recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
Anderson, James. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.

## Summary

This
book examines the system of public and private **education for black citizens**
that emerged between 1860 and 1935, a time period when black Americans faced
economic and political oppression as they made the transition into a new social
system of capitalism, Republican government and wage labor. Anderson argues
that the **structure and ideology of black education reflected the larger**
political subordination of blacks**.** He argues that **Northern philanthropist and**
industrialists as well as Southern politicians competed to define what type of
educationwas appropriate for blacks (industrial education vs. no edu*cation). It*
was the social system that made black education so fundamentally different from
those of other Americans. Yet, within this system, black Americans persisted
and struggled to fashion a system of education that prefigured their full
emancipation. He concludes, “the education of blacks in the South reveals the
various **contending forces** that sought either to repress the development of
black education or to shape it in ways that contradicted blacks’ interest in
intellectual development.” (285)

Example: The Hampton-Tuskegee Model was the antithesis (an aberration) of the educational and social movement begun by ex-slaves. Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Booker T. Washington reframed black educational aims, from liberation to “fitting in” into the dominant system. This type of education coopted/used by Northern industrialists/philanthropists. At black teacher training institutions, Northern philanthropists implemented the Tuskegee-Hampton model, in which the country training school became the dominant form of secondary education for blacks and largely emphasized manual labor (watered down academic curriculum).

See also: David Tyack, David Adams, Michael Katz (Revisitionist)
Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton, 1976.

## Summary

This
book examines how a people developed the dedication to human liberty and
dignity and at the same time developed and maintained a system of labor that
denied human liberty and dignity. Morgan argues that the **rise of liberty and**
equality **in America was** enabled by the rise of slavery**. “The freedom of the**
free, the growth of freedom experienced in the American Revolution depended
more than we like to admit on the enslavement of more than 20 percent of us at
that time.” Planters wanted more immigrants each year (labor) but “as more and
more turned free each year, Virginia seemed to have inherited the problem that
she was helping England to solve.” Thus, the presence of a growing **class of**
poverty-stricken **Virginians was** threatening to the planters **who had made it to**
the top or who had arrived in the colony already at the top, with ample supplies
of servants and cattle. “A free society divided between large landholders and
small was much less riven by antagonisms than one divided between landholders and
landless, masterless men.” Slavery was the means to **account for labor shortages**
and **reduce antagonisms**. Morgan thus argues, “*It was slavery…more than any other single factor…made the difference,*
slavery enabled Virginia to nourish representative government in a plantation
society, slavery that transformed the Virginia of Gov. Berkeley to the Virginia
of Jefferson, slavery that made the Virginians dare to speak a political
language that magnified the rights of freemen*…” Slavery allowed aristocrats*
to preach equality more safely (threat of rebellion reduced).

See also: Kathleen Brown, *Good Wives, Nasty Wenches*
Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

## Summary

This
book argues that Americans’ **“habit of thinking”** that all men are equal in their
rights created the American Revolution. The Americans of the Revolutionary
generation created not only new forms of government, but also **new conceptions**
of politics**, one that took them out of an essentially classical and medieval**
world of political discussion into one that was recognizably modern. Wood says
that the American Revolution was a **"republican" revolution** and was
one of the great “utopian movements in American history.” By that he means that
it had intellectual roots ranging from ancient Greece and Rome to the English
Commonwealth, and that it was more communal (the public good) than
individualistic (liberty) (Republicanism). The political landscape started
from that of "classical"
republicanism that reflected the immutable ordering of society, moved to
a radical Whig reaction towards direct
democracy that took place in the 1770s and early 1780s in the form of
state constitution-building, and finally resulted in a more conservative Federalist reaction that
emphasized government-building based on functionality and tried to restrain
democratic excesses through a new separation of powers. An **intellectual**
aristocracy, social counterrevolution, thus subverted this radical republic
revolution **(the constitutional crisis as a class conflict; a conflict between**
aristocracy and democracy).

Republicanism defined: “the sacrifice of individual interests to the greater good
of the whole,” the dependence on public virtue, the principal of equality
(talent and opportunity rather than family origin) – shaped how Americans
understood the Revolution. Republicanism as the “whole character of society.”

See also: Bernard Bailyn (advisor), Gary Nash, Linda Kerber. Challenged by: Woody Holton
Vaughan, Alden T. “The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 97:3 (July 1989): 311-354.

