I am a professor of history and legal studies at Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island, specializing in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, the history of law, human rights, and German history.
was only after the Cold War’s end that the stories chronicled by Steinacher attracted the attenti... more was only after the Cold War’s end that the stories chronicled by Steinacher attracted the attention of scholars and journalists. Hitler’s Henchmen does an admirably thorough job of surveying the larger factors involved in the escape of Nazi perpetrators. Some nonspecialists may find that the book at times leans too heavily on description at the expense of analysis, and its numerous case studies do end up becoming somewhat repetitive in discussing the escape of individual Nazis. On balance, however, the book is a model of careful archival research and raises important questions not only of immediate postwar history but postwar memory as well. Although Steinacher does not devote any attention to the subject, it is interesting to speculate whether certain Nazis’ evasion of justice, while deplorable from a moral standpoint, might have had a silver lining. Is it possible that the flight of so many Nazi perpetrators and collaborators from Europe helped to prevent a Nazi revival—the dreaded Fourth Reich of the literary imagination—after 1945? Did Latin America not in some way function as a safety valve—like the frontier in nineteenth-century America or the colony of Australia for eighteenthand nineteenth-century England—that, by welcoming political extremists from Europe, helped to prevent them from undermining the postwar democratic order? Moreover, to draw on Hermann Lübbe’s famous thesis, is it possible that the postwar world’s initial disinterest in bringing Nazi perpetrators to justice—its disinterest in historical memory—was also a necessary price for a postwar democratic order? Steinacher does not tackle these questions explicitly, but in concluding his book by pointing to the renewed interest among scholars and the general public in the subject of how justice was betrayed, he increases the possibility that such questions may be answered in the future.
Although it is often assumed that Raphael Lemkin’s original concept of genocide related only to N... more Although it is often assumed that Raphael Lemkin’s original concept of genocide related only to Nazi atrocities, in fact the elements of the offense as Lemkin construed it predate his elaboration of genocide in Axis Rule in Europe. It is clear from Lemkin’s published and unpublished writings that he intended his definition to apply to other mass exterminations, including settler-Indian interactions on the North American frontier. Lemkin forsook the constrictive hermeneutics of legal formalism in favour of a broad understanding of genocide. At the heart of his concept was a concern with the preservation of unique cultural forms—the very phenomena under threat from civilian settler colonialism. Lemkin’s surprisingly non-legalistic concept of genocide is rooted less in 20th century legal developments than in European Romanticism. While law was the integument of his concept, the urge to protect cultural ways of being in the world was its life-blood.
rituals of murderous fox hunts a less than horrifying consequence of the war. Chapter 3 continues... more rituals of murderous fox hunts a less than horrifying consequence of the war. Chapter 3 continues the discussion of landowners’ attempts to set a patriotic example by talking about the mobilization of farmworkers. Landlords, Bujak notes, frequently pointed to the military service of their family—most commonly, their sons— to encourage local efforts. However, as the war progressed, he shows that landowners found themselves pulled between different priorities, first, in military recruiting and, then, in striking a balance between enabling men to be conscripted and ensuring that sufficient labor remained to produce the increased food supplies demanded by the government. Fulfilling roles in local military and agricultural administration, thus, often placed landowners in difficult positions, uncertain of both national and local priorities. Continuing in this vein, chapter 4 shows that, although some improving landlords were eager to work with government agencies to increase food production, others were more resistant to state encroachment on the control of their lands. Such attitudes were not enhanced by Whitehall appointments of people considered hostile to landed interests. In chapter 5, the curtailment of shooting parties is investigated. Having noted the important social functions played by these events in elite society, Bujak discusses multiple reasons for the substantial reduction. Despite claims by some landowners that shooting provided militarily valuable leisure for young aristocrats home on leave, the combination of competing demands for the grain fed to game birds, the need to thin out the 25,000 gamekeepers employed in prewar Britain, and the wish to see more of the great estates’ land turned over to crop production made the practice largely unsustainable. Beyond the social