A Renegade History of the United States

I read this along with Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States". Together, both books "liberated" me from the stock shlock whitewash "patriot" and "lady liberty" tainted history books of my dozen years of schooling

A great booky. Very telling on the state of affairs & goings on ta day in America, USA. Love the story it rings true... oh do you mean to review the condition of this book itself? Real nice, all the pages flip, not a hard back mind you but well worked in. There you are something for everyone.

I started reading A Renegade History and was immediately unhappy with the fact that there are no footnotes to back up the author's assertions. There are sources, but there is no way to confirm where in the source (or in what source, for that matter) a statement in Russell's book came from. To me, this indicates a "popular" history, not a scholarly work. The portion of the book that I read (about 40 pages) reads like an extended rant. If that is the kind of book that you like to read, go for it. I'd rather read a book that substantiates its claims with footnotes or endnotes for further reading, if desired.

Here is one of many sentences (it is on page 30) that bothered me. "In 1784, Benjamin Rush, America's founding doctor, published An Inquiry Into the Effects of Spiritous Liquors, which became one of the Founding Fathers' many antipleasure manifestos during the early national period." I'm not sure that a medical historian would go so far as to claim that Rush was "America's founding doctor". Rush firmly believed in bleeding as a cure and prescribed mercury pills for his patients. Rush did not participate in the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 but he did sign the Declaration of Independence - does that make him a "Founding Father"? Finally, how does Russell define an "antipleasure manifesto"? How many were there? Which Founding Fathers read these "antipleasure manifestos" and how many of them did they have to select from? Russell provides no evidence backing up any of his claims in this sentence.

A random sentence (page 85) from a portion of the book that I didn't read: "The planter Edward Philbrick found it difficult to attract workers, since most would work for him only if they were 'paid a great deal more than they were last year.'" Source? I believe that if an author is going to put quotation marks around a phrase then s/he should also provide a reference to that quoted phrase. In the sources section for chapter 3, where this sentence appears, there are 21 books listed. Which book did this quote come from? Who knows? Should I read all 21 books to find out?

The title of Chapter 4 is "Whores and the Origins of Women's Liberation". Really? I think some feminists would object.

I rapidly tired of the tone of the book. If you go online and do a search on "Thaddeus Russell", you will find an article Mr. Russell wrote for the Huffington Post in which he explains why he got fired from Barnard College. I thought the article was an extended whine, filled with all kinds of unrealistic expectations about tenure, which is very rarely granted any longer.

I'm sure there are far better books that have been published which examine the effects of "anti-social" behavior on social change.

This is a tiresome, confused book. I heard an interview with the author on a podcast and was intrigued with his view. It's clear he's going for a cooler, edgier version of Zinn, but it's just not convincing. The net message is that anyone who didn't want to work hard is some kind of class hero. Fine, but stretch that to its extreme, would we be better off if everyone was a layabout hedonist?

I first learned about “A Renegade History” while listening to the Michael Medved show. The author was promoting his book and talked about the chapter on slavery. It seemed like an interesting, revisionist take and I decided I would read it. Six years later, I finally got around to it and I wish I read it earlier.

The basic premise of “A Renegade History” is that, historically, it was often unwitting scumbags or renegades who pioneered many of the freedoms we cherish today.

I wasn't really sure what to expect from this book. The author described himself as a liberal who believed in capitalism and since this wasn't a book that was particularly about economics, I expected it to offend my conservative side more than my liberal side. Having finished the book, I would almost describe this book as so liberal, that it's conservative.

There really is no attempt to be politically correct in this book. Many old racial stereotypes are accepted at face value. There are chapters on blacks, Jews, Irish, and Italians (among others), all of which were heavily discriminated against at one point. In each case, these groups have or had (until they were Americanized) a vibrant, outgoing culture that didn't work particularly hard. Being outside of regular society, often pushed them to think outside the box when it came to making money and they often resorted to illegal activities. They helped make porn, jazz, gambling, alcohol during prohibition, and gay and interracial bars, accessible to the American public. This helped push the boundaries of what people considered their basic freedoms, many of which we take for granted today.

