FileBam - Free File HostingImageBam - Free Image Hosting Ucash - Turn Links into Cash Free Online Games

ziadchatila's Blog

August 26, 2007

Sarojini Naidu was born February 13, 1879 in Hyderabad. Her father, Aghorenath Chattopadhyaya, was a celebrated scientist, poet and social reformer whose brilliance foreshadowed that of his daughter's. Dr. Chattopadhyaya was a gifted student, earning a scholarship to study at the University of Edinburgh where he earned his Doctorat in Science (the first Indian to do so) before continuing his education in Bonn, Germany, where he continued to earn praise. Upon his return, he founded the Nizam College at Hyderabad devoting his life's work to education, very much following in the footsteps of his Brahmin ancestors who were traditionally known for their patronage of Sanskrit learning. Sarojini's mother, Varada Sundari, accomplished in her own right, was a noted Bengali singer and lyricist and a devoted mother to her eight children. It is therefore with the enthusiastic support of an educated parentage and during a time when Hyderabad was a flourishing center of education that Sarojini's creative lineage began.

Educated in Hyderabad and later in Madras, she excelled in her studies and earned fame all over India. At sixteen, she earned a scholarship and was sent to London and Cambridge for further studies but failed to gain the same level of academic success (partially due to illness as well as restlessness, as she readily admits) and came back to India. While Sarojini's poetic sensibilities began early - she wrote a prodigious one thousand three-hundred line poem at the age of thirteen - it was during her studies in England where she began writing her poems that later comprised the bulk of her first significant collection, the best-selling The Golden Threshold. After her return to India, she continued to break social ground by marrying Dr. Govindarajulu Naidu, a man of a different caste. Subsequent years were spent quietly by the young Sarojini, content by raising her four children and tending to her domestic work.

The decade after Sarojini's publication of The Golden Threshold in 1905 proved pivotal. It is during this time that she released her major poetic collections, including The Bird of Time in 1912 and The Broken Wing in 1917. It is also during these years when the young Sarojini's Nationalist political activities surfaced and further solidified. She met regularly with Gokhale who introduced her to many of the facets of Indian political life, and soon afterwards, Ghandi, Nehru, Jinnah and others with whom she grew and suffered with in later years. With such an encouraging environment, Sarojini later moved on to become leader of the Indian National Congress, traveled extensively to the United States and elsewhere as news bearer of the Indian Nationalist struggle and solidified her reputation as a poet of worldly stature.

Of her time during her travels in Canada she recounted, in a letter to Gandhi, that her visit "has been more like a homecoming to our own people than the visit of a wandering Minstrel. The heart of Canadian is as warm as the climate is cold." From the "land of Great Lakes" to the deserts of Texas and Arizona; quoting Khalil Gibrans's The Prophet in one sentence and a French writer in the next, Sarojini was no longer just a poet of international repute but an inspiration to those, who like her, were actively engaged in a politics of resistance, one that she believed spoke a universal truth of freedom and which attested to the fundamental sameness of all beings. It was a theme to which she returned to time and again through out her life, the very essence of the Gandhian principles of the universal attributes of Mankind that she internalized early on and that her father helped spur in her.

A final achievement came in 1947 when she became the first female governor in India, in the state of Uttar Pradesh. She died in office two years later at the age of sixty-eight.

sb
August 26, 2007
A Brief introduction to the Annales School of History

In 1929, French historians Marc Bloch and Lucien Fevre founded the the Journal Annales d'Histoire Economique and Sociale. Prompted by the wholly dissatisfying "official" history by scholars emanating from the Sorbonne School3 and others (which effectively were state-sponsored) the Annalistes sought to widen the panorama of the orthodox historical analysis present up to then by taking multi-disciplinary approaches to their craft.

No longer were they simply content with looking at individuals but sought out structures within society that animated the characters within it. Under later interpretations, the Annaliste scholars turned their attention, with the help of Braudel and others, towards more permanent structures - the "long duree" - introducing new temporal dimensions to the study of history.

This resulted in the relocalizing of agency from the individual to other more permanent meta structures for which one presumably has less control over.
sb
August 26, 2007
An overview of the Ideas and Variants of the Marxist School of History

The Marxist school within history is a major current within the twentieth century. Following the analysis of twentieth century historiography by German Historian Raphael, one can identify two main currents of Marxism within the discipline: the Soviet variant and the Western one.

Historians who adhered to the Soviet Marxist outlook eschewed traditional economic determinism and other doctrines and served as a mouthpiece for the Communist Party leadership within the Soviet Bloc; this history, according to the author, was rejected by all but the most dedicated of historians.

The other variant, a western-developed Marxism that very much was a reaction to the orthodox and corrupt Soviet philosophy, came to play a vital role in developing an anti-capitalist critique as attested to by E.P. Thompson's work in Britain as well as earlier thinkers like Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.

Georg Iggers, in reviewing Raphael's synthesis of recent historiographical work, argues that "cultural Marxism played an important role in the critique of the positivistic scientism" and while these Marxists also criticized the same positivism that was present in other Marxist works, the group of scholars that later united under the Subaltern Studies Group argued that this critique in fact did not go too far; scholars like Guha and others were Marxists who became disenfranchised and sought alternatives.
sb
August 26, 2007

The United States and the Genocide Convention: A Summary of Views

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was brought before the United Nations Security Council as a consequence of the Nazi massacres against Europe’s Jews, Gypsies and other “undesirables”. Its aim is to prevent and punish the targeted mass murder of identifiable groups, and requires that the perpetrators of Genocide perceive them as such.

