After so many people had such joy and hope yesterday with the new inauguration (which I'm commenting on not as a political commentary, but as a historical one), today has been a day of doom and gloom around here.
But first, a slight side note. While the university in which I work tries to convince itself that there is no widespread alcohol use problem among the undergraduates - especially the minors among them - today my lunch experience was just one example of the problem. I went to the union to get my $3 lunch special. Every Wednesday about half of the the university food places offer a special meal for only $3 plus tax. So I picked up one of the specials and sat down to eat. I ended up on the other side of the wall from two young women. I ate silently, but for the entire 15 minutes that I was eating my sandwich, this one girl spent the entire time relating her alcoholistic exploits. She was regaling her friend with literally dozens of stories of how she and her friends had gotten their hands on bottles upon bottles of gin, whiskey, beer, vodka, and who knows what else. She talked about how she had done 16 shots in a row the night before. She then started reminiscing about her long-ago high school days (which, from her conversation, was only a year ago), when she used to steal all of her parents' alcohol and was downing entire bottles of vodka with her friends and lying about it. Now, who knows how much of her story was true and how much was her trying to impress her friend (and anyone else who could hear, for that matter). I was sickened by the fact that this girl seemed to really think that the one way she could gain prestige was to talk about how drunk she could get, how much she could steal, and how wasted she had been when she got caught. But no, there is no alcohol problem on campus. Right. There's just a value problem.
Anyway. The state of education in my state is, well, dire, to say the least. I might have mentioned before that the state legislature has proposed a $900 million budget cut to public education, with a $300 million cut to the three public universities for this fiscal year alone. (AKA, this would only be to get us to the end of June, 2009.) At the universities there is, of course, major uproar. The approximately $100 million that my university would need to cut for the rest of this fiscal year would amount to around 25% of the budget. We already cut $20 million for this academic year, and that was pretty painful. So yesterday there were protests coordinated at all three universities, with faculty, graduate students, and undergrads protesting the slashing of educational budgets to make up for fiscal irresponsibility in the legislature.
Of course, the Republican legislators who are proposing the cuts are insisting that the cuts are the only possible move (though they seem to think that we should still be able to teach larger numbers of students, graduate more students faster than we have been, and provide them with better quality educations than ever before all without funding). Yesterday, our faculty had an emergency meeting to discuss things, and then we got an email from my advisor, who is also the director of graduate studies. He told us that the head of the department was informed that 20% of our graduate funding is being taken away (to start with), and so we are going to have a big meeting on Friday to talk about how the department is going to deal with that. Some possible options include:
* Only funding current PhD students, and leaving all MA students and incoming students out in the cold
* Not accepting any incoming students at all for 2009-2010 to make the above option less dramatic
In reality, there aren't many other options. We don't work like the sciences - grad students do not get paid from a professor's grant money. The 33 assistantships that the department has funded for the last few years are the *only* support we get, aside from tuition waivers through the graduate college while dissertating. So while we were all trying to digest the fact that, despite being assured only three months ago that the university would not take away our graduate funding, the university is taking away 1/5 of our measly graduate funding, I heard some more disturbing news today. Two of my good friends are in the College of Science, and it seems that both of them got a memo, from different people, regarding information given from the dean of the COS to the heads of the science departments. I think this email speaks for itself:
"At yesterday's Heads and Directors meeting the Dean asked us to convey two important points to our respective departments.
1. In the next few days to weeks entire colleges and departments will be closed before the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2009). Lay off notices for both faculty and staff are being prepared (tenure doesn't count when an entire department is closed). [The Board of Regents] is coordinating the closures system wide so that College X is not simultaneously closed at all three universities.
2. The Administration is committed to preserving COS, so no closures are expected in our college. In fact, the 5% cut I discussed yesterday might be the last we see, including July '09.
These are the long discussed (highly) differential cuts. [The university] will not be the same when the Fall semester begins. [The dean] was not at liberty to reveal the details, but he did say "trust me - COS will be OK".
"Environment", very broadly defined, is the university's top priority so my advice is to try to stay calm. If the administration succeeds in preserving the best [the university] has to offer then we might indeed be leaner and stronger in a few years. In the meantime, it's going to be very ugly so please spare a thought for your friends and colleagues elsewhere on campus."
Now, I'm not panicking, because I can't imagine that they would eliminate my department. Supposedly there is something in the land-grant setup that requires that there be a history department and that we provide historical education. But it's interesting that my department is looking at a 20% cut - and was told that is probably just the beginning - while the entire college of science is told to expect only a 5% cut. Of course, it is entirely possible that their starting budgets are so much larger than ours that a 5% cut in the chem budget is equivalent to a 20% cut in the history budget, since we have no money to start with. And, of course, many of their graduate students are not paid by university funds to begin with - they are paid from grants and so are not affected by budget cuts anyway. It is also a very disturbing thought that the board of regents is preparing to close "entire colleges and departments" across the three state universities. Which ones we don't know, but this is scary. Who decides which departments get cut?
I am preparing for the fact that my department can't help me after this semester. Even if they wanted to, they'll only be able to fund a little over 20 grads, and I've already received 4 years of support. It wouldn't be fair to expect anything else. So if I don't get grants or fellowships for the next two-three years, I have no idea how I'm going to finish my degree. If I don't have funding, I'm not sure where I would live, or how I'd pay the rent, or what job I'd get.
Wow, the world seems so... uneasy.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
A New Day
On Friday, I met my new group of students for the semester. I was supposed to have 54 students in 3 classes, but 10 did not show up and one came to add the class, so I only actually met 45 students. For the first time since I started teaching, I am *not* teaching at 9 a.m. on a Friday morning. It was kind of nice, not having to get up super early (in order to account for biking to work, getting un-gross, changing, etc.).
My first class is across campus at 10, and I got over there a few minutes early. About half the class was there already, sitting perfectly silent, with those funny, only-students-can-have-that-look gazes. My room actually has technology, so I started to get out my syllabi and set up the computer/projector so I could show them a few important things. They remained silent. I finally said that were under no obligation to be silent before class began, so they could absolutely talk to each other while I got things ready. It felt as if someone had released air from a balloon. The tension released immediately, and they all started chatting, introducing themselves to each other. Just based on first impressions, I would predict that this class will probably be a fun class to be with - they seem to be exceptionally comfortable talking with each other, and so as long as they come prepared, I think we should probably enjoy the time together.
