We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
The English Historical Review
First published in 1886, The English Historical Review is the oldest journal of historical scholarship in the English-speaking world. It deals not only with British history, but with almost all aspects of European and world history since the classical era. It covers the history of the Americas, including the foreign policy of the USA and her role in the wider world (but excluding the domestic history of the USA since Independence). With contributions from around the world, the EHR includes major articles, notes and documentations, and debates on medieval and modern themes, and an unrivalled range and quantity of reviews of books published worldwide, along with a summary of international literature, published in the September issue each year.
The English Historical Review appears in February, April, June, September, and November each year, and with 288 pages in each issue, subscribers receive well over 1400 pages a year of the best in modern historical scholarship, of which some 800 pages or more are devoted to books.
The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal. Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.
Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted.
For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.
Terms Related to the Moving Wall Fixed walls: Journals with no new volumes being added to the archive. Absorbed: Journals that are combined with another title. Complete: Journals that are no longer published or that have been combined with another title.
Review: Volume 57 - History
Winner of the 2012 John T. Hubbell Award
Our feature article in the December issue by J. David Hacker “A Census-Based Count of the Civil War Dead,” argues that the century-old estimate of 620,000 is far too low. Using new national samples of the 1850-1880 censuses and a census-based method of mortality estimation, Hacker argues that the likely total was approximately 750,000. This essay is a direct response to Mark Neely’s recent contention that Drew Gilpin Faust’s work on death and dying in the war “serves most importantly to show how old and how little analyzed are figures so important to understanding the Civil War.” “We can add to our ‘to do’ list,” the author suggests, “a future sophisticated statistical assessment of the traditional figures given for losses in the Civil War.”
Conditional Confederates: Absenteeism in Western North Carolina Soldiers, 1861-1865
Using statistics compiled from Western North Carolina soldier’s service records, I challenge the notion that Civil War desertions represent a rejection of Confederate nationalism and a regional commitment to Unionism. Compiled statistics for county rates of desertion in Western North Carolina show more or less affinity for absenteeism generated in the context of the county level social and political milieu. I reject sociological models of desertion for not being sufficiently complex to capture patterns of absenteeism. Most desertions reflect more complex behavior of periodic absenteeism followed by a return to duty that allowed men to maintain their sense of honor and support for their families. The Unionist label applied to Western North Carolina largely results from small bands local activity aided by larger out-of-state support
J. David Hacker is associate professor of history at Binghamton University, SUNY. His research focuses on the demographic history of the United States before 1940. He has published articles on trends and determinants in mortality, economic and anthropometric correlates of first marriage, the onset of long-term fertility decline, the impact of parental religiosity on fertility, and the effect of the Civil War on southern marriage patterns.
Scott King-Owen recently graduated from The Ohio State University with a Ph.D. in early American history. He completed a dissertation on law and state formation in post-Revolutionary North Carolina under the direction of John Brooke.
James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta, The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The “Great Truth” about the “Lost Cause.” Reviewed by David Goldfield.
James Lander, Lincoln and Darwin: Shared Visions of Race, Science, and Religion. Reviewed by Jean H. Baker.
Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page, Colonization after Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement. Reviewed by K. Stephen Prince.
Richard W. Etulain, Ed., Lincoln Looks West: From the Mississippi to the Pacific. Reviewed by Kristen K. Epps.
A. E. Elmore, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: Echoes of the Bible and Book of Common Prayer. Reviewed by Patricia Ann Owens.
Gale L. Kenny, Contentious Liberties: American Abolitionists in Post-Emancipation Jamaica, 1834–1866. Reviewed by Rebecca Hartkopf Schloss.
Peter Wood, Near Andersonville: Winslow Homer’s Civil War. Reviewed by Kirk Savage .
Steven E. Woodworth, Ed., The Chickamauga Campaign. Reviewed by Christopher Stacey.
Johnnie Perry Pearson, Ed., Lee and Jackson’s Bloody Twelfth: The Letters of Irby Goodwin Scott, First Lieutenant, Company G, Putnam Light Infantry, Twelfth Georgia Volunteer Infantry. Reviewed by Steven E. Sodergren.
William A. McClendon, Recollections of War Times By an Old Veteran while under Stonewall Jackson and Lieutenant General James Longstreet: How I Got In and How I Got Out. Reviewed by Jeremy Prichard.
Bobbie Swearingen Smith, Ed., A Palmetto Boy: Civil War‑Era Diaries and Letters of James Adams Tillman. Reviewed by Audrey M. Uffner.
Marilyn S. Blackwell and Kristen T. Oertel, Frontier Feminist: Clarina Nichols and the Politics of Motherhood. Reviewed by Stacey Robertson.
Jeff Forret, Race Relations at the Margins: Slaves and Poor Whites in the Antebellum Southern Countryside.
