recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
Tzu-Chun Wu, Judy. Radicals on the Road: Internationalism, Orientalism, and Feminism during the Vietnam Era. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013.

## Summary

Judy
Tzu-Chun’s book, *Radicals on the Road,* is
a story about significant yet “underrecognized historical figures” who made
international journeys during the Vietnam War. These figures of varying ages,
races, sexual identities, class backgrounds and religious faiths all believed
that the US war in Vietnam was immoral and unjustified and identified
themselves as “internationalists.” The political views of these individuals,
Tzu-Chun posits, were inspired by the physical journeys and “the face-to-face
contacts that they established with people outside of the United States” and
the underground press syndicate that charted their travels and experiences.
(3-4). They formed an “internationalist consciousness” that both “challenged
and reinscribed Western perceptions of Asia.”
Tzu-Chu thus conceives these experiences as a form of “radical orientalism,”
in which “American activists romanticized and identified with revolutionary
Asian nations and political figures.” (4) These individuals “followed an
orientalist tradition of perceiving a dichotomy between the East and the West,
specifically between decolonizing Asia and imperial America.” (5)
Simultaneously, Asian individuals worked with US activists to foster a “radical
orientalist sensibility.” “By serving as a source for alternative values,”
Tzu-Chun writes, “revolutionary Asia assisted American activists in imagining
new political possibilities.” (6) Taken collectively, this exploration of
internationalism, orientalism, and feminism contributes to a better
understanding of the long 1960s activism: travel re-frames the anti-war
movement in an international context (Suri) and how Vietnamese engaged with
non-state actors from the U.S.; how individuals of diverse backgrounds
developed political partnerships and built a multiracial anti-war movement (it
was not just a white movement); and finally how gender shapes the conduct of
work and engagement in political activism. At the core, Tzu-Chun acknowledges,
is a tension between orientalism and internationalism (binary vs.
cosmopolitanism); however, she argues that these tension allowed “American activists
to develop a sense of social responsibility and mutuality with those from the
east.”
Kliebard, Herbet. Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958. London: Routledge, 2004.

## Summary

This
book examines various political and intellectual movements that influenced the
shape of the American curriculum. Due to the varied interest groups, there was
not one reform movement but several over the course of the 20th
century. He argues the reform groups can be broken down into four groups:
defenders of the humanist tradition (Herbartians/humanists); promoters of
child-centered curriculum (developmentalists); the application of industry
model; and the school as a model of democracy**. Kliebard concludes that each**
group has its victories but there was no unconditional surrender or
overwhelming triumph; “it is this ambiguous outcome of the struggle that
accounts for much of the diversity in interpretation that has surrounded the
course of American education in the 20th century” and has led to a
largely “unarticulated, and not very tidy compromise.”  Each left their mark: social efficiency
educator reinforced the belief that education ought to be tied to rewards;
deveopmentalists drew attention to the nature of the child; and social
meliorists reinforced the issue of school in relation to social progress (civil
rights struggle); and the school subject remained as the basic unit
(humanists/traditionalists). He concludes that the **National Defense Education**
Act **(passed in response to Sputnik) transformed this half-century long**
curriculum debates.

Example: 19th century societal change: immigration, railroad connections (“one country”), proliferation of the published word, and economic crises led to an increased attention to what students were taught in public schools. Up to the 1890s, the school curriculum was largely based of the theory of the “discipline of the mind” (cites the Yale Report), but was challenged both due to these larger societal changes as well as the increased enrollments in secondary (high) schools. Led to new ideas: Charles Eliot (elective, traditional, science), G. Stanley Hall (child-centered), William T. Harris (traditional), Francis Park and John Dewey (progressive-traditional), Joseph Mayer-Rice (Scientific and efficient management).

See also: John Rudolph, Adam Shapiro
Social Movements

Synthesis:
Thinking about these books collectively, one could firstly, make a
historiographical claim that transnational scholarship has captured the global
nature of unrest and dissent during the 1960s (each book building upon the
other), while also tapping into key moments and ideas that each highlight
(Mills and Tet)

Synthesis: A key
element to keep in mind is ideology – how it fits, how coalitions were built,
and how they changed over time.

What is the thematic argument? Twentieth century U.S. history is defined by the various political and social movements that re-shaped policy, challenged racial and gender norms, and transformed American society.

Progessive - Michael McGirr

Communitst Roots - Cohen (1930s student movement)--Isserman (continuity of Left)-Sure Cobble and Linda Gordon (feminism unfinished)- Lizabeth Cohen (New Deal and unionization)

Kelley (Alabama Communists)-Gilmore (long, communist roots)-Morris (movement houses)-Payne (grassroots/organizing tradition)-Sugrue (northern struggle)-Plummer (global/era of decolinization)- Murch (migratory experience and black radicalism)

The civil rights movement propelled later social movements.