My second class is in the same room at 11, and so there is a whole new problem when they walk in. You see, for whatever reason, when undergraduates come to a classroom, especially on the first day, they seem to be terribly nervous if the instructor is already in the room. It doesn't matter how much bravado they put on for the rest of the year - if they come to their classroom 10 minutes early and I am already there, their eyes get big, their mouths clamp shut, and they sit staring at the floor until class begins. Again, I tried to remedy this situation, but this time when I told them they didn't have to be silent and could talk while we waited, no one blinked. They all just sat there. The makeup of this particular class is very different from the first class. I have four or five girls who I think you could perhaps classify in the punk or alternative group. I hate to admit it, but at first I couldn't tell if a few of them were male or female. I was a little surprised when one of them said her name, as I was expecting a guy's name. Added to this group of no-nonsense girls are 7 students from India. I would venture to guess that a bunch of them, all computers/science/engineering/ majors, needed a core class and decided to take one together for moral support. There are 6 males and one female, and all of them speak terribly softly and at least two of them seemed to have a great deal of difficulty understanding me at times. I'm going to have to try to talk a bit slower and make sure I'm enunciating well, I think, until they get used to my (non-specific) accent. I also have a student from Lithuania in this class as well. Depending on how well they write, I wouldn't be surprised if this class is my best in terms of grades, but my hardest to deal with for discussion. We'll have to see.
Oh, one fun tidbit concerning the classroom: when I walked in the room, I saw on the board this odd groupings of words and scribbles, but clearly in the middle was the name of one of the other history grads. I presumed he taught in the room at 9 and went to go erase the gibberish so I could write some key info of my own on the board. Except... it didn't erase. In fact, it was like I didn't touch the words. I look back at the desk with the computer and see a marker, pick it up. As I roll it over in my hands, I see the dreaded words: Permanent Marker. Yep, he used a permanent marker on the board. I can only hope the someone will be able to clean it up so 1/4 of the board is not ruined for the term.
I have an hour in between the second and third class. Unfortunately, that hour is noon - meaning getting lunch somewhere might be tricky each week. But this time it worked fairly well, since I managed to both get my food and find a place to eat without much trouble and with plenty of time to get to my final class. My third and final class of the day is in the building that houses the Electrical and Computer Engineering department. So, take a minute and imagine all the beautiful, expensive technology this building has. When you walk into the south entrance, the entire southern section of the hallway is filled with millions of dollars worth of computers, scanners, printers, projectors, wifi, and other lovely things used to teach, learn, and design. My classroom should rock, right? Not right. My room is this teeny, tiny room that's situated in the farthest corner from the entrance, next to nothing, and is angled on a diagonal. It has just enough seats and desks for exactly 21 people - which is good, since my class is supposed to have 20 in it, plus me. As for technology? Well... it has a dry erase board... and an overhead projector anchored to the wall so it can only move about 3 feet away, which isn't actually far enough to show anything large on the pull-down screen. As for the screen, if I pull it down, I seem to be wholly incapable of pulling it back up. But that's it. No projection system, no computer, no nothing.
Anyway, this class has one kid from Hong Kong, and only 12 others actually showed up. So I'm missing around 7 students, assuming they didn't drop. There's one kid in this class, as in the last, who is already sending out major "I hate being here and I'm going to assume you're stupid" vibes with their body language and facial expressions. I've got some pretty vocal girls in this last class, though, so I'm hoping that they'll be ones I can count on to keep things moving if and when discussions lag.
Overall, it was an interesting day. I had to go request some *real* technology for my third classroom. I told each class that being here and teaching them is my passion, and that this class is the area of history I love the best. I also told them I'd let them know when my exams are scheduled so they'll have a head's up for when I'm going to be incommunicado. And I asked them to give me 50 minutes of their week, and to give me their best, since I'll be giving them my best. Hopefully they'll come through. I have faith!
I'm always on a bit of a high after teaching, though it didn't last very long. I had woke up feeling sick, and by the time I fiddled with paperwork back in my office and drove home, I was getting a major migraine. Unfortunately, it lasted the entire afternoon/evening, and even with medicine I woke up at 2, 4, and 6:30 and finally just had to get up because my joints were throbbing so much (a side effect from my triptan). As a result, I've been in migraine fog the rest of the day, and my mood plummeted along with it. I've done nothing productive other than cook. Of course, I also haven't had any human contact since I left my office yesterday, which doesn't help when I feel awful.
Here's to hoping this next week is better. I have to face my advisor and talk finally about scheduling my exams... and I am not looking forward to that at all. I just don't know...
My first class is across campus at 10, and I got over there a few minutes early. About half the class was there already, sitting perfectly silent, with those funny, only-students-can-have-that-look gazes. My room actually has technology, so I started to get out my syllabi and set up the computer/projector so I could show them a few important things. They remained silent. I finally said that were under no obligation to be silent before class began, so they could absolutely talk to each other while I got things ready. It felt as if someone had released air from a balloon. The tension released immediately, and they all started chatting, introducing themselves to each other. Just based on first impressions, I would predict that this class will probably be a fun class to be with - they seem to be exceptionally comfortable talking with each other, and so as long as they come prepared, I think we should probably enjoy the time together.
My second class is in the same room at 11, and so there is a whole new problem when they walk in. You see, for whatever reason, when undergraduates come to a classroom, especially on the first day, they seem to be terribly nervous if the instructor is already in the room. It doesn't matter how much bravado they put on for the rest of the year - if they come to their classroom 10 minutes early and I am already there, their eyes get big, their mouths clamp shut, and they sit staring at the floor until class begins. Again, I tried to remedy this situation, but this time when I told them they didn't have to be silent and could talk while we waited, no one blinked. They all just sat there. The makeup of this particular class is very different from the first class. I have four or five girls who I think you could perhaps classify in the punk or alternative group. I hate to admit it, but at first I couldn't tell if a few of them were male or female. I was a little surprised when one of them said her name, as I was expecting a guy's name. Added to this group of no-nonsense girls are 7 students from India. I would venture to guess that a bunch of them, all computers/science/engineering/ majors, needed a core class and decided to take one together for moral support. There are 6 males and one female, and all of them speak terribly softly and at least two of them seemed to have a great deal of difficulty understanding me at times. I'm going to have to try to talk a bit slower and make sure I'm enunciating well, I think, until they get used to my (non-specific) accent. I also have a student from Lithuania in this class as well. Depending on how well they write, I wouldn't be surprised if this class is my best in terms of grades, but my hardest to deal with for discussion. We'll have to see.
Oh, one fun tidbit concerning the classroom: when I walked in the room, I saw on the board this odd groupings of words and scribbles, but clearly in the middle was the name of one of the other history grads. I presumed he taught in the room at 9 and went to go erase the gibberish so I could write some key info of my own on the board. Except... it didn't erase. In fact, it was like I didn't touch the words. I look back at the desk with the computer and see a marker, pick it up. As I roll it over in my hands, I see the dreaded words: Permanent Marker. Yep, he used a permanent marker on the board. I can only hope the someone will be able to clean it up so 1/4 of the board is not ruined for the term.
