The broadstrokes of history here is important and all, but I find Vincent’s obsession with injecting the sexual escapades of the men he writes about into the narrative genuinely off-putting, especially in an already highly compressed account that surely has a lot more important things to discuss.

I understand the irony that’s being painted (the US, a nation with Puritan foundations, turning up its nose against the promiscuous Sukarno and Lumumba, while at the same time providing Indonesian students and generals access to strip clubs in Kansas), but it just feels so off-putting to center the men and the way the men use women’s bodies here (especially given the author’s clear awareness of say, the Gerwani movement and its feminist critique of this all).

I get that it’s horrible men being horrible men, but why does this matter? Was Lumumba and Soekarno’s sexual appetite really a major factor in the US’ decision to antagonise them (over say, their politics?) Was the sex tape plot a major incident in US-Indonesian relations? I don’t think there’s a convincing case being made here for the importance of these accounts, the actual use of these accounts to further the book’s thesis feels half-baked, unearnest; they feel leery, voyeuristic, sensational.

Considering how much of the Cold War-era conflicts described here are fought over the rights of third worlders (especially third world women) over use of their labour and bodies, this use of women’s bodies to sensationalise an otherwise important piece of historical journalism just feels unfortunate.

I have only ever sobbed over one book - 'The Book Thief'. I'm not even too sure why it destroyed me that much but I sat on the public bus and cried my little heart out. I wish to feel this again. Did anyone react the same way to this book and any recs for more books to do the same ?

I am just realizing that humans used to be called commoners, not just because they were not royalty or nobility, but because of their connection to the land, the commons.

Kropotkin does not mince words here about the “enclosure” or theft of he commons and it is refreshing. Learning about the theft of the commons (as opposed to empires myth-making about how more and more people just chose to move to the city) was a huge turning point in my own political awakening.

“In short, to speak of the natural death of village communities in virtue of economical laws is as grim a joke as to speak of the natural death of soldiers slaughtered on a battlefield. The fact was simply this: the village communities had lived for over a thousand years […] But as the value of land was increasing, in consequence of the growth of industries, and the nobility had acquired, under the State organization, a power which it never had had under the feudal system, it took possession of the best parts of the communal lands, and did it’s best to destroy the communal institutions.”

People did not choose to move to cities en mass during the “Industrial Revolution”. Their common land was taken, so that they were given the choice to starve or work in deadly factories.