Jacoby, Karl.
Shadows at Dawn: A Borderlands
Massacre and the Violence of History. The Penguin Press, 2008.
At dawn on April 30, 1871,
Tohono O’odhams crept into the camp of the Western Apache living in Aravaipa
Canyon, and attacked them with clubs while they slept. As those Apache not immediately slain
attempted to escape by scrambling up the canyon walls, Mexican Americans and
Anglo-Americans gunned them down. Most
of the one hundred forty-four victims were women, children, or elderly. Another twenty-nine children became captives,
and were adopted by Tohono O’odham families.
This event, called the Camp Grant Massacre by those few who remember it,
provides the focus for Karl Jacoby’s ethnohistory of southern Arizona.
Although sporadic Apache raids continued after
an 1872 peace agreement, the Camp Grant Massacre was the last great act of
Arizona’s endemic violence dating to the years before Spanish arrival. Its relative obscurity in American culture
allows Jacoby to use it as the focus of his history of southern Arizona. Rather than constructing a traditional
narrative, in the first part of Shadows
at Dawn Jacoby presents the Arizona history of all four groups of
participants in the general order of their arrival on the scene. The exceptions to this scheme are the Apache,
who Jacoby addresses last in each of his major sections in an effort to recover
“the perspective of the Western Apache” (pg. 5). This allows him fully address the culture of
each group, their conception of history, and their perception of relations with
each other. The resulting focus on the
Tohono O’odham and the Spanish inhabitants of Arizona provides Jacoby the
rationale to explore the period before the 1854 Gadsden Purchase, which set the
final boundary between the United States and Mexico.
While the exact dates of their arrival in
southern Arizona are unknown, the O’odham presence predates the arrival of the
other groups participating in the Camp Grant Massacre. Oral histories and O’odham calendar stick
annals document a culture stretching back hundreds of years, including the
droughts and floods that destroyed several large agricultural villages around
1400 C.E. Warfare also appears in these
sources, as does the arrival of Spanish trade goods and missionaries. Jacoby argues that the O’odham reacted
cautiously to both, having an on again, off again relationship with the
missionaries as their healing techniques waxed and waned. Despite conflicts created by the demands of
missionaries for labor and the appearance that their rituals sometimes appeared
to harm O’odham participants, they were driven together by a common enemy – the
Apache.
Eventually the O’odham had direct conflicts with
the Spanish over the behavior of missionaries and the later Spanish military
occupation of Sonora. Despite these
episodes of revolt against Spanish rule, they reached an accommodation allowing
a more or less peaceful coexistence by recognizing the suzerainty of the
Spanish monarchy. Due to their generally
distributed organization, the O’odham saw the King as an alcalde, or captain, rather than a direct ruler. This same sense of general loyalty to a
leader informed their relationship to the Republic of Mexico during its
short-lived control of what became the American Southwest.
The United States initially maintained relations
with the O’odham that were functionally the same as those Mexico had
cultivated. American companies brought
an economic boom to southern Arizona from their acquisition of the region from
Mexico in 1848 through the beginning of the U.S. Civil War in 1861. That conflict brought only minor disruption,
as the O’odham continued to ally with Confederate or Union troops against the
Apache, who continued to raid O’odham and Mexican Americans alike. This cooperation eventually led to the
fateful joint operation in Aravaipa Canyon.
The United States initially maintained relations
with the O’odham that were functionally the same as those Mexico had
cultivated. American companies brought
an economic boom to southern Arizona from their acquisition of the region from
Mexico in 1848 through the beginning of the U.S. Civil War in 1861. That conflict brought only minor disruption,
as the O’odham continued to ally with Confederate or Union troops against the
Apache, who continued to raid O’odham and Mexican Americans alike. This cooperation eventually led to the
fateful joint operation in Aravaipa Canyon.
Jacoby’s approach to
Spanish, Mexican, and American sources and events is similarly longitudinal in
method, but with the exception of Mexican folk songs from after the Camp Grant
Massacre are traditional in nature. Tracing
the long history of Spanish and Mexican occupation of southern Arizona, Jacoby
examines the role of missions and presidios in pacifying the region, the
development of alliances with the O’odham against the Apache, and of temporary
treaties with local bands of Apache. He
reveals the seeds of the animosity against the Western Apache that led to the
Camp Grant Massacre in the endemic fighting that gripped the region for over a
century of Spanish rule. The American
presence in southern Arizona after the 1854 Gadsden Purchase not only brought a
temporary economic boom, which lasted until the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War,
but continued Mexican ruling methods.
The use of Mexican American militia to combat Apache raids created an
environment in which civilians felt comfortable taking part in paramilitary
maneuvers against the Apache.
The latter portions of Shadows at Dawn deal with the trial of
the Mexican American and Anglo-American participants in the massacre, and
subsequent developments in southern Arizona.
The judge’s jury instructions virtually guaranteed a non-guilty verdict
despite negative newspaper coverage of the incident and the unreliability of
defense witnesses, but Jacoby’s discussion of the trial is almost an
afterthought. Compared to the first and
third parts of the work, this section seems under-developed. More thorough discussion of the trial, its
origins, the rationale behind the jury instructions, and the exclusion of the
O’odham from the process would improve the work.
The aftermath of the
massacre see the O’odham and southern Arizona’s Mexican American population
displaced from their former levels of affluence and political prestige by the
arrival of the railroad and large numbers of Anglo-Americans. The Apache retained their relative economic
position because they received supplies and cash from the Federal government
after being forced on the reservations, leading O’odham to wonder if they
should have followed the example of the Apache in fighting against European
encroachment.
After Patricia Nelson
Limerick’s extremely brief discussion of the Camp Grant Massacre in her 1988
work The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken
Past of the American West, serious scholarship about the massacre was
limited to Chip Colwell-Chanthaponh’s 2007 work Massacre at Camp Grant: Forgetting and Remembering Apache History. Colwell-Chanthponh similarly attempts to
incorporate multiple viewpoints, but restricts his efforts to Apache
traditions, historical texts, government documents, and oral histories with
Anglo-Americans. While this provides
ethnographic depth and nuance to the examination of the Camp Grant Massacre, it
is less nuanced than Jacoby’s work.
Despite the paucity of
sources for O’odham and Apache history, Shadow’s
at Dawn represents a significant corrective to the limited modern
scholarship about the Camp Grant Massacre.
Beyond this, he provides a promising methodology for ethnohistorical
studies. His careful use of
non-traditional sources such as O’odham calendar sticks, legend, and oral
history is innovative, and helps provide a comprehensive and nuanced
understanding of the environment allowing the Camp Grant Massacre to
occur. Jacoby also produces a
significant advancement in out knowledge of the long process of European
domination of the American Southwest.
Historicus - Military History, books, and teaching
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism
Rome, Adam.
The Bulldozer in the Countryside:
Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
Efforts to promote American homeownership combined with the extreme post-war housing shortage led the homebuilding industry to adopt assembly-line production techniques to accommodate consumer demand. Adam Rome argues that the resulting environmental impacts in the suburban middle ground between town and country led to the development modern environmental movement. The new environmental movement incorporated elements of the older tradition of conservation, but focused on quality of life issues for the inhabitants of urban and suburban areas, culminating in Richard Nixon’s call for a new land ethic that recognizing land as a resource, not a commodity.
