How Much Language Knowledge for Grad Students?
This post appeared on H-War and raises a topic that may interest H-Teach. SWT
SUBMITTED BY: BRUCEGUDMUND%delphi.com@KSUVM.KSU.EDU
Many of the comments on my call for the inclusion of foreign language works in the reading lists of graduate courses in military history assume that serious foreign language training would not begin until a student began graduate school. This, I believe, is a mistake. Nearly all secondary schools in the US offer at least one foreign language, and, to my knowledge, all accredited colleges offer some foreign language training. Therefore, is it too much to ask an aspiring military historian to gain a reading knowledge of two foreign languages (say French and German) before he begins graduate school?
Other developed countries generally require secondary school students to gain a working knowledge of two (or, in the case of places like Iceland, as many as four) foreign languages. There are, for example, two interns at the Institute for Tactical Education who are from France. They have both passed the "bac" and are now undergoing "practical" studies with an aim towards careers in business. One speaks English and Spanish, the other English and German.
Bruce I. Gudmundsson
The Institute for Tactical Education
The Old Headquarters Building
504 Broadway
Quantico, VA 22134
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 12:49:32 -0800
From: Howard Happ <hhapp@huey.csun.edu>
The two-language requirement seems reasonable enough in itself. The sad fact is, that many high school and university systems today do not require foreign languages, which would require some sort of extra study for students interested in graduate study who through no fault of their own, possiblly because the languages they were interested in (for example, French and German in systems where Spanish is more widely offered) were not easily available, were unable to achieve in the present circumstances the preparation that was once almost universal. I happen to believe that Latin, Greek and Hebrew ought to be universal requirements for theological education, for example. The seminary that required any one of them as an admission requirement would be in serious difficulty. "Damnosa quid non imminuit dies?"
Dr. Howard Happ | hhapp@huey.csun.edu | "Non reddita mere, melior!"
Professor, The Department of Religious Studies, CSUN.
Assisting, St. Nicholas',Encino (Episcopal)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 10:59 EST
From: SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU
The only problem with language requirements is if such requirements are inflexible, they can present an insurmountable barrier to students with particular learning disabilities. At some point I would like to begin a discussion on this list about how universities can provie simple accomodations for students with learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder, and how university professors should be better informed to be able to pick up these disorders in previously undiagnosed students. It is a subject that basically requires changes in attitude, and flexibility in teaching methods and environment -- both of which would not be a bad idea for teaching in the university environment anyway. But what would be helpful to all students, is imperative for those students with particular disabilities.
So the one caveat I would attach to anyone promoting a language requirement is please allow for a substitute set of courses for those students who are talented and interested in your academic discipline -- in this case, history -- but have a learning disability which makes it nearly impossible to pass the standard college sequence in a foreign language.
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:23:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Gordon E Harvey <harvege@mail.auburn.edu>
Another point should be made about the language requirement. I think there should be flexibility in the requirement. That is to say, why should someone studying the modern U.S be requireed to pass a language exam in the first place? I will probably never be called on to use the skill in translating Spanish in my career yet I had to pass the exam. It doesn't make sense to me. (I did pass it, so no sour grapes here.)
I can understand the requirement for someone in European history or colonial America, but for some fields it doesn't seem to fit.
What do you folks think about it?
Gordon Harvey
Auburn University
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 95 22:10:05 EDT
From: Ted Lorah <LORAH@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
At the risk of blowing my cover, I must admit to having ADHD, as does my 13 year old daughter. Often this is accompanied by other quirks, which in my case is an inability to memorize lists, hence vocabulary in foreign languages. De- spite that, I have learned to read Greek, hebrew, Aramaic, German, and am wor- king on French. (The Temple Religion Dept. demands two "languages of scholar- ship.") However, I could never pass the ETS exams, because they are done with- out a dictionary (deadly for nonmemorizers) and need extra time on straight translation exams, which drives the purists wild, because they demand a certain amount of what they term "facility" with the language. Actually, I find the comparative grammar enjoyable and not difficult. It is memorizing the lists of words and forms that is impossible, although certain techniques help, e.g. the sigma that signifies the Future in Greek, the He that shows the Hiphil in Heb- rew, etc. My strength is in having an encyclopedic ability to refind things I have read once, although I can't ever quote it exactly. Unfortunately, American language teaching is not aimed at reading but at conversation. It is not aimed at scholarship, but at filling requirements for their own sake, and in high school, it is simply memorize like mad, while never being able to use it outside class. Perhaps we need to aim our teaching at the tasks at hand, asking students to do what is necessary to succeed, instead of setting up idealistic goals that make little sense except as abstractions. Language study needs to be taken more seriously than it is at present--by either the tyranny of the purists or the dismissal of those who don't value scholarship from other places in the world.
Ted Lorah
Temple University
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:35:38 -0400 (EDT) From: JEZ@vms.cis.pitt.edu
I think the American historian without language ability is cutting her/himself off from:
immigrant history;
much labor history;
much regional history;
study of Americans fluent in other languages, dead or alive;
any consideration of American history by European colleagues.
Sounds pretty provincial.
Judy Zimmerman
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:49:29 EDT
From: BROSCIOUS@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
I would like to add to Gordon's point that "for some fields [the langauge requirement] doesn't seem to fit." I can imagine that foreign language skills would be useful if not necessary in virtually every field of history, depending on the research question(s) one is attempting to answer.
J. H. Hexter once observed that historians are either "lumpers" or "splitters." Lumpers, briefly, are generalists. What concerns me about the current fetish for foreign language skills is that it will drive lumpers from the field. Take my area - U.S. foreign relations. I have often heard the claim that to do "good" diplomatic history, one has to do "international history," that is history that rests on primary research in multiple foreign language archival material. Such a claim, however, virtually precludes the possiblity that one could write a general history of post-World War II U.S. foreign relations. Who among us has a working knowledge of English, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish (even this list is not exhaustive - it omits Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian and subcontinent languages; all important areas of postwar U.S. diplomacy)?
