The document summarizes a book review of "The New American Militarism" by Andrew Bacevich. The book argues that American political leaders intend to reshape the world according to American values through military means. It claims Americans have become skeptical of non-military solutions and define national strength through military preparedness. The book aims to criticize this "new American militarism" and the dangers it poses. However, the reviewer found the book to be poorly organized and its arguments sometimes contradictory, making its main points unconvincing.
his article argues that women of colour were central to the process of the legal transition to free labour in Cuba. Through an examination of legal appeals for freedom – which were often facilitated by new opportunities created by transition legislation – it shows that women were motivated by factors such as their families and frequently by their position as urban domestic servants. They could also make use of gendered understandings of slavery and freedom, which were socially prevalent although not legally enshrined. The paper argues that a focus on women and gender may have important implications for our understanding of Cuba's transition to free labour and of some of the constructions of citizenship and nationhood with which it was entwined.
his article argues that women of colour were central to the process of the legal transition to free labour in Cuba. Through an examination of legal appeals for freedom – which were often facilitated by new opportunities created by transition legislation – it shows that women were motivated by factors such as their families and frequently by their position as urban domestic servants. They could also make use of gendered understandings of slavery and freedom, which were socially prevalent although not legally enshrined. The paper argues that a focus on women and gender may have important implications for our understanding of Cuba's transition to free labour and of some of the constructions of citizenship and nationhood with which it was entwined.
Presidents and Their Generals - Changes in Leadership RelationshipsMatthew Moten
A historian and author, Matthew Moten has published numerous books. In 2014, Matthew Moten published Presidents and Their Generals: An American History of Command in War.
The quote that all is fair in love and war (Paul Harper) is commonly cited. Fairness has socially
become a question of democracy and its influences especially in the face of conflict. Ideally,
fairness is defined as the balance between human intent and action that can be justified. Fairness
covers the subtle acts of justice in resolving conflict. In the context of a war, fairness becomes an
elusive pursuit in spite of many organizations becoming endeared to certain variances in a bid to
derive a fair act of war within a particular country or region.
- See more at: http://www.customwritingservice.org/blog/how-fair-is-war-in-a-society
Hello..!! its my first presentation...please keep support me ..i will provide your subjects related meterial..i want to teach or understand each and basic knowledge of our world ..
New Book Takes on the Civil War’s Wilderness Campaign of 1864SavasBeatie
March 8, 2016, El Dorado Hills, CA – Savas Beatie recently announced the release of Dr. Bradley Gottfried’s new book, The Maps of the Wilderness: An Atlas of the Wilderness Campaign, May 2-7, 1864, the latest in their groundbreaking Military Atlas Series that takes a unique look at each of the key campaigns and battles of the Civil War.
Presidents and Their Generals - Changes in Leadership RelationshipsMatthew Moten
A historian and author, Matthew Moten has published numerous books. In 2014, Matthew Moten published Presidents and Their Generals: An American History of Command in War.
The quote that all is fair in love and war (Paul Harper) is commonly cited. Fairness has socially
become a question of democracy and its influences especially in the face of conflict. Ideally,
fairness is defined as the balance between human intent and action that can be justified. Fairness
covers the subtle acts of justice in resolving conflict. In the context of a war, fairness becomes an
elusive pursuit in spite of many organizations becoming endeared to certain variances in a bid to
derive a fair act of war within a particular country or region.
- See more at: http://www.customwritingservice.org/blog/how-fair-is-war-in-a-society
Hello..!! its my first presentation...please keep support me ..i will provide your subjects related meterial..i want to teach or understand each and basic knowledge of our world ..
New Book Takes on the Civil War’s Wilderness Campaign of 1864SavasBeatie
March 8, 2016, El Dorado Hills, CA – Savas Beatie recently announced the release of Dr. Bradley Gottfried’s new book, The Maps of the Wilderness: An Atlas of the Wilderness Campaign, May 2-7, 1864, the latest in their groundbreaking Military Atlas Series that takes a unique look at each of the key campaigns and battles of the Civil War.
WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR ESSAY SAMPLEWhat they fought for is an an.docxmecklenburgstrelitzh
WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR ESSAY SAMPLE
What they fought for is an analysis of a aggregation of about a 1000 personal letters and diaries entries written by the soldiers who fought America’s celebrated Civil War. This book seeks to specify the political orientation of what the soldiers understood they were contending for. and their comprehension of the result of their service. Although counter statements agree that most soldiers could not give a solid account of why they fought for. nor the existent Constitutional issues that were at interest; the ideas the soldiers recorded show that they fought for more than merely masculine individuality ; they extremely valued being at place safe with their loved 1s. at any cost. This book gives an inside perceptual experience of the Civil War. and a wide apprehension of the sentiments of the people of that epoch. Mc. Pherson successfully defines the single motive of each of the work forces who volunteered and risked their lives for what they believed was right. and the glorious cause to contend for. The book begins with a chapter titled “The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence”; the writer identifies the popular political orientations evidenced in the letters sent by the soldiers at the beginning of the Civil War. and emphasizes their apprehension of what they fought for.
On one side were the Confederates. a group fueled by thoughts of Liberty and self-determination. linked to seek retaliation of northern oppressors and promote independency of the cotton land of the South. Confederate soldiers were motivated by strong emotional devotedness to their land. as shown by a missive from a Louisiana corporal in the Army of Northern Virginia. “for I am willing that my castanets shall decolor the sacred dirt of Virginia in driving the envading host of autocrats from our soil” ( Mc. Pherson 11 ) . The South besides found emotional support in comparing their war with the Revolutionary War. tie ining Northerners as oppressors like the British had been to the settlements. Confederates must turn out they were worthy of the autonomies and constitutional rights their initiation male parents had earned; this was something to contend for. Furthermore, the soldiers were fed of hatred by the interest of protection of their adult females and households back place. If the North was to win. they would everlastingly be oppressed by their triumph. and slaves of their accomplishments. The Confederates fought to advance the well-being of their household and the protection of their land “from Yankee indignation and atrocity” ( Mc. Pherson 20 ) .
On the other side was the Union. besides known as the Yankees; a group determined to set out the Rebels of the South. and continue the state that was created in 1776. Like the Confederates. the Union besides found support in the memory of the Revolutionary War. Union soldiers fought the “Traitors who sought to rupture down and interrupt into fragments the glorious temple that our sires rear.
The King’s Body The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and the.docxcherry686017
The King’s Body: The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and the
Politics of Collective Memory
Kevin Bruyneel
History & Memory, Volume 26, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2014, pp.
75-108 (Article)
Published by Indiana University Press
DOI: 10.1353/ham.2014.0003
For additional information about this article
Access provided by New York University (25 Aug 2014 20:44 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ham/summary/v026/26.1.bruyneel.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ham/summary/v026/26.1.bruyneel.html
75
The King’s Body
The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial
and the Politics of Collective Memory
Kevin Bruyneel
This article examines the politics of memory stemming from the development and
reception of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial and Stone of Hope
statue of King that now resides on the National Mall in Washington D.C. The
article discusses two general contrasting views expressed in the contest over how
the American nation should remember King. The predominant viewpoint, which
constructs King as a haloed, consensual figure, is deployed to endorse the idea
that the United States is now in a post-racial era in which neoliberal governing
priorities reign supreme. The contrasting viewpoint argues for portraying King as
a confrontational and radical figure, who would reject the notion that the United
States has achieved “his dream.”
INTRODUCTION
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, no single figure
consumes as much commemorative attention in the United States as does
Martin Luther King Jr. This is reflected in the thousands of schools across
the country that honor MLK Day each year, in the streets bearing his
name that span across the nation’s landscape,1 and in the 2011 unveiling
of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial (MLK Memorial) on
the National Mall in Washington D.C. But what King’s legacy means in
our time is open to debate. This essay analyzes this debate as it emerged
during the development and reception of the MLK Memorial and the
thirty-foot statue of King that is the memorial’s centerpiece.
Kevin Bruyneel
76 History & Memory, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2014)
As David Blight observed with regard to Frederick Douglass’s effort
to shape the nation’s memory of the U.S. Civil War: “Historical memory,
he had come to realize, was not merely an entity altered by the passage
of time; it was the prize in a struggle between rival versions of the past, a
question of will, of power, of persuasion.”2 The past does not speak for
itself, but rather actors, institutions and discourses speak for and shape the
meaning of the past through the construction of histories and memories.
There are serious stakes here, because the relationship of a people to its
past is critical to defining the political imperatives of the present and the
future. Frederick Douglass knew this about the U.S. Civil War. In a simi-
lar regard, the memory of M ...
