halialkers: Green-skinned alien with four lights behind him caption "There is no war in Ba Sing Se" (ignorance is strenth)
posted by [personal profile] halialkers at 10:44am on 23/05/2012
This year, 2012, is the 100 year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, the rise of the Republic of China for its short and doomed history, the election of that authoritarian and scummy waste of space Woodrow Wilson, and most crucially the First Balkan War. Of these anniversaries it could be argued that the two most crucial in a long-term historical sense were the end of the line of Chinese Emperors with the last Qing Emperor disbanding and the combination of the end of the Italo-Turkish War and the start of the First Balkan War, which brings me to my point:

Of these two sets of events, which would qualify, if either do, as the more "important" events? Personally I would qualify the fall of the Qing Empire as more important in a long-term sense. Primarily because the Chinese Emperor had been *the* crucial underpinning of an entire civilization in a legally unbroken chain from the 3rd Century BCE to the 20th Century, and because the fall of the Chinese Empire ultimately led to the outbreak of WWII in Asia no matter what did or did not happen in Europe.

However with the outbreak of the Arab Spring and the Civil War in Libya, as well as the continued chaos in the Balkans, it's worth noting that the Italo-Turkish War is how Cyrenaica and Tripoli were combined into Libya, while the First Balkan War set in motion the process of Great Powers dancing to the tune of small states that culminated in what will have *its* centennial 2 years from now. With WWI arguably globally more important by far than WWII. So of the end of a very ancient civilization and the dawn of a new one or the tipping point where WWI became an inevitability, which would be more important in a historical sense? 

serpentine: scholarly items with the word History (Interests - History)
posted by [personal profile] serpentine at 11:28am on 23/05/2012
I don't know how active this community is, but I figured this would be the best place to ask this question.

So, I'm writing a paper for a college senior level history class and it requires me to use at least one primary source. However, the source I've chosen is video and I've never actually written a paper before that uses video as a primary source, so I'm not quite sure how to approach it. How does one exactly incorporate it when all your other sources are text? Do you say that in "x film" this scene happens and this indicates something about what the film is trying to say?

The source in question for my paper is a propaganda film, so I know to mention that part and I do have some idea of how I do want to use it in my paper, I just would like advice for doing this sort of thing.
onyxlynx: The words "Onyx" and "Lynx" with x superimposed (Default)
posted by [personal profile] onyxlynx at 10:06am on 13/01/2012
The Great Escape tunnels, that is.
But by the measures of ingenuity, courage and persistence, the tunnels built almost 70 years ago in sandy scrubland near the small town of Zagan, 130 miles southeast of Berlin in what was then Hitler's Germany and is today western Poland, were a legendary feat of engineering, although on a miniature scale.
Mood:: 'pensive' pensive
halialkers: General Georgi Zhukov, man with prominent jaw, big ears (Anzaea H'vat Kanari)
posted by [personal profile] halialkers at 04:18pm on 26/10/2011
On the surface at least. These two questions are asked here to see how people on this community decide on the meaning of historical events in the time-honored field of military history.

The first set of questions concerns the battles in the Kursk Bulge in 1943. Specifically how does this measure up as a victory for either the Nazis or the Soviet Union? How much influence did Operation Husky actually have on the course of the battle? Any at all? None whatsoever? Was it exaggerated by the Allies so as to create the impression that they helped decide something they really did not? Did the Germans even have an actual chance at winning the battle? How much can Manstein be trusted as far as his accounts of the battle and the German concept of it?

As far as the actual fighting is concerned, how much does the mythology around Prokhorovka tend to distract from the reality of the battle? Does this battle tend to reflect the reality of the historiography of this war, as one of the few occasions where the losing side, not the winning side, actually wrote the history books?

The other question concerns the Battle of Jutland. Namely did the Germans win the battle or did the British lose it? Or is this a case of how winning a battle does nothing to win the war, and thus the Germans won the battle but it did nothing whatsoever to contribute to their war effort?