Justin A. Nystrom, New Orleans after the Civil War: Race, Politics, and a New Birth of Freedom.
Ami Pflugrad-Jackisch, Brothers of a Vow: Secret Fraternal Orders and the Transformation of White Male Culture in Antebellum Virginia.
Robert N. Rosen and Richard W. Hatcher III, The First Shot.
Jonathan D. Sarna and Adam Mendelsohn, Eds., Jews and the Civil War: A Reader.
Jyotirmaya Tripathy, Sura P. Rath, and William D. Pederson, Eds., Abraham Lincoln without Borders: Lincoln’s Legacy outside the United States.
Spencer C. Tucker, Ed., The Civil War Naval Encyclopedia. 2 volumes.
Hans Konrad Van Tilburg, A Civil War Gunboat in Pacific Waters: Life on Board the USS Saginaw.
Table of Contents
1. Resting Cysts from Coastal Marine Plankton
Genuario Belmonte & Fernando Rubino
2. Established and Emerging Techniques for Characterising the Formation, Structure and Performance of Calcified Structures under Ocean Acidification
Susan C. Fitzer, Vera Bin San Chan, Yuan Meng, Kanmani Chandra Rajan, Michio Suzuki, Christelle Not, Takashi Toyofuku, Laura Falkenberg, Maria Byrne, Ben P. Harvey, Pierre de Wit, Maggie Cusack, K. S. Gao, Paul Taylor, Sam Dupont, Jason M. Hall-Spencer & V. Thiyagarajan
3. Facilitation Cascades in Marine Ecosystems: A Synthesis and Future Directions (OPEN ACCESS)
Paul E. Gribben, Christine Angelini, Andrew H. Altieri, Melanie J. Bishop, Mads S. Thomsen & Fabio Bulleri
4. Design Options, Implementation Issues and Evaluating Success of Ecologically Engineered Shorelines (OPEN ACCESS)
Rebecca L. Morris, Eliza C. Heery, Lynette H.L. Loke, Edward Lau, Elisabeth M.A. Strain, Laura Airoldi, Karen A. Alexander, Melanie J. Bishop, Ross A. Coleman, Jeffery R. Cordell, Yun-Wei Dong, Louise B. Firth, Stephen J. Hawkins, Tom Heath, Michael Kokora, Shing Yip Lee, Jon K. Miller, Shimrit Perkol-Finkel, Andrew Rella, Peter D. Steinberg, Ichiro Takeuchi, Richard C. Thompson, Peter A. Todd, Jason D. Toft & Kenneth M.Y. Leung
5. Consequences of Anthropogenic Changes in the Sensory Landscape of Marine Animals (OPEN ACCESS)
Ivan Nagelkerken, Scott C. Doney & Philip L. Munday
6. Biology and Ecology of the Globally Significant Kelp Ecklonia radiata
Thomas Wernberg, Melinda A. Coleman, Russell C. Babcock, Sahira Y. Bell, John J. Bolton, Sean D. Connell, Catriona L. Hurd, Craig R. Johnson, Ezequiel M. Marzinelli, Nick T. Shears, Peter D. Steinberg, Mads S. Thomsen, Mathew A. Vanderklift, Adriana Verges & Jeffrey T. Wright
7. A Review of Biophysical Models of Marine Larval Dispersal (OPEN ACCESS)
Thermal Adaptation in Biological Membranes: Is Homeoviscous Adaptation the Explanation?
Macrophage polarization refers to how macrophages have been activated at a given point in space and time. Polarization is not fixed, as macrophages are sufficiently plastic to integrate multiple signals, such as those from microbes, damaged tissues, and . Read More
Figure 1: Developmental regulation of macrophages from monocytes. (a) Three outcomes can follow the seeding of tissues or inflammatory sites by monocytes: death, stable residency, and intermingling wi.
Figure 2: Timeline of research on macrophage polarization. Not all primary papers are cited herein due to space constraints. The selection of key findings and advances represents the author's interpre.
Figure 3: Extrinsic and intrinsic factors control macrophage polarization. (a) M2 macrophages and (b) M1 macrophages are shown with some of the factors linked to their development. It should be noted .
Figure 4: TNF is a major anti-M2 factor. Exposure of macrophages to TNF blocks M2 polarization on two levels: (a) through its direct effects on macrophages and (b) through the indirect effects of TNF .
