The French Way: How France Embraced and Rejected American Values and Power by Richard F. Kuisel
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviews 289 examine the tensions between theoretical doctrine and practical battlefield experience which triggered an evolution of French trench tactics over the course of 1915 as a whole. Krause effectively makes the case that, far from being a year of stagnation, 1915 was a crucial year in the learning curve of trench warfare, and that French commanders in particular were quick to grasp that year’s lessons. The potential reader of this book should be aware that this is not a social, cultural, or political history of the First World War. Those looking for such a history should search elsewhere. However, for the reader interested in the military history of the war, this book is an excellent choice. It is tempting to oversimplify events of the Great War and embrace the standard clichés that have been reiterated decade after decade in its wake. The solid detail and analysis of Krause’s Early Trench Tactics shakes up those clichés and forces the reader to reconsider the commonly perceived‘sterility’of early trench warfare. For the specialist military historian, or for the very well read amateur, this book is highly recommended. Ohio University Christopher Coski Kuisel, Richard F. The French Way: How France Embraced and Rejected American Values and Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-15181-6. Pp. xi + 487. $29.98. Kuisel takes on the thorny task of analyzing the complex and paradoxical political, economic, and cultural relationship between the United States and France over the past forty years. His intentions are to help Americans better understand France and “to clarify how the French, in recent decades, have viewed America and transatlantic relations” (377). Using government statistics, public opinion polls, journalists’ interviews, and media reports, he deftly explains the French perspective on multiple issues (e.g., the scientific discovery of HIV and an AIDS antiserum, NATO relations, involvement in the Iraqi War, a unified Germany, and the European Union) and the circumstances behind them. Kuisel outlines how France was often stripped of its ability to mediate its own political and economic future, and was compelled to protect its individual social and cultural identity. Politically, France wanted to be an independent, relevant European and world leader in international affairs, yet the United States always seemed to have another role in mind for its historical ally; this often put France into a secondary or tertiary position. Mitterrand and Chirac walked thin political lines at certain moments with Washington. Economically, France felt major reverberations from American business models as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Disney moved across the Atlantic during this time, often with ruthless intent.While some American business practices (e.g.,privatization,stock options,part-time work) served as guides for modern French companies, these same practices also ran counter to the French people’s sense of social solidarity and cultural identity. Culturally, the French people felt especially affronted by the transatlantic wave. A shift in social habits in the 80s and 90s created enough of a stir to shape a unified resistance against all things uncivilized, or in other words American, such as: fast food, clothing, films, and English expressions. Ultimately it was here that the French made their greatest statement of resistance. Between the political, business, and cultural shifts during these decades, sentiments and outrage sparked anti-American movements among French intellectuals and politicians, which in turn created an anti-anti-Americanism. How could France imitate certain American approaches without compromising its own position as an important modern nation while simultaneously retaining its renowned collective identity? Herein was the struggle . France often paid a political or economic price for its resistance to America’s international moves. Kuisel argues that the“French Way”of resistance was how France was able to stave off the “American hyperpower” (vii), allowing this modern country to retain its“Frenchness”while settling into a new role in the age of globalization. This text is a richly detailed resource for explaining French-American binaries over the past four decades. University of North Georgia Amye R. Sukapdjo Menzies, Charles R. Red Flags and Lace Coiffes: Identity and Survival in a Breton Village. Toronto: UP of Toronto, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4426-0512...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».