A social Scientific Approach to the Making of the Modern World
Cults are also, as Stark and Bainbridge show in their analysis of data from the 1920s and 1970s and 80s alive and well not only in the US but also in Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The areas of the US, Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (the latter has the highest cults per million rates among the listed nations) that are particularly hospitable to new religious groups are the US and Canadian Wests. The Pacific region (California, Oregon, and California) have a cults per million rate of 6.6. The South, where there once were laws against “deviant” religious groups have the lowest rates: 0.5 in the East South Central, 0.9 in the West South Central (Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas), and 1.4 in the South Atlantic (Florida, the Carolinas, Maryland, and Delaware). In Canada cults are strongest in British Columbia, the part of Canada which also has the highest rate of no religions. In the UK and Europe, where no religions have reached significant numbers in Scandinavia and Northern Europe cults have found the most fertile soil in Northern Europe and Scandinavia. Cults are active in the highly secular and increasingly diverse nation of France. Geneva, Switzerland, with its language and religious diversity, is a hotbed of cult activity. In Australia the diverse urban community of Melbourne is a hotbed of cult activity. In New Zealand the Mormon cult has had tremendous success in the Maori community. Spain, where any religion but the Catholic religion was outlawed until 1967—state repression can limit sects and cults and force them underground—and areas with still vibrant formerly state churches like Italy are not hospitable to cult activity. Nor are sects and cults particularly strong in areas with strong leftist political culture—left politics, claim Stark and Bainbridge, divert religious impulses.
The Clash of Civilisations and Religions?
With the end of the Cold War others began to jump on the religion is still important in the modern world bandwagon. The Cold War and the advent of the “war against mostly Islamic terror” has brought us another approach to what was going on broadly in the world. In 1992 Harvard Political Scientist gave a lecture which later appeared in the journal Foreign Affairs. It was entitled “The Clash of Civilisations”. Huntington’s essay, which was later turned into a book called The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the World Order, was a response to a book by Hegelian political theorist Francis Fukayama’s The End of History and the Last Man. Fukayama argued that in the West had triumphed in the Cold War and that the conflict of that era was a thing of the past. The Hegelian end of history had come to pass. Huntington, however, begged to differ arguing that the end of the Cold War let loose other conflicts in the world, specifically a conflict between civilizations, conflict between Western Christian civilizations, Orthodox Christian civilizations, Muslim civilizations, Sub-Saharan African civilizations, Hindu civilizations, Buddhist civilizations, and Sinic civlisations.
For a map of the “clash of civilizations” see
Not everyone was enamoured of Huntington’s broad conceptualization of civlisational conflict. Some argued that tensions between the West and Muslim, Asian, and Sub-Saharan African countries had to do with the legacies of Western imperialism. Others argued that Huntington’s essay and book were theoretical justification for concerted Western action against possible threats for world dominance. Others argued that there were equally deep cleavages within cultures. For some one of the deep cleavages within cultures was one between “modernists” and “fundamentalists”.
There was a globalization of culture wars (or better a continuation of the global culture wars unleashed by the age of discovery, slavery, and colonialisation and imperialism). Some, like Samuel Huntington, saw a clash of civlisations as dominating the post-Cold War world. Huntington saw the clash between the modern, secular, multicultural, multi-gender, and tolerant, West and the traditional, paternalistic, patriarchal, intolerant Islamic world as the central tension in the post-Communist. For some 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to prove Huntington correct. What most commentators would admit about this post-Cold War world is that the United States was the last superpower standing with the collapse of the USSR and the unwillingness of Europe to build up its military forces. Like most superpowers before it the US behaved in that good old superpower way. For some America’s superpower status and its superpower actions rather than any clash of civlisations, was why there was so much animosity toward the US and, to a lesser extent America’s companion in superpower crimes the West, afoot in the “modern” world.