Postconflict History Curriculum Revision as an “Intergroup Encounter” Promoting Interethnic Reconciliation among Burmese Migrants and Refugees in Thailand
Recent literature shows that revising history curricula in postconflict settings can either worsen or ameliorate identity conflict. I conceptualize history curriculum revision workshops as intergroup encounters (IGEs) and analyze the conditions under which reconciliation emerges. I conducted participant observation with multiethnic groups of Burmese migrant and refugee educational stakeholders who were holding curriculum revision workshops in Thailand. I identify six “stepping-stones” to reconciliation: hearing other ethnic groups’ historical narratives, realizing that multiple perspectives on history exist, “stepping into the shoes” of others, complicating master narratives about identity, exposing intraethnic divisions to outsiders, and forming cross-ethnic relationships. This process is neither linear nor predictable, and I identify obstacles to reconciliation that may arise.
- Received May 27, 2011
- November 12, 2011
- Accepted March 28, 2012
- Published online October 23, 2012
© 2012 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.
The Future of the Commons
Current thinking about the problem of how to manage common resources still dwells on arguments either in favor of or against enclosure, coming primarily from contemporary political and scholarly debate about the enclosure of the early modern agrarian English commons. Many considerations of the enclosure of the commons, however, have so far failed to account for a number of variables. For instance, the sensible management of common resources on a local scale may not function at all on a global one. Protecting forest biodiversity in areas populated by at-risk indigenous populations may call for trading off the protection of one commons for another. And commons also can be exclusionary, or can involve resources that are not scarce, such as intellectual property. In this essay, David Harvey argues that the real problem demanding our attention is private property, not the commons itself. The capitalist commons is being continuously enclosed, but it is also being continuously produced. To fulfill our common interests, we need to look to the powers of collective labor to address capitalism's destruction of land and labor resources.
Oceanography and Marine Biology - An Annual Review
Guidelines for contributors to OMBAR, including information on illustration requirements, can be downloaded on the 'Support Material' tab on the latest volume's webpage.
Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review remains one of the most cited sources in marine science and oceanography. The ever increasing interest in work in oceanography and marine biology and its relevance to global environmental issues, especially global climate change and its impacts, creates a demand for authoritative reviews summarizing the results of recent research. For more than 50 years, OMBAR has been an essential reference for research workers and students in all fields of marine science. From Volume 57 a new international Editorial Board ensures global relevance, with editors from the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and Singapore. The series volumes find a place in the libraries of not only marine laboratories and institutes, but also universities. Recent Impact Factors include: Volume 53, 4.545. Volume 54, 7.000. Volume 55, 5.071.
If you are interested in submitting a review for consideration for publication in OMBAR, please email the Editor in Chief, Stephen Hawkins, at [email protected]
“Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from poor judgment.”
- An Aphorism
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a system of checks and balances for research with human subjects. It was founded on three guiding principles from the Belmont Report: 1) respect for persons, 2) beneficence, and 3) justice. Although review boards are now a regular part of the modern research process, the Belmont Report—and the ethical oversight it created—was only developed in the last century.
Researchers have collected human subjects data in one form or another for centuries (e.g., public observations, medical experiments, etc.). Individuals have wrestled with the application of ethical decision making and its place in research, as well as daily conduct. Efforts leading to the formation of the IRB were in part catalyzed by highly publicized cases documenting researchers’ abuse of power.
One well known example dates back to 1945. During World War II, Nazi scientists committed egregious crimes against the Jews, including experiments that showed no regard for human rights or life. After the war ended, the scientists were convicted by trial in Nuremberg, Germany. The crimes discussed during the trials shocked the scientific community. These trials set the stage to produce the Nuremberg Code, which was one of the first modern documents addressing ethical research with human subjects.
The Nuremberg Code outlines ten points for conducting ethical research, including the requirement for voluntary consent, researcher qualifications, risks versus benefit, and participant’s right to terminate. The Nuremberg Code became the building block for a number of other important codes of research, including the Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specifically addresses medical research.
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment the method and means by which it is to be conducted all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
A second contributing factor to the development of the Belmont Report was the Public Health Service’s (PHS) Tuskegee Study. In 1972, the Associated Press covered the Tuskegee Study, in which black men with syphilis consented to be “treated” by researchers in exchange for meals, medical exams, and burial insurance. However, the full extent of the study was not disclosed to participants: the researchers were actually examining the course of untreated syphilis in the body, and the participants were denied information and access to penicillin, a cure for syphilis. A class-action lawsuit was brought against the PHS to end the study. The study revealed a striking flaw in current human subjects' protection policies they were not sufficient to protect their participants from harm. In response, President Nixon signed the National Research Act (1974) into law, which created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (also referred to simply as the National Commission). He charged the National Commission with establishing a code of research ethics to govern domestic research. The National Committee released The Belmont Report in 1979, which identifies basic ethical principles underlying biomedical and behavioral human subjects research.
Though the Belmont Report is the most widely cited article in the United States for the protection of human subjects research, it is important to remember the events that contributed to its origination. Even with the current wealth of research ethics literature available to modern researchers, unifying the protections of human subjects with research aims can still present a challenge. Review committees, such as the IRB, aim to support researchers in identifying possible harm that may come to participants and assessing the risks versus benefits of a study. The IRB promotes the ethical conduct of research and strives to foster cooperation and collaboration among institutions, investigators, and research staff.
