Suchergebnisse

Appendices dated December 20, 2002 ; Vol. 2: Technical appendices ; "June 2003." ; Includes bibliographical references (v. 1, p. 149-155) ; Mode of access: Internet.

In the late 1920s and 1930s, a rapprochement between the United States and Mexico occurred through the artistic movement of muralism, which was accompanied by an appreciation of Mexican culture and nationalist sentiments. The Rockefeller family, primarily associated with entrepreneurship, had begun to approach Latin American art and planned to include artists from around the world for their Rockefeller Center project, which focused on the importance and valorization of technological progress for the future of humanity. The commission of Diego Rivera to paint a mural in 1932, the inclusion of the portrait of Vladimir Lenin, and his refusal to remove it led to a conflict in 1933 that revealed the scope of free speech in art and the boundaries between the aesthetic and political significance of a work of art. The purpose of this paper is to explore the motives that led the Rockefellers to hire such a controversial and politically engaged figure as Diego Rivera –in an environment where socialist ideas were met with public disapproval– and the reasons why the artist accepted the commission, coming from a family that was the epitome of capitalism. Through the use of primary sources and scholarly literature and the application of a qualitative approach, this thesis argues that the vision that the Rockefeller family and Diego Rivera had for the mural was similar in terms of the role of technology in the development of human society. What was at odds, however, was the ideological standpoint from which each took the commission and their vision of the future society. Rivera was not willing to give up his political beliefs, and the Rockefellers believed that the artist could separate his political goals from the aesthetic project. The divergence was thus inevitable, but at the same time this episode served to reassure both sides of their importance in their respective contexts and to reflect on the paradoxes in the relationship between art interests and business advantages.

The San Diego Family Justice Center (FJC) model seeks to lessen the burden on domestic violence victims by co-locating social service agencies, law enforcement, and prosecution at one site. Shortly following the inception of the model in 2002, it gained widespread acclaim (and federal funding), spreading the model across the country. Using visual and textual discourse analysis, this paper examines the promotional and procedural material produced by proponents of the San Diego FJC model. FJC materials construct victimhood using discourses of crime control and therapeutic intervention. The resulting discursive formation is that of the passive, dependent battered woman, curable only through robustly punitive state intervention. In this way, FJC materials not only advance a distinct construction of victimhood but also a particular agenda for punishment policy. Extending Jonathan Simon's contentions regarding the resonance of victim discourse within American society, I argue that therapeutic discourse can bolster the effectiveness of punitive campaigns.

Becoming Mexipino is a social-historical interpretation of two ethnic groups, one Mexican, the other Filipino, whose paths led both groups to San Diego, California. Rudy Guevarra traces the earliest interactions of both groups with Spanish colonialism to illustrate how these historical ties and cultural bonds laid the foundation for what would become close interethnic relationships and communities in twentieth-century San Diego as well as in other locales throughout California and the Pacific West Coast. Through racially restrictive covenants and other forms of discrimination, both groups, regardless of their differences, were confined to segregated living spaces along with African Americans, other Asian groups, and a few European immigrant clusters. Within these urban multiracial spaces, Mexicans and Filipinos coalesced to build a world of their own through family and kin networks, shared cultural practices, social organizations, and music and other forms of entertainment. They occupied the same living spaces, attended the same Catholic churches, and worked together creating labor cultures that reinforced their ties, often fostering marriages. Mexipino children, living simultaneously in two cultures, have forged a new identity for themselves. Their lives are the lens through which these two communities are examined, revealing the ways in which Mexicans and Filipinos interacted over generations to produce this distinct and instructive multiethnic experience. Using archival sources, oral histories, newspapers, and personal collections and photographs, Guevarra defines the niche that this particular group carved out for itself

Human dignity is making a comeback. The essay focuses on the story that this comeback of human dignity presupposes and recasts. In that story, the "human family" is portrayed in terms of aristocratic dignitas. The consequences are twofold: (1) human dignity is co-implicated with the de-animalization of the human being; (2) once de-animalization is introduced, the story of human dignity cultivates an aristocratic sense of elevation of the human over other species, or what I will call "species aristocratism." The fact that a new kind of aristocratism based on species emerges from the story of human dignity should concern us, I suggest, because it not only confronts us with unintended consequences of relying on human dignity as the foundation of human rights but also invites us to rethink our contemporary egalitarian, democratic ethos, understood as aristocracy for all.

The union of the spanish and portuguese kingdoms in the person of king Philip the second of Spain made the progresive arrival of portuguese converse jews to Spain during the seventeenth century and the increase of the inquisitorial persecutions to this colective. In this historical context we observe the different evolution about two families of this minority. One of them, from Montilla (Córdoba) family of one of the most important poets in literary "Spanish Golden Century" Miguel de Barrios, took the decision to be in exile out of Spain, and the other, from Cádiz, obtained to be in the economical and political power in this comertial city on the last decades of seventeenth century. The only connection between this two families is the same name, second name, age and job of two man each family that made both, momentarily, be in the face of the most terrible institution of this times, the Spanish Inquisition. ; La unión de los reinos hispano y luso en la persona de Felipe II propició la llegada paulatina de conversos portugueses a España durante el S. XVII y el recrudecimiento de la persecución inquisitorial hacia este colectivo. En este contexto histórico enmarcamos el devenir dispar de dos familias pertenecientes a esta minoría. Una, la montillana (encabezada por el Poeta del Siglo de Oro español Miguel de Barrios), que prácticamente en su totalidad abandona la Península y otra, la gaditana, que alcanza grandes cotas de poder económico y político en la España del último Austria con el único nexo (quizás completamente casual) de dos hombres con el mismo nombre, apellido, edad y ocupación que los une en un despacho de la institución más temida de la época, la Santa Inquisición.