Today the Kumbh Mela in Allahabad; India; is a major Hindu religious pilgrimage and the largest religious gathering in the world. In 2001; according to the government of Uttar Pradesh; 30 million pilgrims were drawn to the confluence of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna on the most auspicious day for bathing. In an impressive feat of organization and administration; the first mela of the new millennium was managed to the overwhelming satisfaction of most; with an impressive health and safety record. The loudest complaint had to do with the intrusive presence of the media. Journalists; largely representing foreign media outlets; had swarmed to the mela; intent on broadcasting to a global audience sensational images of naked (or wet-sari-clad) Indians taking part in "ancient" religious rituals. Resistance to foreign interference with the mela has roots that go back 200 years. The British colonial state and the colonized had different ideas about what the Kumbh Mela represented: for the former; it was a potentially dangerous gathering that demanded tight regulation and control; but for the latter it was a sacred sphere in which foreign domination and interference were intolerable. In this book Kama Maclean examines this tension and the manner in which it was negotiated by each side. She asks why and how the colonial state tried to manipulate the mela and; more important; how the mela changed as Indians responded to the colonial power. In recent years many scholars have emphasized the extent to which the Kumbh Mela has been monopolized by the Hindu nationalist movement. Maclean seeks to situate the history of the Kumbh Mela in Allahabad within a much broader context. She explores the role of a pilgrimage fair like the Kumbh Mela in disseminating ideas; particularly political ones like nationalism and ideas about social reform. Kama Maclean tells the mesmerizing and important story of the Kumbh Mela with exciting detail as well as careful scholarly attention; illuminating for the reader the full scope of the event's historical and socio-political context.
#3226335 in Books Richard Striner 2007-05-18Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 6.10 x 1.00 x 9.10l; 1.01 #File Name: 0195325397320 pagesFather Abraham Lincoln s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery
Review
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Lincoln: No Moderate on SlaveryBy Timothy P. KoernerWas he the "great emancipator" or did his famous Emancipation Proclamation free very few slaves? Was he a friend of African-Americans or rather a typical 19th century white supremacist? Did he really believe in "colonizing" US-born blacks in Africa or the Caribbean or was this just a diversionary tactic to mask his real intentions? Above all; was his primary goal to kill slavery in the US or to save the Union (country) from those who seceded from it and made war (at Fort Sumter) on it?The person referred to above is; of course; Abraham Lincoln ("AL" or "L" hereafter); sixteenth president of the US; and these questions are ones that people living in the US during the civil war era (roughly 1840s - 1870s) argued over and are questions that historians who study that era are still debating and probably always will.While it is difficult and perhaps dangerous to attempt to describe a consensus among historians about ANY topic; it is possible to state a view of AL that many or most L. historians of the last 40 to 50 years would probably accept or share. This view describes L. as a reluctant emancipator who moved cautiously against slavery. True; his natural inclinations were anti-slavery; but for constitutional reasons; he believed that only individual states could determine the legality of domestic institutions such as slavery. His goal was to contain slavery to existing areas and; in so doing; put it on the road to "ultimate extinction". Later; once the war began; for military and diplomatic reasons; L. issued his limited proclamation of emancipation. And while he never issued an equality procalamation or suffrage proclamation; there is evidence to suggest he was prepared to support at least partial suffrage for African Americans and was moving toward political equality in concept.In the book FATHER ABRAHAM: LINCOLN'S RELENTLESS STRUGGLE TO END SLAVERY; historian Richard Striner seeks to partially overturn or at least seriously challenge this (consensus) view of L. For Striner; L. had not only always hated slavery but was; since 1854 at least; strongly committed to trying to get rid of it. He calls AL a "moral visionary"; an "ethicist" who was also "an artist in the Machiavellian uses of power". (page 2) L. wasn't only interested in saving a union where slavery was legal. What good was a country wherein a significant segment of the population was owned by others? (He was also a golden rule man.) No; L. would refuse to compromise on slavery once he was elected president and even after a number of slave states left