## Summary

This
article provides a summary of the origins debates and argues that still (in the
late 1980s) no consensus on when and why slavery and racism (and their
connections) began. However, he does argue that there are
agreements on other issues concerning this topic: sharp rise of black
population in the 1680s, the shift in legal status in the 1660s and 1670s, that
25% of blacks were free on the eve of such legislation, that racial
prejudice/discrimination grew with an increased labor force, and that white
Virginians before the 1660s harbored some degree of prejudice. To the points of
disagreements - the status of most blacks before the 1660s, the depth of
discrimination against blacks, and the reasons for Virginia’s enslavement and
antipathy of blacks – Vaughan concludes: slavery was present and dominant from
the outset (with some exceptions); white Virginians saw blacks as people
markedly different (identified as such in public and private documents); the
roots of slavery was economic; and, lastly, based on literary texts in the 16th
century, he contends that English opinion during early American colonization
held that Africans were innately inferior (religious interpretation) and thus a
nascent racist ideology was in place in Virginia from the beginning. Concerning
the last point, he argues that this explains why de facto enslavement emerged
several decades before Anglo-American law, as blacks were not numerous enough
to engender racism as a response to fear over their abundance.  Anglo American racism was, in effect, a
necessary pre-condition for a system of slavery (Economic). In conclusion, he
thus contends: “white Virginians made permanent bondsmen of imported Africans
and their descendants because it was economically advantageous to the
slave-owners; because Africans were usually powerless to prevent enslavement…
and because the planters [and other whites]…. Believed that Africans were an
inherently inferior branch of humankind.”

See also: Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom
Stanley, Amy Dru. From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

## Summary

This
book explores how a generation of American thinkers and reformers –
abolitionists, former slaves, feminists, labor advocates, jurists, moralists,
and social scientists – drew on contract to condemn the evils of chattel
slavery. The arguments of each were grounded in the changing circumstances of
labor and home life on both sides of the Mason-Dixie line. She argues that at
the heart of these arguments lay the problem to define which **realms of self and**
social existence could be rendered market commodities **and which could not. She**
argues that the problem of distinguishing between the two reflected the
ideological and social changes wrought by the concurrence of abolition in the
South and the burgeoning of industrial capitalism in the North.  They drew on contract to describe the changes
in their world and to distinguish between the commodity relations of freedom
and bondage. Stanley places marriage and home life alongside labor, revealing the
ambiguities and contractions of contract/wage-labor, from a woman’s right to
own herself to beggars outside of contracts. Contract ideology provided a
worldview and common language for a range of social and political debates after
Emancipation, and its tensions were highlighted as people tried to figure out where
marriage, beggars, prostitutes, and ex-slaves fit within this framework. The
antislavery idea of contract distinguished between freedom and bondage, but efforts
by postbellum Americans to draw boundaries between the sale of labor and the
sale of sex in the free marketplace reveals how the moral legitimacy of
commodity relations rested on establishing such boundaries. “Though shaped by
liberal contract theory that idealized propertied individualism and voluntary
exchange, abolitionism altered that theory by making home life, together with
labor, central to the conflict over slavery and freedom.”

Example: Prostitution; The
abolitionist argument was a juxtaposition of slavery and domesticity; slavery
disrupted natural sex relations. “Dishonored, stripped bare, the bondswoman
literally embodied the denial of property in the self, which for abolitionists
counted as the ultimate wrong.” Marriage and wives thus became central to the
slavery debate; this opened up (later chapters) to question the right of women
to own themselves.

See also: Jeanne Boydston, David Roedegger, Stuart Blumin, Thomas Bender, Scott Sandage,
Science and Philosophy

## Question:

How did the changing nature of knowledge in the mid-to-late nineteenth century affect educaitonal practices, both in higher education and in public schooling?

Jewett and Shapiro both emphasize the "civic" nature of science in the early 20th century.

Does science inevtiably lead to specialization os is that a product of social and cultural forces?

The nature of knowledge and its evolution is central to understanding the development of education. In particular to the historiography of higher education, the changing nature of knowledge is fundamental to understanding the rise of the modern university.
Frederick Rudolph also notes the impact of Darwin on the structure of the university and echoes what Reuben would later argue*.* Darwinism was more about the conflict between piety and intellect, whether the university's authority will rest on received truth or scientific evidence. Scientific truth led to a movement that fragmented the curriculum, led to further specialization, and proliferated new deartments academic and journals.

Julie Reuben argues that to understand the making of the modern university, one must grapple with how the nature of knowledge changed in the late 19th century. The Baconian picture of the scientist as a devoted gatherer and classifier of facts - science as a mirror of nature - reinforced natural and moral philosophy and 'the unity of knowledge.' Darwinistic science, which relied on imagined linkages (theories) and deductive reasoning, eroded faith in simple empiricism, ... and subsequently the "unity of knowledge."

Reuben, however, largely treats the development of science in a vacuum, separate from the political and social forces.

While Reuben sees morale education being marginalized as a result of the over-specializaiton of knowledge, Andrew Jewett turns to the larger social and political developments from 1930 to 1950 as a reasons for the development of value-neutral scientific inquiry, in which moral and ethical questions were pushed aside.
White, Ashli. Encountering Revolution: Haiti and the Making of the Early Republic. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2012.

