This thesis examines the premises postulated by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin and Homi K. Bhabha within Postcolonial theory. The theorists suggest that these strategies can be applied to the entire literary production emerging from the erstwhile European colonies in Asia and Latin America; hence the aim of this project is to test the validity of their claim. Given the vastnesss of the theory, the scope of this study has been confined to the analysis of hybridity, Nativism, and mimicry. Critical works by Benita Parry, Walter Mignolo, Neil Lazarus, and others, have been taken into consideration. José María Arguedas (1911-1969), Arundhati Roy (1963-) and Geetanjali Shree (1957-), writing in Spanish, English and Hindi, respectively, were chosen to represent Peru and India. The Hindi novel was included to address the lack of adequate research in the field of vernacular literature within Postcolonial studies, as most of the critics have concentrated on texts written in the former colonizers’ languages. Language and culture have been the cornerstones of this theory hence they form an important part of my analysis. The dissertation foregrounds the relation between Spanish, English and the vernaculars in the text-nations crafted by Arguedas, and Roy. Their narratives indicate that the vernacular melds with the colonizer’s language to form a hybrid tongue, but the manner in which hybridity is constructed depends on the geo-political character of each society. The role of Hindi, its relation to English and Urdu, as well as the invention of its Sanskritized version during the colonial period, is examined in Shree’s narrative and her work is particularly insightful in this regard, as hybridity and Nativism are portrayed very differently in her novel. In this way my thesis demonstrates the difficulty of carrying out a comparative analysis of the entire literary corpus emerging from the erstwhile European colonies based solely on their shared colonial experience.

Recent work in empirical moral psychology has led to at least one point of consensus: intuitive, psychologically-spontaneous cognitive processes play a central and inescapable role in moral evaluation. However, among those who accept that intuitive processes play a central role there remains much debate concerning the underlying character of these intuitive processes, as well as their developmental and evolutionary origins. The two dominant approaches are represented by psychological sentimentalists, who hold that these underlying processes are essentially emotion-driven, and moral nativists, who hold that these processes are subserved by innate, tacitly-held moral principles. In the course of this dissertation I critically examine each of these prominent psychological accounts, and work to outline a novel alternative. Questions concerning the psychological processes involved in moral judgment are interesting in their own right, as well as for their potential relevance to debates in ethical theory. The observed role of intuitive processing in moral judgment challenges those traditions in psychology and philosophy according to which deliberate rational processes do or should dominate. Indeed, it is widely thought that the centrality of these intuitive processes serves to undermine the status of morality and the epistemic standing of moral beliefs. Both the sentimentalist and the nativist analyses of intuitive moral judgment have been used to ground challenges to the status of morality and moral belief. I build on my critiques of the empirical adequacy of the psychological and evolutionary claims grounding these challenges to develop ways to defeat them. When properly understood, neither of these accounts of intuitive moral psychology supports a global challenge to the epistemic standing of moral belief.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1944 / Includes bibliographical references (p. 159-166). Also issued in print and microfiche.

Published also as author's Thesis (Ph. D.), Columbia University, 1901. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 255-259).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1948. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. "Bibliographical essay" : leaves [304]-333.

Before and during the Civil War, Richmond's German-Americans were divided by their diverse politics, economic interests, cultures, and religions. Some exhibited Confederate sentiments and others Unionist. At the start of the war, scores of Richmond's German-born men volunteered for Confederate military service while others fled to the North. Those who remained found that they were not fully accepted as members of the Confederate citizenry. Political allegiances within the German-American community were not static. They changed during the course of the war, largely under the influence of nativism. Nativists put into practice a self-fulfilling prophecy that, by accusing the German-born of disloyalty, alienated them and discouraged their sympathies towards the Confederacy. In doing so, by constructing an image of a German antihero, the Confederacy built up its spirit of nationalism. Although German immigrants moved to cities, in the South and in the North, primarily in order to seek economic opportunities, the immigrants who came to Richmond were different from their ethnic counterparts of the North. As they assimilated and acculturated to the South, their values, behaviors, and loyalties became diverse. By the time of the Civil War, the German-American community of Richmond was quite divided. A common ethnicity failed to hold even those hundreds of German-Americans living in Richmond to one political ideology. Their story illustrates that ethnic divisions often do not coincide with political ones. Richmond's German-American community received, during the Civil War, a reputation for universal disloyalty. This myth continues today, though a complex analysis of the German-born does not support it. / Master of Arts