It was in the wake of secularization theory and the clash of cultures that the term fundamentalism began to take on new meaning. Intellectuals and academics now began to wonder whether the term could be used beyond the boundaries of the United States to describe counter-secularisation movements or movements opposed to the secular and supposedly tolerant West. Can the term fundamentalism, for example, be used to describe groups around the globe who are traditionalists, who are scriptural literalists whether their devotion is to the literal “truth” of the Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Quran, Hindu religious traditions, or the scriptures of the Baha’i faith, who are critical of the feminist and homosexual rights movement, and generally nationalistic in the extreme? And some scholars begin to wonder whether or not these global fundamentalisms were forms of nationalism, products of nationalism, nationalist reactions to, at least in part, Western colonization and Western imperialism including cultural imperialism, fears of losing their identity and being eliminated as a result of this perceived onslaught of the West. Are fundamentalism, many scholars wonder, nationalist cosmic purification and revival movements.
If we broaden out our conception of fundamentalism in this way then Christian Fundamentalism has not and has never been the only fundamentalist game in town. One can also speak of Islamic Fundamentalism, Jewish Fundamentalism, Baha’i Fundamentalism, Hindu Fundamentalism, Sikh Fundamentalism, and Buddhist Fundamentalism.
Islamic revival movements were a reaction to and were influenced by Western imperialism. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897), Mohamed Abdul (1845-1905), Mohammed Rashid Rida (1865-1935), and Mohammed Aqdal (1873-1938) all advocated varieties of pan-Islamicism as a way to protect Muslims from Western dominance and influence. Hasa al-Bana, a disciple of Rida, founded the Muslim Brotherhood to stimulate Islamic revival all across the Muslim world. The Brotherhood used political assassinations to achieve its goal of a pan-Islamic state guided by and founded on the principles of Islam, as they perceived it. They would be the group that assassinated Sadat after he signed a peace treaty with Israel.
The Shi’ite Revolution in Iran and its rhetorical push for Shi’ite revolutions all across the Middle East and the Islamic world alarmed some of Iran’s neighbours particular Iraq’s nominally Sunni leader Saddam Hussein. Iraq was home to a disposed Shi’ite majority. A war between the two ensued from 1979 to 1988. The US, at least officially, backed Hussein. The war was brutal as both sides used chemical weapons on each other and on suspect ethnics in their midst, like Iraq’s Kurds. Khomeini died in 1989 passing his baton of supreme ruler to Ali Khamenei. The Islamic Revolution lived on though in much less macho form. Iran maintained the rhetoric of revolution while, at the same time, finding ways to coexist with its neighbours. In 2009 the questionable re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran sent thousands into the streets. While the Iranian revolution had not come undone the protests clearly showed that Iranian revolutionaries had split apart.
One state that felt that it was instituting an Islamic government founded on true Islamic principles was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had been occupied by Soviet troops in 1979 as part of an operation to stop a radical Communist regime from terrorizing the population. Buying into the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the United States funded and equipped guerillas fighting the Soviet occupation. These anti-Soviet forces called themselves the Mujahedeen, the jihadic strugglers. By the way, the Mujahedeen, once they had defeated the Soviet great Satan would bite the hand that fed and turn on the United States. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi who joined the Mujahedeen resistance in Afghanistan would spearhead attacks on that other great Satan, the United States that would culminate in the attacks on the World Trade Centre in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington, DC on 11 September 2001.
But back to Afghanistan: In the wake of the chaos left by the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 the Sunni Taliban emerged from the welter of factions trying to take control of Afghanistan and took control of the country. With their triumph the Taliban instituted a very strict form of Islam on the populace. Women were denied any role in Afghan public life, access to education, and were forced to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe. Religious toleration disappeared as several historically important images of the Buddha were destroyed. Punishments for any violation of “Islam” were severe. One woman lost her thumb because she wore nail polish on it.
After the “terrorist” attacks on Manhattan and DC on 9/11 the US along with several allies went to war against the Taliban for their refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden to American justice. The US, with help from disenchanted elements in Afghanistan and the UK and Canada, in particular, quickly took the Afghan capital Kabul and the country. But the Taliban did not fade away. Utilising guerilla tactics the Taliban and their allies managed to regain control over significant parts of Afghanistan by 2009. July 2009 turned out to be the deadliest month in the Afghan War since 2001 for “Coalition” (anti-Taliban) forces.
