Titan: the life of John D. Rockefeller Sr. by Ron Chernow

This great biography is really a monumental contribution toward the history of US business of the late 19th and early 20th centuries putting into perspective the values and politics of a free capitalistic society and how government becomes involved. The American Oil companies of Mobil, Exxon, Chevron, Soho, Amoco have there origins in the Standard oil monopoly that was ultimately broken up by the government.  This is a story of the investment houses of JP Morgan and Kuhn Loeb (Jacob Schiff) as they pertain to the 'discounts' allotted to Standard oil by the different train companies to transport the oil for kerosene lighting.

Mr. Rockefeller Sr. was described sensitively and realistically showing what one person can achieve through thought, planning and great effort.  He exhibited some formidable qualities worth studying.  Highly sensitive and very intelligent, Mr. Rockefeller showed great restraint and control over his emotions.  Never one to allow a slight to go unanswered, Mr. Rockefeller never was impulsive.  He was a determined person with cunning and sharp insight always seeking an opponent's weak spot.

His way was legendary: be scrupulously honest in accounting and always give an account. (He required his adult son to always account for his expenditures even when their fantastic wealth could not have been affected by any miscalculation.)  He prided himself on honesty since his religious Baptist upbringing, well integrated into his being demanded it.  Similarly, however, he was known to be vindictive in a subtle way.  Only upon reflection does one see that personality flaw because he was so cunning in his retaliation, a way that always could be interpreted without vengeance.  He could always explain away his behavior in a positive manner.  His rapaciousness was constantly justified and explained as "cooperation" is always preferred over "competition".  Many testified that he was probably the most intelligent person of his day.

His antisemitism came out as he prided himself for besting a Jew in business.  Interestingly enough, he could not swallow up Shell Oil (founded by Jewish Marcus Samuel) and the Royal Dutch Oil companies but rather had to compete with them since they were supported by the financially muscular French Rothschild family.  Ironically, his son seemed to claim that his company received better treatment from the Jewish Jacob Schiff of the investment house of Kuhn Loeb then the house of JP Morgan.  There seemed to be a lingering feeling that Rockefeller could not trust Morgan.

Rockefeller showed tremendous restraint.  When he was completely vilified in a series of magazine articles and press coverage, he felt no impulse to respond and defend himself.  He always felt confident that he was guiltless.  As a matter of fact, during his tenure at Standard Oil he prided himself at keeping prices of kerosene low for the consumer.  With the rise of the automobile, Standard Oil supremacy remained through his successors who were responsible for the changes in price.  He shied away from any publicity until his retirement at which point he had already given away millions to a number of philanthropies (including the founding of the University of Chicago).

Rockefeller never understood or appreciated the charges against him.  He condemned the vilification of his person to the evils of 'Unionization' and 'Socialism'.  Teddy Roosevelt capitalized on Rockefeller's lack of appreciation of the charges against him.  He saw a great opportunity to grow the government and curtail free enterprise when the public cry against the rapacity of Rockefeller and Standard Oil rose to a deafening shout.

Ironically, the breakup of Standard oil did not punish John D. Rockefeller Sr.  Since he owned a majority share of the company he benefited by owning majority shares in each separate company which exponentially augmented his wealth to billionaire status.  Before the actual breakup, Mr. Rockefeller recommended buying Standard Oil stock because he understood the benefits of what was essentially a huge stock split! And although he became somewhat bawdy in his old age, by the time he died (well into his 90's) he was known for his philanthropy and not for his avarice.

The Appeasers by Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott

This contribution puts to rest the notion that Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax deliberately coaxed and indulged the Germans with appeasement in order to give England a chance to rearm and prepare for the war against Germany.  The authors forcefully show how from the time of the Treaty of Versailles that the English were in no mood to commit to a war and were committed to peace at a very heavy price even at the expense of Poland's sacrifice until the moral outrage and public opinion demanded that England keep their committed alliance and guarantee.

The outrageous treaty that stripped Germany of its assets and pride is seen by the British as an embarrassment.  The British seem eager to re-establish the 'Anglo/Saxon' bound and out of guilt offer appeasing policies, allocating colonies and allowing the break up Czechoslovakia and ultimate annexation of Austria to placate the Germans and blunt to impact of Versailles.

There is ample evidence that the diplomatic corp throughout the 1930's offered intelligence that suggested that Hitler's appetite was far greater that anything Chamberlain envisioned would satiate. The diplomats were concerned with the emerging brutality of the Nazi regime, its Anti-Semitism and quashing of any dissent; that it signaled the impossibility of reason.

