Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2009. / Title from file title page. Sean Richey, committee chair; Richard Engstrom , Jason Reifler , committee members. Description based on contents viewed July 22, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (p. 37-41).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1966. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 51).

Thesis (M.A.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Department of Political Science, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (PH. D.)--Columbia University, 1936. / Without thesis note. "Prepared under the auspices of the Columbia university Council for research in the social sciences." Includes bibliographical references and index.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2009. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 124-138).

On election night 2008, a child is conceived by two Barack Obama campaign staffers--Daniel from Seattle, Anza from Honduras. American Cuerpos is a novel about the body and the body politic, about what it means to give birth through the eyes of both mother and father.

Here the agreement between these two Ministers comes to an abrupt end. For while Dr. Koornhof says categorically that the only honourable way in which to do this, is by developing the resources of the homelands, Mr. Froneman states equally categorically that it is no part of the white man's duty to do so. Dr. Koornhof speaks of the moral and altruistic elements in the policy of separate development. Mr. Froneman speaks in the harshest and most callous terms of millions of "surplus" Africans, who must be sent back to their homelands, no matter what awaits them there. He says that African labourers in "white" areas must not be burdened with "superfluous appendages", such as wives, children, and dependents who could not provide service. These two men are in the same Cabinet. If one has been rebuked, it was done in private. And if it was done, it was no doubt done in a semi-jocular manner — "Fronnie, old boy, we all know what you mean, but you must learn to talk prettily." These two men do not represent two irreconcilable wings of the Nationalist Party, they represent the two essential elements of the policy of separate development. And these two elements are essential to each other. Either by itself would be dangerous. Either by itself would be unacceptable. Neither Mr. Froneman nor Dr. Koornhof has reached the stage when one cannot bear to be in the same Cabinet as the other. Although each of these two elements and each of these prototypes, is essential to the other, they do not co-exist in perfect harmony. The one is a naked baas, the other is a bass clothed in soft raiment. The first thinks the second is a sissy, the second thinks the first is a barbarian. They do not say so publicly, but their newspapers do, and that is not good. In the absence of any official pronouncement we must assume that they have been told that the sissy and the barbarian are essential to one another. The sissy will get the barbarian into nice company, the barbarian will protect the sissy if the nice company turns nasty. Why is it that although the barbarian and the sissy do not co-exist in harmony, they are (in spite of the dreams of rift-seekers) essential, the one to the other? Why do the callousness and the altruism not go to civil war? The answer is that neither of them is a fundamental. They are both imposed on something that is fundamental, and that is the preservation of white supremacy (which can be more gently called self-preservation, a soft word that turns wrath in some circles). Neither the callousness nor the altruism is part of the deep monolithic core. The cracks can show, the paint can peel, the fragments can flake off, but the core remains untouched. In times of ease (such as the present), one sees and hears and reads much of the cracking and the fragmentation. In times of danger (which will come), one is conscious of the monolithic core, which is like an ironwood heart in a softwood tree. If we accept the view that Mr. Froneman and Dr. Koornhof have something deep and fundamental in common, is there therefore nothing to choose between them? Or are Dr. Koornhof and his kind, bearers of hope for the future? For Mr. Froneman and his kind certainly are not. Their dream of the total separation of the races, if one chooses to dignfiy it by the use of such a term, is a dream which must be realised at whatever cost, and the cost will be the bitterness, and inevitably the hatred, of millions of Africans towards the white masters who make such heartless use of their power. It is claimed by our rulers that such bitterness does not exist except in the imaginations of sentimentalists and agitators, and it is true that the patience of Africans appears to be infinite. It takes a train disaster to strip the mask from the smiling face. Are Dr. Koornhof and his kind, bearers of hope for the future? Like Mr. Froneman, Dr. Koornhof believes in the policy of separate development. He does not attempt to conceal that this is to be done in the interests of self- preservation. If the homelands are developed, then more and more Africans will leave "white" South Africa to return to the places from which they were driven by the need for work, money, and food. Although Dr. Koornhof did not say so, it is justifiable to infer that he believes that white South Africa will be more secure if it sheds itself of its Africans, surplus or otherwise. There will be no competition in the labour market, no crime by rootless young black men in the beautiful white suburbs, and most important of all, no night of the long knife. But Dr. Koornhof wants this transformation to be made with justice. There must be work and food and hope in the homelands, and they must be helped to achieve autonomy, political and cultural and economic. It is the economic autonomy that poses the greatest difficulty. Even if it does not mean economic independence, it should mean a healthy economic relationship with "white" South Africa. This is where Mr. Froneman parts company with Dr. Koornhof. And this is where REALITY parts company with Dr. Koornhof too. The recognition that there can he no political and cultural autonomy unless there is at least a healthy relationship with “white” South Africa, is for REALITY a recognition by its political opponents that there are moral considera' tions which transcend those of naed self-preservation. These considerations were blue-printed (inadequately) by Professor Tomlinson in the ninteen- fifties, inexplicably ignored by Dr, Verwoerd (his biographer may one day explain why), and are now, in 1969, alternately honoured and dismissed by a two-tongued Cabinet. In any case REALITY rejects the Tomlinson or any other similar blueprint. The wealth of “white” South Africa was created by all of us jointly, and it belongs to all those who created is. / Journal includes vol. 1 no. 2 to vol. 1 no. 6 ; vol 2 no. 1 to vol. 2 no. 6 and vol. 3 no. 1 to vol. 3 no. 6 / Vol. 2 no. 3 is missing

In the mid-1960's, the American people were gripped by a certain nameless fear brought on by America's military failure in Viet Nam, racial tension, student unrest, crumbling cities, and the nuclear arms race. This fear caused many to turn to a new conservatism, for the Democratic Party, symbolized by Lyndon Johnson, seemed to be the cause of many of these frightening problems. The Democrats were believed to be responsible for Viet Nam, for the growing racial confrontations, and for the overgrowing federal bureaucracy. This new conservatism benefited the Republican Party, and between 1964 and 1968, this party became ascendant. Throughout American history, a realignment of party identification has occurred every thirty to thirty-five years, and now the time was ripe. This thesis attempts to prove that there was a realignment in the partisan identifications of the electorate's support for the two parties, and that in the last half of the past decade realignment did take place.

This thesis has focused on the rhetoric of polarization in the 1968 and 1972 Presidential campaigns as practiced by Governor George C, Wallace of Alabama The study has attempted to identify Wallace's major rhetorical problems in selected addresses in Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, The study focused on the major rhetorical strategies of subversion and purification that Wallace used to overcome his rhetorical problems and implement the rhetoric of polarization, Finally, the study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of Wallace's rhetorical choices.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 411-435).