Hi Cameron, You look to be in great shape! The first few pages read really nicely - great intro, and very good job emphasizing why the inoculations were so important. It's especially interesting that you seem to be tentatively headed toward a thesis that emphasizes the advantages of a monarchy over a representative government in convincing people to get vaccinated. It seems like your thesis would involve the idea that a monarchy is more centralized.
One further thought that's been on my mind (and sorry if this seems random): David Brooks and Gail Collins had a "conversation" on the online NYT today about the British royal wedding and Brooks, quoting a Wall Street Journal columnist, said this: "'Royalty is the most venerable embodiment of British tradition, tradition is the lifeblood of identity, identity generates social cohesion without resort to force, and social cohesion is the sine qua non of a viable polity.'
That sentence beautifully captures why the royal family matters and why the U.K. would be much worse off without it."
I mention this just in case you want to think about whether the advantage of a monarchy would not simply be centralized power, but also the nationalism/emotional investment that Russians might feel toward their monarch and Americans might not feel toward their president or leading revolutionaries. And how might you understand this in the context of Americans fighting a war against their king?
Looks like you have everything really well laid out and researched here! The first three pages read almost like a condensed version of the first part of your future paper. Also looks like your thesis is right on track and very doable, and the perfect scope for a 20-25 page paper. The last sentence in your 'thesis' paragraph caught my eye, though: "However the way in which the inoculation was popularized in Russia versus America is reflective of those two societies and their respective governments." This is a very interesting claim, and also a very hefty one. Do you plan to research the state of the respective governments further than you already have? If not, make sure you have some good secondary sources on them.
Looks like you have a clear topic: the different approaches to vaccination of the Russian absolute monarchy and the American representative government. What interests me are the religious objections that you bring up. Were these also brought up in Russia? Did the subordinate status of the Russian Church influence this? How does the idea of the body and the relationship between an individual's body and the state differ?
This is off topic, but I was just thinking of all the corporal punishment for crimes in Russia (flogging even minor criminals, beating servants, etc) I've been reading about in my source. That made me think of how differently English people and Russians thought of the state's authority over people's bodies.
I like your topic. I also have to echo what Helen said and ask whether there were similar religious concerns in Russia. Maybe it would be good to find any source that talks about the views of the Russian general public towards inoculation.
I really like the development of your proposal. It seems like it would be great to compare Russia's acceptance of the Small Pox inoculations with America's. It is interesting to me that in America their decentralized system prevented the vaccines from catching on, and it took a war mandate to really spread them. I wonder how these different approachs affected the average person's understanding of the vaccine or how it alleviated their religious concerns?
Hey Cameron, I think you a firm grasp of your topic and seem quite interested in it. The history of medicine usually has some great stories involved, and it's funny (but scary) to see an example of progress that was considered blasphemous by many despite its apparent success. That 1:10 ratio of American soldiers killed in battle vs those killed by smallpox was particularly staggering. It sounds like you have a good idea about your hypothesis, and seem to be able to trace specific instances that acted as catalysts for widespread inoculation. I'm looking forward to reading more!
Based off of your prospectus, it is clear that you have put a lot of work and research into this topic already. I'm glad that you are considering how fundamental differences in terms of various governmental approaches thus affect the provision of societal welfare measures such as smallpox...
What was the success of this campaign in Russia? Did it largely stave off smallpox? What was the results in America? Comparisons of the consequences would be interesting as well.
Hi Cameron, You look to be in great shape! The first few pages read really nicely - great intro, and very good job emphasizing why the inoculations were so important. It's especially interesting that you seem to be tentatively headed toward a thesis that emphasizes the advantages of a monarchy over a representative government in convincing people to get vaccinated. It seems like your thesis would involve the idea that a monarchy is more centralized.
ReplyDeleteOne further thought that's been on my mind (and sorry if this seems random): David Brooks and Gail Collins had a "conversation" on the online NYT today about the British royal wedding and Brooks, quoting a Wall Street Journal columnist, said this: "'Royalty is the most venerable embodiment of British tradition, tradition is the lifeblood of identity, identity generates social cohesion without resort to force, and social cohesion is the sine qua non of a viable polity.'
That sentence beautifully captures why the royal family matters and why the U.K. would be much worse off without it."
I mention this just in case you want to think about whether the advantage of a monarchy would not simply be centralized power, but also the nationalism/emotional investment that Russians might feel toward their monarch and Americans might not feel toward their president or leading revolutionaries. And how might you understand this in the context of Americans fighting a war against their king?
Hi Cameron,
ReplyDeleteLooks like you have everything really well laid out and researched here! The first three pages read almost like a condensed version of the first part of your future paper.
Also looks like your thesis is right on track and very doable, and the perfect scope for a 20-25 page paper. The last sentence in your 'thesis' paragraph caught my eye, though: "However the way in which the inoculation was popularized in Russia versus America is reflective of those two societies and their respective governments." This is a very interesting claim, and also a very hefty one. Do you plan to research the state of the respective governments further than you already have? If not, make sure you have some good secondary sources on them.
Hi Cameron,
ReplyDeleteLooks like you have a clear topic: the different approaches to vaccination of the Russian absolute monarchy and the American representative government. What interests me are the religious objections that you bring up. Were these also brought up in Russia? Did the subordinate status of the Russian Church influence this? How does the idea of the body and the relationship between an individual's body and the state differ?
This is off topic, but I was just thinking of all the corporal punishment for crimes in Russia (flogging even minor criminals, beating servants, etc) I've been reading about in my source. That made me think of how differently English people and Russians thought of the state's authority over people's bodies.
I like your topic. I also have to echo what Helen said and ask whether there were similar religious concerns in Russia. Maybe it would be good to find any source that talks about the views of the Russian general public towards inoculation.
ReplyDeleteI really like the development of your proposal. It seems like it would be great to compare Russia's acceptance of the Small Pox inoculations with America's. It is interesting to me that in America their decentralized system prevented the vaccines from catching on, and it took a war mandate to really spread them. I wonder how these different approachs affected the average person's understanding of the vaccine or how it alleviated their religious concerns?
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
Hey Cameron, I think you a firm grasp of your topic and seem quite interested in it. The history of medicine usually has some great stories involved, and it's funny (but scary) to see an example of progress that was considered blasphemous by many despite its apparent success. That 1:10 ratio of American soldiers killed in battle vs those killed by smallpox was particularly staggering. It sounds like you have a good idea about your hypothesis, and seem to be able to trace specific instances that acted as catalysts for widespread inoculation. I'm looking forward to reading more!
ReplyDeleteHi Cameron,
ReplyDeleteSounds like you are well on your way. Sounds interesting, and looking at the US and Russia simultaneously seems like a novel approach.
Hi Cameron,
ReplyDeleteBased off of your prospectus, it is clear that you have put a lot of work and research into this topic already. I'm glad that you are considering how fundamental differences in terms of various governmental approaches thus affect the provision of societal welfare measures such as smallpox...
What was the success of this campaign in Russia? Did it largely stave off smallpox? What was the results in America? Comparisons of the consequences would be interesting as well.
Great job so far!