## Summary

This
book explores the far-reaching impact of the **Haitian Revolution** on the early
United States through American response to **Saint-Dominguan refugees**. These
refugees forced Americans – black and white, northern and southern, Federalist
and Democratic Republic, pro and antislavery - to **confront the paradox of being**
a slaveholding republic**. She contends that “in the 1790s and early 1800s, no**
event more clearly laid bare the contradiction between republican principles
and slavery than the Haitian Revolution.” (2) Moreover, these exiles raised
questions about being a republic – national character, migration policies,
philanthropy, political practice, and territorial expansion. In this regard,
the Haitian Revolution provoked some of the first articulations of U.S.
nationalism, as white Americans **evoked the idea of U.S.’s version of**
republicanism as exceptional**. White presents a new**
framework to understand the Atlantic World, early revolution and republicanism,
and the early republic. She presents a framework that bridges the “chain” and
“web.” While the American Revolution generated ties, it was more than just the
“chain” metaphor of exporting revolutionary ideas. As a result of the American
revolution, the British west indies became legally off limits and as a result
Saint Domingue filled the void, so much so that by the 1790s it ranked second
in volume and value of trade with the United States (web of the Atlantic
World). “The every growing traffic,” she argues, “**fostered social,**
intellectual, and cultural connections between the two regions’ residents,” and
the migration pattern in particular influenced not only Saint Domungues, but
also Americans **and raised questions about American racism, asylum, and**
democracy.

Example: The presence
of the Saint Dominguan refugee community tested the myth of the United States
as a philanthropic society committed to altruistic action on behalf of the
disenfranchised (widespread notion that Americans used to separate from their
British counterparts). While abolitionists supported enslaved refugees,
pro-slavery philanthropists were sympathetic to the slaver owners, who they saw
as being impacted by their displacement from social dominance.  In other words, race was the measure of
American philanthropy. White Saint Dominguans also argued that part of the
blame for the slave rebellion was philanthropy, as it promoted the abolition of
slavery.

See also: Douglas Egerton, David Armitage, Woody Holton
Martin, Klimke. The Other Alliance: Student Protest in West Germany and the United States in the Global Sixties. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

## Summary

Despite
extensive scholarly research that has examined the global significance of the
1960s, Martin Klimke argues that “the exact processes through which activists
from numerous countries established contact, shared ideas, and adopted each
other’s social and cultural practices are still largely unexplored.” (2) Thus
book thus traces the perceptions, shared traditions and exchanges between
student movements in the United States and West Germany. These activists
attempted to construct a “collective identity that could lead to solidarity and
cooperation, as well as more global consciousness.” (3) Transnational exchanges
were made possible by the post-war economic boom and the growth of technology
and communication that influenced global opinion. Klimke writes: “In short,
technological innovation and an internationalized media landscape created a
qualitatively new level of sociocultural networking across national borders
well before 1968.”  (3) Along with
intellectual thinkers such as C. Wright Mills and the various tactics of the
civil rights movement (and their inspiration), what linked student movements
across national borders was opposition against the war in Vietnam. Thus, Klimke
contends, “the transnational interaction among activists in the 1960s… drew its
strength from a collective protest identity that consisted of shared cultural
and political reference points and was strengthened by a global medial
discourse.” (6) However, a collective-activists identity never materialized:
“The protest movements turned out to be too heterogeneous and shaped too much
by national conditions for activists to reach any consensus on issues such as
militancy” or solidarity with the Third World. The global significance of the
movement did concern policy makers in both countries; in particular to West
German, U.S. policy makers were concerned with the effect these protests had on
the stability of the Federal Republic. Also, by the mid-1960s, US policy makers
used the Inter-Agency Youth Committee (IAYC) to devise appropriate government
responses to protect American interests.
U.S. in the World: Empire Making, Capitalism, and the Politics of Identity and Citizenship

American nationalism borne out at the juncture between empire making and immigration. At its core are constructed (and changing) ideas of race.
Empire
Making (building on long history: trans-Appalachian migration; the Louisiana
Purchase, Indian Removal, Manifest Destiny, the Mexican War, and he annexations
of Texas, California, and the southwestern territories), Philippines, Cuba,
Guam, Hawaii (Spanish-American War)

Nationalism as a natural product of imperialism? Or... Imperialism is a natural product of nationalism? Each reinforces the other. As Jacobson's work shows, the ideas of "American-ness" developed at the juncture of migration, racism, and empire building.
Brands, Hal. Latin America's Cold War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012.