There's a lot to be offended by in this book, as many other reviews have pointed out. Still, I think it's mostly unwarranted. “A Renegade History” seemed historically accurate. Most of what I read wasn't particularly new information. What the author does do is give a new perspective to conventional history. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in American history.

I was particularly intrigued by the argument that slaves were more free than working whites. You have to be more well read and intellectually gifted than your typical 'merican to understand the nuance of the argument and grasp the full context of the freedom that Russell is discussing.

But Russell's defense of his premise relies on anecdotal evidence, and he does not give proper weighting to the suffering imposed on slaves or on ex slaves in the decades that followed the Civil War. His suggestion that most plantation owners treated slaves delicately because they did not want to lower production by angering their slaves is just not adequately defended with hard evidence. There is plenty of evidence to counter this proposition, but you won't find it refuted or even acknowledged in this book.

There are many interesting aspects of American history discussed in this book that make it a worthwhile read. But it is lacking in rigorous scholarship. Being revolutionary and anti-establishment doesn't make the arguments true, it just makes them provocative.

This book made me stop to think and reconsider, but it did not leave me with the feeling that there was a kernel of a great revelation here, and that it is something I would like to dive into more deeply.

Russell provides a stimulating and often startling account of how our country's culture, identity and values were shaped over time, not by those we commonly hear about, such as intellectuals, politicians, and other elites, but by the renegades - those on the fringe. This includes groups like slaves, immigrants, rednecks, prostitutes, gangsters, and hippies. Although some examples seem quite a stretch at time, I found it really intriguing all in all. Would recommend to anyone interested in hearing an uncommon perspective on American history.

Embarrassing that this is considered a "History". It is a completely fictitious book that will try to convince you that slaves enjoyed slavery and that prostitutes enjoy being used. This book's popularity is an unfortunate symptom of the growing Alt Right movement in our country.

I heard this author on a late night radio interview and found his ideas intriguing. I'm a student of history and had never heard a viewpoint like his expressed. His main thesis is that, while the country was founded by wealthy, educated men, who gave us a system that resulted in the standard of living we have today; there was another group of unheralded "heroes" who are responsible for shaping our society into the type of place that makes it worth living. Most of the founding fathers were pretty much a bunch of uptight, puritanistic prigs. Many of them were like today's social conservatives - hard working puritan ethic, supporting of capitalism, but don't like it if you're having the type of fun of which they don't approve. They thought the best thing a person could do was work all day, six days a week and, spend all day Sunday at church, keep alcohol to a minimum, and don't get too wild. And that went double for women. The author shows us how the "Renegades" in our society - freed slaves, poor Irish, Italian, and the lower socio-economic people - along with the "bad women" in society - fought for and obtained the rights we all enjoy today that make life worth living. The personal freedom to do what we wish, whether if be partying hearty or women having the right to own property and vote. And time enough away from work to enjoy those things. Along the way, he gives wonderful tidbits of history that I had never read - such as the amount of alcohol consumed by people in colonial times. And the total fraternization of working class whites, free blacks and often slaves in the taverns and bordellos of the time. I'm from Flint Michigan and grew up with a lot of black people. I always enjoyed and somewhat envied the ways my black friends would allow themselves to have a good time and not worry about some of the dumb things I was raised to worry about. This book gave me a great appreciation for all the great things that black culture has given to our society but not in the way most people think. When I was a kid "soul" was a word all my black friends used - "Soul brother", "soul music", etc. But this book allowed me to see that black culture (and other none "WASPs)" really did give this country it's true soul of freedom to enjoy life and live it the way we want to live. Thank you Mr. Russell.

Thaddeus Russell's premise for Renegade History is to look at the people and things in American history have always been left out: particularly how "vices" and those who pursued them have done as much to shape American history - and American freedom - than many political movements and acts. And the results are thrilling! This, folks, is the REAL People's History.

We start at the beginning. Part 1 goes from Colonial America and the omnipresent saloon to the Civil War. About colonial and early American history, we learn that saloons and alcohol consumption were not only common, but many saloons were owned (very successfully) by women, and catered to white, black, slave, and free. Despite efforts of states during and after America's independence to shut them down in the name of patriotism, they kept going.

