Eric Rutkow

During the time I spent reading this book, I had to keep convincing myself that this was worth my investment of time, as while I was informed, there was no denying that this work was just not hanging together. A big part of the problem is that "Pan-Americanism" was probably always just a glorified marketing slogan, and being a little more forthright about that reality would have served Rutkow well; not that I would accuse him of naivete. Secondly, there are really two different construction show more projects under consideration here; the effort to build a railroad in the 19th century, and the effort to build a commercial-grade highway in the 20th century. Both failed from issues of funding, the hostile climate, political skepticism across various countries, and the ultimately overriding issue of whether there was enough value to justify the investment.

As matters stand now, the route could be completed, if the will was there. The bottom line is that between the environmental issues, and the basic reality that Panama simply doesn't want a closer relationship with Colombia, the Darien "Gap" is not going to be closed anytime soon. That might illustrate what the ultimate problem always was with Pan-Americanism, it was mostly about linking the settler societies of North and South America, and didn't offer a lot of unalloyed value to the communities of Central America. show less

Three books in one, this, and at least one of them is on topic. The first and longest book concerns itself with nineteenth-century efforts to build a Pan-American railroad. Although this topic has a reasonable claim to be useful backstory to a book which purports to be about the Pan-American Highway, it deserves perhaps twenty-five pages instead of its bloated, tangent-ridden course which includes everything from a mini-history of Trans-Mississippi railroading to chapter-and-verse on Central show more American and Mexican politics of the period. The second section, on the United States' Good Roads Movement, is even less relevant and should have been omitted entirely. Finally, 200 pages in, we get to the Pan-American Highway, and the book is good thereafter. I have no complaints about the author's scholarship or writing style (well, except that why does he keep referring to "Panama and Central America--which part of East Africa does he think Panama's in, anyway?). Getting all these excrescences out of the book would have given him space to write about the course of the highway in South America, about which he says next to nothing. This book could have been a 200-page foccaccia oizza instead of a 360-page lump of unleavened dough. show less

This is a non-fiction work which focuses on the role played by the American forest, from settlement to the present date. Having grown up in south Arkansas, and worked in the forest products industry for my entire life, much of the history was familiar to me.

While the prose tended to be a little bit dry, it was relatively comprehensive and largely free of editorial slant, until the last 20-30 pages. What I would have considered to be a pretty average read, became shrill and stunningly show more juvenile, as the author engaged in smarmy and condescending characterization of both Bush presidencies.

For 400 pages, the author sets out facts and circumstances, touching on numerous historical events, without resorting to personal attack. Then, in the final 30 pages, he gives a speech most appropriate for a Bernie Sanders campaign rally, loaded with cheap personal attack and innuendo. Took the book from a 6/10 reading experience to a 4/10 for me. show less

Interesting, but insufficient. Perhaps all histories are notable as much for what they leave out as for what they put in. Retelling American history by looking to the trees is a worthwhile endeavor, however. It skews our perspective just enough to make us look at what we already know in a fresh way. That said, Rutkow doesn't deviate from the traditional approach of viewing history as the consequence of the acts of Great (or at least infamous) White Men. Most of the actors in the drama here show more have names that will be familiar to most readers: Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, George Washington,Thomas Jefferson, the Presidents Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, Frederick Law Olmstead, Al Gore, Henry Ford, William Levitt, etc. I do have to give the author credit for, particularly where the earlier figures are concerned, telling stories that we probably haven't heard before. This is the advantage of choosing a fresh point of view. One glaring omission in Rutkow's survey of the impact of the trees upon & their relationship to American history is any mention of the lynching tree, powerful both as symbol & site; another is any serious consideration of the relationship of indigenous peoples to the forests (granted, that might be the subject of another book entirely; nevertheless, even if the author's focus is strictly upon post-Columbian North America, he is delinquent in not mentioning, for example, how the colonists' encounter with American Indian modes of battle impacted how their own Revolution was fought and won). The author has also by and large omitted women from his narrative except for a few nods to women here and there, of foot-note quality in their brevity. How, for example, in a tome already diminished by its lack of inclusion of women, blacks, Mexicans, Indians, etc. could he not have told the story of at least one female activist. Julia Butterfly Hill, for example, whose name became synonymous with preservation of Old Growth Coastal Redwoods in the 1990s. This is, in sum, mostly a top-down telling of the story of Americans & the trees. I would have liked some alternative telling as well. show less