To insist on multiple foreign language research is to place impediments (in terms of funding, publication, and job possibilities) in the way of history that generalizes. This, in turn, will only further alienate academic historians from all but an academic audience. If you accept this, then you must also question the wisdom of a blanket two language requirement. As Gordon suggested, what we need is flexibility in this matter.
As John Gaddis once remarked, "both approaches [lumping and splitting] are necessary, even indispensible, to the writing of history." All I ask is that we leave room for the lumpers.
David Broscious
PS. I don't know if this is "sour grapes," but I certainly have found my Spanish useful for reading Tom Clancy's LA CAZA DEL SUBMARINO RUSO. While my other language, Russian, is valuable to someone studying U.S. diplomacy during the Cold War, I have not used (and do not plan to use) it in my dissertation - which examines U.S. foreign policy ideology/grand strategy during the Truman years. What has proven to be indispensible to me, however, is a working knowledge of international economic relations.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 09:16:50 -0500
From: Kathleen Comerford <kathleen@cs.wisc.edu>
Gordon Harvey's post about the necessity (or lack thereof) of learning languages in American history unsettled me a little. I am a Europeanist, and an Early Modernist at that (meaning that I should know Latin in addition to other languages). My first reaction to his objection was that there should be some standardization of requirements, and that on a certain level it doesn't seem "fair" to require some graduate students to train in languages and others not to, yet grant them the same diploma. But the issue is much larger than that, I think. At UW, there used to be the possibility for Americanists to replace one language with a stats course. I'm not certain if this still exists but I do see the logic in this. Still, think of it this way: if we want to be taken seriously as scholars, should not our work be distributable in other countries? Should we not pay attention to the latest historiography on any given topic, regardless of whether it is in German, Spanish, or English?
My thinking on this is partially informed by an interesting experience I've had as an American studying the history of Italy. No, I do not particularly enjoy studying languages; I've never had a great talent for them. I've managed to learn Italian with some fluency, and as a result can also get by in Spanish; I learned French first so that's still pretty good; as I mentioned, I need to know Latin as well. I *wish* I could learn German. It's very difficult for me. I don't have the extra time, and the logic of that language is hard for my romance-language-oriented brain to comprehend. But someday I will learn enough to read articles faster than a page per half-hour.
Anyway, as I was researching my dissertation in Florence, I met a large number of Italians who were flattered that I'd go over there to study their history. I felt the same gratification when any of them expressed interest in American history. It slowly dawned on me what I was doing. I was reading Italian history in four languages and hoping to produce something that Italians, Spaniards, French, and others who read English would read and (oh, I *hope*) find compelling enough to *use* in their work. Don't we all want this? Do Americanists feel different? Should not American historians read histories of America written in other languages? Harvey did not indicate the period he studied. Imagine, though, the problems studying WWII without reading French or German histories on the same. Imagine studying American foreign policy in the 60s and 70s and not being able to read Korean or French historians on *their* interpretations of American history. It seems very insular to me to assume that American historians need only know English. This isn't even touching on the issues of the increasingly multi-lingual society in which we live.
Thus, I think that a language requirement fits in *all* fields of history, be they colonial America, crusader states in the Middle East, Maoist China. Renaissance Italy, Reformation Germany, or whatever. I'm interested in hearing what others think.
Kathleen Comerford
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:01:35 +22310353 (CDT) From: Kelly A. Woestman <kwoestma@mail.pittstate.edu>
I agree with Gordon Harvey's statement on the language requirements.
I had to pass a "reading" exam over French and Spanish despite my emphasis on 20th century US. I looked at them as merely two of the hoops I had to jump through to get a PhD. One of these language hoops became very challenging when I got caught in a dispute between the professor teaching the preparation course and the professor grading the exam.
I would have preferred something that seemed more relevant to me. I
looked into the "computer" option but knew that I was not a computer
programmer. Maybe a course in some type of quantitative methods -
specifically for historians.
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:28:28 +22310353 (CDT) From: Kelly A. Woestman <kwoestma@mail.pittstate.edu>
In response to Judy Zimmerman's comment about American historians without language ability being "provincial."
I would counter with the fact that we are being realistic. Unless you regularly use a language, you lose it. It's not that we automatically ignore foreign sources when it's relevant to what we are doing. It's that we choose to learn the language if we develop another interest field that demands it OR hire a specialist to do the translation. I think it's much better to go to an expert than to sloppily, and therefore inaccurately, translate in any language. Are you assuming that to correctly do immigrant history, we must translate the languages of ALL the immigrant groups that came to the US???
I know I'm beating at the wall between American historians and those with specialties outside the US. Just because I don't comprehend Japanese does not mean I ignore their viewpoint when I teach World War II.
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:42:56 -0600 (CST) From: H-Net Central <CAMPBELLD@LYNX.APSU.EDU>
Perhaps Kathleen Comerford had it right when from the perspective of a Europeanist she suggested:
>it doesn't seem "fair" to require some graduate
>students to train in languages and others not to, yet
>grant them the same diploma.
In my opinion, that explains 98% of the reason for the foreign language requirement for American historians. The Europeanists insist that the Americanists not get a free ride. As a result, nearly all American history PhDs have passed language tests. The great majority are in French, German or Spanish. I would guess that fewer than 10% ever use those skills for scholarship in any way.
Comerford suggests that Americanists SHOULD be reading American history written in foreign languages. The problem is that there is very little research-oriented American history written in French, Spanish or German and not translated. There is a good deal written in Russian, but my experience (I once taught US history in Moscow) is that the Russian studies reveal more about how Russians think than about the USA.
Richard Jensen
U of Illinois-Chicago
Richard.Jensen@uic.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 13:22:52 -0500
From: Kathleen Comerford <kathleen@cs.wisc.edu>
In my defense - please don't take my remarks out of context - I said that the part about being "unfair" was my *first* reaction. The rest, which is more well-considered and far more defensible - was my feelings once I thought about it more. Arbitrary rules to make things seem "equal" are no more fair than obvious inequalities. If you reread my post you will note that I don't have a problem with substituting a quant methods class.