The United States government under Harry Truman was an initial supporter of ratification, having submitted the treaty for Senate ratification on June 16, 1949, yet over the course of some forty years, repetitive Senate discussions never resulted in ratification. In his letter to the Senate in support of the Genocide Treaty, President Truman laid out what would become the standard arguments of the proponents of ratification – not the least of whom was Reagan himself - throughout subsequent decades, and is worth quoting in detail:

“The United States has taken in the United Nations in producing an effective international legal instrument outlawing the world-shocking crime of genocide...By giving its advice and consent to my ratification of this convention, which I urge, the United States will demonstrate [that it is] prepared to take effective action on its part to contribute to the establishment of principles of law and justice.”


For example, Senator William Proxmire later repeated the emphasis on justice and morality by arguing that “the Genocide Convention is a moral document. It is a call for a higher standard of human conduct.” In many ways, these principles of “law and justice” are two important themes of American history and rhetoric. In fact, law and order and Human Rights represent the two basic guiding principles of Ronald Reagan’s imagination throughout his life, albeit totally subsumed within an anti-communist and highly politicized ideological construction.

The opponents of ratification have also historically remained faithful to a core set of objections, expressing the primary concern that the Convention and other similar “unaccountable” international agreements would invariably circumvent the American Constitution, the “Supreme law of the land,” as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the American republic. For example, Senator Bricker, writing in 1953, warns that if some treaties are seen as “undermining the constitutional rights of the American people,” then they will likely fail to receive Congressional assent. Likewise, Senator Jesse Helms from North Carolina questioned some thirty years afterwards whether the Genocide Convention “infringes upon our sovereignty with regard to domestic matters” and then concludes in the affirmative and notes that while “Jews” are active supporters of the Convention, they stand most to lose given that “they have killed a lot of Arabs. Who knows what a World Court would do?”
The Reagan Inaugural

Ronald Reagan’s inaugural address in 1981 set the tone for a return to a more hard-line anti-Communism that Carter had sought to reduce, some would argue unsuccessfully. His speech also made clear that Reagan also sought a return to a genuine Conservative or traditional agenda: high taxes, an intrusive government (“government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”), individual agency and worth, loyalty and the price of freedom all were themes that predominated. One issue that quickly came to embody many of these themes is whether the United States should finally ratify the Genocide Convention. The Reagan administration, on September 6, 1984, publicly announced that it was supporting ratification and pledged to follow through on this promise upon re-election in 1984.
sb
August 26, 2007
Reagan and the Bitburg Incident: A Historiograhpical View

The historiography presents a largely unified account of why the Reagan administration and Reagan himself (between which there is no effective differentiation) sought to push for ratification of the Genocide convention.

Samantha Power argues in her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide that Reagan sought to appease those who were criticizing him for his Bitburg trip (and the comments he made while there) by pushing the treaty through Congress. According to Power’s account, the Bitburg fiasco was the only reason for Reagan’s change in mind and we are led to conclude that this change took place over night.

The Bitburg controversy began when Chancellor Kohl of West Germany invited Reagan to visit the Bitburg cemetery as part of an official visit and as commemoration of the Victory in Europe during the Second World War; it was later discovered that Nazi SS soldiers were buried there. The trip was scheduled for May 5, 1985. The controversy quickly escalated with major veterans and Jewish Organizations (as the majority of Americans in public opinion polls) indicated their disapproval of the visit.

Reagan eventually added a trip to a concentration camp, after initially refusing, in order to diffuse the impact of the negative publicity. His explanation of the original refusal – “a mistaken impression that such a visit was outside the official agenda” – furthered the protests against the trip. Reagan’s explanations were at times notorious – “I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery, where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.” In fact, the SS soldiers buried at Bitburg had not been victims but proactive participants in genocide, as were some of the regular German soldiers as well, a point often ignored.

But Reagan also proved to be a master at using the Bitburg trip as part of his cohesive and effective political and ideological rhetoric, one that sought to marshal the forces of anti-Communism. During his speech at the Bitburg cemetery, as Anthony Lewis writing in the Times recounts it, Reagan was intent on noting the egregious rights violations of only Communist regimes, ignoring those of Colombian and Contra paramilitaries, of which Reagan was indirectly supportive. According to Clifford Marks, Reagan's anecdotal rhetoric and the attempt to simplify history in order to strengthen diplomatic relationships manipulated the larger cultural understanding of the Holocaust in favor of a political understanding. It is not difficult to see then the political machinations behind Reagan’s earlier announcement of his support for the Genocide Treaty at a speech before B’nai Brith.
sb
« older posts
ziadchatila


to ziadchatila

Recent Posts
Top Posts
Recent Comments

Categories
history (23)

Archive
Syndication Tools
  • Subscribe to Flixya Blog Feed
  • Ping your RSS Feed
  • Add to Technorati Favorites!