George III and Parliament*

Circumstances were auspicious when George III came to the throne in 1760, but soon his political actions were much criticized and he was accused from early in his reign until well into the 20th century of weakening the independence of parliament and undermining the constitution. Some contemporaries did defend him and these views received powerful support from Sir Lewis Namier and his followers in the 20th century. Both interpretations have their flaws, however, because of the failure to recognize the profound changes in the context in which George acted over his long reign and the subtle changes that occurred in Britain's unwritten constitution over that half century. By examining how the king appointed and dismissed ministers, sought to influence the composition of both houses of parliament, and endeavoured to shape government policy, this article seeks to revise our understanding of the king's relations with parliament and the constitution and to relocate our overall assessment of him between those offered by his many critics and defenders both during his reign and long afterwards.     

AGAINST POWER? DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN ACQUISITIVE RESISTANCE AND SUBVERSION

Critiques of contemporary political‐economic formations, while grounded in an array of theoretical traditions, have often centered on strategies for relocating power (as embodied in accumulated wealth, control of labor and corporate entities, or the state) in institutions that are nominally more egalitarian or democratic. Such alternative institutions are intended to better represent those who have been historically harmed by the use of power. This article argues for an analytical distinction between such strategies of capturing power on behalf of those without it, and strategies for reducing power differentials directly or annihilating the capacity to accumulate power. We adopt the analytical term subversion to describe these latter efforts to reduce the intensity of, and undermine the capacity to reproduce or deepen, power relationships. Rather than focusing on redistribution or inversion of asymmetrical power relations to benefit the disempowered, subversive strategies work toward decreasing the possibility of accumulating power or, in the extreme case, completely evacuating existing unequal power relations. Thinking about political engagement in terms of limiting the possibility of asymmetrical power relationships (regardless of who holds that power) helps to illuminate a distinction between reactive politics against injustice and proactive politics that pursue alternative, increasingly just conceptual norms. We draw on threads in critical, political, and urban geographies to articulate a particularly geographic concept of “fleeing‐in‐place” as subversive resistance to hegemony, the undermining of the possibility of asymmetrical socio‐spatial power relations within existing contemporary political economies. We propose strategies for research that better highlight the differences between resistance and subversion.     

French Revolutionary Transformations of Diplomatic Practice: The Case of Franco–Ottoman Relations, 1792–17971

Abstract

This article focuses on questions of rupture and continuity in European international relations around 1800, taking French revolutionary diplomatic practice in the Ottoman Empire as a case in point. Historians who have studied the conduct of French revolutionary diplomacy tend to emphasize the ruptures in revolutionary diplomatic practice. The analysis of Franco-Ottoman alliance negotiations (1792–1797) does not fully match with this assessment. Although it is certainly true that the Revolution led to great alterations in French diplomatic culture, French diplomats were often far from discarding all diplomatic conventions. The article gives a short overview over the diplomatic agents working for the French embassy and their reactions to the Revolution in France. It then presents the Ottoman reaction to the regime change in France, in particular with regards to the transition from monarchy to republic. The main focus is on the question of innovation and continuity in diplomatic practice and on the self-representation of the new French state.     

流散欧美的良渚古玉

20世纪初,中国古物大量流散欧美,价格高、易携带的古玉尤为大宗。笔者于1979年-1980年曾旅行探访20余所博物馆,在各馆库房仔细研究玉器。到1990年代,再多次前往重要的馆藏从事专题研究。"良渚玉器上的刻画符号"就是当时我密切关注的专题之一。在本篇中,笔者除回顾百余年流散欧美的良渚古玉收藏及出版情况,介绍四件圆周有刻符的良渚玉璧外,也略论约16至20世纪仿赝良渚古玉的特征。     

England’s trade with the Continent in the early thirteenth century: customs and the port of Dover

ABSTRACT

This article identifies and prints the earliest detailed customs list from northern Europe, which was prepared for the port of Dover in 1233 or soon after, and it gives fuller and more detailed information about trade than for any other northern European port at this date. The list shows a remarkable diversity of trade, including some of the earliest references to particular goods in English documents, and widespread sources of trade including Flanders, Germany and Italy. The depiction of such trading links prompts questions about the ‘commercial revolution’ and the development of European trade, for it shows how varied trade and consumption could be in the era of the fairs of the Champagne towns, before the establishment of direct maritime links from the Italian cities to northern Europe. The appearance of commodities and trading links in the Dover list suggest that commercial development was earlier and more evolutionary.     

The Role of Provinces,States, and Territories in Shaping Federal Policy for Indigenous Peoples’ Health

ABSTRACT

Under both Canadian and United States law, the availability and quality of healthcare and health services to Indigenous peoples are primarily a federal responsibility. Nevertheless, sub-national authorities—most importantly provinces, states, and territories—play a crucial role by virtue of covering (often through federal mandate) services, and regulating health facilities and health personnel off-reserv(ation). While both federal governments have undertaken efforts to transfer, within their fiduciary obligations, their responsibilities for Indigenous peoples’ health to the management of Indigenous peoples themselves, that transfer has considered or included provincial, state, and territorial authorities and resources unevenly, and, in some cases, in tension with the objectives of respecting standards for quality and access. This article applies the methodology used by Canadian researchers of the sub-national health authority issue to the health transfer experience in the United States. The article summarizes findings that demonstrate similar deficiencies as those present in the Canadian transfer process. The article further outlines the experiences of Hawai`i and Ontario as offering models through which to address some of these deficiencies. The article finally suggests that there is a positive relationship between greater participatory models adopted by provinces, states, and territories and better health outcomes among Indigenous groups so included.     

Fannin’ Flies and Tellin’ Lies: Black Runaways and American Tales of Life in British Canada before the Civil War

Fannin’ Flies and Tellin’ Lies examines the many falsehoods told by slaveholders in the American South to prevent enslaved Blacks from running away to British Canada throughout the antebellum. Blacks were wrongly instructed on Canada including fabrications ranging from the Monarch would demand half of their earnings to rice was the only crop that could be grown in the British colony. At times the lies were totally inaccurate and humorous; on occasion they were half-truths or white lies, but indefinitely these falsehoods, instead of misinforming Blacks, suggested to them the benefits of Canada. Blacks deconstructed and reacted to lies by concealing their desire to defile the institution of slavery by flight to Canada and turned the art of lying into a tool of insurrection and a means of greater liberation.     

Tribal Sovereignty and the Problem of Difference in Environmental Regulation: Observations on “Measured Separatism” in Indian Country

Abstract: The legal and juridical sovereignty of American Indian nations is supposed to help Native peoples maintain their own distinct political and cultural communities. In the context of environmental issues, this means that tribal governments have both the inherent and statutory right to set their own environmental standards, which have the potential to protect tribal peoples and their natural resources in culturally relevant ways. In the past, the US Supreme Court has sought to curtail this kind of sovereignty when the due process of non‐Indians might be hindered. In this article, we look at why tribal environmental sovereignty can and should address the issues of due process in the context of environmental regulation in tribal borders, and make a call for this to be done in a way that supports American Indian tribal sovereignty. Moreover, we connect these issues to the current legal and juridical struggles of other environmental justice groups and the need for more meaningful participation in environmental regulation within the nation‐state for all cultural minorities.