I have an hour in between the second and third class. Unfortunately, that hour is noon - meaning getting lunch somewhere might be tricky each week. But this time it worked fairly well, since I managed to both get my food and find a place to eat without much trouble and with plenty of time to get to my final class. My third and final class of the day is in the building that houses the Electrical and Computer Engineering department. So, take a minute and imagine all the beautiful, expensive technology this building has. When you walk into the south entrance, the entire southern section of the hallway is filled with millions of dollars worth of computers, scanners, printers, projectors, wifi, and other lovely things used to teach, learn, and design. My classroom should rock, right? Not right. My room is this teeny, tiny room that's situated in the farthest corner from the entrance, next to nothing, and is angled on a diagonal. It has just enough seats and desks for exactly 21 people - which is good, since my class is supposed to have 20 in it, plus me. As for technology? Well... it has a dry erase board... and an overhead projector anchored to the wall so it can only move about 3 feet away, which isn't actually far enough to show anything large on the pull-down screen. As for the screen, if I pull it down, I seem to be wholly incapable of pulling it back up. But that's it. No projection system, no computer, no nothing.
Anyway, this class has one kid from Hong Kong, and only 12 others actually showed up. So I'm missing around 7 students, assuming they didn't drop. There's one kid in this class, as in the last, who is already sending out major "I hate being here and I'm going to assume you're stupid" vibes with their body language and facial expressions. I've got some pretty vocal girls in this last class, though, so I'm hoping that they'll be ones I can count on to keep things moving if and when discussions lag.
Overall, it was an interesting day. I had to go request some *real* technology for my third classroom. I told each class that being here and teaching them is my passion, and that this class is the area of history I love the best. I also told them I'd let them know when my exams are scheduled so they'll have a head's up for when I'm going to be incommunicado. And I asked them to give me 50 minutes of their week, and to give me their best, since I'll be giving them my best. Hopefully they'll come through. I have faith!
I'm always on a bit of a high after teaching, though it didn't last very long. I had woke up feeling sick, and by the time I fiddled with paperwork back in my office and drove home, I was getting a major migraine. Unfortunately, it lasted the entire afternoon/evening, and even with medicine I woke up at 2, 4, and 6:30 and finally just had to get up because my joints were throbbing so much (a side effect from my triptan). As a result, I've been in migraine fog the rest of the day, and my mood plummeted along with it. I've done nothing productive other than cook. Of course, I also haven't had any human contact since I left my office yesterday, which doesn't help when I feel awful.
Here's to hoping this next week is better. I have to face my advisor and talk finally about scheduling my exams... and I am not looking forward to that at all. I just don't know...
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Recommendations
Within five minutes tonight, I was asked for recommendations twice. First was a recommendation of the sort to be expected - a book recommendation for a student. My (as of tomorrow, former) boss emailed asking for recommendations of good books on the Spanish Civil War for a student who had read fictional accounts but wanted to get into the actual historical accounts of the war. Since I am one of only two modern Spanish historians at the university, this is a reasonable request.
I suggested four different works of varying degrees - Sheelagh Ellwood for a basic introduction and easy read; Esenwein and Shubert's collection of essays for a broad understanding of the background and meaning of the war without intense detail; and Jackson and Thomas' tomes if you really want a step-by-step accounting of the war in gruesome detail.
The second request I am much more excited about. A former student, a young woman who took a class I worked in this past spring, sent me an email tonight. I recognize her name, remember her work, but honestly cannot remember her face. [Side note: I do not know how professors who can remember every student for decades do it. I have been teaching for 5 years, have taught well over 600 students since the fall of 2004. I recognize my students, but their names, or their names with faces, flee my fragile memory quickly.] As soon as she mentioned the term paper that she wrote, I remembered it. It was by far the best paper I read all year. Perhaps the best paper I have read in 5 years of grading.
The class was on American foreign policy in the 20th century, dealing especially with cover operations, and her paper dealt with American involvement in Chile during the Allende period. She argued that the American involvement in this particular coup was in part due to their desire to change Chilean economics, which was achieved by placing into power Chilean economists whom had been trained at the University of Chicago and then brought back with aid from the CIA. It was an amazing paper, well-researched, and extremely sophisticated. My only comment was that if she had not considered continuing on into graduate school, she really should do it.
Well, tonight she emailed me saying that she has majored in politics (I'm guessing political science) but now is trying to apply to our graduate program in history. She has written to the American history professor who taught that class, but since she is not sure he will necessarily know who she is, she is hoping that I can put in a good word for her in the hopes that he will write a letter of recommendation for her.
It's the first time a student has asked me to "put in a good word for me" before! So in the past week, I had a student cite me in a paper, and now is looking to me for recommendation help.
It makes me happy, because I feel like perhaps I might actually be making a difference. Maybe some of them really are learning something. Maybe I can be a positive factor in their lives. I hope so. That's part of what I love about teaching. It's the hope of change, the possibility that, beyond teaching them what happened in Europe or in Asia or Africa in the 19th century, they might come away with a greater understanding of themselves, of each other, and might be better for it.
I suggested four different works of varying degrees - Sheelagh Ellwood for a basic introduction and easy read; Esenwein and Shubert's collection of essays for a broad understanding of the background and meaning of the war without intense detail; and Jackson and Thomas' tomes if you really want a step-by-step accounting of the war in gruesome detail.
The second request I am much more excited about. A former student, a young woman who took a class I worked in this past spring, sent me an email tonight. I recognize her name, remember her work, but honestly cannot remember her face. [Side note: I do not know how professors who can remember every student for decades do it. I have been teaching for 5 years, have taught well over 600 students since the fall of 2004. I recognize my students, but their names, or their names with faces, flee my fragile memory quickly.] As soon as she mentioned the term paper that she wrote, I remembered it. It was by far the best paper I read all year. Perhaps the best paper I have read in 5 years of grading.
The class was on American foreign policy in the 20th century, dealing especially with cover operations, and her paper dealt with American involvement in Chile during the Allende period. She argued that the American involvement in this particular coup was in part due to their desire to change Chilean economics, which was achieved by placing into power Chilean economists whom had been trained at the University of Chicago and then brought back with aid from the CIA. It was an amazing paper, well-researched, and extremely sophisticated. My only comment was that if she had not considered continuing on into graduate school, she really should do it.
Well, tonight she emailed me saying that she has majored in politics (I'm guessing political science) but now is trying to apply to our graduate program in history. She has written to the American history professor who taught that class, but since she is not sure he will necessarily know who she is, she is hoping that I can put in a good word for her in the hopes that he will write a letter of recommendation for her.
It's the first time a student has asked me to "put in a good word for me" before! So in the past week, I had a student cite me in a paper, and now is looking to me for recommendation help.
It makes me happy, because I feel like perhaps I might actually be making a difference. Maybe some of them really are learning something. Maybe I can be a positive factor in their lives. I hope so. That's part of what I love about teaching. It's the hope of change, the possibility that, beyond teaching them what happened in Europe or in Asia or Africa in the 19th century, they might come away with a greater understanding of themselves, of each other, and might be better for it.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Those crazy kids
This weekend was a whirlwind 48-hour grading extravaganza. My university demands that we grading all exams and calculate final grades within 48 hours of the end of the exam time slot. Since my students' exam was on Friday, I get a slight extension, having until tomorrow morning technically. (This all stems from when we were still using hand-written, scantron bubble sheets to submit final grades. Obviously you couldn't physically hand in grades on the weekend, since all of the university offices are closed. This was, oh, two academic years ago? Yeah, not really in the 21st century yet.)