Miller (origins of SDS)-Rorabaugh (Berkeley and powerpolitics)-Anderson (the movement)-Evans (Personal Politics)-Sellers (Suburban-environmental movement)

Klimke (trasnantional links between U.S.-Germany student groups)-Tzu-Chun (internationalist/radical orientalists)-

Yet, also reactionary movements: Lisa McGerr (
Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995

## Summary

This
book examines Republican ideology before the Civil War. At the center of the
Republican ideology was the notion of “free labor.” The Republican Party
believed that free labor was economically and socially superior to slave labor
and that the distinctive quality of Northern society was the opportunity it
offered wage earners to rise to property-owning independence. Republicans drew
on Adam Smith, who insisted that slavery was far more costly and inefficient
means of obtaining labor then the payment of wages. It prevented the laborer’s
self interest from being harnessed for the public good. By he 1850s, the
Republican party would hammer home Smith’s anti-slavery message: **freedom meant**
prosperity and slavery retarded economic growth. **Thus, this concept involved**
not merely an attitude toward work, but a justification of antebellum northern
society, which appeared both different and superior to the South.  From this creed flowed Republicans’
determination to arrest the expansion of slavery and place the institution on
what Lincoln called the road to “ultimate extinction.” Republicans believed in
a conspiratorial “Slave Power” which had seized control of the federal
government and was attempting to pervert the Constitution for its own purpose (Salmon P. Chase). Foner
argues that in the two decades prior to the Civil War, the North and the South
developed irreconcilable ideologies of their respective ways of life. He writes,
“As southerners were coming more and more consciously to insist on slavery as
the very basis of civilized life, and to reject the materialism and lack of
cohesion in northern society, northerners came to view slavery as the
antithesis of the good society as well as a threat to their own fundamental
values and interests.” (9) The existing political system, Foner ultimately
contends, could not accommodate both ideologies, leading to the disintegration
of national Parties – Whigs, Know-nothings, and the Democrats – and to the
secession of the South.

See also: Walter Johnson, James Oakes, Chandra Manning, Thomas Bender; Also (market revolution): Charles Sellers, Christopher Clark
Shapiro, Adam. Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

## Summary

Shapiro
places the Scopes trial at a crucial moment in the history of biology textbook
publishing, education reform in Tennessee, and progressive school reform across
the country. He places the trial in this broad context—alongside American
Protestant antievolution sentiment— to shed new light on the trial and the
historical relationship of science and religion in America. He argues that the
trial must be seen through this lens to challenge what Shapiro sees as a
“self-justification” cycle between science and religion. “Science-religion
conflict explains why there was a Scopes trial, and the Scopes trial proves the
reality of science-religion conflict.” It also challenges the myth of
inevitability, of a conflict between science and religion (evolution and
Christianity). It was a particularly conjecture of circumstances that led to
the trail: The nature of the textbook industry, biology curricula and education
reform, and, especially in the case of Tennessee, the postponement of adopting
new textbooks in 1925 (Tennessee) left *A*
Civic Biology *textbook in the hands of 9th and 10th*
graders.
White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650 – 1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

## Summary

The
book tells a story about “how, over… two centuries [Europeans and Indians] constructed
a common, mutually comprehensible world in the region around the Great Lakes…”
Mixture created new meanings and exchange and its eventual breakdown recreated
the Indians as “alien, as exotic, as other.” A multitude of players – European
and Indian – created what White defines as a **Middle Ground**: “…the place in
between: in between cultures, peoples, and in between empires and the non-state
world of villages. It is a place where many of the North American subjects and
allies of empires lived. It is the area between the historical foreground of
European invasion and occupation and the background of Indian defeat and
retreat.” (X) It was defined by “**creative misunderstanding**.” For example,
French learned to have success in the middle ground required behaving as
“fathers” should – bestowing gifts, mediating disputed between children,
counseling moderation. This **accommodation** took place because for long periods
of time in large parts of the colonial world “whites could neither dictate to
Indians nor ignore them.” They needed them for survival. “The result was an odd
imperialism where mediation succeeded and force failed, where colonizers gave
gifts to the colonized and patriarchal metaphors were the heart of politics”
(143) However, **French-Indian (Seven Year) War** disrupted/altered relations. Anglo-Indian
ties led increasingly to conflict that by the eve of the American Revolution
**murder and revenge (not mediation and accommodation) characterized relations**.
This was further exacerbated by expanding American settlement, who saw no need
to accommodate their Algonquian neighbors.
Tony, Taylor; Guyver, Robert, ed. History Wars and the Classroom: Global Perspectives. Information Age Publishing, 2011.

