Proto-Karen: A Reanalysis.@@@Lahu and Proto-Lolo-Burmese.
Proto-Karen: A Reanalysis.@@@Lahu and Proto-Lolo-Burmese.
复制标题
原始克伦语：重新分析。@@@拉胡语和原始彝族缅甸语。
DOI：
10.2307/2942792
复制
发表时间：
1970
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Becker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robert B. Jones;R. Burling;James A. Matisoff;A. Becker
AFPFL分裂和第一次军队政变，事件及时接近他自己的实地研究。有大量的引用和参考书目是认真的。原版相当容易经受住时间的考验。没有提出有争议的论点，所有的预测都是开放式的；因此，随后发生的事件（短短的六年）并没有削弱印刷文字的有效性。后来的学者也没有质疑这些解释的准确性。特雷格和巴莫后来的贡献可以通过文章或采访的形式提供给作者，而且自1962年缅甸实际上对外国学者关闭大门以来，几乎没有发表过其他可能与布特韦尔的发现相矛盾的文章。貌貌博士的《缅甸》和《奈温将军》确实对看守政府的成立、延续和结束等一些同样的核心事件提供了截然不同的视角。然而，Maung Maung博士的见解被一部可能被视为未经授权的官方传记的作品的特征所影响。作者第二次写得怎么样？与原版相比，唯一的重大变化是在最后一章增加了对奈温革命政府七年的相当健全的政治报道。Butwell错过了一个绝好的机会，那就是重新思考他的书中最薄弱的部分，即关于U Nu的宗教和政治信仰的第二部分。在这里，作者本可以将Sarkisyanz的《缅甸革命的佛教背景》一书中所阐述的线索纳入其中，并取得相当大的成就。或者他可以更好地利用他广泛收集的材料，通过参考安·威尔纳和卢西安·派伊开发的分析模型，对魅力型领导或个性与政治的相互作用做出一些有意义的阐述。20世纪中期，乌努和缅甸的结合为社会科学分析人士提供了一个尚未抓住的良机。
the AFPFL split and the first Army coup, events close in time to his own field research. There are extensive quotes and the bibliography is conscientious. The original edition passes the test of time fairly easily. No controversial thesis was stated and all predictions were open-ended; so subsequent events (a short six years) have not eroded the validity of the printed word. Neither has subsequent scholarship challenged the accuracy of interpretations. The later contributions of Trager and Ba Maw were available to the author in article or interview form and there has been little else published that might contradict Butwell's findings since Burma became virtually closed to foreign scholarship after 1962. Dr. Maung Maung's Burma and General Ne Win does cast quite a different light on some of the same central events, such as the installation, continuation, and termination of the Caretaker Government. However, Dr. Maung Maung's insights are colored by the character of a work that may be considered an unauthorized official biography. How does the author fare on his second time around? The only significant change from the original is the addition of a last chapter of fairly sound political reporting on the seven years of Ne Win's Revolutionary Government. The great opportunity that Butwell missed was to give a second thought to the weakest part of his book, part two, which deals with U Nu's religious and political beliefs. Here the author could have incorporated with considerable merit the leads set out in Sarkisyanz's brilliant Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution. Or he might have made better use of his extensively collected materials to say something significant about charismatic leadership or the interplay of personality and politics by reference to the analytical models developed by Ann Willner and Lucian Pye. The conjunction of U Nu and Burma during the middle years of the 20th century present an auspicious opportunity which social science analysts have not yet seized.