A few times I broke out into song, thanks to Lerner and Loewe - "Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians speak Norwegian, and Greeks are taught their Greek. In France, every Frenchman knows his language from 'A' to 'Zed'.... Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning. And Hebrews learn it backwards which is absolutely frightening. But use proper English you're regarded as a freak. Oh why can't the English, why can't the English learn to speak?"
So, in honor of 'Enry 'Iggins and his lamentations regarding the non-usage of the English language among native speakers, here are some funnies gleaned from my 2 days of marathon grading:
Maps
Students know absolutely no geography. Here are some of my favorite labels from their map quiz.
1. The Black Sea - labeled variously as Montenegro, Slovakia, Lithuania, Macedonia, and Serbia. In my sleepy head, I can only assume that these sea-based states are either the mythical Atlantians or else are canoe-based societies.
2. The Adriatic Sea - labeled as Croatia and Serbia
3. The North Sea - is the Czech Republic
4. Germany - is actually Montenegro
5. France - is either Bosnia or Macedonia, depending on who you ask. These just make me sad. :-(
6. Ukraine - is Bosnia, Serbia, or Macedonia
7. Belgium - is actually Lithuania
8. Denmark - is Croatia
9. Poland - is either Czech Republic, Lithuania, or Slovakia
10. Switzerland - is either Estonia or the Czech Republic
11. My favorite - Austria as the Czech Republic and Belarus as Slovakia - which would have meant a fascinating history of the unified state from 1919-1989, since they were separated a few states...
Essays
1. “The Ottoman Empire was defeated by the Japanese in the early 18th century.”
2. “Another imperial problem that Europe faced was the Boxers Rebellion. This conflict started because the Harmoneous and Rhitious fists of China wanted to stop British and western influences on their country. There were also the Indian Muntainy, in which the Indian people fought for their own indepences from European influences. After WWII Europe as a whole was mixed and manggled.”
3. “The rivalry between France & Great Britain since 1789 is like the great college football rivaly of UofA & ASU." ... “The Ottoman Empire was the big man on campus.”
4. In the First World War, the United States “teamed up with France, Germany went with Britain. Prussia even got involved because they were already upset at France.”
5. “The Austrian-Hungarian empire was originally the Ottoman Empire.”
6. Bismarck forced France to give up “Asslance Lorean and sign the Treaty of Versali.”
7. “Tsarist Russia fought on Britian’s side during World War Two, but Russia became a communist country shortly thereafter. Britian strongly disliked communism, and Britian and Russia ended up fighting each other in the Cold War.”
8. Because the French lost the 7 Years’ War, Spain got Canada.
9. Russian imperialism spread to the East, and they conquered the Netherlands.
10. German unification was “done by a genius man named Bismark.”
11. “Imperealism had been a new concept to all the empires but World War II put an end to this.”
12. “The Ottoman Empire rained supreme for nearly 500 years.”
13. “Germany had difficult times in war, because of their lack of embracy of technology.”
14. Russia tried to “go through Afghanistan in order to get to India at the Black Sea.”
15. “From the begging of history, the French and the British have had their differences.”
16. Britain and France signed the “Entente Contical, which in simple terms meant they wouldn’t fight.”
17. “The unification of Germany and Italy was a major event in history. The Germans with Hitler and the Italians with Mussolini. These two powers united seemed undestructrable.”
18. “The American Revolution was not long, in fact once Britain found out that France had funded the American troops and helped them fight, they backed out.”
19. “In 1948 Otto Von Bismarck passed a new constitution, and became unified.” Germany wasn’t Germany until 1948? Dude…
20. “It doesn’t seem Russia ever got their warm water. Poor, cold Russia.”
21. “Europe has had a very long history within itself and outside.”
So many students, so many completely wrong statements! I'm sure the Austrians and Turks would be interested in knowing that they are, in fact, the same people - and so all that fighting they did for 500 years was actually just fighting themselves. And the fact that Bismarck unified Germany in 1948? Wow... I'm especially excited to learn that Britain simply ran back to England - all it took was the basic knowledge that the French were involved to make them run home! As for geography... *sigh* I can't even begin with that. As for their spelling, well, these aren't all that bad, except, perhaps, for Asslance Lorean (Alsace-Lorraine), Rhitious fists (Righteous Fists), manggled (mangled), and whatever the heck "embracy" is. Ha.
Hope these were enjoyable. :-)
A few times I broke out into song, thanks to Lerner and Loewe - "Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians speak Norwegian, and Greeks are taught their Greek. In France, every Frenchman knows his language from 'A' to 'Zed'.... Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning. And Hebrews learn it backwards which is absolutely frightening. But use proper English you're regarded as a freak. Oh why can't the English, why can't the English learn to speak?"
So, in honor of 'Enry 'Iggins and his lamentations regarding the non-usage of the English language among native speakers, here are some funnies gleaned from my 2 days of marathon grading:
Maps
Students know absolutely no geography. Here are some of my favorite labels from their map quiz.
1. The Black Sea - labeled variously as Montenegro, Slovakia, Lithuania, Macedonia, and Serbia. In my sleepy head, I can only assume that these sea-based states are either the mythical Atlantians or else are canoe-based societies.
2. The Adriatic Sea - labeled as Croatia and Serbia
3. The North Sea - is the Czech Republic
4. Germany - is actually Montenegro
5. France - is either Bosnia or Macedonia, depending on who you ask. These just make me sad. :-(
6. Ukraine - is Bosnia, Serbia, or Macedonia
7. Belgium - is actually Lithuania
8. Denmark - is Croatia
9. Poland - is either Czech Republic, Lithuania, or Slovakia
10. Switzerland - is either Estonia or the Czech Republic
11. My favorite - Austria as the Czech Republic and Belarus as Slovakia - which would have meant a fascinating history of the unified state from 1919-1989, since they were separated a few states...
Essays
1. “The Ottoman Empire was defeated by the Japanese in the early 18th century.”
2. “Another imperial problem that Europe faced was the Boxers Rebellion. This conflict started because the Harmoneous and Rhitious fists of China wanted to stop British and western influences on their country. There were also the Indian Muntainy, in which the Indian people fought for their own indepences from European influences. After WWII Europe as a whole was mixed and manggled.”
3. “The rivalry between France & Great Britain since 1789 is like the great college football rivaly of UofA & ASU." ... “The Ottoman Empire was the big man on campus.”
4. In the First World War, the United States “teamed up with France, Germany went with Britain. Prussia even got involved because they were already upset at France.”
5. “The Austrian-Hungarian empire was originally the Ottoman Empire.”
6. Bismarck forced France to give up “Asslance Lorean and sign the Treaty of Versali.”
7. “Tsarist Russia fought on Britian’s side during World War Two, but Russia became a communist country shortly thereafter. Britian strongly disliked communism, and Britian and Russia ended up fighting each other in the Cold War.”