My answers for all of the above after comments on these questions. I realize there's a lot of social historians on the community but these two incidents in military history are also quite revealing in the fields of social history, given how answers to these questions can reflect certain political/ideological backgrounds having nothing to do with the events in themselves.
pauamma: Cartooney crab holding drink (Default)
So there I was, cleaning up and updating my bookmarks, when I noticed the following style of reference in the introduction to the Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783 (between Great Britain and the United States):
the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.
Which is rich, if you think of it, since not only was that treaty negociated and signed in France, but it could only be signed after a prior treaty, between Great Britain and France, as explicitely stated in the Preliminary Articles of Peace; November 30, 1782:
To be inserted in, and to constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded, between the Crown of Great Britain, and the said United States; but which Treaty is not to be concluded, untill Terms of a Peace shall be agreed upon, between Great Britain and France;
So I dug further, and found that the prior treaty had been signed between George III (who was King of France there as well) and LOUIS, par la grace de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre or (in the English version) LEWIS, by the Grace of God, King of France and Navarre. Ain't diplomacy grand?
dorothean: detail of painting of Gandalf, Frodo, and Gimli at the Gates of Moria, trying to figure out how to open them (Default)
(mods, please tell me/delete if this isn't an appropriate post for this community)

Hello [community profile] history friends!

I'm taking a couple of classes next semester and have just received the book lists. There are a lot of books and I'm worried about paying for them on top of tuition. I may be able to buy some of them cheaply through Amazon or find some at the library. (Some of them will be on reserve at the library of the university where I'm taking the course, but that doesn't help me because I'll only be there on the evening of the class.)

So I posted to my journal asking if anyone has any of the books and can sell or lend them to me. I thought I would check here, too, since members of this community may be more likely to have history books lying about!

Here is the list. #1-2 are survey texts, and #4-12 are about labor history in the United States:

1. Boyer et al., The Enduring Vision, Volume 2, 6th edition (2008)
2. Lorence, Enduring Voices, Volume 2, 4th edition (1996)
3. Studs Terkel, Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression (1998) - found someone to lend me this!
4. Dubofsky & McCartin, eds., American Labor: A Documentary Collection (2004)
5. Fink, The Maya of Morgantown: Work and Community in the Nuevo New South (2003)
6. Hall, Like a Family: The Making of a Southern Cotton Mill World (1987)
7. Lambert, "If the Workers Took a Notion": The Right to Strike and American Political Development (2005)
8. Lichtenstein, State of the Union: A Century of American Labor (2002)
9. Minchin, Fighting Against the Odds: A History of Southern Labor Since World War II (2005)
10. Norwood, Strikebreaking and Intimidation: Mercenaries and Masculinity in Twentieth-Century America (2002)
11. Vargas, Labor Rights Are Civil Rights: Mexican American Workers in Twentieth-Century America (2005)
12. (not assigned, but I want to read it before the semester starts) Melvyn Dubofsky, Labor in America (any edition)

I will need #1-11 for the fall 2011 semester, August through December. I'm hoping to read #12 in July. I am very good to books and if you lent one to me, I would mail it back to you promptly at the end of the semester.

You can reply to this post or the one at my journal, send me a private Dreamwidth message, or email me at dorothea dot says at gmail dot com.
jeanniemactavish: (Default)
For the Wales FONSAQ Project in honour of Three Weeks For Dreamwidth, I posted an essay on the Welsh choral tradition and Welsh national identity in the 19th century and beyond...in case anyone is interested, it's here:


oursin: Painting of Clio Muse of History by Artemisia Gentileschi (Clio)
posted by [personal profile] oursin at 09:59pm on 30/04/2011

Responding to this question here, with a focus mostly on UK and Europe.

Overviews: Anna Clark's Desire, forthcoming work on more recent European story by Dagmar Herzog, Angus McLaren on History of Contraception and Impotence. The 2 volumes Sexual Cultures in Europe (edited by Eder, Hall and Hekma) - National Histories and Themes in Sexuality. Davidson and Hall (eds), Sex, Sin and Suffering: VD in European context since 1870

On the UK, with specific relevance to the C19th and C20th.