Perhaps more people in the world don't write American history because the perception is that American historians *are* provincial. Can't we make our rich past more attractive to the rest of the world by seeming more open to learning more languages? No, I do not suggest, as someone (I've lost the name - I think it was "Kelly in Kansas") seems to think that non-Americanists do, that American historians must translate ALL the languages of immigrant groups in the US. But don't you think that it is responsible to learn, for example, some Native American languages to write Native American history? And doesn't it make a big difference to the history of the Amish to know their language? And isn't, then, the same true of those who want to study Russian immigration - shouldn't they know some Russian? Realistically, no one can learn 20 languages. No one is suggesting that. I am not expected, nor would I expect any of my students, to know a myriad of Italian dialects. But I must know not only Italian, but the languages of those who write the history *of the area I study.* THus, if there are a great number of people writing in, for example, Dutch on the Italian Renaissance, it would help me to know Dutch. I do not study the Renaissance, however, so I do not need to do this. I hope this clarifies my position. This *is* realistic, and it is also responsible, and it is, to use a word I put in quotations in the first post because it is so very inadequate, "fair." It is also rather sensible. How many times can we afford to hire a specialist, as (I think this was Kelly again) suggested? And don't you trust your own interpretation more than someone else's? I'd rather spend hours over a passage learning it myself than farming it out to someone who doesn't share my brain, and therefore my concerns, experience, and needs.
As for the part about losing abilities in a language you don't use regularly, that is very true. But is this an argument for not learning something new in the first place - simply because you might forget it at some point?
Kathleen Comerford
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 14:37:22 -0400
From: William Brian McAllister <wbm8n@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
I'd like to enter the thread concerning languages by taking it in another direction. As far as doing "international" research is concerned, it seems to me that all too often the underpinning assumption is that historians work alone. Mr. Brouscious notes (correctly) that we can't expect any one person to learn a dozen (give or take a few) languages. But I'm not sure that means we can't do truly international history. The way around the problem is to share the work between qualified specialists--with the aim of producing a readable book as the end result.
Having just co-authored an article with two other authors, I have fresh experience in the frustrations of such an enterprise. On the other hand, I see great benefit. As far as I can tell, History is really the last of the "lone-wolf" academic disciplines. Most researchers in the sciences co-author, and lots of multi-author works exist in economics, political science, anthropology, etc. Yet history (I am speaking here about research works), by and large, seems to cling to the lone-author approach. I think a lot of it has to do with an uneasiness about sharing our work with potential rivals before we can get proper "credit" for it, which in turn reflects to a certain extent on the promotion and tenure culture extant in our departments.
I could say more, but at this juncture I'd like to see if
anyone else wants to play ball.
-Bill McAllister, Univ. of Virginia
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:41:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Gordon E Harvey <harvege@mail.auburn.edu>
To put forth a point and a question:
Is the prevalence of language requirements mainly because of the no "free ride" idea? And, if so, doesn't this seem a bit odd? I mean, the logic of you have to do it because he or she has to do it is a bit unfair.
Also, to what extent can we contribute the survival of language requirements for all students to the notion of older professors holding the opinion that you have to pass it because we had to pass it?
(Please do not get the impression that I am trying to dig a chasm between older and younger professors, etc. I am merely putting forth ideas that have been passed along to me.)
I would also like to know of those subscribed to this forum, how many are actually using, or have used, their language training?
I would guess the number would be quite small.
Gordon Harvey
Auburn University
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 14:32:45 +22310353 (CDT) From: Kelly A. Woestman <kwoestma@mail.pittstate.edu>
"In my defense".....I think Kathleen Comerford and probably others misunderstood my point. I agree wholeheartedly with the points she makes in her post. No, we shouldn't not learn things that we might forget. And, yes, there are many times learning a language comes in useful to our research - I believe I made that point and illustrated it. Hiring specialists was only suggested as an alternative. We all know it takes years to learn a language well enough to understand all its nuances.
I think this goes back to the traditional rivalry among historians, and most academics in general. What someone in another field is doing is not as important or as difficult as what is going on in our field. I did not appreciate the previous comment that Americanists that don't feel a need to use foreign languages are "provincial." It's like my saying European historians who only study text hundreds of years old and make a dissertation or book out of "their translation" are conducting a useless exercise. That comment is just to illustrate my point ( and reminiscent of my own frustration during my dissertation research surrounded by thousands of pieces of paper).
The current trend in the OAH is to (over)emphasize the view of foreign historians on US history. With all the fields I try to keep up with in US history, it is enough just to keep up with what Americanists are saying and occasionally take a look at how we are perceived by others. In an ideal world, we would be able to keep up with everything. And, I don't think foreign historians are overly concerned with how we view their fields. There's a place for all of this, but there are other areas that are more important. As I and others suggested, learning to use the computer more effectively in our work is more important to some of us than learning another language.
Kelly Woestman
History Department
Pittsburg (KS) State University
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 15:40:05 -0500 From: tucker hnet <hteach@acc.wuacc.edu>
H-Teach:
Well, there's certainly life in the summer list right now! And what a joy it is too see such deeply felt, forthrightly presented, yet pretty civil discussion.
So I think I'll add my perspective on graduate language requirements. Basically I think it is nice if one can read secondary scholarship in other languages, but the REAL point is to be able to do primary research. An for that, you either have to be pretty damn good, or all the study is a waste. And that means a lot of us wouldn't be historians if being a historian requires being good enough to do real foreign-language based research.
I certified in three language in grad school: French, Russian and Chinese. Pretty impressive, huh? Well, the French I did on an exam just to get one more certificate, based on high school-college language; I never intended to do French-based research. The Chinese and Russian were for real, intended to qualify me to do research in both languages (my PhD is in Chinese History, with minor fields among others in Russia and Eastern Europe). I did two years undergraduate and three grad Chinese, plus two years grad Russian.
So I've paid my language dues - and by the way, do have a better sense of English grammar. Now the research historian reality. I'm rotten at languages. The only one that has stuck is French. The Russian was never really usable, and the Chinese was at its best barely adequate. I once dreamed I could really read Chinese; when I woke up and realized I was still pretty terrible, I was depressed for a week.
