description

In this course we will study the modern portion of Britain’s unique history. We will begin with the 1688 Glorious Revolution, a series of events that restored the English monarchy after several devastating decades of civil war, and began England’s astonishing ascent in global power. We will trace not only political developments, but also the key economic, social, and cultural changes that have shaped modern Britain. The course will emphasize the changing definitions of Britain itself during its modern history.
       Topics will include the bitter loss of the American colonies and the often violent absorption of Scotland and Ireland; profound changes in the class system; rivalry with the French; the wonders and horrors of industrialization; the growth of cities; the Anglican Church’s losing battle against the proliferation of religious sects; increasing literacy and popularity of science and literature; imperialism’s heyday and decline; the changing status of women; the devastation of the two world wars; the rise of the welfare state; and Thatcherism and Tony Blair’s response: Cool Britannia.
       In this course we will focus particularly on developing both your oral analytical skills and your ability to read historical documents critically. Successful completion of this course fulfills the American and Western Cultural Heritage POK.

See me during my office hours for issues that are better discussed face-to-face.
 

office	Mood-Bridwell 216
e-mail	greenmue@southwestern.edu I do not generally check e-mail between 10 am on Friday and 1 pm on Sunday.
telephone	512.863.1595
office hours	M 9:30-11 a.m., Th 2:30-4 p.m. or by appointment

to subscribe to the course majordomo list:

        All students in this course must subscribe to the majordomo list. To do this, log on to the e-mail account to which you want class messages sent. Send the following message to majordomo@southwestern.edu:

subscribe su-hist-523

to send mail to the list:

        You should only use the majordomo list to submit debating points for the in-class debates. I will also use the list occasionally to make necessary course announcements.
        To post your debating point to the majordomo list, send it as an e-mail message to su-hist-523@southwestern.edu.

to unsubscribe from the list:

        If you drop the course, or want to change the e-mail address to which the majordomo list sends messages, send the following message to majordomo@southwestern.edu:

unsubscribe su-hist-523

unsubscribe su-hist-523 youroldaddress

You must complete all of the following assignments. To calculate your final grade, I will multiply each of your assignment grades by the percentage given for each assignment, and add those numbers together. See the policies section for more information about grading.

1. primary source analyses (40% total: 25% for drafts + 15% for revisions as gathered in portfolio):

For about half the class meetings, you will write a 1 1/2–2 page analysis of one or more of the primary sources we have read for that day. Each analysis is due in class on the day we discuss the texts. Periodically, I will hand back graded analyses so that you can track your progress. At the end of the semester, you will turn in a portfolio containing revisions of each of these papers, along with the original, marked-up drafts.
       You may experiment with the content and form of your analyses, but in each of your papers you must make a focused argument about one or more of the week’s primary sources, and support that argument with significant evidence from those texts and the secondary source material we have read on the subject. (See this excellent web site for help with formulating a thesis.) In other words, I am asking you for your opinions in these papers, but they must be opinions that are informed and well-supported by our assigned texts, not groundless speculations or gut feelings. If you have knowledge from outside the course that seems relevant, please do incorporate it into your analyses, but always cite that material appropriately as well.
       An analysis is not a summary of the primary source readings. Neither is it an off-hand musing or diary entry. Rather, you should do one or more of the following in each of your analyses: demonstrate whether the author’s views were typical or unusual for their time period and social position; expose the assumptions that undergird the author’s perspective; describe what you can about the author’s intended audience, and how that audience might have interpreted this text; analyze what particular historical conditions and assumptions you have that make some texts more convincing (interesting, appalling...) to you than others; discuss why the author adopted a particular format or rhetorical style and how effective it is; examine the consequences, strengths, and/or weaknesses of an author’s argument; compare the perspectives of two or more authors; analyze how the course theme of changing British identity is illuminated by the text; and so on.
      I will not accept late analyses, unless you have a documented excuse or other legitimate emergency.
      When writing your primary source analyses, you may use all your course materials (including books, notes, student position papers, etc.); other scholarly sources (see an important note about internet sources below); and the Debby Ellis Writing Center (Mood 316; x1798; write@southwestern.edu). You may discuss your ideas with colleagues, but you must write your analyses on your own.
      Use MLA in-text citations in these analyses. Use these citations frequently within your analyses in order to document the textual basis for your views.
Preparing the final portfolio: Keep the marked-up drafts when I return them to you. You will use them to revise each of your primary source analyses. You will then include the revised analyses and the drafts in a portfolio, to be turned in at the end of the semester. (Use some method to attach all of your revised analyses and drafts together. Your portfolio must contain all revised primary source analyses, each followed by its marked-up draft. Include a cover sheet with your name and a signed honor code.) Your revisions should show both careful attention to my comments and your own critical reflection on how your increased knowledge of British history changes the way you would write these analyses. If you do not make serious revisions, you will typically earn a lower grade on the portfolio than you did on average on the analyses.
       Criteria for grading this assignment: depth and originality of analysis (do you think carefully about the implications of the readings (good), or do you simply summarize or state the most obvious points about the texts (bad)?); evidence of careful reading of primary sources; intelligent use of secondary sources to interpret primary sources; appropriate and frequent citation of sources; quality of your writing (including correct spelling and grammar, careful choice of words, prose that is easy to follow).

