with this content, at all ages. Lots of discussions about what you are reading can help in the wrestling process for all readers, all ages. If you are interested in thinking more about why or why not to read old books, I recommend C.S. Lewis essay on reading old books https://reasonabletheologyrg/cs-lewis... and Alan Jacob’s Breaking Bread With the Dead.
The Story of Mankind by Hendrik Van Loon is actually a history of how Western Civilization came to be, rather than a history of all mankind. If you go in expecting that, and expecting some traditional colonialist ideas, you will get along better with this book. Van Loon was a historian and journalist from the Netherlands who settled in America. His style is conversational, witty, and entertaining. He imparts bits of wisdom in addition to painting a sweeping portrait of the movement of history. Rather than dwelling on events or people, he tells–as he puts it– “a story which galloped rather than walked.” This has the danger of being reductionist, and indeed there are moments when I felt the narrative to be so simplified to be no longer true. This is always a danger with these historical overviews, that you miss that the forest is made of trees. It is one reason I have struggled with the overview histories I have used in my homeschool.
To my pleased surprise, Van Loon manages to tell his tale at a galloping pace without oversimplifying, most of the time. He does this by focusing on big ideas and cutting out any details that don’t directly help impart the idea he is getting at. He combines this with an opinionated style, which helped to remind you that this is all filtered through a single person’s viewpoint and should not be seen as the be all end all of the story. He hits this interesting balance between expressing his own personality and trying to be fair and impartial. One of my favorite quotes in the book is from the chapter on the Reformation. “Few things in human life are either entirely good or entirely bad. Few things are either black or white. It is the duty of the honest chronicler to give a true account of all the good and bad sides of every historical event. It is very difficult to do this because we all have our personal likes and dislikes. But we ought to try and be as fair as we can be, and must not allow our prejudices to influence us too much.”
Van Loon frequently reminds the reader that you need to think carefully about history, that it is complicated, that you will need to read much more to fully understand the things he is talking about, that there are mental dangers in thinking about history as neat and compartmentalized. To beware of feeling like we are “modern” and therefore our current picture of history is the correct one. Child and adult students of history alike can be benefited by frequent reminders like these.
I tend to judge history books by how they treat the part of history I know well. My most studied historical period is the American Revolution. I had read dozens of books from and about this time period, including quite a bit of primary source material. My books on this time make up more than half of all the history books in my home library. And I love the chapter on the American Revolution in The Story of Mankind. It captured what was really important and focused on the ideas that mattered most. This helps me to trust his history of times and places I don’t know as well.
I think it is impossible to have one overview of history book, even one overview of Western Civilization, that will tell you all you should know about history. But I think The Story of Mankind should be a more widely read spine. It is entertaining. It helps you to think critically about history. And it covers its topics well. In the chapter on Colonial Expansion and War, Van Loon says, “We ought to be as careful in the choice of our historians as we are in the selection of our physicians.” Van Loon is a historian I am happy to choose, and I am eager to read more of his writing.
However, since I have had a goal to read all the Newbery Medal winners (I made this plan when I was in college more than twenty years ago, and still haven’t finished), someday I would have to make it back to this, the very first medal winner. And I was pleasantly surprised.
Let me state first my opinion about old books and old books for children, specifically. Now, a book is not inherently good or bad just because it is old, but there are some things inherent in being old that are valuable and some things inherent in being old that are uncomfortable. And these things are linked. Human beings have strengths and weaknesses; they are both wise and foolish. This is true for societies as well as on the individual level. And just as individuals have individual strengths and weaknesses, so do societies. And what these strengths and weaknesses are changes over time. So, when we expose ourselves to old books, we will be getting both the good and bad of former times. I consider this a benefit of wide reading. We expand our viewpoint beyond the narrow limits of our present day.
This is especially true for children, whose view is by nature of their inexperience even narrower and more limited. People worry that children, because of their youth, will not be able to pick out what is wrong or bad in stories from the past, and so they must be protected from being exposed to them. But I think children are more in danger of being unable to see what is wrong or bad in our current ideologies, because they are so close. Children quickly pick out what is unkind and hurtful in books, often more quickly than adults. They might need the broadening of old books even more than adults do.
So, as I review The Story of Mankind and the other medal winners going forward, I am not going to spend much time warning about possible objectionable or problematic content. I am working from the position that it is good to wrestle with this content, at all ages. Lots of discussions about what you are reading can help in the wrestling process for all readers, all ages. If you are interested in thinking more about why or why not to read old books, I recommend C.S. Lewis essay on reading old books https://reasonabletheologyrg/cs-lewis... and Alan Jacob’s Breaking Bread With the Dead.
The Story of Mankind by Hendrik Van Loon is actually a history of how Western Civilization came to be, rather than a history of all mankind. If you go in expecting that, and expecting some traditional colonialist ideas, you will get along better with this book. Van Loon was a historian and journalist from the Netherlands who settled in America. His style is conversational, witty, and entertaining. He imparts bits of wisdom in addition to painting a sweeping portrait of the movement of history. Rather than dwelling on events or people, he tells–as he puts it– “a story which galloped rather than walked.” This has the danger of being reductionist, and indeed there are moments when I felt the narrative to be so simplified to be no longer true. This is always a danger with these historical overviews, that you miss that the forest is made of trees. It is one reason I have struggled with the overview histories I have used in my homeschool.
To my pleased surprise, Van Loon manages to tell his tale at a galloping pace without oversimplifying, most of the time. He does this by focusing on big ideas and cutting out any details that don’t directly help impart the idea he is getting at. He combines this with an opinionated style, which helped to remind you that this is all filtered through a single person’s viewpoint and should not be seen as the be all end all of the story. He hits this interesting balance between expressing his own personality and trying to be fair and impartial. One of my favorite quotes in the book is from the chapter on the Reformation. “Few things in human life are either entirely good or entirely bad. Few things are either black or white. It is the duty of the honest chronicler to give a true account of all the good and bad sides of every historical event. It is very difficult to do this because we all have our personal likes and dislikes. But we ought to try and be as fair as we can be, and must not allow our prejudices to influence us too much.”