8. Because the French lost the 7 Years’ War, Spain got Canada.
9. Russian imperialism spread to the East, and they conquered the Netherlands.
10. German unification was “done by a genius man named Bismark.”
11. “Imperealism had been a new concept to all the empires but World War II put an end to this.”
12. “The Ottoman Empire rained supreme for nearly 500 years.”
13. “Germany had difficult times in war, because of their lack of embracy of technology.”
14. Russia tried to “go through Afghanistan in order to get to India at the Black Sea.”
15. “From the begging of history, the French and the British have had their differences.”
16. Britain and France signed the “Entente Contical, which in simple terms meant they wouldn’t fight.”
17. “The unification of Germany and Italy was a major event in history. The Germans with Hitler and the Italians with Mussolini. These two powers united seemed undestructrable.”
18. “The American Revolution was not long, in fact once Britain found out that France had funded the American troops and helped them fight, they backed out.”
19. “In 1948 Otto Von Bismarck passed a new constitution, and became unified.” Germany wasn’t Germany until 1948? Dude…
20. “It doesn’t seem Russia ever got their warm water. Poor, cold Russia.”
21. “Europe has had a very long history within itself and outside.”
So many students, so many completely wrong statements! I'm sure the Austrians and Turks would be interested in knowing that they are, in fact, the same people - and so all that fighting they did for 500 years was actually just fighting themselves. And the fact that Bismarck unified Germany in 1948? Wow... I'm especially excited to learn that Britain simply ran back to England - all it took was the basic knowledge that the French were involved to make them run home! As for geography... *sigh* I can't even begin with that. As for their spelling, well, these aren't all that bad, except, perhaps, for Asslance Lorean (Alsace-Lorraine), Rhitious fists (Righteous Fists), manggled (mangled), and whatever the heck "embracy" is. Ha.
Hope these were enjoyable. :-)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Fed up
I try really hard to not show my frustrations with my students. I never liked it when professors took stuff out on us when I was a student, so I try not to do it to my own students. But the last few weeks I have been reaching the end of my rope with them. Part of it is due in part to my hellish migraines of late, and so I understand that my mood has been a bit unpredictable.
But lately I have been appalled at my students' complete lack of regard for what I say in class. My students have had two important assignments due this month. The first was a very complicated paper that the professor decided to grade, and that I tried to discuss a few times, and he discussed in class. The second is a much simpler, 2-3 page paper based on the reading of a primary source in their textbook. For a good three weeks in a row, I told all three of my classes that I was going to give them the option of choosing any of the sources they had left to write about. For the first paper of this sort, I made them all write on the same source and answer a specific question. This time, I told them to pick one document and then just pick one of the reading questions connected to their document to answer so they'd have a coherent thesis statement.
That's it. Simple, open-ended, easy to do, right? Choose any of the documents you have liked, pick one question to answer, write the paper. And it's been explained at least three times in class.
You'd never know it was that easy by talking to my students. I would say that a good 50% of my students have emailed me or come up to me in class to ask about this last essay. Some of my favorite questions are the ones that sound something like this:
~ "I've looked in my notes and can't find anything about this last essay. So what do we have to do?"
~ "I know you talked about the essay before, but I don't remember what you said. Could you tell me again, because I need to write the paper tonight."
What I *want* to say are things like, "Notes do not magically appear when I speak. You have to be actually paying attention and writing for that to happen. Therefore, your lack of notes about something I said is not actually my problem. You should have been paying attention."
What I really do not understand is how it became acceptable for students to completely ignore their teachers, repeatedly, then write emails or come in person, admit that they ignore their teachers, and fully expect to get whatever information they need. I refused to answer or told some students that I had already explained this multiple times in class, and they responded that their grades really couldn't handle another bad grade if they did this wrong so couldn't I please help?
Again - NO! Yesterday in class I probably told ten students in a row that what I had said in class still stood - they had no idea what I had said in class, even though every single one of them had been in class. One of them responded, "But I haven't missed any classes. I was there every week."
That's supposed to make your case stronger??? By reminding me that you were never absent, that you were always sitting less than 10 feet away from me, and that you STILL do not know what I said?
I simply do not understand. I have the great urge to tell them on Friday that anyone who emailed me asking what the assignment was will be losing 5 points for stupidity.
I often tell my coworkers that I have no problems with true ignorance - with people truly not knowing something, or not understanding, or even with those few students who really do not have the ability to comprehend something (because sometimes you do get a student who isn't at the same level intellectually, as much as you wish they could be). But what makes me angry is what I call "preventable stupidity" - students making choices that lead to them getting lower grades, failing assignments, or just not understanding things because they don't pay attention, don't work, or do something else that could with a tiny bit of effort have been changed to lead to a positive outcome.
So this week, being sick, being in pain for most of the last two weeks, and preventable stupidity abounding in my students is just making me fed up. I want so much to help them, I want them to do well, I want them to thrive, and I want them to love history. But how can they do that when they don't care enough to even pay attention when I tell them, "You have a paper due in two weeks. This is what I want:.... "?
:-( I love my students, and I want the best for them, but their total lack of caring is getting to me this semester. I fear that I am a poor teacher. If I can't inspire them to care, how can I teach them anything worthwhile?
But lately I have been appalled at my students' complete lack of regard for what I say in class. My students have had two important assignments due this month. The first was a very complicated paper that the professor decided to grade, and that I tried to discuss a few times, and he discussed in class. The second is a much simpler, 2-3 page paper based on the reading of a primary source in their textbook. For a good three weeks in a row, I told all three of my classes that I was going to give them the option of choosing any of the sources they had left to write about. For the first paper of this sort, I made them all write on the same source and answer a specific question. This time, I told them to pick one document and then just pick one of the reading questions connected to their document to answer so they'd have a coherent thesis statement.
That's it. Simple, open-ended, easy to do, right? Choose any of the documents you have liked, pick one question to answer, write the paper. And it's been explained at least three times in class.
You'd never know it was that easy by talking to my students. I would say that a good 50% of my students have emailed me or come up to me in class to ask about this last essay. Some of my favorite questions are the ones that sound something like this:
~ "I've looked in my notes and can't find anything about this last essay. So what do we have to do?"
~ "I know you talked about the essay before, but I don't remember what you said. Could you tell me again, because I need to write the paper tonight."
What I *want* to say are things like, "Notes do not magically appear when I speak. You have to be actually paying attention and writing for that to happen. Therefore, your lack of notes about something I said is not actually my problem. You should have been paying attention."
What I really do not understand is how it became acceptable for students to completely ignore their teachers, repeatedly, then write emails or come in person, admit that they ignore their teachers, and fully expect to get whatever information they need. I refused to answer or told some students that I had already explained this multiple times in class, and they responded that their grades really couldn't handle another bad grade if they did this wrong so couldn't I please help?
