Search

You searched for: Content Type Journal Article Remove constraint Content Type: Journal Article Political Geography America Remove constraint Political Geography: America
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Richard Kuisel
  • Publication Date: 06-2001
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: What might a historical perspective provide toward understanding the current bout of bashing Uncle Sam? There is a pattern to Gallic anti-Americanism. It peaks, as it did in the 1950s and again today, when the U.S. postures as a socio-economic model and threatens a cultural invasion. But there are also new features to contemporary attacks on America. What has intensified French perceptions of American domination stems from changes within France as the nation pursues competitiveness and openness. These changes have brought a perception among the French that they have lost an idealized construction of "France" and are increasingly powerless over forces like globalization and European integration. Globalization in particular magnifies the presence and power of America. Anxiety about loss is transferred to an America that appears intrusive and selfserving. Neo-anti-Americanism is a form of retaliation—retaliation against a seemingly omnipotent United States which tries to impose the self-serving process of globalization on France; retaliation against our obstructionist, expendable and unreliable hegemony in international politics; and retaliation against American promotion of our flawed social model, which challenges a traditional construction of Frenchness.
  • Topic: Economics
  • Political Geography: United States, America, Europe
  • Author: Robert Lieberman
  • Publication Date: 06-2001
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: France and the United States are commonly portrayed as proceeding from diametrically opposed presumptions in their approaches to race policy. But accounts of race policy in these two countries that emphasize cultural and ideological obscure crucial similarities between French and American race policy and thus fail to explain national differences convincingly. Despite similarly enshrining principles of color-blindness in antidiscrimination law, French and American race policy took very different directions in the 1960s and 1970s. France adhered closely to color-blindness in the face of persistent and even mounting discrimination while the United States moved toward an ambivalent embrace of race-conscious remedies for discrimination. The answer to this puzzle lies in the politics of minority incorporation, particularly the kind of state power that was created and mobilized to implement antidiscrimination policy and the structure of political opportunities available to proponents of race-conscious policy. Ironically, the "weak" American state, which produced a compromised vision of civil rights law, proved stronger at promoting the enforcement of antidiscrimination law, while the "stronger" French state has mounted a relatively anemic enforcement effort.
  • Political Geography: United States, America
  • Author: Yong-Sup Han
  • Publication Date: 09-2001
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: International Journal of Korean Studies
  • Institution: International Council on Korean Studies
  • Abstract: South Koreans did not recognize the importance of "the positive peace" until the Kim Dae-jung Administration came to power in 1998. Before then, the concept of "the negative peace" had long been engrained in the minds of South Koreans and Americans. The United States and South Korea have been successful in deterring war up to now. Although North Korea insisted that they should conclude a peace treaty with the United States, their true intent was not to establish "the positive peace" on the Korean peninsula. Herein, the positive peace means that there is neither a war nor a competition, and there is cooperation toward similar or common goals between different states. The Kim Dae-jung Administration began its reconciliation and cooperation policy to create conditions favorable to making positive peace on the Korean peninsula.
  • Political Geography: United States, America, South Korea, North Korea, Korean Peninsula
  • Author: Chang-Il Ohn
  • Publication Date: 03-2001
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: International Journal of Korean Studies
  • Institution: International Council on Korean Studies
  • Abstract: Immediately before the Japanese surrender in the Pacific War (1941-5), there was one Korea, though it had been under Japanese colonial rule for 36 years. The 38th parallel, which the American policymakers hastily picked out as the operational boundary between U.S. and Soviet troops in the Far East at the last stage of the Pacific War, divided one Korea into the two, North and South.1 Soviet troops occupied North Korea, Americans entered the South, and the two sides began military occupation in the two Koreas. The latitude, which Washington policymakers conceived to be a temporary line to halt the further southward advance of Soviet troops and thereby physically eliminate the possibility of Soviet participation in the Japanese occupation, and to facilitate the process of establishing a Korean government "in due course," however, began to embrace new political and military connotations. The two Koreas, even on a temporary basis, thus appeared. The status of and situations in the two Koreas were almost the same at the beginning of the military occupations. In both parts of Korea, people were very poor mainly because of the harsh Japanese mobilization for conducting the Pacific War. There were neither major factories, nor organized indigenous troops, nor influential political groups except the strong popular desire to establish a Korean government right away. Almost every well-informed Korean had a distinctive idea about the future of Korea and the nature of its government. As a result, "too many" political organizations and parties were formed, and, especially, the American military government judged that the Koreans were "too much" politicized. All in all, the situations in the two parts of Korea were almost identical as much as the status of being the occupied. The policies and strategies of the two occupiers—the United States and the Soviet Union—toward Korea, however, were different. Despite the wartime agreement with the United States that Korea should be independent "in due course," which meant that a Korean government should be established after the period of multinational trusteeship, the Soviet Union was not enthusiastic about the idea of multi-tutorship for Korea. Instead, the Soviet authority was busy in communizing the northern half of Korea, trying to make it a stronghold for securing the entire Korean peninsula. The Chief Soviet Delegate, Colonel General T. F. Shtykov, made it clear, at the Joint Commission convened in Seoul on March 20, 1946, that Korea should be "loyal to the Soviet Union, so that it will not become a base for an attack on the Soviet Union" in the future.2 This Soviet position was directly contrary to the primary objective of the United States in Korea, that is, "to prevent Russian domination of Korea."3 Unable to find a compromised solution on Korea through the Joint Commission, the United States internationalized the Korean issue by turning it over to the United Nations. The Soviet Union, however, did not accept the U.N. resolution that a Korean government would be established through holding a general election throughout Korea, and the Soviet authority in North Korea rejected the entry of U.N. representatives. As a result, the two Korean governments were created, one in the South blessed by the United Nations and the other in the North brewed by the Soviet Union, in August and September 1948 respectively.