Herbert Hoover set the stage for the post-war overhaul of the homebuilding industry as Secretary of Commerce during the 1920s. Believing that homeowners were the solid core of society due to their work ethic, community involvement, and social stability, Hoover wanted to make it easier for more working Americans to purchase homes. To achieve this goal, he argued that the homebuilding industry needed to increase its efficiency so that it could supply larger numbers of affordable houses. A more efficient and productive construction industry would also be an engine of growth and prosperity, reducing the boom and bust nature of American capitalism. Hoover’s initial efforts focused on waste reduction in construction by promoting the adoption of uniform building codes, but others soon focused on more direct action. Reformer Edith Wood contended that the marketplace would never provide adequate housing for Americans, and the 1931 President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership called for both direct government action to assist workers to purchase houses and for the mass production of houses to meet the demand for shelter. Rejecting the calls for “socialist” solutions, the editors of Fortune magazine described the housing industry as intellectually bankrupt and argued for it to adopt the principles of mass production.
Herbert Hoover set the stage for the post-war overhaul of the homebuilding industry as Secretary of Commerce during the 1920s. Believing that homeowners were the solid core of society due to their work ethic, community involvement, and social stability, Hoover wanted to make it easier for more working Americans to purchase homes. To achieve this goal, he argued that the homebuilding industry needed to increase its efficiency so that it could supply larger numbers of affordable houses. A more efficient and productive construction industry would also be an engine of growth and prosperity, reducing the boom and bust nature of American capitalism. Hoover’s initial efforts focused on waste reduction in construction by promoting the adoption of uniform building codes, but others soon focused on more direct action. Reformer Edith Wood contended that the marketplace would never provide adequate housing for Americans, and the 1931 President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership called for both direct government action to assist workers to purchase houses and for the mass production of houses to meet the demand for shelter. Rejecting the calls for “socialist” solutions, the editors of Fortune magazine described the housing industry as intellectually bankrupt and argued for it to adopt the principles of mass production.
Rome’s goal is to trace the development of the modern environmental movement in response to the quality of life issues facing Americans as a result of the suburbs, which he accomplishes through graphic descriptions of the result of mass production of housing and builders’ design choices. Focusing on the main sources of citizen complaint – septic systems, landslides, loss of open space, and flooding – Rome illustrates how a loose coalition of suburbanites, scientists, and government workers combined to address problems created by unrestrained development. In fits and starts, these groups secured regulations governing the installation of septic systems in large developments, development of steep hillsides, and protection of wetlands to reduce flooding and property damage. Despite these apparent successes, when Richard Nixon and others argued that Americans needed to rethink their land ethic to recognize land as a interconnected resource that affected the public good, property rights advocates revolted against environmental regulations. Reformers failed to account for the strong tradition embodied in Fifth Amendment protections against government land seizures that property owners had the inherent right to develop their land as they saw fit. Farmers who wanted protection against water pollution wanted to retain the right to develop their land after retirement, and fought against restrictions on land use.
When the Nixon administration sought to encourage new regulation of land-use following the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, Rome contends that the ultimate result was a backlash among property owners seeking to protect their traditional rights to dispose of their land as they saw fit. The impetus for the backlash was two-fold. Property rights advocates worried about the promotion of a new land ethic by critics of dangerous land use policies, and court decisions that held that protection of natural resources for the public good competed with the property owners rights to use land, and that land use might be restricted without compensation from the government. Congressional Representative Steve Symms represented those worried about restrictions on land use when he called it a new type of Feudalism that reduced landowners to vassals of the state.
Despite success at depicting the development of the environmental movement and its failure to change Americans’ land ethic, Rome's most important contribution is his analysis of the economics of post-war homebuilding. Large builders received governmental incentives in the form of FHA guarantees, which allowed them to finance building projects more cheaply. Builders determined house design and features based on profitability rather than in response to consumer demands, explaining the installation of septic systems over sewers, the adoption of electric heat over gas or fuel oil, and the installation of air conditioning in homes. These three builder choices had far-reaching consequences for homeowners and their communities. Septic systems installed en masse to save the expense of installing sewers and sewage treatment plants overburdened the soil’s ability to absorb effluent and rainfall, spreading disease and causing flooding. Elimination of regional housing adaptations to enhance cooling and heating in order to save money forced builders to install air conditioning, which then forced homeowners to pay higher electrical bills. Builders also chose to install electric heat to maximize profits by getting reduced rates for wiring installation and appliances, despite the later increased cost to consumers. This manipulation of the housing market, funded by the Federal government through various housing programs, created the environmental crises that mobilized mothers, land-use reformers, and Federal officials to create the modern environmental movement that Rome describes.
While presenting the political, economic, and intellectual ferment of the environmental movement and efforts against it, Rome leaves it isolated from the other conflicts of the post-war era. Missing from his analysis is the relationship, if any, between mass building schemes and Cold War politics. Did the Federal government see broad homeownership as a means to combat the specter of Communism? While presenting one challenge to government regulation of land use as “feudal”, the expected critics decrying the programs as socialist are absent. A question that goes unanswered is whether some of the property rights backlash of the early 1970s is related to a perception that environmentalists and antiwar protesters. While Rome clearly places his work in the context of post-war economic expansion and the Baby Boom, he ignores the greater domestic political context.
The Bulldozer in the Countryside fills a historiographical niche in environmental history left by earlier scholarship. While Hal Rothman, Stephen Fox, and Roderick Nash assert that the catalyst for American environmentalism occurred in 1950s efforts to save Echo Park, Rome argues for a more nuanced and lengthy developmental process that shows why Americans’ attitudes toward the environment changed after World War II. Rome’s work fall more in line with that of Mark Harvey in arguing that the growth of suburbia increased Americans’ awareness of environmental issues, but rather than accepting the idea that environmentalism was the preserve of the upper-middle class, he presents it as a more general phenomenon. Rome also builds on Samuel Hays’ work, by moving beyond the conservationist-environmentalist dichotomy to bring conservation into the urban context along with environmental concerns.
Efforts to promote American homeownership combined with the extreme post-war housing shortage led the homebuilding industry to adopt assembly-line production techniques to accommodate consumer demand. Adam Rome argues that the resulting environmental impacts in the suburban middle ground between town and country led to the development modern environmental movement. The new environmental movement incorporated elements of the older tradition of conservation, but focused on quality of life issues for the inhabitants of urban and suburban areas, culminating in Richard Nixon’s call for a new land ethic that recognizing land as a resource, not a commodity.