The element of secrecy became necessary because the British public opinion would not tolerate the betrayal of its ally France.  If in secret, an agreement of peace could be reached it could be announced dramatically and heroically. Chamberlain really thought that the public waiving of the Munich agreement would stave off war.  In retrospect, Hitler exploited Chamberlain's guilt all along with continued demands.  Hitler was never interested in peace, he was interested in conquest and hegemony over the world.

All countries are committed to peace. Appeasement, however, seems likely when a country lacks the will power to fulfill obligations. Even when England had a guarantee for Poland's sovereignty, it still secretly pressed Poland to deal with Germany's demands!  The demand for peace not only can obstruct the enemy's true intentions but it also can demoralize morale.  The public moral outrage brought down the Chamberlain government and brought on Churchill as PM. It is interesting to note that as a member of the cabinet, and even one who staunchly and consistently criticized Appeasement, Churchill did not publicly demand the fall of the government, nor was responsible for it.

Who Crucified Jesus by Solomon Zeitlin

Who Crucified Jesus is an excellent work of historical research into the Christian scriptures showing that the Jewish people are not responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.  There are some important features about the first century CE that come out in this contribution.  Sectarianism is explained clearly to show context of the emerging new religion.  The role of the Sanhedrin is discussed in detail.  Philo and Josephus are heavily relied upon to give an accurate picture of the Roman procurators.  Professor Zeitlin explains the differences between political and religious offenses and concludes that Jesus was accused of a political offense and put to death under the Roman authorities.  The book originally written during WWII enables the author to analogize the Roman brutality to the Nazi onslaught making an evocative read.

After discussing the Hasmonean revolt and the emergence of the sectarians Pharisees and Sadducees, Professor Zeitlin explain the basic differences in belief.  The Pharisees believe in an afterlife and the resurrection of the dead and the Sadduccees do not.  This difference ends up being crucial in understanding the Jewish followers of Jesus commit no crimes in believing in a resurrection.  The prof. goes through the Tannaitic literature and shows that Jesus commits no religious crime that deserves capital punishment through the religious court, the Sanhedrin and concludes that there must have been a separate second Sanhedrin for political crimes against the Roman State to which which Jesus is ultimately submitted and then sent to the Roman procurator, Pilate.  The political offense of being accused of being the "King of the Jews" would imply sedition to which the Romans would sentence one to death by crucifixion.

Dr. Zeitlin shows his power of exegesis when he deconstructs the Christian Scriptures.  He shows the absolute contradictions among them.  By explaining, however, that each book addresses a specific audience, the prof. proves that there are not serious contradictions but understandable prejudices.  He claims that the so-called 'Synoptic Gospels' are really addressing a Jewish audience and thus one does not find a negative inference about the Pharisees being hypocrites; whereas the non 'Synoptic Gospel' is addressing a non-Jewish audience which understandably depicts much prejudice against the Jewish people for rejecting their messiah and introduce the Pharisees as being hypocrites.

According to Christian Scripture, Pilot the procurator that put Jesus to death is depicted as sympathetic, however, Professor Zeitlin cites the testimony of Philo and Josephus to show that Pilate was not a sympathetic character but rather a vicious personality. There is built in animosity against the Jewish people for rejecting Jesus, so the Romans are depicted as not being responsible for his death.

Professor Zeitlin shows definitively that the Jewish people are not and should not be accused of crucifying Jesus.  He admits that Jewish people rejected him as the Messiah but never did they try Jesus for any religious offense that the religious Sanhedrin (which was dominated by the Pharisees) could have been responsible for punishing him.  As a matter of fact, the corrupt High priest as the vassal authority who had everything to lose by not cooperating with the Romans delivered Jesus over to the authorities for the capital crime of sedition against the Roman state.  The book is an excellent read, showing the consummate skills of the critical historian.

Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People edited by Leo W. Schwartz

This book is a great survey of Jewish History written by some major Jewish historians of the mid 20th century.  Each person distinguished in his field of study: The Biblical Age is written by Yehezkel Kaufmann of Hebrew University, The Hellenistic Age is written by Ralph Marcus of the University of Chicago, and the Talmudic Age is written by Gerson D. Cohen of Columbia University (eventually associated with the Jewish Theological Seminary of America - the rabbinical school for Conservative Judaism).  Abraham S. Halkin of the City College of New York (now known as the City University of New York) wrote the essay on the Judeo-Islamic Age and Cecil Roth of Oxford University penned the contribution of the European Age.  The volume is concluded with a major contribution from Salo Baron of Columbia University called the Modern Age.

