top of page


Public·19 members


Featuring interviews with prominent contemporary artists working in the landscape photography tradition, the catalogue, from the acclaimed "Devour the Land" exhibition at the Harvard Art Museums, presents a lively range of voices at the intersection of art, environmentalism, militarism, photography, and politics, and traces the impacts of militarism on the American terrain.


Download Zip:

As it became clearer that an invasion was imminent, many Ukrainian civilians began training to defend their homeland, while thousands of others were forced to evacuate.Vadim Ghirda and Emilio Morenatti/AP Photos

Ukrainians, having tasted victory on the battlefield and united in their desire for justice and revenge, cannot accept a land-for-peace compromise. For Putin, whose war it is primarily, compromise is not an option after the humiliation of the failed campaign in pursuit of his maximalist objectives. This war was not existential for him when he began it, but it is now. He has staked his entire presidency on it and must win it. He is preparing for a long war.

That leaves the United States and its allies without any good options as the war enters its second year, except to ramp up military support and hope for the best. It is not morally right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, but it is not right either to dictate to Ukrainians what they should settle for in their just war. A land-for-peace compromise is not an option for them, especially since it is unlikely to bring them the kind of stable, durable peace they need and deserve. They would live under a constant threat of renewed Russian aggression.

War may not be on the rocks, but it is frequently over rocks. Land, to be exact. From the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, to concerns that Russia is preparing to launch an invasion to conquer Eastern Ukraine, war is frequently, if not always, over land.

Political geographers emphasize that the idea of territory should not be conflated with just land. The meaning needs to be considered more deeply. Political actors, such as states, define their ownership of a place as a means of asserting influence. Hence, it is the need to assert influence over others, not the land itself, that drives conflict

If possible, states will avoid militarization all together in order to acquire disputed territory. Though former President Donald Trump was widely lampooned for suggesting that the United States buy Greenland from Denmark, the truth is that land purchases were not uncommon for much of history. The Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska are just two examples familiar to most Americans. Land purchases by states are still done today, though the practice is less frequent and the tracts of land are much smaller.

All of this suggests that the future will largely resemble the past: Territory will remain valuable, states will seek to acquire it, and conflicts will inevitably arise. The consequence is that war, particularly over land, is here to stay.

Changing Land is a fascinating study of class, gender, social and political reform, and the diaspora during the Land War in nineteenth-century Ireland. It argues convincingly that the land war was part of a wider ideological moment in world history and that social activism should be accorded attention equal to the political perspective, in the nationalist narrative. It is a fine exemplar of how to take an integrated approach to the history of Ireland and that of its geographically widespread diaspora. Based on hitherto unseen primary sources, this book offers an innovative and significant contribution to the received historical narrative of the land war in Ireland and within the diaspora, as well as inserting Ireland into the history of international radicalism.

An outstanding work, meticulously researched, lucidly written, and conceptually sophisticated. Changing Land promises to be one of the most exciting books published on Irish history this year. Whelehan is an outstanding scholar and this volume will consolidate his reputation as among the leading historians of Ireland.

The collection consists of images of application files for military bounty land. Related bounty land certificate files are indexed, but not imaged. Following a 1779 legislative act, the state offered bounty lands for Revolutionary War military service. To qualify, a Virginia soldier or sailor had to serve at least three years continuously in the Continental or state forces. No bounty land was given by the state for militia service.

The Land Office recorded the submitted military certificates in a register that often included a notation of the associated land warrants. Often multiple warrants were issued based on the same certificate, particularly for larger land bounties. The certificate files and registers have not been digitized, but they are available on microfilm that may be borrowed through interlibrary loan.

Since Virginia bounty land was located either in present-day Kentucky or Ohio, most records of surveys and grants are held by those states and are not in the Library of Virginia's archival collections. Land grants in Kentucky, before it was established as a state in 1792, were recorded in the Virginia Land Grant Books. The land surveys were transferred to Kentucky in 1798.

