Україна дала світу чимало яскравих і цікавих особистостей. І сто героїв цієї книги – лише дещиця з їх числа. Автори намагалися представити в ній найбільш видатні постаті минулого і сучасності, тих, хто своєю працею і талантами прославив країну, вплинув на хід її історії. «Нація виявляє себе не лише в людях, яким вона дає життя, але й у тім, яким людям вона віддає почесті, яких людей пам'ятає», – говорив Джон Кеннеді. Якщо звернутися до історичної пам'яті української нації, то протягом тривалого часу головними її символами незмінно залишалися Богдан Хмельницький, Тарас Шевченко, Леся Українка, Іван Франко, Михайло Грушевський. При цьому варто зазначити: життєписи були настільки ідеалізовані й оповиті всілякими міфологічними нашаруваннями, що скоріше нагадували історичні архетипи, ніж біографії реальних людей. Тому, розповідаючи про цих видатних особистостей, автори прагнули зняти з їхніх портретів хрестоматійний глянець і познайомити читача з маловідомими фактами їхнього життя і діяльності. Іще більш далеким від історичної правди було представлено в біографічній літературі життєвий шлях таких державних і політичних діячів, як Іван Мазепа, Симон Петлюра, Нестор Махно, Степан Бандера. Тривалий час їхня роль в історії України викликала суперечливі оцінки, які робили з цих людей не національних героїв, а ізгоїв суспільства. Суперечки навколо них тривають і сьогодні, але навіть їхні супротивники не можуть не визнати того, що всі вони, безсумнівно, є неабиякими особистостями, які виявили чимало сили волі й мужності в найтрагічніші періоди життя країни. Донедавна українці вкрай мало знали про своїх видатних співвітчизників, які з різних причин були змушені залишити батьківщину. Більшість із них забуто. Така ж доля випала й тим, хто став жертвою сталінських репресій, представникам дисидентського руху, борцям за права людини в Україні. А тим часом саме ці люди сприяли зростанню авторитету української науки і культури далеко за межами країни. От чому в сучасній галереї видатних людей України гідне місце посідають Михайло Драгоманов і Олександр Архипенко, Серж Лифар і Володимир Винниченко, Дмитро Чижевський і Микола Бердяев, Василь Стус і В'ячеслав Чорновіл. Серед героїв цієї книги – не лише українці, але й представники інших національностей. Їхні імена тут не випадкові, оскільки для одних Україна була малою батьківщиною, інші тривалий час жили і працювали на українській землі вже в зрілі роки. Не можна не погодитися з російським ученим, академіком Д. Лихачовим, який стверджував, що «національні особливості зближують людей… а не вилучають їх із національного оточення інших народів, не замикають народи в собі». Тож не варто дивуватися тому, що в історичній пам'яті українського народу почесне місце завжди посідатимуть імена Шолом-Алейхема, Івана Айвазовського, Архипа Куїнджі, Миколи Пирогова, Іллі Мечникова, Сергія Прокоф'єва і багатьох інших видатних «неукраїнців». До речі, вони були набагато мудріші за деяких своїх нащадків і ніколи не відокремлювали свою долю від української землі і того народу, серед якого жили і діяли. Варто згадати хоча б рядки з листа М. Гоголя, адресовані А. О. Смирновій-Россет: «Скажу вам одне слово щодо того, яка в мене душа, хохляцька чи російська. Я сам не знаю, яка в мене душа. Знаю тільки, що ніяк би не віддав переваги ні малоросіянину перед росіянином, ні росіянину перед малоросіянином. Обидві природи надто щедро обдаровані Богом, і, як навмисно, кожна з них порізно містить в собі те, чого немає в іншій…» Ці слова, написані в середині XIX століття, залишаються актуальними й сьогодні.

