Dreams from My Father
discussion
Obama-mania
message 1:
by
Raquel
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 10:52AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 10, 2007 04:08PM
An amazing story of exploring one's identity and race. A fast read and interesting story. He's got my vote!
reply
|
flag
Extremely well written as well. He is brilliant!
i Just started the Kenya chapter, but i am definitely engaged in this book! very well written.
I was pleasantly surprised how interesting this book was. I picked it up because I wanted to know more about this charismatic individual. It never occurred to me that I would actually enjoy the book.
I adore Obama in many, many ways- but I was really disappointed in this book. I think I expected more, "Wow!" than I received. It was good, don't get me wrong. Great stories, but the glue that held it together was not sticky enough for me.
As an Australian, I was really impressed that an American presidential aspirant, as he then was, had such a grasp of the world beyond US borders. His understandings and demonstrated knowledge of African colonial and post-colonial affairs was creditable. I cannot imagine some of his predecessors having such insights!
I liked the Chicago section best. In the African, it's like he's adopted a whole different voice. I don't know whether that's his doing or the work of a very good editor.
Very inspiring. It must have been an incredible journey for him.
The book is very well written. President Obama is a gifted storyteller as well as a very charming and inspiring individual.
الكتاب رائع.. يجكي سيرة ذاتية شيقة..
Wonderful book, so glad that I read. Will hold in my heart the memories that he had of his family and what it means to be a struggling with race in this country. President Ombama you rock!
Kathy wrote: "Wonderful book, so glad that I read. Will hold in my heart the memories that he had of his family and what it means to be a struggling with race in this country. President Ombama you rock!"I so agree Kathy. I haven't read his other book but I will hopefully get to it before long.
I now truly believe that anyone can be president even if they have no qualifications.
My favorite part, from the Chicago section:“That’s what the leadership was teaching me, day by day: that the self-interest I was supposed to be looking for extended well beyond the immediacy of issues, that beneath the small talk and sketchy biographies and received opinions people carried within them some central explanation of themselves. Stories full of terror and wonder, studded with events that still haunted or inspired them. Sacred stories.
“And it was this realization, I think, that finally allowed me to share more of myself with the people I was working with, to break out of the larger isolation that I had carried with me to Chicago. I was tentative at first, afraid that my prior life would be too foreign for South Side sensibilities; that I might somehow disturb people’s expectations of me. Instead, as people listened to my stories of Toot or Lolo or my mother or father, of flying kites in Djakarta or going to school dances at Punahou, they would nod their heads or shrug or laugh. . . Then they’d offer a story to match or confound mine, a knot to bind our experiences together – a lost father, an adolescent brush with crime, a wondering heart, a moment of simple grace. As time passed, I found that these stories taken together, had helped me bind my world together, that they gave me the sense of place and purpose I’d been looking for. Marty [his boss:] was right: There was always a community there if you dug deep enough. . . There was poetry as well – a luminous world always present beneath the surface, a world that people might offer up as a gift to me, if I only remembered to ask.”
I read it and was not impressed. He is certainly a charismatic person, but as a president, like many of his predecessors of both parties he, ironically does not have a grasp of what powers Article II grants him nor does he have a grasp on economics and what role the government should play.It was a good book in the sense that it gave some insight into his early years since most of it is hidden (even though he talks a good game of transparency and demands his opponents to release their info).
I am not shocked that some people here loved the book since we have become a hyperpartisan country where if your "guy/gal" says something, you throw out critical thinking and blindly follow and never question. However when I read about people "adoring" him, that is truly a scary thought. He is a man, and arguably a man that put a lot of effort planning his rise and purposely aligned himself with those that would benefit him... hell, to this day he continues that practice. This man would launch a drone strike or arrest you and hold you without due process to your adoring self quicker than you can utter his name.
I am reading The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and although I disagree with his politics, I think "Teddy" was an amazing man. When you compare someone like that to what we have today, there is not comparison. However, my adoration for Teddy, the person does no skew my disdain of his politics. Obama is in fact a charismatic man and although I hate to use groups to define people since all people are equal, to the black community and to the world, maybe electing him as President helps to stop racism although he makes not attempts to close that gap. But you have people that take that and ignore the blatant usurpation of the Constitution and his egregious assault on our rights and liberties. Hell, even Rachel Madow has called him out on NDAA and Drone Strikes on Citizens.
I am always amazed at how easily people try to use race as an issue when it has not place. It makes the charge numb when used for everything. I am not a Rubio fan, but would it be accepted if I called race on his water incident? I saw a picture of Obama (photoshopped of course) wearing a diaper, and someone was saying that was racist. I think the Sharptons and Jackson of the "movement" need to level that charge on those that truly deserve it. I have been called racist because I call out Obama, I have been called liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals. I am neither and I am both. I am more conservative than Conservatives and more liberal than Liberals. Good night.
Manny wrote: "I read it and was not impressed. He is certainly a charismatic person, but as a president, like many of his predecessors of both parties he, ironically does not have a grasp of what powers Article..."Interesting,highly partisan comments Manny- your protestations notwithstanding. You, of course, appear to have missed the point of many of those reviews that were inspired by the book. Not alone is Obama a good writer, he has a very inspirational story- far more so than TR. TR was a very good president for a number of reasons but he came from one of the wealthiest families in the country so your comparison seems rather silly. TR overcame asthma, Obama overcame being a mixed race child in a bigoted country. What is ironic is that you are questioning a Constitutional lawyer about his knowledge of the Constitution. I think I would come down on his side on that argument. BTW, TR was viewed as an ineffective president by many in his time and also pushed the limits of presidential power. I doubt you have been called liberal by anyone other than the most hard right of the Republican party.
Patrice wrote: "Very well said. When I read the book I thought it exposed him. I thought every citizen should be required to read it to see who he really is. What a shock! The people who were for him and rea..."
Patrice- Your comment is so general that it makes no sense. Pity you rightwingers are incapable of reviewing a book based on it's merits rather than on your own politics.
Lynn wrote: "I now truly believe that anyone can be president even if they have no qualifications."Lynn- You obviously made a mistake- This is not about G.W.Bush's book.
Patrice- I think you misunderstand what reviewing a books means. There is no evidence that you have even read the book. You are here as a troll- nothing more. Moreover, you are very anxious to make charges with absolutely nothing to back them up.
Patrice wrote: "I see, personal attacks are the way to discuss a book?Typical."
You haven't discussed the book. You have engaged in personally attacking the President from your first post. That is what trolls do. Typical? ROFL! Thank you for making my point for me. You didn't read the book, did you Patrice? You hate the president- that is all you seem to know. Why don't you actually read a book and then comment on the book instead of making ad hominem attacks against the author. That is not the sign of a classy person.
Colleen wrote: "Manny wrote: "I read it and was not impressed. He is certainly a charismatic person, but as a president, like many of his predecessors of both parties he, ironically does not have a grasp of what ..."Coleen, Obama's story is inspirational? Aside from being the first black POTUS there is not much in his past to show for anything. Seriously, is he inspirational because his mother was white and his father black? Million of people come from mixed marriages. Is he inspirational because he went to Harvard? Many other black men and women did the exact same thing. Was he inspirational because he was a community organizer? Maybe to some locally; its possible. Is he inspirational because he became a Senator? There have been many others before and there will be many after. Is he inspirational because he became POTUS? Absolutely. Now from all of those to being an inspirational author and the subject of adoration my the masses... not so much.
Now, with regards to your TR remarks, lets see he wrote 38 books, started the rough rider and got the horse literally blown out from under him multiple times, war hero (arguably a war monger) spoke 5 different languages, also went to Harvard, went down an uncharted river full of savages and cannibals almost losing his life; all this and I am only 30% into the book.
I do not see color, religion, sex, orientation, height, weight etc. However, If you want to use race as the sole measurement for inspiration, I would remind you that he is half white.
