No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines the experiences of the overseas Chinese in the Russian Far East during the revolutionary and Civil War period from 1917 to 1920, as well as their responses to the upheaval. Bucking the current trend towards transcultural history, the thesis argues that Chinese identity and nationalist language were of prime importance to this community. By concentrating on Chinese-language sources, the thesis re-privileges the community's internal discourses and highlights the prevalence of nationalist rhetoric across the Sino-Russian border. It also sites the Chinese community's use of nationalist language within the context of the global diaspora, for which questions of national weakness and revival were also pressing. Going further, the thesis postulates the presence of "Chinese nationalism with Russian characteristics", in which the issues surrounding Chinese nationalism as a whole were heightened. It shows that the rhetoric of 'national humiliation' and victimhood were particularly immediate to the community in the Russian Far East, since it was located at one of the epicentres of imperial contestation. In practice, this led to a modus vivendi with the Reds and a decisive turn against the Whites. Furthermore, the chaos of the revolutions and Civil War imbued this nationalism with an opportunistic quality. The collapse of Russian state power became the 'opportunity of a thousand years' for China to redress past wrongs. This allowed the overseas community to work closely with local authorities and the Beijing government to achieve shared goals. New civil society organisations with community-wide aims were formed. Beijing extended its diplomatic reach in the form of new Far Eastern consulates. Finally, common nationalist rhetoric underpinned China's successful attempt to re-establish its civilian and military presence on the Amur River. "Chinese nationalism with Russian characteristics" could be effectively harnessed to secure multi-level and cross-border cooperation.

This thesis studies five mainstream British weekly magazines: 'Time and Tide', the 'Nation and Athenaeum', the 'Spectator', the 'Listener', and the 'New Statesman'. It explores how these magazines reviewed, discussed and analysed modernist literature over an eighteen-year span, 1920-37. Over this period, and in these magazines, the concept of modernism developed. Drawing on work by philosopher Ian Hacking, this research traces how the idea of modernism emerged into the public realm. It focuses largely on the book reviews printed in these magazines, texts that played an important and underappreciated role in negotiations between modernist texts and the audience of these magazines. Chapter 1, on 'Time and Tide', covers a period from the magazine's inception in 1920 to 1926, and draws particularly on Catherine Clay's work on this magazine. It discusses the genre of 'weekly review' that this new magazine attempted to join, and the cultural place of modernism in the early 1920s. Chapter 2, on the 'Nation and Athenaeum', covers Leonard Woolf's literary editorship (1923-30), under the ownership of J. M. Keynes, and makes use of Keynes's archive at King's College, Cambridge, and Woolf's at the University of Sussex. Chapter 3, on the 'Spectator', covers Evelyn Wrench's editorship (1925-32), and explores the relationship between this magazine, ideologies of conservatism, and modernism. Chapter 4, on the 'Listener', focuses on the magazine's publication of new poetry, including an extraordinary 1933 supplement that printed W. H. Auden's 'The Witnesses'. This work revolves around Janet Adam Smith, literary editor in these years, and draws on Smith's archive at the National Library of Scotland as well as the BBC archives at Caversham. Chapter 5, on the 'New Statesman' in the 1930s under new editor Kingsley Martin, explores a period when modernism was more widely recognized, and pays particular attention to a short text by James Joyce printed in 1932, 'From a Banned Writer to a Banned Singer'.