## Summary

Brands’
book reconstructs the history of Latin America’s Cold War through a
**multinational and multilayered** **lens** (including the highest echelons of superpower
diplomacy to the everyday negotiation of social and political relationships)
Her argues that the global, the regional and the local interacted
in shaping Latin America’s Cold War. The upheaval that afflicted
Latin American during the postwar period was the **result of foreign**
intervention, internal instability, and ideological extremism on both Left and
Right**. The Cold War in Latin America was not a single conflict but a series of**
overlapping conflicts and their interaction is what made the period so
tumultuous. The four key themes (overlapping conflicts) that defined this time
period were: the **clashes over domestic arrangements and internal power**
s**tructures; the tension regarding the boundaries of U.S. power in the region; the**
emergence of the “Third World”; **and** the zero-sum game between the U.S. and the
Soviet Union. **During the 1960s, concepts such as National security Doctrine led**
to military regimes; liberation theology and urban unrest informed the growth
of popular protest, and the emergence of dependency theory heightened
North-South conflict in diplomacy. These tensions drove the diplomatic
upheavals of the 1970s and the dueling Left and Right extremisms. The radical
change that did come to South America was not the result of revolutionary
Leftist triumph, but an outcome of military coups and counterrevolutionary
‘dirty wars.’ The 1970s also saw the pronounced feeling of empowerment on the part
of Latin American countries because of the rise of the Détente and resulting
power vacuums created by the U.S. as a result of retrenchment (break down of
Bretton Woods and the oil shocks of 1973-4).  During the
1970s and 1980s, the region saw furthe revoluion as well as profound social-structural changes, with
the decline of certain military regimes and the adoption of neo-liberal
reforms. Yet, despite this perceived victories on the part of the U.S., Brands
concludes that the “limits of Latin American democracy and the uneven effects
of neoliberal reforms ensured that sociopolitical conflict remained ubiquitous,
while radical populism, drug shipments, and illegal immigration emerged as new
bogeys in inter-American affairs.” (7)

Example: By the end of the 1970s the successful Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua reignited larger leftist ambitions in the region. It also brought about further violence throughout much of Central America and further intervention from the U.S., Cuba, and the Soviet Union that created an endless cycle of violence within the region.

See also: Christine Klein, *Cold War Orientalism*; and Andrew Rotter, *Comrades at Odds*
Kelley, Robin G. Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

## Summary

Robin
D.G Kelley’s *Hammer and Hoe* examines
communist radicals in Alabama in the first part of the 20th century.
These “unlikely radicals” built a communist party by themselves and were composed
mostly of poor semiliterate, and religious blacks, and a small cadre of white
folks – ranging from ex-Klansmen to former Wobblies.  To get at their experiences, this book
examines the communist political opposition through the lenses of social and
cultural history. Kelley pays particular attention to “the worlds from which
these radicals came, the worlds in which thy lived, and the imaginary worlds
they sought to build” in order to understand how class, race, gender work,
community, region, history, upbringing, and collective memory shaped the
worldviews of these radicals.  Their
ideas shaped the communist parties local practices in Alabama and contrary to
the communist debates (Draper, 1980s), Alabama communists developed strategies
and tactics that had nothing to do with the international crises or the
“orders” of the Soviet Union (xiv). This study not only highlights black
radicals in the South, largely ignored, but also suggests “that racial
divisions were far more fluid and Southern working class consciousness far more
complex.” (xiii) It is a story about the rise and fall (invisible to visible to
invisible) of the communist part in Alabama.
Cold War and "Development"

Two decades after the end of World War II, Soviet-American tensions came to define international politics. Each country devoted economic and political energies into military development, resulting in what many call the "arms race." The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 caused grave concern in the United States and around the world that a nuclear war was inevitable. Tensions, however, began to ease with the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and by the end of the decade a general "thawing out" of relations began to take shape. This general "thawing out" has been termed by various scholars as the emergence of the detente.

However, recent scholarship by Jeremi Suri, in particular his 2003 book *Power and Protest*, challenges this narrative. Suri argues that the detente was rooted in concerns over domestic unrest, rather than the political stalemate of the arms race. His global history looks at the rise of social and political unrest in China, France, Czech Republic, and the United States, which emerged on the promises by such charismatic leaders as De Gaulle in France, Kennedy in the U.S., and Khruschev in the Soviet Union. Each leader made grand promises, from the New Frontier to real communism, that inspired their contituents to challenge the Cold War binary. The 1968 protests that gripped the world was the product, he argues, of unkept promises. The widespread unrest that their promises unleashed had a direct effect on each country's foreign policy.

Jeremi Suri's book opens up new ways to examining the peak Cold War period, beyond the political leaders and governments.

Klimke, Plummer (?)