The Civil War chapters may be the most controversial as they mount an impressive array of evidence to show that slaves may have had more freedom under slavery than as free men and women. Using interviews with former slaves, speeches and textbooks during reconstruction, and references to many secondary sources, Russell illustrates the difficulties in creating a new work ethic among a people who were quite unaccustomed to "fending for themselves." Russell IS NOT saying that slavery was better than freedom, but is pointing out that slavery often elicited less responsibility than freedom and, as such, slavery was often easier than freedom. Of particular importance to Russell's thesis is the idea that many vices flourished under slavery that had to be given up for freedom: serial monogamy, for instance, was the norm during slavery where freemen were expected to marry and stay married.

"Whore and the Origin of Women's Liberation" is another chapter that has the potential for controversy. The claim here is that "women of the night" are the best models the United States has for early independent women. Many not only owned their own businesses, but were the richest people in their towns or cities. Many did not get married until they were older, wore flamboyant clothing (that we now accept as normal), and pushed many other boundaries. All of this because they simply did not care about the "proper" mores. Lo and behold, more of their mores became "acceptable" to future generations than the then-"proper" ones.

Part II is called "How White People Lost Their Rhythm" and deals with four marginalized groups - African-Americans, Irish, Jews, and Italians - and their contradictory struggle to have their own identity in a U.S. that often didn't want them. All of them found ways to be renegades - to live a bit outside the "proper" model that was often both expected of them and told they could never meet. The Irish largely developed the minstrel show not out of disdain, but admiration, for African-Americans' culture as a group "at the bottom" who had adjusted to that life and was less worried and hurried as a result. African-Americans, of course, developed Jazz (along with Jews and Italians), Jews and Italians are largely responsible for organized crime, etc. When being forced to live outside the bounds of "respectability" there is a lot more freedom in what one can do.

The third section - "Fighting for Bad Freedom" - has largely to do with the early and mid-1900's and the overall message that the "progressives" were every bit as morally repressive as anyone on the "right." The temperance movement, eugenics, a longing for fascism and its top-down planning schemes - all of these are found in plenty in the writings of "progressives" of the day.

Lastly, we come to the final section - "Which Side are You On." It starts with the Cold War and how it was, in effect, won by the young people who, at every turn, refused to obey the orders and dictates of the Soviet bloc. No jazz, rock and roll, zoot suits, "loud" hair, etc? Yeah right! This section also contains an interesting chapter on the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 70's where Russell notes, ironically, that icons such as King and Malcolm X exhibited a moral conservatism that often gets overlooked when discussing their contribution to history.

In short, this book was eye-opening and challenging from start to finish. One could dismiss Russell as simply a contrarian "revisionist" were it not for his bevy of evidence including ample primary quotes. Two small complaints about the book though: first, the notes are not organized in a footnote or endnote structure. The sources are listed at the end of the book, but are not linked by markings to individual quotes or facts given in the book. Footnotes or endnotes would have been nice (but would likely have made the book about 100 pages longer).

Secondly, Russell says throughout the book that he is not advocating for his subjects' immoralities - not recommending or condoning drunkness, prostitution, organized crime, profligacy, etc. I confess, though, that it is really hard to come away believing him on that. Quite often - when the talk was over lack of work ethic, desire for material goods, disdain for saving, etc - I found myself concerned that maybe Russell was not seeing (or was choosing to ignore) the fact that many of those traits that he seems to celebrate may be directly tied to our current recession and overall financial difficulties. I understand that he SAYS he is not advocating these traits, but he sure seems to revel in them.

Anyhow, those are small grievances for such an interesting book. This is a history that everyone (except for grandma, the local chaplain, and those prone to conventionality) should read.

I heard this guy(Thaddeus Russell) when he was on the daily show with john Stewart, and I was so impressed with what he had to say that I bought his book and mine was I glad that I did. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole book and I learned tons of new stuff from it! I also later heard him on the podcast ( The Tom Woods Show) where he was being interviewed and I thoroughly enjoyed that discussion too, in which he talked about his next book which I'm sure will be excellent!

Do you like the fact that nowadays public disapproval of homosexuality is softly and suddenly vanishing away? Then you should be grateful to New York gangsters. They made it happen.