If the battles between “modernists” and “fundamentalists seemed to prove that secularization was going on in the West despite the presence of forces opposed to it, the war between those who “cherished freedom” and those who hated it, to paraphrase American president George Bush’s rather manicheam view, seemed to prove that a clash of civilizations was going on.
On 11 September 2001 radical Islamicists, most of them from Saudi Arabia, flew hijacked planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. A fourth was brought down in a field in Pennsylvania thanks to passengers and was thought by many to be on the way to the White House or Capitol. Millions watched it all on TV including the collapse of the Twin Towers on throughout the US and around the world. And millions watched as Bush kept reading to elementary school students in a Florida classroom during a photo op after the attack. To some Bush looked like a man cool in a crisis. To others he seemed to be a man unable to deal with a crisis.
On 9/11 see /
In the days after the 9/11 attack patriotism, as is usually the case everywhere, soared to levels not seen since World War Two. Congress acted too. It ponied up $15 billion dollars to the airlines, an industry suffering before 9/11 but suffering even more after 9/11 thanks to a shutdown in air traffic, a decline in air travel, and the institution of more severe security measures in the wake of the attack.
Though some administration officials and some pundits believed Iraq was responsible for the attack it soon became clear that it was the work of Al-Qaida a “terrorist” group headed by a veteran of the Mujahedeen wars against the Soviets, Osama bin Laden, and “headquartered” in Afghanistan. In the wake of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan the Taliban, an extreme fundamentalist Muslim sect, had taken control of the country and Al-Qaida found it fertile soil to ply its trade in. Its trade was to drive the infidel out of Muslim lands, particularly the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida, claimed commentators, had attacked the US before. It was responsible for the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. They were behind the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. They were behind the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Clinton had ordered strikes against Al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia hoping to kill bin Laden in the former in 2000. Bush now declared war on “terrorists” responsible for 9/11 and any nation that might “harbour” them.
One of the first things Bush and Company did in the wake of 9/11 was to establish a new government agency to combat “terrorism” and protect the homeland, the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security was formed out of 22 existing government agencies including Immigration and Naturalisation and the Coast Guard. Among the things the new agency was charged with was revamping aeroport security. It ordered some 50,000 scanners deployed in US aeroports. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was felt necessary because of the failures of the FBI and CIA to uncover Al-Qaida’s plans before 9/11. Congressional hearings in 2002 would uncover communication failures in the two agencies that, if they had not occurred, claim some Monday morning quarterbacks, may have enabled the FBI to stop the attack.
In the midst of the shock of 9/11 four letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to leading American politicians and media celebrities. 23 contracted the disease. Five died from it. America seemed under attack in multiple ways.
After 9/11 Bush and company (some emphasise the company) shifted into cold and hot war gear. Military trainers were sent to the Philippines, Yemen, and Georgia, all of who had their problems with radical Islamic “terrorists” to train local forces in the fine art of fighting “terrorism”. The US found and froze financial resources of Al-Qaida. Bush proposed, Congress passed, and the president signed the US PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorists) in October 2001 which gave law enforcement agencies what they had long been pushing for, increased powers of surveillance the increased ability to tap into internet and cell phone traffic. 5000 foreigners were detained without any formal charge or the promise of a speedy trial. Many foreigners were deported. Some of them had simply overstayed their visas. Some 80,000 Muslims were forced to register with the government and were fingerprinted as part of that process. May civil libertarians cried foul.
See the PATRIOT Act here
Bush and Company set about fulfilling their promise to bring the culprits of 9/11 to justice. Bush demanded that Afghanistan turn over the leaders of Al-Qaida to the US. When the Taliban leaders of Afghanistan refused Bush established alliances with anti-Taliban forces in the north of Afghanistan, sent in Special Forces, the CIA, and the military. The war was short but bin Laden and other major Al-Qaida leaders escaped American forces presumably by hiding in the mountainous regions in the region on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Putting Afghanistan back together proved much more difficult.