the Union. Sometimes he chose to mask his true intentions and throw white supremacists a bone with talk about colonization of blacks outside the US.And then when the military situation looked slighly brighter for the Union cause (after the horrible battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg); he issued a proclamation to liberate some; not all; slaves. But once this action was taken the only turning back from fullliberation might come from one or both of what Striner refers to as "worst-case futures": losing re-election as president in 1864 and/or losing the war itself; in which case all of his antislavery actions would undoubtedly be overturned. Thus; L. strove mightly in 1863-1864 to prevent both of these possibilites; all the while being hard at work planning to "reconstruct" the old slave states without slavery. End of my summary of the Striner argument.How convincing is his argument? Readers will certainly decide for themselves; but this is a very difficult proposition for several reasons; a couple of which are that AL's words were often contradictory and also because L. had a way of telling people what they wanted to hear and not necessaily what he believed. The author definitely caused me; essentially a subscriber to what I've termed the consensus view; to question and think about what I have come to accept about L. over the decades. As such; I think this is a very important book.The book contains not only superb endnotes demonstrating Striner's heavy use of the work of scholars such as LaWanda Cox; Harry Jaffa; James McPherson; William Lee Miller as well as; of course; Basler's COLLECTED WORKS of Lincoln; but also; and drum roll please;a (very useful) bibliography; a device which I've thought might be on the way to ultimate extinction.For reasons that puzzle me; this volume is not very well known in the L. literature. This is unfortunate because I found it to be one of the more thoughtful books on L. that I've read during this 200th year of his birth. Strongly recommended.Tim Koerner December 20090 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Lincoln's total commitment to Black AmericansBy Joseph AlbianiWhile revisionist history now calls Lincoln a reluctant emancipator and a racist at heart this book shows how wrong that view is.From the time he was first in the state legislature from a racist white supremecist culture Lincoln constantly spoke against slavery which he always regarded as an abomination. While; as a lawyer; he never thought he had the power to eliminate slavery where it was constitutionally protected he always spoke against its expansion. One of his first acts as President was to allow the death sentence for a slave ship captain to proceed in spite of the captain's political friends pleas for mercy. He said he could not abide a man sending hundreds of Africans into perpetual bondage for mere money. While hundreds of previous such cases resulted in few prosecutions and no executions he put his foot down and virtually ended the illicit slave trade that had been going on for decades. It was the first execution for slave trading even though there had been 100 such cases in New York alone in 1860. He paid for the funeral expenses of his valet and had him buried in Arlington cemetary with the single word CITIZEN on his tombstone whereas blacks had not been considered citizens until then.He met with Frederick Douglass in the White House and Douglass wrote about how he never met a powerful white man who treated him as an equal until then. Later when it appeared that Lincoln would not be reelected Lincoln asked Douglass to get a group of like minded people to go into the deep South and get as many slaves as possible to get to the Union lines so they could be freed knowing that if McClellan won he would eliminate the emancipation proclamation. Finally in his last speech where he called for blacks to get the vote the racist John Wilkes Booth decided that that was the last straw and he killed Lincoln a few days later.Lincoln was murdered because of this.Lincoln had called for colonization for freed blacks because the country was so racist he could not imagine blacks being treated fairly. It was only his leadership that finally got the country to the point where they would support the emancipation. Lincoln was a giant. The blacks never had a more powerful and loving friend.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Yes; indeed; Lincoln freed the slaves.By RJBMuch has been written about our 16th president. I found this book very enjoyable to read; and from my perspective; having read quite a few books about Lincoln; factually accurate. However; as a recent addition to the long list of biographers of Lincoln; I was expecting the author to do more to debunk those who've written that Lincoln did NOT pursue a relentless struggle to end slavery. Rather; the author simply chronicled all the steps Lincoln is known to have taken during his life to bring about an end to slavery.