Herbert Hoover set the stage for the post-war overhaul of the homebuilding industry as Secretary of Commerce during the 1920s. Believing that homeowners were the solid core of society due to their work ethic, community involvement, and social stability, Hoover wanted to make it easier for more working Americans to purchase homes. To achieve this goal, he argued that the homebuilding industry needed to increase its efficiency so that it could supply larger numbers of affordable houses. A more efficient and productive construction industry would also be an engine of growth and prosperity, reducing the boom and bust nature of American capitalism. Hoover’s initial efforts focused on waste reduction in construction by promoting the adoption of uniform building codes, but others soon focused on more direct action. Reformer Edith Wood contended that the marketplace would never provide adequate housing for Americans, and the 1931 President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership called for both direct government action to assist workers to purchase houses and for the mass production of houses to meet the demand for shelter. Rejecting the calls for “socialist” solutions, the editors of Fortune magazine described the housing industry as intellectually bankrupt and argued for it to adopt the principles of mass production.
Herbert Hoover set the stage for the post-war overhaul of the homebuilding industry as Secretary of Commerce during the 1920s. Believing that homeowners were the solid core of society due to their work ethic, community involvement, and social stability, Hoover wanted to make it easier for more working Americans to purchase homes. To achieve this goal, he argued that the homebuilding industry needed to increase its efficiency so that it could supply larger numbers of affordable houses. A more efficient and productive construction industry would also be an engine of growth and prosperity, reducing the boom and bust nature of American capitalism. Hoover’s initial efforts focused on waste reduction in construction by promoting the adoption of uniform building codes, but others soon focused on more direct action. Reformer Edith Wood contended that the marketplace would never provide adequate housing for Americans, and the 1931 President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership called for both direct government action to assist workers to purchase houses and for the mass production of houses to meet the demand for shelter. Rejecting the calls for “socialist” solutions, the editors of Fortune magazine described the housing industry as intellectually bankrupt and argued for it to adopt the principles of mass production.
Rome’s goal is to trace the development of the modern environmental movement in response to the quality of life issues facing Americans as a result of the suburbs, which he accomplishes through graphic descriptions of the result of mass production of housing and builders’ design choices. Focusing on the main sources of citizen complaint – septic systems, landslides, loss of open space, and flooding – Rome illustrates how a loose coalition of suburbanites, scientists, and government workers combined to address problems created by unrestrained development. In fits and starts, these groups secured regulations governing the installation of septic systems in large developments, development of steep hillsides, and protection of wetlands to reduce flooding and property damage. Despite these apparent successes, when Richard Nixon and others argued that Americans needed to rethink their land ethic to recognize land as a interconnected resource that affected the public good, property rights advocates revolted against environmental regulations. Reformers failed to account for the strong tradition embodied in Fifth Amendment protections against government land seizures that property owners had the inherent right to develop their land as they saw fit. Farmers who wanted protection against water pollution wanted to retain the right to develop their land after retirement, and fought against restrictions on land use.
When the Nixon administration sought to encourage new regulation of land-use following the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, Rome contends that the ultimate result was a backlash among property owners seeking to protect their traditional rights to dispose of their land as they saw fit. The impetus for the backlash was two-fold. Property rights advocates worried about the promotion of a new land ethic by critics of dangerous land use policies, and court decisions that held that protection of natural resources for the public good competed with the property owners rights to use land, and that land use might be restricted without compensation from the government. Congressional Representative Steve Symms represented those worried about restrictions on land use when he called it a new type of Feudalism that reduced landowners to vassals of the state.
Despite success at depicting the development of the environmental movement and its failure to change Americans’ land ethic, Rome's most important contribution is his analysis of the economics of post-war homebuilding. Large builders received governmental incentives in the form of FHA guarantees, which allowed them to finance building projects more cheaply. Builders determined house design and features based on profitability rather than in response to consumer demands, explaining the installation of septic systems over sewers, the adoption of electric heat over gas or fuel oil, and the installation of air conditioning in homes. These three builder choices had far-reaching consequences for homeowners and their communities. Septic systems installed en masse to save the expense of installing sewers and sewage treatment plants overburdened the soil’s ability to absorb effluent and rainfall, spreading disease and causing flooding. Elimination of regional housing adaptations to enhance cooling and heating in order to save money forced builders to install air conditioning, which then forced homeowners to pay higher electrical bills. Builders also chose to install electric heat to maximize profits by getting reduced rates for wiring installation and appliances, despite the later increased cost to consumers. This manipulation of the housing market, funded by the Federal government through various housing programs, created the environmental crises that mobilized mothers, land-use reformers, and Federal officials to create the modern environmental movement that Rome describes.
While presenting the political, economic, and intellectual ferment of the environmental movement and efforts against it, Rome leaves it isolated from the other conflicts of the post-war era. Missing from his analysis is the relationship, if any, between mass building schemes and Cold War politics. Did the Federal government see broad homeownership as a means to combat the specter of Communism? While presenting one challenge to government regulation of land use as “feudal”, the expected critics decrying the programs as socialist are absent. A question that goes unanswered is whether some of the property rights backlash of the early 1970s is related to a perception that environmentalists and antiwar protesters. While Rome clearly places his work in the context of post-war economic expansion and the Baby Boom, he ignores the greater domestic political context.
The Bulldozer in the Countryside fills a historiographical niche in environmental history left by earlier scholarship. While Hal Rothman, Stephen Fox, and Roderick Nash assert that the catalyst for American environmentalism occurred in 1950s efforts to save Echo Park, Rome argues for a more nuanced and lengthy developmental process that shows why Americans’ attitudes toward the environment changed after World War II. Rome’s work fall more in line with that of Mark Harvey in arguing that the growth of suburbia increased Americans’ awareness of environmental issues, but rather than accepting the idea that environmentalism was the preserve of the upper-middle class, he presents it as a more general phenomenon. Rome also builds on Samuel Hays’ work, by moving beyond the conservationist-environmentalist dichotomy to bring conservation into the urban context along with environmental concerns.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Sources on Nursing in Vietnam
One of my current favorite authors of SFF recently asked for some information about the experience of nurses during the period that the United States was most heavily involved in the Vietnam War (1964-1972). This is the working list of items that I suggested for her, broken down by type of source: journal articles, memoirs, biographies, books, and theses/dissertations. If you have suggestions for other high-quality sources, please let me know, and I'll update the list.
Books
Aggeles, Theodora B. Answering the Call: Nurses of Post 122. Philadelphia, Pa: Xlibris, 2007.
Bigler, Philip. Hostile Fire: The Life and Death of First Lieutenant Sharon Lane. Arlington, VA: Vandamere Press, 1996.
Deardorff, Barb. Another Kind of War Story: Army Nurses Look Back to Vietnam. Lebanon, PA: A. Thompson, 1993.
Freedman, Dan, and Jacqueline Rhoads. Nurses in Vietnam: The Forgotten Veterans. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press, 1987.
Gruhzit-Hoyt, Olga. A Time Remembered: American Women in the Vietnam War. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1999.
Heikkila, Kim. Sisterhood of War: Minnesota Women in Vietnam. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2011.
Marshall, Kathryn. In the Combat Zone: An Oral History of American Women in Vietnam, 1966-1975. Boston: Little, Brown, 1987.
Norman, Elizabeth M. Women at War: The Story of Fifty Military Nurses Who Served in Vietnam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
Rushton, Patricia. Vietnam War Nurses: Personal Accounts of 18 Americans.
