The genesis of 'the new geography and the new imperialism : 1870-1918', or 'how I came to Jamaica and joined the UWI Geography Department

In this article, Brian Hudson relates how he came to write the paper published in the journal Antipode, for which he gained recognition as a radical geographer in the late 1970's. It is a tale of a journey in which the loves of his life, geography, history, travel and his wife of over 40 years, came together through living in a number of different places: the United Kingdom, Ghana, Hong Kong, and Jamaica. After leaving UWI, Brian and his family settled in Brisbane, Australia where he taught at Queensland University of Technology until his retirement.

David M. Thomas : a party disguised as work or work disguised as a party

This article discusses David M. Thomas' 2012 exhibition at Boxcopy. Thomas' exhibition conflates the space of the studio with that of the gallery. In doing so, he draws out complex relationships between production and presentation, subjectivity and sociality. This article focuses on these aspects of Thomas' creative exploration of identity and its mutability through art making.

Review : "Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd Ed.)" by Peter M. Fayers & David Machin

An updated version, this excellent text is a timely addition to the library of any nurse researching in oncology or other settings where individuals’ quality of life must be understood. Health-related quality of life should be a central aspect of studies concerned with health and illness. Indeed, considerable evidence has recently emerged in oncology and other research settings that selfreported quality of life is of great prognostic significance and may be the most reliable predictor of subsequent morbidity and mortality. From a nursing perspective, it is also gratifying to note that novel therapy and other oncology studies increasingly recognize the importance of understanding patients’ subjective experiences of an intervention over time and to ascertain whether patients perceive that a new intervention makes a difference to their quality of life and treatment outcomes. Measurements of quality of life are now routine in clinical trials of chemotherapy drugs and are often considered the prime outcome of interest in the cost/benefit analyses of these treatments. The authors have extensive experience in qualityof- life assessment in cancer clinical trials, where most of the pioneering work into quality of life has been conducted. That said, many of the health-related qualityof- life issues discussed are common to many illnesses, and researchers outside of cancer should find the book equally helpful.

David L. Rosenhan (1929–2012)

Presents an obituary for David L. Rosenhan (1929–2012). A distinguished psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, Rosenhan died February 6, 2012, at the age of 82, after a long illness. Born in Jersey City, New Jersey, on November 22, 1929, he received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics (1951) from Yeshiva College and a master’s degree in economics (1953) and a doctorate in psychology (1958) from Columbia University. A professor of law and of psychology at Stanford University from 1971 until his retirement in 1998, Rosenhan was a pioneer in applying psychological methods to the practice of law, including the examination of expert witnesses, jury selection, and jury deliberation. A former president of the American Psychology–Law Society and of the American Board of Forensic Psychology, Rosenhan was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, of the American Psychological Association, and of the American Psychological Society. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty, he was a member of the faculties of Swarthmore College, Princeton University, Haverford College, and the University of Pennsylvania. He also served as a research psychologist at the Educational Testing Service. As generations of Stanford students can attest, David Rosenhan was a spellbinding lecturer who managed to convey the sense that he was speaking to each individual, no matter how large the group. To his graduate students, he was consistently encouraging and optimistic, always ready to share a joke or story, and gently encouraging of their creativity and progressive independence as researchers. The lessons he cared most about offering, in the classroom as in his research, were about human dignity and the need to confront abuse of power and human frailties.

The Politics and Legality of Prisoner Disenfranchisement in Australian Federal Elections

To remove the right of prisoners to vote does many things. … It signals that whatever the prisoner says is not of interest to those at the top, that you are not interested in talking to them or even listening to them, that you want to exclude them and that you have no interest in knowing about them. INTRODUCTION In June 2006, Australia passed legislation disenfranchising all prisoners serving full-time custodial sentences from voting in federal elections. This followed a succession of changes dating from 1983 that alternately extended and restricted the prisoner franchise. In 1989 and 1995, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) federal government prepared draft legislation removing any restrictions on prisoner voting rights in federal elections; the measures were defeated and withdrawn. With the 2006 legislation, the Howard Coalition government (composed of the Liberal and National parties) successfully achieved the total disenfranchisement it first sought in 1998. This chapter examines the politics and legality of the 2006 disenfranchisement. This will be approached, first, by briefly outlining the key provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, offering a short legislative history of prisoner franchise, and examining some of the key constitutional issues. Second, the 2006 disenfranchisement introduced in the Electoral and Referendum (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 will be examined in greater detail, particularly in terms of the manner in which it was achieved and the arguments that were mobilized both in support of and against the change.

