Monthly Plan
Show Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $19.00 USD. How does it work?
journal article Social Tensions and the Origins of ProgressivismThe Journal of American History Vol. 56, No. 2 (Sep., 1969) , pp. 323-341 (19 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.2307/1908127 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1908127 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $19.00 - Download now and later Journal Information In 1964 the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, published by the Organization of American Historians, became The Journal of American History. The change in title reflected not only an awareness of a growing national membership in the Association, but recognized a decided shift in contributor emphasis from regional to nationally-oriented history. The Journal of American History remains the leading scholarly publication and journal of record in the field of American history and is well known as the major resource for the study, investigation, and teaching of our country's heritage. Published quarterly in March, June, September and December, the Journal continues its distinguished career by publishing prize-winning and widely reprinted articles on American history. Each volume contains interpretive essays on all aspects of American history, plus reviews of books, films, movies, television programs, museum exhibits and resource guides, as well as microform, oral history, archive and manuscript collections, bibliographies of scholarship contained in recent scholarly periodicals and dissertations. Publisher Information Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Britain dreams of still being in the nineteenth century. Today it is experiencing an economic and commercial crisis, the pound is weakening, it is unable to attract international capital to support development, and it has been hit by high inflation and increasingly serious social tensions. More and more, its alliance with the United States is beginning to show the characteristics of a vassalage, writes
Dario Velo, a Professor at Pavia University. British Premier Liz Truss resigned on October 20; according to a widespread interpretation, the government crises that have taken place in Britain in recent years are to blame, as well as the limits of the personality of the PM. Truss herself blamed her early departure on her lack of experience. Such a crisis in a country that boasts centuries-old democratic traditions cannot simply be attributed to contingent causes; to understand these phenomena, we must understand their long-term scope. Since the end of the Second World War, Britain has been faced with an alternative that it has not yet resolved. In order to defeat Nazism, Britain, to tip the scales in favour of the allies, placed its colonial interests on the plate. It thus contributed to ending a historical cycle in order to open a new one among free countries. It is understood that Britain, which won the Second World War alongside the USA and USSR, considered itself a different state, more authoritative than any other nation-state, on the same level as the great American and Russian federations. Even if that was no longer true. A turning point in this context was the military expedition to control the Suez Canal in 1956. The expedition, conducted with France, was a complete success on the military level, yet a total failure on the political level. The Soviet Union and the United States urged them to give up this neo-colonial adventure, recognising the rights of Nasser’s Egypt. There was no choice for France and Britain. However, the decisions made by France and Britain were very different. Jean Monnet had initiated the process of European unification: De Gaulle understood that France could play a leading role in Europe, on the condition that it adhered to the unification process, renouncing the illusion of being able to play a global role with its own strength alone. Not so in Britain. The country wavered between a European destiny and the illusion that it could still be a major world player, as it had been in the past. The UK did not join the European Coal and Steel Community, or the European Economic Community, at first. The UK co-founded the EFTA, but left. It stubbornly opposed the Economic and Monetary Union. Economic Statecraft Ukraine is the battlefield where the West, Russia and other major players are verily fighting for an epoch-making event: the multipolar transition. Indeed, it was never about Ukraine. Perhaps, the Ukraine war means Ukraine war only for the post-historical European Union, but this conflict has a different and deeper meaning for the rest of the world. The catalysis of the multipolar transition – for Russia and its partners. The prolongation of the dying unipolar moment – for the US. Expert Opinions A single certainty was valid for all the English governments that followed one another, the privileged alliance with the United States. This script led to Brexit and PM Liz Truss’s manoeuvre to revive the role of Britain with a sovereign project. The alliance with the United States implied a vassal role for Britain; British support for the war in Iraq had this significance. The illusion that it was a true alliance was confirmed by American aid to Britain in the colonial war of the Falklands. Can an equal partnership exist between two countries if one is many times more powerful than the other? Truss’s sovereign design can be summarised as follows:
The reality was quite different:
Appeals to sovereignty often operate under the illusion that a country can ignore its international ties. The Truss catastrophe confirmed that this is an illusion. Champions of sovereignty commonly want to re-establish a national power that has faded into history. The President of the Italian Republic Luigi Einaudi a century ago was lapidary: “The nation states are dust without substance.” Hence, his conviction that only federations could have given answers to the problems of the twenty-first century. Britain dreams of still being in the nineteenth century. Today it is experiencing an economic and commercial crisis, the pound is weakening, it is unable to attract international capital to support development, and it has been hit by high inflation and increasingly serious social tensions. More and more, its alliance with the United States is beginning to show the characteristics of a vassalage. Britain, Ukraine, Poland and others must meditate on the
failure of PM Truss and British sovereignty. Conflict and Leadership Andrew Futter The decision to increase the cap on nuclear warheads marks an abrupt departure from a generation of previous UK disarmament initiatives and advocacy. Andrew Futter, Professor of International Politics, University of Leicester, discusses why it was taken now. Expert Opinions Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise. What happened in America in the 19th century?In the United States, the nineteenth century was a time of tremendous growth and change. The new nation experienced a shift from a farming economy to an industrial one, major westward expansion, displacement of native peoples, rapid advances in technology and transportation, and a civil war.
What happened 19th century?The 19th century was a revolutionary period for European history and a time of great transformation in all spheres of life. Human and civil rights, democracy and nationalism, industrialisation and free market systems, all ushered in a period of change and chance.
How was the 19th century?The 19th century was an era of rapidly accelerating scientific discovery and invention, with significant developments in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, electricity, and metallurgy that laid the groundwork for the technological advances of the 20th century.
|
Which of the following states in the nineteenth century experienced social tensions
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 paraquee Inc.