Overviews: Jeff Weeks, Sex, Politics and Society is an oldie but a classic. A lot of his arguments have been contested, but an awful lot of Brithistsex since c. 1980 has been reacting to Weeks or filling in the gaps (see also his Coming Out on homosexuality in the UK). More recently, although it has some weaknesses, Hall, Sex, Gender, and Social Change in Britain since 1880.

Classics: Judith Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society, Lucy Bland, Banishing the Beast, Tnmothy D'Arch Smith, Love in Earnest.

Recent important work on C19th homosexuality (mostly in London, it must be admitted):
Charles Upchurch, Before Wilde: Sex Between Men in Britain's Age of Reform
Harry Cocks, Nameless Offences
Matt Cook, London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914
Sean Brady, Masculinity and Male Homosexuality in Britain, 1861-1913
Morris Kaplan, Sodom on the Thames
and on the C20th, Matt Houlbrook, Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in the Sexual Metropolis, 1918-1957

On women and same-sex relationships:
Martha Vicinus, Intimate Friends: Women Who Loved Women, 1778-1928
Sharon Marcus, Between Women: Friendship, Desire, and Marriage in Victorian England
Laura Doan, Fashioning Sapphism: The Origins of a Modern English Lesbian Culture
Alison Oram, Her Husband Was a Woman!: Women's Gender-crossing in Modern British Popular Culture
Deborah Cohler, Citizen, Invert, Queer: Lesbianism and War in Early Twentieth-Century Britain

The rise of sexology:
Harry Oosterhuis, Stepchildren of Nature: Psychiatry and the Making of Sexual Identity
Chris Nottingham, The Pursuit of Serenity: Havelock Ellis and the New Politics
Sheila Rowbotham, Edward Carpenter
Bland and Doan (eds), Sexology in Culture: Labelling Bodies and Desires and Sexology Uncensored: The Documents of Sexual Science

Prostitution and sexual abuse:
Louise Jackson, Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England
Linda Mahood, The Magdalenes
Philippa Levine, Prostitution, Race and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire
Paula Bartley, Prostitution: Prevention and Reform in England, 1860-1914
Maria Luddy, Prostitution in Ireland
Helen Self, Prostitution, Women and Misuse of the Law: The Fallen Daughters of Eve

Marriage, birth control, etc:
Angus McLaren, Birth Control in C19th England
Richard A Soloway, Birth Control and the Population Question in England, 1870-1930
Hera Cook, The Long Sexual Revolution
Simon Szreter, Fertility, Class and Gender in Britain, 1860-1940
Barbara Brookes. Abortion in England, 1900-1967
Kate Fisher, Birth Control, Sex, and Marriage in Britain 1918-1960
Szreter and Fisher, Sex before the Sexual Revolution
Lesley Hall, Hidden Anxieties: male sexuality 1900-1950

Changing mores and attitudes in the 1950s (focus on Soho):
Frank Mort, Capital Offences

I've probably forgotten something entirely obvious, if so, will post follow-up.

trouble: Sketch of Hermoine from Harry Potter with "Bookworms will rule the world (after we finish the background reading)" on it (Default)
posted by [personal profile] trouble at 04:53am on 28/04/2011
trouble: In your history emphasizing your women (in yr history emphasizing yr women)
posted by [personal profile] trouble at 08:27am on 27/04/2011 under ,
These are what I have come across and been directed to. Please feel free to either comment here with links to others or make a new post!

[personal profile] pinesandmaples: A Lady in Her Bath [NSFW picture]

440 years ago, this woman let M. Clouet into her personal space to create a memento for the family. Chances are her husband hung this portrait in his study so he could admire his wife and her virtues. And by "virtues", I don't actually mean "boobs." The admiring husband of 1571 would be interested in the fruit of his wife's womb before her bust came into the picture.

[personal profile] berangere posted in [community profile] archaeology: Legislation : preventive archaeology, which answers "I would really like to learn more about archeology in cities. They're building a new library here and they're letting the archaeologists in to do some work before they start building. What do archaeologists look for, and what's it like with a really short turn around time?" for France & Japan.