Podcasts about Padraic Kenney

Populiści i autokraci wielokrotnie odwołują się do historii uzasadniając swoje rządy. Jak to wygląda w praktyce w Rosji (i w Polsce), dlaczego jest tak skuteczne i czy możemy się temu przeciwstawić? O tym Jarosław Kuisz rozmawia z prof. Padraicem Kenneyem.

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn't have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn't have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn’t have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn’t have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn’t have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn’t have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea of being a “political prisoner” may seem timeless. If someone was imprisoned for his or her political beliefs, then that person is in some sense a “political prisoner.” Think of the Tower of London and its various occupants. But, as Padraic Kenney points out in his fascinating new book Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2017), the modern reality of what we might call “political prisoner-ship” is very different and very modern. He shows that you really couldn't have modern political prisoners until you had all kinds of other modern institutions, most importantly, the modern state-run prison, the modern mass press, and more generally, modern political movements (think parties, nationalist movements, revolutionary causes). These things came together to produce a kind of incarceration that was essentially a political statement made by the prisoners to whomever might listen. Kenney does a wonderful job of explaining how this form of extreme form of political protest evolved in the 19th and early 20th century. He gives lots of fascinating examples from all over the globe: Russia, Poland, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, among others. And, yes, the United States right now. What are, he asks, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay but political prisoners? Listen in.

Telling the stories of people was the driving force behind Padraic Kenney’s desire to get his doctorate. He didn't know what he was going to do after that, he just knew he liked to tell stories. So he told a story about the rise of the Communist Revolution in two Polish cities.  The thing is he did this work while another revolution unfolded around him. He has held onto the theme of revolution throughout his work and his new book tells the stories of people imprisoned because they want to change their world. Linked to the book :https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dance-in-chains-9780199375745?q=kenney&lang=en&cc=us Linked to Padraic’s website: http://pages.iu.edu/~pjkenney/

There are certain dates that every European historian knows. Among them are 1348 (The Black Death), 1517 (The Reformation), 1648 (The Peace of Westphalia), 1789 (The French Revolution), 1848 (The Revolutions of 1848), 1914 (The beginning of World War I), 1933 (Hitler comes to power), and 1945 (The end of World War II). Two decades ago we added another date to the roster of “historical” years–1989. In ’89 the world really did change: the hallmark of an entire historical epoch–the struggle between the Capitalist West and the Communist East–came to a sudden end. The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviets withdrew from Eastern Europe, the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe relinquished power, new democratic states emerged, and people danced in the streets. At least for a while. To say that nobody saw ’89 coming would be a bit of an exaggeration: people had been predicting the decline of Soviet power in Eastern Europe for decades. Like all regularly made predictions (“Prices will fall…”), this one eventually came true. Still, the events of ’89 were unexpected. What the heck happened? If anyone knows, it’s Padraic Kenney. Not only has he spent his entire (prodigious) scholarly career studying modern Eastern European history, but he was there when it all happened. He published the classic account of ’89 in ’93 (A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989 (Princeton UP, 2003)) and since then two other books about it as well (The Burdens of Freedom. Eastern Europe Since 1989 (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2006); 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War’s End (Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2009). In this interview, he tells us how it all went down (or up, depending on your perspective). Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are certain dates that every European historian knows. Among them are 1348 (The Black Death), 1517 (The Reformation), 1648 (The Peace of Westphalia), 1789 (The French Revolution), 1848 (The Revolutions of 1848), 1914 (The beginning of World War I), 1933 (Hitler comes to power), and 1945 (The end of World War II). Two decades ago we added another date to the roster of “historical” years–1989. In ’89 the world really did change: the hallmark of an entire historical epoch–the struggle between the Capitalist West and the Communist East–came to a sudden end. The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviets withdrew from Eastern Europe, the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe relinquished power, new democratic states emerged, and people danced in the streets. At least for a while. To say that nobody saw ’89 coming would be a bit of an exaggeration: people had been predicting the decline of Soviet power in Eastern Europe for decades. Like all regularly made predictions (“Prices will fall…”), this one eventually came true. Still, the events of ’89 were unexpected. What the heck happened? If anyone knows, it’s Padraic Kenney. Not only has he spent his entire (prodigious) scholarly career studying modern Eastern European history, but he was there when it all happened. He published the classic account of ’89 in ’93 (A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989 (Princeton UP, 2003)) and since then two other books about it as well (The Burdens of Freedom. Eastern Europe Since 1989 (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2006); 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War’s End (Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2009). In this interview, he tells us how it all went down (or up, depending on your perspective). Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are certain dates that every European historian knows. Among them are 1348 (The Black Death), 1517 (The Reformation), 1648 (The Peace of Westphalia), 1789 (The French Revolution), 1848 (The Revolutions of 1848), 1914 (The beginning of World War I), 1933 (Hitler comes to power), and 1945 (The end of World War II). Two decades ago we added another date to the roster of “historical” years–1989. In ’89 the world really did change: the hallmark of an entire historical epoch–the struggle between the Capitalist West and the Communist East–came to a sudden end. The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviets withdrew from Eastern Europe, the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe relinquished power, new democratic states emerged, and people danced in the streets. At least for a while. To say that nobody saw ’89 coming would be a bit of an exaggeration: people had been predicting the decline of Soviet power in Eastern Europe for decades. Like all regularly made predictions (“Prices will fall…”), this one eventually came true. Still, the events of ’89 were unexpected. What the heck happened? If anyone knows, it’s Padraic Kenney. Not only has he spent his entire (prodigious) scholarly career studying modern Eastern European history, but he was there when it all happened. He published the classic account of ’89 in ’93 (A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989 (Princeton UP, 2003)) and since then two other books about it as well (The Burdens of Freedom. Eastern Europe Since 1989 (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2006); 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War’s End (Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2009). In this interview, he tells us how it all went down (or up, depending on your perspective). Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are certain dates that every European historian knows. Among them are 1348 (The Black Death), 1517 (The Reformation), 1648 (The Peace of Westphalia), 1789 (The French Revolution), 1848 (The Revolutions of 1848), 1914 (The beginning of World War I), 1933 (Hitler comes to power), and 1945 (The end of World War II). Two decades ago we added another date to the roster of “historical” years–1989. In ’89 the world really did change: the hallmark of an entire historical epoch–the struggle between the Capitalist West and the Communist East–came to a sudden end. The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviets withdrew from Eastern Europe, the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe relinquished power, new democratic states emerged, and people danced in the streets. At least for a while. To say that nobody saw ’89 coming would be a bit of an exaggeration: people had been predicting the decline of Soviet power in Eastern Europe for decades. Like all regularly made predictions (“Prices will fall…”), this one eventually came true. Still, the events of ’89 were unexpected. What the heck happened? If anyone knows, it’s Padraic Kenney. Not only has he spent his entire (prodigious) scholarly career studying modern Eastern European history, but he was there when it all happened. He published the classic account of ’89 in ’93 (A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989 (Princeton UP, 2003)) and since then two other books about it as well (The Burdens of Freedom. Eastern Europe Since 1989 (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2006); 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War’s End (Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2009). In this interview, he tells us how it all went down (or up, depending on your perspective). Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices