|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
050485
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
084446
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, South Korean social movements converted a former military dictatorship into a more democratic regime, while raising hopes for yet more improvements in the position of Korean workers and farmers. In the 1990s, Thai social movements also cast aside a military dictatorship and opened a period in which popular movements seemed poised to make yet greater gains. Yet as of 2008 it is apparent that social movements in both South Korea and Thailand have faced increased difficulties and have seen a number of significant setbacks. The authors of this article analyze what they take to be one of the reasons for these setbacks: the failure of social movements in both of these countries to more successfully internationalize their efforts. Failed internationalism is far from being the only significant factor in this social movement decline, and, moreover, it has not necessarily occurred in precisely the same way in the South Korean and Thai cases. The authors show, however, that by analyzing similarities and differences in the patterns of social movement decline between South Korea and Thailand one can discern some common conundrums faced quite generally by social movements in an era of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
142770
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
“Vietnam” connotes far more than it could ever denote, and yet it often connotes very little about Vietnam or the Vietnam War. Growing up in the United States during the era of what Vietnamese call the “American War,” I came to associate “Vietnam” with many things, almost none of them contributing to my enlightenment about Vietnam, its peoples, their histories, or the reasons for the military violence wracking the country from the time of my birth. To me, “Vietnam” implied deep social contention in the United States between the “hippy” antiwar protestors and the conservative Americans who felt the former to be unpatriotic; it implied an incomprehensible conflict between Asian forces, some of whose motivations were debated (often impugned as reflecting a strange fanaticism), and American forces whose motivations were similarly contestable; and it ultimately implied both political meltdown and military embarrassment for US forces and their allies. These perceptions, of course, were almost entirely US-centric, and while much of that US-centrism reflects my own upbringing, I believe it also accurately represents the ways “Vietnam” became part of the consciousness of most Americans, right up to the present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|