Now if you can tell me that Obama's accomplishments somehow can stand on the same planet with TR's you have lost your mind. As for his rich family, this ironic coming from the father of the progressive party of which your idol is part of (directly or indirectly).
Obama may be a "Constitutional Scholar" but that means nothing to me when he acts the way he does. Quite frankly if the "constitutionality" he adheres to and follows is the curriculum at Harvard, then thank God I was not accepted. I am much better off with my alma mater.
Your statement about me being called liberal, I will say this. I am MORE liberal than Liberals. Today's Liberals are authoritative in nature. They swear they know what is best for me and what I should or should not have, earn, believe in, eat, drink, smoke etc. So in the original sense of the word, I am liberal. Because I do not care what you do with your life, so long as you do not interfere with me doing what I want. The Republicans on the other hand, are equally as authoritative as the Liberals only radically to the other side. THEY swear the know what I should believe in, who I bed, what I do with MY body etc. You get the picture.
Either Obama don't know squat about the Constitution or is purposely usurping it, either way he has failed constitutionally. I wish Obama would have been different, but he is not. He has deported more "illegals" than Bush, attacked more countries than Bush, extended and expanded the "Patriot Act", gave us the NDAA, even the Liberal mouth piece Rachel Madow has come out AGAINST Obama on this stuff. The first thing I would suggest is close your eyes and do not look at the man, look at his actions and see if you would support those same actions with a "Republican" or "white person" or "woman" or %Enter-Your-Group-of-Choice-Here%. If you agree then welcome to the Republican party because he has continued the Bush doctrine.
And as I initially said, I did not like TR's policies. He hated Thomas Jefferson which to me, politically, was a genius. Again, even though I love Jefferson, I hold the slavery piece of his life against him. I am able to differentiate the two. So again I say, if you remove the fact that he has been elected twice as POTUS... the first black President (a huge feat BTW), you have a run-of-the-mill success story just like Jessie Jackson Jr. (not so much now), Dan Davis, Bobby Rush etc. His past is meh. I think Michelle's past is probably more impressive to be honest.
Just because I disagree with the review and do not think the POTUS is doing a good job does not mean you need to get upset or bothered. I wish Obama closed guitmo, abolished the Patriot Act, repealed the NDAA, closed the over 900 bases world wide, ended the war on drugs and terror and poverty of which are ALL failures, remove the federal component of marriage and leave that to the people to decide, allow people to eat what ever they want, allow prostitution (since women have a right to their reproductive systems, I believe that part of the prostitution's "tools of the trade" fall under that category), be transparent as he said he would, stop invading other countries to export "democracy" where it is not wanted, displace governments that refuse to play by our rules, allow people to drink raw milk or anything else they wish. These are but a few things I would applaud Obama for. Ironically, the things I mentioned above are truly being liberal in all sense of the word. What the "Liberals" of today have as a "platform", does not have anything to do with being liberal. It is more regulation and authoritarianism.
You seem like a smart person. I will probably get flamed since the hyper-partisam atmosphere we have where no one wants to hear anything about "their person". That's par for the course I guess. I do not hate Obama, I wish he would earn that Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe I am wrong, but I listen to "Left Radio" sometimes, and SOME people are taking notice of this.
I have zero respect for those that were anti-war under Bush and now are silent when Obama does it; no respect for those that called no joy when Bush passed Patriot Act and then when Obama extended and EXPANDED it said nothing; no respect for those who called Bush a war criminal because he held people in Guitmo without due process and say nothing when Obama continues the practice; no respect for those that called out Bush for using force in undeclared wars, yet say nothing when Obama does it; no respect for those that decried Bush of war crimes for torture and site idly by when Obama drops bombs from drones.
Just saying.
Good evening.
Colleen wrote: "Lynn wrote: "I now truly believe that anyone can be president even if they have no qualifications."Lynn- You obviously made a mistake- This is not about G.W.Bush's book."
I am NOT, by any stretch of the imagination a Bush supporter, but do you seriously think that a community organizer from Chicago with a few months in the US Senate before campaigning for POTUS had MORE experience than a 5 year Governor? On what planet? Seriously, Bush is no Einstein, by far and screwed up this country good, but you really believe the Obama was MORE qualified? I hope that is not the case.
