No description available.

Bill C-31 represents an important piece of policy in the history of Canadian citizenship. It takes its place in a dialog of policy and resistance about who ‘gets in’ and who is excluded from Canadian citizenship. By critically reading the text of Bill C-31 through other policy texts, academic arguments and research, and activist texts, this analysis elucidates historical connections between relations of capital, immigration, labour, and the criminal justice system. It works from a materialist feminist framework, critical of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation as systems that work through one another in dialectical and historically specific ways. The analysis argues that Bill C-31 is a continuation of relations of capital and that a dialectical conceptualization can yield strategies for a revolutionary praxis that offers hope for the transformation of existing social relations towards new and more humane ways of relating to one another.

Bill C-31 represents an important piece of policy in the history of Canadian citizenship. It takes its place in a dialog of policy and resistance about who ‘gets in’ and who is excluded from Canadian citizenship. By critically reading the text of Bill C-31 through other policy texts, academic arguments and research, and activist texts, this analysis elucidates historical connections between relations of capital, immigration, labour, and the criminal justice system. It works from a materialist feminist framework, critical of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation as systems that work through one another in dialectical and historically specific ways. The analysis argues that Bill C-31 is a continuation of relations of capital and that a dialectical conceptualization can yield strategies for a revolutionary praxis that offers hope for the transformation of existing social relations towards new and more humane ways of relating to one another.

Appien est l’auteur d’une histoire universelle, l’Histoire romaine, allant de la fondation de Rome jusqu’à l’époque de Trajan. Parmi les livres qui la composent, nous pouvons remarquer la présence d’un Livre Parthique. Bien qu’Appien lui-même manifeste à plusieurs reprises l’intention d’écrire un Livre Parthique, la tradition manuscrite ne nous a transmis qu’un texte très problématique, intitulé Παρθική, qui n’est qu’un centon d’extraits tirés du Livre Syriaque d’Appien et des Vies d’Antoine et de Crassus de Plutarque. Il est évident que la nature de ce texte a engendré un vif débat sur son authenticité. C’est pour trancher la question que notre thèse fournit une nouvelle édition critique du texte de la Παρθική, prenant en compte les études les plus récentes sur la tradition manuscrite de l’Histoire Romaine ; mais surtout elle vise à prendre parti sur la question de l’authenticité de ce texte, en étudiant la méthode historiographique d’Appien et l’usage qu’il fait de ses sources. Compte tenu de cette analyse, nous pouvons conclure que la Παρθική n’accomplit pas ce que l’historien s’était fixé et que son contenu ne correspond pas aux informations qu’il avait déjà à sa disposition. C’est pourquoi il ne paraît pas possible de considérer authentique la Παρθική. / Appian’s principle surviving work, known as Roman History, inspects the events occurred from Rome foundation until the reign of the Emperor Trajan. Among its different books, we can notice the Parthian History. Despite Appian’s intention of writing a Parthian History, the test that reached us – called Παρθική – is made only of excerpts from Appian’s Syrian History and from Plutarch’s Life of Crassus and Life of Antony. It is clear that the characteristics of this test have generated an intense debate on its authenticity. Object of this work is to shed light on this issue, writing a new critical edition of Παρθική, that takes into account the latest studies of the Roman History manuscript tradition. Furthermore, this work has the aim of taking a position on the question of authenticity through a deep study of Appian’s historiographical method and his use of sources. From this analysis it results that Παρθική is not adherent to Appian purposes and its contents does not match with the information he had available. For these reasons it doesn’t seems possible to take the position of the book authenticity.