This study investigates the creation and implementation of elementary and secondary education policy for Chinese-language schools by Japanese officials in the puppet state of Manchukuo. Using Manchukuo textbooks, education journals, and post-war memoirs, it examines the background of the policy-makers, the nature of the ideology they constructed, and the role language played in dissemination of the ideology. The study traces the efforts by the Japanese officials to create a new "Manchurian" national consciousness which they hoped would replace Chinese nationalistic identity among the majority Han Chinese. Originally they tried to shape this identity by employing familiar Chinese models which they expected would mask Japanese control. They used Confucian terminology and appeals to historical precedents to try to legitimize the creation of an independent northeastern state. In time, however, the weight of Japanese demands for empire-wide ideological orthodoxy led the Manchukuo leaders to abandon the Chinese models, and instead portray the state as client, dependent on the Japanese Emperor and in need of an injection of Japan's superior culture. Leading Japanese officials began to support forcing the Chinese to follow Japanese linguistic and ceremonial forms in hopes that it would cause them to appreciate and even willingly support the Japanese effort towards creating a unified Greater East Asia. In other words, their goals changed from securing an acquiescent population to creating willing allies, an effort in which they were ultimately unsuccessful. While the Manchukuo education bureaucracy supported the shift towards an emphasis on the Japanese language, as late as 1943 they resisted attempts at filling the curriculum with Japanese militaristic and imperial material, defying the current trend in Japan and Korea. This resistance was lead by a group of Japanese educators who were participants in the liberal "New Education movement" of the 1920s, who found in Manchukuo an opportunity to implement school reforms which had become impossible in the increasingly conservative atmosphere in Japan. Their success at keeping militaristic elements at bay demonstrates the Japanese empire was less monolithic than usually thought.

The introduction of radio in America in the 1920s was greeted with much fanfare by the general public and by newspapers and politicians as well. Its popularity soared as radio sets became cheaper and more accessible. Newspapers were eager to boost their circulations by featuring the latest craze; many newspapers even started their own stations as a means of publicity. As the country sank deeper into the Great Depression in the 1930s, the relationship between the country's press and radio worsened. The newspapers felt threatened that radio would take away their advertising revenue in addition to stealing their news dissemination function. The struggle for power and primacy that resulted is called the Press-Radio War. This thesis addresses the issues of the Press-Radio War in the 1920s and 1930s in New Orleans, Louisiana. The relationship between the press and radio in New Orleans around this time is intriguing because of the city's size and status in the South. Another intriguing element of New Orleans during the press-radio war is the presence of Huey P. Long, who dominated the politics of Louisiana at the exact same time the relationship between radio and the press was most volatile. This thesis describes the introduction of radio into New Orleans and addresses the increasing animosity between newspapers and radio, which culminated in the Press-Radio War, and how Huey Long, using his political skill, manipulated both mediums and affected the course of the press-radio relationship in New Orleans.

In 1955, Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson established a special committee to investigate allegations of misconduct by American POWs during the Korean War. The Communists had used the prisoners for propaganda purposes and extended the battlefield into the POW camp as never before. The committee proposed the Code of Conduct as a means of preventing similar occurrences in future conflicts. The Code of Conduct puts into words, for the first time, concepts which had evolved from the experiences of American POWs in the almost 200 years of combat preceding its development. Americans who became POWs during conflicts after the implementation of the Code have identified its strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths of the Code is its plain wording. It was put into language that all soldiers could understand. One of the great weaknesses of the Code is the lack of training given to most soldiers, yet the committee that drafted the Code identified training as an essential element to its success. Another serious weakness is the failure of the military to adapt the Code to the current world situation where mid- and high-intensity conflict are less probable than low-intensity conflict or operations other than war. Because of the inherently different enemies faced in those situations, the training should be changed to reflect the differences. The Code of Conduct was drafted in order to benefit soldiers. Accordingly, Code of Conduct training should be revamped to accurately reflect the potential POW scenarios facing Americas fighting men and women.