Relationship to the world: Klein, Brands, Rotter

Another recent trend in historical scholarship is to examine "development" as a historical artifact, one that shaped relations between the United States and the world

Immerwahr, Elkbadh,
Gaines, Kevin. American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates in the Civil Rights Era. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

## Summary

Intertwining biography of such figures as George and
Dorthy Padmore, W.E.B. and Shirley Graham-DuBois, Efua Sutherland, Maya
Angelou, Pauli Murray St. Clair Drake and Julian Mayfield with the larger
context of the time period, Gaines’
*American Africans* examines how the
national independence of Ghana and other African nations informed African
American’s struggles for equal citizenship and sparked political contest in
both the United States and Africa over the image of the American nation and the
formation of modern black and African subjects. “The simultaneous upheavals
touched off by decolonization in Africa and civil rights demonstrations in the
U.S. South,” Gaines writes, “shaped the political outlook of black
intellectuals and activists in northern cities.” (5) Ghana thus became a haven
for African American intellectuals and activists “working at the intersection
of anticolonial, civil rights, leftist, and pacifist movements.” The story of
these expatriates in Ghana illuminates the “challenges and contradictions posed
by Cold War liberalism and American hegemony during the 1960s.” (11) America’s
declared support of desegregation and decolonization masked the repression of
black radicals. The account of these African American expatriates, Gaines
contends, resituates the U.S. Civil rights movement within a key development of
the 20th century: “the challenge to the bipolar vision of postwar
global order posed by the emergence of new African and Asian states.” (12)
(\*Challenge/debate to the notion that they – expatriates – were Americans
first) It also reveals that the articulation of American liberal ideology was
far from being race-neutral and, Gaines further argues, was an ideology
“formulated in direct response to an oppositional black politics skeptical of
integration and animated by anticolonialism.” All of this expatriates – in
varying degrees – attempted to use Ghana (symbolically) to articulate a
different vision/identity of African Americans, in particular a black
internationalism/pan-Africanism; yet, the political context of the Cold War and
the limitations of Nkrumah’s government in Ghana (and its own repressive
policies) limited the possibilities of this vision.
Harris, Leslie. In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626 – 1863. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.

## Summary:

“Central
to the story of slavery and freedom in New York City is the development of
class relations and community among blacks.” (3) She thus argues that by using
New York City as a case study, she demonstrates “the ways northern slavery and
emancipation, southern slavery, and racial identities influenced the
construction of class and community for blacks and whites in the pre-Civil War
United States.” (4) The experiences with slavery and emancipation in early
colonial New York and how those experiences were interpreted shaped labor
relations and attitudes of black and whites to black labor. “The existence of
slavery in New York,” she writes, “had an indelible effect on the political and
economic institutions of the city.” Slaves came to symbolize, by the
revolutionary war, the subordinate position whites felt as workers and citizens
of the British Empire. “By the end of the period of emancipation in 1827,
whites had legally, economically, and social designated black people as a
separate, dependent and unequal group within the New York City community.” (5) She
also argues that the formation of class distinctions with the black community
was the result of different responses to racism. Looking at four distinct
periods, *In the Shadow of Slavery* “focuses
on the ways in which increasingly during the antebellum period class
distinctions among blacks affected arguments about black community,
particularly as expressed through political activism against racism and
slavery.” (9)

Example: In
response to the economic downturn after the War of 1812, many whites (working
class and elites) saw black labor as a competition and limited their political
rights (also linked blacks with poor public behavior, etc). Also, ideology of Manumission Society shaping black politics after 1812.

See also: WEB Dubois, Eugene Genovese, Barbara Jeanne Fields, Walter Johnson, David Roedegger,
McGerr, Michael. A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870 – 1920. New York: Oxford, 2003.

## Summary

Falling within the unitary tradition, McGerr’s analysis
attempts to “shift the conventional narrative” to include the progressives’
extrapolitical efforts to transform and reshape America and Americans along the
lines of the Middle Class image.[1]
“Progressivism,” McGerr contends, emerged out of the Victorian Middle-Class,
who found themselves stuck between the antagonisms of the working class and
what he calls the “upper ten.” The strikes and the conflicts between the rich
and the poor had left Middle-Class Victorians in “no-man’s land.” Combined with
domestic changes in the Victorian home, such as the elimination of the double
standard, easing women’s domestic burdens, and increasing their public
opportunities, this unique position “freed and even compelled Victorians to
turn outward to engage other Americans over issues of personal behavior,” and
formulate a political and social agenda forkl lAmerican society.[2]
The Middle-class advocated a philosophy that emphasized association and social
solidarity and replaced individualism with state power. It became, McGerr
argues, an ideology of the “Radical center,” or more appropriately, a
progressive ideology. “By the end of the 1890s,” McGerr argues, “the middle
class had not only rejected its longstanding individualism; it had also adopted
a new “creed, the will to use association and the state to end class conflicts
and the other problems of industrial capitalism.”[3] This “remarkable reworking
of middle-class ideology” fomented a “bold determination to take on some of the
most basic and intractable issues of human existence.”[4] McGerr examines what he sees
to be the four quintessential progressive battles: to change other people, to
end class conflict, to control big business, and to segregate society.[5]
It is the boldness of the progressive reforms, McGerr ultimately claims, that
not only led to the demise of the Progressive Movement but also set
“boundaries” around American political and social ambitions throughout the 20th
century. “We have been scaling back our expectations,” McGerr writes, “ever
since that age of bold reform.”[6]

[1] Michael McGerr, *A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of*
the Progressive Movement in America*. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003),*
XV.