Or at least, such is Thaddeus Russell's thesis. In "A Renegade History of the United States," he seeks to honor those responsible for encouraging a freer, less puritanically religious and more individually hedonistic culture than the ones our fathers and grandfathers lived in. Undeniably it often takes bravery and effort to remake cultural norms, especially in opposition to the majority. And, according to Russell, those who have historically done this the most are not upstanding social reformers, but rather the criminals, deviants, minorities and other "outsider" groups in American society. It is them, therefore, whom we should thank for everything from desegregation to the end of prohibition to women (and, increasingly, men as well) wearing make-up and short dresses in public.

Retold and summarized a little frivolously, Russell writes that "Middle America" has always timidly wanted order, Christianity and hard work. In short, John Q. Public has been a conservative at heart. It has always been up to marginal characters to advance more liberal values like tolerance and casual sexual expression. Thus, we are told, it was prostitutes who pioneered feminism (but also, perhaps ironically, the "sexualization of public space" which both conservatives and more traditional feminists nowadays deplore). It was gangsters who first promoted homosexuality and financed the first "Gay Pride" parades. (Apparently there was a strong homosexual subculture among New York gangsters; "Stonewall" was organized by the Mob.) It was homosexuals who promoted the "Sexual Revolution" of the 1960s which also struck at the love lives of ordinary couples. It was violent black "gangstas" who caused desegregation through rioting and crime, not the well-mannered Martin Luther King who did it through rhetorically brilliant speeches. (As for King, he preached "fire and brimstone" against black immorality and criminality like the Southern Baptist minister he was, in terms which will read as quite shocking to contemporary anti-racists.) It was shady New York pornographers and Hollywood moguls who overthrew Christian censorship of immorality in the movies. Et cetera.

Politically correct, this history is not.

Besides the narrative of social change, Russell throws in equally contrarian (and provocative) views on nearly all the great social questions of American history. Black slaves were, according to the "slave narratives" gathered in the 1930s, happier in slavery than in freedom, and also better treated than most white workers in the North in their time. (In support of this unusual view, Russell draws on the pioneering works of economic historian Robert William Fogel in particular.) The internment of the Japanese-Americans during World war II, while a civil rights scandal, had good reasons, since many of them *were* disloyal. And the big strikes in the 1970s were directed as much against powerful unions and corrupt bosses as against industry.

Russell even takes on what is probably the most sacred of sacred cows for liberals: Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. According to the traditional narrative, FDR saved capitalism and democracy and fought the "Good War" against evil fascists and Nazis. Here, our author instead argues that New Deal collectivism and social engineering actually resembled and even consciously imitated fascism in many ways. Thus, he suggests, "the new deal and fascism went to war not over ideas or values or a way of life. Rather, it seems, the war was a struggle between brothers for control of the world family." (p. 269)

It is obvious that here, as in some other places, Russell is purposely out to provoke his readers, and therefore deliberately overstates his case somewhat. There are a number of points where I do not agree with him, and this is one. The similarities he points out between the theories and practices of these ideologies are quite real, and merit some thought. What he does not tell of, however, is how profound other important differences between them were.

Once we allow for certain such tongue-in-cheek rhetorical exaggerations, Russell's wonderfully contrarian history still retains great value, not least for jarring ossified minds and forcing them to think. It is also a history which will probably be enjoyed by conservatives as well as liberals. The author's basic idea is, of course, obviously liberal. But the arsenal of facts he marshals to support his thesis should be equally useful to those who disagree with the liberal social agenda. "Criminals and scum were behind Socialism and immorality?" I can imagine social conservatives saying. "Well, isn't that exactly what we've been telling you all along?"

In conclusion: A brilliantly provocative reappraisal of American social history which takes a clear stance, but which also transcends party boundaries. Certain weaknesses notwithstanding, it is recommended reading for thinking persons on both sides of the political spectrum. While it should not be swallowed uncritically -- Very few, if any, books ever should be -- it is guaranteed to give all but specialist historians some new perspectives on our common cultural heritage.

I read over half the contents of the book titled 'A renegade history of the United States' and I've have really enjoyed it so far. Its not a very long book compared to many of the american history textbooks that I was force to read or the american history textbooks that I've read during my own leisure time, which doesn't make the contents of this book historically more or less inaccurate or a less pleasurable read either.