I finished the dissertation using as many English sources as I could (it was on the first western hospital in China), and realized I'd probably die of a bleeding colin if I tried to be a "real" research historian of China, using Chinese sources. [Seriously; I developed colitis. When I forgave myself my language stupidity, it went away - slowly.] Fortunately, while studying the Canton Medical Missionary Hospital I discovered its women (physicians, medical students, patients) and fell in love with women's history. After years of studying women missionaries abroad, I am now almost completely focused on US women. And the best thing I ever did for myself as a scholar was start doing the scholarship I *can* do, and quit trying to be a very stressed and incompetent researcher in Chinese.
So now I tell my students this. IF you want to study a foreign area up to the level of doing research in it, be aware that it requires the ability to *really* use another language - or two. Do study at least one foreign language unless you have a very specific problem limiting you; how else will you know what you can do? But as to doing a major history field in a foreign area: Don't go into this lightly. Do go for it if you are able, and willing to to do the language very well. But if languages aren't your thing, don't sweat it, do consider a school allowing substitution of computers/statistics/etc for at least one language.
I still somewhat regret leaving that (research) world, and read as many as possible of the secondary works written by those who can do Chinese. But when I sit down to collect an oral history from a woman who was a traditional farm wife 50 or 60 years ago, before electricity or plumbing, I know I did the right thing. This I'm good at. The best kind of history training is whatever it takes to be able to do good history well, and to enjoy doing it so much that you pass that light on to a few students. Demand whatever excellence of training is necessary to do this; also honor other historian's different excellences. Help your students see all these excellences, sample as many as possible, and then choose wholeheartedly the best ones for themselves.
Sara Tucker
zztuck@acc.wuacc.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 15:05:51 -0500
From: Kathleen Comerford <kathleen@cs.wisc.edu>
Gordon Harvey: I assume you are speaking to Americanists when you guess that the number who "are actually using, or have used, their language training" is quite small?
Is this true? I'd be very curious to know (this is not an argumentative question, merely one seeking information) since I would not have made that assumption.
Ya learn sumthin' new every day, as they say.
Kathleen Comerford
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:06:50 -0500
From: Eileen Walsh <walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu>
It was my impression in graduate school that the issue of language requirements provided some nice bonding experiences for most of the Europeanists, Latin Americanists, Asianists, Africanists, and certain U.S. historians (colonial, immigration, etc.) whose chosen fields required multiple languages - unfortunately for those of us whose research required only English. It seemed like fraternity hazing ("we had to do it so you do, too"). I often thought that, if fairness were the issue, then fairness would require all graduate students to qualify in one language beyond that/those needed for their research.
At Minnesota we had to have two languages beyond English. I qualified in one language immediately from my high school and college work. It would have been easier in grad school had I studied 2 languages in a cursory manner rather than study one intensively, as I had. Eventually I was able to substitute for the second additional language a course of study in quantitative methods (not just one course, and not just in history, and it had to result in a substantive piece of research). Therefore it seems the goal there now is to have grad students be skilled in ways that are useful to their research, a move which I applaud. That removes the presumption that language versatility is more necessary than other skills. The choice of languages, like many other specialization choices, is one of the ways we might distinguish ourselves and our work - but there are other ways, too.
Eileen Walsh
walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:28:22 -0800
From: afhes@VMS.ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU
As a relatively recent Ph.D. (1994) in American History, I, too, passed the required 2 languages (Univ. of Wyoming). I barely made it through German, despite having had 3 yrs study in high school, 2 more years as an undergrad, and another year in grad school as preparation. And, I assure you, I really attempted to learn something of the language (my last name is German and my great-grandfather immigrated about 1900). However, I would not have passed without very careful test-taking. I answered less than 1/2 the questions, but only missed 3. Furthermore, one of the translation passages happped to be about the Roman Catholic Church with respect to Hitler (at least I think that was the jist of the paragraph) and I used my historical knowledge, not my German skills, to cipher and answer correctly.
My other language is statistics--which I demonstrated by passing 2 grad level statistic courses. It also helps that my wife is a quantitative psychologist.
I will never use the German in my research, but I do enjoy trying to read DER STERN or DER SPIEGEL on occcasion. On the other hand, I do use the statistics.
All this by way of saying that the language requirements should fit the needs of the student--I don't regret the German, but it was a real pain and the 15 hours a week I spent on the two refresher courses certainly made it more difficult to meet my other obligations. I would much prefer that students get quant training--most historians do a very poor job with numbers and statistical data and thus tend to err in interpretations of such material.
Someone doing borderlands work (either N or S) should probably have French, Russian, or Spanish--at least enough to be able to ferret out sources. Then, of course, pay a reliable translator to get a real understanding of the material.
Hank Stamm <afhes@vms.acad2.alaska.edu> University of Alaska Anchorage
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 18:05:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Margaret Chrisawn <maggiec@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
I admit I also would like to know if Gordon from Auburn was referring only to Americanists. However, I can say that, since I'm a Europeanist, my language skills are in fine form, and will remain that way. Of the sources I used for my dissertation, 98% were either French primary sources published between 1800 and 1880, or archival materials. This required not only a strong reading knowledge of French, but almost a cryptographer's ability to decipher early 19th-century handwriting. Since the diss was hardly my academic swan song, the linguistic abilities must stay sharp. I don't think my case is unique. By contrast, there have been some doctoral candidates at my school and in the same program, whose linguistic skills were marginal at best. So while the rest of us were sweating bullets in the Archives de la guerre, among other scenic places, they were reading published copies of "Wellington's Despatches." Naturally, there has been some ill-will here, or at least some snobbishness between those who "can," and those who "can't." Unfortunately, the degrees at the end are the same. Eh bien, c'est la vie.