[2] McGerr, *A Fierce Discontent*, 53.

[3] Ibid, 68.

[4] Ibid, 215.

[5] Ibid, xv.

[6] Ibid, xvi.
Loss, Christopher P. Between Citizens and the State: The Politics of American Higher Education in the 20th Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.

## Summary

During
the twentieth century, American higher education was transformed by the
partnership between political leaders and university officials who abandoned
their laissez-faire relations and “forged a powerful partnership that
transformed the country’s plural system of colleges and universities into a
repository of expertise, a locus for administrative coordination in the federal
government, and a mediator of democratic citizenship.” (1) Political leaders
and university officials built a partnership to fight economic depression and
poverty, wage world wars hot and cold and secure the rights of previously
marginalized Americans. At its peak in the 1960s, this relationship however
reconstituted itself into a different form. Through these social and political
forces, Loss argues, American higher education emerged as a “parastate,” an
intermediary institution that was situated between citizens and the state and
was committed to serve both; it became an institution used to mediate the
relations between citizens and their government. It became a key institution of
the America’s Political Development (APD). Higher education served as a key
site where citizens learned about their government and the government, as a
chief sponsor of higher education, learned about its citizens. This book
examines the three key policy decisions (GI Bill, National Defense and
Education Act, and the Higher Ed. Act); how students, faculty and
administrators responded to changes and influenced the university; and finally
how psychological knowledge changed the organizational structure of
universities and colleges.
Gordon, Linda; Cobble, Dorothy Sue; Henry, Astrid. Feminism Unfinished: A Short, Surprising History of American Women’s Movements. Liveright, 2014.

## Summary

*eminism Unfinished* details the first history of the
Americans women’s movement over the approximately one hundred years since the
women suffrage amendment passed in 1920 (*long Woman's movement)*. In detailing this history, the book
also challenges many popular understandings of the women’s movement; in
particular, the popular history that the women’s rights movement came to a halt
in 1920 and was not re-awakened until the 1970s to only evaporate again in the
1980s. This book presents a history of feminism that is continuous, contingent,
and contentious. The book thus “decenters” the movement of the 1960s and 1970s,
which is “often taken to be the main expression of twentieth century feminism.”
The authors argue that there “was no period in the last century when women were
not campaigning for greater equality and freedom.” (xiv) They also argue that
feminism was constantly changing, as all social movements do (contingency –
middle class lawyers in the 1920s had different demands and experiences than
women feeding their families on food stamps in the 1970s). Given this, there
has never been a single, unified feminist agenda; there have been multiple
feminisms. Yet, a “bottom line” did exist for feminist, in which all sough
educational opportunity, economic opportunity, equal rights to political
participation, an end to violence against women, an end to the sexual double
standard, respect for women’s work and jobs that allowed them to still fulfill
familial responsibilities. This book also shows that feminists and the women
who participated varied across political, religious, and class lines as well as
ideological; just as some tended toward eradicating gender different, others
celebrated women’s differences from men. They also argue it’s important to
recognize (like the CRM) that the movement has not always been steadily
“upward,” especially if one considers the loss or limitation of reproduction
rights gained during the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, as a whole, feminism “has taken
many forms, always responding to changing historical circumstances, and will be
reinvented by future generations.” (xxi)
Freddy Fazbear

Płeć
 Pierwsze pojawienie się w Five Nights At Freddy's
 Lokalizacja
 Kolor
 Kolor oczu
 Zajęcie

Freddy to epik misiu z pizzerii Freddy Fazbear's Pizza. Ucieszył się że zabierają go do Fazbear's Fright bo nie chciał mieć obciachu śpiewając na scenie.

## Wygląd

Freddy to brązowy misiu, który nosi kapelusz i muszkę, a w ręce trzyma mikrofon. Na jego twarzy jest rozmazany przez odcisk dłoni, prawdopodobnie po walce z Pudzianem.

## Zachowanie

Przez pierwsze dwie noce Freddy jest nieaktywny, po prostu opierdziela się na scenie. Może jednak pojawić się przed nocą 3 jeśli energia jest wyczerpana.

