Electioneering 1974 and labor in government

Laurie Oakes and David Solomon, Grab for Power: Election ‘74, Cheshire, Melbourne, 1974, pp. 557, paperbound, $7.95.

Peter Blazey and Andrew Campbell, The Political Dice Men, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1974, pp. 254, paperbound, $3.50.

C. J. Lloyd and G. S. Reid, Out of the Wilderness: The Return of Labor, Cassell Australia, Melbourne, 1974, pp. 447, paperbound, $6.95.     

美国西部开发与联邦政府的土地政策

西部国有土地私有化是美国西部开发的基础和前提,也是美国联邦政府导引和规范西部开发的主要手段。私有化的主要途径是出售和赠予,在此过程中所出现的土地投机现象和宅地法等在当时和后来均备受争议。有必要将这些现象结合起来进行系统的考察。     

Dispossession 1990s style: Aborigines,islanders and the policy making process of the Goss labor government

Aboriginal and Islander people in Queensland remain unempowered in the policy making process of government. This is achieved by downgrading and under‐resourcing the relevant portfolio, by co‐locating it with welfare, by giving other departments statutory rights in decision making on indigenous issues which are not reciprocal, by relocating key indigenous policy areas into otherwise antagonistic departments, by ghettoising the issues in Cabinet and by failing to elucidate clear policy guidelines on indigenous issues. The Goss government has also ensured that indigenous people remain unempowered outside of government by failing to legislate for regional land councils, Aboriginal majority on national parks boards of management and an Aboriginal‐controlled statutory acquisitions fund and by retaining excessive discretionary power in the administration of the 1991 Land Acts.     

Prelude to the plague: public health and politics at America's Pacific gateway, 1899

San Francisco played a crucial in the formulation of American immigration policy vis-à-vis Asia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During this period, it was often difficult to differentiate political struggles over the exclusion of Asians from other conflicts. This article examines one such arena: an acrimonious, well-documented argument in 1899 between Federal and various State and local authorities over the arrival of a Japanese passenger liner that may--or may not--have been carrying bubonic plague. Six months later, the plague unquestionably arrived, resulting in the well-known San Francisco plague epidemic of 1900 in which more that 110 people died. Reviewing the 1899 prelude, the public attitudes of the various health authorities, and the way the press reported health issues, collectively give some sense of that historical space where the regulation of public health, politics, and the immigration industry intersected and were fiercely contested.     

美国1882年排华法的前奏:1875年《佩奇法》实施的背景及影响

论文探讨了1875年《佩奇法》出台背景及其影响。在种族偏见、文化差异以及政治机会主义等因素的共同作用下,美国国会议员绕开中美之间自由移民的法律,将限制华人女性入境的立法解释成为一场维护美国传统家庭和婚姻道德的保卫之战。以加州联邦众议员佩奇名字命名的《佩奇法》,在美国国会开创了针对特定群体立法进行移民限制的先例。从法律出台到1882年《排华法案》之间的七年间,移民美国的华人超过了之前的任何一个以七年划分的时间段,《佩奇法》虽没有达到阻止苦力华工赴美目的,但在阻止华人女性移民美国方面相当成功,基本切断了华人女性赴美的渠道,也为七年后的美国全面排华铺平了道路。     

The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy

On 1 January 1127 Henry 1 made his magnates and prelates swear to accept his daughter Maud as heiress to England and Normandy. In the months prior to the oathtaking, certain identifiable curiales ～ Robert earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and David king of Scots - seem to have been supporting Maud's candidacy. Others, including Roger bishop of Salisbury and his kinsmen, appear to have opposed her and perhaps to have supported Henry's nephew, William Clito, as heir. The factions resurfaced at Henry's death in December 1135. William Clito having died in the meantime, Roger of Salisbury became one of Stephen of Blois' earliest and strongest supporters. Maud's former friends, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count, were temporarily immobilized by a violent break between Henry and Maud in the closing months of Henry's reign, but they, along with King David, subsequently became Maud's most active and consistent champions. The two factions differed neither in socioeconomic background nor in ideology. It was not a question of old baronial families on one side and newly-risen curiales on the other, but simply of differing personal allegiances originating in the divisions among Henry's courtiers in 1126.     

The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy

On 1 January 1127 Henry 1 made his magnates and prelates swear to accept his daughter Maud as heiress to England and Normandy. In the months prior to the oathtaking, certain identifiable curiales ～ Robert earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and David king of Scots - seem to have been supporting Maud's candidacy. Others, including Roger bishop of Salisbury and his kinsmen, appear to have opposed her and perhaps to have supported Henry's nephew, William Clito, as heir.The factions resurfaced at Henry's death in December 1135. William Clito having died in the meantime, Roger of Salisbury became one of Stephen of Blois' earliest and strongest supporters. Maud's former friends, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count, were temporarily immobilized by a violent break between Henry and Maud in the closing months of Henry's reign, but they, along with King David, subsequently became Maud's most active and consistent champions.The two factions differed neither in socioeconomic background nor in ideology. It was not a question of old baronial families on one side and newly-risen curiales on the other, but simply of differing personal allegiances originating in the divisions among Henry's courtiers in 1126.     

From the government to the university: Efforts to write national history in the early Republic

ABSTRACT

From the controversies surrounding the National History Bureau in the early Republic to the short-lived National Historiography Office at Peking University, the traditional undertaking of writing dynastic history experienced many crises during the transformative Republican era. The National History Bureau was merged with Peking University as part of Cai Yuanpei’s efforts to separate the field of national historiography from the government and shift it toward universities, as well as his efforts to further reform the university system. In comparing the staff members and aims of the National History Bureau and the National Historiography Office of Peking University, the latter clearly represented an update in terms of concepts and methods. The purpose of the History Bureau’s shift from “dynastic” to “popular” history, which apparently intentionally imitated the German academic system, was to render national historiography and other related research independent of the government, cast off the traditional moral burden of “condemning evildoers and praising the virtuous,” and gradually move forward on the path of specialization for national historiography within the university system. The National Historiography Office’s various editing plans amply demonstrate this tendency. The many winding detours that the “national history” efforts took between dynastic and popular history both expressed the entanglement of new and old ideas within academic circles, and revealed the contemporary struggle between the government and universities.