Margaret Chrisawn, FSU
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 17:04:28 CST
From: Max Reichard <mreich@pop3.dcc.edu>
I am somewhat startled by this discussion of language requirements. I am biased about the erudition of our profession, so I presumed that historians would see the value of new language acquisition as natural and necessary. Technical utility is certainly a reason for learning another language, but the prime reason is to be able to empathize with -- walk in the shoes of -- people very different from us. Once you think in another language, you take on the culture of that language. Your personality changes -- and it should. You see things from a different perspective, you joke and laugh differently, you feel things, or reflect on feelings, in a new way. Although I am truly fluent only in English, I have studied seven languages -- three (in addition to English) deeply enough to think, speak, write, and tell jokes. Those are real experiences with other cultures, even though one of the four, Latin, is a dead language and I could only experience "virtually." Isn't that enough reason for historians to study multiple languages.
Max Reichard
Delgado Community College New Orleans
MREICH@DCC.EDU
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 18:20:18 -0400 (EDT) From: J. Douglas Deal <deal@Oswego.Oswego.EDU>
> Gordon Harvey: I assume you are speaking to Americanists when you guess
> that the number who "are actually using, or have used, their language
training"
> is quite small?
>
> Is this true? I'd be very curious to know (this is not an argumentative
> question, merely one seeking information) since I would not have made that
> assumption.
>
> Ya learn sumthin' new every day, as they say.
>
> Kathleen Comerford
In reply to Kathleen C.: This Americanist, while doing research on slavery in early America, had occasion to use some French and Spanish works on slavery and the slave trade. I must admit, though, that I have rarely used either since then, except to peruse occasional studies of New France or the Spanish and French colonies of the circum-Caribbean area. In comparative slavery studies (not really my field of work), these and other languages are a must, but that takes us outside the "normal" boundaries of American history.
As an undergraduate, I experienced a brief infatuation with Southeast Asian history under the tutelage of a very fine historian of Vietnam and China, Alexander Woodside (I DID use French extensively during college for research on Vietnam and Cambodia, as it was then called). He was my model of what I would have to master to do the field justice, and he learned Chinese, Japanese, AND Vietnamese in graduate school, if I recall correctly. Readers of his work will know that he prefers to rely on Asian sources almost exclusively, though he knows a few western languages as well. I knew I couldn't do it and shifted my interests to American history, where I began by considering learning lots of Western (East European, actually) languages to do some proper immigration history, but finally found a research "home" in the South and slavery studies.
I think that, as a matter of principle, all American children ought to learn two or three other languages as early in their education as possible (when the learning is easiest). With computers, CD-ROMS, the Internet, and foreign-language broadcasts on cable tv, it shouldn't be that hard to keep using them. Bring back the Latin and Greek too! I consider my four years of the former in high school time very well spent. Even for an "Americanist."
Doug Deal
History/SUNY-Oswego
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 18:36:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Gordon E Harvey <harvege@mail.auburn.edu>
To: Kathleen comerford, and the rest.
I am sorry to have been so obviously vague. Yes I do mean Americanists. I am sorry for that oversight, and one I should have thought about.
Gordon Harvey
Auburn University
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 00:44:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Dawson <cdawson@Phoenix.kent.edu>
About the view that historians as educated folks should know languages to be versed in other cultures, I agree. I would have no problem in learning other languages providing I could learn about other nations' cultures as well. However, college language classes rarely offer any cultural information, and the language exams do not either. My deparment wants us to know foreign languages merely because the AHA recommends it. They don't care if we know any of the culture, but just want the mechanics of language. Consequently it becomes a huge hurdle for us, because so many of us are bogged down enough in our own areas to be taking language courses, so it becomes the last act in the PhD before the comps, and for many students here, the language exam causes more stress than the comps. I would be happy if they junked the exam and just required a certain amount of language/culture classes. But they don't, so most of us learn the languages enough to pass the exam, then immediately forget them. As a 20th Century Americanist, I don't think I'll ever use my foreign language. Certainly there might be a possibility, but in my dissertation topic and my preferred areas of research there won't be much call for that. Besides, some of us have trouble learning foreign languages. I wish I could learn a plethora of languages like some historians out there, but I really have trouble learning them. To be utterly frank, I have a hard enough time grasping the mechanics of the english language, that trying to learn a foreign language is extremely difficult. I mean, I don't know what pluperfect tense in english is. How am I supposed to understand what it is in Spanish. Unfortunately the history profession does not care. They take pains to train us to be 21st century historians, but still give us 19th century requirements. I'd rather be computer literate than literate in any foreign language.
that's my wooden nickel (two cents just isn't worth much any more)
--
Christopher J. Dawson
cdawson@phoenix.kent.edu
Kent State University
Lowly Grad Student in the History Department
If "pro" is the opposite of "con," what's the opposite of "progress?"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 05:22:43 -0700
From: Grant Hays <ghays@PrimeNet.Com>
Re previous post:
>I am somewhat startled by this discussion of language requirements. I am >biased about the erudition of our profession, so I presumed that historians >would see the value of new language acquisition as natural and necessary. >Technical utility is certainly a reason for learning another language, but >the prime reason is to be able to empathize with -- walk in the shoes of -- >people very different from us. Once you think in another language, you take >on the culture of that language. Your personality changes -- and it should. >You see things from a different perspective, you joke and laugh >differently, you feel things, or reflect on feelings, in a new way. >Although I am truly fluent only in English, I have studied seven >languages -- three (in addition to English) deeply enough to think, speak, >write, and tell jokes. Those are real experiences with other cultures, even >though one of the four, Latin, is a dead language and I could only >experience "virtually." Isn't that enough reason for historians to study >multiple languages.
Max: I agree with you 100 percent. Most of the arguments against having to have foreign language(s) reflect the "traditional" American xenophobic idea concerning foreign languge. It seems part of being "educated" bespeaks that one has the ability to read/be aware of ideas, opinions,, etc. which come from different cultures and countries. Even those in American history, who believe all their research can be done in English, unfortunately they are missing loads of materials not written in English, but about the United States and our history. Obsviously, much of this is not in English. The reasons for not studying and maintaining foreign language skills has costs this country much. I spent over 23 years in government service (military) looking for folks with language skills, training people in foreign language etc., and one of the greatest disadvantages we have as a culture, is our attitude that the rest of the world speaks English, so why should I leanr any other language?!? From the perspective of an historian, to me the resistence against requireing a foreign language is about on the same level as advocating that instead of learning how to use all 26 letters in the English alphabet, I will only learn 20. Learning a foreign language is the only way to really "feel and comprehent" a foreign cutlure, hence is the key in understanding the ideas, concepts, etc. etc., etc.. Anyway, take care. Enough mashing of the teeth!!!!