During the “war” 650 Taliban and Al-Qaida “enemy combatants” were captured and eventually taken to the US naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. There the US intended to hold them until the “war against terrorism” ended, a war Bush once claimed had no end in sight. Allegations of torture at Guantanamo soon reared their ugly head.
With Afghanistan under control Iraq now came into the sights of some in the Bush administration along with many conservative pundits in the US. For some, like the Project for a New American Century, attacking Iraq and putting an end to Saddam Hussein, had long been a treasured cause. In January 1998 prominent members of the Project wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to do something once and for all about Saddam Hussein (/iraqclintonletter.htm).
Many of those who signed this letter would eventually play major roles in the new Bush administration. Many of them would argue that Iraq had something to do with the attack against America on 9/11. In January of 2002 in his State of the Union address Bush grouped Iraq with North Korea, and Iran in the “Axis of Evil”, a phrase presumably meant to call the horrors of Nazism and Hitler to mind. He warned that each of these nations were attempting to develop “weapons of mass destruction” and that “stateless terrorists” were seeking such weapons from these “rogue nations” threatening, in the process, world stability.
In the fall of 2002 Bush amped up the claims that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was building up a nuclear arsenal. Bush, like his father, set about to put together a “coalition” to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Bush’s proposal for a preemptive strike to deal with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction failed to garner support from UN Security Council members Russia, China, France. Nor did it garner support from Germany or many Islamic countries. Bush and Company, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, took their case for invasion to the UN. France and Germany, however, urged the Security Council instead to pressure Iraq to readmit weapons inspectors. Iraq agreed.
The truth of the matter is that the claims Bush was making about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” were (charitably) based on problematic intelligence or (uncharitably) based on a tissue of lies. The claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger and claims that Iraqi officials were meeting with Al-Qaida both turned out to be false. The CIA had investigated the yellowcake claims sending former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims. He reported they had no validity. “The Company” urged that claims to the contrary be removed from Bush’s speeches, including his 2003 State of the Union address though they weren’t. The claims that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” were also false. The weapons inspectors, as Scott Ritter noted before Bush and Company’s invasion of Iraq, had destroyed around 95% of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” capabilities and crippled its conventional missile and military forces. Ritter asserted that the other 5% was likely rotting in the ground and unusable. So why did Hussein claim that he had “weapons of mass destruction”? The answer to that question is simple. He made the claim, as he later admitted to a CIA agent interrogating him that it was meant for Iranian consumption. Iran and Iraq had fought a long and deadly war in the 1980s and Hussein didn’t want the Iranians to think that Iraq was ripe for the taking.
See the UNSCOM reports here
For a report on the interview see /stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
Bush’s willingness to wait for the weapons inspectors to do their work was about as strong as the intelligence his rhetoric was based on. Not at all. While the UN inspectors were inspecting Bush was whipping up public opinion with tales of an Iraq that threatened the US with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons—and recall that the US had recently had an anthrax scare—and was pushing Congress to act. And act Congress did. Both the House and the Senate authorized the president to take military action against Iraq. The UN Security Council also acted. It voted down authorization for a war against Iraq.
Despite the UN vote the US and UK, with some support from Spain, Italy, and Poland, invaded Iraq in March 2003. In a replay of the first Gulf War the war was short. Iraq was no match for the “coalition of the willing”. By mid-April Baghdad fell unleashing chaos and looting on a grand scale except at the Ministry of Oil which was guarded by “coalition” troops. Only 230 Americans died during the short war. As critics of the war and the rhetoric leading up to it predicted no weapons of mass destruction were found. Apologists claimed that perhaps they had been hidden or moved to Syria.
