Suchergebnisse

A search of the available literature provides evidence that school teachers' participation in the politics of nationalism in excolonial countries during the independence era was widespread. The reasons for this participation were many, but crucial to success within the new political culture & evolving representative styles of government was the ability of political figures to win popular support. Teachers' marginal social position & command of skills useful in a period of change, especially in rural areas, gave them the opportunity to become leading figures in emerging mass political parties. Access to Western schooling became a necessary condition for upward social mobility. It is hypothesized that the phenomenon of teacher-politicians was linked closely with particular political circumstances & a particular stage in the evolution of school systems, & is unlikely to recur. The consolidation of existing elites militates against the rise of low-status individuals to leadership positions; & the bureaucratization & professionalization of the teaching force in national school systems are incompatible with the participation of individual teachers at the center of political life today. AA.

The issue of the membership of Ukraine and Ireland in the post-colonial countries is investigated.

The arguments of opponents of the definition of Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire / USSR and Ireland as part of Great Britain as colonies are analyzed: an insufficiently clear definition of empire in modern political science, which allows not at least recognizing the USSR as an empire; absence of official colony status in Ukraine and Ireland; the presence of developed industry in the late USSR, which contradicts colonial status. Each of the arguments is consistently recognized as insufficiently important.

The definition of an empire is given, which corresponds to both the British Empire and the Russian / USSR. The typologies of these empires were carried out: Great Britain was recognized as a liberal modern (disciplinary) empire, and the Russian Empire / USSR as an autocratic / authoritarian modern (disciplinary) empire. The key differences of these empires are highlighted.

Thanks to the definition of a colony as a territory that has sovereignty limited in favor of the metropolis and is an object of specific colonial policy, as well as the identification of the types of colonies (colonies that are socioculturally close to the metropolis, colonies that are socioculturally different from the metropolis, internal colonies), it is proved that Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire/USSR and Ireland as part of Great Britain correspond to such a variety of colonies as territories dependent on the metropolis, populated socioculturally close to the metropolis in settlement, but not identical to it.

An attempt was made to compare the colonial policy of Great Britain in relation to Ireland and the Russian Empire / USSR to Ukraine. Despite the difference in these empires, a significant number of parallels were found: the redistribution of resources in favor of a socioculturally distinct metropolis; cultural and linguistic colonization policies; the spread of specific self-identification of the population («Soviet person» and «British»); resettlement of residents of the metropolis in the colony; the emergence of famine as a result of the colonial policy (Irish potato famine of 1845-1849 and the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine). The similarity (goal, struggle methodology, etc.) between the national liberation movements of Ireland (Irish Republican Brotherhood, Irish Republican Army) and Ukraine (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian Insurgent Army) is analyzed.

As a conclusion, an affirmative answer was provided to the question posed in the title of the article – yes, at this point in time Ukraine is a post-colonial country, and Ireland has been such for at least the first decades after independence.

AbstractThe primary aim of this article is to problematize the WIDF's interpretations of the rights of women from (post)colonial countries and its tactics in working for and together with these women. It shows that, in the context of rapid geopolitical changes – the growing anti-colonial struggle and Cold War competition – the WIDF had to change its ideology, ways of working, and communication strategies in order to keep its leading position in transnational work for women's rights and to maintain the sympathies of women from countries outside Europe. The main focus is on the contradictions, negotiations, and adjustments inside the WIDF with respect to the new political situation and the demands of women from Africa and Asia, in particular, during the highest period of anticolonial transformation (1950s to early 1970s). This article also pays attention to Soviet ideas on the emancipation of women and, in particular, to the influence of Soviet experiences of emancipating women from non-Slavic (Eastern and Southern) parts of the USSR on the WIDF's perception of and policies for the improvement of the situation of women in Asia and Africa. This article is based primarily on analysis of the WIDF's archival documents preserved in the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) in Moscow, along with the WIDF's official publications.

Introduction -- Framing the Discourse of Urban Green-provision and Constructions of Nation: Western Policies and Singapore's Debate -- Design and Planning of Singapore's Public Open Space, Parks and Gardens in the Early Colonial Times -- The British Colonial Planning Model provides an Integrated System of Public Open Spaces: the 1958 Master Plan -- Parks for the Community: the Modernist City State Planning Model -- Design of Parks and Public Open Space in the Post-Modern: from Creation of Character and Visual Identity to Theme – Gardens -- Heritage Parks. Re-purposing and Thematizing Colonial Gardens: Construction of History and Nation in City Parks -- Singapore's Green Infrastructure Concept and Biophilic Urbanism -- The 'Singapore Playground': System of Themed Public Parks Conceived as Green Infrastructure. Building Environmental, Social and Cultural Sustainability through Nature-Reconstruction, Community Participation and Identity-Making -- Conclusions