Owned Lock, Stock, and Barrel: grandad's memorial day lesson for civiliansCharles Bloeser
"But here’s where grandad has a lesson for those of us who have never served. Had he known earlier what the intel really showed – that Communist China cared a great deal about what happened the other side of the Yalu river - it wouldn’t have mattered. It must not be allowed to matter.
"Like all who serve, grandad was owned by the United States lock, stock, and barrel, to be used as his nation deemed necessary. Even if ordered to march into Hell itself."
Revisiting the Past: The Value of Teaching Islamic Military History, by Pr...Professor Joel Hayward
This article will argue that Muslim scholars should not feel the slightest awkwardness or embarrassment about Islam’s past martial successes, and should indeed return to writing on Islamic military history, teaching it and ensuring its survival within the curricula of cadet and staff colleges. Far from damaging Islam’s reputation, an objective and fair-minded reading of Islam’s military history (according to the methodology and principles accepted within the discipline of history) will directly counter the current western misperception that Islam is somehow more aggressive and accepting of disproportionate or indiscriminate violence than the other great religions. It will in fact show that the Islamic laws and ethics of war have minimized violence and constrained misconduct and ensured that warfare was fought according to guiding principles which are very similar to those found within western “just war” teachings. And far from lending credence to Jihadist or Islamist assertions that warfare should be used by any Muslims who want to bring about political or social change, an honest and thorough recounting of Islamic military history will demonstrate clearly that recourse to violence had never been the prerogative of any individuals, however disgruntled they may be. It was always a right and responsibility bestowed only upon legitimate national leaders (caliphs, kings, emirs and presidents). The teaching of Islamic history is also replete with examples of strategic brilliance and leadership excellence that make wonderfully illuminating and inspiring case studies for today’s civil and military leaders. It goes without saying that studying the campaigns and commanders of the past will develop a Muslim’s civilizational self-respect and esprit de corps in the same way that any western reader would have their sense of civilizational or cultural pride enhanced by studying the World Wars or the strategies and lives of great commanders like Washington, Wellington, Nelson, Grant, Lee, Haig, Montgomery, and Patton.
Review of Andrew J. Bacevich's The New American Militarism - How Americans are Seduced by War
1. 1
Review of Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans
are Seduced by War. Oxford: OUP, 2005.
By Oleg Nekrassovski
In the “Introduction” to his book, the author claims that “American political leaders
have demonstrated their intention … to reshape the world in accordance with American values”
(p. 2). Moreover, in the author’s view, this is so because the vast majority of Americans have
long subscribed to the view that American ideals “represent universal truths, valid for all times”
(p. 2), which are destined to triumph around the world. At the same time, the author claims
that, more recently, Americans have become skeptical of non-military solutions to international
problems, and “To a degree without precedent in U.S. history … have come to define the
nation’s strength and well-being in terms of military preparedness, military action, and the
fostering of (or nostalgia for) military ideals” (p. 2).
“Already in the 1990s America’s marriage of a militaristic cast of mind with utopian ends
had established itself as the distinguishing element of contemporary U.S. policy. … The New
American Militarism examines the origins and implications of this union and proposes its
annulment” (p. 3). Thus, this book’s overall purpose is to criticize and show the dangers
inherent in this new ideology, which the author calls the new American militarism.
However, the author does not shy away from pointing out his own biases. In fact, in the
“Preface,” he states that the overall argument of his book, his selection and interpretation of
evidence, and the conclusions he draws from that evidence, rest, or at least, are influenced by,
his four presumptions or predispositions: (1) He is a veteran of the Vietnam War, of its bleak
later stages, during which many of his friends have died or been injured. Consequently, he
states that the Vietnam War is his frame of reference, within which he interprets everything
else. (2) After returning from Vietnam, he stayed on in the US Army as a professional officer.
During this time he claims that he became convinced that the preservation of freedom, rather
than “conquest, regime change, preventive war, or imperial policing,” was the only true and
honorable calling for an American soldier (p. X). (3) The author believes that the effectively two-
party system of American politics is responsible for severe social inequality in US society, the
presence of which, he believes, is related to the rise of militarism in America. Moreover, the
author states that his book attributes “great significance – perhaps too great – to the 1960s …
the locus of all the ills afflicting contemporary America. But it is also an account of someone
who understands that many … conservatives share responsibility for those afflictions, the
excessive militarization of U.S. policy not least among them” (p. XII). (4) The author believes
that “Rather than bending history to their will, presidents [especially modern presidents] and
those around them are much more likely to dance to history’s tune” (p. XII); while the problem
of American militarism is larger than a particular president or a single administration.
