In the years 2004 and 2005 a survey was conducted that focused on recording of authentic testimonies about the everyday lives of women in the country predominantly in the second half of the 20th century. Correspondents of the Czech Ethnographical Society, students and female seniors from different parts of the Czech Republic took part in the survey. this report reveals the results including characteristic quotations. The information was obtained from different localities on an uneven basis. There is a compact set of records from four villages in eastern Moravia and four authentic testimonies from Těšín region in the foothills of Beskydy Mountains. The information was either handwritten by the respondents, or their narration was recorded by the Czech Ethnographical Society correspondents, students of Silesian University or by a local chronicler. The outline of the research was available to everyone. We were above all interested in the changes which rural families had to go through in the second half of the 20th century due to collectivization of land and changes in social and economic conditions.
Bedřich Machulka was born on June 22, 1875. Since his youth he had been interested in Africa. However, only after meeting Richard Štorch he was able to realize his dreams. Together they parted for Africa. They settled in Tripolis in Libya and dedicated themselves in hunting and stuffing animals. Afterwards they moved to Sudan where they established a base for hunting expeditions. In the year 1927 Štorch died. Machulka moved his interest to eastern Africa. Since 1929 he had established a partnership with Duke Adolf Schwarzenberg (1890–1950). At the beginning their collaboration went on without problems. However, after Machulka failed to organize film recording in Kenya, the Duke did not entrust him anymore with organizing of other expeditions. This period of life of Machulka, until the year 1935, is well illustrated by letters that he exchanged with the Duke through the Schwarzenberg Office. Schwarzenberg valued Machulka highly for his professional and organizational qualities. Therefore, in spite of the mutual disagreements he found him a place of preserver and curator of small museum of ethnographic artifacts and trophies in the castle Ohrada (on the manor of Hluboká). There Machulka had worked throughout the Second World War until the year 1947, when all the properties of the Schwarzenbergs on the territory of Czechoslovakia were nationalized. Machulka finished his life in Prague in humble conditions. He died on March 6, 1954.
Besides many dispersed fragments related to theory of sleep, dreams and their interpretation, Babylonian Talmud contains a long passage dealing with those issues, which includes also several series of dream-interpretations. The passage is often referred to as „Rabbinic dream-book” in specialized scholarly literature. The present article analyses contain and compositional patterns of the text and indicates the presence of mutually exclusive theories of dreams and their interpretation, as well as typically Talmudic methods of organization such as association and agglutination. Since the final composition does not communicate any uniform statement, we claim it incorrect to call the text „Rabbinic dream-book” and suggest it is not more than a mere agglutination of pre-existing textual fragments.
My study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of two theorists in what were probably the most formative years of postwar Austrian history, the era of the conservative government of Josef Klaus. Specifi cally, I compare the conservative philosophy of right of Austrian philosopher of Croatian origin René Marcic and the Marxist humanism of Ernst Fischer. In doing so, it is my intention to describe the ideological foundations and intellectual horizons of Josef Klaus’s right-wing government and, at the same time, to discuss how this policy was confronted by Ernst Fischer from the left. A further purpose of my study is to inquire into the intellectual foundations that laid the ground for Austrian civil society, and to ask how these foundations were confronted by the Austrian Communist Party’s chief ideologist, Ernst Fischer.
Kniha francouzské autorky pojednává o osudech francouzských archivů, které nejprve za druhé světové války zabavily a do různých míst ve střední Evropě evakuovaly německé úřady, posléze je převzaly a do své země odvezly úřady sovětské, přičemž mnohé tyto dokumenty dosud zůstávají v Rusku. Autorka zdánlivě nezáživné téma podává jako strhující příběh, zasazuje je do historického rámce využívání archivů jako válečné trofeje a vnáší do aktuálních diskusí o historické paměti nový důležitý rozměr. and This volume, by a French historian, considers the fate of the French archives that were first confiscated during the Second World War and carted off to various places in central Europe by the German authorities, before eventually being taken by the Soviet authorities and brought to the USSR. Many of the records have remained in Russia to this day. The author presents this potentially lacklustre subject as an exciting story. She puts it into the historical framework of archives as war booty, and adds a new, important dimension to current debates about historical memory.
Článek je zkrácenou verzí studie, kterou autor publikoval pod názvem „‘No Action’: Die USA und die Invasion in die Tschechoslowakei“ ve sborníku: Karner, Stefan – Tomilina, Natalja – Tschubarjan, Alexander – Bischof, Günter – Iščenko, Viktor – Prozumenščikov, Michail – Ruggenthaler, Peter – Tůma, Oldřich – Wilke, Manfred (ed.): Prager Frühling: Das internationale Krisenjahr 1968, sv. 1: Beiträge. Köln/R. – Weimar – Wien, Böhlau 2008, s. 319-354. Autor rekonstruuje postoj americké vlády k intervenci vojsk Vašavské smlouvy do Československa v srpnu 1968. Připomíná, že v květnu toho roku náměstek ministra zahraničí Eugene W. Rostow – s odvoláním na průběh a vyústění komunistického převratu v Československu a sovětské intervence v Maďarsku na podzim 1956 – doporučoval svému ministrovi Deanu Ruskovi Moskvu jasně jasně varovat Moskvu před násilným zásahem. Rusk doporučení odmítl dvěma slovy: „No Action.“ Tento lakonický komentář podle autora vystihuje celou americkou reakci na československou krizi. Administrativa prezidenta Lyndona B. Johnsona invazi nepředpokládala a byla jí překvapena. Jednoznačně se shodla na tom, že Spojené státy nemohou do situace vojensky zasáhnout, a soustředila se na odvrácení Sovětů od případného rozšíření intervence na Rumunsko, Jugoslávii a snad i Rakousko, které však bylo spíše psychologickou než reálnou hrozbou. Kromě toho musel Bílý dům čelit podezření, vyjadřovanému značnou částí západního tisku, ale třeba i francouzskými oficiálními kruhy, že dal předem Kremlu volnou ruku k vojenské akci. Prioritním cílem americké politiky bylo tehdy pokračování v procesu uvolňování mezinárodního napětí, což se promítlo do jejich nekonfrontačního postoje vůči Sovětům. Ovšem neočekávanými důsledky intervence bylo podle autora posílení soudržnosti Severoatlantické aliance a přehodnocení plánů na stažení amerických vojsk z Evropy. and This article is an abridged version, in Czech translation, of the article ‘“No Action”: Die USA und die Invasion in die Tschechoslowakei’, from the volume of essays by Stefan Karner, Natalja Tomilina, Alexander Tschubarjan, Günter Bischof, Viktor Iščenko, Michail Prozumenščikov, Peter Ruggenthaler, Oldřich Tůma, and Manfred Wilke, Prager Frühling: Das internationale Krisenjahr 1968, vol. 1, Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2008, pp. 319–54. In the article the author reconstructs the US Administration’s response to the Warsaw Pact military intervention in Czechoslovakia in August 1968. He points out that in May of that year Deputy Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow, referring to the Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956, recommended to his superior, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, to give Moscow a clear warning against intervening by force. Rusk rejected the recommendation with two words: ‘No action’. This laconic statement, according to the author, embodies the whole US reaction to the Czechoslovak crisis. The military intervention none the less took the Johnson Administration by surprise. The Administration unanimously agreed that the United States could not get involved in the crisis militarily, and concentrated instead on deterring the Soviets from further possible interventions in Romania, Yugoslavia, and perhaps even Austria, a threat that was, however, probably more psychological than real. Apart from that, the White House had to face the suspicion, expressed by a considerable part of the Western communications media and also, for example, by French official circles, that it had given the Kremlin the green light for the military operation. The primary aim of US policy here was to continue the process of international détente. This was projected into their non-confrontational approach towards the Soviets. Two unexpected consequences of the intervention, argues the author, were increased unity in the North-Atlantic Alliance and a reconsideration of plans to withdraw US troops from Europe.
This paper uses a corpus of 14 hours of recorded interactions to analyze the “normative” and “strategic” honorifics usage of speakers of Korean as a second language. I define “normative” honorifics as usage that reflects recognized “power”, “distance” and “formality” factors. “Strategic” honorifics usage breaks from these norms, is pragmatically “marked” and is motivated by interactional goals. Previous studies into the honorifics usage of speakers of Korean as a second language focus on analysis of “errors” judged against prescriptive norms. However, the current paper adopts an interactional socio-pragmatic perspective and looks at the ideology and specific intentions that underlie second language usage. According to my data, in comparison with native interaction, second language speaker discourse displays less variation according to normative factors but may show more marked strategic alterations. Regarding normative usage, speakers prefer to establish equal relationships and minimize “power” differences. As for strategic use, speakers may alternate honorific levels according to the sensitivity of the situation or the illocutionary force of particular utterances. I explain these differences with reference to conflicting ideologies as to language usage between Korean and “Western” cultures, prevalent during the interview process. I conclude the paper by discussing the implications for Korean applied linguistics.