## Summary

This
collection of essays examines the “History Wars” in different national contexts
(six). These constitute the “***politicized controversies*** that frequently surround
societal imaginings and ***depictions of national, cultural, racial, ethnic,***
tribal and religious pasts***.” (xii) At the core of these essays is an***
examination of the tensions that have played out between political intent and
educational practice in history education, exposing a range of problems, each
tied to specific national circumstances such as history textbooks in Japan,
students’ Holocaust overload in Germany, and curriculum on Maori-Pakeha
relations in New Zealand. At the same time, there is some commonality across
national spaces, including tensions between the history discipline and social
studies, political influence, and how history should be taught (national vs.
process vs. multi-perspective).

See Also: Jonathan Zimmerman, John Rudolph, Adam Shapiro, Herbert Kliebard
Gugliermo, Thomas A. White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890 – 1945. New York: Oxford, 2004.

## Summary

This
book looks at how Americans and
institutions (federal government, newspapers, and race science) both questioned
Italians’ racial desirability (as Italians, South Italians, Sicilians, and
Latins) *and* **accepted them as “white on arrival”** in the United
States. Naturalization laws and courts, the U.S. census, race
science, newspapers, unions, employers, neighbors, realtors, settlement houses,
politicians, and political parties largely accepted Italians.  Although “undesirable” in some Americans’
eyes, **Italians were on the better side of the colorline**: white. They were not
excluded like African Americans, Orientals, and sometimes Mexicans. Yet, it’s
not necessarily the fact that Italians identified as white. Italians were more concerned with being “Italian” (a race,
not a nationality). Gugliermo thus argues: “For much of the turn-of-the-century
and interwar years… Italians were white on arrival not so much because of the
way the viewed themselves, but because of the way **others viewed and treated**
them**.” (6) Guglielmo is interested in the construction process of race (the**
intricacies), and the place of groups (white, black, red, yellow, etc.) within
a “racialized social system.” His analysis rests up a **race/color conceptual**
framework**, where race is could mean many things (Nordics and Mediterranean’s,**
Celts and Hebrew) and color, which roughly coincides with today’s census
categories. Italians were thus either North or South Italian (race) and white
(color). This distinction was key. Thus, Guglielmo
summarizes: “While Italians suffered greatly for their putative racial
underdesirability as Italians, South Italians, and so forth, they still
benefited in countless ways from their privileged color status as whites.” (9) This
distinction, however, changed, especially after the 1924 immigration
restriction, the influx of African Americans into northern cities (great
migration) and the rise of Nazi racialism. Americans lost interest in
delineating the racial distinctions and the color line became the primary
concern. By World War II, race and color came to mean the same thing and terms
like ethnicity and old ones like nationality emerged to explain difference
previously based on race. Italians, as a result became to be referred to as an
ethnic or nationality group and race referred to larger groups like “whites
“negroes” and “Orientals.”

Example: Racialist Lothrop Stoddard could “condemn southern and east Europeans as ‘lower human types’ and at the time type concede” that these white immigrants were not as bad as the “colored” immigrant

See also: Vivek Bald, Lara Putnam, Matthew Jacobson
Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Aboard, 1876-1917. Hill and Wang, 2001.

## Summary

Jacobson’s
book examines American conceptions of **peoplehood, citizenship and national**
identit**y against the backdrop of** growing economic and military involvement
abroad and massive population influxes **at home. Between 1876 and the beginning**
of World War I, when America became fully integrated into the world economic
system and rapidly reorganized labor migration and export, Americans
(at an accelerating rate) came into contact with foreign peoples, both inside
and outside U.S. borders. This contact led to two extremes (barbarian virtues):
extraordinary self-certainty and contempt for national outsiders**, combined with a**
sense of self-doubt. “It was the combined imperatives
of production (the need for reliable workers and markets) and governance (the
need for citizens deemed reliable) that gave the notions of barbarism and virtue
their powerful, if multivalent, currency.” (5) The scale of encounter – as a
result of industrialization and the growth of the American empire (from the
‘victory’ at Wounded Knee to the conquering of Hawaii, Cuba, and Puerto Rico) –
“served up images of the world and its people that at once naturalized ‘large
policies’ and gave voice to the anxieties engendered by these grand designs.”
(6) **American nationalism** was thus born in the **context of immigration and**
imperialism**; it drew upon charged encounters with disparaged peoples whose**
presence was reviled in the political sphere as it was inevitable in the
economic.

Example: 1870-1920 - Half the years were depresison years. "Overproduction thesis" argued that economic engines of capitalism moving too fast. Further market expansion abroad (and imperialism), led to influx of immigrants: 26 Million in the same years. Immigration and imperialism two sides of the same coin.