Reading the introduction of this book, its author Thaddeas Russell, who was fired from being a history professor because of the particular kind of american history that he was lecturing about thats not often taught in your standard US history class , he writes a narrative in the introduction of the book with the intent to talk about the contributors to the development of our American society who are often overlooked or not mentioned in most US history textbooks and most likely not in order forms of popular mediums either because they were not held in high esteem because they are considered the "bad apples" in american society and they are consider the "bad apples" because these individuals adopted cultural attitudes and took on job occupations that were generally frowned upon by americans in the upper class strata. These people who are deemed as heroes in the books are proud lazy drunkards, prostitutes, and americans who have little to no work ethic.

I don't know much about the background of the author, but a political bias is hinted VERY little in this book. But it is clearly apparent (and this isn't a negative attribute of the book either) bias towards those americans that prominent historians and those textbooks book writers who based would like to hide in their closet rather than US presidents, a particular subset of "social reformers", military officers , business reformers and other standard traditional "heroes" that are often put on a high pedestal of honor and are almost always characterized in a positive light in your typical high school and college issued american history textbook . Instead, the founding fathers in particular are always painted as crusaders for liberty, from my own experience and most likely in your standard history american textbook. Instead, the 'founding fathers' are painted as moral crusaders in this book, and you kinda of get the impression that they are the predecessors of the modern religious christian right , despite over half of the founding fathers being deists or not adhering to all the tenets of an organized religion.
'
The author provides the reader with an non-black-white-top dog-underdog panoramic view of individuals and groups of individuals that helped carry out the dance of american historical events. In other words, there is strictly isn't images of individuals with positive qualities, vs individuals with negative qualities. All of their flaws are showcased throughout the book where on the flipside in most of the american history textbooks I've read in high school, nothing but their positive attributes would be discussed. For example, it isn't really mentioned in any of the american history textbooks that I've read in school that the first professions that escalated to the upper income strata, first made american women entrepreneurs , or provided women with a more liberating atmosphere were prostitutes and they owned brothels or that the first groups of people to open up the first gaybars in the US where various organized crime syndicates. It is also neglected in many of the american history textbooks that I read both at the high school and university level, that both Hitler and Mussolini admired Roosevelt's New Deal program and that members of Roosevelts adminstration, including members of Roosevelt's Brain Trust , admired both Hitler's and Mussulini's styles of fascism they both adopt for their country's economy and political system. You are always presented with a ''good-vs-evil'' dichotomy when discussing the relationship between Mussolini and Roosevelt as well as many other major players in US history. Even America's most revered Civil rights leaders are not portrayed as one-dimensional paragons of honor and enlightment that we should all emulate .

I adore the style of writing that the author uses in the book.Very witty,colloquially , colorful and sarcastic writing .The theme of the book is very consistent because it is present throughout each of the chapters of the books, and that a positive quality for any book.

I recommend the book to all people who are only familiar with one side of the american story and to people who are only used to one image of an american icon who is often praised by academia and who never present the other side of an american icon , that their audience isn't familiar with and that side of the american story is often the scripted story presented in most american history textbooks.

My only minor annoyance with this book is that the author doesn't add citations at the end of each passage in the book. He does have a bibliography of the sources at the end of each chapter , but he doesn't add citations in the passages of all the chapters in the book throughout the book but that not even enough to downgrade my rating of this book from five stars to four stars.

History is written by those in power. They distort the facts to make the past conform to what they want it to be. This book tells it like it really was. This is all the warts, bigotry, sex and dirty secrets that modern history books have glossed over. This is how each wave of immigrants over came, added to the culture and finally assimilated while adding to our freedoms and loosing themselves in the great melting pot.
You may not like or agree with what you are reading but it is the truth!

If you think Ken Burns is a disappointing suck up and teachers pet, then this book is for you. This is the history your parents or grandparents might have hinted at in their stories and reminiscence. Using the shearing premise of renegade and society he makes a fresh cut through America and in the exposed wet gleam he catches typical history, self serving political agendas, historians desire to be accepted and conform, and their ceaseless shallowness, with their pants down. He is a truth seeker unafraid to get his hands dirty; undaunted in looking the naked ape in the eye and the underground river shaping our American lives. In my view Russell is out there in the same untamed wilderness where Hunter Thompson and H.L Mencken dwell.