David Williamson's The Club : football politic, a dirty story

Watching David Williamson’s The Club (Bruce Beresford, 1980) now, as a scandal over performance‐enhancing drugs threatens to destroy at least one AFL club and permanently taint the League’s credibility, while in another form of football a player is bought and sold for a world record fee of almost $150 million, the indignant outrage of the film’s coach and players over the $120,000 fee paid for a pot‐smoking raw recruit appears quaint and comic in unintended ways. Were it ever true, it seems harder than ever now to agree with Nick Parson’s assertion that ‘in Australia the only sphere of endeavour that is considered morally pure is sport.

The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism

Two studies documented the “David and Goliath” rule—the tendency for people to perceive criticism of “David” groups (groups with low power and status) as less normatively permissible than criticism of “Goliath” groups (groups with high power and status). The authors confirmed the existence of the David and Goliath rule across Western and Chinese cultures (Study 1). However, the rule was endorsed more strongly in Western than in Chinese cultures, an effect mediated by cultural differences in power distance. Study 2 identified the psychological underpinnings of this rule in an Australian sample. Lower social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with greater endorsement of the rule, an effect mediated through the differential attribution of stereotypes. Specifically, those low in SDO were more likely to attribute traits of warmth and incompetence to David versus Goliath groups, a pattern of stereotypes that was related to the protection of David groups from criticism.

David Clutterbuck, mentoring and coaching - A commentary

Simon Jenkins, in his stimulus piece on David Clutterbuck amply demonstrates just how prolific Clutterbuck has been over a working lifetime. Generally accepted as the person who introduced supported mentoring into Europe, Clutterbuck has written widely on matters that relate to relationships, processes, evidence (and its capacity or otherwise to influence practice), procedures, complexity, management, supervision, guidance (of one kind or another); the list goes on. It is an impressive vita indeed and yet, Clutterbuck’s influence on the world of sports and more specifically, sports coaching; remains relatively modest. Of course this is the purpose of Jenkins’ piece, to stimulate our thought processes such that our attention can be drawn to the possible impact Clutterbuck might have in sport, sports coaching, and athlete and coach mentoring. If nothing else, this is an admirable challenge that Jenkins has set himself.

The legacy of David Unaipon

The historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples.

Self-love and self-liking in the moral and political philosophy of Bernard Mandeville and David Hume

This work offers a novel interpretation of David Hume’s (1711–1776) conception of the conjectural development of civil society and artificial moral institutions. It focuses on the social elements of Hume’s Treatise of human nature (1739–40) and the necessary connection between science of man and politeness, civilised monarchies, social distance and hierarchical structure of civil society. The study incorporates aspects of intellectual history, history of philosophy and book history. In order to understand David Hume’s thinking, the intellectual development of Bernard Mandeville (1670–1733) needs to be accounted for. When put into a historical perspective, the moral, political and social components of Treatise of human nature can be read in the context of a philosophical tradition, in which Mandeville plays a pivotal role. A distinctive character of Mandeville and Hume’s account of human nature and moral institutions was the introduction of a simple distinction between self-love and self-liking. The symmetric passions of self-interest and pride can only be controlled by the corresponding moral institutions. This is also the way in which we can say that moral institutions are drawn from human nature. In the case of self-love or self-interest, the corresponding moral institution is justice. Respectively, concerning self-liking or pride the moral institution is politeness. There is an explicit analogy between these moral institutions. If we do not understand this analogy, we do not understand the nature of either justice or politeness. The present work is divided into two parts. In the first part, ‘Intellectual development of Bernard Mandeville’, it is argued that the relevance of the paradigmatic change in Mandeville’s thinking has been missed. It draws a picture of Mandeville turning from the Hobbism of The Fable of the Bees to an original theory of civil society put forward in his later works. In order to make this change more apparent, Mandeville’s career and the publishing history of The Fable of the Bees are examined comprehensively. This interpretation, based partly on previously unknown sources, challenges F. B. Kaye’s influential decision to publish the two parts of The Fable of the Bees as a uniform work of two volumes. The main relevance, however, of the ‘Intellectual development of Mandeville’ is to function as the context for the young Hume. The second part of the work, ‘David Hume and Greatness of mind’, explores in philosophical detail the social theory of the Treatise and politics and the science of man in his Essays. This part will also reveal the relevance of Greatness of mind as a general concept for David Hume’s moral and political philosophy.