Van Loon frequently reminds the reader that you need to think carefully about history, that it is complicated, that you will need to read much more to fully understand the things he is talking about, that there are mental dangers in thinking about history as neat and compartmentalized. To beware of feeling like we are “modern” and therefore our current picture of history is the correct one. Child and adult students of history alike can be benefited by frequent reminders like these.
I tend to judge history books by how they treat the part of history I know well. My most studied historical period is the American Revolution. I had read dozens of books from and about this time period, including quite a bit of primary source material. My books on this time make up more than half of all the history books in my home library. And I love the chapter on the American Revolution in The Story of Mankind. It captured what was really important and focused on the ideas that mattered most. This helps me to trust his history of times and places I don’t know as well.
I think it is impossible to have one overview of history book, even one overview of Western Civilization, that will tell you all you should know about history. But I think The Story of Mankind should be a more widely read spine. It is entertaining. It helps you to think critically about history. And it covers its topics well. In the chapter on Colonial Expansion and War, Van Loon says, “We ought to be as careful in the choice of our historians as we are in the selection of our physicians.” Van Loon is a historian I am happy to choose, and I am eager to read more of his writing.
May 20, 2024
This was pre-reading for AO year 6, so I only read the scheduled chapters, but what I read I liked, and am interested in reading more of it for sure! (How do I put a book down as partially read?!) I had to look up a lot of the political terms and did find it a tougher book, but I’m hoping Annie will be reading it on her own next year! I made a few notes and defined a few terms for her in the margins! ☺️
April 6, 2011
Wow, where to start? This book was originally published in 1921, and covers a very general history of the world up to that time. There were a lot of things that surprised me about it. For one thing, I assumed the author would have different (more "old-fashioned") ideas. I expected some slant, but the direction of the slant was a surprise. The author comes across as what we would probably describe today as fairly liberal. He clearly disagreed with the US's decision to enter WWI; and was not impressed with President Wilson's "Fourteen Points". He seemed to think that the peace treaty was forced upon Europe by the US. I found this view interesting.
Having recently finished listening to a series of lectures on CD called "Everything You've Been Taught is Wrong" (based on the book Lies My Teacher Told Me by Prof. James Loewen), I kind of expected to see a lot of what he calls "bad history" and "bad sociology" - as most people writing history books have tended to base their research on other historians' work rather than doing research with primary materials, some pieces of information got passed along as fact that were not true. However, I did not see much of this that I recognized in this book, possibly because it focuses on the world in general, rather than the US specifically. Except for the claim that Columbus discovered America (p. 301); and even that is followed up by van Loon noting the fact that Vikings were here centuries before Columbus.
Some things I found quite relevant to today, and I found it interesting that the author chose to include them in his work. Some examples:
p. 79: "The Greeks, before everything else, wanted to be 'free,' both in mind and body. That they might maintain their liberty, and be truly free in spirit, they reduced their daily needs to the lowest possible point." What a lovely thought, and something to strive for, at least for me!
P 175-176: Discusses the importance of progress and not being "sentimental about the Good Old Days."
P 254: Firmly states that no one believed the earth was flat - going back to Dr. Loewen - this is one of those things I was taught in elementary school and it's just not true. I was happy to see that van Loon, at least, did not perpetuate this myth.
p 239-240: van Loon predicts that dependence on sea travel will soon change to dependence on air travel
P 250: [Christians of the western world] "came to the easy conclusion that these strange divinities were just plain devils who ... did not deserve the respect of the true sons of the Church... That system had certain very definite disadvantages. It has left us an unpleasant heritage of ill-will which promises litttle good for the immediate future." This was specifically referring to Buddhism and Confucianism, but can't it easily be applied to other non-Christian religions?
I found this book very interesting, though it took me a while to get through it! It was written in an engaging and appealing style that was not too dry and boring. I enjoyed the drawings too.
I read an updated edition that came out in 1984. However, I didn't read all the extra chapters, since they weren't in the edition that received the Newbery Medal!
Having recently finished listening to a series of lectures on CD called "Everything You've Been Taught is Wrong" (based on the book Lies My Teacher Told Me by Prof. James Loewen), I kind of expected to see a lot of what he calls "bad history" and "bad sociology" - as most people writing history books have tended to base their research on other historians' work rather than doing research with primary materials, some pieces of information got passed along as fact that were not true. However, I did not see much of this that I recognized in this book, possibly because it focuses on the world in general, rather than the US specifically. Except for the claim that Columbus discovered America (p. 301); and even that is followed up by van Loon noting the fact that Vikings were here centuries before Columbus.
Some things I found quite relevant to today, and I found it interesting that the author chose to include them in his work. Some examples:
p. 79: "The Greeks, before everything else, wanted to be 'free,' both in mind and body. That they might maintain their liberty, and be truly free in spirit, they reduced their daily needs to the lowest possible point." What a lovely thought, and something to strive for, at least for me!
P 175-176: Discusses the importance of progress and not being "sentimental about the Good Old Days."
P 254: Firmly states that no one believed the earth was flat - going back to Dr. Loewen - this is one of those things I was taught in elementary school and it's just not true. I was happy to see that van Loon, at least, did not perpetuate this myth.
p 239-240: van Loon predicts that dependence on sea travel will soon change to dependence on air travel
P 250: [Christians of the western world] "came to the easy conclusion that these strange divinities were just plain devils who ... did not deserve the respect of the true sons of the Church... That system had certain very definite disadvantages. It has left us an unpleasant heritage of ill-will which promises litttle good for the immediate future." This was specifically referring to Buddhism and Confucianism, but can't it easily be applied to other non-Christian religions?
I found this book very interesting, though it took me a while to get through it! It was written in an engaging and appealing style that was not too dry and boring. I enjoyed the drawings too.
I read an updated edition that came out in 1984. However, I didn't read all the extra chapters, since they weren't in the edition that received the Newbery Medal!
