‘Why Nations Fail’ by Daron Acemuglo and James Robinsons (RA) is one of the most highly praised books in social science in the recent years for it focused on explaining world inequality, despite the fact that this book gave no direct answer to why are some nations rich and others poor, divided by wealth and poverty, health and sickness, food and famine? But, have wished that this book existed several decades ago for nations and states would have known the roots and how to solve the problems in their nation before certain problem became a vicious cycle. In this book review, I will input the common content of book reviews—summary, analysis and conclusion.
In the earliest times, there is no absolute concept of territory but people at that time
…show more content…
Democracy is not bad unless people would fall out of discipline. Leading is not selfish until a leader would gain all the praises, wealth, goodness and riches of a country. And a country would never fail if the leader listens to his people and accepts suggestion from them. After all, what happens in a small town of a country could affect the totality of their country. It is not also good it a country lets one problem stay for too long. If a problem could be solved as soon as possible, then a country could prevent another pending problem.
As a future teacher and upon reading Robinsons and Acemoglu’s Why Nations Fail, I have learned that not everything you learned long ago is the absolute truth (invalid source: geography, climate, culture and ignorance). And not all you watch from TV is the general and absolute truth (China’s real status). And of course, what you read is what you become. I will recommend the book to my family and friends and to the strangers who’ll become my new friends, we never know, maybe one of them will be the next president of our country, At least he read the book before he sat at the
This book, can relate to people who don't usually believe that they can make a change. That they have no effect on the world. This book, tells you straight up, that if you change yourself, you can change the world around you. This is very motivating, and a very awesome
Growing up, I have always had an interest in geography and thinking about different countries and what makes them the way that they are. I have not been in a geography class since middle school and Human Geography was a class that made me think about things I have never thought of before. The readings of both Kropotkin and Mackinder brought up very interesting points, some that conflict and others that agree. Each author writes in a way that stimulates and makes you think about geography and certain topics in different ways which I find to be very rare in writings from this time period. Discussing Kropotkin’s and Mackinder’s general ideas, points they disagree or agree on, and my own views on the topic will all be discussed in this final paper.
In the article The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race the author Jared Diamond explains how the development of agriculture in humanity affected the evolution of our modern society for the worst. He proved this thesis with sufficient points, however, the scientific evidence behind the Luddites’ beliefs are limited. The corroboration behind agricultural advancements being a substantial step for mankind is far more concrete than the opposing side. Livestock and cultivating vegetation was the most significant switch humanity has taken, and molded our world to what it is today. Paleopathologists have recorded that the health statuses of people became critically worse after the Neolithic Period, when civilizations switched to
In David S. Landes book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, he decides to take a historical approach on the reasons behind why some people remain poor and how others are so rich by trying to comprehend the reasons that lead to advances in economies and modernization in certain regions around the world over the past few decades. In other words by asking how we have come to where we are today in the sense of making, getting and spending. Throughout the book, Landes talks about how we live in a world filled with inequality and diversity therefore leading to classifying those who are poor and unable to afford medical health care living in the North and the wealthy in the South. David S. Landes aim was to basically make people aware of how it is actually geography that is responsible for this division between countries that have caused a lot of hardship for the unprivileged people by making it impossible for them to improve economically as a result of their geographical location on the map.
When you look up “apartheid” in a Google search, you will find many websites that describe segregation in great detail, especially in regards to areas in South Africa. You will not find many articles that describe segregation in the United States of America. In Jonathan Kozol’s Shame of the Nation, it was his mission to make people understand that segregation is still alive in our country, with much focus on the educational system of our country. The author describes his astounding firsthand experience with segregation in our public school systems and how it can seriously impair a child’s educational experience.
The term democracy is a contested concept with many classifications. A government made up of the people for the people is the easiest definition to focus on. A democracy needs have these key elements of a political system for choosing the
Even our founding fathers didn 't want a democracy, because they thought it would cause disarray and issues. The United States of America is not truly a democracy for those
It’s a really good book to read, because it will change the view that we have as citizens, living us with many questions without answer for the
Jacksonian Democracy Andrew Jackson was the cause for thousands of American Indian’s deaths. A good democracy has equal rights, an educated leader and voters, peace/stability, and a strong leader. It also has voting rights, the power in the hands of the people and checks and balances. Someone who promotes democracy will take both sides into consideration before making a decision. Someone who thinks about what his/her actions would do to the group as a whole and not just a fraction of the group.
Every civilization throughout history has their ups and downs. What if these ups and downs could all be connected back to one main factor, to one influence? Throughout history, it can be noticed that the location of a civilization affects the shape of its culture, economy, trade, and security of its borders. It defines which societies rise to power and which lose power. Geography influences history in many ways, as can be seen in the Indus Valley, Greece, and Aksum civilizations.
I would most likely recommend it to other women because the book is about an empowering woman who spoke up for others who could not speak up for
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who wanted to learn more about our history and founding
3. Compare and contrast the idea of democracy in Ancient Greece and Rome. Which system was more democratic and why? Democracy is the modern day standard for governmental systems. However up until 500 BCE, the concept of Democracy was a foreign concept, and the great civilizations of that era were run by monarchs, aristocrats, and religious leaders of sorts.
This can project the people from anything they would disagree to occur. Democracy is based on the rule of equality which means that all the people are equal as far as the law is concerned. Every person has the right to enjoy and experience social, political and economic rights and state is not allowed to discriminate him on the standard of gender, class, property or religion.
First of all, it is important to know the definition of democracy and its aspects. According to Peter Joyce (2005), the democratic government was initiated in the Greek city state of Athens in the fifth century B.C., so as a consequence, the word ‘democracy’ derived from two Greek words, demos (meaning ‘people’) and kratos (meaning ‘power’) , which means ‘government by the people’. Secondly, Giovanni Sartori (1997), a Political Science Researcher states that ‘democracy’ is an abbreviation that means Liberal Democracy. He distinguishes three aspects: democracy as a principle of legitimacy (power not derives