See also: Vivek Bald, Lara Putnam, and Thomas Guglielmo
Zimmerman, Jonathan. Whose America?: Culture Wars in the Public Schools . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

## Summary

This
book examines the various ***culture wars*** in the 20th century that have
shaped American schools. In each generation, such issues as religion and nation
– and race – have been addressed in different ways through the public school
curriculum and this book examines how a range of mostly unknown Americans ***struggled***
over the curriculum. ***He argues that the culture wars –***
beginning with the issues raised at ***Dayton*** (evolution and religion) and in
***Chicago*** (patriotism and nationalism; Mayor Thompson and the history textbook) –
have taken to distinct, though at times intersecting, roads in American public
life (*Dual Culture War Thesis*). In
the case of the “Chicago” line, Zimmerman argues that there is one constant
theme: the ***progressive inclusion of more Americans in the grand-national story***.
Each group could have a part in the story, as long as the larger themes of
freedom, equality, and opportunity were not questioned. In contrast, the
debates concerning religion and schools wasn’t as linear: for the three decades
after *Scope,* the accepted practice
was time release (for religious purposes), but by the 1960s the Supreme Court
prohibited any religious instruction, reigniting the debates and largely
becoming a conservative mantra. Again, in the 1980s, another turn, in which
conservatives demanded equal time and share of “Biblical” interpretations of
creation. Sex instruction also became a key topic of debate. While in the
“history” wars a rough consensus has emerged (a banal, triumph history), ***in the***
battle over religion in schools, however, no such consensus has emerged***.***
Reese, William J. America’s Public Schools: From the Common School to "No Child Left Behind.” Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2011.

## Summary

This
book synthesizes a range of secondary books on American education history and examines
two related phenomena: the persistent attempts to reform society through
schools, and the ongoing battles within schools to alter their organization,
curriculum teaching practices, and purposes. Reese argues that schooling has
always been the battleground for shaping society. Americans have agreed that
schooling and education should be a tool to improve society; yet, they have
rarely agreed on how.
Paterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and its Troubled Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

## Summary

This
book examines the historic Brown v. Board decision and its *contested legacy*. Patterson
re-tells the background story to Brown v. Board and then explores the questions
and issues that still swirl around the case today. Patterson brings in a
multitude of actors – from the plaintiffs to the political leaders to local
community members – and examines how the decision was first received (mixed)
and how its legacy reveals takes on notions of defeat, rather than victory. The
decision, he argues, had very little impact in its first ten years; “only in
the late 1960s, when the *Civil Rights Act of 1964*, court decisions like *Jefferson, Green,* and *Alexander*, and firm feral enforcement
attacked evasion… did white Southerners begin to comply.” (221) Even with these
changes, segregation still remained, especially *de facto segregation* in metro
areas. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, as a more activist court went into
decline and more court decisions dismantled previous cases, *segregation in*
public education persisted*, with the 1990s showing similar trends as pre-Brown.*
Yet, Patterson concludes that despite its contested legacy, the Brown decision
still maintains *symbolic power*, for it re-consecrated American ideals.

See also: William Reese, *America's Public Schools**;*
Scott, Anne Firor “The Ever Widening Circle: The Diffusion of Feminist Values from the Troy Female Seminar, 1822-1872,” History of Education Quarterly 19 (1979), 3-25.

## Summary

This
article examines the ***Troy Female Seminary***, which was the first institution to
offer American women a curriculum similar to that of contemporary men’s
college. While its stated aim was to educate women for responsible motherhood
and train them to be teachers, it was more than that, Anne Scott contends, it
***became a source of feminism and the incubator of a new style of female***
personality***. The proliferation of these institutions influenced and spread***
feminism during the 19th century. Scott counters previous
scholarship that has largely treated these institutions as “bulwarks of
tradition” and thus has looked to reform movements and voluntary associations
as the seed-beds of feminism.  “Higher
education for women,” Scott argues, “as it began to develop at Troy and spread
thereafter, played an important part in the ***diffusion of feminist values***.”
While couched in a discourse of women’s “traditional role,” these institutions
***exposed women to new and empowering ideas*** and spread feminist ideas
geographical as well as in each succeeding generation.

See Also: Mary Kelley
Walton, Whitney A. Internationalism, National Identities, and Study Abroad: France and the United States, 1890–1970. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009.

## Summary

This
book traces the emergence and development of ***study abroad programs*** between
France and the U.S. She analyzes how students abroad experienced ***challenges to***
national stereotypes, re-evaluated their own national identities, and learned
toleration ***and appreciation for cultural difference. Thus, Walton argues, young***
people from France and the United States become i***nternationalists while***
retaining national identities. ***She writes: “Studying n France and the United***
States helped young Americans and French person integrate internationalism and
nationalism into their personal identities and outlooks.” (xii) Walton thus
challenges the narrative that Franco-Indian relations in the twentieth century
were defined by anti-American/Americanziation concerns. Over the course of the twentieth
century, objectives of study abroad have changed to ***include professional***
enhancement, exchange of knowledge, national interest, cultural broadening and
improved international relations***. Student also shaped the purposes of the***
program, in particular shaping a “cultural internationalism,” she defines as “a
process of dismantling stereotypes, accepting and appreciating national
differences, reassessing one’s national identity, and constructing a more
cosmopolitan self.”

