Two new things from me:

• An article on novel nuclear warhead verification measures (physical zero-knowledge proof protocols) in the New Yorker: The Virtues of Nuclear Ignorance. It was a fun but unusually difficult article to write — I turned in a 5,000 word draft that had to be chopped down to about 2,000 words, and it involves some really technical stuff that I need to find ways of explaining rather plainly for people who are not familiar with words like "Bremsstrahlung." But it was fun to write, and I knew two of the main people already (Glaser and Kemp), and it's nice to write about one's smart, interesting friends who do unusual research.

• A new blog post, which is meant as an accompaniment to he above (and has a lot of things that got cut from the original article, like historical discussion of verification issues): Secrecy, verification, and purposeful ignorance

I've been behind on blogging lately because of about a million other things I am working on (three major programming projects, a few research papers, and even my damned book!), to say nothing of teaching (my "the history of science and technology, from the paleolithic to the present" class is fun, but as it's the first time I've given it a go it involves a lot of work to get lectures together), but I'm getting better at time management, for what it is worth!

Finally finished White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg (Viking Press, 2016).

The first 2/3rds or so were relatively easy reading, though I had my issues with it. The last third, dedicated to the Post-Reconstruction USA, seems like a disjointed mess compared with the rest of the book. While most of the book focuses on the poor the last third focuses on the presence of 'white trash' in popular culture and political life. After looking up the author it seems like her specialty is the Antebellum period so it makes sense that the really complex and 100+ years after that lose the same level of detail and nuance. As it gets closer to contemporary history it feels more and more like a book written by a well read politician or political activist and less like a work of history as such. This is all the more puzzling since more recent periods should be easier to write about, in this sense, since the 20th century has a wealth of sociological studies which earlier periods lack. It appears, in my view, that the author included much of the later content to connect it with contemporary political discussions and not because that was her intent all along.

This brings me to my second gripe. The title is misleading. This will lead to a great deal of disappointment if you don't know this going in. The title promises you 1) a history of class, 2) during a 400 year period, 3) in America, and 4) that it is untold.

Let's start with point one. No, it is not a history of class. It is a history of the perception of one particular subsection of class (poor whites) in specific parts of America (#WestCoastDoesn'tExist). There are two main ways of viewing class: The objectivist approach (class exists regardless of whether or how it is perceived) or a subjectivist one (class only truly exists if those in that class identify as such). The author seems to take the latter, to an extent, in that she focuses on issues of identity and perception over an analysis of the role of classes within the economy as a whole. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if you were expecting to come to an understanding both of how class was perceived and the function of specific classes within society, you're going to be disappointed. In addition, the author calls this book "the" untold history of class in America. This isn't a history of 'class' so much as the white underclass in America. That's the beating heart of the book. Any information about how class is perceived outside of this central theme is only there to better explain how poor whites were treated. That's it.

Point two is largely addressed in an earlier paragraph: The book does trace class over 400 years, but emphasizes some far more than others.

This brings us to point 3: This isn't a history of poor whites in America as a whole. There is a lot of emphasis on poor Southern whites above all else. If this were a 19th century book title it would be something along the lines of 'An accounting of the perception of whites of little means in the Southern parts of the United States of America with some additional information about their treatment in other regions'. That's kind of implied by the title (white trash is usually a term reserved for poor Southern whites above all else) but undermined by the subtitle.

Finally, point four: That the story is untold. I'm not entirely sure that it is entirely untold. I was already familiar with important sections of the book from the start. I'm also suspicious of the idea that the sections on poor whites in the 20th century haven't been explored by numerous studies already. I think that, aside from just serving as the editorial equivalent of clickbait, the title means that it is the first systematic study over that broad of period of time. If that's what they meant (or will protest with), fine. I just don't think it was executed very well.

Next, on to some other issues.

Non-whites barely exist in this book except in terms of their relationship to poor whites. So, if you were expecting detailed comparisons with poor blacks or poor chicano sharecroppers, you'll be sorely disappointed. I'm not the first the point out that Isenberg doesn't see much of an intersection between racial and class issues. This may be because she felt she didn't have the expertise to write about race. In which case, cool, I get it, but this could have been better handled. Again, the misleading subtitle sets you up for heartbreak here.

Because much of the book is about perception over concrete socio-economic relations, I often felt uneasy about how representative or not the generalizations and explanations were. Here is what I'm trying to get at: In one section a good bit of time is spent on the implicit class theory in the books by the Comte du Buffon, an 18th century French writer and scientist. I found myself thinking 'ok, that's interesting, but how sure are we of how widespread his influence was in these circles?' I never felt like I was on solid ground, as it were, with a clear idea of how representative any of what she discussed was. The book is full of anecdotes and quotations of authors without really making you feel like you have a firm grip on how representative their ideas and experiences were. It often reads like a series of anecdotes. This also means I can't really ever use it in my research because I already suspect the generalizations and analyses in the book.

With all that said, I really wanted to like this book. The idea of coming to a better understanding of how class is perceived in America is both intellectually interesting and useful to my own research.

Hopefully the book inspires further research into this field that are able to achieve what the author evidently could not.

I'd like to end by saying that this is a really negative review which reflects my disappointment with the book and that my view may soften if I reread it in a few years knowing what I know now. So take my grumbling with a grain of salt.

I know this is probably said a lot here but the mods here are really something else. First and foremost they moderate very well. Plenty if not all of them contribute with vast amount of detail (which is to be expected from a place called r/askhistorians but still). Then all the extra stuff like the Podcast. It's such a great community here, I love it

West Mexico Symposium 1: A View from the Field

Join experts Chris Beekman, John Pohl, Marcos Zavaleta and Lorenza Lopez Mestas as they discuss recent archaeological research. Fieldwork in West Mexico continues to provide new insight into the cultures and architecture of the past. In recent years, archaeologists have conducted extensive surveys to locate new sites and to map the distribution of sites in order to determine where people lived and how their lives changed through time. In addition, excavations on habitation and shaft and chamber tomb sites have provided details of life and death from the time of some of the first towns to the arrival of the Spanish.

Christopher Beekman - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYG4ulFt9x0

John Pohl - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63x4Sx8-gNA

Marcos Zavaleta - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fHcfPACYko

Lorenza Lopez Mestas - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QqdhyaDRH4

This is a symposium put on by the Gilcrease Museum in conjunction with their West Mexico exhibit as well as a new edited volume by Christopher Beekman and Robert Pickering. I just wanted to share for those that are interested. Beekman, Pickering, and Cheryl Smallwood-Roberts have all given other talks prior to this symposium that can be found on the Gilcrease Museum YouTube page. Beekman's talk is much longer at about an hour and a half and goes over a lot more information versus his symposium talk at half an hour.

An elder down the block told me about the old coal terminal and where the shore of Lake Washington used to be. He also gave me the history of the Lions Club in the area. Man, does anyone organize events for old folks so they can tell people their stories?

Sanadamaru showed probably its saddest episode thus far with the break up of the Sanada clan father and younger son being forced into exile while the older son was forced to cut ties with his own father :(

Also a Dutch letter from the 17th century was found in the archives talking about the Siege of Osaka. Oh how I wish I could read Dutch. And Spanish so I can read Frois.

Can anyone tell me how slavers on a ship would have referred to the slaves? As cargo? Passengers? Would they have referred to them as people or humans?

What historical audio or video clip gives you frisson to watch? Ex for me would be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY