Transfer of Ideas in Soviet-American Relations at the Turn of the 1960—1970s (Based on the Example of the Expert Activity of the Institute for US Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR)

Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6 (104)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Igor Tarbeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Constructivism ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Central Committee ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Academy ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Us Studies ◽  
Organization Of Production ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Recordings of conversations between Soviet amerikanists (experts for US studies) and American scientists, politicians, public figures, and businessmen became an important information source for experts and for the Soviet party leadership. In the late 1960s — early 1970s these conversations played the role of an informal channel connecting representatives of American and Soviet elites through the Institute for US Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Using the theory of cultural transfer and the methodology of social constructivism, the author of this article conducts a detailed analysis of an information note that was sent to the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Institute for US Studies in 1969. The note is a recording of a conversation between amerikanists and American businessman Charles Thornton. It contains Thornton’s statements about the perception of the USSR in the United States; Soviet economic development and American-Soviet cooperation opportunities; American principles of management and organization of production. The American experience became a reference for the USSR in the context of détente and the ongoing economic reform. The ideas evoked a potent reaction among the Soviet party elite. There are a lot of marks in the margins of the note made by readers from different departments of CPSU. However, despite the favorable environment and official’s interest, the note was not discussed, and no specific decisions were made. This case-study allows us to raise a number of questions about the Soviet-American transfer of ideas, the image of the United States in the USSR, and the process of making domestic and foreign policy decisions.

“The Difference Between No. 1 1928 and No. 1 1930 Is Great Indeed.”

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 15-39
Author(s):  
William deJong Lambert ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rockefeller Foundation ◽  
Early Death ◽  
The United States ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
Soviet Academy ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Difference ◽  
One Year ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

This article chronicles the correspondence between Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) and his colleagues in the USSR in the years following his arrival in the United States on what was to have been a one-year fellowship working in the laboratory of T.H. Morgan at Columbia University. These letters chronicle a period during which Dobzhansky not only realized the enormous potential of Drosophila genetics for unlocking the secrets of evolution, but also that con­tinuing this research would require finding a way to remain in the United States longer than either the Soviet Academy of Sciences, or the Rockefeller Foundation, would allow. Dobzhansky’s exchanges during this period with mentors such as Yuri Filipchenko and Nikolai Vavilov, as well as fellow students and colleagues such as Nikolai Medvedev, highlight the precarious game Dobzhansky played as he attempted to appear eager to return to his homeland, while secretly maneuvering to delay it. By the time it was over Filipchenko would die an early death of meningitis and Vavilov—who had originally been urging Dobzhansky to return and contribute to development of genetics in Russia—would now advise him to remain in the USA. Dobzhansky was nearly forced to return to the USSR after a routine trip to Canada to renew his visa, an outcome that would surely have resulted in imprisonment or worse. In the end he was allowed to stay, however Dobzhansky’s defection was so resented by the Soviet regime that even decades later he would remain an “un-person” in his homeland, whose name and contributions were never officially acknowledged during his lifetime, and his attempts at reconciliation were rejected.

El tú como un “mask”: Voseo and Salvadoran and Honduran Identity in the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Woods ◽  
Susana V. Rivera-Mills
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mexican American ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Identity ◽  
Central American ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
American Spanish ◽  
Linguistic Attitudes

AbstractThis sociolinguistic study explores linguistic attitudes of Salvadorans and Hondurans living in the United States towards the use of voseo, a distinguishing feature of Central American Spanish. Using sociolinguistic interviews and ethnographic observations, the Central American experience in Oregon and Washington is examined regarding linguistic attitudes toward voseo and tuteo and how these influence Salvadoran and Honduran identity in U.S. communities that are primarily Mexican-American. Initial findings point to participants developing ethnolinguistic masks and an expanded use of tú as a strategic approach to integration into the established Mexican-American community, while at the same time maintaining a sense of Central American identity.