This book grew out of a conference organized by the German Historical Institute (GHI) on May 23-5, 1996, iii Berlin. For three days, thirty-five scholars from n\ne countries became acht-und-sechziger (sixty-eighters), not on the streets and barricades but in lively debate over the events and significance of the momentous year 1968. This book consists of revised versions of many of the original papers as well as entirely new essays that complement our overall theme. I thank all of the authors and also those who participated in the conference but whose work could not be included here. I am grateful to Carl-Ludwig Holtfrerich (Free University Berlin), Luisa Passerini (European University Institute, Florence), Keith A. Reader (University of Newcastle), and Dieter Rucht (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin) for chairing the various sessions and for guiding us through spirited discussions. In Berlin, the Wissenschaftszentrum afforded a comfortable setting for three days of intensive debate. I thank Friedheim Neidhardt, the center'sdirector, and his dedicated staff - Birgit Hahn, Britta Heinrich, Ilse Kischlat, Dietmar Kremser, and Burckhard Wiebe - for hosting the conference and helping with its organization. Dieter Senoner of the mayor's office kindly welcomed us to Berlin at a reception at the Rotes Rathaus. Anneke de Rudder, who took us on a "1968 Walking Tour" through the German capital, gave us the opportunity to visit the key sites of that historic year.At the GHI, I thank Barbel Bernhardt, Christa Brown, Dieter Schneider, and Barbel Thomas - all of whom were involved in the organization before, during, and after the conference. Pamela Abraham tracked down the copyrights for the illustrations and assisted in assembling the manuscript. Daniel S. Mattern, the series editor at the Institute, deserves a special note of appreciation for guiding us through the difficult process of publishing this collection and for preparing a readable, clear, and concise manuscript. Frank Smith, the executive editor for social sciences at Cambridge University Press, took great interest in this project from the begin-IX X Preface ning and helped bring about its final shape. Further, I thank the two anonymous readers for their very useful critical evaluations of the manuscript. Finally, I thank my two coeditors. Carole Fink provided the original plan, which she presented to me at another GHI conference, in Berkeley, California, in May 1994. In subsequent discussions, we discovered that "1968" is a particularly well-suited topic for understanding the intellectual challenges that increasing global interdependence poses to historians of the twentieth century. We were later joined by Philipp Gassert, who worked with us to organize the conference and edit the book. I shall miss these last three and a half years of spirited collaboration among three very engaged historians. The topic of this book dovetails nicely with the efforts of the GHI in Washington to promote comparative research. In fact, most of the four to five international conferences the Institute rganizes annually are based on this perspective, comparing events, ideas, and structures in the United States and Europe. At times we have even taken a global perspective, with 1968: The World Traniformed being a case in point. In this age of globalization, historians should also become global players - at least mentally.

In this book I propose the thesis that a collective learning process took place after Hitler, bringing the Germans back from perpetrating unspeakable crimes to a sincere commitment to human rights. Unlike the intellectual preoccupation with German efforts to deal with the Nazi past (explored by Charles Maier and Jeffrey Herf), this investigation focuses primarily on the practical lessons that a disoriented people drew from their past misdeeds. My analysis pays particular attention to the relationship between the outside interventions of the United States and the Soviet Union and the inside insights of the minority of anti-Fascist Germans who were ready to make a new start. In an attempt to integrate both postwar histories, I contrast the Western consequences drawn from the catastrophe with the Eastern efforts to learn from disaster. Since the transformation was a drawn-out process, I concentrate here on three different stages of its development, starting with the postwar period, then focusing on the 1960s, and concluding with the 1990s. After exploring the alternative of Westernization, I settled on the concept of “civilization” as a standard for evaluating the metamorphosis of the Germans. While postcolonial critics have correctly condemned its misuse as justification for sexist and racist repression, several reasons support this terminological choice. First, prominent contemporaries, from Hannah Arendt to Franklin D. Roosevelt, used the notion of a German deviation from the values of Western civilization as a key argument. Second, in modifying the Sonderweg thesis, the Israeli-German historian Dan Diner suggested that the Holocaust constituted a rupture of common ethical norms, a veritable Zivilisationsbruch. Third, the surprising resurgence of the concept of “civil society” as a rejection of Communist dictatorship and as a characterization of voluntary social activism links the two dictatorships with each other. Therefore, “civilization” may serve as shorthand for the struggle for human rights.

