Two great shows on New Books In History

Just when I was about to write a raving review about Marshal Poe's interview with Mark Bradley about the Vietnamese perspective at the Vietnam War, up along came the interview with Susan Brewer about American war propaganda since the end of the nineteenth century when President McKinley had to sell to the public the war with Spain and on the Philippines. Both are very interesting especially for those who are interested in a new perspective on US foreign policy.

Mark Bradley's book is obviously most needed; after all that has been said and written about the Vietnam War, what was sorely missing was an insight in how this war is perceived among the Vietnamese. After Bradley's book, maybe more should follow. Though Marshall Poe has high praise for the book and based on the interview one certainly gets a really good impression about Bradley as an historian, there still is room left for discovery. The most pronounced reason for this is that Vietnam is still not the open society with accessible archives and an established discourse among historians to allow for a definitive Vietnamese version. But certainly Bradly has paved the way.

Brewer's book raises first of all the question of propaganda. What is propaganda? Is it necessarily a bundle of lies to manipulate the public? Can any government live without it? Since the answer to the last question seems to be no, the government will always need some explanatory policy. Even if propaganda is not be a set of outright lies, it certainly is an information initiative to influence the public. Brewer's book (and the podcast) give some insight into the workings of propaganda, from times when media, probably, could be controlled, to the modern age when there is always plenty room for opposing voices. The bottom line is that propaganda never seems to have lost its efficacy.

More NBIH:
Two old and one New Books In History,
The latest in New Books in History,
Three recommendations,
American Exceptionalism,
The Great War in short.

The Royal Navy and the Seven Year War - BTHP

I came out of the last episode of Binge Thinking History Podcast's series about the Royal Navy thinking that the British by the beginning of the 18th century had already begun to rule the waves. Yet the latest episode, around the Seven Years War, takes the narrative further and slightly adjusts this point.

Host Tony Cocks acknowledges the advanced position the navy has. Other important navies in Europe had been pushed off the scene, notably the Dutch and the Spanish. However, this left the British to compete with the French and France with its bigger population and fast growing economy looked to become even more formidable than the British. The covert competition, fast deteriorates from enmity to all out war. The Seven Year War, fought on all sides of the globe, from Canada, to the Channel, the Mediterranean, to India sees the French gain the upper hand.

In an exciting narrative accompanied with wonderfully apt sound effects, Cocks spells out what the positions are, where the key players go and how the tables are turned. Can we say that in the end the British indeed rule the waves? They surely assume that ruling the seas is the key to empire. The French however maintain strength on land and confrontations with the competition on the other side of the channel are still going to come up again. The next chapter will continue from the end of the 18th century I gather.

BTHP is an amateur podcast and the quality it aspires to is extremely demanding for host Tony Cocks as is for many of his colleagues who try to keep up their own history podcasts. What I see with BTHP and its likes, is that these demands are met, but the price across the board is that these good podcasts appear very infrequently. Months between issues are no exception. I think I am not the only one in their public that applauds the maintenance of quality and takes the long stretches as part of the bargain.

More BTHP:
Britannia Rules the Waves,
Royal Navy,
Win, lose or draw,
Blitz on London,
Battle of Britain.

Emmeline Pankhurst - Veertien Achttien

Er is een mooi bruggetje te maken tussen de voorlaatste en de laatste aflevering van Veertien Achttien. Toen de hoofdpersoon van vorige week, Lord Kitchener, de Britse mannen opriep om dienst te nemen het nieuwe vrijwilligerlseger, Kitchener's Army, kreeg hij steun uit een opmerkelijke hoek: van de feministe Emmeline Pankhurst, hoofdpersoon deze week.

De feministes onder Pankhurst deelden witte veren uit aan elke man die nog ongeschonden door Londen rondliep. Waarom? Op het oog betekent de witte veer: lafaard, neem dienst. Maar waarom waren het juist de feministische Suffragettes die opeens de oorlogszaak zo hartstochtelijk oppakten? Twee gedachtes dringen zich op. De beweging voor vrouwenkiesrecht gold als tamelijk radicaal, een opposant van de gevestigde orde en zoals wel vaker met dit soort ideele groeperingen, kunnen zij hartstochtelijk nationalisme aannemen om een zekere legitimiteit te verkrijgen. Patriotisme is in de moderne historie een handig middel om de publieke opinie te bewerken, vooral in tijden van oorlog.

Maar dankzij Tom Tacken wordt nog een idee geopperd: hoe meer mannen dienst nemen, hoe meer het Home Front door vrouwen gerund moet worden. Hoe meer vrouwen aan het roer staan, hoe meer invloed in de samenleving, hoe meer de actieve participatie in politiek door vrouwen dichterbij komt. Het wordt vaak verondersteld dat de Eerste Wereldoorlog het algemeen kiesrecht versneld dichterbij heeft gebracht. Tacken suggereert dit ook, maar in dit verband is het wel aardig om de luisteraars te wijzen op een aflevering van BBC's In Our Time (Suffragism) dat iets anders oppert: het vrouwenkiesrecht was er al bijna en de oorlog heeft de boel alleen maar vertraagd.