W nocy 3, Freddy kiedy się porusza naśmiewa się z nas co jest wk\*rwiające. Pojawia się on w prawym korytarzu.

## Ciekawostki

* Fredziak jest dżentelmenem. Zanim zejdzie ze sceny, daje pierwszeństwo Bonniemu i Chice.
* Freddy ma największą rodzinkę wśród wszystkich animatroników.
* Kiedy Freddy jest w kuchni słychać jego dżingiel. Prawdopodobnie nuci go z satysfakcji z picia piwka.
* Nawet jeśli Freddy jest ustawiony na 20, można wycwaniakować i ustawić Bonniego i Chicę na 0. Dzięki temu, Freddy straci połowę aktywności.
* Wchodzi do babskiego kibla. Prawdopodobnie dlatego że męskie miejsce przemyśleń jest dalej od wyjścia.
* Jest w h#j leniwy.
Veysey, Lawrence. Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

## Summary

Laurence
Veysey’s landmark 1965 examines the emergence of the modern research university
in the United States at the turn of the 20th century. The book is
divided into two parts. The first looks at the principal academic philosophies
– *utility, research, and culture* – and how each vied for dominance in higher
learning during the decades after 1865. The second part examines the academic structures
that came to shape the university and the effect it had on professional
temperaments. In the late 19th century, the American college came
under the microscope for its role in society, the influence of wealthy donors (Cornells,
Hopkinses, and Rockefellers) and state funding (Wisconsin and Michigan), and the
rapid expansion of science*. The expansion of science challenged the old*
curriculum. Veysey writes: “No longer could the old curriculum even pretend to
account for all major areas of fact, nor could it adequately explore the ‘laws’
which men of that time believed could almost effortlessly be derived from
fact.” (11) What resulted was three specific conceptions of the university,
between 1865 and 1900: “These centered, respectively, in the aim of *practical*
public service*, in the goal of* abstract research *on what was believed to be the*
pure German model, and finally in the attempt to *diffuse standards of*
cultivated taste*.” (12) By the early 20th century, the university*
sat at two extremes: the administration and trustees who spoke of the social
and economic purposes of the university (outward image/public relations) and
the faculty who could (relatively) propose controversial ideas and questions
(tension). The three principal academic philosophies were thus accommodated
into the university, un-reconciled.

See also: Julie Reuben, *The Making of the Modern University;* John Thelin, *A History of American Higher Education;*
Tyack, David and Cuban, Larry. Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

## Summary

This
book examines the tension “between Americans’ intense faith in education –
almost a secular religion – and the gradualness of changes in educational
practices” in the history of American public education policy (1) From Horace
Mann’s concerns with moral dissolution to the report “A Nation at Risk,”
Americans have translated their cultural anxieties into dramatic demands for
educational reform. The authors argue that reformers have sought “utopia”
through large-scale, top down reform, without much regard for the “grammar” of
schooling – institutional structures, teachers, and disciple. Utopian thinking,
these authors argue, is rooted in the revolution: schooling would be used to
construct the citizens of the new country. With immigration, many groups have
“contested with one another to define and create model citizens through school,
and this political debate has shaped the course of public education.” (2)
(Zimmerman) Throughout the 20th century, education elites saw
themselves as social engineers, designing systems of education that, for
example, President Johnson believed would be the “answer to all our national problems.”
This strand of utopian thinking has had both positive and negative effects: it
has persuaded citizens to create a comprehensive school system, but has also
diverted attention from more costly and politically controversial reforms (as
well as get caught up in lofty reform goals). It’s easier to offer
vocational-ed., than discuss inequities in employment and gross disparities in
wealth and income. Despite utopian thinking, most reform efforts have been gradual
– a “tinkering” of the system. Thus, this tension – between utopian thinking
and gradualism – have defined reform efforts and the politics concerning them.
Cremin, Lawrence Arthur. The American Common School: An Historic Conception. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.

## Summary

Although
some of its roots stem from the early colonial settlements, Cremin argues that
the conceptual, legal, and practical beginning of the common schools is rooted
in the first half of the 19th century. Contrary to prevailing
scholarship at the time that treated schools as independent and autonomous
processes, this book places the **origins of the American Common School** in the
context of **conflicting political and economic groups, the dynamism of town and**
industrialism, the influence of cultural and religious diversity, growing
nationalism, and demands of a democratic conception of schools **(republicanism).**
Amidst these contending forces, Cremin argues that proponents of the common
school sought to create a common educational experience that nurtured citizenship
and respect plurality; it embedded, to *use*
David Tyack’s words, a “utopian” vision of the school that put forththe
idea that only a common educational experience could combat and cope with the
tasks of a democracy.