Scarborough, Elizabeth Ann. An Interview with a Vietnam Nurse: Elizabeth Ann Scarborough Author of The Healer's War. New York: Bantam, 1989.
Scarborough, Elizabeth Ann. The Healer's War. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Smith, Winnie. American Daughter Gone to War: On the Front Lines with an Army Nurse in Vietnam. New York: W. Morrow, 1992.
Stur, Heather Marie. Beyond Combat: Women and Gender in the Vietnam War Era. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Vuic, Kara Dixon. Officer, Nurse, Woman: The Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
Walker, Keith. A Piece of My Heart: The Stories of 26 American Women Who Served in Vietnam. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1986.
Zeinert, Karen. The Valiant Women of the Vietnam War. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 2000.
Memoirs
Bennett, Marilyn Faye. "Help! What Do I Do Now?": The Adventures of a Young Missionary Nurse in Vietnam. Nashville: Southern Pub. Association, 1976.
Devanter, Lynda Van, and Christopher Morgan. Home before Morning: The Story of an Army Nurse in Vietnam. New York: Beaufort Books, 1983.
Hampton, Lynn. Ace Tail-gunner: Memoirs of a U.S. Army Combat Nurse in Vietnam. Canton, OH: Daring Pub. Group, 1992.
Hampton, Lynn. The Fighting Strength: Memoirs of a Combat Nurse in Vietnam. New York, NY: Warner Books, 1992.
Hovis, Bobbi. Station Hospital Saigon: A Navy Nurse in Vietnam, 1963-1964. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991.
Kautz, Barbara Hesselman. When I Die I'm Going to Heaven, 'cause I Spent My Time in Hell: A Memoir of My Year as an Army Nurse in Vietnam. Portsmouth, NH: Piscataqua Press, 2013.
Klutz, Diane. Round Eyes: An American Nurse in Vietnam. Penn Laird, VA: Tri Star Books, 2012.
Walsh, Patricia L. River City: A Nurse's Year in Vietnam Memoir. Boulder, CO: Toa Press, 2009.
Watts, Anne. A Nurse's Story of Home and War. London: Simon & Schuster, 2010.
Wildwind, Sharon Grant. Dreams That Blister Sleep: A Nurse in Vietnam. Edmonton, Alta.: River Books, 1999.
Journal Articles
Mithers, Carol Lynn. "Missing in Action: Women Warriors in Vietnam."Cultural Critique, no. 3 (1986): 79. doi:10.2307/1354166.
Norman, Elizabeth M. "After the Casualties." Nursing Research 41, no. 2 (1992). doi:10.1097/00006199-199203000-00010.
Paul, Elizabeth A. "Wounded Healers: A Summary of the Vietnam Nurse Veteran Project." Military Medicine 150, no. 11 (November 1986): 571-76.
Scannell-Desch, E. A., and M. Anderson. "Hardships and Personal Strategies of Vietnam War Nurses." Western Journal of Nursing Research 22, no. 5 (2000): 526-50. doi:10.1177/01939450022044584.
Scannell-Desch, E. "The Culture of War: A Study of Women Military Nurses in Vietnam." Journal of Transcultural Nursing 11, no. 2 (2000): 87-95. doi:10.1177/104365960001100202.
Theses/Dissertations
Barton, Julie Anne. Foundations of Animosity and Disillusionment : Recruitment, Training, and Deployment Practices of the Army Nurse Corps during the Vietnam War. PhD diss., Baylor University, 1996.
Moore, Constance J. Oral History Reflections of Army Nurse Vietnam Veterans : Managing the Demanding Experience of War. Master's thesis, San Jose State University, 1992.
Norman, Elizabeth. Nurses in War : A Study of Female Military Nurses Who Served in Vietnam during the War Years 1965-1973. PhD diss., New York University, 1986.
Reckart, Nanette J. "What I Did in the War, Mother! : A Study of the Women in the American Red Cross at the 249th General Hospital (1965-1971) during the Vietnam Conflict." Master's thesis, Keene State College, 1990.
Scannell-Desch, Elizabeth, Ph.D. "The Lived Experience of Women Military Nurses in Vietnam during the Vietnam War." PhD diss., Georgia State University, 1992.
Sifling, Doris E. "Vietnam: Navy Nurses' Points of View : The Experiences of the Navy Nurses on the First Cruise of the USS Sanctuary in Vietnam." PhD diss., St. Mary's University, San Antonio, Texas, 1987.
Tanner, Janet D. Nurses in Fatigues : The Army Nurse Corps and the Vietnam War. Master's thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2011.
Australian Nurses
Books
Aggeles, Theodora B. Answering the Call: Nurses of Post 122. Philadelphia, Pa: Xlibris, 2007.
Bigler, Philip. Hostile Fire: The Life and Death of First Lieutenant Sharon Lane. Arlington, VA: Vandamere Press, 1996.
Deardorff, Barb. Another Kind of War Story: Army Nurses Look Back to Vietnam. Lebanon, PA: A. Thompson, 1993.
Freedman, Dan, and Jacqueline Rhoads. Nurses in Vietnam: The Forgotten Veterans. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press, 1987.
Gruhzit-Hoyt, Olga. A Time Remembered: American Women in the Vietnam War. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1999.
Heikkila, Kim. Sisterhood of War: Minnesota Women in Vietnam. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2011.
Marshall, Kathryn. In the Combat Zone: An Oral History of American Women in Vietnam, 1966-1975. Boston: Little, Brown, 1987.
Norman, Elizabeth M. Women at War: The Story of Fifty Military Nurses Who Served in Vietnam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
Rushton, Patricia. Vietnam War Nurses: Personal Accounts of 18 Americans.
Scarborough, Elizabeth Ann. An Interview with a Vietnam Nurse: Elizabeth Ann Scarborough Author of The Healer's War. New York: Bantam, 1989.
Scarborough, Elizabeth Ann. The Healer's War. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Smith, Winnie. American Daughter Gone to War: On the Front Lines with an Army Nurse in Vietnam. New York: W. Morrow, 1992.
Stur, Heather Marie. Beyond Combat: Women and Gender in the Vietnam War Era. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Vuic, Kara Dixon. Officer, Nurse, Woman: The Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
Walker, Keith. A Piece of My Heart: The Stories of 26 American Women Who Served in Vietnam. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1986.
Zeinert, Karen. The Valiant Women of the Vietnam War. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 2000.
Memoirs
Bennett, Marilyn Faye. "Help! What Do I Do Now?": The Adventures of a Young Missionary Nurse in Vietnam. Nashville: Southern Pub. Association, 1976.
Devanter, Lynda Van, and Christopher Morgan. Home before Morning: The Story of an Army Nurse in Vietnam. New York: Beaufort Books, 1983.
Hampton, Lynn. Ace Tail-gunner: Memoirs of a U.S. Army Combat Nurse in Vietnam. Canton, OH: Daring Pub. Group, 1992.
Hampton, Lynn. The Fighting Strength: Memoirs of a Combat Nurse in Vietnam. New York, NY: Warner Books, 1992.