scholarly journals The work of Mark Antonovych in the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences (USA)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 184
Author(s):  
Svitlana S. Hodzhal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Active Member ◽  
Historical Science ◽  
Important Place ◽  
Full Member ◽  
Scientific Institutions ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

The purpose of the article is to characterize Mark Antonovichʼs activities at the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences (USA) as President of the UAN and to determine his contribution to the development of the Academy. Methods of research: historical-typological, historical-genetic, historical-system. Main results: An important contribution to the development and preservation of Ukrainian historical science can be considered the work of researchers in the scientific institutions of the diaspora in the twentieth century. The article analyzes the scientific and organizational work of Marko Dmytrovych Antonovych as an active member of the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences (UVAN). Marko Dmytrovych joined the scientific institution at the beginning of its foundation. The researcher took an active part in scientific conferences and fruitfully co-operated in the first group of History and Early History with auxiliary sciences, where Marko Antonovych served as secretary. After being elected President by the UVAN in the United States, he devoted himself entirely to the work of the organization. The scientist was in this position during 1992–1997. As the President of UVAN, M. Antonovych participated in the organization of scientific conferences speaking up with the reports. In addition, he was engaged in editing and preparing for the publication of scientific publications. During this period, under the auspices of UIA under the editorship or with the introductory word of M. Antonovych nine editions were published. On his initiative, the reorganization and modernization of the archive and library began. It was planned to inventory library and archival funds, the recruitment of a professional librarian and the purchase of a computer for the introduction of an electronic catalog (including the creation of e-mail). In addition, it was suggested to contact US and Canadian universities to collaborate on microfilming and preservation of some of the most valuable book and archive funds. It was during the presidency of Marko Dmytrovych that an agreement was signed on cooperation between the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences in the USA and the T. H. Shevchenko Institute of Literature of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine for ten years (1997-2007), the active cooperation of the Institute with UVAN in Canada, the Historical and Philological Section of NTSh and NTSh in Lviv, the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, the Harriman Institute and other academic institutions in America, Europe and Canada. UVAN occupied an important place in the organization of scientific life in the diaspora. Marko Antonovych, being a full member, and later also the President of the Academy, greatly contributed to the development of historical science. Thanks to his hard work, collections of archival materials and works by renowned scholars were published. His efforts to reorganize the archives and libraries also had a positive impact on the organization of the scientific activity of the UVAN, and, consequently, on the whole historical science. Practical significance: recommended for use in studying the activities of the Ukrainian diaspora, the work of scientific institutions abroad. Originality: A generalization of UAV activities in the United States was used during the period 1992–1997. Scientific novelty: documents from the UIT archive (Ukraine) and the UVAN archive (USA) were used for the first time. Article type: analitycal.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Willmetts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American History ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Architectural Feature ◽  
National Archives ◽  
The Us ◽  
Office Of Strategic Services ◽  
The Sacrifice

If official secrecy had a devastating impact on American history, its impact on Americans’ understanding of that history was a collateral disaster.1 Richard Gid Powers, introduction to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience 13 Rue Madeleine, a 1947 semi-documentary that commemorates the sacrifice and courage of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) wartime predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), opens with a shot of the US National Archives Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. The building’s location, at the heart of the nation’s capital on the Washington Mall, amidst so many iconic monuments to American democracy, is no accident. Like the Washington or Lincoln Memorial, it is a depository of historical experience that binds up the nation. In its inner-sanctum, as audiences then and now would know, the United States of America’s founding documents, including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are housed. After the establishing shot the camera slowly tilts from top to bottom, surveying the archive’s columnar neo-classical facade – a common architectural feature of America’s monuments that evokes a sense of both history and authority. Finally, it comes to rest on a statue in the forecourt of the archive called Future. On Future’s plinth, the inscription reads: ‘What is Past is Prologue’. At this point we hear the booming voice of an omniscient narrator – an oratory style borrowed from the newsreels of the time that was also a defining feature of the semi-documentary format:...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document