As in Afghanistan remaking Iraq after the “end” of the war would not be easy. Iraq was dominated demographically by Shi’a Muslims, the same group that dominated Iran. There were significant numbers of Kurds in the north many of whom had pushed for an independent Kurdistan. The nation was dominated politically by Sunni Muslims and the Bath Party, the party of Saddam Hussein. Bathist dominance of Iraq produced a moderate and somewhat secular Muslim state. The rise of Shi’a to power, the Kurd push for autonomy in the north, the removal of Bathists from political power and military life by the US interim government, and the arrival of Al-Qaida on the Iraq scene, however, set a crisis of epic proportions in motion. Establishing a working Iraqi government proved difficult. Sunnis and Al-Qaida attacked “coalition” troops. Al-Qaida attacked Shi’a hoping to spark sectarian strife. Shi’a attacked Sunni. Sunni attacked Shi’a. The Kurds did their own thing. Bush may have said that mission was accomplished in Iraq in May of 2003 but by 2004 American deaths had increased to 1000. And as the war drug on so did the cost of the war.
The war turned out to be a public relations nightmare for the US. In 2004 the CBS news magazine show 60 Minutes broadcast a report on the US torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, the same prison in which Hussein had tortured his enemies. The pictures of torture that 60 Minutes broadcast set off a debate in the US over whether the torture was torture, over whether torture was a necessary thing in a war against terrorism, and over whether a democracy committed to civil rights and the Geneva Conventions, which outlaw torture, should ever engage in torture. Perhaps more importantly the revelations of American torture at Abu Ghraib caused further rifts between the US and her European allies, rifts that arose as a result of the debates over whether to use force against Iraq and alienated Islamic states and Muslims even further from the US. Some pundits argued that Abu Ghraib would prove to be the best recruiting poster imaginable for Al-Qaida and other anti-American groups in the Islmaic states.
On Abu Ghraib see
Bush’s second term in office (2004-2008) wasn’t much better at least at first. In Iraq “democracy” brought tensions between Shi’a and Sunni and increasing Kurdish autonomy. Bush tried democracy and democratization in Pakistan as well, a member of the nuclear club, but the resignation of Pakistan’s leader, General Pervez Musharraf, who had taken power in a military coup against the elected government of Pakistan, brought radical Islamist suicide bombers, radical Islamist attempts to restore sharia law, radical Islamist attempts to wrest control of areas of the nation away from more secular elements. In Afghanistan the Taliban arose from the dead and were taking back parts of the country they had previously lost. Russia, thanks to its oil and gas and rising oil and gas prices, was resurgent on the world stage and flexing its muscles. There were some foreign policy bright spots as well. The surge in Iraq thanks to combined US and Sunni military efforts resulted in a decline in al-Qaida attacks.
Tensions between “natives” and Muslims in places like France, Norway, and the Netherlands became particularly important in the era. Riots outside of Paris and throughout urban areas of France occurred throughout 2005. Protesters complained about their lack of job opportunities, prejudice against them, and mandates of the secular French state which refused to allow Muslim schoolgirls to wear their religious headscarves at school.
Some wondered whether “tolerant” Europe and those sects of Islam which demanded submission to their maximalist vision of Islam as the one true religion in Europe’s midst could co-exist in new old Europe. In Great Britain in September of 1988 the novel of an Indian born writer, Salman Rushdie, entitled The Satanic Verses, stirred controversy because of what some in the Islamic world saw as an irreverent description of the prophet Muhammad. Bookstores were bombed in reprisal and in February of 1989 Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, a death order, against Rushdie for this perceived slur against the prophet. An Iranian businessman put a bounty on Rushdie’s head. Rushdie would live under the threat of death well into the 2000s. In the Netherlands in November of 2004 Theo van Gogh, a filmmaker and relative of the famous artist, was assassinated in Amsterdam after he and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali born critic of Islam and member of the Dutch parliament, made a film critical of Islamic patriarchy and its impact on Muslim women. In Denmark in September of 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (Islam is iconoclastic and thus prohibits images of the “prophet”). Anti-Danish, anti-Western, protests, riots, boycotts, fatwas, death threats, and even threats of “terrorism” resulted. Some Western newspapers refused to reprint the editorial cartoons for fear of reprisals.
