Radical History Review: Volume 65
This special issue of the Radical History Review considers the praxis of anthropology and history and offers a new dialogue between scholars in both fields. The offerings vary from William Roseberry's consideration of the intellectual and political impact of conceptual shifts in the field, to Marc Edelman's report on reconceptualizing and reconstituting peasant struggles in Central America. Gerald Sider reconsiders the "Bread and Roses" strike of 1912 and critiques traditional interpretations in labor and social history. Sider's paper provokes responses from Paul Buhle, Ardis Cameron, David Montgomery, and Christine Stansell.
Product Information
Product Information
Shipping & Returns
Shipping & Returns
Radical History Review: Volume 65
Radical History Review: Volume 65
This special issue of the Radical History Review considers the praxis of anthropology and history and offers a new dialogue between scholars in both fields. The offerings vary from William Roseberry's consideration of the intellectual and political impact of conceptual shifts in the field, to Marc Edelman's report on reconceptualizing and reconstituting peasant struggles in Central America. Gerald Sider reconsiders the "Bread and Roses" strike of 1912 and critiques traditional interpretations in labor and social history. Sider's paper provokes responses from Paul Buhle, Ardis Cameron, David Montgomery, and Christine Stansell.
Original: $51.26
-70%$51.26
$15.38Product Information
Product Information
Shipping & Returns
Shipping & Returns
Description
This special issue of the Radical History Review considers the praxis of anthropology and history and offers a new dialogue between scholars in both fields. The offerings vary from William Roseberry's consideration of the intellectual and political impact of conceptual shifts in the field, to Marc Edelman's report on reconceptualizing and reconstituting peasant struggles in Central America. Gerald Sider reconsiders the "Bread and Roses" strike of 1912 and critiques traditional interpretations in labor and social history. Sider's paper provokes responses from Paul Buhle, Ardis Cameron, David Montgomery, and Christine Stansell.