Historically, the main focus of the study of housing in advanced economies has been on houses that meet the accommodation needs of households: houses as the main residence of families. In recent decades there has been the growth in the numbers of houses used for purposes other than as a main residence, for example in the forms of the recent global spread of Airbnb and of foreign engagement in housing as an investment tool; alongside a set of ‘for housing’ houses (FHH) another, overlapping, set of ‘not for housing’ houses (NFHH) is emerging. The present paper begins by identifying four types of NFHH, and considers the significance of their growth. It argues that while the NFHH sector is relatively small it has large impacts, and these are such that they challenge housing researchers and policy makers to develop additional ways of looking at housing systems.
Lutz Klinkhammer Tato stať, kterou v časopise Soudobé dějiny pokračuje seriál o vývoji a dnešním stavu disciplíny soudobých dějin ve vybraných evropských zemích, původně vyšla pod názvem „Novecento statt Storia contemporanea: Überlegungen zur italienischen Zeitgeschichte“ a je převzata ze sborníku editorů Alexandra Nützenadela a Wolfganga Schiedera Zeitgeschichte als Problem: Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, s. 107–127). Autor uvádí, že pojem „soudobé dějiny“ pro označení vyhraněné disciplíny historického bádání, jako je tomu v Německu nebo ve Francii, nemá v Itálii zřetelnou obdobu. Termín storia contemporanea zde měl po roce 1945 trojí význam. Jednak se užíval jako pojmenování dějinného úseku zhruba posledních dvou století, dále pro časově kratší období „krátkého 20. století“ (novecento) a konečně sloužil k charakteristice jakékoli historické události v jejím „soudobém“ rozměru, tedy její instrumentalizace podle aktuálních (politických či jiných) potřeb. Tyto významy autor ilustruje jednak na příkladech přehledů a učebnic italských dějin, jednak na aktuálních sporech o historické činy papežů a katolické církve, o světla a stíny italského národního sjednocení v šedesátých letech 19. století a údajnou levicovou ideologizaci poválečného italského dějepisectví. V něm se zrodil „mýtus rezistence“ proti německé okupaci z let 1943 až 1945, jehož rubem byla marginalizace, či dokonce tabuizace italského fašismu, a který odpovídal zájmům širokospektrální protifašistické koalice politických sil v Itálii. S hlubším výzkumem italského fašismu se začalo až v šedesátých letech. Od devadesátých let pak podle autora trvají ostré spory o hodnocení odboje (včetně komunistických zločinů) a fašistické republiky ze Salò, v nichž je patrná snaha o „plíživou rehabilitaci“ fašistické minulosti a které by svědčily pro tezi, že italské soudobé dějiny ve vlastním smyslu začínají rokem 1943. and This article, which is one of a series in Soudobé dějiny on the development of the discipline of contemporary history and its current state in selected countries of Europe, was originally published as “Novecento statt Storia contemporanea? Überlegungen zur italienischen Zeitgeschichte” in Alexander Nützenadel and Wolfgang Schieder (eds), Zeitgeschichte als Problem: Nationale Traditionen und Perspektiven der Forschung in Europa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, pp. 107–27). The author argues that in Italy, unlike Germany or France, there is no distinct term for “contemporary history” to denote this clearly defined discipline of historical research. The term storia contemporanea had three meanings since 1945. First, it was used to denote an historical period of roughly the last two centuries. Second, it meant only the “short” twentieth century (il novecento). Last, the term served to denote any historical event in its “contemporary” dimension, that is to say, its instrumentalization according to current needs, political or otherwise. The author illustrates these meanings by providing examples from surveys and textbooks of Italian history and from current debates on the historical actions of the popes and the Roman Catholic Church, the bright and dark sides of Italian unifi cation in the 1860s, and the alleged left-wing ideologization of post-war Italian historiography. In this historiography was born the “myth of resistance” to the German occupation of 1943–45, the other side of which was the marginalization of Italian Fascism or even its being made taboo. This corresponded to the interests of the broad anti-Fascist political coalition in Italy. More penetrating research into Italian Fascism did not begin to appear till the 1960s. Since the 1990s, according to the author, there have been fierce disagreements in assessments of the resistance (including Communist crimes) and the Nazi-puppet state known as the Salò Republic, in which there has been an evident endeavour to achieve the “creeping rehabilitation” of the Fascist past, which would speak in support of the argument that Italian contemporary history really begins in 1943.