See Also:
Goldstein, Dana. The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession'.' New York: Doubleday, 2014.

## Summary

Goldstein’s
book examines the two hundred year history of the teaching profession. She
looks at the underlyingtension of the
profession: in which it is both **idealized as a savior** of all social ills and
resented for teachers’ inability to resolve **those issues. Teachers are**
miracle-working saviors of poor and downtrodden children, or they are villains
preventing these children from benefitting from a good education. According to
Dana Goldstein, this kind of saint-fiend split has characterized Americans’
view of teachers since universal public education first took hold in some
states in the 1830s. This tension has characterized the teaching profession
since becoming fully professionalized as part of the common school movement in
the late 19th century. Reformers of different stripes have tried to
improve teaching with some of the same fixes—merit pay based on test scores,
fast-track training programs, ranking teachers—with the same lack of success.
Thus, many of the great ideas of today have been tested and often failed. Moreover, from WWI to the Cold War, the
negative views of public school teachers periodically erupted into a nationwide
“moral panic” about national survival and have fueled the politics around the
teaching profession.

Example:Horace Mann, the first secretary of education in Massachusetts and advocate of the common school movement, believed that female teachers had both idealistic and practical purposes. Female teachers could be “angelic public servants motivated by Christian faith” (moral education) and could also save the state in salaries

See Also: David Tyack-Larry Cuban,
Carson, John. The Measure of Merit: Talents, Intelligence, and Inequality in the French and American Republics, 1750-1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

## Summary

This
book examines how merit and intelligence came to be linked within French and
American conversations about democracy and equality. It traces the ***shadow language of inequality that parallels***
the much more visible rhetoric of republican equality in France and America and
how each country developed a particular measure of meritocracy. France and the
U.S., in toppling aristocracy and replacing it with shared rights and popular
sovereignty, turned toward ***objective measures to justify merit*** and, in turn,
inequality and access to opportunities. Each promoted broad-based education as a means of
making opportunity available, yet at the same time, they also emphasized
individual differences in the plural – talents, faculties, and abilities –
whether understood as products of nature or nurture, or both. By examining the
ways in which Americans and French have measured merit, Carson argues that
***American political culture was more amenable to the unitary view of***
intelligence***, while the French embraced a more nuanced discourse of***
intelligence (multiple forms).

Example: The are four key distinctions: 1) America's poliitical culture, which celebrated liberal market approaches, embraced a view that encouraged the free play of telents; while in Frace, which believied in the state, favored state centered solutions to equality and difference. 2) American system was hyper-local and private (until the Civil War); while France was national and universal and relied on rigorous examinations. 3) Racial difference a stronger factor in the U.S. than in France 4) Objective measures (e.g. the IQ Test during WWI) were adopted differently: Americans used it to identify the "talented" while the French used it to identify the "deficient."

See Also: Christopher Loss, Benjamin Elman
“’But a Local Phase of a World Problem’: Black History’s Global Vision, 1883-1950. Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Dec. 1999), pp. 1045-1077.

## Summary

In this article, Robin D.G. Kelley contends that
scholarship of African American history during the first part of the 20th
century offers important insights for current efforts to “internationalize
American History. The work of scholars on black history was deeply ensconced
with a diasporic vision and shaped by antiracist and anti-imperialist politics
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such black scholars as George
Washington Williams, Benjamin Quarles, John Hope Franklin, W.E.B. Dubois, and
C.L.R. James, while not sharing the same political vision per se, were all
trying to figure out the global implications of the black experience. “Taken
together,” Kelley writes, “they offered a different framework for understanding
United States history, and the history of the West in general, but – much to
the impoverishment of American history – their work had been dismissed or
overlooked by the mainstream historical profession.” (1048)  African American history was always
global/transnational history.
Jay, Karla, and Allen Young, eds. Out of the Closets: Voices of Gay Liberation. New York: NYU Press, 1972.

## Summary

This
book is a collection of essays and manifestos that document the early writings
of Gay Rights activists, as this book was only a spate of books published about
Gay rights in the early 1970s. John D. Emilio, in his foreword, writes that
this anthology “is also a historical document” and is a “product of a
particular moment in time.” Gay Liberation is the struggle by homosexuals for
dignity, respect, and civil rights as well as the termination of the system of
male supremacy. This movement (as many of the essays underscored) came out of
the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York; yet, gay activists had articulated
liberatory ideas dating back to the 1950s and had successfully fought to
publish a gay magazine *(One Magazine)* and
had won employment discrimination cases in federal courts. The civil rights
movement, Black Power, and student unrest on campus all further propelled gay
rights activism and made Stonewall seem inevitable. The Movement also drew on
tactics and ideas of other movements: National Liberation Front (name), Black
Power (solidarity), and feminism (tactics). Reflecting the radicalism of the
1960s, these gay liberationists claimed a revolutionary political identify; saw
the battle against sexism as the very heart of their struggle; broke decisively
with hegemonic conceptions of homosexuality and sexual identity, and
politicized everything, including sexual behavior and relationships. Jay and
Young similarly emphasize the connections, noting that the initial thrust of
the post-Stonewall gay liberation movement was shaped by 1960s counterculture,
black civil rights movement, the New Left, and radical feminism. By the
mid-1970s and through the 1980s, however, gay politics was transformed and
moved away (like other movements of change) from its more radical edge to a
reformist one that aimed to gain civil rights through the court systems.
Nonetheless, by drawing on these various movements in the 1960s, the Stonewall
Generation “invented a new language and style of homosexuality.” Stonewall was
thus a turning point in the sense that it marked the moment in Gay History as
it initiated a move toward mass public affirmation of homosexual desire.
McGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