Nasca is one of the most famous societies of ancient Peru. Its exquisite polychrome slip-painted pottery, enigmatic ground markings, ingenious irrigation system, and human trophy heads have long fascinated archaeologists and the public. For years scholars have tried to explain the conditions that produced the wide areal distribution of an essentially homogeneous Nasca pottery style, but only recently have there been sufficient field data with which to meaningfully address the issue.

The United States holds the dubious distinction of having the most unequal income distribution of any advanced industrialized nation. While other developed countries face similar challenges from globalization and technological change, none rivals America's singularly poor record for equitably distributing the benefits and burdens of recent economic shifts. In Categorically Unequal, Douglas Massey weaves together history, political economy, and even neuropsychology to provide a comprehensive explanation of how America's culture and political system perpetuates inequalities between different segments of the population. Categorically Unequal is striking both for its theoretical originality and for the breadth of topics it covers. Massey argues that social inequalities arise from the universal human tendency to place others into social categories. In America, ethnic minorities, women, and the poor have consistently been the targets of stereotyping, and as a result, they have been exploited and discriminated against throughout the nation's history. African-Americans continue to face discrimination in markets for jobs, housing, and credit. Meanwhile, the militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border has discouraged Mexican migrants from leaving the United States, creating a pool of exploitable workers who lack the legal rights of citizens. Massey also shows that women's advances in the labor market have been concentrated among the affluent and well-educated, while low-skilled female workers have been relegated to occupations that offer few chances for earnings mobility. At the same time, as the wages of low-income men have fallen, more working-class women are remaining unmarried and raising children on their own. Even as minorities and women continue to face these obstacles, the progressive legacy of the New Deal has come under frontal assault. The government has passed anti-union legislation, made taxes more regressive, allowed the real value of the federal minimum wage to decline, and drastically cut social welfare spending. As a result, the income gap between the richest and poorest has dramatically widened since 1980. Massey attributes these anti-poor policies in part to the increasing segregation of neighborhoods by income, which has insulated the affluent from the social consequences of poverty, and to the disenfranchisement of the poor, as the population of immigrants, prisoners, and ex-felons swells. America's unrivalled disparities are not simply the inevitable result of globalization and technological change. As Massey shows, privileged groups have systematically exploited and excluded many of their fellow Americans. By delving into the root causes of inequality in America, Categorically Unequal provides a compelling argument for the creation of a more equitable society.

The book is a pleasure to read for its learning and sophistication. Nottage and Wolff also deserve high praise for their light touch as editors and translators. David Nelken, University of Cardiff, UK and University of Macerata, Italy This important book translates seven landmark essays by one of Japan s most respected and influential legal thinkers. While Takao Tanase concedes that law might not matter as much in Japan as it does in the United States, in a provocative challenge to socio-legal researchers and comparative lawyers, he asks: why should it? The issue, he contends, is not whether law matters to society; it is how society matters to law. Developing a descriptive and normative theory of community and the law, the author directly challenges the view that legal liberalism represents the pinnacle of legal achievement. He criticises liberalism for destroying community in the United States and for offering false hope for a delayed modernity in Japan. By applying a distinctive interpretivist methodology, he constructs a communitarian model of law and society that serves as an alternative to legal liberalism. The book challenges conventional understandings of such legal sociological staples as torts, lawyers ethics, family law, human rights, constitutionalism and litigiousness. This fascinating book will prove a stimulating, thought provoking read for researchers and scholars of law, Japanese and American studies, sociology and jurisprudence.

Книга французького військового інженера Гійома Левассера де Боплана «Опис України» — цінне історичне джерело для вивчення побуту запорозького козацтва і селянства, а також інших станів середньовічного суспільства України. В ній відображені географічне середовище, природа України, її кліматичні умови, наведені дані з історії заселення Середньої Наддніпрянщини, змальована яскрава картина життя українського народу першої половини XVII ст.