Explore the Jullands-Posten cartoons here
Not everyone saw modernization or modernity in negative hues. Karl Marx, for instance, saw capitalism, one of the if not the incubators of modernity, as superior to feudalism in that it decreased inequalities. Cheerleaders for capitalism claimed that capitalism was improving people’s lives.
Modernity with its industrialization and capitalism has broken localism and down. As we have seen developments in shipbuilding spurred Europeans on to exploration. By the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries Europeans girdled the globe. Modernity also diminished the impact of traditional inequalities. The Enlightenment made the ideals of freedom and equality the heart of the Western ideological and political cultures at least rhetorically. And while the Enlightenment may not have eliminated prejudice and discrimination in the world it did give us movements like the abolition movement, the anti-Nazi movement, the civil rights movement, and the human rights movement that tried to do just that. The impact of modernity on our world can perhaps best be gauged by one simple fact: even the traditionalists have been affected by and impacted by Enlightenment notions of freedom, liberty, and equality and by modern technologies
So what should you take away from this chapter? Note how all of those processes that created the modern world have led to a reaction to aspects of the modern world they created particularly among “traditionalist” oriented religious groups.
Viewings and Listenings: Modernity versus Tradition
The Monkey Trial
Edward Larson on his book Summer of the Gods
C-Span, Book Notes, 14 May 1998
Talking History: Larson on Scopes, 14 July
Talking History: Bryan Talks About Religion and Science, 14 July
Representations: Scene from the movie Inherit the Wind
Billy Sunday Sermons
Aimee Semple McPherson opens the Angelus Temple
30 December 1927
Sister Aimee on Prohibition
Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, 2006
Louis Theroux, “The Most Hated Family in America” 4 January 2007, BBC 2
Religion and Science
Nova, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”, November, 2007, PBS
Israel and the Complexities of Modernity and Tradition
Wide Angle, “Contestant No. 2”, PBS, 2009 (on the Druze in Israel)
Europe’s population rose from 150 million in 1750 to 260 million in 1850.
1850 %agriculture %industry %transport/commerce
UK 21 35 19
France 45 29 7
German 47 21 8
Russia 75 10 12
Italy 57 19 17
1910 %agriculture %industry %transport/commerce
UK 6 34 29
France 35 36 7
Germany 25 43 15
Russia 60 29 12
Italy 42 22 23
Sources and Further Reading:
Steven Wallech, Craig Hendricks, Peter Wan, Touraj Daryaee, Anne Lynne Negus, and Gordon Morris Bakken; World History: A Concise Thematic Analysis, two volumes
L. S. Stavrianos; A Global History
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto; The World: A History
J.R. and William McNeill; The Human Web
Fernand Braudel; A History of Civilizations
RR Palmer, Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer; A History of the Modern World
Norman Davies; Europe: A History
Sarah B. Pomeroy, Stanley M. Burstein, Walter Donlan, and Jennifer Tolbert; A Brief History of Ancient Greece
Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola and Richard J. A. Talbert; A Brief History of the Romans
John Boardman (ed.); Oxford History of the Classical World (published also as the Oxford History of the Greek World, Hellenistic World, and Roman World (good on art)
Warren Treadgold; A Concise History of Byzantium
Euan Cameron (ed.); Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History
Barbara Rosenwein; A Short History of the Middle Ages
Norman Cantor; The Invention of the Middle Ages: The Lives, Works, and Ideas of the Great Medievalists of the 20th Century
Malise Ruthven; Islam: A Very Short Introduction
Daniel Chirot; Social Change in the Modern World
Eric Wolf; Europe and the People Without History
TCW Blanning (ed.); The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern Europe
R.R. Palmer, Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer; A History of the Modern World
Jeremy Black and Roy Porter (eds.); A Dictionary of 18th Century World History
Eric Hobsbawm; Age of Revolution
_____________; Age of Capital
_____________; Age of Empire
_____________; Age of Extremes
Michael Howard and William Lewis (eds); The Oxford History of the Twentieth Century
