A Concise History of the Middle East, Ninth Edition

By: Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., Lawrence Davidson

Narrated by: Tom Weiner

Length: 18 hrs and 10 mins

Publisher's summary

The ninth edition of this widely acclaimed text has been extensively revised to reflect the latest scholarship and the most recent events in the Middle East. As an introduction to the history of this turbulent region from the beginnings of Islam to the present day, the book is distinguished by its clear style, broad scope, and balanced treatment. It focuses on the evolution of Islamic institutions and culture, the influence of the West, the modernization efforts of Middle Eastern governments, the struggle for political independence, the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the roles of Iraq and Iran in the post-9/11 Middle East, and more.

Arthur Goldschmidt, Jr., is professor emeritus of Middle Eastern history at Pennsylvania State University. He is the author of Modern Egypt: Foundation of a Nation-State and the recipient of the Amoco Foundation Award for Outstanding Teaching and the 2000 Middle East Studies Association Mentoring Award.

Lawrence Davidson is a professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of several books, including America’s Palestine and Islamic Fundamentalism.

©2010 Westview Press (P)2010 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

Critic reviews

“The premier text for the study of the Middle East. Goldschmidt and Davidson’s well-written and solidly argued analyses of the most important and crucial developments of Middle Eastern history and politics…could not be timelier.” (Robert Olson, University of Kentucky)

“I can only offer unmixed praise for the new edition of A Concise History of the Middle East….Sparklingly clear and straightforward for even the ‘general reader.’…Remarkable.” (Mark Seifter, Lehigh Carbon Community College)

“Well-organized, comprehensive, balanced, and exceptionally readable….The authors blend significant historical detail with timely political analysis in a cogent style that is compelling and lucid.” (Donald Wagner, North Park University, Chicago)

A concise illustration of the Western misreadings

While generally informative and occasionally factually accurate, this book seems to be the collection of clichés, misgivings and less forgivable, offers at every possible opportunity an abject attempt at explaining, belittling and even excusing acts of terrorism.
It's treatment of the Israeli Arab conflict veered to the ridiculous when portraying the "peace process".
Not a work of reference...

A pro Muslim list of events.

Skips the first three millennium of Mideast history. Focus on Islam and how everything relates to Islam. Argues that terrorism is ok as long as it is not done by states.

Apologia for Muslim violence disguised as history

This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

Who would enjoy it more? People who want to continue to see history with a thick veil over their eyes. People too narrow-minded, too fearful, and too lazy and unimaginative to think outside of the left-right box of American politics. People who think they are getting news by watching CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. People who continue to think that there is much of value left in college liberal arts courses.

What was most disappointing about Arthur Goldschmidt and Lawrence Davidson ’s story?

Contortionists Goldschmidt and Davidson bend over backwards to gloss over the anti-reason, bloodshed, racism, and misogyny inherent in Islam to deliver what is, in fact, a textbook example of the cultural whitewashing of Islam that has been going on for decades but has been virulently prevalent in the US since 9/11. No, I'm no particular fan of socialist, mystical, cynical Israel, except that, by contrast to other Mideast societies, Israel allows her people a relative degree of freedom and appreciates reason, science, individualism, and free commerce to some limited extent. Truly balanced history would describe in detail -- not in vague, airy gloss -- what the real concrete ideas of Islam mean in real terms, on a daily basis, for the people who must live in subjugation under it. The analysis is laughably shallow, so let this be a warning regarding the quality of even the basic facts relayed. This is textbook history at its worst, an agenda in sheep's clothing. It's pretty darned boring to boot.

What three words best describe Tom Weiner’s voice?

Pleasantly deep. Monotonous and droning. Needing of more inflection.

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

Many passages bordered on reasonably interesting "summary history." These were small lifeboats drowning in the sea of agenda, however.

Any additional comments?

Not worth the time. If you are a student, break out of your chains and seek answers and facts that are in accord with reality. You don't have to believe what they tell you just because self-anointed experts say the same lies over and over ....

Worse than a waste of time

This book is one of the least informative texts I have ever read on Middle East history. It is full of unsupported (and unsupportable) opinions/assertions instead of stating the facts. It ignores so many events in Islamic history that would inevitably reveal Islam and its rulers in a negative way that it must certainly be intentional. The authors fail to mention many of the troubling actions of Muhammed (assassinations, political intolerance, banditry, etc), avoids discussing the intolerance of Muslim rulers such as Hakim who destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, avoids discussing the mass slaughter of Hindus in India, and the list goes on. It also provides an unnecessarily biased account of European imperialism which blames Europe for everything yet portrays Arabic and Turkish imperialism, which was arguably far more intolerant and harmful to the occupied lands than Arabs and others under Europeans, as something wonderful. This is a totally biased whitewash of Middle East history and was worse than a waste of time as it is actually counterproductive to any effort at understanding the history of the region. If my children brought this book home from school as a textbook, I would have to speak to the school to have the text changed or remove my child from the class. If you want a book about the Middle East that, although biased in favor of Islam and the Arabs, actually provides sufficient information about the region that you can glean some understanding, get History of the Arab Peoples by Hourani or any of the books by Bernard Lewis who is far more objective and honest both about the history of Islam, Arabs and especially the Turks.