Hovis, Bobbi. Station Hospital Saigon: A Navy Nurse in Vietnam, 1963-1964. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991.
Kautz, Barbara Hesselman. When I Die I'm Going to Heaven, 'cause I Spent My Time in Hell: A Memoir of My Year as an Army Nurse in Vietnam. Portsmouth, NH: Piscataqua Press, 2013.
Klutz, Diane. Round Eyes: An American Nurse in Vietnam. Penn Laird, VA: Tri Star Books, 2012.
Walsh, Patricia L. River City: A Nurse's Year in Vietnam Memoir. Boulder, CO: Toa Press, 2009.
Watts, Anne. A Nurse's Story of Home and War. London: Simon & Schuster, 2010.
Wildwind, Sharon Grant. Dreams That Blister Sleep: A Nurse in Vietnam. Edmonton, Alta.: River Books, 1999.
Journal Articles
Mithers, Carol Lynn. "Missing in Action: Women Warriors in Vietnam."Cultural Critique, no. 3 (1986): 79. doi:10.2307/1354166.
Norman, Elizabeth M. "After the Casualties." Nursing Research 41, no. 2 (1992). doi:10.1097/00006199-199203000-00010.
Paul, Elizabeth A. "Wounded Healers: A Summary of the Vietnam Nurse Veteran Project." Military Medicine 150, no. 11 (November 1986): 571-76.
Scannell-Desch, E. A., and M. Anderson. "Hardships and Personal Strategies of Vietnam War Nurses." Western Journal of Nursing Research 22, no. 5 (2000): 526-50. doi:10.1177/01939450022044584.
Scannell-Desch, E. "The Culture of War: A Study of Women Military Nurses in Vietnam." Journal of Transcultural Nursing 11, no. 2 (2000): 87-95. doi:10.1177/104365960001100202.
Theses/Dissertations
Barton, Julie Anne. Foundations of Animosity and Disillusionment : Recruitment, Training, and Deployment Practices of the Army Nurse Corps during the Vietnam War. PhD diss., Baylor University, 1996.
Moore, Constance J. Oral History Reflections of Army Nurse Vietnam Veterans : Managing the Demanding Experience of War. Master's thesis, San Jose State University, 1992.
Norman, Elizabeth. Nurses in War : A Study of Female Military Nurses Who Served in Vietnam during the War Years 1965-1973. PhD diss., New York University, 1986.
Reckart, Nanette J. "What I Did in the War, Mother! : A Study of the Women in the American Red Cross at the 249th General Hospital (1965-1971) during the Vietnam Conflict." Master's thesis, Keene State College, 1990.
Scannell-Desch, Elizabeth, Ph.D. "The Lived Experience of Women Military Nurses in Vietnam during the Vietnam War." PhD diss., Georgia State University, 1992.
Sifling, Doris E. "Vietnam: Navy Nurses' Points of View : The Experiences of the Navy Nurses on the First Cruise of the USS Sanctuary in Vietnam." PhD diss., St. Mary's University, San Antonio, Texas, 1987.
Tanner, Janet D. Nurses in Fatigues : The Army Nurse Corps and the Vietnam War. Master's thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2011.
Australian Nurses
Biedermann, Narelle. Tears on My Pillow: Australian Nurses in Vietnam. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Australia, 2004.
Biedermann, Narelle, Kim Usher, Ann Williams, and Barbara Hayes. "The Wartime Experience of Australian Army Nurses in Vietnam, 1967-1971." J Adv Nurs Journal of Advanced Nursing 35, no. 4 (2001): 543-49. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01870.x.
Biedermann, Narelle, Kim Usher, Ann Williams, and Barbara Hayes. "The Wartime Experience of Australian Army Nurses in Vietnam, 1967-1971." J Adv Nurs Journal of Advanced Nursing 35, no. 4 (2001): 543-49. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01870.x.
Hemmings, Lynn. "Vietnam Memories: Australian Army Nurses, the Vietnam War, and Oral History." Nurs Inq Nursing Inquiry 3, no. 3 (1996): 138-45. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.1996.tb00028.x.
McKay, Gary, and Elizabeth Stewart. With Healing Hands: The Untold Story of the Australian Civilian Surgical Teams in Vietnam. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2009.
McKay, Gary, and Elizabeth Stewart. With Healing Hands: The Untold Story of the Australian Civilian Surgical Teams in Vietnam. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2009.
MacLeod, Joan B. F., and Pam Barlow. The Longest Mile: A Nurse in the Vietnam War, 1968-69: Letters from Nursing Sister Joan B.F. MacLeod Who Served in Vietnam as a Member of the Royal Australian Army Nursing Corps. Arcadia, Qld.: P. Barlow, 2006.
French Nurses
Galard, Geneviève De. The Angel of Dien Bien Phu: The Sole French Woman at the Decisive Battle in Vietnam. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2010.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Final Week to Apply: Congressional Research Grants
Grants: Congressional Research Grants
DEADLINE: All proposals must be received no later than March 1, 2015.
The Dirksen Congressional Center invites applications for grants to fund research on congressional leadership and the U.S. Congress. The Center, named for the late Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen, is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization devoted to the study of Congress. Since 1978, the Congressional Research Grants program has invested more than $944,208 to support over 436 projects. Applications are accepted at any time, but the deadline is March 1 for the annual selections, which are announced in April.
The Center has allocated $50,000 in 2015 for grants (an increase of $15,000 over 2014) with individual awards capped at $3,500. Stay tuned for news on the application and selection process.
The competition is open to individuals with a serious interest in studying Congress. Political scientists, historians, biographers, scholars of public administration or American studies, and journalists are among those eligible. The Center encourages graduate students who have successfully defended their dissertation prospectus to apply and awards a significant portion of the funds for dissertation research. Applicants must be U.S. citizens who reside in the United States.
The grants program does not fund undergraduate or pre-Ph.D. study. Organizations are not eligible. Research teams of two or more individuals are eligible. No institutional overhead or indirect costs may be claimed against a Congressional Research Grant.
Download the Word document -- Congressional Research Grant Application<http://dirksencenter.org/crg_app2015.doc> -- and complete the required entries. You may send the application as a Word or pdf attachment to an e-mail directed to Frank Mackaman<mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org> at fmackaman@dirksencenter.org<mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org>. Please insert the following in the Subject Line: "CRG Application [insert your surname]." Thank you.
The Congressional Research Award Application contains the following elements: Applicant Information, Congressional Research Award Project Description, Budget, Curriculum Vita, Reference Letter, and Overhead Waiver Letter.
The entire application when printed must NOT exceed ten pages. Applications may be single-spaced. Please use fonts no smaller than 10-point. This total does NOT include the reference letter (one additional page) or the Overhead Waiver Letter (one additional page).
All application materials must be received on or before March 1, 2015. Awards will be announced in April 2015.
Complete information about what kind of research projects are eligible for consideration, what could a Congressional Research Award pay for, application procedures, and how recipients are selected may be found at The Center's Website:http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_grants_CRGs.htm.
PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY. Frank Mackaman<mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org> is the program officer -mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org
Cindy Koeppel
The Dirksen Congressional Center
2815 Broadway Rd.
Pekin, IL 61554
Phone: 309.347.7113
Fax: 309.347.6432
http://www.dirksencongressionalcenter.org
DEADLINE: All proposals must be received no later than March 1, 2015.
The Dirksen Congressional Center invites applications for grants to fund research on congressional leadership and the U.S. Congress. The Center, named for the late Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen, is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization devoted to the study of Congress. Since 1978, the Congressional Research Grants program has invested more than $944,208 to support over 436 projects. Applications are accepted at any time, but the deadline is March 1 for the annual selections, which are announced in April.
The Center has allocated $50,000 in 2015 for grants (an increase of $15,000 over 2014) with individual awards capped at $3,500. Stay tuned for news on the application and selection process.
The competition is open to individuals with a serious interest in studying Congress. Political scientists, historians, biographers, scholars of public administration or American studies, and journalists are among those eligible. The Center encourages graduate students who have successfully defended their dissertation prospectus to apply and awards a significant portion of the funds for dissertation research. Applicants must be U.S. citizens who reside in the United States.
The grants program does not fund undergraduate or pre-Ph.D. study. Organizations are not eligible. Research teams of two or more individuals are eligible. No institutional overhead or indirect costs may be claimed against a Congressional Research Grant.
Download the Word document -- Congressional Research Grant Application<http://dirksencenter.org/crg_app2015.doc> -- and complete the required entries. You may send the application as a Word or pdf attachment to an e-mail directed to Frank Mackaman<mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org> at fmackaman@dirksencenter.org<mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org>. Please insert the following in the Subject Line: "CRG Application [insert your surname]." Thank you.
The Congressional Research Award Application contains the following elements: Applicant Information, Congressional Research Award Project Description, Budget, Curriculum Vita, Reference Letter, and Overhead Waiver Letter.
The entire application when printed must NOT exceed ten pages. Applications may be single-spaced. Please use fonts no smaller than 10-point. This total does NOT include the reference letter (one additional page) or the Overhead Waiver Letter (one additional page).
All application materials must be received on or before March 1, 2015. Awards will be announced in April 2015.
Complete information about what kind of research projects are eligible for consideration, what could a Congressional Research Award pay for, application procedures, and how recipients are selected may be found at The Center's Website:http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_grants_CRGs.htm.
PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY. Frank Mackaman<mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org> is the program officer -mailto:fmackaman@dirksencenter.org
Cindy Koeppel
The Dirksen Congressional Center
2815 Broadway Rd.
Pekin, IL 61554
Phone: 309.347.7113
Fax: 309.347.6432
http://www.dirksencongressionalcenter.org
Monday, February 9, 2015
Einstein Fellowship 2016 - Einstein Forum und Daimler und Benz Stiftung, Potsdam
Einstein Fellowship 2016
Einstein Forum und Daimler und Benz Stiftung, Potsdam
Bewerbungsschluss: 15.04.2015
The Einstein Forum and the Daimler and Benz Foundation are offering a
fellowship for outstanding young thinkers who wish to pursue a project
in a different field from that of their previous research. The purpose
of the fellowship is to support those who, in addition to producing
superb work in their area of specialization, are also open to other,
interdisciplinary approaches - following the example set by Albert
Einstein.
The fellowship includes living accommodations for five to six months in
the garden cottage of Einstein's own summerhouse in Caputh, Brandenburg,
only a short distance away from the universities and academic
institutions of Potsdam and Berlin. The fellow will receive a stipend of
EUR 10,000 and reimbursement of travel expenses.
Candidates must be under 35 and hold a university degree in the
humanities, in the social sciences, or in the natural sciences.
Applications for 2016 should include a CV, a two-page project proposal,
and two letters of recommendation. All documents must be received by
April 15, 2015.
At the end of the fellowship period, the fellow will be expected to
present his or her project in a public lecture at the Einstein Forum and
at the Daimler and Benz Foundation. The Einstein Fellowship is not
intended for applicants who wish to complete an academic study they have
already begun.
A successful application must demonstrate the quality, originality, and
feasibility of the proposed project, as well as the superior
intellectual development of the applicant. It is not relevant whether
the applicant has begun working toward, or currently holds, a PhD.
PLEASE NOTE THAT NO FELLOWSHIPS WILL BE GIVEN FOR DISSERTATION RESEARCH.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN CONTENT, AND
PREFERABLY FIELD AND FORM, FROM THE APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS WORK.
--------
Mit dem Stipendium möchten das Einstein Forum und die Daimler und Benz
Stiftung herausragenden jungen Wissenschaftlern aus dem In- und Ausland
die Möglichkeit bieten, ein Forschungsvorhaben zu realisieren, das sich
außerhalb ihrer bisherigen Arbeit ansiedelt. Dadurch sollen jene jungen
Universalisten gefördert werden, die sich - ähnlich wie Albert Einstein
- neben ihren außergewöhnlichen Leistungen in einem spezifischen
Wissenschaftsgebiet besonders durch disziplinenübergreifendes Engagement
auszeichnen.
Das Stipendium ist verbunden mit einem Aufenthalt im Gartenhaus des
Sommerhauses von Einstein in Caputh, der zwischen fünf und sechs Monate
dauert. Das Einsteinhaus ist ein sowohl wissenschafts- als auch
architekturhistorisch bedeutsamer Ort mit Anbindung an die
Universitätsstandorte Potsdam und Berlin. Der/die Stipendiat/in erhält
eine Förderung in Höhe von EUR 10.000 sowie die anfallenden
Reisekosten.
Bewerber sollten unter 35 Jahre alt sein und einen qualifizierten
Hochschulabschluss in einer geistes-, sozial- oder
naturwissenschaftlichen Fachrichtung besitzen. Die Bewerbungen für das
Jahr 2016 sollten einen Lebenslauf und ein Exposé des im Rahmen des
Stipendiums geplanten Projekts (beides in englischer Sprache) sowie zwei
wissenschaftliche Referenzen enthalten und bis zum 15. April 2015
eingereicht werden.
Von den Stipendiaten wird erwartet, die während der Monate in Caputh
geleistete wissenschaftliche Arbeit angemessen zu dokumentieren. Zur
Dokumentation gehört es, einen öffentlichen Vortrag im Einstein Forum
und in der Daimler und Benz Stiftung zu halten. Das Stipendium dient
allerdings ausdrücklich nicht der Fertigstellung einer bereits
begonnenen Arbeit, wie etwa einer Dissertations- oder
Habilitationsschrift.
Die Evaluation der Bewerbungen erfolgt nach Qualität, Originalität und
Realisierbarkeit der Projektvorschläge sowie nach dem wissenschaftlichen
Werdegang des Bewerbers. Hier spielt es keine Rolle, ob bereits eine
Promotion begonnen oder abgeschlossen wurde.
