scholarly journals George Z. F. Bereday (Zygmunt Fijałkowski) and his comparative method in educational research

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 01050 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Wojniak
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Comparative Education ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Research In Education ◽  
Methodological Aspects

The paper concerns George Bereday’s (Zygmunt Fijałkowski - 1920-1983) scientific activities and his contribution to the development of comparative education as a scientific discipline. Bereday was a researcher of Polish origin and a professor of Columbia University. His works concern methodological aspects of comparative research in education, and his key study is entitled Comparative Method in Education. The main assumption of this method is to analyze educational facts in a broad social and political context. Bereday also examined the education system and policy in the Soviet Union, as well as in the United States and Japan. An important issue of his interest was mass education, including that on a university level, from the point of view of American and European experiences.

scholarly journals “Honeymoon” of the Russian Empire and the United States during WWI

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-292
Author(s):  
Victoria I. Zhuravleva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
The United States ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Russia ◽  
The Russian Empire

The article focuses on the debatable issues of Russian-American relations from 1914 until the fall of Tsarism, such as the degree of the two countries’ rapprochement, ethnic questions, the positive dynamics of mutual images and the intensified process of Russians and Americans studying each other. Based on primary and secondary sources, this work intends to emphasize that the conflict element in bilateral relations did not hamper cooperation between the two states. The author’s multipronged and interdisciplinary approach allowed her to conclude that the United Sates was ready to engage in wide-ranging interaction with the Russian Empire regardless of their ideological differences. From the author’s point of view, it was the pragmatic agenda that aided the states’ mutual interest in destroying the stereotypes of their counterpart and stimulated Russian Studies in the US and American Studies in Russia. Therefore, the “honeymoon” between the two states had started long before the 1917 February Revolution. However, Wilson strove to turn Russia not so much into an object of US’ “dollar diplomacy”, but into a destination of its “crusade” for democracy. The collapse of the monarchy provided an additional impetus for liberal internationalism by integrating the Russian “Other” into US foreign policy. Ultimately, an ideological (value-based) approach emerged as a stable trend in structuring America’s attitude toward Russia (be it the Soviet Union or post-Soviet Russia).

Dynamics of India's Strategic Environment

1978 ◽  
Vol 17 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 399-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Third World ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The One ◽  
The Third World ◽  
Indian Foreign Policy

India's strategic environment has undergone significant changes in recent years, especially in the seventies. From the point of view of Indian foreign policy, the strategic environment and its dynamics can be studied in three different spheres: (1) the global strategic environment, particularly consisting of the strategic confrontation between the United States and its allies on the one hand and the Soviet Union and its allies on the other; (2) the immediate strategic environment, consisting mainly of Pakistan and China; and (3) the intermediate strategic environment, consisting of the non-aligned movement and the Third World. Needless to say, there is considerable and inevitable overlap and feedback among these three spheres of the strategic environment. They are, nevertheless, conceptually and operationally different spheres. The purpose of this article is to analyse the recent changes in these three different spheres of our strategic environment and the implications of these changes for our foreign policy in the foreseeable future.

scholarly journals Referencing Practices in Cloud Physics

1980 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
pp. 903-904
Author(s):  
Louis J. Battan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Cloud Physics ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
The Soviet Union

A review of the referencing practices in selected journals published in the United States, the Soviet Union, and England shows that cloud physicists rely to a great extent on material published in the native languages of the authors. This practice has persisted for more than two decades and demonstrates a degree of chauvinism not appropriate in a scientific discipline.

scholarly journals Debating Famine and Genocide

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-481
Author(s):  
RONALD GRIGOR SUNY
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Reading Public ◽  
Strong Point ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Left And Right

Between academic writing of history – what professional historians, usually employed by universities, do – and popular history – what journalists, celebrities and independent writers usually with some claim on fame do – there is a growing intermediate genre, which I will call ‘history light’. While popular history is produced rather quickly and often with armies of researchers working for the celebrity author, history light is artisanal. It takes more time and bears the mark of the scholar/journalist author. Such writers, smart people with a flair for fluid prose, have turned out bestsellers and prizewinners that have found a broad reading public. They can be read with enjoyment and profit by the general public and scholars alike. History light may not be as sensationalist or prurient as many popular histories, but neither is it as thickly evidenced or balanced as the best academic histories. Such books usually have a strong point of view, often supportive of the liberal/conservative status quo in the United States, and in the case of those that deal with Russia or the Soviet Union, usually condemnatory of the Soviet Union, communism and extremes of left and right. They often tend to be indictments rather than historically empathetic; that is, they shape evidence to a particular conviction instead of allowing a more complex, perhaps even ambiguous, reading.

Contemporary Ethnicity: The Moral Dimension in Comparative Perspective

1990 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Moral Dimension ◽  
American Catholicism ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Majority Culture ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Ideal

The surge of national assertion in the USSR, generally unanticipated by American decision-makers, focusses attention on ethnic issues worldwide. But the moral dimension of ethnicity has rarely been examined in a comparative context, especially from the religious point of view. Issues now critical in the Soviet Union, such as justification for educational and occupational quotas for disadvantaged minorities, and the right of vulnerable ethnic collectivities to preserve their cultures by limiting immigration, have major implications for Third World and European countries, which are briefly surveyed. In the United States, concern for producing a united national culture based on the ideal of equal opportunities for individuals has usually precluded attention to preservation of ethnic collectivities distinct from the majority culture. Since most of these collectivities have been traditionally Catholic, their preservation has been especially sensitive to changes in American Catholicism.