While this book contains loads of information I kept getting the impression that the author was so busy trying to get to the end of each chapter he forgot what point he was trying to make. Like a breathless runner he staggered along with no idea of the finish line. I love the way the book is set up, with each chapter complete in itself; what I did not like is that at the end of each chapter I felt something was missing, that a point had yet to be made, that somehow the author had lost sight of the title of that particular chapter. Perhaps I am obtuse, but a good old fashioned recap would have been welcome.

This is a really interesting alternative US history book, but the author tries way too hard sometimes to prove his point. It's enjoyable for those who liked Howard Zinn's A People's History - but it lasts subtlety and nuance. It's either or - good/powerful men vs. Bad/powerless men. I also very much dislike how the author/publisher references the research. Many quotes and sources are not identified to to book, chapter and page number.

Thaddeus Russell explores US social history in an engaging and straightforward way. What we recognize today as American culture was shaped by disenfranchised groups such as African-Americans, Gays, Jews, Irish, and prostitutes. Although "respectable" people often looked down on the lower classes and the disenfranchised, these renegades gave us freedoms such as jazz, contraception, women baring their ankles, and interracial relationships.

Russel can sometimes be interesting, but he falls off the rail far too many times when it comes to gender. He actually believes there is no such thing as a man or a woman. I understand his attempt at nuance, but he thinks he's much more clever than he really is. Listen to his interview on the Joe Rogan show. Rogan was too patient with him, although he eventually had enough of Russell's nonsense, at least concerning gender. However, they are both nuts when it comes to borders. Neither one of them believe that any country should have borders at all. Good grief.

Russell is a college professor. I think he should start writing more. We need more history books like this one. (Besides, have you looked at your students lately? Half of them can't find United Stated on the map and the other half does not care).

This book is awesome. . . it debunks everything about American history. Forget the founding fathers and the soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, this book recounts the impact of those at the bottom of society, such as the 18th century prostitutes, who are the real heroes of American history. I wish history was taught like this in school, then I might actually find my classes interesting (and I might even go to class). None of this boring stuff about the Constitution, or the enlightenment, or natural law, or dead white male presidents. Read this book next to Howard Zinn's work and you'll know everything you need to know the next time some racist patriarchal type starts droning on about nobodies such as Washington and Jefferson.

I read social media posts by the author, trying to denigrate Jews, arguing that Jews in the 1800's called one another "N-last name". One small problem the author didn't realize: Jews had their own language, Yiddish, including their own derogatory terms, and wouldn't have used the English terms no matter how enlightened they were or weren't. When I pointed this out he defriended me rather than addressing obvious problem. This made me realize the entire book is full of poorly researched, at best, or entirely fabricated anecdotes, at worst. Given one verifiable fiction there's no use in examining the other assertions. If you're into fiction read this book, though there's much better fiction. Otherwise the store offers a few million better choices. [edited - After a lot of searing I found one reference, in passing, to one non-credible source who wrote the same thing in the 70s or so. Reading the other one-star reviews we see the same pattern - poorly sourced. Thad's obviously trying to entertain, not research nor teach, and to sell books. I suppose maybe that makes him a "renegade." Thanks to a commentator for reminding me of this review so I could update it.]

This is a book that will shake the foundations of anyone's world view.

Thaddeus Russell has written that rare book that is absolutely guaranteed to annoy right-wingers and left-wingers alike -- but centrists will probably find it the most disconcerting.

Thoroughly-researched, well-written, and persuasively argued, this one is a classic. If you only read one history book this year, make it A Renegade History of the United States.

That this is the screed of a rebellious academic from Berkeley is sure to enlighten and amuse those of us free thinkers who refuse to accept historical truth written by corrupt elitists or establishment blue eyed devils. Nevertheless, while it reveals the untold impetus behind many progressive US events, it leaves out vital information and snubbed sources. For instance, in tracing cultural contributions of organized crime, from jazz to Hollywood to Broadway to gay rights, he uses the word mafia and yet gives more credit to PC non Italian gangsters than voweled surnames who suffer media stereotypes.