## Summary

McGirr’s
*Suburban Warriors* traces the
grassroots conservatism that emerged on the margins in the early 1960s and how
it began to move fully into the mainstream of political life by the end of the
decade, transforming the modern American right and the nation in the process. Meeting
in small groups and starting study groups and “Freedom Forum” bookstores,
working with the Republican Party and filling the rolls of the John Birch
Society, middle class men and women attempted to turn back liberal dominance and
became the “grounded forces of a conservative revival – one that transformed
conservatism from a marginal force preoccupied with communism in the early
1960s into a viable electoral contender by the decade’s end.” (4) This book
studies this phenomenon through the lens of Orange County where its
conservative movement was the nucleus of a broader “conservative matrix evolving
in the Sunbelt and the West.” There southern Californian suburbanites along
with their counterparts in the Sunbelt recast the party from a moderate
Republicanism into a far more conservative mold, shaped by southern and western
experiences and the Cold War military complex that made Orange County. Their
story is fundamental to the rightward shift in American politics since the
1960s, a shift that has transformed the relationship between state and federal
power and the regulatory systems of the New Deal welfare state. It is thus a
book about the making of the modern right and the forging of late 20th
century politics in the U.S. McGirr argues that these conservative activists
and their ideas – religious worldview and apocalyptic strands of thought that
challenged tenets of modernism – took hold amongst a highly educated and modern
group of men and women. Their conservatism was thus a mixture of traditionalism
and modernism, “a combination that suggests the adaptability, resilience and…
intractability of the Right in American life.” (8) They were opposed to liberal
“collectivism” (state organization of economic and social life) and celebrated
laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, and supported the state only in
upholding law and order.
Nash, Gary B. Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution. Abridged edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

## Summary

This
book examines the urban seaport towns of the colonial time period and argues
that **urban people** “upset the equilibrium of an older system of social relations
and turned the seaport towns into **crucibles of revolutionary agitation**.” The
origins of the American Revolution were in the experiences and beliefs of the
working poor in these urban seaport towns. From 1690 to 1770s, the urban
seaports of Boston, Philadelphia, and New York were transformed from relative
communal towns (with an elite in its formative years) to cities and urban
centers that were highly stratified. There are three key subthemes to Nash’s
work: the **narrowing of opportunities, widespread poverty, and the formation of**
class in mid-18th century colonial America. **The growth and**
commercial development of northern seaport towns brought about multifaceted
changes that restructured social groups, redistributed wealth, altered labor
relations, and led to the emergence of class-consciousness and the mobilization
of lower ranks of laboring people in public life. As a result, he writes that
many “urban Americans, living amidst historical forces that were transforming
the social landscape, came to perceive a**ntagonistic divisions based on economic**
and social position” **and through their struggle of these conditions came to**
develop as a **“laboring class,”** one that shaped their activities and relations
with other classes.  Their positions – as
slaves, indentured servants, laboring poor, women, and illiterate – also shaped
an ideology. Thus, the Revolutionary conflict involved not only resistance to
Britain, but also a **far reaching dispute within the colonies themselves**, and
the struggles of the 1760s emerged from a long tradition of popular politics
and political debate amongst laboring classes in urban seaport towns. The
revolution “could not have unfolded when or in the manner it did without the
**self-conscious action of urban laboring people**…who became convinced that they
must create power where none had existed before.” (383)

Example: All of the
facets of urban politics – voting, election, and structure of governments –
were contained within a “framework of social deference, which insured that
those of interior rank would normally bow to their superiors.” Nonetheless,
these opportunities and the challenges of the urban polity led to *underlying political tensions*. In New
York, for example, Jacob Leisler’s government drew wide support from laboring
people of the town and persons of humble backgrounds were given positions of
power in the new government. Leislerian supporters also attacked the property
of New York’s wealthiest.

See also: Linda Kerber, Douglas Egerton, Woody Holton
Heineman, Kenneth J. Campus Wars: The Peace Movement at American State Universities in the Vietnam Era. New York: NYU Press, 1994.