Grant Hays
Cochise College
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:32:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Madison <riezlmm@u.washington.edu>
With regard to the language debate, my situation is a little different. I took high school French (way back when) and through lack of use forgot most of it. However, since my area of emphasis is U.S. Diplomatic History and my dissertation concerns U.S.-Philippine relations (and because my wife is a Filipina), I have learned to speak several Philippine dialects, including Tagalog. Unfortunately, the language exams here at the University of Washington include the "major" languages --French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. Since Tagalog is no longer taught here, there was no one on the faculty to give me an examination. As a result, I found myself studying French again, knowing that it was a far cry from the language I felt most competent. I passed, barely, but I was not happy about it.
JCM
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 11:01:30 EDT
From: BROSCIOUS@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Grants writes:
>Max: I agree with you 100 percent. Most of the arguments against having to >have foreign language(s) reflect the "traditional" American xenophobic idea >concerning foreign languge. It seems part of being "educated" bespeaks that >one has the ability to read/be aware of ideas, opinions,, etc. which come >from different cultures and countries.
Perhaps some arguments against foreign language training are grounded in xenophobia, but I highly doubt that most are. As I have followed the discussion on this list and taken part in countless discussions on the subject with my fellow graduate students, most of the arguments against foreign language training center on the extra burden it adds to an already strenuous professional program.
I did not enter a Ph.D. program to become "educated," per se. I enrolled because I wanted to be trained as a historian. In other words, I thought I was engaging a course that would transform me into a professional historian, not a cosmopolitan individual (I took a degree from a liberal arts undergraduate program in hopes of achieving that goal).
Undoubtedly, foreign language skills are an indispensible skill for some historians. Those historians should be compelled to learn foreign languages as part of their training. Not all historians, however, need to have foreign language skills to do excellent work. Thus, I reiterate the plea that foreign language training be made sensitive to the needs individual apprentice historians.
I am also surprised that, so far, no one has mentioned the advent of computer-based translation programs. As I understand it, the quality of these programs is rapidly improving and the prices are falling (this is also the case with scanning technology). I have not used one yet, so I cannot speak to their utility. In principle, however, they would seem to make the need to learn foreign language for research purposes rather obsolete.
David Broscious
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 10:11:47 CDT
From: C615SSH <C615SSH@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
As a non-Americanist I was inclined to remain aloof from this discussion. But I have felt the exchange grinding upon nerves already worn raw by a continuing struggle to defend liberal education on the campus of an increasingly career oriented, public university. I fear that this battle has been lost and even within my college of Liberal Arts funding seems to depend more upon job training than upon the broad goals that I have long associated with a University education.
Now the same utilitarian arguments seem to be arising within our profession. If the sole reason for graduate training in history is to produce publications (with or without intellectual value) then we can not defend language requirements. If it is felt that language training is solely for the use of that specific language as the occasion presents itself then how can we justify learning one language and not others? Seeking a utilitarian reason for historians being required to learn a language is similar to seeking a utilitarian reason for an accounting major being required to learn history.
If we accept the purpose of language requirements to be one of process rather than content we are still faced with the question of why language rather than other intellectually stimulating disciplines such as mathematics, literature, philosophy, etc. I would suggest that foreign language study is probably superior to other alternatives because of the variety of thought processes which it requires and because its content exposes the student to concepts of cultural diversity invaluable in the training of historians.
Martin Needels
Southeast Missouri State University
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:17:55 EDT
From: Hughie Lawson, Murray State <hlawson@racer1.mursuky.edu>
>Most of the arguments against having to have foreign language(s) >reflect the "traditional" American xenophobic idea concerning foreign >languge.
This is an example of an unrealistic approach. Americans are not xenophobic, and xenophobia is not the cause of the low frequency of skilled users of other languages.
The actual reason is the very great distance to other countries that speak languages other than English. I grew up in Georgia (USA). It was a thousand miles to the closest non-English speaking country, then you were in Quebec; so far as I know I've never touched anything that came from Quebec (I'm leaving out the Caribbean islands). So, in high school I took Latin.
Learning modern languages is done primarily for utilitarian reasons. My impression is that second and third-language facility is most widespread in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden, whose mother-tongues are not "world languages" but who nevertheless are heavily involved in world trade. The proof of this is that the most popular second language in USA is Spanish; Mexico is a big country, and it's next door.
Old-timers like me can remember when Europeanist language snobs discouraged Spanish for the language requirement, partial proof for me that Europeanist preaching to Americanists on this subject is rooted more in their own needs to speak _de haut en bas_ than in a philanthropic desire to lift the Americanists up from xenophobia.
Europeanists who have a practical need to study the languages of their subjects should drop their insistence that Americanists do it in order to satisfy some aesthetic ideal or to prove that Americans are not xenophobic. In any case, there are many Europeanists who don't read five books a year in a language other than English.
Hughie Lawson <hlawson@racer1.mursuky.edu>
Murray State University
Murray, Kentucky 42071
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 09:05:40 +22310353 (CDT) From: Kelly A. Woestman <kwoestma@mail.pittstate.edu>
Re previous posts, queries on language requirements:
I was speaking only in regard to language requirements for the PhD in US History -- it was not on my priority list in comparison with all the other requirements.
I do not devalue the requirements of learning other languages -- and cultures -- as was pointed out. I have studied Latin, French, Spanish, and German.
Even in my US history classes, we spend time talking about how other cultures perceive us and how we have mistakenly viewed their cultures.