  • Political Geography: United States, Japan, America, Washington, South Korea, North Korea, Soviet Union, Korea
  • Author: William Stueck
  • Publication Date: 03-2001
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: International Journal of Korean Studies
  • Institution: International Council on Korean Studies
  • Abstract: "By strategy," John Lewis Gaddis wrote in his seminal book Strategies of Containment, "I mean quite simply the process by which ends are related to means, intentions to capabilities, objectives to resources."1 My intention here is to employ this definition in examining the American course in Korea from the origin of the war there in the country's division in 1945 to the aftermath of fighting in 1953. My approach is to analyze a series of key US decisions, from the one to divide the peninsula at the 38th parallel in August 1945 to the ones to conclude a military pact with the Republic of Korea and to issue a "greater sanctions" statement immediately following an armistice in July 1953. My argument is that it took a destructive war before US policymakers successfully matched ends and means in Korea in a manner that ensured future stability. Unfortunately, though, that congruence also ensured indefinite division.
  • Political Geography: United States, America, Korea, Korean Peninsula
  • Author: Emmanuelle Saada
  • Publication Date: 03-2000
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: At the time of his death, the sociologist of immigration Abdelmalek Sayad (1933-1998) was putting the final touches on a collection of his principal articles-since published under the title La Double Absence. The publication of this collection provides, I think, a good occasion for introducing Sayad to the anglophone public, which to date has had almost no exposure to his work. In France, Sayad's sociology has been essential not only to the study of Algerian immigration, but to the understanding of migration as a "fait social total," a total social fact, which reveals the anthropological and political foundations of contemporary societies. The introduction of this exceptional work to American specialists of French studies is timely, moreover, because immigration and more recently, colonization have been among the most dynamic areas of research in the field in the past few years.
  • Political Geography: America, France
  • Author: Susan Carol Rogers
  • Publication Date: 03-2000
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: Peasant Fever That Goes Beyond Corporatism," "Peasants: Old-Style and Modern." Such headlines led stories in the French press about the August 1999 attack on a MacDonald's deep in the French hinterlands by a group affiliated with the farmers union Confédération Paysanne. The incident, noted in the American press as a colorful example of Gallic excess, drew weeks of substantial and sympathetic attention from the French press and general public, inspired vocal support from politicians across the political spectrum, and catapulted the group's leader, José Bové, to the status of national hero. Part of the significance attributed in France to the event, as suggested by the headlines above, lay in claims that this action represented a radical new departure for farm organizations: unlike previous farmer protests-habitually no less symbolically-charged, well-orchestrated, or widely supported-this one, it was frequently said, spoke to issues of concern to society as a whole, not simply to the corporate interests of farmers.
  • Topic: Agriculture
  • Political Geography: America, France
  • Author: Richard Kuisel
  • Publication Date: 06-2000
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: The new millennium brought the loss of the most eminent American historian of modern France. Gordon Wright, emeritus professor of history at Stanford University, died on the 11 th of January in his California home. Gordon Wright was a member of a generation that matured during the war who managed to combine academic life with public service. Born in Washington State into a family of farmers, teachers and preachers, he attended Whitman College. His first encounter with France came in 1937 as an American Field Service fellow. Although he originally wanted a career in the diplomatic corps, he took his Ph.D. in history at Stanford in 1939, published his thesis on the presidency of Raymond Poincaré,1 and began his academic life at the University of Oregon. The war interrupted the peace of academia. While serving as a liaison with the State Department in 1944 he was assigned the job of leading a convoy of vehicles and personnel from Lisbon to Paris to help set up the embassy.
  • Political Geography: America, Washington, France, Lisbon
  • Author: Laura Frader
  • Publication Date: 09-2000
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: An American scholar is often struck by the absence of race in France as a category of analysis or the absence of discussions of race in its historical or sociological dimensions. After all, "race" on this side of the Atlantic, for reasons having to do with the peculiar history of the United States, has long been a focus of discussion. The notion of race has shaped scholarly analysis for decades, in history, sociology, and political science. Race also constitutes a category regularly employed by the state, in the census, in electoral districting, and in affirmative action. In France, on the contrary, race hardly seems acknowledged, in spite of both scholarly and governmental preoccupation with racism and immigration.
  • Topic: Immigration
  • Political Geography: America, France
  • Author: David Beriss
  • Publication Date: 09-2000
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: French Politics, Culture Society
  • Institution: Conference Group on French Politics Society
  • Abstract: "Notre père, un nègre de la Guadeloupe, a coutume de rétorquer à ceux qui, en France, l'importunent au sujet de sa couleur ou de son origine: "Je suis Français depuis 1635, bien avant les Niçois, les Savoyards, les Corses ou même les Strasbourgeois." Yes, but aren't these people black?" This is perhaps the most common question Americans ask about my research among West Indian activists in Paris and Martinique. It is asked in a tone that suggests that the answer itself is obvious and, more than that, that the questions I ask about West Indian claims to identity would be almost moot if I were to just get that answer through my head. This question has always confused me. "It's not that simple," is my usual response, but the truth is that I have always suspected that these people know something about the significance of blackness that I have failed to grasp. Most of these commentators on my research, I should point out, are not social scientists. But there is a social science variant to this question. Among colleagues, it takes the form of a directive: "You really have to deal with race more directly." This suggestion that I examine race generally raises another question. Are French people white?
  • Political Geography: America, India, Caribbean