Sam Edwards
Manchester Metropolitan University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Sam Edwards.
Journal of Transatlantic Studies | 2013
Sam Edwards
Despite being reviled by much of the British political establishment during his life, a statue of Abraham Lincoln was, nonetheless, erected at Westminster in 1920, whilst a year earlier a Lincoln bust was also established in the parish church of Hingham, Norfolk, the birth-place of his lineal ancestor, Samuel Lincoln. The dedication ceremonies of both were dominated by politically motivated invocations of Lincoln’s English ancestry. Similar efforts to anglicise Lincoln recurred in the years immediately after the Second World War, and Lincoln’s ‘Englishness’ continues to occupy the attentions of some commentators — especially in East Anglia — even today. This article accounts for twentieth century attempts to anglicise Lincoln by connecting these appropriations to the wider transatlantic political and cultural context, and by paying close attention to the details of place and locale in which so many Lincoln focused commemorative projects unfolded. In doing so, this article contends that the twentieth century ‘anglicisation’ of Lincoln not only offers insights into changing British perceptions of the Great Emancipator, it also sheds light on a key moment of discursive shift in Anglo-American relations: from the racial Anglo-Saxonism of the early twentieth century, to the Churchillian ‘Special Relationship’ of the post-1945 period.
War in History | 2017
Sam Edwards
welcome the Germans. German commanders could not know whether their troops landing at airports around Tunisia would be greeted by anti-aircraft fire. Once on the ground, would the French stand by or assist? How far would Pétain’s writ go? French troops might start by sharing their armoured vehicles and go on patrol with German forces but what might happen when the hated Italians deployed to Tunisia? Similar questions faced the Allies as they landed all across French North Africa. The British had burnt their bridges with the French Navy at Mers-el-Kébir in 1940. British troops were consequently more likely to produce resistance among French commanders than if the initial landings were spearheaded by Americans. Poorly versed in the technical details of amphibious landings and having to traverse vast distance across the Atlantic, the Americans would prefer a direct supply line to the United States itself. This had the corresponding effect of restricting US deployments inside the Mediterranean. If the opposition might be persuaded to side with the Allies, however, then, irrespective of the technical challenges caused by amphibious assault, the chances of success would rise. The way that these discussions play out at an operational and tactical level point to the strength of O’Hara’s strategic analysis. The Allies were uncertain as to the intentions of Vichy. To find out would mean testing the possibilities in a geography that was central to French identity and pride. Would Hitler be willing to entertain the idea of a Vichy France reformed along lines being negotiated by Laval? Or would Vichy do better by cutting a deal with the Allies and recognizing the bankrupt nature of the arrangements forced on France by Hitler in 1940? The strong focus on battle and operational technique will appeal to some more than others. O’Hara’s key conclusions, for example, are that the Americans and British learnt how to undertake combined and joint operations in preparation for the subsequent campaign in Normandy. However, the real strength of O’Hara’s work lies in the way that strategic, operational and tactical considerations are nestled together so that the political dilemmas facing Vichy might be described and their effects on decision-making and battle laid bare. O’Hara does not foreground the underlying civil-military challenges facing Pétain, Laval and Darlan, but his strategic analysis of Allied and Vichy intentions certainly does make one think that Operation Torch was very much a turning point in the war against the Axis.
History: Reviews of New Books | 2017
Sam Edwards
nity labor pools. The potentially destructive nature of intervention by well-intentioned NGOs is made plainly apparent in the book. Kockelman concludes, however, that the villagers of Chicacnab were able to adapt commensurability into local values of replaceability and irreplaceability. It is here that the reader is reminded of the chicken and the quetzal. In addition to being the national bird, the quetzal is also the namesake of the national currency and, as such, functions as the universal equivalent—the very symbol and means of commensurability. The chicken, meanwhile, is essential to community life and values: among other things, it is a measure of Q‘eqchi’ women’s selfhood and a means to mediate social relations in the community. Nevertheless, the chicken is a foreign imposition, introduced to Mesoamerica during the conquest. Indeed, the Q‘eqchi’ word for chicken—kaxlan—refers both to poultry and to something foreign. Thus, if aatin means “language,” then kaxlan aatin refers to the Spanish language (a linguistic commentary on the foreignness of Spanish to Q‘eqchi’ speakers). In short, the Maya have a history of cultural resilience; they have adapted alterity and woven it into their value-systems, worldviews, and language. Just so are the challenges posed by ecotourism, too, adapted to locality. General readers and many undergraduates will likely find Kockelman’s use of theory perplexing and will struggle with the often convoluted and multilayered arguments. Kockelman is at his best when he deals with concrete examples, such as the cultural meaning embedded in language structures. It is these brilliant and illuminating insights that anthropological and historical specialists in Guatemala and elsewhere will find so thoughtprovoking.
War in History | 2016
Sam Edwards
Curiously, in some cases Cohen gives the reader the Russian version of a comment, up to an entire paragraph, in Russian in Cyrillic script, immediately following the English translation, as if to challenge the reader to question her translation. The author bases the work on a variety of primary sources, among them personal interviews with a handful of survivors, most of whom were teenagers during the occupation. The more interesting interviewees included a young partisan woman and a Jewish boy who survived the liquidation of the ghetto. The author’s document sources include the Smolensk oblast archives (GASO and GANISO), the Harvard Project on the Soviet Social System, NARA, RGASPI, the archives of the Russian organization ‘Memorial’, the USHMM, and GARF. Overall this is a very useful book, more as a source for getting a tangible feel for life under occupation in Russia than for any salient scholarly argument.
Archive | 2014
Michael R. Dolski; Sam Edwards; John Buckley
Archive | 2018
Sam Edwards
The English Historical Review | 2017
Sam Edwards
Archive | 2017
Sam Edwards
Archive | 2015
Sam Edwards
History Workshop Journal | 2014
Marcus Morris; Sam Edwards