Even his own party said he had no experience. I mean lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say they were equally qualified, but MORE? I know you don't believe that.
:-)
BTW, this is not Facebook and don't want this to turn into a 'cyber-fight'. Good night and love ALL people even if they are from the other party. Actually, I am against all parties. More groups, that’s all. Divide and conquer. That is why I do not allow anyone to put me in a "group". No hyphen in my nationality, no straight, gay, fat... well I am fat, but if you MUST put me in a group, make it the "big bone" group or "husky".
Cheers
And for the record, if and when Obama does come through on the side of the Constitution, I will be the FIRST one to publicly laud him. When you are right, your right (no pun intended), but when you are wrong, you should be called out on it.
BTW Coleen, like your read list. I am a Lincoln junky but think he was a tyrant :-( sorry don't mean to mix topics.
I agree your comments on Obama, Manny. For what it is worth.
Manny wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Manny wrote: "I read it and was not impressed. He is certainly a charismatic person, but as a president, like many of his predecessors of both parties he, ironically does not have ..."Manny wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Manny wrote: "I read it and was not impressed. He is certainly a charismatic person, but as a president, like many of his predecessors of both parties he, ironically does not have ..."
Manny wrote: "Colleen wrote: "Manny wrote: "I read it and was not impressed. He is certainly a charismatic person, but as a president, like many of his predecessors of both parties he, ironically does not have ..."
Manny, I do consider Obama to be inspirational because as a mixed race child of a single mother he earned entry to Harvard (No small task), he was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law review, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, (You seem to be unaware that there have been only about 4 in our history and that includes Reconstruction), being a community organizer was inspirational BECAUSE he was recruited by all the big law firms but chose to help people instead, and yes, being elected President is a pretty big deal. I don't really like the idea of pitting him against TR as you did but since you began it, TR was shot off his horse once- I think you are thinking of Bedford Forest, Starting the rough riders wasn't really such a big deal: he recruited a bunch of people to march up San Juan Hill in an ill conceived and dishonest war. His motive was unquestionably trying to make up for the fact that his father had hired a replacement in the Civil War and TR always felt guilty about that. He had courage- unquestionably- and not just in war but in his public life he chose a career that was looked down upon by people in his class. He did write a lot of books- he was a very smart man with an insatiable curiosity about animals and wildlife. He had his own natural science museum in his house. He was inspirational because he cared about the wild places in this country and fought to preserve them. The bison might well be extinct only for him. That said, he went to Yellowstone and shot wolves- Many of the things you attribute to him are fine and good but because of his wealth, they were not so challenging as they would have been for someone with less money. He had servants while a student at Harvard for God's sake. He traveled around the world as a child. The life of privilege he enjoyed is well beyond the dreams of most people- Your characterization of everyone he encountered on his trip down the Amazon as savages and cannibals is a bit questionable. I don't believe there were cannibals there but I do not characterize native people as savages. That is offensive. Claiming that Obama has attacked more countries than Bush is disingenuous at best. Obama intervened in Libya (very successfully) but was invited in. He has not gone around attacking countries in the manner you make it sound. Further, he tried to close GITMO. Congress blocked his efforts. I criticize his position on the Patriot Act and other parts of his foreign policy. I question the use of drones, I don't believe that Manning should be prosecuted, etc. These things do not, however, make his life less inspiring. Could he do a better job? Absolutely. I am in the middle of other things so I am jumping around a bit. As for your contention that liberals are trying to force their ideas on other people, you couldn't be more wrong. Liberals fight for the right of people to make their own decisions as long as they aren't hurting other people. Smoking, to use one of your examples effects other people. Second hand smoke is deadly. Moreover, the government has an interest in regulating it for a few reasons. The tobacco companies lied consistently about the risk to health and the price of everyone's health care goes up when people cannot pay for their own care. The same argument can be made for your other examples. You are clearly a Ron Paul libertarian and like so many libertarians, you think that government should just dry up and blow away. The problem with that ideology is that the majority does not agree with you. Further, in my experience, libertarians haven't really thought out what a society in the mold they promote would be like. But you want to stand on the sidelines and convince yourself that your beliefs are somehow not authoritarian. In fact, they are. When you proclaim libertarian ideals, you make decisions for people every bit as much as any other group. You say that liberals try to force people not to smoke- that is not true. They want to restrict where people can smoke for the protection of other people. You are also tacitly defending tobacco companies to produce their poison. It is rather curious that you haven't mentioned anything about big business and their liberty. Coincidence? If you are not, please talk about the freedom of corporations. Finally, and no offense intended but your comment about not seeing race, etc. may be funny when Stephen Colbert says it, but it is BS. Everyone sees race, sex, etc.