History of Asian Stereotypes Sheds Light on Recent Violence
The recent surge in attacks on Asians in America, including the tragic killing of eight people — mostly Asian women — in Atlanta this week signals that we are in dangerous and alarming times. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen the normalization of bigotry against Asians and are now experiencing and witnessing its tragic consequences.
In our world of 24-hour news, social media, and shrinking attention spans, it may seem like this violence is new, and that Asians — seen as “model” minorities unaffected by racism (with “proximity to whiteness”) — are suddenly in its crosshairs. In my Asian American History class this semester, students are learning up close how these events represent a continuation of a long legacy of discrimination and stereotyping. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Asian immigrants were a uniquely alienated group in American life. Chinese — called “heathens,” “cheap labor,” and targets of vigilante violence — were barred from immigrating on the basis of race and nationality. In the 1910s and 1920s, the technically race-neutral category “aliens ineligible to citizenship” was deployed by state and federal legislators as a cudgel to further disfranchise Asians — Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Asian Indians, and eventually Filipinos — on the grounds that they were variously unassimilable, undesirable, and a threat to American society and values.
The image of the high-achieving, professional, and law-abiding Asian American “model minority” entered the mainstream consciousness during the early Cold War years, revolving in part around Japanese Americans’ impressive socioeconomic trajectory after the ordeal of wartime internment. There was an insidious side to this “positive” stereotype, as Asian Americans were extolled not just for their achievements but also for their political quiescence. The framework implicitly divided people of color by sorting “model minorities” from “bad minorities” and punishing Asian Americans who did not fit the mold. And perhaps most pernicious, it upheld the fallacy that systemic racism in America had been eradicated: for how else could a model minority arise?
In the 1950s and 1960s, another stereotype about Asians emerged out of U.S. military interventions in Korea and Vietnam: the “gook.” The gook was a nameless and faceless enemy, the foil to the heroic American solider. Or to quote General William Westmoreland about Vietnamese people in 1974, “The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. … Life is plentiful, life is cheap in the Orient.” This attitude allowed for and encouraged hatred. It explains why the casualty rates Asians suffered in U.S. military engagements far exceed those of Americans do not register as particularly notable or tragic.
This brief history of ideas about Asians in America also tells us something about today’s social and cultural landscape and how we find ourselves in the present situation. They tell us something about why in 2021 a sheriff will instinctively identify with and extend his empathy to a white mass murderer of Asian victims. They also tell us something about why, as a student once told me a few years ago, it was acceptable at Oberlin to make fun of Asian people because there are rarely any consequences for doing so. What these ideas do not tell us is about the lives of Asians in America, the people who were attacked, and the histories they belong to. Atlanta, GA, is home to one of the fastest growing Asian American communities. The third most spoken language in the state of Georgia is Korean. The state’s transformation over the last few decades as a result of new immigration, as well as the internal migration from other states, partly helps to explain why – thanks to the efforts of Stacey Abrams – Asian Americans were such a pivotal vote in turning Georgia blue in 2020.
In a powerful op-ed in The New York Times , Princeton professor Anne Anlin Cheng critiqued the current discourse of racial politics, saying “ Racial justice is often couched in arcane, moralistic terms rather than understood as an ethical given in democratic participation.” Moreover, it can feel “crazily naïve to suggest that we ought to learn, value and want to know about all of our countrymen.”
In these attention- and resource-scarce times, when it feels like everything is at stake all at once, simply learning, valuing, and wanting to know about one another does seem both a hopelessly naïve and insurmountably tall order. But this may also be our only way forward.
Boston College Law Review
For-profit social entrepreneurship is a steadily growing movement. As part of this movement, numerous states have enacted legislation authorizing the incorporation of benefit corporations, a new for-profit corporate form. In addition to generating profit for shareholders, benefit corporations must “create” a “public benefit.” The mandate that a for-profit corporation pursue a humanitarian cause in addition to generating profit is a significant departure from shareholder primacy: the maxim that the sole purpose of a corporation is to generate return on investment for its shareholders. Although this legislation is a necessary and progressive evolution in corporate law, the current benefit corporation form lacks meaningful accountability and oversight mechanisms. It does little to deter bad actors from taking advantage of socially conscious consumers willing to pay a premium for ethically sourced goods and services by incorporating and operating sham benefit corporations. This Note argues for amending benefit corporation legislation to allow state attorneys general to oversee the creation of public benefits. An oversight and enforcement mechanism would root out and deter bad actors from perverting the purpose of the benefit corporation form, and it would hold benefit corporations accountable to their intended beneficiaries.