Example:Moral (Republican and religious values), Tradition (Nativism), and Skills/Basic Academics (Labor) were part of all the education reformers proposals/ideas for common schools. Such proposals drawn from the movements of the 19th century: democratizing of politics (Jackson era), struggle to maintain equality and labor (market revolution), and nationalism (influx of immigrants).

See also: Bernard Bailyn, David Tyack,
Bald, Vivek. Bengali Harlem and the Lost Histories of South Asian America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015.

## Summary

Vivek’s
book, *Bengali Harlem* looks at the lost history and hidden
population of **Indian laborers** who by the mid-1940s had become part of the
fabric of U.S. society, “living, working, and bringing up families **in the**
shadows of its restrictive anti-Asian immigration laws**.” (5) These migrants**
hailed from modern day Bangladesh and Pakistan and were predominantly Muslim.
Denied official belonging, these South Asian migrants became part of **“another**
nation” in working class neighborhoods of color from New York to Baltimore to
Detroit**. As they maintained ties to one another, they also developed Puerto**
Rican, African American, and West Indian extended families and friends. They
were among the “many populations of peasants and workers whose traditional
means of livelihood had been disrupted by **colonization, industrialization, and**
the mechanization of agriculture**,” and came to the United States to access jobs**
and markets. (9) Unlike other immigrant communities
(Germany, Greek, Italian), these immigrants did not form ethnic enclaves, but
formed networks embedded in working class Creole, African American and Puerto
Rican neighborhoods. As a result, they **built complex identities and**
multi-ethnic families **that varied depending on context. “They were ‘white’ when**
they attempted to claim citizenship, ‘Hindoo’ when selling exotic goods,
‘black’ or ‘Porto Rican’ when disappearing into U.S. cities or actively
attempting to evade the immigration authorities.”(221) Moreover, the South
Asian migrant experience shows (contrary to the assumption that Asians were
“shut off” from the U.S. from the 1920s until 1965) that there had been an unbroken
stream of migration, much of it working class and Muslim that started well
before the passage of the Asiatic Barred Zone Act and continued through the
exclusion era.

Example:Amir Haider Khan, who worked in different ships and factories, port cities and industrial towns, forged alliances across different ethnic, gender, and racial lines and “expanded his conceptions of justice and injustice, broadened his racial consciousness, and sharpened his convictions as a political actor.” (140) His memoir reveals how his experiences transformed him from “’an ignorant and impoverished’ teenage coal passer to a committed young internationalist and anti-imperialist.” (141)

See also: Thomas Guglielmo, Lara Putnam, Matthew Jacobson
Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

## Summary

Examining
the various pamphlets that were published in the lead up to the Revolutionary
War, Bailyn’s book looks at the ideological origins of the revolution. He
argues that these pamphlets confirm the view that “the American Revolution was
above all else an **ideological, constitutional, political struggle** and not
primarily a controversy between social groups undertaken to force changes in
the organization of the society or the economy.” (vi) Further, he contends, the
intellectual developments in the decade before the Revolution re-interpreted
the previous century and a half of American Experience and “it was this
intimate relationship between revolutionary thought and the circumstances of
life in 18th century America that endowed the Revolution with its
peculiar force” and made it such a transformative event. He points to various
strands of intellectual legacies (classical antiquity, Enlightenment
rationalism, English common law, New England Puritans), but for him the **most**
important was a strain of anti-authoritarian, Whig opposition political thought
that originally stemmed from the period of the English Civil War and resulting
Commonwealth in the 1640s-1650s. Colonists interpreted British actions through this
lens and saw them as a conspiracy against liberty. This was the heart of the
Revolutionary movement. Colonists then faced the challenge of transforming this
legacy to fit their circumstances. First, through representation and taxation,
colonists challenged the idea of **virtual representation**, one that
Bailyn says originated from their long-standing experience of decentralized local
autonomy. Second, they had to reconfigure an older idea of the constitution,
moving away from an abstract system of how a society was ordered to one that
specifically placed limits and boundaries on different spheres of government.
Finally, they had to make the most radical departure with the idea of
sovereignty. This posed the greatest challenge for colonists, as they had to
overturn a longstanding orthodoxy about the absolute and final authority of
Parliament and move towards the idea of imperium in imperio, or having separate
spheres - for example, the growing idea of "internal" vs.
"external" taxation. These ideas thus **spilled over in the areas of**
slavery, religion, democracy, and equality.

Example: Commonwealth and
Radical Whig Opposition writings such as those of John Trenchard and Thomas
Gordon (oppositional/libertarian ideas from English Civil War). He argues that
these thinkers provided a framework in which “Enlightenment abstractions and
common law precedents … could all be brought together into a comprehensive
theory of politics.” (54)

See also: Gordon Wood, Daniel T. Rodgers, David Armitage