After the U. S. Congress passed the Scrip Act in 1830 (amended in 1832 and 1833), those who held Virginia state warrants could exchange them for scrip that could be used to acquire Federal land available for public sale. In 1852, Virginia relinquished all remaining land claims, and the U. S. Congress required outstanding warrants to be submitted for Federal scrip. Warrants surrendered for scrip, along with accompanying application records, are held by the National Archives.

The federal government also granted bounty land for Revolutionary War service. Many Virginia veterans and their heirs applied for federal military bounty land grants, particularly as more land became available and the qualifications were reduced. Records of federal claims and grants are held by the National Archives. See the Related Resources section for publications about federal grants.

In the East Jerusalem neighborhoods of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, Israeli settler organizations advanced efforts to take possession of Palestinian homes and evict their long-term residents. They have done so under a discriminatory law, upheld by Israeli courts, that allow these groups to pursue claims for land they claim Jews owned in East Jerusalem before 1948. Palestinians, including Sheikh Jarrah residents set to be displaced, are barred under Israeli law from reclaiming property they owned in what became Israel, and from which they fled in 1948. A final court ruling on many of these cases is pending.

The separation barrier, which Israel said it built for security reasons but 85 percent of which falls within the West Bank rather than along the Green Line separating Israeli from Palestinian territory, cuts off thousands of Palestinians from their agricultural lands. It also isolates 11,000 Palestinians who live on the western side of the barrier but are not allowed to travel to Israel and whose ability to cross the barrier to access their property and basic services is highly restricted.

As part of the Islamic conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century, Arab peoples began to settle in significant numbers in the land. Apart from a relatively brief period of Crusader control, Palestine remained under Muslim control for just under 12 centuries, its population overwhelmingly Arab.

The fact of the war and the course of the war, which is the central theme of our case, is history. From September 1st, 1939, when the German armies crossed the Polish frontier, until September 1942, when they met epic resistance at Stalingrad, German arms seemed invincible. Denmark and Norway, the Netherlands and France, Belgium and Luxembourg, the Balkans and Africa, Poland and the Baltic States, and parts of Russia, all had been overrun and conquered by swift, powerful, well-aimed blows. That attack on the peace of the world is the crime against international society which brings into international cognizance crimes in its aid and preparation which otherwise might be only internal concerns. It was aggressive war, which the nations of the world had renounced. It was war in violation of treaties, by which the peace of the world was sought to be safe-guarded.

Let us now see how the leaders of the Party fulfilled their pledge to proceed regardless of consequences. Obviously, their foreign objectives, which were nothing less than to undo international treaties and to wrest territory from foreign control, as well as most of their internal program, could be accomplished only by possession of the machinery of the German State. The first effort, accordingly, was to subvert the Weimar Republic by violent revolution. An abortive putsch at Munich in 1923 landed many of them in jail. A period of meditation which followed produced Mein Kampf, henceforth the source of law for the Party workers and a source of considerable revenue to its supreme leader. The Nazi plans for the violent overthrow of the feeble Republic then turned to plans for its capture.

Threats of aggression had succeeded without arousing resistance. Fears nevertheless had been stirred. They were lulled by an assurance to the Czechoslovak Government that there would be no attack on that country. We will show that the Nazi Government already had detailed plans for the attack. We will lay before you the documents in which these conspirators planned to create an incident to justify their attack. They even gave consideration to assassinating their own Ambassador at Prague in order to create a sufficiently dramatic incident. They did precipitate a diplomatic crisis which endured throughout the summer. Hitler set September 30th as the day when troops should be ready for action. Under the threat of immediate war, the United Kingdom and France concluded a pact with Germany and Italy at Munich on September 29, 1938, which required Czechoslovakia to acquiesce in the cession of the Sudetenland to Germany. It was consummated by German occupation on October 1, 1938. 041b061a72

  • About

    Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

    bottom of page