Few historical works examine the society and politics of both the Trustee and royal periods of Colonial Georgia. This dissertation highlights the central theme that binds the two eras together: the delicate balance between liberty and authority. Colonists believed that the greatest threat to liberty was the potential for the mother country to acquire undue power. To guard against that danger, settlers supported the establishment of strong local sources of authority within the colony that would act as a check against excessive imperial power. The Trustees initially used land, slavery, and trade restrictions to deny political and economic power to Georgia settlers as well as limit the influence of South Carolina elites. The Georgia corporation retained absolute political power in London by deliberately constructing a weak and ineffective colonial government. James Oglethorpe and various other civilian and military leaders took advantage of the situation to assume unofficial authority over the colonists. Protesting that the Trusts property laws and monopolization of political power violated British liberty, Georgia and South Carolina residents launched a campaign that appealed to the Crown, Parliament, and English public for intervention. These efforts were successful enough to weaken fatally the Trustees grasp on Georgia and allow inhabitants to evade oppressive laws with impunity until they were officially repealed. Achieving an acceptable relationship between local and imperial authority was just as difficult under royal rule. In general, authorities in London sought to maintain the supremacy of the Crown and Parliament. Colonists sought to expand local authority through the Lower House of Assembly. From 1757 to 1764, Georgians believed they were making progress toward that elusive balance between liberty and authority. Changes in the imperial system after 1765, however, challenged colonists expectations of future progress. England demanded that Americans acknowledge the mother countrys unlimited supremacy. Georgians were equally adamant that strong colonial representative institutions were necessary to oppose excessive and arbitrary imperial authority. As a result of this standoff, large numbers of Georgians concluded by 1776 that local authority and liberty were no longer possible under British rule.

From the beginning of America's involvement in Vietnam in 1943 to its disastrous end in 1975, southern members of Congress exerted a significant influence on and expressed divergent opinions about Cold War foreign policy. In part because of an enormous increase in military spending in the South fueled by prominent membership on military committees, congressional hawks were more inclined to support military aid for countries fighting communism and accept military over civilian advice in prosecuting the Cold War. Hawkish southerners embraced containment wholeheartedly, exhibited an intense patriotism, and concerned themselves with upholding personal and national honor. Therefore, with some prominent exceptions initially, hawks were more inclined to accept military solutions to contain communist aggression. When America became involved in Vietnam, southern congressional hawks advocated fighting a war without limits for a total victory. On the other hand, the southern doves were much smaller in number but still extremely influential. They did not abandon internationalism until very late, and preferred economic aid and multilateral solutions to Cold War problems. The leading doves, Senators William Fulbright of Arkansas, Albert Gore of Tennessee, and John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, after enabling the United States to deepen its commitment in Vietnam, mounted a spirited dissent that legitimized protest and eventually helped end the war. They rejected American interference in smaller and weaker countries and also upheld a version of Southern honor that demanded that America admit its mistake in Vietnam. Therefore, the South, though "solid" on Civil Rights and other domestic issues, did not speak with one voice on Vietnam.

During the Progressive Era, southern white women were aggressively recruited by the leadership of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the General Federation of Women's Clubs and the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Each believed the inclusion of southern white women vital to its success as a national association of American women; consequently, by the beginning of the twentieth century, southern white women had achieved positions of leadership in each organization. This dissertation analyzes, primarily through the public statements of the leaders of these groups, how these women defined themselves as women, as white, and as southern vis a vis their region and their national associations. As members of national organizations, southern white women used national networks of propaganda--newspapers, speaking tours, convention meetings--to outline publicly their visions of the proper role of middle class southern white women in a New South. Southern white members of the WCTU and the GFWC used the rhetoric of domesticity to publicly construct a vision of useful, if not enfranchised, citizenship based on their traditional duties as women--mothers, wives, home keepers. However, members of the NAWSA argued for fully enfranchised citizenship based on their status as educated middle class white women who, they believed, should share an equal responsibility, along with white men, in governing a New South order. Members of each association used a racialize rhetoric to publicly outline their vision of proper race relations in the post-emancipation South. White WCTU leaders argued that freed blacks needed the social control of prohibition to be productive members of southern society. Southern white club women argued that the GFWC needed to protect the prerogatives of southern whiteness by excluding black club women from the national organization. And southern white suffragists used the language of white supremacy to argue the necessity of granting white women the vote. During the Progressive Era, membership in national women's organizations gave southern white women an unprecedented opportunity for regional and national activism. They used these opportunities to argue the necessity for their voice as an integral part of a New South.

In this paper I argue that the Young Hegelian Protestant theologian Bruno Bauer was radicalized by the events of 1840s Prussia, and that the personal experiences he endured during this period explain his transition from the orthodox Hegelian Christianity that he espoused during his student days at the University of Berlin, to the vitriolic atheism and criticism of the Prussian state which he spouted from 1842 until the dissolution of his radical band of Young Hegelian friends known as Die Freien. The events that had such profound effects on Bruno Bauers thought include his frustration with the reactionary policies of Frederick William IV, the new Prussian king who reigned from 1840 to 1861; his removal from and marginal position outside of official Prussian academic life; the availability of radical journals, newspapers, and publishers; and Bauers patronage of radical political clubs and salons as outlets for the expression of that radicalism. Bauers career is historically significant for a number of reasons. First, it reveals the attitudes of intellectuals disaffected with the reactionary regime of Frederick William IV. It also demonstrates the political choices that early nineteenth-century German academics were forced to make whether to support or to criticize the existing regime and the consequences of those (in Bauers case, negative) choices on their careers and their lives. Bauers life and career is also significant in that it illuminates the relationship between theology and politics in early nineteenth-century Prussia.