2. 2
The New American Militarism discusses, whenever it’s relevant to its purpose, the
history of civil-military relations in the United States in the 20th
century. It places special
emphasis on US civil-military relations since the 1960s, especially more recent decades. In the
course of its historical, though rather non-chronologically presented, narrative, the book shows
multiple functional, and especially, conflicting societal imperatives that were constantly putting
pressure on the US armed forces. It also does a fairly good job of showing how, throughout the
period of American history that it covers, US military leaders were in constant disagreement
with US civilian leaders over the proper usage of the American armed forces, and were,
whenever possible, attempting to make the American military less submissive to the whims of
American civilian leaders.
The book relies primarily on secondary sources to support its arguments. And its first
chapter uses them to critique Wilsonian interventionism and its contemporary legacy; and
blames Wilsonianism for the demise of old American tradition of the citizen-soldier, and its
replacement by professional military elite, and the subsequent erosion of civilian control over
it. This is followed, in chapter two, by an analysis of “how the cultivation of military
professionalism … assumed self-regenerating momentum”1
The third chapter carefully
evaluates neoconservatives and accuses them of laying the intellectual foundation for the new
American militarism; while analyzing that foundation and attempting to show how it evolved
from the views of dissenting leftists.2
Chapter four focus on the alleged role of Ronald Reagan
in creating the myths that nurture and sustain the American militarism of today, and how this
legacy influenced subsequent administrations. In a similar vein, chapter five explores the
alleged roles of the religious right in reinforcing militarism’s basic values, by giving religious
sanction to the militarization of US policy, and by giving an aura of moral legitimacy to the
resulting military activism.3
Chapter six deals with the institutionalization of the doctrines that
pushed the George W. Bush administration towards militarism, and lays considerable blame for
these doctrines on the development of the concept - the Revolution in Military Affairs - by the
academia and think tanks. Chapter seven focuses on several decades of America policies in the
Middle East; how these policies have been shaped and distorted by the oil trade; and how
these policies provoked radical Muslim reactions, such as terrorism.4
Finally, chapter eight
provides ten recommendations, for making the US less militaristic, which are: listening to the
nation’s founders, strengthening the separation of powers, employing armed force only as the
last resort, increasing the self-sufficiency of the US, focusing on the actual defense of the
nation, controlling defense spending, using more soft power, promoting the citizen-soldier
ideology, properly using the National Guard and reserves, and improving the civil-military
relationships within the US.5
This book raises multiple theoretical issues and topics for further discussion, in virtue of
its many, controversial conclusions. For example, the above mentioned, alleged role of Ronald
Reagan in creating the myths that nurture and sustain the American militarism of today, and
3. 3
how this legacy influenced subsequent administrations, is open to considerable further
debate.6
Even more questionable, and hence worthy of a serious further discussion, is the
book’s already mentioned claim about the religious right’s roles in reinforcing militarism’s basic
values, by giving religious sanction to the militarization of US policy, and by giving an aura of
moral legitimacy to the resulting military activism.7
Overall, I found this book to be poorly organized and full of discussions, for which the
author failed to provide clear conclusions. Nor did he make it clear to me how these discussions
relate to each other and support his central arguments. What’s worse, some of these
discussions appeared to be contradicting each other. For example, one of the author’s
recommendations, for countering American militarism (Ch. 8), is to stop using the reservists as
a supplement to, or in place of, regular troops in overseas missions; even though his other
recommendations are to revive the concept of the citizen-soldier, so as to make sure “the army
has deep roots among the people”, and to “reconcile the American military profession to
American society.” Also, earlier in this book, the author approvingly describes the policies of
Creighton Abrams, a post-Vietnam Army chief of staff, who attempted to make it more difficult
for civilian leaders to make America go to war. The author notes that Abrams did that by
making the regular army operationally dependent on the reserves, and hence forced every US
president, who wanted the US Army to engage in war, on any significant scale, to call up the
reservists to action – an economically costly and politically sensitive step (p. 39). As a result of
all these problems, I found the book’s main arguments to be unconvincing.
Notes
1. Edward A. Olsen, Review of The New American Militarism: How Americans are
seduced by War, by Andrew J. Bacevich, The Independent Review 10, no. 3 (2006),
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=569.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.