We will have six debates during this semester on contentious issues within British history. Each debate will have up to 10 main participants: up to six “antagonists” who act as the main discussants of the debate issue (about three antagonists on one side of the debate, and three on the other); up to two “conciliators” who attempt to mediate between, and offer alternatives to, the antagonists’ positions; and up to two “questioners” who keep the debate moving by asking questions of the other debaters. The remaining students in the class will each post a “debating point” on the class majordomo list on the morning of the debate. The antagonists will use these debating points to help make their cases in class.
       The antagonists do not necessarily need to work in teams. In other words, the three antagonists on one side do not have to come up with a common position, nor do they have to consult with each other at all ahead of time – you are certainly welcome to do so. However, I will expect students to assist each other in the debate whenever possible. There will be no “winners” in these debates, at least not in the conventional sense. The students who earn the highest grades on this assignment will be those who make careful, considered arguments and who work to keep the other debaters talking as well. I will not reward grandstanding, screaming, intimidation of other students, and blustering arguments that have no real meat (evidence) to them. The main point of these debates is to see history with a fresh and clear eye, not to skewer your opponents.
       The major evidence to be used in the debate will be readings from Arnstein. However, you cannot do well in a debate without also having seriously engaged the other required readings, lectures, and discussions in the course.
       Each debate will have the following structure:

• Right before class begins, antagonists distribute their position papers.
• I will say just a few words to introduce the debate.
• Each antagonist on one side, then each antagonist on the other, will read or verbally summarize his or her position paper (no more than 2 mins. each).
• Antagonists begin debating. Questioners step in whenever necessary to re-direct discussion, ask for clarification, etc. At this point, the rest of the class is welcome to contribute comments and questions.
• After about 40 minutes, I will stop the debate to ask each conciliator to suggest some compromises and/or alternative solutions. (Conciliators can step into the debate well before this, but the debate will stop formally at this point to request their perspective.)
• Debate continues to the end of class with the conciliators continuing to argue for compromises and/or alternatives. Again, the whole class is welcome to participate.

       You must come see me in office hours before you participate in your first debate as an antagonist, questioner, or conciliator.

(a.) 2 debates in which you act as an antagonist (10% for 1st debate; 15% for 2nd):