implications, Bujak notes the economic problem this caused for many landowners, who lost the income from shooting that they had come to rely on before the war at the same time that rents remained frozen at levels that provided little or no income, even before wartime inflation. Chapter 6 shows how fox-hunting retained a reduced presence in wartime, despite the substantial demands it placed on rural resources, not because of its value as military practice for young men, but because it meant that landed estates continued rearing and training horses that the War Office could requisition for military service. Bujak sees this as evidence that “another aspect of the essential England ... was subordinated to the needs of the state” (90). Once again, some comparison with substantial wider scholarship on the regulation of wartime leisure may have placed the chapter’s claims of a severe intrusion on aristocratic culture within larger discussions of the totalizing effects of the war, rather than implying that landowners suffered uniquely from state intrusion. Chapter 7 summarizes the war’s overall effects on aristocratic lands, including demands for land for farming, military camps, bases, and aerodromes, giving the impression that willing patriotic gestures were rewarded with constantly increasing demands for yet more land. Bujak’s conclusion drives home the basic point related throughout, that the war accelerated incursions into landowners’ private rights and property that had begun before 1914 and went further than peacetime politics would have achieved because of the elites’ patriotic choice to serve. Defense of their country (in the specific sense of their own rural lands), however, morphed into a wider defense of the realm, which, despite loyal service, harmed more than it protected their lands. Bujak has produced a readable book that consolidates and extends previous considerations of the war’s impact within larger discussions of the English aristocracy and is suitable for any historically interested audience. It captures some of the despair of a sector of society that was experiencing substantial challenges to the established order of things. Problematizing and contextualizing, rather than faithfully representing, these concerns within broader discussions of the war’s effect on the whole of English or British society may have enriched a book that occasionally suffers from tinges of nostalgia for a lost Edwardian golden age.
first half of the twentieth century, and the construction process is still ongoing and incomplete... more first half of the twentieth century, and the construction process is still ongoing and incomplete. The book covers a huge time span, from the fifteenth century to the current PRC. While recent history constitutes a relatively smaller portion of the book, Rian Thurn does use interesting cases to demonstrate the Chinese state power's influence on redefining Uyghur history. For instance, the state has been fairly successful in converting the function of the shrine from a locale for ritual pilgrimage to a tourist destination. Xiang Fei, the Kashgarian woman who entered Ching emperor Qianlong's court as a concubine in the 1760s, has been formed into a legend and used to attract tourists. The legendary concubine is used to represent central China's imposition on the conquered frontiers. The central idea to show that unity can be achieved in the Chinese state is exemplified in Xiang Fei entering the emperor's court. This approach is a common tactic of the Chinese state to feminize its "others." Interestingly, this legend does not only successfully lure Han Chinese tourists to the region and arouse curiosity of Xiang Fei's story, but local Uyghurs appear to have also adopted Xiang Fei's legend into their popular imagination. Whether she is seen as a hero who bridged Altishahri and the Chinese center or a traitor, however, is unclear. Rian Thurn notes that there is no consensus among locals regarding Xiang Fei's role. Rian Thurn provides an important source for understanding the history and context that shapes today's interaction between the Uyghur people and the Chinese state. The perspective beyond nation state is vital and the attempt to move beyond the analytical framework that depicts a nationalist Chinese center and the resistant Uyghurs is necessary. This book is essentially a very specialized book, but because of its relevance to popular contemporary topics (e.g. minority politics in the PRC) and Islamic development, it has attracted popular interest. In 2015, Rian Thurn won the Francis L.K. Hsu Book Prize of the Society for East Asian Anthropology. While the solid analysis of this book is paved with good and much-needed intention, it is not likely to be well received by the Chinese state because of its non-Beijing-centered alternative historiography. Rights organizations that tend to advocate contemporary Uyghur nationalist interests appear to have shown interest in this book because of its non-PRC state-centered perspective. It is ironic, but the book might, to some extent, fall victim to the power struggle of the Chinese and Uyghur nationalist forces, which the author originally wished to evade.