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 12:02:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Anthony G Carey <careyag@mail.auburn.edu>
I have ambivalent feelings about language requirements. I had to pass a German exam to get an M.A. even, then took additional courses and study to pass it at Ph. D. level--for reading knowledge. My field is Jacksonian/antebellum America/Old South: German is useless unless one wants to study colonies in Texas, radical `48ers, or such topics (fine topics, just not my interest); I never knew the language well enough to really do anything with it anyhow; and I've since forgotten everything because I've never used it. I think issues of "fairness" and allegiance to tradition account for most of the devotion to language exams for Americanists. Most would be much better served by quantitative training that would be truly useful in research and in understanding other scholarship.
On the other hand, I enjoyed "learning" German, had some great teachers, and found it ultra-challenging--does help English grammar, too. But it took a lot of time and part of me always thought: "Why am I wasting energy jumping through this hoop?" Several people I know were delayed seriously, even driven out of graduate school, because they couldn't pass a French/Spanish/German exam that the department required before they could do their real work on, say, Southern textile mills.
Is language proficiency a good thing? Yes, I wish I knew a dozen. Can it be fun and rewarding to study languages? You bet. Is it necessary to know a foreign languages or several foreign languages to be a competent, successful historian of the United States in most fields of research and teaching? I think not. But I wouldn't look for abolition of language requirements anytime soon--we'll all be talking Esperanto before it happens.
Tony Carey, Auburn U.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:15:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Alana J. Erickson <aje4@columbia.edu>
In my work on domestic servants in 20th c. America, I've had occasion to use both Spanish and French, the former especially. I've gotten some valuable information on South American immigrants, and also some done some comparative reading to see how "exceptional" America was.
The other thing that strikes me about languages is how useful it can be to do comparative reading, particularly in these days of schools asking professors to teach non-American courses in addition to normal loads.
Alana J. Erickson
aje4@columbia.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 17:26 EST
From: SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU
Okay, here's my entry as an Americanist. I took advanced placement French through high school, and at one point considered majoring in French at Oberlin (double-majoring with performance piano in the Conservatory). I loved French literature, and I loved speaking French.
I also took Spanish in high school, and then when I lived in San Francisco for a while had occasion to use it with Hispanic friends. And to get giggles off the Spanish-language soaps ...
When I entered Hopkins, we had to take a test for a language. Of course I chose French. I had gotten a "4" in my A.P. exam back in high school. I had taken the French achievement test as a reqirement for admission in a different program, and scored something up there above 95th percentile. Made sense to me.
But I was a bit older, attending school with a six year old at home and a husband commuting in to D.C. I didn't have time to hang out with the other graduate students and find out that the way Hopkins gave the foreign languge exam required some insider knowledge. That is, you had to have the Big Larousse with you.
One of the profesors gave us a few pages of eighteenth century French to translate. I just had my paperback dictionary with me. The student next to me confessed to having had only a couple of years of high school French, but she had a HUGE hardbound Larousse she had gotten out of a library, on the advice of older grad students. Oh.
Well, I missed translating a few words, basically because they were very arcane definitions. And not in my dictionary! (The prof and I fought over my translation "counting house" when he wanted "merchant house" -- I said the first was perfectly valid(and it is, humph). So -- I flunked. But the student next to me with the Biog Larousse passed.
Longwinded story. But the point is that you have to be careful of requirements like these, because the WAY you test may not really show who knows what -- in this case, it certainly didn't!
(After a great deal of huffing and negotiating, we did get the pass, but it was not a pleasant experience.)
The French definitely came in handy in my third field, which was l'ancien regime and the methodology of the Annales. And I had a nifty balance between coasts of the Atlantic in my studies.
But since I began working on my dissertation a good fifteen years ago, I haven't had a reason to use the French at all. None. The last time I used spoken French was at the Montreal Olympics, where I couldn't understand a word the Canadiennes said, but they all could understand me (they said I had an accent like a tv announcer in French). Well, that's 19 years ago. So -- I haven't used Spanish since 1973 (except for the Spanish language channel on tv.... and trying to tutor my kids). And -- no spoken French in 19 years, no written French in 15 years.
What has been absolutely indispensible to me, however, has been the time I have spent studying women's studies and feminism outside of history, economic theory, graduate statistics, and a familiarity with computers going back -- whew! -- 30 years now. We're currently working on catching up in literary theory and cultural anthropology.
Sure, it's easy to say, it's always nice to learn a language. But no one has an infinite amount of time. Flexibility in constructing a graduate program seems to me the most useful of all.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 09:16:06 -0400 (EDT) From: bortzjl@conrad.appstate.edu
On language, Mary Schweizer makes a telling point, as do others. However, it seems that part of the discussion misses what is important about language training. Doing history is all language unless it is quantitative, which few historians do. It is difficult to separate what is cultural from what is universal unless one has a basis of comparison. If an English speaker has never studied another language, he/she wouldn't completely appreciate the text they are reading in English. One needs to study another language to understand the nuances of what is being said in one own's language.
The ignorance of the those who practice a field is not a justification of ignorance.
Jeffrey Bortz
Appalachian State University
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 13:02:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John Pankratz, History Department <JOHNP@JOE.ALB.EDU>
I've felt the urge to dive in on this thread since it began, but resisted until Mary Schweitzer's post reminded me that I could offer personal testimony rather than a fully fledged argument. As arguments go, however, I second Jeffrey Bortz's claim to the effect that if the past is a foreign country, then we'd better be practiced at foreign languages in order to make sense of what it's saying.
Back in the 70s I came to the 2-language requirement at Cornell not with dread but with too much nonchalance. I passed the German ETS test, based on two years of college study, but discovered that two years of high school French would not turn the same trick. Nor did a quick reading of Sartre's _Les jeux sont faits_. By then, my then wife had begun studies in French history and the French language, and I cribbed enough from her books to put together a passing score. Up to that point, I suppose, the requirement seemed like a drain and a distraction.
My career with French took on a second birth when I joined my spouse for six months of a research year in Paris -- again, a distraction, but should one have to excuse a chance to live in Paris? -- an occasion I improved by taking classes at the Alliance Francaise (Boulevard Raspail). An indirect effect (or continuation) of that experience was a Fulbright Year teaching American history (my field, after all) at the Universite de Franche Comte in Besancon.