Also lost in translation are the paisans who were among the first jazz musicians and the impact of a certain New Jersey saloon singer who singlehandedly helped integrate Las Vegas if not America itself. This is a worthy real people history lesson, don't get me wrong. But it's still a major rewrite, footnote and index away from telling the whole complete story. As is, this reads like an abridged version of what might have been a more thorough inclusive effort. Like a good franchise movie serial, it begs for a sequel with a longer list of supporting cast stars curiously missing from the renegade debut.

Russell is a college professor. I think he should start writing more. We need more history books like this one. (Besides, have you looked at your students lately? Half of them can't find United Stated on the map and the other half does not care).

This book is awesome. . . it debunks everything about American history. Forget the founding fathers and the soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, this book recounts the impact of those at the bottom of society, such as the 18th century prostitutes, who are the real heroes of American history. I wish history was taught like this in school, then I might actually find my classes interesting (and I might even go to class). None of this boring stuff about the Constitution, or the enlightenment, or natural law, or dead white male presidents. Read this book next to Howard Zinn's work and you'll know everything you need to know the next time some racist patriarchal type starts droning on about nobodies such as Washington and Jefferson.

I read social media posts by the author, trying to denigrate Jews, arguing that Jews in the 1800's called one another "N-last name". One small problem the author didn't realize: Jews had their own language, Yiddish, including their own derogatory terms, and wouldn't have used the English terms no matter how enlightened they were or weren't. When I pointed this out he defriended me rather than addressing obvious problem. This made me realize the entire book is full of poorly researched, at best, or entirely fabricated anecdotes, at worst. Given one verifiable fiction there's no use in examining the other assertions. If you're into fiction read this book, though there's much better fiction. Otherwise the store offers a few million better choices. [edited - After a lot of searing I found one reference, in passing, to one non-credible source who wrote the same thing in the 70s or so. Reading the other one-star reviews we see the same pattern - poorly sourced. Thad's obviously trying to entertain, not research nor teach, and to sell books. I suppose maybe that makes him a "renegade." Thanks to a commentator for reminding me of this review so I could update it.]

This is a book that will shake the foundations of anyone's world view.

Thaddeus Russell has written that rare book that is absolutely guaranteed to annoy right-wingers and left-wingers alike -- but centrists will probably find it the most disconcerting.

Thoroughly-researched, well-written, and persuasively argued, this one is a classic. If you only read one history book this year, make it A Renegade History of the United States.

That this is the screed of a rebellious academic from Berkeley is sure to enlighten and amuse those of us free thinkers who refuse to accept historical truth written by corrupt elitists or establishment blue eyed devils. Nevertheless, while it reveals the untold impetus behind many progressive US events, it leaves out vital information and snubbed sources. For instance, in tracing cultural contributions of organized crime, from jazz to Hollywood to Broadway to gay rights, he uses the word mafia and yet gives more credit to PC non Italian gangsters than voweled surnames who suffer media stereotypes.

Also lost in translation are the paisans who were among the first jazz musicians and the impact of a certain New Jersey saloon singer who singlehandedly helped integrate Las Vegas if not America itself. This is a worthy real people history lesson, don't get me wrong. But it's still a major rewrite, footnote and index away from telling the whole complete story. As is, this reads like an abridged version of what might have been a more thorough inclusive effort. Like a good franchise movie serial, it begs for a sequel with a longer list of supporting cast stars curiously missing from the renegade debut.

First, I did enjoy the writing style. However, passing this book off as nonfiction is a far stretch. There is not a single reference that you can track. Talk about plagiarism. And this, from a guy who professes to be a History teacher. He puts the n-word in parenthesis as if it is a direct quote at least everything other page. I think that one of his primary goals was to see exactly how many times he could write racial epithets directed at black people and get away with it.

What I expected was a book about people who really bucked the system and changed the United States. I know about people like Robert Johnson, Sally Ride, and Steve Jobs. Tell me about lesser known people who made great impacts. What I got was 300 pages about how all white Americans strategically distanced themselves from black Americans in an effort to be "true" Americans because black Americans can never really be Americans. We are the renegades because we're lazy, prefer to be slaves so we don't have to take care of ourselves, and have never contributed anything to the world other than singing and dancing.