December 26, 2021
So, here's what I really think of Hendrik Willem van Loon's lengthy, complex history book ostensibly written for children and published in 1921. This was a massive research and writing project for Mr. Van Loon but also a labor of love as he did it for the education of his own grandchildren.
This book has been criticized as being too Eurocentric however to me it looks like he focused on the areas where historical records have been preserved. There are a few sketchy chapters about other parts of the world including a few about religions: Islam and Buddhism, for example. But overall the focus of the latter chapters rests on Europe and Christianity, issues and controversy.
Mr. Van Loon clearly showed the political intrigues and major challenges of a growing world population. No topic of Eurpoean barbarism was too sacred for him to mention, although much was watered down as this book was originally published for children.
These days the book is more often read by people like me wanting to read all the books that have won the Newbery Medal. This was the first winner ever, in 1922 and is essential reading for a Newbery completist. It is also very tedious, challenging and informative.
The text of this book is not entirely comprehensive and it would be very difficult if not impossible for any historian to include everything about an incident or era. However a massive number of details are glossed over to the end that anyone who wants to learn more about a certain topic can easily do so these days using the internet as a research tool. I often got sidetracked from my reading by needing to know more, and frequently ended up reading page after page about places, people and events over on Wikipedia to get a more in depth look at what Mr. Van Loon was explaining.
At times I felt like I'd give this book fewer stars - maybe two to four... but when it comes right down to the end I have to admit that it is an extremely impressive bit of research and work on the part of the author, and I cannot help but admire and respect this amazing historical project. Sure, it has some shortcomings and isn't a complete history of all aspects of mankind, but it is a great effort for the time and background of the author. It has earned five stars from me.
Some reviewers question whether it deserved the Newbery Medal in 1922. We can't look back at the thinking of the Newbery committee that year, but since it was the first year the medal was ever to be awarded I'll cut them some leeway regarding what they thought was the best of children's literature in the USA that year. Certainly it isn't an exciting novel full of sweet childish characters with a plot that will hold a child's attention. In fact, most children would never want to read all this. But I think it is a good YA level history book and certainly there are some children, a few over the years, who have found enlightening details about the history of humanity by reading the chapters of this book.
This book has been criticized as being too Eurocentric however to me it looks like he focused on the areas where historical records have been preserved. There are a few sketchy chapters about other parts of the world including a few about religions: Islam and Buddhism, for example. But overall the focus of the latter chapters rests on Europe and Christianity, issues and controversy.
Mr. Van Loon clearly showed the political intrigues and major challenges of a growing world population. No topic of Eurpoean barbarism was too sacred for him to mention, although much was watered down as this book was originally published for children.
These days the book is more often read by people like me wanting to read all the books that have won the Newbery Medal. This was the first winner ever, in 1922 and is essential reading for a Newbery completist. It is also very tedious, challenging and informative.
The text of this book is not entirely comprehensive and it would be very difficult if not impossible for any historian to include everything about an incident or era. However a massive number of details are glossed over to the end that anyone who wants to learn more about a certain topic can easily do so these days using the internet as a research tool. I often got sidetracked from my reading by needing to know more, and frequently ended up reading page after page about places, people and events over on Wikipedia to get a more in depth look at what Mr. Van Loon was explaining.
At times I felt like I'd give this book fewer stars - maybe two to four... but when it comes right down to the end I have to admit that it is an extremely impressive bit of research and work on the part of the author, and I cannot help but admire and respect this amazing historical project. Sure, it has some shortcomings and isn't a complete history of all aspects of mankind, but it is a great effort for the time and background of the author. It has earned five stars from me.
Some reviewers question whether it deserved the Newbery Medal in 1922. We can't look back at the thinking of the Newbery committee that year, but since it was the first year the medal was ever to be awarded I'll cut them some leeway regarding what they thought was the best of children's literature in the USA that year. Certainly it isn't an exciting novel full of sweet childish characters with a plot that will hold a child's attention. In fact, most children would never want to read all this. But I think it is a good YA level history book and certainly there are some children, a few over the years, who have found enlightening details about the history of humanity by reading the chapters of this book.
May 18, 2011
Not to be a snob but this so called "history" could have been written by anybody. Almost everything in the book is common knowledge, and requires little if any referencing. I think that is why it got the original newberry because it would be really accessible to children. I almost threw the book out the window when about three fourths of the way through it he started apologizing for all of the people he left out and offended because he had to take liberties with deciding on subject matter based on importance. Liberties!? Are you kidding me? Half of this book is personal commentary/hogwash and he left out the entire continent of South America. The story of mankind apparently does not include anyone of color, the majority of Africa is excluded barring Egypt, and China is only introduced during the first world war? Excuse me didn't China have many dynasties of contributions to the world prior to its appearance in world war one? What about the Mongols? Russian history is glossed over, and frankly we get entirely too many pages on Napoleon. This is a really really skewed history, as I guess all histories are in their own way, but this one really takes the cake.
November 26, 2020
Newbery Winner. The author gives a child’s version of All History. What can possibly go wrong? Well, it’s dated, chauvinistic, and unapologetically Eurocentric. (Hey—just like my undergrad education! :) In addition, back in 1924, the Newbery committee took the approach of honoring books which a child ought to read, not ones that children would necessarily enjoy. So these are the book’s obvious flaws. The strengths, however—Wow! What an enjoyable, digestible survey this is! I feel like I’ve taken an excellent refresher course in which the professor managed to make every historical period seem vitally interesting. I even learned a new relationship I never understood before (how the Holy Alliance in Europe caused the US to create the Monroe Doctrine). I would turn to this book again if I needed to remember some general arc in European history. I’m giving it 5 stars as a superior book for grown-ups, but not as a children’s book.
May 13, 2023
I DID IT! I finally finished this book! As I mentioned before, I did in fact read just 529 pages of this particular version of the book. Why? Because it was expanded after the given award. Additionally the book is boring, and I wasn't going to read anymore than necessary.
I can not say whether this book was worthy of the award or not and frankly that isn't why am reading the Newbery list anyway. I will just say that for me I didn't much care for it, I would have never read it except that I am determined to read through the Newbery winners.