Coleen, although not pertinent to the conversation, I do not agree with allowing people to smoke around me. That actually goes against the libertarian principles. The fact that you are doing what you want so long as it does affect me. When I say smoke, I mean pot. This story of corporation not being honest is fine for older people who did it while the corporations were dishonest. However today, cigarette companies are still making record profits and the information is out. The fact is that both the D's and the R's are authoritative. Don't misunderstand me, I am not TR's cheerleader. I think as a PERSON he was incredible in what he accomplished even compared to his contemporaries that came from more wealth and power. I do not agree with his [TR] jingoism as I do not agree with Bush's or Obama's. Based on your "read" list, you have surely read enough about early America. And probably understand positive law vs natural law, maybe even better than me. This is where my belief of no groups comes from. Had we adhered to natural law, slavery, Jim Crow and an most of the other blemishes on this country's past could have been avoided. I truly do not see race, sex, etc. I treat EVERYONE the exact same. From the person that takes my order to the President of the United States.
As for the savages comment, I read a GREAT non-political book about TR and the river trip called "The River of Doubt" by Candice Millard. In it she described the the challenges TR faced with his son and the rest of the team. The encounters with the natives that were based on Webster's Dictionary "savages" and in FACT many of them were cannibals. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio.... In the book, Ms. Millard describes that some of these natives had never seen anyone outside of their tribes. If you have not read the book, I highly recommend it, although you may hate me by now and not take my recommendations :-)
We can agree to disagree on Obama's merits. The one problem I find in his accomplishment is that all his accomplishments are tied to his race. The only thing that inspires me is the fact that finally the masses of these united states, white and black, republicans and democrats voted for him. I have high hopes that we some day will embrace natural law and not require 'group' association to have our rights. Rights are your from God or nature depending on your belief or lack thereof. The fact that you are born into this world with rights regardless of your color, nationality, sex, or anything else. It is power hungry man that purport to have our best interest at heart that attempt and many times succeed to strip us of those rights.
"Liberals fight for the right of people to make their own decisions as long as they aren't hurting other people". On face value this lines up with my belief however in practice, this is not the case. Liberals purport to have the solution to "fix" the problem, the issue with that is that they and the conservatives, D's and R's, are the ones that caused the problem. It is like if I break my neighbors leg, spit in his face, shoot his dog, and then offer him some crutches and a napkin and expect him to laud me as a hero for helping him. Obama had absolute power. He controlled the house and the senate, the Republicans could have stayed home. And he chose to push healthcare of which he had to bribe his own party to pass. He could have closed GUITMO with the stroke of a pen but chose not to. He could have ended don't ask, don't tell, but chose to hve congress push it ONLY when they lost the majority. We can disagree on how to fix this country but his book really did not do it for me. I guess if race is a major factor, then yes, as I already said.
