Minutes of the Meeting of  Monday, April 4th

Rose Couzens

 

1.                  Professor Mahoney began class by discussing what a refereed publication is. A refereed publication is a published work, which has had the validity of its content asserted by the scholarly community prior to publication. We discussed such types of publications because in researching for our papers it is imperative we find data that has been accepted as legitimate and well founded. If a student simply enters in a search online, he or she could wind up citing the work of someone who has no official background on the given topic and has simply posted his or her beliefs online. Obviously these are not suitable sources for a research paper and it is clear why we need to be discriminant in choosing our sources.

 

2. After discussing refereed publications we began discussing manuscript criticism and Professor noted how he was actually critiquing a person’s manuscript, however anonymously. Professor was basing his assessment on:

            Validity and originality of argument

            Clarity of thesis

            Thoroughness of research

            Organization and style

            Suggestions

While Professor Mahoney was passing around the criteria for criticism, the class discussed the approaching research papers. We noted that on April 15th the first of two “final” drafts would be due. On that day we will exchange papers with an assigned classmate and critique the paper, offering suggestions where needed. On the 22nd the final paper will be due and this is the copy which we will submit to Professor Mahoney. Between the two dates, we are encouraged to perfect the paper, not write it! The 15th is understood to be a day on which we can receive constructive criticism for a 90% done paper. Professor pointed out that when reading our classmate’s paper we may wish to use the same criteria he is using to critique the anonymous manuscript.

 

2.                  The next point of discussion was the recent passing of Pope John Paul II. Professor asked us specifically whether any of us knew the importance of the Pope’s papal reign on Europe. Pat pointed out that during his reign the Pope traveled to Cuba on one occasion, consoling the Cuban natives who suffered under communism. He also pointed out that he heard on TV that he had been to 120 countries, more than any Pope before him. Rose pointed out that the Pope had visited Auschwitz in an effort to amend the church’s reprehensible “neutrality” during the Holocaust. Darrah noted that in regards to Eastern and Western Europe, the Pope’s being of Polish descent gave Eastern Europe a sense of credibility. Finally Professor Mahoney tied in all our points. He discussed how the travels to Cuba were an example of how the Pope actively strove to reach out to people beyond ideological boundaries. He picked up on Darrah’s point and discussed how Mikhail Gorbachev professed that the Pope had more to do with the peaceful fall of communism than any other individual.

3.                  After discussing the Pope we turned to essay three in our textbook “The History of the Idea of Europe.” For homework we had had to read a section called “A neo-medieval Europe?” During discussion of this section we talked about how during the medieval era the territories were divided into regions. They did not have all-powerful rulers we have since seen, rather there were overlapping and local loyalties. There were also intense regional loyalties. We also discussed Napoleon and whether another leader of his type is possible, and we came to the conclusion that it is not. However, many of Napoleon’s qualities reappeared during the twentieth century in Adolph Hitler of Germany. We talked about how both of these leaders wanted to dominate and wield the power of nation-states.

4.                  Professor Mahoney pointed out a useful quote on page 194 discussing this idea of regionalism:

 

The focus should be on the end of the territorial state (and thereby the neo-medieval theme, since the territorial state has defined the modern epoch in contrast to the medieval), but most debate phrases possible change in terms of the likely end of the nation-state, which is a different debate.

 

 

Jake followed up by asking what was the problem with the idea of territorial states if they provide a sense of nationalism. In response to this question Cherise and Professor Mahoney discussed that with the breakdown of territorial states there would exist a greater sense of cohesion within Europe. The idea of completely separate countries making up Europe is on the verge of disappearance, though there is a greater sense of European unity developing.

 

5.      For the remainder of class we discussed the section of the third essay from pages 200 to 202 entitled “The Baltic Sea Region.” In this section it is argued, “Northern Europe will find its place in a ‘Europe of Regions’, but the region will be in the Baltic Sea Region.” Few of us in the class really grasped why the Baltic Sea area would be the location for this realization of a ‘Europe of Regions’ and again Professor Mahoney pointed out a quote which clarified this section for us. The quote is found on page 201 and reads:

 

The second is that is takes the appropriate form for a European region: it is non-state based. If it was to contain such enormous units as ‘Russia’ or ‘the Federal Republic of Germany’, it would not be attractive to the small Nordic countries.

 

 

            Discussion was ended for the day after we noted how this idea of the Baltic Sea Region as the home of a ‘Europe of Regions’ was attributing to the loss of nation-state power; however, the power was not disappearing altogether. With that we commenced for the day.