Antagonists shoulder most of the burden in these debates. You are responsible for demonstrating that your particular position makes the most sense in light of the evidence.
       Come to class with a position paper (no longer than 1 page!). In this position paper, you should clearly state one or two main points, and to support your case, describe and cite particular evidence from the readings (mainly Arnstein, but you might also wish to bolster your argument with other relevant readings). You may incorporate debating points that other students will post to the majordomo list; if you do so, cite their work as if it were any other source used in writing a paper.
       Make 18 copies of your position paper, and distribute them before class begins.
       In your position paper and in most of your oral arguments in class, you should have just one or two main points that act as the focus of your argument. For instance, if you signed up to argue that women’s position in Victorian society was at a low point, you could argue that the main issue was women’s poor economic status. Another antagonist on your side might argue that the main issue was their lack of political and legal rights. You would both be arguing the same major position that women’s position in Victorian society was at a low point, but your particular arguments and evidence would differ. You might even disagree enough to argue with each other during the debate.
       In class, you will read or summarize your position paper. Take no more than two minutes to do this. You will then be responsible for debating other antagonists whose arguments vary from your own. Continue to support your arguments by frequently citing particular passages from the reading. Use the debating points from the majordomo list as much as possible.
       You must also be able to respond to the questioners and conciliators. Stick to your guns during the debate. It is the conciliators’ job to find compromise positions between the different antagonists. It is your job to try as hard as possible to maintain your original position (without being ridiculous about it – you should concede another debater’s point if you cannot make a good argument against it).
       You do not have to agree personally with any of the particular positions you argue. (For example, you might strongly support Irish nationalism, but still argue in our debate that conciliation was the best policy for Britain toward Ireland in the early twentieth century.)
      Criteria for grading this assignment: focus and clarity of your oral arguments in class; use of particular passages and points from the primary sources and debating points to bolster your arguments; depth of your understanding of the material (do you come up with arguments that are not obvious from a quick, surface readings of these texts? do you incorporate material from lectures and other required readings?); ability to think on your feet (can you respond intelligently to an unexpected question or comment?); engaging with other students’ questions and comments; focus and clarity of your writing in the position paper.

(b.) 2 debates in which you act as questioner or conciliator (5% for 1st debate; 10% for 2nd):

In the roles of questioner and conciliator, you will participate a little less in the debate, but your roles are still very important. You will need to read the primary sources for that debate just as carefully as the antagonists do. You will also need to prepare some questions and/or arguments ahead of time. (Some questions and/or arguments you will need to develop while in the debate itself, in response to what the antagonists say.) You should mark particular passages in your book that you want to discuss in the debate.
      Questioners keep discussion moving by asking questions of the antagonists and conciliators. You can ask a debater to clarify his or her position; you can ask debaters to explain the meaning of a particular passage; you can ask two antagonists (on the same side or opposite sides) to argue with each other on a point where they seem to disagree – in short, there are few limits on the kinds of questions you can ask. You should, however, make sure to ask questions that you believe will provoke real discussion, not just a brief response that dies on the floor. Typical examples of when it is the questioners’ responsibility to step in: whenever the debate flags or veers in an unproductive direction, and whenever a debater is unclear or misrepresenting the texts.
      Criteria for grading this assignment: focus and clarity of your questions (do your questions really get the debaters talking? if they do not, do you re-phrase or re-direct them so that they do?); use of particular passages and points from the primary sources to focus your questions; depth of your understanding of the material (do you ask some questions that are not obvious from a quick, surface readings of these texts? do you incorporate material from lectures and other required readings?); ability to think on your feet (can you come up with questions that respond directly to what is happening in the debate?); engaging with other students’ questions and comments.
      Conciliators offer compromise positions and/or alternative solutions to the major problem in the debate. You might suggest that certain antagonists do not really disagree on certain points. Or, you might argue that one or more of the antagonists are misreading the texts or exaggerating their position beyond what the evidence can support. Or, you might argue that there is another position or possibility that the antagonists have not explored. Or, you might argue that the evidence is inconclusive for either of the antagonists’ positions. Like the questioners, you have a range of possibilities open to you. Do not simply say that on the one hand one set of antagonists makes some good points, while on the other hand the other set of antagonists makes some good points, and simply leave it at that. If you take this approach, you ultimately need to tie it together with a true compromise position (i.e., how is it that both sides are right?).
      Criteria for grading this assignment: ability to see real compromises and alternatives that get the antagonists thinking deeply about how to defend their position; focus and clarity of your oral arguments in class; use of particular passages and points from the primary sources to bolster your arguments; depth of your understanding of the material (do you come up with arguments that are not obvious from a quick, surface readings of these texts? do you incorporate material from lectures and other required readings?); ability to think on your feet (can you respond intelligently to an unexpected question or comment?); engaging with other students’ questions and comments.