BITTE BEACHTEN SIE, DASS DAS STIPENDIUM NICHT FÜR EIN FORSCHUNGSVORHABEN
INNERHALB EINER DISSERTATION VERGEBEN WIRD. EINGEREICHTE PROJEKTE MÜSSEN
SICH MERKLICH IN INHALT, BEREICH UND FORM VON FRÜHEREN ARBEITEN DES
BEWERBERS UNTERSCHEIDEN.
Applications should be submitted by mail to: /
Bewerbungen sind zu richten an:
Prof. Dr. Susan Neiman
Einstein Forum
Am Neuen Markt 7
14467 Potsdam
Germany
Or by email to: fellowship@einsteinforum.de
For more information, call or fax the Einstein Forum at:
phone: +49-331-271780
fax: +49-331-2717827
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goor Zankl
Einstein Forum, Am Neuen Markt 7, 14467 Potsdam
+49-(0)331 - 27178 0
+49-(0)331 - 27178 27
fellowship@einsteinforum.de
Homepage
<http://www.einsteinforum.de/index.php?id=35&L=1%2Fasset.....et.reflect.php%3Freflect_%27%20and%20char%28124%29%2Buser%2Bchar%28124%29%3D0%20and%20%27%27%3D%27>
URL zur Zitation dieses Beitrages
<http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/chancen/type=stipendien&id=11110>
Einstein Forum und Daimler und Benz Stiftung, Potsdam
Bewerbungsschluss: 15.04.2015
The Einstein Forum and the Daimler and Benz Foundation are offering a
fellowship for outstanding young thinkers who wish to pursue a project
in a different field from that of their previous research. The purpose
of the fellowship is to support those who, in addition to producing
superb work in their area of specialization, are also open to other,
interdisciplinary approaches - following the example set by Albert
Einstein.
The fellowship includes living accommodations for five to six months in
the garden cottage of Einstein's own summerhouse in Caputh, Brandenburg,
only a short distance away from the universities and academic
institutions of Potsdam and Berlin. The fellow will receive a stipend of
EUR 10,000 and reimbursement of travel expenses.
Candidates must be under 35 and hold a university degree in the
humanities, in the social sciences, or in the natural sciences.
Applications for 2016 should include a CV, a two-page project proposal,
and two letters of recommendation. All documents must be received by
April 15, 2015.
At the end of the fellowship period, the fellow will be expected to
present his or her project in a public lecture at the Einstein Forum and
at the Daimler and Benz Foundation. The Einstein Fellowship is not
intended for applicants who wish to complete an academic study they have
already begun.
A successful application must demonstrate the quality, originality, and
feasibility of the proposed project, as well as the superior
intellectual development of the applicant. It is not relevant whether
the applicant has begun working toward, or currently holds, a PhD.
PLEASE NOTE THAT NO FELLOWSHIPS WILL BE GIVEN FOR DISSERTATION RESEARCH.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN CONTENT, AND
PREFERABLY FIELD AND FORM, FROM THE APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS WORK.
--------
Mit dem Stipendium möchten das Einstein Forum und die Daimler und Benz
Stiftung herausragenden jungen Wissenschaftlern aus dem In- und Ausland
die Möglichkeit bieten, ein Forschungsvorhaben zu realisieren, das sich
außerhalb ihrer bisherigen Arbeit ansiedelt. Dadurch sollen jene jungen
Universalisten gefördert werden, die sich - ähnlich wie Albert Einstein
- neben ihren außergewöhnlichen Leistungen in einem spezifischen
Wissenschaftsgebiet besonders durch disziplinenübergreifendes Engagement
auszeichnen.
Das Stipendium ist verbunden mit einem Aufenthalt im Gartenhaus des
Sommerhauses von Einstein in Caputh, der zwischen fünf und sechs Monate
dauert. Das Einsteinhaus ist ein sowohl wissenschafts- als auch
architekturhistorisch bedeutsamer Ort mit Anbindung an die
Universitätsstandorte Potsdam und Berlin. Der/die Stipendiat/in erhält
eine Förderung in Höhe von EUR 10.000 sowie die anfallenden
Reisekosten.
Bewerber sollten unter 35 Jahre alt sein und einen qualifizierten
Hochschulabschluss in einer geistes-, sozial- oder
naturwissenschaftlichen Fachrichtung besitzen. Die Bewerbungen für das
Jahr 2016 sollten einen Lebenslauf und ein Exposé des im Rahmen des
Stipendiums geplanten Projekts (beides in englischer Sprache) sowie zwei
wissenschaftliche Referenzen enthalten und bis zum 15. April 2015
eingereicht werden.
Von den Stipendiaten wird erwartet, die während der Monate in Caputh
geleistete wissenschaftliche Arbeit angemessen zu dokumentieren. Zur
Dokumentation gehört es, einen öffentlichen Vortrag im Einstein Forum
und in der Daimler und Benz Stiftung zu halten. Das Stipendium dient
allerdings ausdrücklich nicht der Fertigstellung einer bereits
begonnenen Arbeit, wie etwa einer Dissertations- oder
Habilitationsschrift.
Die Evaluation der Bewerbungen erfolgt nach Qualität, Originalität und
Realisierbarkeit der Projektvorschläge sowie nach dem wissenschaftlichen
Werdegang des Bewerbers. Hier spielt es keine Rolle, ob bereits eine
Promotion begonnen oder abgeschlossen wurde.
BITTE BEACHTEN SIE, DASS DAS STIPENDIUM NICHT FÜR EIN FORSCHUNGSVORHABEN
INNERHALB EINER DISSERTATION VERGEBEN WIRD. EINGEREICHTE PROJEKTE MÜSSEN
SICH MERKLICH IN INHALT, BEREICH UND FORM VON FRÜHEREN ARBEITEN DES
BEWERBERS UNTERSCHEIDEN.
Applications should be submitted by mail to: /
Bewerbungen sind zu richten an:
Prof. Dr. Susan Neiman
Einstein Forum
Am Neuen Markt 7
14467 Potsdam
Germany
Or by email to: fellowship@einsteinforum.de
For more information, call or fax the Einstein Forum at:
phone: +49-331-271780
fax: +49-331-2717827
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goor Zankl
Einstein Forum, Am Neuen Markt 7, 14467 Potsdam
+49-(0)331 - 27178 0
+49-(0)331 - 27178 27
fellowship@einsteinforum.de
Homepage
<http://www.einsteinforum.de/index.php?id=35&L=1%2Fasset.....et.reflect.php%3Freflect_%27%20and%20char%28124%29%2Buser%2Bchar%28124%29%3D0%20and%20%27%27%3D%27>
URL zur Zitation dieses Beitrages
<http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/chancen/type=stipendien&id=11110>
Sunday, February 8, 2015
NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES | 2016 NACBS-HUNTINGTON LIBRARY FELLOWSHIP COMPETITION
NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES
2016 NACBS-HUNTINGTON LIBRARY FELLOWSHIP COMPETITION
The NACBS, in collaboration with the Huntington Library, offers annually the NACBS-HUNTINGTON LIBRARY FELLOWSHIP to aid in dissertation research in British Studies using the collections of the library. The amount of the fellowship is $3000. A requirement for holding the fellowship is that the time of tenure be spent in residence at the Huntington Library. The time of residence varies, but may be as brief as one month. Applicants must be U. S. or Canadian citizens or permanent residents and enrolled in a Ph.D. program in a U. S. or Canadian institution.