A further redemption of my linguistic education came when I went (sans wife) to the Universite de Dakar (Senegal) for the first of what turned out to be nearly four Fulbright years there -- that's four years of work that I owe to the study of French. I returned to the US with a competency in Wolof, a new wife (who speaks 6 languages), a daughter, some work in African history, and some wonderful memories.
In my four person department at Albright I teach African and Atlantic history in addition to American, and have struck up fast friendships with whichever francophone and/or African visitors happen to pass by. I've begun research on a comparison of the receptions of Rene Caillie's Voyage a Tombouctou and James Riley's Wreck of the Brig Commerce, and so have a chance to do French, African, and early 19th-century US cultural history all at once.
The only lesson I'll draw here is that it's difficult to predict the consequences of foreign language study by an American historian.
John Pankratz
Albright College
johnp@joe.alb.edu
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 11:33:19 -0500 (EST) From: DOUGLAS R. SKOPP <SKOPPDR@splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu>
It occurs to me that this controversy is another illustration of the confusion about the nature and purpose of studying history itself. It is a reflection, or perhaps even a symptom of the historian's own confused self-identity and our profession's lack of clarity about what it does and how it does it.
If history as a discipline belongs to the humanities, then indeed language study is not only appropriate, but essential to fully mine and interpret the richness of the human record. For the humanistic historian, the whole history of our species, in all its cultural and linguistic manifestations, is interconnected and valid. Examining any part of it, particularly a part in another culture, yields insights to every other part.
If, however, historical study is a social science, then quantitative methods and detailed, empirical focus on the chosen topic are what is called for. Americanists would not need, say, German or French to study the history of the US Interstate highway system, unless they wanted to compare it with the Autobahn or its equivalent in France. (Maybe this is why there is so little comparative history, despite the many encouragements from the leading lights of our profession to pursue this approach.)
This hearkens back to the old question: is history an art or a science? I have my preference, as I assume all of us do. That may be another topic for the list to discuss. But deciding whether or not to require language study for a professional historian should in the end serve the best, most appropriate and most valid use to which we can put historical information and insight, not what is most comfortable or convenient for a would-be practitioner. That would be something like saying, "Okay, I want to go into space, but I'll be damned if I am going to wear one of those klutzy space-suits."
Doug Skopp (SUNY Plattsburgh)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 21:09:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Richard C Kagan <rckagan@piper.hamline.edu>
It is a real shame that faculty do not use their foreign language tranining, if that is true. Gingrich used French! I strongly believe that we can get a broader view of our own perspectives if we read the comments and analyses of foreign writers. It is useful if we only travel abroad and talk to our peers. I would like to see the language requirements be more rigorous. I would begin with Spanish and japanese. (Yes, I do use my foreign languages--french, chinese, japanese.)
Richard C. Kagan
Professor of History
Hamline University
St. Paul, Mn. 55104-1284
USA
Email: rckagan@piper.hamline.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 16:06 EST
From: SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU
Doug Skopp argued that if history is a "humanities" you require languages; if a "social science" you require quantitative skills.
But history should not be, and cannot be, "one size fits all". We have different skills, abilities, insights, and in the end, areas of expertise. Instead of bemoaning the differences, Doug, recognize that a person can learn about history in a different specialty than their own by reading the secondary literature, relying on someone else's skills.
It is not necessary to be literate in another language to be a good historian in a lot of different specialties. And it is not necessary to be literature in statistics to be a good historian in even more specialties. It IS necessary to be a good writer to communicate research as a historian -- but not to be a good history teacher or a good archivist. It is not necessary to be a good teacher to be a good archivist or researcher.
I DO think it is necessary for a historian to respect the conversation that is scholarship; to be open to all kinds of evidence, even that which conflicts with his/her favored interpretation; to be open to all kinds of interpretations -- and even if you intensely dislike a particular line of reasoning, to be aware of its existence and not deny others access to it.
Of course it is useful and broadening to learn other languages (other cultures, other literatures). But it should not be used as a bludgeon by which to deny someone otherwise qualified a chance to become a practicing historian. For that matter, the value of learning another language is not limited to, and should not be limited to, "qualifications" for graduate study at all -- if it is valuable to learn a language at 14, or 18, or 23, it is also valuable (if more difficult) at 45. We have to ultimately be the judges as to the skills that will enable us to do our best at our craft. Time is limited.
The key word here is flexibility.
-- Mary Schweitzer
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:42:44 -0400
From: MinervaCen%aol.com
When I was in high school, forty years ago, everyone planning to go to college was required to take two years of one language and three of another. I did Latin and French. Then in college, I continued French and decided to study Russian. In graduate school, I was required to pass reading exams in two languages. French was an obvious choice, but as an American specialist I was puzzled what I should do for the second. I did not think either Latin or Russian was appropriate because I could see no practical research use for either in the field of Early American History. So in the absence of a suitably cynical adviser, I decided to teach myself German. I barely scraped by the reading exam on a third try, after I had done the defense of my dissertation! Since I have never traveled much or had occasion to do any serious reading in languages other than English, most of what I once knew has faded away.
But now I have a different problem. When I was in college, studying Russian was exotic, and I had the comfortable Euro-centric mindset common in my generation. In recent decades, I have come to think more globally, and what once seemed a very substantial language background now seems pitifully inadequate. According to Geoffrey Parker [The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. xii] there are 2,796 distinct written languages in the world today. India has more than fifty, and these are written in fourteen different scripts. Obviously, no individual could achieve a reading language of any but a fraction of this even if a lifetime were dedicated to the task.
Through internet, it is possible to reach out to others for help in translation, and sophisticated translation software also seems to be developing rapidly. Since we are having this discussion on-line, I wonder if anyone else would care to comment on how the computer might be used to help us reach out beyond our language limitations.
Linda Grant De Pauw
President
The MINERVA Center, Inc.
20 Granada Road
Pasadena, MD 21122
(410) 437-5379
minervacen@aol.com
Professor of History
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
"information and inspiration -- women and the military"
Return to H-TEACH Home Page.
| ||||