Again - NO! Yesterday in class I probably told ten students in a row that what I had said in class still stood - they had no idea what I had said in class, even though every single one of them had been in class. One of them responded, "But I haven't missed any classes. I was there every week."
That's supposed to make your case stronger??? By reminding me that you were never absent, that you were always sitting less than 10 feet away from me, and that you STILL do not know what I said?
I simply do not understand. I have the great urge to tell them on Friday that anyone who emailed me asking what the assignment was will be losing 5 points for stupidity.
I often tell my coworkers that I have no problems with true ignorance - with people truly not knowing something, or not understanding, or even with those few students who really do not have the ability to comprehend something (because sometimes you do get a student who isn't at the same level intellectually, as much as you wish they could be). But what makes me angry is what I call "preventable stupidity" - students making choices that lead to them getting lower grades, failing assignments, or just not understanding things because they don't pay attention, don't work, or do something else that could with a tiny bit of effort have been changed to lead to a positive outcome.
So this week, being sick, being in pain for most of the last two weeks, and preventable stupidity abounding in my students is just making me fed up. I want so much to help them, I want them to do well, I want them to thrive, and I want them to love history. But how can they do that when they don't care enough to even pay attention when I tell them, "You have a paper due in two weeks. This is what I want:.... "?
:-( I love my students, and I want the best for them, but their total lack of caring is getting to me this semester. I fear that I am a poor teacher. If I can't inspire them to care, how can I teach them anything worthwhile?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
3 more down, many more to go
After an insanely large amount of time actually reading today - I started around 9:30 this morning and am only now done - I finished three books today:
Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931-1939
* Yet another in a long list of older treatments of the war, Jackson argues that the Republic should have been able to solve most of their problems (except agrarian reform) democratically until 1934. Like Malefakis, Brenan, and a few others, he argues that land reform was probably the biggest problem the Republic faced. According to Jackson, the Republic failed because the civil servants weren't loyal to the Republic, but were to the King; political discipline was hard to come by; the people had not been schooled in the democratic process thanks to a long history of anti-democratic practices; the anarchist uprisings were threatening the stability of the Republic; and the army still saw itself as the protector of the people.
Carmen Martin Gaite, Usos amorosos de la postguerra espanola
*Ugh. This was supposed to be the "easy read" that would be "fun." Ha. I'm not sure if it's a matter of colloquialisms and/or dialect, but I cannot understand this woman's writings. It took me over 6 hours, and I'm going to check tomorrow or Thursday with the English-language translation to see if I've gotten anything right - but I think her basic discussion is about the ways by which the Francoist redefinition of male/female relationships not only repressed sexuality, but demanded a culture of ignorance about the opposite sex. Through a redefinition of femininity (exemplified by Pilar Primo de Rivera and the Seccion Femenina), gender segregation in schools, a cultural taboo against both overt sexuality and singlehood, young men and women often only began to learn about each other during the engagement period. If she said anything more, I was too frustrated to catch it...
Sandie Holguin, Creating Spaniards: Culture and National Identity in Republican Spain
* One of the best books on the Republic in a long time, Holguin talks about how the Republican-Socialist coalition, anarchists, and (at times) the conservatives (eventually the Nationalist leaders under Franco) tried to create a unified populace via cultural programs - theater, literacy campaigns, film, and literature. Even during the war, groups with competing hegemonic projects sent travelling culture troops to educate, entertain, and try to unify. They were all trying to "invent traditions," but the Republic was unable to prevail, partly due to time, partly due to their own internal debates over how exactly to proceed.
Me terribly sleepy now. I've read 20 books, most of them for my major field, in 11 days. *curls up in ball on couch and sleeps for a week*
Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931-1939
* Yet another in a long list of older treatments of the war, Jackson argues that the Republic should have been able to solve most of their problems (except agrarian reform) democratically until 1934. Like Malefakis, Brenan, and a few others, he argues that land reform was probably the biggest problem the Republic faced. According to Jackson, the Republic failed because the civil servants weren't loyal to the Republic, but were to the King; political discipline was hard to come by; the people had not been schooled in the democratic process thanks to a long history of anti-democratic practices; the anarchist uprisings were threatening the stability of the Republic; and the army still saw itself as the protector of the people.
Carmen Martin Gaite, Usos amorosos de la postguerra espanola
*Ugh. This was supposed to be the "easy read" that would be "fun." Ha. I'm not sure if it's a matter of colloquialisms and/or dialect, but I cannot understand this woman's writings. It took me over 6 hours, and I'm going to check tomorrow or Thursday with the English-language translation to see if I've gotten anything right - but I think her basic discussion is about the ways by which the Francoist redefinition of male/female relationships not only repressed sexuality, but demanded a culture of ignorance about the opposite sex. Through a redefinition of femininity (exemplified by Pilar Primo de Rivera and the Seccion Femenina), gender segregation in schools, a cultural taboo against both overt sexuality and singlehood, young men and women often only began to learn about each other during the engagement period. If she said anything more, I was too frustrated to catch it...
Sandie Holguin, Creating Spaniards: Culture and National Identity in Republican Spain
* One of the best books on the Republic in a long time, Holguin talks about how the Republican-Socialist coalition, anarchists, and (at times) the conservatives (eventually the Nationalist leaders under Franco) tried to create a unified populace via cultural programs - theater, literacy campaigns, film, and literature. Even during the war, groups with competing hegemonic projects sent travelling culture troops to educate, entertain, and try to unify. They were all trying to "invent traditions," but the Republic was unable to prevail, partly due to time, partly due to their own internal debates over how exactly to proceed.
Me terribly sleepy now. I've read 20 books, most of them for my major field, in 11 days. *curls up in ball on couch and sleeps for a week*
Monday, November 17, 2008
Comps, comps, comps!
I have been suddenly back to working on comps, and working hard, at that. In the last 10 days, I've read 17 books, most of them for my dissertation adviser's list. Three were on environmental history, but the rest have been about Spain, generally between 1875 and 1940. To keep things straight for me (and maybe even help later on), I'm going to list them and provide my own quick summary. So feel free to stop reading if you are not interested in a bunch of Spanish history book summaries!
Stephen Pyne, Vestal Fire - shoot me now. While I'm sure there are interesting arguments here, this 600+ page book bored me to tears. Literally. I ended up reading a few reviews and the section on the Mediterranean and giving up after about 3 hours. Blah.
William A. Christian, Jr., Visionaries: The Spanish Republic and the Reign of Christ - unfortunately, like Pyne, this book is far too long (around 500 pages) and has no real argument. After I got through part of it, I read some reviews by three of the giants in the field (Lannon, Ringrose, and Payne), and none of them could find the argument. Lannon, in particular, ended his review with something along the lines of, "So, the retelling of the story is great, but I'm still left wondering - what does it mean?" Not a good sign when the giant who focuses on Catholicism and religion in Spain has no idea why your 500-page book on visions of Mary in 1931 in the Basque regions matters.
Diana K. Davis, Resurrecting the Granary of Rome: Environmental History and French Colonial Expansion in North Africa - Excellent work on the French use of a declensionist environmental narrative as a means of justifying the imposition of imperial rule over the Berbers and Arabs of the Maghreb.