I do not think government should "dry up and blow away" but I DO believe that Article 1-3 should be followed by the respective branches of government. If the Constitution is not working, then lets amend it. Until then, they should be constrained by it. I think the govt. has a specif job to do, none of which they are doing now. They do everything BUT was they are authorized to do. And notice how none of the two parties FIX it. The are complicit
As for big businesses, I do not think they should be counted as a person, but by the same token neither should labor unions. I am for REAL free markets where good companies, offering good service and good price come out on top; and those that give shoddy service and bad product will fall by the way side. We do not have that now, nor have we had that for a LONG time. Now there is cronyism. The company that gives the most money to the party in power wins the favors. Which ever party that may be. Bob Woodward, not your typical Fox news guy, wrote a book "The Price of Politics" that tells how both side wanted this sequestration because they KNOW we have to cut, but no one wanted their names on the kill order.
:-) I have never watched Colbert so I cannot speak to what he says or does not say. As for me, I am exactly who I say I am. Was I before? No. I WAS a Republican and did see race, socioeconomics, sex etc (not that I think all Republicans do or that all Democrats don't). But I read a few books that opened my eyes in such a profound way, that I had no option but to rethink my view on the world and what I was going to do for and on it. I truly believe that if everyone put the "groups" away, we would have a more productive society and quite honestly world.
I suggest we stop the thread. I don't hold nothing against you, but it seems that I am not going to convince you and you are not convincing me. We can agree to disagree. BTW, I like TR insofar as his personal way of thinking and acting as a person was inspiring. I do not think that money allowed him to do it, I mean his mind and drive. Trust me, there is an entire book I can write about things I did NOT like about TR. Good day Coleen.
WOW....Some real passion going on here about this book. I'd say leave the "Crap" about your "personal politic slinging." This is a place about "REVIEWS" of the content of the books writing. Also, the Ayers thing? Is very FALSE. Next, I watched the new movie out of "Lincoln" sadly, it's script was a little off. Yes, he and Mrs. Lincoln had a volatile marriage, Lincoln himself suffered from depression and some manic behaviors as his wife was depicted that way in this movie. As far as the "Man" Barak Obama, that is really what this book is giving us, just about the man, and his life. I can bet none of us would be brave enough to share all your flaws to the world, and I'm sure YOU wouldn't want to be JUDGED by it either. Besides. that is not our JOBS, that's Gods job. Now, President, Barak Obama, is a man who is doing what ALL men have done before him, be it a Republican or Democ, they do the Best they can for the people with what is LEFT to them by the last President, and to also fulfill there promise's for which they used to run on their platform. We won't truly know him as Literary President until after he departs the White House. When those books I'm sure will be written, you can read them and make your comments & reviews on the Man that was president. This book is about his life before he became president, and I think it was a fantastic written description of who he was. No one person is perfect. So read the book for what it actually represents. A man that fought hard to have the Audacity to become a man who wanted to run for the White House. Author, Catherine Townsend-Lyon
Nice book!! Shows the power of destiny. Displays the originality.
the book was definitely an amazing journey; awesome self reflection and an incredible meta view regarding how one's life is cultivated and lead towards significance!!
I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY with both of you! If you read the book as in the view of JUST THE MAN....and how he comes into his own....than John, your right..it truly is an Amazing way he cultivated his life, Dreams, and Goals! We all have Greatness within us...ARE WE WILLING to fight for it????....Catherine
Great insight Catherine!! Takes a lot of courage and tenaciousness to fight for it.
Loved the insight, understanding and compassion he applied to his complex family background.
I loved this book. I still question his qualifications as President, but the book is good.
John wrote: "Great insight Catherine!! Takes a lot of courage and tenaciousness to fight for it."Thanks John, It's just how I feel. Some need to remember we are here to Rate and Comment on the BOOK, not the politics. And it was interesting to read how the president started out in life, and came into his own. Catherine :-)
Patrice wrote: "They say that Bill Ayers wrote this book. You remember Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist? The one sentence that stands out the most to me is when he (whoever the author was) says that when he br..."Patrice you are a very sad, angry, hateful person. All you have done in your comments is made it clear to anyone who reads your comments that you are a narrow minded, racist person with so little in her own life that she feels compelled to attack someone for reasons that are lies. It has been said before and I will say it again. I don't mind that you don't like the president. I do mind that the reason that you do is a lie. Get a life.