abstract: Non-Natives and Nativists is a relational analysis of contemporary multiethnic literatures in two countries formed by settler colonialism, the process of nation-building by which colonizers attempt to permanently invade Indigenous lands and develop their own beliefs and practices as governing principles. This dissertation focuses on narratives that establish and sustain settlers’ claims to belonging in the US and Australia and counter-narratives that problematize, subvert, and disavow such claims. The primary focus of my critique is on settler-authored works and the ways they engage with, perpetuate, and occasionally challenge normalized conditions of belonging in the US and Australia; however, every chapter discusses works by Indigenous writers or non-Indigenous writers of color that put forward alternative, overlapping, and often competing claims to belonging. Naming settler narrative strategies and juxtaposing them against those of Indigenous and arrivant populations is meant to unsettle the common sense logic of settler belonging. In other words, the specific features of settler colonialism promulgate and govern a range of devices and motifs through which settler storytellers in both nations respond to related desires, anxieties, and perceived crises. Narrative devices such as author-perpetrated identity hoax, settings imbued with uncanny hauntings, and plots driven by fear of invasion recur to the point of becoming recognizable tropes. Their perpetuation supports the notion that the logics underwriting settler colonialism persist beyond periods of initial colonization and historical frontier violence. These logics—elimination and possession—still shape present-day societies in settler nations, and literature is one of the primary vehicles by which they are operationalized. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation English 2019

Thesis advisor: Kevin Kenny / This dissertation examines the origins of American immigration policy. Without denying the importance of anti-Asian racism, it locates the roots of federal immigration policy in nativism and economics in nineteenth-century Massachusetts. The influx of poor Irish immigrants over the first half of the nineteenth century provoked anti-Irish nativism, or intense hostility toward foreigners, in Massachusetts. Building upon colonial laws for banishing paupers, nativists in Massachusetts developed policies for prohibiting the entry of destitute alien passengers by ship and railroad and for deporting immigrant paupers in the state to Ireland, Liverpool, British North America, or other American states where they resided before coming to Massachusetts. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, citizenship and its attendant rights remained inchoate, allowing anti-Irish nativism to override certain rights and liberties that were later taken for granted. Nativist officials seized and banished paupers of Irish descent, including some who were born or naturalized in America. Historians have long seen anti-Irish nativism as a set of prejudiced ideas that generated few consequences at the level of law and policy, and have identified late-nineteenth-century federal Chinese exclusion laws as the beginnings of American immigration control. This dissertation argues that anti-Irish nativism in Massachusetts had a significant practical impact on Irish immigrants in the form of state deportation policies, and demonstrates that Massachusetts' policies, which were driven by a poisonous combination of prejudice against the Irish and economic concerns, helped lay the foundations for later federal restriction policies that applied to all immigrants. The argument unfolds in a transnational context, examining the migration of paupers from Ireland, their expulsion from America, and their post-deportation experiences in Britain and Ireland. In this way, deportation from the United States can be seen as part of a wider system of pauper restriction and forcible removal operating in the Atlantic world. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2012. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.

Thesis advisor: James M. O'Toole / This dissertation argues that the movement to restrict European immigration to the United States in the early 1900s was critically supported by a set of ideas that the dissertation refers to as "classic racialism." Derived from several intellectual traditions - such as anthropology, biology, criminology, eugenics and zoology - classic racialism posited that differences in human population groups were biologically determined and hereditary, and because of this fact, American nativists held that the "new" immigration to the United States had to be curtailed in order to save the American Anglo-Saxon racial stock. The dissertation uses Italian immigration to the United States as a case study for understanding the fluidity of racial and biological thought. While classic racialism played a key role in supporting nativists' calls for immigration restriction, advances in methods of scientific research were revolutionizing the fields of biology, genetics and anthropology. Research in these fields cast doubts on the veracity of intellectual claims made by classic racialists, which were increasingly untenable in the light of advancing scientific knowledge. The tensions between these competing intellectual paradigms of classic racialism and modern experimentalism in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries reveal the esoteric nature of scientific revolutions, in that the uncertainty and complexity of the developing biological and genetic sciences kept knowledge of scientific advances in these fields restricted to a narrow audience of professional scientists and academics. While modern experimental biology raised significant scientific doubts about the principles of classic racialism, it was the latter that influenced American immigration policy in the 1920s because of classic racialism's simplicity and the broad public recognition that "like produces like." / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2009. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.

Anti-immigrant sentiment particularly against Mexicans in the United States has had a dramatic influence on the lives of immigrants and on how they perceive the host society. Today, little research has addressed the extent to which this enmity has affected the mental-well being of immigrants. Based on 30 in-depth interviews in Houston this study investigates the degree to which nativism contributes to depression among Mexican-origin immigrant women. The findings reveal that undocumented status was salient and contributed to symptoms of depression. Additionally, my respondents revealed perceptions of intra-ethnic conflict among Mexican Americans. This thesis further explores how segmented assimilation theory can be expanded to better understand the complexities and nuances that Mexican immigrant women endure taking into consideration immigration status, racial/ethnic identity, and the structural barriers which plays a major role in their integration and mental health well-being.