Meer Veertien Achttien:
Lord Kitchener,
Walther Rathenau,
Komitas Vardapet,
John Condon,
Koning George V.

History of Medicine podcasts - Oxford Brookes University

Each episode in the series History of Medicine Podcasts from Oxford Brooke University (School of Arts and Humanities) begins with calling itself: Another podcast of 'Moments in Medicine'. What does this mean? Have the makers inherited recordings of another podcast? Have they changed the name in the process? Whatever the final decision is going to be about the proper name, both names carry an indication onto what kind of podcast this is: Brief historic moments that marked the science and profession of medicine are being discussed. And they are more Medicine with a History backdrop, than chapters in the history of Medicine. On that account I'd personally prefer Moments in Medicine.

Thus far this podcast has seven short chapters in its feed which cover interesting subjects such as: Why do human beings have a tendency to obesity? Medicinal clothing. Pandemics. Sickle Cell disease. And Eugenics. The last one was highlighted on Twitter by the tweets of the Reith Lectures 2009 and this is how I found the podcast. As said, the focal point is medicine. The subjects are addressed by and to those interested in medicine and have a historic perspective for better understanding.

For the purpose of identifying the category for this podcast, I am therefore inclined to put it both in history and science (or medicine). In comparison with other podcasts, I want to recommend this one as it is very professionally made and very informative.

More Medical History:
Medieval Islamic Medicine (University of Warwick),
Pain in paradigm (Missing Link),
Medicalhistory - podcast review,
Four Humor Medicine (BBC - In Our Time),
Avicenna (BBC - In Our Time).

More about BBC Reith Lectures 2009:
A new politics of the common good,
The bioethics concern,
Morality in Politics,
Morality and the Market,
Michael Sandel - Philosophy Bites.

Rear Vision sequels to Iran and Versailles

It was promised at the start of the two last programs of Rear Vision I reviewed: both would be part of a double show, yet it took some time for the second of each to appear in the feed. Today I listened to these two follow-ups and I want to warmly recommend both, but also want to add: don't listen to them in the order I did.

I first listened to the first installment about Iran, which gave the background to the coup of 1953 and then I listened to the first installment on the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Both were great, but their sequels proceed so neatly from where the first chapters ended, it is really best to listen to the couple in one fell swoop.

The Iran show (Iranian Revolution) will take the narrative further from the 1953 coup and describe the regime of the Shah, how it could stay in place for over 25 years. It was a regime of terror and intricate division of the opposition. Yet, when somehow Khomeini managed to become the focal point for opposition unity, the Shah's regime crumbled in little time.

The show about the Peace conference (Impact of Versailles) will highlight and discuss all the alleged bad effects on specific nations. Not just the question whether it was Versailles that brought Hitler to power, but also about Yugoslavia, other parts of Eastern Europe and importantly the Middle East. It is said that especially in the Middle East the effects of 1919 are still felt and the invented nations (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) and overlooked nations (Palestinians, Armenians and probably also Kurds though they are not mentioned) are still troubled by the artificial terms set in that time.

More Rear Vision:
Versailles 1919,
Iran 1953,
Coffee,
Fiji.

Nico Frijda - Simek 's Nachts

We hebben ze wel eens vaker meegemaakt, gasten in Simek 's Nachts, of het nu bij de RVU of bij Elsevier was, die over bepaalde dingen niet willen praten. Het meest fascinerende is dan hoe Martin Simek naar de grens gaat, tot waar de gast zich nog veilig voelt, en er dan toch overheen probeert te gaan. Soms krijg je dan toch nog iets meer te horen dan de afbakening toeliet. Zo ook bij het laatste interview.

Al bij de inleiding vertelt Simek dat zijn gast, Nico Frijda niet graag over zijn oorlogservaringen spreekt. Je voelt dat hij daarnaartoe zal gaan werken en dat maakt het meteen al spannend. Maar behalve dat gaat het ook over Frijda's werk, over liefde en trouw en over sommege van zijn kinderen. En ook in die prive-sfeer die niet met de oorlog te maken heeft zijn er zaken niet bespreekbaar. Frijda zegt simpelweg: hier wil ik niet over praten.

En zo gaat het gesprek ook expliciet over die grenzen, over die afgesloten aspecten van de mens Frijda en waarom daar niet over gesproken kan worden. Het is het dilemma van het trauma onderdrukken of oprakelen; hij is er niet een die onverkort gelooft dat erover praten oplucht. En terwijl we bezig zijn krijg je toch nog onverwacht veel te weten. En er vallen een paar stiltes waarvan ik vermoed dat Frijda zijn tranen verbijt. Het maakt de uitzending hier en daar spannend, interessant en teglijkertijd een klein beetje ongemakkelijk, maar dat hoort erbij.

EXCLUSIEF via dit blog, drie feeds waarin oude Simek interviews zijn op te halen, die niet meer door de RVU rechtstreeks aangeleverd worden.

Meer Simek 's Nachts:
Aaf Brandt Corstius,
Freek de Jonge,
Kees van Kooten,
Connie Palmen,
Dhyan Sutorius (RVU).