However, the positive side of this book is that the United States is a really great country and one in which everyone can succeed. Even a fool like Thaddeus Russell can pass himself off as an expert and somebody believes it.

Where do I begin to describe the nonsensical and illogical nature of this book? It's thesis, in a nutshell, is that America's rights and freedoms are not due to the actions of politicians, social activists, and deep thinkers, but are thanks to the actions of "renegades" of various stripes, dating from colonial America right up until the late 1960s. Renegades, in Russell's view, consistently rejected the status quo, the norms of capitalist society, in favour of individual expression and pleasure. In short, renegades didn't want to be cogs in a machine.

The author takes us on a quick tour through U.S. history, stopping at different points to argue that various criminal, social and economic underclasses were in fact fighting for freedoms that we all now take for granted. The underclasses, Russell argues, were always despised by those above them because they refused to conform to the model of what constitutes an efficient, reliable and moral American citizen. In a section on slavery Russell opines that slaves who shirked or sabotaged work on plantations were, in some way, standing up to conformity and the harsh Protestant work ethic. Russell ignores the fact that slaves, or those who are de facto slaves, have always been bad workers. One of the stock characters in classical literature is the lazy, scheming slave, who in Elizabethan literature became the lazy, scheming servant. Russian serfs were equally famous for being grossly lazy and inefficient. It would hard, though, to argue that slaves, servants and serfs ever acted as agents of social change.

If Russell was simply trying to prove that renegades were able to influence social mores that would be fine, but he also has some political axes to grind. This is most obvious in his section on the New Deal, in which he argues that fascism and New Deal liberalism were largely one and the same. This view is much in favour with Tea Party ideologues and Fox News, but it doesn't stand up to close examination. Because both fascist Italy and the New Deal had economic stimulus programs that were, on occasion, identical, Russell leaps to the illogical conclusion that this makes Franklin Roosevelt a quasi-fascist. This is bit like claiming that vegetarians are Nazis because Hitler was a vegetarian. Another problem is that fascism, both in Italy and Germany, was not much concerned with economics. The core features of both strains of fascism, and what dominated the imaginations of Hitler and Mussolini, were muscular, messianic nationalism and a vicious contempt for democratic institutions. Russell clearly doesn't see it that way as he ends his section on the New Deal with this eyebrow-raising statement: "...the New Deal and fascism went to war [WW II] not over ideas or values or a way of life. Rather, it seems, the war was a struggle between brothers for control of the world family." Sounds like someone wants to be invited to Glenn Beck's next barbecue.

Renegade takes a sharp turn into the nonsensical when it looks at the case of Japanese-Americans interned during WW II. Russell states that a significant number of these people were, in fact, loyal to Imperial Japan, and belonged to various organizations that swore loyalty to the Emperor and Japan. What does this have to do with renegades or social change? Nothing. Equally silly is Russell's claim that the beginning of gay liberation, which he dates as 1969, somehow produced heterosexual liberation as well. His proof of heterosexual liberation is that The Joy of Sex, a huge bestseller, was published only four years later. Russell conveniently forgets that popular culture in the post-war era had become increasingly comfortable with the idea of sex before and outside marriage. If there is such as thing as heterosexual liberation it's probably thanks to Hugh Hefner, Russ Meyer, Marilyn Monroe, hippies, the Pill, and James Bond movies.

Russell does make some convincing arguments that nineteenth-century prostitutes played a role in advancing women's rights, and that the civil rights movement, widely hailed as being non-violent, actually benefited from less pacific black protestors. Most of the time, however, Russell uses faulty logic and anecdotal evidence to manufacture proof that "renegades" were unconscious leaders in the fight for individual freedom. In sum, this book feels more like an extended opinion piece than a work of historical scholarship.

You can read more of my reviews at JettsionCocoon dot com.

If Mr. Russell bring a new view on the interpretation of history and the place of deviance in colonial America. Yet his historian method is questionable. In order to depict that America was founded from right-winged rebels, his principal source is John Adams' ultra strict diaries.
So, while a review of former historians' interpretation is always a good thing, a neglect of professional method is not.