Richard Bulliet; Columbia History of the Twentieth Century
Gabriel Kolko; A Century of War
Gerald Weinberg; World at Arms
Max Weber; Economy and Society
Karl Marx; Das Kapital
Michael Mann; The Sources of Social Power (two volumes)
Wim Klooster and Alfred Padula; The Atlantic World: Essays on Slavery, Migration, and
James Fulcher; Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction
Norman Davies; Europe: A History
Euen Cameron, (ed.) Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History
Robert Gildea; Barricades and Borders
Mark Mazower: The Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century
Christopher Browning; The Origins of the Final Solution
Robert Wistrich; Hitler and the Holocaust
Tony Judt; Postwar
Donald Worster (ed.); The Ends of the Earth
Lewis Mumford; The City in History
_____________; Pentagon of Power
_____________; Techniques and Human Development
Geof Eley and Ronald Suny; Becoming National
Eric Hobsbawm and Terrence Ranger; Invention of Tradition
Michael Adas; Machines as the Measure of Men
David Harvey; The New Imperialism
Lloyd Gardner and Marilyn Young; The New American Empire
Lenard Berlanstein (ed.); The Industrial Revolution and Work in 19th Century Europe
Mikulas Teich and Roy Porter (eds.); Romanticism in National Context
_________________________(eds.); Fin de Siecle and its Legacy
_________________________(eds.); The National Question in Europe in National Context
Renate Bridenthal, Susan Stuard, Merry Weisner; Becoming Visible: Women in European History
Lynn Hunt (ed.); The Invention of Pornography
Franz Eder, Lesley Hall, and Gert Hekma; Sexual Cultures in Europe: National Cultures
Mary Fulbrook; A Concise History of Germany
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (ed.); Oxford History of World Cinema
John McManners; Oxford History of Christianity
Laura Woodhead; Introduction to Christianity
Hillary Rubenstein, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Abraham Edelheit, and William Rubenstein
(eds.); The Jews in the Modern World
Lloyd Gartner; History of the Jews in Modern Times
Malise Ruthven; Islam: A Very Short Introduction
J.M. Bumsted; A History of the Canadian Peoples
Michael King; The Penguin History of New Zealand
- V. exist, be; have being &c n.; subsist, live, breathe, stand, obtain, be the case; occur &c (event) 151; have place, prevail; find oneself, pass the time, vegetate.
- 2. Inexistence N. inexistence†; nonexistence, nonsubsistence; nonentity, nil; negativeness &c adj.; nullity; nihility†, nihilism; tabula rasa [Lat.], blank; abeyance; absence &c 187; no such thing &c 4; nonbeing, nothingness, oblivion.
- Hithes.doc is a hierarchically-organized thesaurus derived by reorganization of the version of Roget s Thesaurus published in 1911. The new organization is intended to allow use of ISA and other semantic relational markers.
- 1. This is a book. It is my book. 2. Is this your pencil? — No, it isn t my pencil, it is my sister s pencil. 3. I have a sister. My sister is an engineer.
А. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по перево (1)ДокументА. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по переводу научной и технической
А. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по перево (2)ДокументА. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по переводу научной и технической
- (Besides the consolidated scheme on "Untouchables or children of India s Ghetto " included in Book I in this Volume, there are several other essays by Dr.
- Учебное пособие содержит упражнения и тексты для студентов специальности «Мосты и транспортные тоннели». Упражнения направлены на формирование у студентов речевых грамматических навыков на основе профессиональной лексики.
- Работа одобрена редакционно-издательским советом академии в качестве учебного пособия по английскому языку для студентов II курса специальности «Мосты и транспортные тоннели»
Задача настоящего учебника помочь учащимся овладеть как навыками перевода, так и навыками устной и письменной английской речи. Для достижения этой цели учащиеся должны приобрести определенный запас слов и изучить грамматический строй языкаЗадачаЗадача настоящего учебника — помочь учащимся овладеть как навыками перевода, так и навыками устной и письменной английской речи. Для достижения этой цели учащиеся должны приобрести определенный запас слов и изучить грамматический строй языка.