Walter Rodney, How the West Underdeveloped Africa - I swear, he could have saved me a lot of time by just saying, "Read Marx. Now apply it to Africa and Europe and their relationship. The End." -.-
Temma Kaplan, Red City, Blue Period: Social Movements in Picasso's Barcelona - Excellent book that shows how, in Barcelona, festivals and street performances of various kinds were used both to express solidarity and to challenge the central authority in Madrid. These festivals and rituals were coopted and transformed over time by various groups (unions, women, the Church, the regionalist league, etc.) and together they helped shape Barcelona's unique identity in the early twentieth century.
Sheelagh Ellwood, Spanish Fascism in the Franco Era: Falange Espanola de las Jons, 1936-76 - I'm sure this is a good narrative history of the institution of the Falange Espanola, but it bored me. A lot. I got to where I didn't care what was happening to the FE at any point. Again, she's a good writer, and her work on Franco is always well-supported. But I don't like the Franco era. It bores me.
Michael Richards, A Time of Silence: Civil War and the Culture of Repression in Franco's Spain, 1936-1945 - Interesting idea - that the focus on "autarky" in the immediate aftermath of the civil war was not truly just about economics, but was actually part of a larger process of isolating Spaniards, "purifying" the nation of that "anti-Spain" crowd (aka, those who supported the Republic); and that poverty, self-denial, and hardship were all encouraged as your due sacrifice to the New State, which was continually reinforced by violence and the threat of violence.
Alun Kenwood, ed., The Spanish Civil War: A Cultural and Historical Reader - Primarily a primary source reader, but using literature to explore Spanish, American, French, British, and German experiences and reactions to the civil war. Fun read.
Helen Graham, The Spanish Republic at War, 1936-1939 - Very long book... and right now I can't remember what she argues. Probably because I couldn't find a real thesis statement anywhere... in the 500-page book!
Ronald Radosh, et al, eds., Spain Betrayed: the Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War - Primarily a collection of around 80 Soviet documents, taking up most of 500 pages, regarding the Soviets' involvement in the war, the editors argue that the Soviets wanted, from the very beginning, to control he situation in Spain. They contend that the Soviets wanted to turn Spain into a version of what they'd use in Eastern Europe after WWII.
Gerald Howson, Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War - Using primarily diplomatic records from around the world, Howson argued that the Non-Intervention Pact condemned the Republic to defeat, in part because, in practice, the Nationalists were able to get all they needed from Germany/Italy, and because the Republic was reduced to trying to smuggle arms in from around the world. In this smuggling scheme, they were taken advantage of by pretty much everyone, though the Soviets were especially ruthless in manipulating the exchange rates to obtain as much Spanish gold as possible. He also points to the general ineptitude of all of those involved as one explanation for the whole fiasco.
Pierre Broue and Emile Temime, The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain - A lovely little Marxist book that argues that there was a social revolution going on in Spain at the beginning of the Civil War, and that this Revolution was, in large part, the enthusiasm and lifeline for the Republic. They seem to think that The Revolution could have saved Spain, but that the Republican leaders, especially the communist party, sacrificed the Revolution in order to fight the war; by doing so, they ended up losing both the Revolution AND the war. Fun, huh?
Adrian Shubert, The Road to Revolution in Spain: The Coal Miners of Asturias, 1860-1934 - His doctoral dissertation from the 1980s, Shubert argued that the miners in Asturias who revolted in October 1934 had radicalized primarily due to the economic crisis in the industry after WWI and the inability of the unions or the Republic to solve the problems. The Spanish coal industry boomed during WWI, as British coal, especially, faltered during the fighting. But after 1918, the British industry rebounded, with the effect of sending the Spanish industry into a bit of a depression; Spanish mining companies responded by trying to cut wages and social provisions, instituting greater mechanization, and in general sacrificing working conditions for greater productivity and profits. The miners turned to their syndicate, the SMA, but it chose a route of moderation, relying on the government. When the government - both the Primo dictatorship and the later Republic - were unable to mitigate the effects of the depression, the miners radicalized even more. So when the Socialists sent the word for a general strike and uprising, the Asturian miners were especially ready.
Edward Malefakis, Agrarian Reform and Peasant Revolution in Spain - A bit of a beast to get through, mainly because endless tables and statistics kind of get boring after a few hours, Malefakis argued that it was the failure of the Republic to pass truly radical land reform between 1931 and 1936 that led to the radicalization of the Spanish peasant, especially in Southern Spain (i.e., Extremadura and Andalucia) where the latifundio system was so prevalent. By not addressing the land question, the Republic doomed itself.
Robert Kern, Liberals, Reformers and Caciques in Restoration Spain 1875-1909
*I never quite found an actual thesis... but he argues that the failure of Spanish liberalism to reform the agrarian situation and provide real relief to peasants and workers explains why liberalism as a political option failed after 1875. Because liberalism was so closely associated with the power of the caciques, especially since Canovas did not trust the general public to be true participants in government, and because of the crises after 1875 (the disaster of 1898, the Semana Tragica (which killed the possibility of regionalist reform), liberalism failed to adapt, reform, or modernize.
Pamela Radcliff, From Mobilization to Civil War: The Politics of Polarization in the Spanish City of Gijon, 1900-1937
*Her doctoral dissertation, this is an excellent work that uses both Habermas' concept of the public sphere and Gramsci's discussion of hegemony to argue that in the early twentieth century, there were three hegemonic projects competing for dominance. These were the republican project, the labor movement's project, and the traditional narrative (Catholic, monarchist, etc.). Dissension within the republican ranks, and the conflict between the UGT and CNT in the labor movement, helped prevent either side from fully winning over the working class - and so neither side was able to unify the masses under one coherent hegemonic project. They tried to co-opt the public sphere, through education, processions/festivals, rituals, symbols, but none of the hegemonic projects dominated. Again, the lack of real reform under the Republic of the 1930s doomed the republican project for good.
Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth: an Account of the Social and Political Background of the Spanish Civil War
*Blech, this was my main project today. I finished with Radcliff around 11 a.m., and spent most of the rest of the day (when trying to work) reading this. After 300+ pages, I think the main argument of this 1940s work is that the agrarian problem (minifundia in the centre/north, latifundia in the south, regional diversity and constant struggle between peasants/workers and elites) was the primary factor dooming the Republic and leading to the war. There's a lot more in here, but I think this was the main contribution.
Stephen Pyne, Vestal Fire - shoot me now. While I'm sure there are interesting arguments here, this 600+ page book bored me to tears. Literally. I ended up reading a few reviews and the section on the Mediterranean and giving up after about 3 hours. Blah.