I can not say whether this book was worthy of the award or not and frankly that isn't why am reading the Newbery list anyway. I will just say that for me I didn't much care for it, I would have never read it except that I am determined to read through the Newbery winners.
May 30, 2022
Σαν ανάγνωσμα για παιδιά και νέους (δεδομένης της έκδοσής του στη σειρά "Νεανική Βιβλιοθήκη Καστανιώτη") είναι εξαιρετικό. Κάποιοι ψυχικά νοσούντες μπορεί να διαμαρτυρηθούν για την ευρωκεντρικότητα του βιβλίου, αλλά αφενός τότε δεν υπήρχε ιντερνετ, αφετέρου η αποικιοκρατία ήταν ακόμη στα χάι της, και σε τελική ανάλυση ας γράψουν και οι ανατολίτες μια ανατολικοκεντρική ιστορία της ανθρωπότητας (και οι Μαορί και οι Λάπωνες κ.ο.κ.).
November 27, 2014
993 - 2014
Dalam rangka berpartisipasi dalam event BBI pada bulan November ini yang bertema Newbery Book List, aku mengintip daftar buku Newbery di Wikipedia. Ternyata aku sudah punya beberapa, sudah kubaca tapi belum pernah kureview, tapi bukunya sudah tidak ada di Jakarta. Ya sudahlah, setelah dipikir-pikir lebih baik kalau aku membaca buku Newbery yang belum pernah kubaca. Selanjutnya, seperti biasa kalau kepepet dalam mencari kandidat, aku terpaksa menggunakan the last resort, mencari bukunya di dunia maya. Setelah membaca Flora and Ulysses: The Illuminated Adventure-nya Kate DiCamillo dan Doll Bones-nya Holly Black, akhirnya aku malah memilih buku ini.
Mengapa aku memilih buku ini untuk kukomentari?
1. Buku ini adalah buku anak-anak pertama yang memenangkan John Newbery Medal;
2. Buku ini ternyata buku nonfiksi/sejarah untuk anak-anak;
3. Kemungkinan sebagian besar teman-teman BBI memilih untuk mereview buku-buku Newbery kontemporer. Sekedar untuk menambah variasi XD; dan tentu saja
4. Buku ini membuatku gatal kepingin mengomentari.
Apa yang menarik dari buku ini?
Buku ini adalah buku sejarah. Period. Tapi gaya penulisan, penuturan, dan bahaya yang digunakan lebih sederhana dan awam, sehingga diharapkan target pembaca buku ini, anak-anak tentu saja, lebih tertarik membacanya.
Penulis buku ini, Hendrik Willem van Loon, adalah sejarawan dan jurnalis Amerika (berdarah Belanda, dan lahir serta dibesarkan di Belanda). Namun selain menulis, ia juga membuat ratusan ilustrasi pendukung seperti ini:
Aku bisa membayangkan Meneer Van Loon sebagai guru sejarah yang berdiri di depan kelas, menjelaskan sejarah peradaban manusia sambil menggambar di papan tulis. Gambarnya tidak mesti bagus-bagus amat, yang penting murid-murid bisa tertarik, dan tidak ketiduran di tengah pelajaran atau kabur keluar kelas.
Buku ini berusaha menyampaikan sejarah secara kronologis (meskipun kadang-kadang melompat ke belakang dan ke depan), dimulai sejak bumi masih berupa bola yang amat panas, yang kemudian dihuni makhluk-makhluk pertama di lautan, di daratan, hingga akhirnya muncul manusia. Jelas karena terbit setelah era Darwin, teori asal-usul manusia yang disampaikan Van Loon adalah teori evolusi, bukan sebagai makhluk surga yang terbuang ke bumi.
Setelah menggambarkan perkembangan manusia zaman prasejarah, Van Loon menuturkan perkembangan sejarah di Mesir, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Yunani, Romawi, dan terus berlanjut sampai sejarah Eropa di masa zaman pertengahan sampai zaman revolusi industri. Tidak lupa ia mencantumkan juga sejarah beberapa nabi (dan agama) seperti Nabi Musa, Nabi Isa, Nabi Muhammad, Buddha, termasuk Confusius dan Lao-tse.
Apa yang tidak kusukai dari buku ini
1. Judul buku
Ketimbang disebut The Story of Mankind, mungkin lebih baik bila disebut sebagai The History of Western Civilization. Atau mungkin kalau mau lebih tepatnya lagi The Story of Mankind as I Know It.
Mengapa? Karena Van Loon hanya menceritakan peradaban manusia dari satu segi, perspektif barat, Eropa dan sekitarnya, tanpa sedikit pun mencantumkan peradaban-peradaban besar lainnya yang sebenarnya hadir pada kurun waktu yang sama: peradaban di Cina, India, Amerika, atau peradaban Islam.
Aku tidak tahu alasan Van Loon tidak mencantumkan peradaban lainnya. Kalau mau berpikir positif, anggaplah sejarah yang ditekuninya memang berfokus pada riwayat peradaban barat, sehingga ia tidak tahu atau hanya tahu sedikit tentang peradaban lainnya. Kalau mau berpikir negatif, mungkin saja Van Loon sebenarnya mengetahui peradaban dunia lainnya, tapi cenderung tidak mengindahkannya dalam penulisan buku ini. Apalagi literatur sejarah barat saja sudah segambreng banyaknya, kalau harus ditambah peradaban lainnya, bisa-bisa bukunya jadi setebal bantal dan tidak menarik bagi anak-anak.
2. Opini pribadi Van Loon
Memang sih, namanya sejarah, bukan ilmu pasti. Siapapun pasti punya interpretasi dan opini sendiri tentang apa yang dipelajarinya. Sama halnya dengan aku yang punya opini sendiri tentang buku ini, yang mungkin berbeda dengan opini pembaca lain :)
Masih sejalan dengan "tidak mencantumkan peradaban lainnya", menurut pendapatku Van Loon cenderung bias dalam teorinya, dan sangat mengagungkan peradaban barat yang modern di atas bangsa-bangsa lain yang (pada zaman buku ini ditulis dan diterbitkan) dianggap lebih terbelakang dan sebagian besar masih berada di bawah jajahan negara-negara Eropa.