The Role of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Korean War

2018 ◽  
pp. 97-130
Author(s):  
Denzenlkham Ulambayar
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Korean War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of

Since the 1990s, when previously classified and top secret Russian archival documents on the Korean War became open and accessible, it has become clear for post-communist countries that Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao Zedong were the primary organizers of the war. It is now equally certain that tensions arising from Soviet and American struggle generated the origins of the Korean War, namely the Soviet Union’s occupation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the United States’ occupation of the southern half to the 38th parallel after 1945 as well as the emerging bipolar world order of international relations and Cold War. Newly available Russian archival documents produced much in the way of new energies and opportunities for international study and research into the Korean War.2 However, within this research few documents connected to Mongolia have so far been found, and little specific research has yet been done regarding why and how Mongolia participated in the Korean War. At the same time, it is becoming today more evident that both Soviet guidance and U.S. information reports (evaluated and unevaluated) regarding Mongolia were far different from the situation and developments of that period. New examples of this tendency are documents declassified in the early 2000s and released publicly from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in December 2016 which contain inaccurate information. The original, uncorrupted sources about why, how and to what degree the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) became a participant in the Korean War are in fact in documents held within the Mongolian Central Archives of Foreign Affairs. These archives contain multiple documents in relation to North Korea. Prior to the 1990s Mongolian scholars Dr. B. Lkhamsuren,3 Dr. B. Ligden,4 Dr. Sh. Sandag,5 junior scholar J. Sukhee,6 and A. A. Osipov7 mention briefly in their writings the history of relations between the MPR and the DPRK during the Korean War. Since the 1990s the Korean War has also briefly been touched upon in the writings of B. Lkhamsuren,8 D. Ulambayar (the author of this paper),9 Ts. Batbayar,10 J. Battur,11 K. Demberel,12 Balảzs Szalontai,13 Sergey Radchenko14 and Li Narangoa.15 There have also been significant collections of documents about the two countries and a collection of memoirs published in 200716 and 2008.17 The author intends within this paper to discuss particularly about why, how and to what degree Mongolia participated in the Korean War, the rumors and realities of the war and its consequences for the MPR’s membership in the United Nations. The MPR was the second socialist country following the Soviet Union (the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to recognize the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and establish diplomatic ties. That was part of the initial stage of socialist system formation comprising the Soviet Union, nations in Eastern Europe, the MPR, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the DPRK. Accordingly between the MPR and the DPRK fraternal friendship and a framework of cooperation based on the principles of proletarian and socialist internationalism had been developed.18 In light of and as part of this framework, The Korean War has left its deep traces in the history of the MPR’s external diplomatic environment and state sovereignty

Utopias of One

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Kotin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World War I ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The Soviet Union

This book is a new account of utopian writing. It examines how eight writers—Henry David Thoreau, W. E. B. Du Bois, Osip and Nadezhda Mandel'shtam, Anna Akhmatova, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, and J. H. Prynne—construct utopias of one within and against modernity's two large-scale attempts to harmonize individual and collective interests: liberalism and communism. The book begins in the United States between the buildup to the Civil War and the end of Jim Crow; continues in the Soviet Union between Stalinism and the late Soviet period; and concludes in England and the United States between World War I and the end of the Cold War. In this way it captures how writers from disparate geopolitical contexts resist state and normative power to construct perfect worlds—for themselves alone. The book contributes to debates about literature and politics, presenting innovative arguments about aesthetic difficulty, personal autonomy, and complicity and dissent. It models a new approach to transnational and comparative scholarship, combining original research in English and Russian to illuminate more than a century and a half of literary and political history.

lmost all estimates of the figure of Alexander Solzhenitsyn are not related to literary criticism. Most studies evaluate his role, intentions and results. His figure is assessed in the context of the fate of the country, public perception and attitude to the country, which is Motherland for some, and mental and political enemy for the others. And for this purpose it is not even important who is right from the historical and political point of view. The point is who and how perceived the USSR and the entire Soviet project. Solzhenitsyn is seen as the enemy of the USSR and the Soviet project by those who popularized and helped him, and also according to his self-evaluation. Therefore, for those who identify themselves with the Soviet Union, its heritage and the entire Soviet project Solzhenitsyn represents the enemy and bearer of evil. For those who are hostile to the Soviet Union and the Soviet project, Solzhenitsyn is an ally in their struggle and bearer of good. Which of these parties is right is the issue of history and morality. 66% of Russian citizens support the first point of view, and the second point of view is supported by 25% of the population. Nowadays 88 % of Russian citizens know who Solzhenitsyn was. 31% consider him to be moral authority for them. 8% of the people believe that Solzhenitsyn presented true facts in his books.

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 260-275
Author(s):  
Victor V.  Aksyuchits
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Political Ideas ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
Russian Intelligentsia

In the article the author studies the formation process of Russian intelligentsia analyzing its «birth marks», such as nihilism, estrangement from native soil, West orientation, infatuation with radical political ideas, Russophobia. The author examines the causes of political radicalization of Russian intelligentsia that grew swiftly at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries and played an important role in the Russian revolution of 1917.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document