At Lever Brothers soap company in Port Sunlight, U.K., William Lever, between 1888-1925, instituted employee benefits that preceded the welfare state. Yet, in addition to providing tangible benefits for the employees (including free medical care, pensions, an employee profit-sharing scheme), Lever also created a strong corporate identity for his employees by cultivating a strong company and personal image, one constructed in response to national discourses surrounding industrialization, empire, national identity, and economic decline. Lever offered his company as a solution to national concerns and thus posited his workers as participants in patriotic efforts and empire-building. He forged an effective company culture by constructing a positive image of himself, his company, and his factory town. Lever constructed and defended this image through various channels. In public addresses, he carefully constructed his own ethos. In Port Sunlight, architecture was a rhetorical method for constructing and consolidating a company image that looked to an idealized past. Media events, Lever's art collection, advertisements, and company, local, and national publications further promoted the company culture and the employees' roles in it. This carefully constructed image was an important element in the development of an overall corporate culture that helped thrust Lever Brothers (later Unilever) into multinational status. This dissertation shows that analysis of paternalist companies such as Lever Brothers must be conducted through a wide lens to account for the influence of cultural factors on the company's success as well as to recognize the role of such factors in the successful construction of company identity.

Sallie Rhett Roman, Helen Grey Gilkison and Iris Turner Kelso were three women journalists in Louisiana, active in consecutive time periods from 1891 to 1996. Their work brings up five particular questions. First, Why did these women start working and how did they negotiate public employment? Second, how did they balance the relationship between work and home since they did find employment outside of the home? Third, how did they fit into their contemporary image of women and journalists? Fourth, how did they use written language to portray a particular voice to the reader for a particular purpose? Fifth, did they choose to cover specifically male or female topics in their articles? Answering these questions reveals that these three women challenged traditional roles for women in different ways. Sallie Rhett Roman, wrote from 1891 to 1909, had to negotiate much more strict societal norms for women and portrayed herself as a male writer to her audience. Helen Grey Gilkison, active from the late 1920s to the late 1940s, did not mask her gender but encouraged the idea that she was a member of the political social club with political access. Iris Turner Kelso, working after World War II, portrayed herself as having access to politicians and political events, but only as a way to suggest that she could provide the reader the straight scoop. Each woman in her own way created an image of herself as an insider in the political process. By relying on the image of insider, these women did not overtly challenge the political or social system but rather supported it. Kelso was the only one who criticized those in politics and even she did not promote significant change in the political systems of New Orleans or the state of Louisiana.

Contrary to many historical accounts that depict white resistance to civil rights legislation in the United States Senate as relying exclusively on filibusters and overt racism, southern senators adopted a more moderate approach in the late 1930s when they realized that civil rights activism would continue until Jim Crow collapsed. Following strategic delay, a tactical model that enabled them to thwart civil rights advances for decades, they granted minor concessions on bills only tangentially related to civil rights and emasculated more substantive measures, rather than always utilizing the filibuster. The level of northern support for a given civil rights proposal dictated which approach southerners employed. As southern senators altered their legislative strategy to counter greater public support for civil rights, they also transformed their arguments, crafting their claims to appeal to northerners, who they believed cared little about the plight of black southerners. Southern senators linked their defense of segregation with the nation's founding principles and depicted themselves as the guarantors of the federal system as defined by the Revolutionary generation. At the same time, they limited the use of overt racism that had formerly served as their primary defense of segregation. Despite the advantages accrued by following a conciliatory approach at the federal level, southern senators proved unwilling to intervene on the state level. This decision undermined their long-term objective of preserving segregation. Unlike southern senators, local politicians did not moderate their actions because they answered only to their white constituents, not a national audience. By not challenging racial demagogues in the South, southern senators allowed the extremism that resulted from "massive resistance," especially white assaults on non-violent civil rights protestors, to flourish. As a result, many northerners by the 1960s began to question the long-standing southern claim that Jim Crow produced racial harmony. Southern senators then abandoned strategic delay and lost their fight to preserve segregation. Had the legislative battle to desegregate public accommodations occurred in the context of black violence in the late 1960s, rather than white violence of the early 1960s, southern senators might have succeeded in defeating the proposal.