## Summary

Kenneth
Heineman’s *Campus Wars* looks at the
impact of the anti-Vietnam War protests on college campuses and their lasting
impact. He argues, contrary to popular myth, that the protests did not end the
war. Yet, he also argues that “student, faculty, and campus-based clergy
protestors successfully limited the intellectual and political authority of
university administrators,” by reforming the curriculum removing restrictions
(in loco parentis) and securing academic freedom. (2) He also contends that the
sixties provoked a political backlash amongst working class whites that led to
the election of both Nixon and Reagan. Heineman is also responding to
scholarship (see footnote 6, introduction which includes both Rorabaugh and
Miller) that has largely focused on elite universities. However, Heineman
argues, it is at the “academically average” state university where the real
campus action of the 1960s and 1970s was to be found.  The focus of this book is thus on those
universities: Kent State, SUNY Buffalo, Michigan State University, and Penn State,
which Heineman believes are a better mirror onto 1960s society (prowar and
apathetic) and shed light on the key role play by state university students
(Penn State-Carl Davidson, VP of SDS in 1966). The key themes that Heineman
studies include: the growing dependence of state universities on
federal-military funding and its effect on their educational missions; the
cultural and political values of university administrators; and the
relationship between community and the university (e.g. conservative Kent and
Kent State). Heineman’s book also looks at the ideological, class, and cultural
differences within activists groups and how it limited cooperation (E.g. clergy
activists v. Marxist inspired)
Cohen, Robert and Synder, David J., ed. Rebellion in Black and White: Southern Student Activism in the 1960s. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2013.

## Summary

This
collection of essay reveals, contrary to extensive scholarship that has focused
on Northern campuses, that “on both **black and white college campuses south of**
the Mason-Dixon line,there was, in the 1960s**,** a **considerable liberal and**
radical ferment and a southern New Left'*was active**.** Student activists in the south agitated*
for racial integration, gender equality, birth control, the end of the Vietnam
War, student rights, labor’s right to organize, the introduction of black
studies, and great African American student and faculty representation on
campus. These protests radically altered the culture and politics of some of
the historical **white southern campuses and HBCUs**. These essays make important arguments to consider:While most scholarship has focused on the killings at Kent State, more deaths occurred in the South, at HBCUs, then in the North as a result of protest and direct action campaigns (SC State College, NC A&T, and Jackson State). In the case of SNCC, Cohen writes, most historians have focused on their off campus activities, ignoring the “student” part in the name and the impact it had on southern college campuses. Moreover, they have failed to define who SNCC was and “has left the public almost clueless with regard to what made early SNCC so distinctive.” (8) By **bringing in the perpective of the South**, it forces scholars to challenge accepted narratives and assumptions about the movements in the 1960s.

Examples: National Student Association brought white and black students together for Human Relations seminar, many of which would got on to be leading activists during the sit-in movements and with SNCC.; NC A&T - center of the southern Black Power movement, and gave birth to a new national group, the Student Organization for Black unity, “that would, in its campus Black power organizing, pick up where SNCC left off.”

See also: Peter Wallerstein, Higher Education and the Civil Rights Movement; Martha Biondi, *The Black Revolution on Campus*; Kenneth Heineman, *Campus Wars*
Anderson, Terry H. The Movement and The Sixties: Protest in America from Greensboro to Wounded Knee. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

## Summary

Terry
H. Anderson examines the “movement” as a *national*
*phenomenon during the 1960s and includes all activists who demonstrated for*
social change. Responding to books that have focused on organizations (SNCC,
SDS, etc.) and ideologies (writings by Goodman and Whyte) to understand the
“movement,” Anderson argues that “social activism developed as a response to
numerous problems” and the feeling that those problems were “inconsistent with
the American ideal.” The movement was a loose alliance that evolved
dramatically over the course of the 1960s, from civil rights to student power
to anti-war. Anderson’s chronology is split into “two waves.” The first wave
(1960-1968) began “in the South, from Greensboro to Selma, and spread [ing] up
the east and west coasts to elite universities where students often formed or
joined new left organizations” and the second wave began in 1968, after the
days of decision between 1965 and 1967, the rise of Black Power and the Vietnam
War.  By the late 1960s, the movement had
become vast and, to a certain extent, amorphous and disorganized when compared
to the antecedents in the civil rights movement. “The first wave asked about
the rights of black citizens, the rights of students, about their obligation
fight a distant and undeclared war,” Anderson writes, “The second wave expanded
the issues to include all minorities and women, and broadened the attack against
the establishment.” (423)
Rodgers, Daniel. “Republicanism: The Career of a Concept.” Journal of American History 79:1 (June 1992): 11-38.