was only after the Cold War’s end that the stories chronicled by Steinacher attracted the attenti... more was only after the Cold War’s end that the stories chronicled by Steinacher attracted the attention of scholars and journalists. Hitler’s Henchmen does an admirably thorough job of surveying the larger factors involved in the escape of Nazi perpetrators. Some nonspecialists may find that the book at times leans too heavily on description at the expense of analysis, and its numerous case studies do end up becoming somewhat repetitive in discussing the escape of individual Nazis. On balance, however, the book is a model of careful archival research and raises important questions not only of immediate postwar history but postwar memory as well. Although Steinacher does not devote any attention to the subject, it is interesting to speculate whether certain Nazis’ evasion of justice, while deplorable from a moral standpoint, might have had a silver lining. Is it possible that the flight of so many Nazi perpetrators and collaborators from Europe helped to prevent a Nazi revival—the dreaded Fourth Reich of the literary imagination—after 1945? Did Latin America not in some way function as a safety valve—like the frontier in nineteenth-century America or the colony of Australia for eighteenthand nineteenth-century England—that, by welcoming political extremists from Europe, helped to prevent them from undermining the postwar democratic order? Moreover, to draw on Hermann Lübbe’s famous thesis, is it possible that the postwar world’s initial disinterest in bringing Nazi perpetrators to justice—its disinterest in historical memory—was also a necessary price for a postwar democratic order? Steinacher does not tackle these questions explicitly, but in concluding his book by pointing to the renewed interest among scholars and the general public in the subject of how justice was betrayed, he increases the possibility that such questions may be answered in the future.
Although it is often assumed that Raphael Lemkin’s original concept of genocide related only to N... more Although it is often assumed that Raphael Lemkin’s original concept of genocide related only to Nazi atrocities, in fact the elements of the offense as Lemkin construed it predate his elaboration of genocide in Axis Rule in Europe. It is clear from Lemkin’s published and unpublished writings that he intended his definition to apply to other mass exterminations, including settler-Indian interactions on the North American frontier. Lemkin forsook the constrictive hermeneutics of legal formalism in favour of a broad understanding of genocide. At the heart of his concept was a concern with the preservation of unique cultural forms—the very phenomena under threat from civilian settler colonialism. Lemkin’s surprisingly non-legalistic concept of genocide is rooted less in 20th century legal developments than in European Romanticism. While law was the integument of his concept, the urge to protect cultural ways of being in the world was its life-blood.
rituals of murderous fox hunts a less than horrifying consequence of the war. Chapter 3 continues... more rituals of murderous fox hunts a less than horrifying consequence of the war. Chapter 3 continues the discussion of landowners’ attempts to set a patriotic example by talking about the mobilization of farmworkers. Landlords, Bujak notes, frequently pointed to the military service of their family—most commonly, their sons— to encourage local efforts. However, as the war progressed, he shows that landowners found themselves pulled between different priorities, first, in military recruiting and, then, in striking a balance between enabling men to be conscripted and ensuring that sufficient labor remained to produce the increased food supplies demanded by the government. Fulfilling roles in local military and agricultural administration, thus, often placed landowners in difficult positions, uncertain of both national and local priorities. Continuing in this vein, chapter 4 shows that, although some improving landlords were eager to work with government agencies to increase food production, others were more resistant to state encroachment on the control of their lands. Such attitudes were not enhanced by Whitehall appointments of people considered hostile to landed interests. In chapter 5, the curtailment of shooting parties is investigated. Having noted the important social functions played by these events in elite society, Bujak discusses multiple reasons for the substantial reduction. Despite claims by some landowners that shooting provided militarily valuable leisure for young aristocrats home on leave, the combination of competing demands for the grain fed to game birds, the need to thin out the 25,000 gamekeepers employed in prewar Britain, and the wish to see more of the great estates’ land turned over to crop production made the practice largely unsustainable. Beyond the social implications, Bujak notes the economic problem this caused for many landowners, who lost the income from shooting that they had come to