Suchergebnisse

After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation. By
Charles T. Clotfelter. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. 216p.
$55.00 cloth, $17.95 paper.Those who live or have lived in metropolitan areas that faced
court-ordered desegregation of the schools in the latter part of the
twentieth century have likely heard a common theory about the connection
of those efforts to the state of the relevant city. It goes something like
this: Once federal courts ordered city schools to desegregate, many white
city dwellers either fled to the suburbs for protection or plucked their
kids from city schools and enrolled them in private ones. Under the first
scenario, the end of neighborhood schools negatively affected the city, as
families in once-vital neighborhoods abandoned desegregating city schools
they perceived as problematic for their children's education for
virtually lily-white suburban schools thought to be of a higher quality.
Under the second scenario, white parents remained in the city of their
birth but undermined desegregation efforts by transferring their children
to private schools (which were mostly Catholic in the Northeast and
Midwest and mostly newly opened in the South). In the end, long-frustrated
federal judges and civil rights leaders ultimately succeeded in increasing
the levels of interaction between white and black children, but their
efforts had significant side effects for those cities as well.

Events in South Asia in the 1950s and early 1960s had a long-term impact on the Cold War and on relations among the countries involved—China, India, Pakistan, the United States, and the Soviet Union. This article provides an overview of U.S. relations with South Asian countries during the early Cold War. It highlights the connections between U.S. policy priorities and commitments in South Asia on the one hand and developments in Tibet on the other. The article considers how U.S. policy priorities and actions in South Asia shaped, and were shaped by, China's reassertion of control over Tibet in the early 1950s and by the frictions that emerged between India and China in 1959 as a result of Beijing's brutal crackdown in Tibet.

Events in South Asia in the 1950s & early 1960s had a long-term impact on the Cold War & on relations among the countries involved -- China, India, Pakistan, the United States, & the Soviet Union. This article provides an overview of U.S. relations with South Asian countries during the early Cold War. It highlights the connections between U.S. policy priorities & commitments in South Asia on the one hand & developments in Tibet on the other. The article considers how U.S. policy priorities & actions in South Asia shaped, & were shaped by, China's reassertion of control over Tibet in the early 1950s & by the frictions that emerged between India & China in 1959 as a result of Beijing's brutal crackdown in Tibet. Adapted from the source document.

Der Verfasser vertritt die Auffassung, dass es eine enge Verbindung zwischen dem Kalten Krieg und den "heißen" Kriegen in der Dritten Welt gibt. Nur wenige dieser militärischen Konflikte können direkt auf den Kalten Krieg zurückgeführt werden, wenigstens nicht ursächlich. Die unterschiedlichen Prozesse der Entkolonisierung und deren Folgen übten einen bedeutenderen Einfluss auf diese Konflikte aus als der Kalte Krieg per se. In fast jedem Fall spielte der Kalte Krieg jedoch eine wichtige Rolle, indem er den lokalen Akteuren Möglichkeiten eröffnete oder Grenzen setzte, Konflikte nach ihrem Beginn intensivierte, verlängerte, internationalisierte oder verkürzte oder diplomatische Lösungen erleichterte. Der Kalte Krieg beeinflusste den Verlauf fast jeden größeren Konflikts in der Ära des Kalten Kriegs zwischen 1945 und 1990. (ICEÜbers)

It is difficult to imagine two fields of scholarly inquiry with so much in common and yet so little interaction as diplomatic and policy history. Policy, policy process, policymakers, policy origins, policy intentions, policy consequences -- those terms and ones of a similar stripe roll just as easily off the tongues and word processors of diplomatic historians as of self-described policy historians. Moreover, the questions asked and the methods employed by the two groups of scholars bear a striking resemblance. Both fields focus perforce on the state and state-centered actors, concern themselves with elite-level decision making, interrogate fundamental issues of power within societies, and concentrate overwhelmingly on the twentieth century to the relative neglect of earlier periods. Each field occupies as well an embattled position within the larger historical profession, where social and cultural history have predominated since the 1960s. Adapted from the source document.

It is difficult to imagine two fields of scholarly inquiry with so much in common and yet so little interaction as diplomatic and policy history. Policy, policy process, policymakers, policy origins, policy intentions, policy consequences—those terms and ones of a similar stripe roll just as easily off the tongues and word processors of diplomatic historians as of self-described policy historians. Moreover, the questions asked and the methods employed by the two groups of scholars bear a striking resemblance. Both fields focus perforce on the state and state-centered actors, concern themselves with elite-level decision making, interrogate fundamental issues of power within societies, and concentrate overwhelmingly on the twentieth century to the relative neglect of earlier periods. Each field occupies as well an embattled position within the larger historical profession, where social and cultural history have predominated since the 1960s.