Suchergebnisse

One of a series of regular features in the Publ. Opin. Quart., which summarizes nat'ly-asked poll findings in the US from the first days of sci'fic PO polling, 1936, to date. It presents the actual questions & previously published statistics on various available topics with a minimum of introductory text. This particular issue consists of questions which inquire into the extent & accuracy of the US public's information on noncurrent topics, largely of a textbook nature. The subjects are actually the residue after knowledge of current affairs had been summarized in an earlier issue. Topics included are literature, music, art, history, spelling, geography, civics, religious, & general cultural information. Findings from other countries are included only when comparable to available US data. Survey results from the Gallup Poll (Amer Instit of PO), its affiliates in GB & Canada, & the Nat'l Opinion Res Center are included in this particular release. AA.

A studyof Edmund Burke's theory of history has not, to my knowledge, been undertaken before. There are two principal justifications for it. The first is that since Burke is, as some have claimed, "the principal founder" of the Romantic theory of history, his theory of history, as one aspect of the complicated association of thought and feeling called Romanticism, is important in the history of ideas. The second reason is that almost all of Burke's politics depends on his view of history or, at least, can be explained by it.

In 1928 Hans Proesler, whom we shall meet in the course of this study, assumed the presidency, that is, became the Rector, of what can 1928 Hans Proesler, whom we shall meet in the course of thisbe described as the Niirnberg school of economics (Hochschule für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften). The address he delivered on that occasion can properly serve as the starting point for my own presentation, for it dealt with German economic history, its development and problems. In his talk Proesler pointed out that it was the eighteenth-century enlightenment that opened the road to economic history by assigning to studies pointing in this direction a niche in the lecture hall of general cultural history. In Germany such men as Justus Möser, Gottfried Herder, and some members of the then-famous Göttingen school of historians, Schlözer, Gatterer, Heeren, von Anton, and Fischer, are considered by the historian of economic and social history as having stood at the cradle. Although German Romanticism had done much for historiography in general, its role for economic history was very limited. Romanticist historians were not primarily interested in things economic, although in the frame of legal and constitutional history on the one hand, and in connection with classical studies on the other, scholars of that period and the decades following made contributions to this field of knowledge. I might mention Savigny, Eich-horn, Waitz, Böckh, Otfried Müller, Mommsen; and a few minor figures, such as Hüllmann and Hannssen, even devoted themselves to special problems in the area, that is, financial and agrarian history, respectively. Georg von Below, the renowned German historian, treating Proesler's topic a few years before the latter, emphasized the contribution of the Prussian archivist, Georg Wilhelm von Raumer (1806-1856). Not only did the latter take an interest in matters economic but his ideas even tended toward what we would today call a materialistic interpretation of history.

Our knowledge is still insufficient to allow us to assess the overall significance of the mestizo in Philippine history. But on the basis of what we now know we can make some generalizations and some hypotheses for future study. It is clear, in the first place, that the activities I have described are those of Chinese mestizos – not Spanish mestizos. While the Chinese mestizo population in the Philippines exceeded 200,000 by the late nineteenth century, the Spanish mestizo population was probably never more than 35,000. Furthermore, those who commented at all on the Spanish mestizo noted that he was interested in military matters or the "practical arts" – never in commerce. The aptitudes and attitudes of the Chinese mestizo were in sharp contrast to this.Secondly, the Chinese mestizo rose to prominence between 1741 and 1898, primarily as a landholder and a middleman wholesaler of local produce and foreign imports, although there were also mestizos in the professions. The rise of the mestizos implies the existence of social change during the Spanish period, a condition that has been ignored or implicitly denied by many who have written about the Philippines. It needs to be emphasized that the mestizo impact was greatest in Central Luzon, Cebu, and Iloilo. We cannot as yet generalize about other areas.Third, the renewal of Chinese immigration to the Philippines resulted in diversion of mestizo energies away from commerce, so that the mestizos lost their change to become a native middle class, a position then taken over by the Chinese.Fourth, the Chinese mestizos in the Philippines possessed a unique combination of cultural characteristics. Lovers of ostentation, ardent devotees of Spanish Catholicism – they seemed almost more Spanish than the Spanish, more Catholic than the Catholics. Yet with those characteristics they combined a financial acumen that seemed out of place. Rejecters of their Chinese heritage, they were not completely at home with their indio heritage. The nearest approximation to them was the urbanized, heavily-hispanized indio. Only when hispanization had reached a high level in the nineteenth century urban areas could the mestizo find a basis of rapport with the indio. Thus, during the late nineteenth century, because of cultural, economic, and social changes, the mestizos increasingly identified themselves with the indios. in a new kind of "Filipino" cultural and national consensus.Those are my conclusions. Here are some hypotheses, which I hope will stimulate further study:1. That today's Filipino elite is made up mostly of the descendants of indios and mestizos who rose to prominence on the basis of commercial agriculture in the lattetf part of the Spanish period. That in some respects the latter part of the Spanish period was a time of greater social change, in terms of the formation of contemporary Philippine society, than the period since 1898 has been.2. That in the process of social change late in the Spanish period it was the mestizo, as a marginal element, not closely tied to a village or town, who acted as a kind of catalytic agent. In this would be included the penetration of money economy into parts of the Philippines. There were areas where the only persons with money were the provincial governors and the mestizos.3. That the Chinese mestizo was an active agent of hispanization and the leading force in creating a Filipino culture characteristic now of Manila and the larger towns.4. That much of the background explanation of the Philippine Revolution may be found by investigating the relationships between landowning religious orders, mestizo inquilinos, and indio kasamahan laborers.It is my hope that these hypotheses may stimulate investigation into this important topic which can tell us so much about economic, social, and cultural change during- the Spanish period of Philippine history.

Once upon his discussiona time, oraroundso it seems, outstandingthe historiographerworks by leading could professors. Perhaps in some fields of scholarship the time still lingers, but not in recent American economic history. A quick glance at studies applying to the twentieth century that have appeared since World War II shows a large array of books that vary in merit but include few outstanding works. Furthermore, the majority of both the more or less important books have been written by people who, to the best of my knowledge, would not call themselves economic historians.