The issue of the membership of Ukraine and Ireland in the post-colonial countries is investigated. The arguments of opponents of the definition of Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire / USSR and Ireland as part of Great Britain as colonies are analyzed: an insufficiently clear definition of empire in modern political science, which allows not at least recognizing the USSR as an empire; absence of official colony status in Ukraine and Ireland; the presence of developed industry in the late USSR, which contradicts colonial status. Each of the arguments is consistently recognized as insufficiently important. The definition of an empire is given, which corresponds to both the British Empire and the Russian / USSR. The typologies of these empires were carried out: Great Britain was recognized as a liberal modern (disciplinary) empire, and the Russian Empire / USSR as an autocratic / authoritarian modern (disciplinary) empire. The key differences of these empires are highlighted. Thanks to the definition of a colony as a territory that has sovereignty limited in favor of the metropolis and is an object of specific colonial policy, as well as the identification of the types of colonies (colonies that are socioculturally close to the metropolis, colonies that are socioculturally different from the metropolis, internal colonies), it is proved that Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire/USSR and Ireland as part of Great Britain correspond to such a variety of colonies as territories dependent on the metropolis, populated socioculturally close to the metropolis in settlement, but not identical to it. An attempt was made to compare the colonial policy of Great Britain in relation to Ireland and the Russian Empire / USSR to Ukraine. Despite the difference in these empires, a significant number of parallels were found: the redistribution of resources in favor of a socioculturally distinct metropolis; cultural and linguistic colonization policies; the spread of specific self-identification of the population («Soviet person» and «British»); resettlement of residents of the metropolis in the colony; the emergence of famine as a result of the colonial policy (Irish potato famine of 1845-1849 and the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine). The similarity (goal, struggle methodology, etc.) between the national liberation movements of Ireland (Irish Republican Brotherhood, Irish Republican Army) and Ukraine (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian Insurgent Army) is analyzed. As a conclusion, an affirmative answer was provided to the question posed in the title of the article – yes, at this point in time Ukraine is a post-colonial country, and Ireland has been such for at least the first decades after independence. ; Досліджується питання приналежності України та Ірландії до постколоніальних країн. Проаналізовано аргументи противників визначення України у складі Російської імперії / СРСР та Ірландії у складі Великої Британії як колоній: недостатньо чітке визначення імперії у сучасній політичній науці, що дозволяє не визнавати імперією принаймні СРСР; відсутність офіційного статусу колонії в України та Ірландії; наявність розвинутої промисловості у пізній УРСР, що суперечить колоніальному статусу. Кожен з аргументів послідовно визнається недостатньо вагомим. Надано визначення імперії, якому відповідає і Британська імперія, і Російська / СРСР. Проведена типологізація зазначених імперій: Велика Британія визнана ліберальною модерною (дисциплінарною) імперією, а Російська імперія / СРСР – автократичною / авторитарною модерною (дисциплінарною) імперією. Виокремлено ключові відмінності зазначених імперій. Завдяки визначенню колонії як території, що має обмежений на користь метрополії суверенітет і є об'єктом специфічної колоніальної політики, а також виокремленню типів колоній (соціокультурно близькі до метрополії колонії, соціокультурно відмінні від метрополії колонії, внутрішні колонії), стверджується, що Україна у складі Російської імперії / СРСР та Ірландія у складі Великої Британії відповідають такому різновиду колоній, як залежні від метрополії території, населені соціокультурно близьким до метрополії населенням, але не тотожним йому. Здійснена спроба порівняння колоніальної політики Великої Британії по відношенню до Ірландії та Російської імперії / СРСР до України. Незважаючи на відмінність зазначених імперій, знайдено значну кількість паралелей: перерозподіл ресурсів на користь соціокульурно відмінної метрополії; політика культурної та мовної колонізації; поширення специфічної самоідентифікації населення («радянська людина» та «британець»); переселення мешканців метрополії в колонії; виникнення внаслідок колоніальної політики голоду (Великий голод в Ірландії 1845-1849 рр. і Голодомор 1932-1933 рр. в Україні). Проаналізовано подібність (мета, методологія боротьби і т.д.) між національно-визвольними рухами Ірландії (Ірландське республіканське братерство, Ірландська республіканська армія) та України (Організація українських націоналістів, Українська повстанська армія). У якості висновку була надана ствердна відповідь на питання, винесене у назву статті – так, на цей час Україна є постколоніальною країною, а Ірландія була такою принаймні перші десятиліття після отримання незалежності.