William A. Christian, Jr., Visionaries: The Spanish Republic and the Reign of Christ - unfortunately, like Pyne, this book is far too long (around 500 pages) and has no real argument. After I got through part of it, I read some reviews by three of the giants in the field (Lannon, Ringrose, and Payne), and none of them could find the argument. Lannon, in particular, ended his review with something along the lines of, "So, the retelling of the story is great, but I'm still left wondering - what does it mean?" Not a good sign when the giant who focuses on Catholicism and religion in Spain has no idea why your 500-page book on visions of Mary in 1931 in the Basque regions matters.
Diana K. Davis, Resurrecting the Granary of Rome: Environmental History and French Colonial Expansion in North Africa - Excellent work on the French use of a declensionist environmental narrative as a means of justifying the imposition of imperial rule over the Berbers and Arabs of the Maghreb.
Walter Rodney, How the West Underdeveloped Africa - I swear, he could have saved me a lot of time by just saying, "Read Marx. Now apply it to Africa and Europe and their relationship. The End." -.-
Temma Kaplan, Red City, Blue Period: Social Movements in Picasso's Barcelona - Excellent book that shows how, in Barcelona, festivals and street performances of various kinds were used both to express solidarity and to challenge the central authority in Madrid. These festivals and rituals were coopted and transformed over time by various groups (unions, women, the Church, the regionalist league, etc.) and together they helped shape Barcelona's unique identity in the early twentieth century.
Sheelagh Ellwood, Spanish Fascism in the Franco Era: Falange Espanola de las Jons, 1936-76 - I'm sure this is a good narrative history of the institution of the Falange Espanola, but it bored me. A lot. I got to where I didn't care what was happening to the FE at any point. Again, she's a good writer, and her work on Franco is always well-supported. But I don't like the Franco era. It bores me.
Michael Richards, A Time of Silence: Civil War and the Culture of Repression in Franco's Spain, 1936-1945 - Interesting idea - that the focus on "autarky" in the immediate aftermath of the civil war was not truly just about economics, but was actually part of a larger process of isolating Spaniards, "purifying" the nation of that "anti-Spain" crowd (aka, those who supported the Republic); and that poverty, self-denial, and hardship were all encouraged as your due sacrifice to the New State, which was continually reinforced by violence and the threat of violence.
Alun Kenwood, ed., The Spanish Civil War: A Cultural and Historical Reader - Primarily a primary source reader, but using literature to explore Spanish, American, French, British, and German experiences and reactions to the civil war. Fun read.
Helen Graham, The Spanish Republic at War, 1936-1939 - Very long book... and right now I can't remember what she argues. Probably because I couldn't find a real thesis statement anywhere... in the 500-page book!
Ronald Radosh, et al, eds., Spain Betrayed: the Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War - Primarily a collection of around 80 Soviet documents, taking up most of 500 pages, regarding the Soviets' involvement in the war, the editors argue that the Soviets wanted, from the very beginning, to control he situation in Spain. They contend that the Soviets wanted to turn Spain into a version of what they'd use in Eastern Europe after WWII.
Gerald Howson, Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War - Using primarily diplomatic records from around the world, Howson argued that the Non-Intervention Pact condemned the Republic to defeat, in part because, in practice, the Nationalists were able to get all they needed from Germany/Italy, and because the Republic was reduced to trying to smuggle arms in from around the world. In this smuggling scheme, they were taken advantage of by pretty much everyone, though the Soviets were especially ruthless in manipulating the exchange rates to obtain as much Spanish gold as possible. He also points to the general ineptitude of all of those involved as one explanation for the whole fiasco.
Pierre Broue and Emile Temime, The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain - A lovely little Marxist book that argues that there was a social revolution going on in Spain at the beginning of the Civil War, and that this Revolution was, in large part, the enthusiasm and lifeline for the Republic. They seem to think that The Revolution could have saved Spain, but that the Republican leaders, especially the communist party, sacrificed the Revolution in order to fight the war; by doing so, they ended up losing both the Revolution AND the war. Fun, huh?
Adrian Shubert, The Road to Revolution in Spain: The Coal Miners of Asturias, 1860-1934 - His doctoral dissertation from the 1980s, Shubert argued that the miners in Asturias who revolted in October 1934 had radicalized primarily due to the economic crisis in the industry after WWI and the inability of the unions or the Republic to solve the problems. The Spanish coal industry boomed during WWI, as British coal, especially, faltered during the fighting. But after 1918, the British industry rebounded, with the effect of sending the Spanish industry into a bit of a depression; Spanish mining companies responded by trying to cut wages and social provisions, instituting greater mechanization, and in general sacrificing working conditions for greater productivity and profits. The miners turned to their syndicate, the SMA, but it chose a route of moderation, relying on the government. When the government - both the Primo dictatorship and the later Republic - were unable to mitigate the effects of the depression, the miners radicalized even more. So when the Socialists sent the word for a general strike and uprising, the Asturian miners were especially ready.
Edward Malefakis, Agrarian Reform and Peasant Revolution in Spain - A bit of a beast to get through, mainly because endless tables and statistics kind of get boring after a few hours, Malefakis argued that it was the failure of the Republic to pass truly radical land reform between 1931 and 1936 that led to the radicalization of the Spanish peasant, especially in Southern Spain (i.e., Extremadura and Andalucia) where the latifundio system was so prevalent. By not addressing the land question, the Republic doomed itself.
Robert Kern, Liberals, Reformers and Caciques in Restoration Spain 1875-1909
*I never quite found an actual thesis... but he argues that the failure of Spanish liberalism to reform the agrarian situation and provide real relief to peasants and workers explains why liberalism as a political option failed after 1875. Because liberalism was so closely associated with the power of the caciques, especially since Canovas did not trust the general public to be true participants in government, and because of the crises after 1875 (the disaster of 1898, the Semana Tragica (which killed the possibility of regionalist reform), liberalism failed to adapt, reform, or modernize.
Pamela Radcliff, From Mobilization to Civil War: The Politics of Polarization in the Spanish City of Gijon, 1900-1937
*Her doctoral dissertation, this is an excellent work that uses both Habermas' concept of the public sphere and Gramsci's discussion of hegemony to argue that in the early twentieth century, there were three hegemonic projects competing for dominance. These were the republican project, the labor movement's project, and the traditional narrative (Catholic, monarchist, etc.). Dissension within the republican ranks, and the conflict between the UGT and CNT in the labor movement, helped prevent either side from fully winning over the working class - and so neither side was able to unify the masses under one coherent hegemonic project. They tried to co-opt the public sphere, through education, processions/festivals, rituals, symbols, but none of the hegemonic projects dominated. Again, the lack of real reform under the Republic of the 1930s doomed the republican project for good.
Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth: an Account of the Social and Political Background of the Spanish Civil War
*Blech, this was my main project today. I finished with Radcliff around 11 a.m., and spent most of the rest of the day (when trying to work) reading this. After 300+ pages, I think the main argument of this 1940s work is that the agrarian problem (minifundia in the centre/north, latifundia in the south, regional diversity and constant struggle between peasants/workers and elites) was the primary factor dooming the Republic and leading to the war. There's a lot more in here, but I think this was the main contribution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)