Vankina valkoisten : Oulun vankileiri 1918

Suomen sisällissodassa keväällä vuonna 1918 syntyi useita vankileirejä, jotka oli tarkoitettu valkoisten vangitsemia punaisia varten. Yksi vankileireistä sijaitsi Oulun Raatinsaaressa. Tässä tutkimuksessa olen tarkastellut Oulun vankileirin vankeja, vartijoita ja leirin oloja sekä valtiorikosoikeuden toimintaa ja leirin kuolleisuutta. Oulun vankileiri toimi Valloitettujen alueiden turvaamisosastoon kuuluneen sotavankilaitoksen alaisuudessa. Vankileiri oli tarkoitettu lähinnä Oulun ja Lapin läänin punavankeja varten. Myös asevelvollisuuskutsuntoja vältelleitä ja asevelvollisuudesta kieltäytyneitä oli vangittujen joukossa. Vankien määrä oli suurimmillaan hieman yli 800. Vangit kuuluivat pääsääntöisesti työväenluokkaan. Vangittuina oli myös naisia, joista suurin osa oli pidätetty venäläisten kasarmeilta. Venäläisiä sotilaita, joita oli noin 1000, pidettiin vangittuina omilla kasarmeillaan, ennen kuin heidät kotiutettiin toukokuun lopussa. Vartijoina toimivat aluksi Oulun ja lähikuntien suojeluskuntajoukot ja toukokuun lopusta lähtien asevelvollisuusjoukot. Erityisesti asevelvollisjoukkoja pidettiin vartiointitehtävään sopimattomina. Sotilaat suhtautuivat tehtäviinsä välinpitämättömästi ja vankeihin myötämielisesti. Heistä suurin osa oli kotoisin samoilta paikkakunnilta, mistä punavangitkin ja he kuuluivat suurimmalta osaltaan myös työväenluokkaan. Asevelvollisjoukot olivat myös ylityöllistettyjä ja sotilaskuri oli olematonta, joten ei ollut ihme, että heinäkuun alussa useat asevelvollissotilaat karkasivat riveistä. Vangit asuivat leirillä ahtaasti ja saivat vain niukasti ruokaa. Leirillä vankeja hoitivat lääkäri ja kaksi sairaanhoitajaa. Sairaanhoito oli hankalaa, koska sairastuneita ja heikkoja vankeja oli paljon. Vankien hengellisestä huollosta oli vastuussa kasvatusosasto, jonka johdossa oli pappi apunaan kaksi kasvatusapulaista. Kesäkuun aikana Oulussa toimintansa aloitti kaksi valtiorikosoikeuden osastoa, jotka langettivat tuomioita samanlaisen linjan mukaisesti kuin muuallakin maassa. Punaisena lankana näyttää olleen työväenliikkeen poliittinen nujertaminen. Kuolleisuuden suhteelliseen alhaisuuteen oli osasyynä se, että vartijat eivät olleet kiinnostuneita tehtäviään kohtaan. He eivät estäneet yhteydenpitoa vankien ja heidän omaistensa välillä. Vartijat eivät myöskään syyllistyneet vankileiriterroriin, vaan suhtautuivat vankeja kohtaan pääsääntöisesti maltillisesti. Vangeilla oli mahdollisuuksia ulkopuoliseen ruoansaantiin omaisten kautta ja työskennellessään leirin ulkopuolella eri työtehtävissä. Vankeja käytettiinkin vankileirin ulkopuolisiin työtehtäviin paljon. Koska työnantajat oli velvoitettu kustantamaan työssäkäyvien vankien ruoan, he saivat lisäravintoa ohi vankileiriorganisaation. Siten vangit olivat tarpeeksi vastustuskykyisiä tarttuvia tauteja kohtaan. Oulun vankileirissä kuolleisuus jäikin suhteellisen alhaiseksi hieman alle kuuteen prosenttiin. Avainsanat: Suomi 1918 . vankileirit . sisällissota - sotavangit