Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Soviet Union--History--1953-1985.
Description
South Sudan claims the position of being the newest state in the world, formed by a referendum on separation from Sudan held in 2011. The referendum comes after a half a century of fighting, which led to the displacement of an estimated four million South Sudanese and the death of two million. The massive numbers of displaced people fled to Northern Sudan or surrounding countries, crossing borders and becoming refugees. A comparatively small number were repatriated into countries of second asylum, such as the United States. Arizona, a state with relatively cheap cost of living and a large amount of low-skilled jobs became a favored state for resettling refugees. In 2013, the South Sudanese population in the greater Phoenix area was estimated to be around 4,000. This paper is an exploration of the how South Sudanese refugee youth identify themselves, and find their place in a new country, and in Phoenix, without losing their roots. This paper concludes that South Sudanese refugee youth have a hyphenated identity. They identify as both proud South Sudanese and as American citizens. This identity is formed by strong ties to the South Sudanese community and education by parents on the one hand, and integration in American schools and norms on the other hand. Having a hyphenated identity also affects the work that these South Sudanese do and their relationships with South Sudan. This research also highlights the difficulties with theorizing immigration and identity, by placing discussions of integration and transnationalism in concert with the voices of actual immigrants. The findings in this paper are developed from 12 oral history interviews of South Sudanese in conjunction with existing scholarly literature on refugees, South Sudan, and identity.
ContributorsDooling, Carmel Inez (Author) / Holian, Anna (Thesis director) / Gallab, Abdullahi (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
The first official history of the Great Patriotic War appeared in the Soviet Union in 1960-1965. It evolved into a six-volume set that elicited both praise and criticism from the reading public. This dissertation examines the creation of the historiographical narrative of the Great Patriotic War in the decade following de-Stalinization in 1956. The debates historians, Party and state representatives engaged in, including the responses they received from reviewers and readers, shed new light on the relationship between the government, those who wrote state-sponsored narratives, and the reading public.
The narrative examined here shows the importance and value placed on the war effort, and explores how aspects of the Stalinist period were retained during the Thaw. By focusing on previously unexplored archival material, which documents debates and editorial decisions, an examination of how officials sought to control the state’s explanation of events, motivations and consequences of the war can be examined in-depth. To date, the periodization, terminology and areas of concentration that define the course of the Great Patriotic War are fixated on topics that Stalin’s war narrative favored, assigning significance to events according to Stalinist preferences rather than objective analysis. My study of the war’s historiography shows how contentious its memory became at every level, making it difficult to clearly discern who represented and opposed the party line throughout Soviet society.
The author argues that the collective memory of the war, as propagated by the state, became so all-encompassing that it was often the preferred version, infiltrating individual memories and displacing or blending with personal recollections and factual documentation. Because the war touched the entire population of the Soviet Union, its story became the foundational myth of the USSR, replacing the October Revolution, and was used as a legitimizing tool by Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. Most recently, it has experienced a revival in the post-Soviet period by Vladimir Putin as a way to unify Russia and build popular support for his administration. Viewing how the public interacted with representatives of the state over the creation of the official history of the war suggests that like no other event, war compels any state, even a totalitarian state, to reexamine its foundations, historical memory, foreign and domestic policies and views on censorship.
The narrative examined here shows the importance and value placed on the war effort, and explores how aspects of the Stalinist period were retained during the Thaw. By focusing on previously unexplored archival material, which documents debates and editorial decisions, an examination of how officials sought to control the state’s explanation of events, motivations and consequences of the war can be examined in-depth. To date, the periodization, terminology and areas of concentration that define the course of the Great Patriotic War are fixated on topics that Stalin’s war narrative favored, assigning significance to events according to Stalinist preferences rather than objective analysis. My study of the war’s historiography shows how contentious its memory became at every level, making it difficult to clearly discern who represented and opposed the party line throughout Soviet society.
The author argues that the collective memory of the war, as propagated by the state, became so all-encompassing that it was often the preferred version, infiltrating individual memories and displacing or blending with personal recollections and factual documentation. Because the war touched the entire population of the Soviet Union, its story became the foundational myth of the USSR, replacing the October Revolution, and was used as a legitimizing tool by Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. Most recently, it has experienced a revival in the post-Soviet period by Vladimir Putin as a way to unify Russia and build popular support for his administration. Viewing how the public interacted with representatives of the state over the creation of the official history of the war suggests that like no other event, war compels any state, even a totalitarian state, to reexamine its foundations, historical memory, foreign and domestic policies and views on censorship.
ContributorsMann, Yan (Author) / Von Hagen, Mark (Thesis advisor) / Manchester, Laurie (Thesis advisor) / Holian, Anna (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016