rely on before the war at the same time that rents remained frozen at levels that provided little or no income, even before wartime inflation. Chapter 6 shows how fox-hunting retained a reduced presence in wartime, despite the substantial demands it placed on rural resources, not because of its value as military practice for young men, but because it meant that landed estates continued rearing and training horses that the War Office could requisition for military service. Bujak sees this as evidence that “another aspect of the essential England ... was subordinated to the needs of the state” (90). Once again, some comparison with substantial wider scholarship on the regulation of wartime leisure may have placed the chapter’s claims of a severe intrusion on aristocratic culture within larger discussions of the totalizing effects of the war, rather than implying that landowners suffered uniquely from state intrusion. Chapter 7 summarizes the war’s overall effects on aristocratic lands, including demands for land for farming, military camps, bases, and aerodromes, giving the impression that willing patriotic gestures were rewarded with constantly increasing demands for yet more land. Bujak’s conclusion drives home the basic point related throughout, that the war accelerated incursions into landowners’ private rights and property that had begun before 1914 and went further than peacetime politics would have achieved because of the elites’ patriotic choice to serve. Defense of their country (in the specific sense of their own rural lands), however, morphed into a wider defense of the realm, which, despite loyal service, harmed more than it protected their lands. Bujak has produced a readable book that consolidates and extends previous considerations of the war’s impact within larger discussions of the English aristocracy and is suitable for any historically interested audience. It captures some of the despair of a sector of society that was experiencing substantial challenges to the established order of things. Problematizing and contextualizing, rather than faithfully representing, these concerns within broader discussions of the war’s effect on the whole of English or British society may have enriched a book that occasionally suffers from tinges of nostalgia for a lost Edwardian golden age.
first half of the twentieth century, and the construction process is still ongoing and incomplete... more first half of the twentieth century, and the construction process is still ongoing and incomplete. The book covers a huge time span, from the fifteenth century to the current PRC. While recent history constitutes a relatively smaller portion of the book, Rian Thurn does use interesting cases to demonstrate the Chinese state power's influence on redefining Uyghur history. For instance, the state has been fairly successful in converting the function of the shrine from a locale for ritual pilgrimage to a tourist destination. Xiang Fei, the Kashgarian woman who entered Ching emperor Qianlong's court as a concubine in the 1760s, has been formed into a legend and used to attract tourists. The legendary concubine is used to represent central China's imposition on the conquered frontiers. The central idea to show that unity can be achieved in the Chinese state is exemplified in Xiang Fei entering the emperor's court. This approach is a common tactic of the Chinese state to feminize its "others." Interestingly, this legend does not only successfully lure Han Chinese tourists to the region and arouse curiosity of Xiang Fei's story, but local Uyghurs appear to have also adopted Xiang Fei's legend into their popular imagination. Whether she is seen as a hero who bridged Altishahri and the Chinese center or a traitor, however, is unclear. Rian Thurn notes that there is no consensus among locals regarding Xiang Fei's role. Rian Thurn provides an important source for understanding the history and context that shapes today's interaction between the Uyghur people and the Chinese state. The perspective beyond nation state is vital and the attempt to move beyond the analytical framework that depicts a nationalist Chinese center and the resistant Uyghurs is necessary. This book is essentially a very specialized book, but because of its relevance to popular contemporary topics (e.g. minority politics in the PRC) and Islamic development, it has attracted popular interest. In 2015, Rian Thurn won the Francis L.K. Hsu Book Prize of the Society for East Asian Anthropology. While the solid analysis of this book is paved with good and much-needed intention, it is not likely to be well received by the Chinese state because of its non-Beijing-centered alternative historiography. Rights organizations that tend to advocate contemporary Uyghur nationalist interests appear to have shown interest in this book because of its non-PRC state-centered perspective. It is ironic, but the book might, to some extent, fall victim to the power struggle of the Chinese and Uyghur nationalist forces, which the author originally wished to evade.
Uploads
Papers by Michael Bryant