A perfect textbook for fourth graders

Did you know that the US actually had political dealings with the Middle East before 9/11? Do you need a five minute explanation on what exactly the word "history" means? Do you have such a narrow view on Arabic human beings that you need to be told that Arabs were most certainly NOT barbarians? Do you know that the Middle East has a rich history of art and culture? Do you know what algebra is? Are you aware that the Crusades were really kinda bad?

Oh, you're a functional adult who doesn't need to be spoken to like a fourth grader? Than this book isn't for you.

I'm not even one third through and I'm furious. This is a college level textbook? This is how textbook writers communicate to adults? This speaks a lot about higher education's view on their students' intelligence. I don't need to be told that camels actually DON'T carry water in their humps, contrary to what I read in last week's Sunday comics while my mom cut the crust off my peanut butter sandwich. And because I'm older than ten, I'm well aware than the US has had diplomatic relations with several Mideast countries for decades.

History should leave out authors opinions

What would have made A Concise History of the Middle East, Ninth Edition better?

The actual history provided in the book was consistent. That is the descriptions of who did what and when, and the varying views of what motivated these act.

As the book gets closer to the present day, he adds his opinion as to the validity of those motives. In reviewing history through reading several authors, the reader should form his own opinion.

Having read several accounts of Middle Eastern history, I strongly disagree with the opinions that the author expresses in the last 50 - 75 years of this particular rendition. He seems to approach the overruning of Persia, Mesopotamia, and the Fertile Crescent by the Arabian Muslims, the Mongols, and the Turks without any comment or oppinion. But when it comes to the comparatively peaceful influences of the British, French and Americans he expresses an excessively negative view.

You might find a more balanced version of the last 100 years in another book, "Destiny Disrupted", by an Afgan born Muslem named Tamim Ansary. At least Mr. Ansary has enough respect for his readers to leave out the opinion.

If I were selecting text books, Mr. Ansay would certainly be my choice. We should be teaching our students "how", not "what" to think.

What was most disappointing about Arthur Goldschmidt and Lawrence Davidson ’s story?

The story was fine. The opinion should be left out of a History text.

Incredibly boring

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

A female narrator with a crisp voice. An interesting story not read like someone was droning words off a Koran.

What was most disappointing about Arthur Goldschmidt and Lawrence Davidson ’s story?

Boring as hell. Just that.
What could be more boring than a 19 hour book about religion?
A 20-hour book about religion.

Who would you have cast as narrator instead of Tom Weiner?

Unenthusiastic and ready to dole out religious punishment.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Boredom and disappointment. I had no idea religion was so utterly boring.

Any additional comments?

I want my money back.

Save your money!

This should be retitled: "A Rambling Editorial on the Greatness of Islam, the Evil of Zionist Demon Dogs, and How American Imperialist Swine Get What They Deserve." I'll try to be more clear. There is no discussion of ancient history of the Middle East. This "history" begins with Mohammed. For the first 14 of the 18 hours of runtime the authors at least maintain the facade of serious historians, however as the issues become more contemporary the semblence of objectivity evaporates. The last hour and a half of the text is an open editorial, decrying Israeli "war crimes", abusive American foreign policy, and open pleas for Barack Obama to save the Middle East from the evil policies of lying Neo-Con Cowboys. The authors have no shame about expressing their own political opinions rather than presenting the facts so the audience may decide. Save your cash, this is no history, and it is no deal.

Good Book hijacked by Politics

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

Removed the politics from the section starting in 1945 and make it a history book vs. the political statement they are trying to make.

Would you ever listen to anything by Arthur Goldschmidt and Lawrence Davidson again?

After listening, I couldn't figure out why it changed. I researched the authors and found Goldschmidt to be the historian and Daivdson to be some type of radical political type. Why would Goldschmidt let Davidson obviously takeover everything after 1945 and turn it into a weird personal political statement .

What about Tom Weiner’s performance did you like?

Good, easy to listen to , Didn't attempt to dramatize the book (which is a good thing)

What character would you cut from A Concise History of the Middle East, Ninth Edition?

After research. It seems to be Davidson

Any additional comments?

The title and career of Goldschmidt deserves better than to allow real work be skewed by a radical political agenda. Too bad.

Very biased story of the Middle East

The message of the book is highly biased and the authors make no effort to hide their fringe left-wing agenda. Be it the selection of facts, the depictions of historic personalities or the overall tone of the story, its _very_ pro-Arab, especially when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and "anti-imperialist" (the West is always there to blame for everything bad that has ever happened in the Middle East) and pro-socialist elsewhere. Quick summary: everything Israeli/British/French/American = bad and greedy, Arab=good or at least well-intended.
In short, if you are looking for truth - please look elsewhere. The "history" as relayed in this book has never existed except in Arab nationalists' and, well, a few Western professors' minds.