Coldhearted Scientist: I’ve read through much of Krug’s book, and I think it’s good. It seems a perfectly competent, clearly written account of a particular place in the world that managed to engineer a resistance against the trends of its time – slavery, colonialism, imperialism.
Krug makes the case that Kisama is a valuable model for thinking about the degree to which certain localities can protect themselves against forms of invasion and appropriation. If you remove her introduction, which is full of self-aggrandizing lies, the book seems solid. I’m not an historian, and am happy to be overruled on my assessment, but that’s how I see it.
It was therefore reasonable of Duke Press to want to publish it. The press had no way of knowing Krug was a liar.
September 15th, 2020 at 7:41AM
But how does this make you feel about the press and its reviewers? Have you seen the book (I’ve read at it, and it seems thin to me)?
September 15th, 2020 at 8:32AM
Coldhearted Scientist: I’ve read through much of Krug’s book, and I think it’s good. It seems a perfectly competent, clearly written account of a particular place in the world that managed to engineer a resistance against the trends of its time – slavery, colonialism, imperialism.
Krug makes the case that Kisama is a valuable model for thinking about the degree to which certain localities can protect themselves against forms of invasion and appropriation. If you remove her introduction, which is full of self-aggrandizing lies, the book seems solid. I’m not an historian, and am happy to be overruled on my assessment, but that’s how I see it.
It was therefore reasonable of Duke Press to want to publish it. The press had no way of knowing Krug was a liar.