Patrice wrote: "A racist is someone who judges a person because of his race. Loving someone because they are of a certain race, regardless of what they DO is the height (or should I say depth of racism. Playing ..."I know what a racist is Patrice. Announcing that Obama was only elected because of the color of his skin certainly comes very close to it. The innuendo in the rest of your post about being on drugs all the time-which is a lie- and he didn't say that. Accusing him of being un America brings it a bit closer. Whether or not you wish to admit it, you are a racist but racists rarely see that in themselves. I am not sure if you are as ignorant as your posts would indicate or if you are just a liar but you impress no one. Obama has canceled no one's insurance policy. That was the insurance companies. Moreover, the one's canceled were the junk ones. But I hope you own one and are able to keep it. Then when you have a medical issue, you will find yourself with nothing. Finally, I did not judge the president. That was you. You have no clue what my evaluation of Obama's job performance is.
"Sorry but, Maybe you BOTH, Patrice & Colleen need to just Move~On and AGREE to DISAGREE at this point. THE Comments from you both is actually letting us all know a Wee Bit about your "Character".....LIFE is to SHORT for all this"....There are more important issues to be worried about. THIS SITE IS FOR COMMENTS OF THIS BOOK ONLY. Not PERSONAL ATTACKS...."Just Saying".....Author, Catherine Lyon
Catherine- I do believe that the conversation was over so there was no need for your "intervention" which might convey a wee bit about your own character.
Read books on Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or any other founder and this book can not hold a candle to even the worst written. I feel dumber for even reading the reviews on this.
Kressel wrote: "I liked the Chicago section best. In the African, it's like he's adopted a whole different voice. I don't know whether that's his doing or the work of a very good editor."I think that you must adapt your language to the place you are in. Kenya is a second-world country with lots of problems and a very different tradition that our own. He was young and inexperienced with Kenya/Ethnic issues and also wanted to understand his father better. He came back to the US with a new view of his father--- and not to flattering one at that.
It seemed to me that the grandmother telling the story was the narrator of that section, not Obama himself. And I mean that as a compliment. A writer who can capture the voice of another so well shows great skill.
ONE OF THE GREATEST BOOKS THAT I HAVE EVER READ....VERY WELL WRITTEN WITH GIVING A CLEAR PICTURE OF HOW THINGS COULD HAVE TRANSPIRED THERE LIKE A MIRROR...
HE IS ONE OF A KIND AND A VERY SPECIAL HUMAN BEING....
It was a fast read and interesting to get his perspective on a variety of areas in his life.
Kressel wrote: "I liked the Chicago section best. In the African, it's like he's adopted a whole different voice. I don't know whether that's his doing or the work of a very good editor."And I liked his Indonesian experience the best. I am married to a man who grew up in Jakarta. I suppose we enjoy what we find familiar.
Kressel wrote: "It seemed to me that the grandmother telling the story was the narrator of that section, not Obama himself. And I mean that as a compliment. A writer who can capture the voice of another so well sh..."Throughout the book, he captured the 'voice' of his Indonesian step dad, his own mom and her parents … it truly felt as if his family members had written the parts themselves!
Indeed! Obama's writing skills are to be admired.
Patrice wrote: "I see, personal attacks are the way to discuss a book?Typical."
Personal attack is all you offered. No actual comment on the book at all.
It was a fascinating read which was split into three sections. Origins explains his upbringing, mainly by his mother and how he was only able to meet his father once.
Chicago focused on his work as a community organiser and the racial divides that he were present in the community. Kenya was focused on him finding his roots as he travelled back to his homeland to see his family members.
In each sections Obama explains his own emotions and how he assesses the situation. His battles with his identity and the unravelling of who his father really was.
It is very honest and I would recommend it especially because it gives you an idea of his true character
Kene wrote: "It was a fascinating read which was split into three sections. Origins explains his upbringing, mainly by his mother and how he was only able to meet his father once.
Chicago focused on his work a..."
Wow, I just read the book a few months ago and had already forgotten how much I got out of it.
Thanks, Kene, for the reminder.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (other topics)The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (other topics)