Книга є одним з перших вітчизняних досліджень, присвячених проблемам формування в Україні Інформаційного суспільства та включення нашої держави до загадьноевітопих процесів побудови Глобального інформаційного простору. Автори популярно виклали основні теоретичні та прикладні питання теми: загальні і конкретні визначення, історію виникнення й розвитку ідей, поточні й стратегічні завдання, досягнення й перепони на шляху інформатизації та входження до нової — Цифрової - доби людської цивілізації. Адресована широкому колу читачів.

Книга посвящена мало изученной в мировой историографии проблеме - как ориентировался в пространстве человек в архаических культурах, какое значение в этой ориентации имели особенности строения его тела, устройство Земли и движение небесных светил, в первую очередь Солнца и Луны, как устанавливались астрономические ориентиры стран света, какую роль играла ориентация по странам света в сакральной и профанной жизни общества (ориентация городов, храмов, дворцов, жилищ, погребений, культовых действий, географических карт и т. д.). Исследование проведено на материале практически всех архаических культур Евразии - от Китая до Рима и от древних кельтов до монголов - с использованием всех видов источников: лингвистических, литературных, археологических, иконографических, этнографических и др. Антропологический взгляд на природу пространственной ориентации человека позволяет выявить универсальные категории в постижении пространства и вплотную подойти к пониманию наиболее общих архетипов сознания homo sapiens.

Vol. 1, № 2. - 2001. - 145 p.

This book, written for fellow peacemakers and peace campaigners around the world, is therefore not only a study but also an argument: my small but necessary contribution to what I see as the daunting but all-too-urgent project of global transformation – the fundamental change so desperately needed by humanity and our planet. Unless we take a more radical approach, we shall not get beyond fire-fighting and the seemingly endless task of reconstruction. Unless we transform the way we think about conflict, human relationships, and what it is to be successful, our very life as a species is under threat. Our field is going through a time of intensive self-scrutiny.6 The phase that began with the Soviet collapse has ended. For too many years we were caught up in the calamitous policies and actions that followed the events of 11 September 2001 in the US, and there were signs that a new Cold War was beginning. Then the advent of a new US president brought new hope. Our field can be credited with many important achievements, which should be recognised and set out. The value of its work will continue. At the same time, we have come to recognise our limitations.

Everyone has some idea what lawyers do. And most people have at least heard of criminologists. But who knows what “law and society” is? A lawyer friend of mine, a really smart guy, asks me regularly, “What exactly do you people do?” Once when I was at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, my taxi driver was making the usual idle conversation and inquired what I was in town for. I told him I was attending the Law and Society Association’s annual meeting. His interest suddenly aroused, he turned to face me and asked with some urgency, “I’ve been wondering, when is the best time to plant a lawn?”

This volume provide readers with analytically sound and well documented empirical information about the significant positive and negative effects mass immigration has on the Country's well being and that of their offspring.

Ukraine ( Ukraïna in Ukrainian) means “on the edge” or “borderland,” and for most of its history Ukraine has served as a sort of middle ground, divided between Russia and Poland (later Austria-Hungary) and occupying the far western edge of the vast Eurasian steppe, centered between Europe and Asia, West and East. During most of twentieth century, it was part of the Soviet Union, but it gained independence in 1991 when the Soviet Union disintegrated into 15 different countries. In terms of population, it is the second largest (after Russia) of the post-Soviet states, and, among all European countries, it is the second largest (again, after Russia) in territorial size. Although a new country, it has a long and complicated history, and the importance of this history is manifested today in various ways: the regional divisions between western and eastern parts of the country; its inexperience with both capitalism and democracy that has arguably made the post-Soviet transition more difficult; its lack of previous statehood that has complicated notions of Ukrainian identity; and, perhaps above all else, its relations with neighboring states, especially Russia, which ruled, either as the Russian Empire under the tsars or as the Soviet Union under the Communist Party, over most of Ukraine for centuries. Coming to grips with aspects of its history and charting its own course have been challenges for the new Ukrainian state.