What I find remarkable about this volume was the common legacy that Profs. Halkin and Roth had to say about the Jewish people.  They both echo the same message that the Jewish people are unique: they are an ancient people that have held fast to their literature and steadfastly held on to their faith. The ancient Talmudic tradition, its unique curricula and manner of study has kept the Jewish people alive.  Through their ancient literature and studies, the Jewish people have been able to adapt to new situations and withstand the vicissitudes of history. And although the majority of Modern Jewish people do not study the Talmud, nevertheless, those that do color the Jewish nation with its authentic values.  Even the most secular Jew turns to the ancient literature to find inspiration.

I was impressed that Salo Baron could level a criticism against a fellow historian as being "annoyingly too objective" !  Reading Abraham Halkin's contribution, however, triggered my memory of him teaching me as a visiting professor at the University of California when I took his course about the Judeo-Islamic age.  I remember his sage like presence, soft eyes and kindly smile.  He inspired me in my own path to find and safeguard my heritage.  I once went to see him at his office and asked him if he could answer a religious/moral question that I had.  He was eager to help me understand.  I asked him about the commandment to destroy Amalek, that I didn't understand it.  He put his hand into his pocket and pulled out a traditional yarmulke and donned it.  He grabbed a Pentateuch readily available on his office shelf and swiftly flipped to the relevant page and read the verse out loud to me.  "It's Geschribben!" he commented and then said to me ever so kindly, "Now, what don't you understand?"  For me it was an amazing moment.  The simplicity of a decree of scripture all depended on whether or not one accepted the book's authority.  If one does not accept the book's authority, then the commandment is unintelligible. If one, however, accepts the the authority of the book, then the commandment is easily understood.

I also remember the first time I saw the professor at the orthodox synagogue in Berkeley.  He was called to the Torah and instead of saying the blessings and proceeding to listen to the Torah reader's rendition, Prof. Halkin asked quietly the reader, "I usually read for myself, do you have any objections if I read?"  Everyone in the congregation was taken aback.  Never had anyone volunteered to read their own Aliyah!  So he read, and he read perfectly!  He pronounced every Dagesh Hazak, every Mapik Heh, every Kamatz Katan, every guttural consonant.  It was truly an extraordinary experience and as a result Prof. Halkin became the official Torah Reader during his visiting appointment at the request of the congregation.

Even though this volume was published in 1956, it represents the best secular scholarship of its day and still worth reading.

The Contemporary Relevance of History by Salo W. Baron

This is a short series of essays on the different approaches that the professional historian may take under his wing. I would like to mention just two points that Mr. Baron makes when discussing the researching and writing of history with the addition of my own thoughts.

The critical historical method: the comparison of different sources and accepting only that fact that has corroborating evidence has certain limits.  Mr. Baron points out that the method is only efficient or relevant during periods of ample written evidence.  He points out that when studying cultures or societies that rely heavily on oral transmissions or societies that rely on memory and the written evidence is often vary scarce, the research is difficult since no corroborating evidence can be analyzed.

This means that studying the ancient Jewish world, for example, during the time of a functioning Sanhedrin when oral transmissions were forbidden to write down, research is difficult.  For example, first century historian, Josephus writing for essentially a Roman audience inevitably must be compared to much later Talmudic sources because the Jewish world at the time of Josephus was functioning and firing on Oral cylinders.  The Roman world values written histories, whereas the Jewish world does not.  If the sources agree, then the historian is confident of the facts.  If, however, they do not agree, then the researcher has a quandary because there are so many possibilities to explain the differences, with no way to verify data.  Any re-creation or construction is basically founded on sand.

Secondly, Mr. Baron makes a very strong case that history (and certainly Jewish history) should be analyzed through a religious social lens.  Although he goes through many approaches: Psychohistory, Quantitative History, Social history, Secular State history etc., he shows that religion has played the most profound effect on civilization even in the most secular environments.  He shows that even at the height of the Enlightenment with the founding of a country that is the most secular in nature, with the greatest separation of Church/State (USA), religion, nevertheless, plays an incredibly dominant role in the animation of its people.

Mr. Baron was not known to be a religious nor observant Jew, nevertheless, he observed the theocracy that preoccupied the individual psyche of most of the world's inhabitants during every major epic and civilization.

All Shook Up: How Rock 'N' Roll Changed America by Glenn C. Altschuler

This volume chronicles the rise of the musical phenomenon, Rock and Roll of the 1950's and how it meshed with concurrent social trends of civil unrest, disobedience and the 'generation gap' of the coming turbulent times of the 1960's.  Prof. Altschuler explains that the genre of Rock and Roll reflects the emerging unrest of post WWII youth, a more affluent youth completely distinct from its veteran, depression era experienced parents.

