Community, Power, and Colonialism: The U.S. Army in Southern Arizona and New Mexico, 1866-1886

Empire is central to U.S. history. When we see the U.S. projecting its influence on a global scale in today s world it is important to understand that U.S. empire has a long history. This dissertation offers a case study of colonialism and U.S. empire by discussing the social worlds, labor regimes, and culture of the U.S. Army during the conquest of southern Arizona and New Mexico (1866-1886). It highlights some of the defining principles, mentalities, and characteristics of U.S. imperialism and shows how U.S. forces have in years past constructed their power and represented themselves, their missions, and the places and peoples that faced U.S. imperialism/colonialism. Using insights from postcolonial studies and whiteness studies, this work balances its attention between discursive representations (army stories) and social experience (army actions), pays attention to silences in the process of historical production, and focuses on collective group mentalities and identities. In the end the army experience reveals an empire in denial constructed on the rule of difference and marked by frustration. White officers, their wives, and the white enlisted men not only wanted the monopoly of violence for the U.S. regime but also colonial (mental/cultural) authority and power, and constructed their identity, authority, and power in discourse and in the social contexts of the everyday through difference. Engaged in warfare against the Apaches, they did not recognize their actions as harmful or acknowledge the U.S. invasion as the bloody colonial conquest it was. White army personnel painted themselves and the army as liberators, represented colonial peoples as racial inferiors, approached colonial terrain in terms of struggle, and claimed that the region was a terrible periphery with little value before the arrival of white civilization. Officers and wives also wanted to place themselves at the top of colonial hierarchies as the refined and respectable class who led the regeneration of the colony by example: they tried to turn army villages into islands of civilization and made journeys, leisure, and domestic life to showcase their class sensibilities and level of sophistication. Often, however, their efforts failed, resulting in frustration and bitterness. Many blamed the colony and its peoples for their failures. The army itself was divided by race and class. All soldiers were treated as laborers unfit for self-government. White enlisted men, frustrated by their failures in colonial warfare and by constant manual labor, constructed worlds of resistance, whereas indigenous soldiers sought to negotiate the effects of colonialism by working in the army. As colonized labor their position was defined by tension between integration and exclusion and between freedom and colonial control.

CMV-, EBV-, and HHV-6-DNAemia after liver transplantation

Viral infections caused by herpesviruses are common complications after organ transplantation and they are associated with substantial morbidity and even mortality. Herpesviruses remain in a latent state in a host after primary infection and may reactivate later. CMV infection is the most important viral infection after liver transplantation. Less is known about the significance of human herpesvirus-6 (HHV-6). EBV is believed to play a major role in the development of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD). The aim of this study was to investigate the CMV-, EBV- and HHV-6 DNAemia after liver transplantation by frequent monitoring of adult liver transplant patients. The presence of CMV, EBV and HHV-6 DNA were demonstrated by in situ hybridization assays and by real-time PCR methods from peripheral blood specimens. CMV and HHV-6 antigens were demonstrated by antigenemia assays and compared to the viral DNAemia. The response to antiviral therapy was also investigated. CMV-DNAemia appeared earlier than CMV pp65-antigenemia after liver transplantation. CMV infections were treated with ganciclovir. However, most of the treated patients demonstrated persistence of CMV-DNA for up to several months. Continuous CMV-DNA expression of peripheral blood leukocytes showed that the virus is not eliminated by ganciclovir and recurrences can be expected during several months after liver transplantation. HHV-6 DNAemia / antigenemia was common and occurred usually within the first three months after liver transplantation together with CMV. The HHV-6 DNA expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells correlated well with HHV-6 antigenemia. Antiviral treatment significantly decreased the number of HHV-6 DNA positive cells, demonstrating the response to ganciclovir treatment. Clinically silent EBV reactivations with low viral loads were relatively common after liver transplantation. These EBV-DNAemias usually appeared within the first three months after liver transplantation together with betaherpesviruses (CMV, HHV-6, HHV-7). One patient developed high EBV viral loads and developed PTLD. These results indicate that frequent monitoring of EBV-DNA levels can be useful to detect liver transplant patients at risk of developing PTLD.

Human herpesvirus-6 infection in liver transplantation

Rejection and infections are the two most common complications after liver transplantation. Human herpesvirus-6 (HHV-6) belongs to the betaherpesviruses, together with its close relatives cytomegalovirus (CMV) and human herpesvirus-7 (HHV-7). The impact of CMV in liver transplantation is well characterized, but the roles of the other two betaherpesviruses have been acknowledged only recently. Although, HHV-6 reactivation after transplantation is usually asymptomatic, the virus may infect the liver transplant, cause an intragraft lymphocyte dominated inflammatory reaction and graft dysfunction. HHV-6 is also suggested to be associated with liver allograft rejection but the mechanisms are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the intragraft immunological processes associated with HHV-6, the involvement of HHV-6 in acute liver failure (ALF) and the hepatic HHV-6 infection of the same patients after transplantation. In addition, the occurrence of HHV-6 and HHV-7 was investigated in liver transplant patients with symptomatic CMV infection. HHV-6 infection of the liver graft was associated with portal lymphocyte infiltration and with a significant increase of adhesion molecules (ICAM-1 and VCAM-1) and the number of cells expressing their ligand molecules (LFA-1, VLA-4) and class II antigens. HHV-6 infection was associated with significant immunological changes, but the immune response was limited to lymphocyte infiltration and the adhesion molecule level. However, one third of these patients developed chronic rejection during the follow-up. Of the patients with ALF of unknown origin, most patients demonstrated HHV-6 antigens in the liver, whereas the opposite was seen in ALF patients with a known disease. After transplantation, HHV-6 recurrence was found in the liver transplant in half of these patients with pre-transplant HHV-6 infection of the liver, whereas no post-transplant HHV-6 infection of the liver was seen in patients without pre-transplant HHV-6. Our studies further demonstrated that both HHV-6 and HHV-7 antigenemia often appeared in association with CMV disease in liver transplant patients. The time-related occurrence of the viruses differed, as HHV-6 appeared early after transplantation and regularly preceded CMV whereas HHV-7 often appeared concurrently with CMV. In conclusion, these results indicate that all three betaherpesviruses are common after liver transplantation, often associated with each other. The immunological events caused by HHV-6 in the liver transplant may be involved in, or trigger mechanisms of allograft rejection. In addition, HHV-6 could be one of the causes of ALF, and pre-transplant HHV-6 infection in ALF patients is a risk factor for post-transplant HHV-6 infection of the graft. These results strongly support the clinical significance of HHV-6 in liver transplantation. Even though the reactivation is usually asymptomatic, in some individuals HHV-6 infection may lead to severe manifestations, such as liver failure or in transplant patients, graft dysfunction and rejection.