Saat menulis tentang sejarah Nabi Muhammad dan agama Islam, ia memang menyebutkan tentang keberhasilan agama Islam (yang menurut pendapatnya karena 2 hal utama: ajarannya yang sangat sederhana, dan tidak serumit agama lain, serta ajaran tentang pahala bagi yang mati syahid sehingga menjadi keuntungan besar bagi pasukan Islam dalam perang melawan pasukan Kristen dalam Perang Salib). Tapi di sisi lain, ia menuliskan bahwa dengan ajaran yang berserah diri pada Allah Yang Maha Kuasa, "such an attitude towards life did not encourage the Faithful to go forth and invent electrical machinery or bother about railroads and steamship lines".
Catatan tambahan itu membuatku merasa Van Loon mungkin hanya mengetahui dunia Islam di masa 1900-an. Mungkin ia tidak tahu bahwa pada masa Eropa berada di Zaman Kegelapan, dunia sains Islam berkembang begitu pesat, membawa obor pengetahuan dari masa Yunani dan Romawi yang terlupakan. Tanpa perkembangan sains pada peradaban Islam, takkan ada renaissance pada peradaban Eropa yang begitu dibanggakannya.
Kesimpulan
Pada bagian belakang, Van Loon menyampaikan bahwa buku ini hanya appetizer, yang bertujuan agar anak-anak tertarik untuk mempelajari sejarah, hal-hal yang tidak semuanya dibahas dalam buku ini. Mungkin apabila anak-anak tertarik untuk belajar sejarah lebih jauh, wawasannya dapat lebih luas dan tidak terjebak hanya dari satu sudut pandang sejarah peradaban manusia. Tapi yang terpikirkan olehku, bagaimana apabila sang anak tidak tertarik untuk belajar lebih lanjut dan hanya terpaku pada buku ini sebagai referensinya? Apakah ia akan tumbuh dengan wawasan yang terbatas?
Untuk bacaan sejarah bagi anak-anak yang tersedia zaman sekarang, aku lebih merekomendasikan Kartun Riwayat Peradaban-nya Larry Gonick. Selain disajikan dengan full gambar kartun yang menarik, full humor yang bisa membuat sejarah peradaban manusia yang penuh kekerasan dan berdarah-darah bisa ditelan anak-anak, serial kartun ini juga menceritakan hampir semua peradaban yang diketahui manusia, dan menurut pendapatku pribadi, obyektif dan bercerita apa adanya tanpa menempatkan satu bangsa atau peradaban lebih tinggi di atas bangsa atau peradaban yang lain.
Aku masih belum membeli ulang koleksi favorit yang turut raib ini. Ada yang bisa membantu?
Selain Kartun Riwayat Peradaban, aku juga merekomendasikan serial Horrible Histories-nya Terry Deary, yang meskipun bukan dalam bentuk kartun, juga disajikan secara jenaka dengan gambar-gambar yang kocak dan, menurutku pribadi, juga obyektif dan bercerita apa adanya.
Aku baru punya sebagian dari serial ini, tapi memang belinya senemunya saja sih
Dalam rangka berpartisipasi dalam event BBI pada bulan November ini yang bertema Newbery Book List, aku mengintip daftar buku Newbery di Wikipedia. Ternyata aku sudah punya beberapa, sudah kubaca tapi belum pernah kureview, tapi bukunya sudah tidak ada di Jakarta. Ya sudahlah, setelah dipikir-pikir lebih baik kalau aku membaca buku Newbery yang belum pernah kubaca. Selanjutnya, seperti biasa kalau kepepet dalam mencari kandidat, aku terpaksa menggunakan the last resort, mencari bukunya di dunia maya. Setelah membaca Flora and Ulysses: The Illuminated Adventure-nya Kate DiCamillo dan Doll Bones-nya Holly Black, akhirnya aku malah memilih buku ini.
Mengapa aku memilih buku ini untuk kukomentari?
1. Buku ini adalah buku anak-anak pertama yang memenangkan John Newbery Medal;
2. Buku ini ternyata buku nonfiksi/sejarah untuk anak-anak;
3. Kemungkinan sebagian besar teman-teman BBI memilih untuk mereview buku-buku Newbery kontemporer. Sekedar untuk menambah variasi XD; dan tentu saja
4. Buku ini membuatku gatal kepingin mengomentari.
Apa yang menarik dari buku ini?
Buku ini adalah buku sejarah. Period. Tapi gaya penulisan, penuturan, dan bahaya yang digunakan lebih sederhana dan awam, sehingga diharapkan target pembaca buku ini, anak-anak tentu saja, lebih tertarik membacanya.
Penulis buku ini, Hendrik Willem van Loon, adalah sejarawan dan jurnalis Amerika (berdarah Belanda, dan lahir serta dibesarkan di Belanda). Namun selain menulis, ia juga membuat ratusan ilustrasi pendukung seperti ini:
Aku bisa membayangkan Meneer Van Loon sebagai guru sejarah yang berdiri di depan kelas, menjelaskan sejarah peradaban manusia sambil menggambar di papan tulis. Gambarnya tidak mesti bagus-bagus amat, yang penting murid-murid bisa tertarik, dan tidak ketiduran di tengah pelajaran atau kabur keluar kelas.
Buku ini berusaha menyampaikan sejarah secara kronologis (meskipun kadang-kadang melompat ke belakang dan ke depan), dimulai sejak bumi masih berupa bola yang amat panas, yang kemudian dihuni makhluk-makhluk pertama di lautan, di daratan, hingga akhirnya muncul manusia. Jelas karena terbit setelah era Darwin, teori asal-usul manusia yang disampaikan Van Loon adalah teori evolusi, bukan sebagai makhluk surga yang terbuang ke bumi.