(c.) debating points (5%)

For those debates in which you do not participate as an antagonist, conciliator or questioner, you must send a debating point to the class majordomo list. A debating point is a one- to two-paragraph argument for whichever position you signed up to defend. For instance, in the first debate, if you signed up to offer a debating point arguing that religion in eighteenth-century England was governed by reason, you would write a paragraph or two that provides specific evidence (give quotes or at least page numbers!) that reason underpinned Enlightenment-era religion in a particular way. Your debating point should not be obvious. Rather, you should think deeply about the material and develop a point the antagonists might not have thought of easily.
       You must send your debating point to the class majordomo list by 9 a.m. on the day of the debate.
       During the debate itself, you are free to participate (just don’t jeopardize the antagonists’, questioners’ and conciliators’ chance to earn their full grade by talking too much). Chime in particularly when your debating point might help the antagonists on your side. If you think an antagonist has misused or only partially quoted your debating point, you might also offer a correction or clarification.
      Criteria for grading this assignment: depth of analysis (is your point one that the antagonists might not have thought of right away?); citation of a range of relevant passages from the primary sources; clear understanding of primary sources being used in that debate; clarity of writing.

This is a fundamentally discussion-based course, so not only does much of your grade depend on your prepared participation, but so does the entire success of the course. You do not need to say fantastically clever and insightful things whenever you open your mouth; all I ask is that you be willing to take some risks and try out some ideas with the rest of the class.
        I do insist that even shy students participate regularly in class discussion. However, if you truly need an alternate method for participation, come see me during my office hours and we will work out alternative arrangements. See below for information about keeping a reading journal as one possible alternative method of participation.
        I will give unannounced quizzes if it becomes clear that much of the class is not keeping up with the reading. If you are absent on a day that a quiz is given, you cannot make it up (unless you have a documented excuse for your absence).
       See an important note below about attendance.
      Criteria for grading this assignment: frequency and quality of your participation beyond the debates; regular and alert attendance; your ability to get other students talking by raising questions or debating other students directly; reading journal, if you choose to keep one; substantive discussions of texts and ideas with me during office hours; quizzes, if necessary.

1. attendance: I expect you to attend every class except for those days on which you have a documented academic or athletic trip, medical emergency or other legitimate emergency. Every absence will directly affect your participation grade. However, it will also seriously harm your final grade overall, since you will not have fully synthesized the course material.

2. lateness: Do not arrive late to class. If you are regularly or seriously late, I will ask you to leave. I have this strict policy because lateness is disrespectful not only to me, but also to your fellow students.

3. grading: The maximum percentages awarded for course assignments add up to 100. I use a standard grading scale:
 

If your grades consistently improve over the course of the semester and if your class presence is consistent and attentive, I will consider shifting your final grade up to the next level. For example, if your final course grade worked out to an 86, but your grades had consistently improved during the semester and you were a consistent and attentive class participant, I would consider shifting your final grade up to a B+.

4. late assignments: I will not accept late assignments in this course. If you have a documented medical excuse or other genuine emergency, you may discuss special arrangements with me as long as you do so in a timely fashion. All other late assignments will receive a 0.

5. honor code and plagiarism: You must hand-write and sign the full honor code on each assignment in this class. That means writing out the following full text: I have neither given nor received aid on this assignment, nor have I seen anyone else do so. You may not write P.I.F. or any other variant of the honor code.
       I cannot grade your assignment if you have not written and signed the full pledge. If you cannot sign the honor code in good faith – or if you have any questions about what constitutes an honor violation – please come talk to me.
       On position papers, you only need to write and sign the honor code on the back of my copy, not the copies for the rest of the class.
       On all assignments for this class, you may consult your course materials (including books, notes, student position papers); other scholarly sources (though this is discouraged); and the Debby Ellis Writing Center. On all assignments, you may also talk over ideas with others, but you must do the actual research and writing yourself. If you borrow someone else’s idea – even if it’s a fellow student’s idea heard in conversation – cite it appropriately.

6. internet sources: You may not cite internet sources in any of the written assignments in this course. The following do not count as internet sources, and you may cite as many of them as you wish: articles from full-text databases like JSTOR and Project Muse; online primary sources (texts written by historical actors that have been re-published on the web); internet sources that I have approved in advance of your writing the assignment.

7. disabilities: Southwestern University will make reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Students should register with the Office of Academic Services, (Mood-Bridwell 311, 863-1286). Professors must be officially notified by the Academic Services Coordinator that documentation is on file at least two weeks before the accommodation is needed.

Return to top

You will find the following at the university bookstore. At your request, I will place copies on reserve in the library.