Nominations and applications for the 2016 award are invited. Please note that the applications are due on November 15, 2015. Applications should consist of a curriculum vitae, two supporting letters (one from the applicant's dissertation advisor), and a description of the dissertation research project. The letter should include a description of the materials to be consulted at the Huntington and the reason that these are essential sources for the dissertation.
A copy of the application package should be sent to each member of the Huntington Library Fellowship Committee listed below. Letters should be placed in sealed envelopes, signed across the flap and given to the applicant for inclusion in the application package. Applications must be postmarked by November 15, 2015. Awards will be announced by January 30, 2016.
Applicants for the NACBS fellowship are also welcome to apply to supplement that award with a short-term award from the Huntington Library itself under the terms of its own fellowship competition, the closing date for which is also November 15, 2015. See:http://www.huntington.org/WebAssets/Templates/content.aspx?id=566
Send materials to:
Chair: Dr. Steve Hindle
Director of Research
The Huntington Library
1151 Oxford Road
San Marino, CA 91108 USA
shindle@huntington.org<mailto:shindle@huntington.org>
Dr. Holly Brewer
Burke Chair of American History & Associate Professor
Department of History
University of Maryland
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
College Park, MD 20742 USA
hbrewer@umd.edu<mailto:hbrewer@umd.edu>
Dr. Brent Sirota
Department of History
North Carolina State University
350 Withers Hall, Campus Box 8108, Raleigh, NC 27695-8108 USA
bssirota@ncsu.edu<mailto:bssirota@ncsu.edu>
2016 NACBS-HUNTINGTON LIBRARY FELLOWSHIP COMPETITION
The NACBS, in collaboration with the Huntington Library, offers annually the NACBS-HUNTINGTON LIBRARY FELLOWSHIP to aid in dissertation research in British Studies using the collections of the library. The amount of the fellowship is $3000. A requirement for holding the fellowship is that the time of tenure be spent in residence at the Huntington Library. The time of residence varies, but may be as brief as one month. Applicants must be U. S. or Canadian citizens or permanent residents and enrolled in a Ph.D. program in a U. S. or Canadian institution.
Nominations and applications for the 2016 award are invited. Please note that the applications are due on November 15, 2015. Applications should consist of a curriculum vitae, two supporting letters (one from the applicant's dissertation advisor), and a description of the dissertation research project. The letter should include a description of the materials to be consulted at the Huntington and the reason that these are essential sources for the dissertation.
A copy of the application package should be sent to each member of the Huntington Library Fellowship Committee listed below. Letters should be placed in sealed envelopes, signed across the flap and given to the applicant for inclusion in the application package. Applications must be postmarked by November 15, 2015. Awards will be announced by January 30, 2016.
Applicants for the NACBS fellowship are also welcome to apply to supplement that award with a short-term award from the Huntington Library itself under the terms of its own fellowship competition, the closing date for which is also November 15, 2015. See:http://www.huntington.org/WebAssets/Templates/content.aspx?id=566
Send materials to:
Chair: Dr. Steve Hindle
Director of Research
The Huntington Library
1151 Oxford Road
San Marino, CA 91108 USA
shindle@huntington.org<mailto:shindle@huntington.org>
Dr. Holly Brewer
Burke Chair of American History & Associate Professor
Department of History
University of Maryland
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
College Park, MD 20742 USA
hbrewer@umd.edu<mailto:hbrewer@umd.edu>
Dr. Brent Sirota
Department of History
North Carolina State University
350 Withers Hall, Campus Box 8108, Raleigh, NC 27695-8108 USA
bssirota@ncsu.edu<mailto:bssirota@ncsu.edu>
Friday, February 6, 2015
Call for Papers, Annual Meeting, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, 16&17 October 2015.
Call for Papers, Annual Meeting, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, 16&17 October 2015.
The Northeast Conference on British Studies (NECBS) will hold its annual meeting in 2015 at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Ontario, on Friday and Saturday, October 16 and 17. The 2015 conference will be hosted by the University of Ottawa, with Richard Connors acting as local arrangements coordinator.
We solicit the participation of scholars in all areas of British Studies, broadly defined. In particular, we welcome proposals for interdisciplinary panels that draw on the work of historians, literary critics, and scholars in other disciplines whose focus is on Britain and its empire, from the Middle Ages to the present. Proposals for entire panels on a common theme will be given priority, although individual paper proposals will also be considered if several of them can be assembled to create a viable panel. Proposals for roundtable discussions of a topical work, on current issues in the field, or pedagogical practices with respect to the teaching of particular aspects of British Studies are also encouraged. The typical ninety-minute panel will include three papers (each lasting for fifteen to twenty minutes), a chair, and a commentator. Roundtables may have a looser format.
Proposals should include a general description of the panel or roundtable (including an overall title), a 200-300 word abstract for each paper to be read and a one-page curriculum vitae for each participant. Please include the address, phone number, and e-mail address of all participants (including the chair and commentator) in the proposal. For panel or roundtable proposals, please note the name of the main contact person. Electronic submissions (as e-mail attachments in Word) are preferred, with all the various materials presented in a single document.
All submissions must be received by March 15, 2015 (final decisions will be announced in June 2015).
Please send your proposals to:
Paul Deslandes, NECBS Program Chair
Paul.Deslandes@uvm.edu<mailto:Paul.Deslandes@uvm.edu>
The Northeast Conference on British Studies (NECBS) will hold its annual meeting in 2015 at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Ontario, on Friday and Saturday, October 16 and 17. The 2015 conference will be hosted by the University of Ottawa, with Richard Connors acting as local arrangements coordinator.
We solicit the participation of scholars in all areas of British Studies, broadly defined. In particular, we welcome proposals for interdisciplinary panels that draw on the work of historians, literary critics, and scholars in other disciplines whose focus is on Britain and its empire, from the Middle Ages to the present. Proposals for entire panels on a common theme will be given priority, although individual paper proposals will also be considered if several of them can be assembled to create a viable panel. Proposals for roundtable discussions of a topical work, on current issues in the field, or pedagogical practices with respect to the teaching of particular aspects of British Studies are also encouraged. The typical ninety-minute panel will include three papers (each lasting for fifteen to twenty minutes), a chair, and a commentator. Roundtables may have a looser format.
Proposals should include a general description of the panel or roundtable (including an overall title), a 200-300 word abstract for each paper to be read and a one-page curriculum vitae for each participant. Please include the address, phone number, and e-mail address of all participants (including the chair and commentator) in the proposal. For panel or roundtable proposals, please note the name of the main contact person. Electronic submissions (as e-mail attachments in Word) are preferred, with all the various materials presented in a single document.
All submissions must be received by March 15, 2015 (final decisions will be announced in June 2015).
Please send your proposals to:
Paul Deslandes, NECBS Program Chair
Paul.Deslandes@uvm.edu<mailto:Paul.Deslandes@uvm.edu>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)