Setelah menggambarkan perkembangan manusia zaman prasejarah, Van Loon menuturkan perkembangan sejarah di Mesir, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Yunani, Romawi, dan terus berlanjut sampai sejarah Eropa di masa zaman pertengahan sampai zaman revolusi industri. Tidak lupa ia mencantumkan juga sejarah beberapa nabi (dan agama) seperti Nabi Musa, Nabi Isa, Nabi Muhammad, Buddha, termasuk Confusius dan Lao-tse.
Apa yang tidak kusukai dari buku ini
1. Judul buku
Ketimbang disebut The Story of Mankind, mungkin lebih baik bila disebut sebagai The History of Western Civilization. Atau mungkin kalau mau lebih tepatnya lagi The Story of Mankind as I Know It.
Mengapa? Karena Van Loon hanya menceritakan peradaban manusia dari satu segi, perspektif barat, Eropa dan sekitarnya, tanpa sedikit pun mencantumkan peradaban-peradaban besar lainnya yang sebenarnya hadir pada kurun waktu yang sama: peradaban di Cina, India, Amerika, atau peradaban Islam.
Aku tidak tahu alasan Van Loon tidak mencantumkan peradaban lainnya. Kalau mau berpikir positif, anggaplah sejarah yang ditekuninya memang berfokus pada riwayat peradaban barat, sehingga ia tidak tahu atau hanya tahu sedikit tentang peradaban lainnya. Kalau mau berpikir negatif, mungkin saja Van Loon sebenarnya mengetahui peradaban dunia lainnya, tapi cenderung tidak mengindahkannya dalam penulisan buku ini. Apalagi literatur sejarah barat saja sudah segambreng banyaknya, kalau harus ditambah peradaban lainnya, bisa-bisa bukunya jadi setebal bantal dan tidak menarik bagi anak-anak.
2. Opini pribadi Van Loon
Memang sih, namanya sejarah, bukan ilmu pasti. Siapapun pasti punya interpretasi dan opini sendiri tentang apa yang dipelajarinya. Sama halnya dengan aku yang punya opini sendiri tentang buku ini, yang mungkin berbeda dengan opini pembaca lain :)
Masih sejalan dengan "tidak mencantumkan peradaban lainnya", menurut pendapatku Van Loon cenderung bias dalam teorinya, dan sangat mengagungkan peradaban barat yang modern di atas bangsa-bangsa lain yang (pada zaman buku ini ditulis dan diterbitkan) dianggap lebih terbelakang dan sebagian besar masih berada di bawah jajahan negara-negara Eropa.
Saat menulis tentang sejarah Nabi Muhammad dan agama Islam, ia memang menyebutkan tentang keberhasilan agama Islam (yang menurut pendapatnya karena 2 hal utama: ajarannya yang sangat sederhana, dan tidak serumit agama lain, serta ajaran tentang pahala bagi yang mati syahid sehingga menjadi keuntungan besar bagi pasukan Islam dalam perang melawan pasukan Kristen dalam Perang Salib). Tapi di sisi lain, ia menuliskan bahwa dengan ajaran yang berserah diri pada Allah Yang Maha Kuasa, "such an attitude towards life did not encourage the Faithful to go forth and invent electrical machinery or bother about railroads and steamship lines".
Catatan tambahan itu membuatku merasa Van Loon mungkin hanya mengetahui dunia Islam di masa 1900-an. Mungkin ia tidak tahu bahwa pada masa Eropa berada di Zaman Kegelapan, dunia sains Islam berkembang begitu pesat, membawa obor pengetahuan dari masa Yunani dan Romawi yang terlupakan. Tanpa perkembangan sains pada peradaban Islam, takkan ada renaissance pada peradaban Eropa yang begitu dibanggakannya.
Kesimpulan
Pada bagian belakang, Van Loon menyampaikan bahwa buku ini hanya appetizer, yang bertujuan agar anak-anak tertarik untuk mempelajari sejarah, hal-hal yang tidak semuanya dibahas dalam buku ini. Mungkin apabila anak-anak tertarik untuk belajar sejarah lebih jauh, wawasannya dapat lebih luas dan tidak terjebak hanya dari satu sudut pandang sejarah peradaban manusia. Tapi yang terpikirkan olehku, bagaimana apabila sang anak tidak tertarik untuk belajar lebih lanjut dan hanya terpaku pada buku ini sebagai referensinya? Apakah ia akan tumbuh dengan wawasan yang terbatas?
Untuk bacaan sejarah bagi anak-anak yang tersedia zaman sekarang, aku lebih merekomendasikan Kartun Riwayat Peradaban-nya Larry Gonick. Selain disajikan dengan full gambar kartun yang menarik, full humor yang bisa membuat sejarah peradaban manusia yang penuh kekerasan dan berdarah-darah bisa ditelan anak-anak, serial kartun ini juga menceritakan hampir semua peradaban yang diketahui manusia, dan menurut pendapatku pribadi, obyektif dan bercerita apa adanya tanpa menempatkan satu bangsa atau peradaban lebih tinggi di atas bangsa atau peradaban yang lain.
Aku masih belum membeli ulang koleksi favorit yang turut raib ini. Ada yang bisa membantu?
Selain Kartun Riwayat Peradaban, aku juga merekomendasikan serial Horrible Histories-nya Terry Deary, yang meskipun bukan dalam bentuk kartun, juga disajikan secara jenaka dengan gambar-gambar yang kocak dan, menurutku pribadi, juga obyektif dan bercerita apa adanya.
Aku baru punya sebagian dari serial ini, tapi memang belinya senemunya saja sih
January 24, 2021
Years ago, I resolved to read all Newbery Medal winning books by the award's 100th anniversary. Entering 2021, I had only four more to read, and I decided to start with the one I dreaded the most: the very first winner, a sprawling history of mankind. The scuttlebutt has always been that it's dry, dull, head-scratching, and not even remotely a children's book.
It is indeed all of these things. But it's also not quite has awful as I had expected, nor is it as bad as other previous winners. I'm looking at you, Dobry, Gay-Neck, Daniel Boone, and Tales from Silver Lands .
But let's start with the first obvious error.
This is not the story of mankind.