Sex, race relations, and rebellion comprised the elements of Rock and Roll according to the author.  Mr. Altschuler explained a social evolution unfolds with Rock and Roll.  Rock and Rock originated in the Black community, known as Rhythm and Blues and implied explicit sexual expression in the music. It attracted young white males and Sam Phillips of Sun Records commented "if I had a white boy to sing these songs, I'd make a billion.."  Elvis Presley presented himself and became the transition bringing Black music to a craving white crowd.  Elvis' blatant sexual gyrations during his performances struck a chord with audiences: girls screamed desire for him, boys craved to be like him and parents were reviled, feared and were shaken by him.

Little Richard and Chuck Berry, black artists enthused audiences with their clearly sensual movements, yet threatened the status quo of segregation by appealing to mixed crowds.  Buddy Holly played at the famed Apollo theater in the Black section of New York's Harlem with many in the audience expecting to see a black artist yet were shocked at seeing a white one!  Jerry Lee Lewis pounded on the piano even with his feet evoking almost violent orgiastic experiences.  Rock and Roll manifested a breakout of the social and sexual repression of the 1940's and early 1950's.

By end of the '50s music producers cropped, edited and sanitized Rock and Roll so that mainstream vehicles and venues like American Bandstand with Dick Clark, The Steve Allen Show and the perennial powerhouse, The Ed Sullivan Show could exhibit Rock and Roll headliners without fear of negative repercussions.  Even Elvis Presley's agent Tom Parker understood the need for sanitizing Rock and Roll.  He forced Elvis to take a hiatus from singing and made movies that sanitized his image. Into the early '60s, Rock and Roll became dominated by innocuous love and romance songs by the smash English group the Beatles.  The only American groups to come close were Dianna Ross and the Supremes also singing about love and the adolescent group, the Beach Boys singing about surfing.

The book also discusses the corruption in the music industry.  It highlights the rise of and fall of pioneering DJ from Cleveland, Alan Freed taking money to spin records.  It shows the shrewd business sense of Dick Clark staying clear of getting caught, although it seems clear from the evidence that Clark benefited from music producers in the form of at least gifts and travels.

Rock and Roll seems to have met the test of time.  Well into the 1980's, Bruce Springsteen fooled the political spectrum with his "Born in the USA" by waving an American flag.  Conservative and liberal pundits alike identified with the song to represent an authentic truly American composition.  As a result, one may come to believe that Rock and Roll is here to stay!

Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer

Professor David Hackett Fischer's excellent history of the turning point of the American Revolutionary war brings out some important salient features of not only General Washington but also the emerging values of the nascent new country.  Besides his great leadership, one reads about the grand ideas and values of the Enlightenment that the leaders and founding fathers steadfastly hold up.

The book chronicled in detail Washington's crossing the Delaware river with the cover of night to make a surprise attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton, NJ. After the abysmal showing in New York when the Continental Army was in constant retreat and the British leadership thought they had the insurrection practically quelled, moreover, with the Continental Congress beginning to regret Washington's commission as leader, the general devised a plan that exploited the element of surprise and capitalized on his army's 'celerity'.  The battles at Trenton and Princeton were routs, exercising swift movements and classic flanking maneuvers knowing that the British regulars enjoyed intimidating and overwhelming its enemies with direct assaults. The fight continued with the 'forage wars', the British seeking out of fodder for their cavalry's horses - something as important then as oil is today for a mobilized army.  The Americans successfully prosecuted a guerrilla war, quickly attacking  to inflict major damage and just as swiftly withdrawing and disappearing into the wilderness keeping casualties at a minimum.  At that point, with little cavalry horses left, many on the side of the British began to understand that winning such a war and putting down the 'insurrection' would be very difficult.

Mr. Fischer debunks the iconic painting of Washington in a boat crossing the icy river, one foot raised with right hand resting on his thigh as an impossibility.  The instability of such a position would have cast the general overboard.  The painting, nevertheless, captures Washington's regal and noble countenance to which all who knew Washington testified.  Washington's resolute determination to win and personal courage in battle were indeed awesome and inspiring to all those who witnessed them.

The author contrasts the ways of the British and Americans wage war.  For the British, war is a question of honor and manhood with certain expectations of the vanquished.  For the British, if one one would not surrender at their request, then there was no obligation to quarter or sustain prisoners. There were countless events of absolute ferocious brutality on their part.  The Americans, however, wage war simply to win. Taking the basic call from John Adams and specifically the example of George Washington, the Americans show magnanimity, generosity and humanity - something attested to by the British themselves.  The British General Howe was autocratic and did not accept advice from his war council.  Washington, on the other hand, presided at his war council by consensus and encouraged opinions.  The contrasts seem to reflect the different style of governments - a Monarchy vs. a free Republic.

The author concludes that some contemporary critics of today who think that America is not a noble enterprise are wrong.  One need only to see Washington and the founding fathers as extraordinary people who created a country that reflects the generous ideas of the Enlightenment to set the record straight.