This thesis explores the development of Puerto Rican public health institutions and policy from 1898 to 1917. I ground the research in the major constitutional legislative actions (Foraker Act of 1900, Jones Act of 1917) taken by the United States to highlight both the key political moments in the colonial relationship between the metropole and colony and the accompanying ramifications for the public health institutions on the island. Case studies of epidemic disease outbreaks - smallpox, hookworm disease, and bubonic plague - facilitate an assessment of how political partisanship, international philanthropic groups, and interest group politicking affected the execution of campaigns responding to these diseases. I show that the circulation of personnel, philosophies, materials, and technologies within the American sphere of influence alone resulted in a sanitary imperialism that was a unique and cosmopolitan amalgamation of the latest medical and public health science of the day. I contend that the annexation and administration of Puerto Rico was above all haphazard in the early years of the twentieth century. The narrative that emerges from other historians who argue that highly specific themes or debates were the central issue does not fit the archival record. Such single-factor explanations as race, gender, sexuality, religion, or economic expansion mask the importance of highly particular factors on the ground. This thesis demonstrates that an understanding of the Puerto Rican context requires a more nuanced and even-handed approach than previous literature has provided. Health policy and institution building from 1898 to 1917 is a story of the continuous attempt to disentangle public health from partisan politicking. In large part, public health and disease campaigns were conceptualized as a means of enhancing commercial ties with the international community and improving the economic outlook of the island.

Educational Studies / M. Ed. (History of Education)

Were the years of the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy (1890-1936) in the Presbyterian Church in the USA years of doctrinal development? This dissertation argues that the answer to this question is both "yes" and ''no." This dissertation, in exploring this particular era of modem American church history, takes its structure from well-known Catholic theologian, John Courtney Murray, and his contribution to the discussion of doctrinal development as it applied to the years of the Arian Controversy culminating in the Council of Nicaea. Murray identified three factions in that struggle: the Futurists, the Archaists, and the Centrists. The Futurists, represented by Arius and his followers, sought to identify Christianity with the prevailing philosophies of the day, thereby reinterpreting and altering certain affirmations of the faith. The Archaists, as seen in the person of Eusebius of Caesarea, reacted strongly to the Arians' proposals by not admitting any doctrinal formulation not couched in the 'sacred words' of Scripture. The Centrists, representing more balanced judgment, as seen in St. Athanasius, prevailed in the end. He saw that doctrinal development, which is herein defined to mean further definition, clarification, and application of existing truths, does indeed take place but not at the expense of denying the historic affirmations of the faith. After investigating development, tradition (the results of doctrinal development over time) and historicism (the theory that doctrine develops out of the historical process itself), Murray's structure is then applied to the struggles in the Presbyterian Church in the early twentieth century. Beginning with Charles Briggs of Union Seminary in New York and his avocation of historical criticism as applied to the Scriptures, the Presbyterian Church in the USA was thrown progressively into turmoil regarding just what constituted the historic affirmations of the faith. Briggs and those who followed, the Liberals or Futurists, wanted to jettison or remold a sizeable portion of the historic Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal heritage of Presbyterianism. Further events, such as the confessional revision of 1903 and the Cumberland reunion of 1906, helped to propel the entire church in a Futurist direction. Opposition from the beginning came primarily from Princeton Seminary. Princeton's professors sought to maintain the historic, confessional stance of the church. In this endeavor they were at times Archaists, Centrists, and even Futurists. The efforts of those who would preserve the traditional, confessional stance of Presbyterianism, however, were doomed to failure as the church moved steadily in a Futurist direction. After some brief insights into the more prominent Futurist personalities and the rise of Fundamentalist opposition, the remainder of the dissertation is taken up with the exploits of J. Gresham Machen and his expulsion from an increasingly Futurist church. Machen was viewed as a trouble maker for opposing this trend. Those of more moderate sentiments often sided with the Liberals/Futurists over against Machen. After much anguish and a lengthy trial, Machen was deposed from the office of minister in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. He immediately proceeded to found a new Presbyterian denomination. Into this new church came both Archaist and Centrist alike, who had previously formed an uneasy alliance in opposition to the Futurism in the mother church. The coalition, however, did not last, and after a short time fragmented into smaller constituencies. Although things did not change all at once in the Presbyterian Church in the USA, Liberalism/Futurism became the norm and remains so until this day. This dissertation argues that the confessional revision of 1903 and the work of J. Gresham Machen can be classified as doctrinal development and, thus, Centrist endeavors. All of the other events of significance that characterize the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy were either Archaist in character or Futurist endeavors more concerned with changing the historic affirmations of the faith than developing them. / Church History / M.Th. (Church history)

No description available.

M.A. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

M.A. (Philosophy) / Please refer to full text to view abstract