A more appropriate title would have been The Story of White People As Told by a White Person. Shockingly, van Loon admits this blindside early on. He acknowledges that a "complete" story would be too long, so he chose to focus mainly on (Western) Europe. Furthermore, van Loon occasionally addresses white supremacy and its toxicity, which adds a little to its curious appeal.
Make no mistake: this book is colossally dull. It is so not for children or even young adults. It is a slog. But it is way ahead of its time. Like, waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of its time.
Though it turns 100 years old in September, reading it through the lens of what has happened to our country in the past five years under Trump - and how we just narrowly escaped a slide into authoritarianism - many passages seem curiously prescient:
"...it is just as well that you should have a thorough knowledge of this era. It was not the first time that an attempt has been made to set the clock of history back. The result was the usual one." (p. 401)
"The methods they had employed had caused endless wars and revolutions and the feeling of a common brotherhood of the eighteenth century was followed by an era of exaggerated nationalism which has not yet come to an end." (p. 423)
"For the electric engine which can be run by waterpower is a clean and companionable servant of mankind but the "heat-engine"... is a noisy and dirty creature forever filling the world with dust and soot and asking that it be fed with coal which has to be dug out of mines at a great inconvenience and risk to thousands of people." (p. 435) He goes onto state that he'd be happy to see a coal-powered locomotive in a history museum. Reminder: that was written 100 years ago.
At one point, van Loon pleads readers to attend to social justice. And on page 506, he hopes the reader doesn't mistake him for someone who is 100% a patriot, because that's a dangerous thing to be. Bug-eyed emoji face.
True: I checked out for large swaths of this book. Van Loon often tackles dozens of moving parts in a single chapter, which can be both disorienting and dull. His obsession with political intrigue results in the curious juxtaposition of him defanging it entirely, purely because his fastidiousness becomes taxing. The chapters on the Greco-Roman states, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the French Revolution, and Napoleon are particularly excruciating. I was disappointed with his warp-speed treatment of the medieval era, as that was my favorite history class in high school.
Most all of the chapters have spot illustrations or diagrams, which would usually delight me. However, they're so poorly drawn, inscrutable, and lacking in context, that they just largely operate just to give the reader a break from the plodding narrative. I swear it took me 2 minutes to see the alleged airplane on page 456.
The original version, I believe, ended on page 508. The version I read has been updated to include modern history, extending the book by another 160 or so pages. I was hopeful that these addenda would have a little more... I dunno... excitement... in the writing. Alas, I was mistaken. The same staid history-professor lecturing tackles events up to 1998, never really analyzing or providing much context - just reporting things and occasionally making intersections among world events.
Though it took me 23 days (I had a plan of reading 3-6 chapters a day in order to finish it within a month), I can't quite state that I hated this book. It's definitely not a book I'd recommend to anyone who isn't a Newbery Completionist, but it doesn't deserve the lambasting it often seems to receive. In fact, I might attend to reading the future chapters that will invariably be tacked on.
A solid 2.5 stars for, but I'm rounding up to 3.
It is indeed all of these things. But it's also not quite has awful as I had expected, nor is it as bad as other previous winners. I'm looking at you, Dobry, Gay-Neck, Daniel Boone, and Tales from Silver Lands .
But let's start with the first obvious error.
This is not the story of mankind.
A more appropriate title would have been The Story of White People As Told by a White Person. Shockingly, van Loon admits this blindside early on. He acknowledges that a "complete" story would be too long, so he chose to focus mainly on (Western) Europe. Furthermore, van Loon occasionally addresses white supremacy and its toxicity, which adds a little to its curious appeal.
Make no mistake: this book is colossally dull. It is so not for children or even young adults. It is a slog. But it is way ahead of its time. Like, waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of its time.
Though it turns 100 years old in September, reading it through the lens of what has happened to our country in the past five years under Trump - and how we just narrowly escaped a slide into authoritarianism - many passages seem curiously prescient:
"...it is just as well that you should have a thorough knowledge of this era. It was not the first time that an attempt has been made to set the clock of history back. The result was the usual one." (p. 401)
"The methods they had employed had caused endless wars and revolutions and the feeling of a common brotherhood of the eighteenth century was followed by an era of exaggerated nationalism which has not yet come to an end." (p. 423)
"For the electric engine which can be run by waterpower is a clean and companionable servant of mankind but the "heat-engine"... is a noisy and dirty creature forever filling the world with dust and soot and asking that it be fed with coal which has to be dug out of mines at a great inconvenience and risk to thousands of people." (p. 435) He goes onto state that he'd be happy to see a coal-powered locomotive in a history museum. Reminder: that was written 100 years ago.
At one point, van Loon pleads readers to attend to social justice. And on page 506, he hopes the reader doesn't mistake him for someone who is 100% a patriot, because that's a dangerous thing to be. Bug-eyed emoji face.
True: I checked out for large swaths of this book. Van Loon often tackles dozens of moving parts in a single chapter, which can be both disorienting and dull. His obsession with political intrigue results in the curious juxtaposition of him defanging it entirely, purely because his fastidiousness becomes taxing. The chapters on the Greco-Roman states, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the French Revolution, and Napoleon are particularly excruciating. I was disappointed with his warp-speed treatment of the medieval era, as that was my favorite history class in high school.
Most all of the chapters have spot illustrations or diagrams, which would usually delight me. However, they're so poorly drawn, inscrutable, and lacking in context, that they just largely operate just to give the reader a break from the plodding narrative. I swear it took me 2 minutes to see the alleged airplane on page 456.
The original version, I believe, ended on page 508. The version I read has been updated to include modern history, extending the book by another 160 or so pages. I was hopeful that these addenda would have a little more... I dunno... excitement... in the writing. Alas, I was mistaken. The same staid history-professor lecturing tackles events up to 1998, never really analyzing or providing much context - just reporting things and occasionally making intersections among world events.
Though it took me 23 days (I had a plan of reading 3-6 chapters a day in order to finish it within a month), I can't quite state that I hated this book. It's definitely not a book I'd recommend to anyone who isn't a Newbery Completionist, but it doesn't deserve the lambasting it often seems to receive. In fact, I might attend to reading the future chapters that will invariably be tacked on.