## Summary

This
article looks at the paradigm of “republicanism” in American historiography. He
argues that the concept of republicanism was a not a logical notion, but a
interpretive one used to unlock basic riddles of American politics and
political culture, sometimes in conjunction with multiple, contradictory needs.
Its history, then, reflect how historians argue and how concepts persuade.
Rodgers sees three different paradigms of the republican synthesis: **Beardian,**
Harzian, and republican**. “The Beardian paradigm organized American history**
around a restless sea of conflict material interests; the Harzian around a
stable liberal consensus; the republic around the importance of liberalism’s
precedents and rivals.” Republicanism paradigm plagued by issues: “a succession
of explanatory structures, its development by leapfrogging between
traditionally isolated subdisciplines and problematics, its ability to explain
so many urgent puzzles together with a certain inner vagueness of its own.” Each
conflicted with the other, revealing weakness such that Republicanism, while in
opposition to Harzian liberalism, was difficult to define and perceive. Rodgers
concludes that **“the gift of republicanism, as an explanatory concept, lay in**
its ability to do so much disparate interpretive work,” yet it was also
employed to serve too many ends and ran the danger of explaining everything.

See also: Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Linda Kerber, and Gary Nash
Between Professional and Scholarly: Historiographical Trends in the History of Education

Each documents the precarious position education historians have between professional study (present concerns) and historical scholarship

"Two-world" status

Donato-Lazerson, Veysey, Interchange Forum, and Rury

History of Educaiton as an academic practice rooted in the Cubberley tradition and profesisonalization of education/teaching. Thus as an academic field it has set precariously between academics and policy/professional. Histoy often used as a justification of policy...
Fields, Barbara Jeanne. Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

## Summary

-  This
book examines the tense **relationship between slave and free labor**, black and white
in Maryland leading up to and after the Civil War. The rise of two free
populations in Maryland, one white and one black, “challenged the political,
moral and ideological coherence of slave society.” The rise of a largely free
labor society signaled a political threat to slaveholders. Yet, Fields warns,
the presence of a larger, free black population should not be read as evidence
as an inevitable transition from slavery to freedom. Freed blacks continued to
be embedded within the slave system and had a limited status as freed blacks. She
also shows that slavery was just as harsh and slaveholders defended slavery
just as staunchly as their confederate counterparts, especially during the
Civil War. Moreover, freed blacks cannot just be examined as an emerging
proletariat, but as workers trying to find self-sufficiency through their
independent pursuits. Maryland was thus an ideological and geographical middle
ground that united conflicting economic interests between slaveholders and
commercial elites. Commercial elites in Baltimore were still held politically
subject to the land and slave-owning elite of Southern Maryland. This middle
ground must be understood as an obligation, she contends, not as something
ignoble or an enlightened philosophical outlook. She argues that civil war
marked the end of slavery and thus the political middle ground. As a it result,
it redefined the slaveholder and slave relationship, as well as the
relationships between former free black and former slave, former slaveholder
and former nonslaveholder, between city and country, and between government and
citizen. The politics afterwards proved to be just as a difficult as in the
confederacy.

Example: The presence of slavery continued to set close boundaries on liberty of the ostensibly
free, and affected the social relations between slaves and free black people. For
example, laws were established that could bound freed black children to
“apprenticeships” and become personal property if they were not being taught in
the “habits of industry”; freed blacks were also unable to own dogs or
firearms, or purchase liquor with a special licenses; they could not sell
bacon, pork, or grains without certification from a justice of peace. As these
laws reflect, the continuity of the slave system *defined and limited the status of free blacks* (conscript slaves).

See also: Thomas Bender, Walter Johnson, Eric Foner
Kingdom of Nords

The **Kingdom of Nords** is one of the Factions within the Mount&Blade series. According to Nord hero Matheld, Nord people are from a place called "Nordland," although the game's description of the custom battle character Sverre claims that Nords originally came from a land referred to as "Jumne." Nordland is said to be far north of Calradia, over the sea, and is also the home of the Sea Raiders as well.

According to Matheld, the Nords were invited by the Calradic Empire
 to crew their galleys, and were given land on the coast as payment for
this service. After the Empire fell however, a Nord leader named Gundig
Hairy-Breeks landed in Calradia to claim a supposed Nord birthright of
the whole continent. Matheld makes note that this was a fabrication by
the skalds and qualifies it by noting the Nords need no excuse to go to
war. Gundig Hairy-Breeks would be killed attempting to attack the Rock of Rivacheg, but Nords still come to Calradia under the idea of claiming Calradia by force.

This predisposition to war also factored into the rise of its current leader, King Ragnar, and the disinheritance of the claimant Lethwin Far-Seeker. The king before Ragnar and Lethwin's father, King Hakrim,
 had Lethwin sent abroad to learn academic arts believing that the Nords
 needed to be more than warriors. Ragnar disagreed and when Lethwin was
shipwrecked on his way home to claim his throne, Ragnar took the throne
for himself.

According to both Marnid and Deshavi, the Nords also grow flax in abundance to send to Sargoth. There, it is weaved into Linen which Marnid claims was not something produced in Calradia.