• Arnstein, Walter L. The Past Speaks: Sources and Problems in British History. Volume 2: Since 1688. 2nd ed. Lexington, Mass., and Toronto: D.C. Heath, 1993.
• Heyck, Thomas William. The Peoples of the British Isles: A New History. Volume 2: From 1688 to 1870. Chicago: Lyceum Books, 2002.
• Heyck, Thomas William. The Peoples of the British Isles: A New History. Volume 3: From 1870 to the Present. Chicago: Lyceum Books, 2002.
• British History Reader (course packet from Longhorn Copies).

Whether you will enjoy and learn a great deal from this class is almost entirely up to you and your commitment to the reading. Thoughtful reading is both active and responsive. As a general rule, thoughtful engagement either (a) uses readings as the basis for formulating interesting discussion questions; (b) uses readings as a basis to probe and develop an interesting positive argument of your own; and/or (c) treats an author/work as another critical mind worth refuting and correcting on points of fact, interpretation, or theory, but also worth praising for creative and well-supported ideas.
        It is not enough, in other words, for you to read merely (or primarily) for comprehension. I fully expect you to engage the many works we will encounter this semester in an active dialogue, and to be prepared to share the fruits of your dialogue with the members of our class at each and every meeting.
        To this end, you might find it useful to keep careful and detailed notes or a journal of your readings in which you pose questions, probe interesting ideas, outline arguments, etc. Such a journal would not only be helpful in preparing for class discussions, but would be an excellent way to record and chart the development of your own dialogue with the authors/works on which we are focusing our critical attention.

Return to top

Each date listed below tells you what topic we will discuss in class, and what you need to have read in preparation for that day’s class.  = Debate held in class.  = Date on which a primary source analysis is due. BHR = British History reader.

M Aug 26: Introduction to the course; the British Isles before the Glorious Revolution

W Aug 28: Glorious Revolution and the beginnings of Great Britain
 

read:	1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 1-46 2. Arnstein, pp. 1-3 (intro), 15-20 (Locke & Bill of Rights)
reminder:	Sign up for debates on my office door (Mood 216) by next Mon., Sept. 9.

M Sep 2: Class canceled for Labor Day
Why not give a card or little present to your favorite campus laborer (e.g., housekeeper, groundskeeper, Commons or Cove staff, lab technician, police officer, librarian)?

W Sep 4: Customs and contracts: 18th-century economy and society
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 47-64 2. Arnstein, pp. 26 (King), 29-30 (Defoe), 34-36 (Davies), 62-74 (“An Act” & Smith)

M Sep 9: Expansion of British political power
 

read:	1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 65-82, 121-137 2. Arnstein, pp. 49-62 (Goldsmith, Cartwright & Paley)
reminder:	This is the last day to sign up for the debates on my office door (Mood 216). If you will be an antagonist, questioner, or conciliator in the first debate, you must come talk to me during office hours this week.

W Sep 11: The British Enlightenment
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 83-104 2. Excerpt from Rousseau, Émile (1762) [online reading] 3. Swift, A Modest Proposal (1729) [online reading] 4. BHR: “Jonas Hanway on the State of the Infant Parish Poor” (1766) and “Mrs. Susannah Wesley on the Education of Young Children” (1732)

M Sep 16: Debate 1 – Religion in eighteenth-century England: governed by reason or revelation?
 

read:	Arnstein, pp. 75-90
antagonists:	reason: Levi Holmes, Breisen Miller / revelation: Rebecca McRae, Chad Rhoten
questioners:	Brien Casey, Ellie Portwood
conciliators:	Sara Gee, J. P. Morris, Kyle Olson
debating points:	reason: Andrew Fordham, Bailey Kinkel / revelation: Fred Kaiser

W Sep 18: Managing the empire
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 105-120, 141-172 2. Arnstein, pp. 91-93 (intro), 98-103 (Burke & Tucker), 104-106 (George III)

M Sep 23: The triple revolution
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 173-196 2. Arnstein, pp. 141-144 (intro), 148-163 (Aikin, Owen, Yorkshire Cloth Workers, Leeds Woollen Merchants, Kay, Ure, Engels)

W Sep 25: Impact of the French Revolution
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 197-233 2. BHR: Porter, “The Revolutionary Era: ‘Modern Philosophy’”

M Sep 30: Debate 2 – French Revolution’s impact on Britain: threat or promise?
 