A solid 2.5 stars for, but I'm rounding up to 3.
April 3, 2023
The only reason I finished reading this is because I'm doing a challenge that involves reading all the Newberry award winners. This was the first award winner. I have no idea why. I can't imagine kids, even in the 1920's, would want to read this. The version I read had been "updated", so I hate to think how bad the original was, but it's still full of so any inaccuracies and just plain weirdness.
Want to read
February 8, 2018Just to say that in Canada this book will be titled "The Story of Peoplekind"
May 29, 2022
First Newbery Winner--1922
I'm not entirely convinced it deserved the Newbery, and some of it definitely did not aged well. But I imagine it was quite shocking to have a history book aimed towards young readers, admit that all historians will have different perspectives due to their personal history, include evolution and talk in a conversational tone instead of just spouting facts.
I did appreciate the little bits of humor.
My favorite bit was about the dawn of the Renaissance.
"[Petrarch] wrote the things which people wanted most to hear. They were tired of theological disputations. Poor Dante could wander through hell as much as he wanted. But Petrarch wrote of love and of nature and the sun and never mentioned those gloomy things which seemed to have been the stock in trade of the last generation. And when Petrarch came to the city, all the people flocked out to meet him and he was received like a conquering hero. If he happened to bring his young friend Boccaccio, the storyteller, with him, so much the better. They were both men of their time, full of curiosity, willing to read everything once, digging in forgotten and musty libraries that they might find still another manuscript of Virgil or Ovid or Lucretius or any of the other old Latin poets. They were good Christians. Of course they were! Everyone was. But no need of going around with a long face and wearing a dirty coat just because she day or other you were going to die. Life was good. People were meant to be happy. You desired proof of this? Very well. Take a spade and dig into the soil. What did you find? Beautiful old statues. Beautiful old cases. Ruins of ancient buildings. All these things were made by the people of the greatest empire that ever existed. They ruled all the world for a thousand years. They were strong and rich and handsome (just look at that busy of the Emperor Augustus!) Of course, they were not Christians and they would never be able to enter Heaven. At best they would spend their days in purgatory, where Dante had just paid them a visit." Hahahaha.
And even though some of the book hasn't aged well, other parts were incredibly insightful even today.
"tolerance (and please remember this when you grow older), is of very recent origin and even the people of our own so-called 'modern world' are apt to be tolerant only upon such matters as do not interest them very much. They are tolerant towards a native of Africa, and do not care whether he becomes a Buddhist or a Mohammedan, because neither Buddhism nor Mohammedanism means anything to them. But when they hear that their neighbour who was a Republican and believed in a high protective tariff, has joined the Socialist party and now wants to repeal all tariff laws, their tolerance ceases and they use almost the same words as those employed by a kindly Catholic (or Protestant) of the seventeenth century, who was informed that his best friend whom he had always respected and loved had fallen a victim to the terrible heresies of the Protestant (or Catholic) church."
I'm not entirely convinced it deserved the Newbery, and some of it definitely did not aged well. But I imagine it was quite shocking to have a history book aimed towards young readers, admit that all historians will have different perspectives due to their personal history, include evolution and talk in a conversational tone instead of just spouting facts.
I did appreciate the little bits of humor.
My favorite bit was about the dawn of the Renaissance.
"[Petrarch] wrote the things which people wanted most to hear. They were tired of theological disputations. Poor Dante could wander through hell as much as he wanted. But Petrarch wrote of love and of nature and the sun and never mentioned those gloomy things which seemed to have been the stock in trade of the last generation. And when Petrarch came to the city, all the people flocked out to meet him and he was received like a conquering hero. If he happened to bring his young friend Boccaccio, the storyteller, with him, so much the better. They were both men of their time, full of curiosity, willing to read everything once, digging in forgotten and musty libraries that they might find still another manuscript of Virgil or Ovid or Lucretius or any of the other old Latin poets. They were good Christians. Of course they were! Everyone was. But no need of going around with a long face and wearing a dirty coat just because she day or other you were going to die. Life was good. People were meant to be happy. You desired proof of this? Very well. Take a spade and dig into the soil. What did you find? Beautiful old statues. Beautiful old cases. Ruins of ancient buildings. All these things were made by the people of the greatest empire that ever existed. They ruled all the world for a thousand years. They were strong and rich and handsome (just look at that busy of the Emperor Augustus!) Of course, they were not Christians and they would never be able to enter Heaven. At best they would spend their days in purgatory, where Dante had just paid them a visit." Hahahaha.
And even though some of the book hasn't aged well, other parts were incredibly insightful even today.
"tolerance (and please remember this when you grow older), is of very recent origin and even the people of our own so-called 'modern world' are apt to be tolerant only upon such matters as do not interest them very much. They are tolerant towards a native of Africa, and do not care whether he becomes a Buddhist or a Mohammedan, because neither Buddhism nor Mohammedanism means anything to them. But when they hear that their neighbour who was a Republican and believed in a high protective tariff, has joined the Socialist party and now wants to repeal all tariff laws, their tolerance ceases and they use almost the same words as those employed by a kindly Catholic (or Protestant) of the seventeenth century, who was informed that his best friend whom he had always respected and loved had fallen a victim to the terrible heresies of the Protestant (or Catholic) church."
February 20, 2017
This short(ish) history of the world was well written (and apparently the first ever Caldecott winner?), but had all of the strengths and weaknesses you'd expect from a history book--even a children's history book--written by a Progressive at the beginning of the 20th century. Aside from the treatment of the Middle Ages, the Ancient world, and the Enlightenment, the best example is the contrast between the 1926 postscript, wherein van Loon calls for a strong captain to seize the helm of the ship of state and drive history forward, and the 1939 postscript where he frantically says "I told you Hitler was a menace!" In other words, this probably isn't the best place to start if you're looking for a good world history.
That said, it was well-written (and well-read, as I did the audio version).
That said, it was well-written (and well-read, as I did the audio version).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 495 reviews