read:	Arnstein, pp. 115-40
antagonists:	threat: Bailey Kinkel, J. P. Morris  / promise: Levi Holmes, Kyle Olson
questioners:	Andrew Fordham, Breisen Miller
conciliators:	Fred Kaiser, Rebecca McRae
debating points:	threat: Brien Casey, Chad Rhoten / promise: Sara Gee, Ellie Portwood

W Oct 2: Radicalism and reform
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, 237-280 2. Bamford, “Passages in the Life of a Radical: On the Peterloo Massacre” (1819) [online reading] 3. Macaulay, speech on the Reform Bill (1831) [online reading] 4. The People’s Charter (1838) [online reading]

M Oct 7: Ireland from Union to Famine
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 281-296 2. “The Irish Frankenstein,” Punch (1843) [online reading] 3. “Ireland and the Irish,” The Illustrated London News (12 Aug 1843) [online reading; click on “Go to Continuation of This Article” at bottom of first page] 4. Articles from the Cork Examiner (April 1847) [online reading] 5. Excerpt from Knox, The Races of Men (1850) [online reading]

W Oct 9: Mid-Victorian prosperity and culture
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 2, pp. 297-336 2. BHR: Dentith, “Gender and Cultural Forms”

M Oct 14: Class canceled for fall break

W Oct 16: Debate 3 – Women’s status in Victorian England: zenith or nadir?
 

read:	Arnstein, pp. 169-95
antagonists:	zenith: Rebecca McRae, Kyle Olson / nadir: Sara Gee, Ellie Portwood
questioners:	Chad Rhoten
conciliators:	Breisen Miller
debating points:	zenith: Andrew Fordham, Levi Holmes, J. P. Morris / nadir: Brien Casey, Fred Kaiser, Bailey Kinkel

M Oct 21: Class canceled because of instructor illness

W Oct 23: The troubled late Victorian period
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 61-83 2. Arnstein, pp. 230-236 (Bright & Lowe), 289-294 (intro & Blatchford), 297-304 (Chamberlain & Churchill)

Th Oct 24: Recommended lecture
 

details:

History Department Annual Colloquium Jean and John Comaroff, University of Chicago “Criminal Justice, Cultural Justice: The Limits of Liberalism and the Pragmatics of Difference in the New South Africa” 4 p.m. Prothro Room (2nd floor of the library)

M Oct 28: Challenges from Ireland and Labour
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 1-42, 43-59 2. BHR: Kiberd, “Uprising”

W Oct 30: Debate 4 – Proper solution for Ireland: conciliation or separation?
 

read:	Arnstein, pp. 243-61
antagonists:	conciliation: Fred Kaiser, Chad Rhoten / separation: Brien Casey, Sara Gee
questioners:	Andrew Fordham, J. P. Morris
conciliators:	Bailey Kinkel, Kyle Olson
debating points:	conciliation: Levi Holmes, Breisen Miller / separation: Rebecca McRae, Ellie Portwood

M Nov 4: The high age of imperialism
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 85-106 2. BHR: Bayly, “The Evolution of Colonial Cultures: Nineteenth-Century Asia” 3. BHR: McCaskie, “Cultural Encounters: Britain and Africa in the Nineteenth Century” As you read Bayly and McCaskie, compare the British imperial experiences in Asia vs. Africa.

W Nov 6: Debate 5 – Victorian empire: asset or burden?
 

read:	Arnstein, pp. 263-87
antagonists:	asset: Andrew Fordham, Fred Kaiser / burden: Breisen Miller, Ellie Portwood
questioners:	Brien Casey, Bailey Kinkel, Chad Rhoten
conciliators:	Sara Gee, Levi Holmes
debating points:	asset: Rebecca McRae / burden: J. P. Morris, Kyle Olson

M Nov 11: The Great War
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 109-148 2. Arnstein, pp. 321-330 (Sassoon, Russell, & Ward) 3. Excerpt from Collins, The Path to Freedom (1922) [online reading; read “Notes by General Michael Collins, August, 1922” only]

images to  view in class:

wounded [Eric Kennington, Gassed and Wounded, 1918] shell shock [Eric Heckel, Zwei Verwundete (Two Wounded Soldiers), 1915] total war 1 [C. R. W. Nevinson, A Taube, 1916-17]; total war 2 [Daily Mail map of London bombings, 1919] women munitioners in the Midlands [Charles Ginner, The Filling Factory, 1918] German threat [English cartoon, The Lamps Are Going Out All Over Europe, 1914] Western front [John Nash, Over the Top] Eastern front [Oskar Kokoschka, Isonzo-Front (The Front at Isonzo), 1916] machine guns [Paul Nash, A Howitzer Firing] Paris Peace Conference [Lloyd George (GB), Orlando (It), Clemenceau (Fr), Wilson (US)]

W Nov 13: Between the wars
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 149-192 2. Arnstein, pp. 331-346 (intro, Labour Party, Chamberlain, Strachey, Mosley)

M Nov 18: The Second World War
 

read:	Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 193-213
in class:	We will watch two short documentaries (Churchill: The Private War and History of the Twentieth Century: The Effects of War) that investigate the psychological issues for Britain during the Second World War. You will need to read Heyck in preparation for the discussion following the documentaries.

W Nov 20: Debate 6 – Did appeasement delay or invite World War II?
 

read:	Arnstein, pp. 355-378
antagonists:	delay: Brien Casey, J. P. Morris / invite: Andrew Fordham, Bailey Kinkel
questioners:	Fred Kaiser, Rebecca McRae
conciliators:	Levi Holmes, Ellie Portwood
debating points:	delay: Breisen Miller, Kyle Olson / invite: Sara Gee, Chad Rhoten

M Nov 25: Socialist Britain and the end of empire
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 215-264 2. Arnstein, pp. 379-389 (intro, Attlee, Churchill, Macmillan) 3. Nehru, “Marxism, Capitalism, and Non-Alignment” (1941) [online reading]

W Nov 27: Class canceled for Thanksgiving holiday

M Dec 2: Economic decline, nationalism, and devolution in the Celtic countries
 

read:

1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 265-283 2. BHR: Look over map of “The Devolution of the United Kingdom, 1922-1999”  3. BHR: Berger, “Bye-bye Britain? Devolution and the United Kingdom” 4. BHR: Jones, “Beyond Identity? The Reconstruction of the Welsh”

W Dec 4: The Thatcher revolution and Cool Britannia
 

read:	1. Heyck, vol. 3, pp. 285-322 2. BHR: Rachman, “Is the Anglo-American Relationship Still Special?”
in class:	You will fill out course evaluations today.

Tu Dec 10: Primary source portfolio due (no class meeting)
 

due:	primary source portfolio DUE by 5 p.m. in Dr. GM’s office (MB 216). See above for instructions on preparing your portfolio.

The following references will provide background information and help to answer your questions about the reading.

1. Reference texts in the SU library (all shelved in the reference section):

• Bayly, C. A., ed. Atlas of the British Empire. New York: Facts on File, 1989. [REF 909.0971 At65]
• Boylan, Henry. A Dictionary of Irish Biography. 3rd ed. Niwot, Colo.: Roberts Rinehart, 1998. [REF 920.0415 B696d 1998]
• Crawford, Anne, et al., eds. The Europa Biographical Dictionary of British Women: Over 1000 Notable Women from Britain’s Past. Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research Co., 1983. [REF 920.72 Eu74]
• Fryde, E. B., et al., eds. Handbook of British Chronology. 3rd ed. London : Royal Historical Society, 1986. [REF 920.041 H191]
• Gardiner, Juliet, and Neil Wenborn, eds. The Columbia Companion to British History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. [REF 941.003 H629]
• Gilbert, Martin. Atlas of British History. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. [REF 911.42 G374a]
• Haigh, Christopher, ed. The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. [REF 941 C144]
• Mitchell, Sally, ed. Victorian Britain: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland, 1988. [REF 941.081 V666]
• Treasure, Geoffrey, ed. Who’s Who in British History: Beginnings to 1901. 2 vols. London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998. [REF 920.041 W62]
• Who Was Who. London: A. & C. Black, 1897-1990. [REF 920 W61w]

• Encyclopedia of British History: 1700-1950 (Spartacus Educational)
• Irish History on the Web (University of Texas)
• Victoria Web (George Landow, Brown University)
• Imperial War Museum (London)
• Imperial Archive (Queen’s University Belfast)