Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  BRITAIN
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
The case of France and the UK illustrate two different approaches when it comes to the integration of ethnic minorities within the larger society. In this paper we found it interesting to indirectly compare the two different approaches. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, in some West European countries, it seems that racism expressed through the rejection of those who are culturally distinct remains more than ever divisive and to some extent an impediment and contradiction to the true process of Democracy. The reasons explaining such phenomenon are without doubt to be found in a certain historical past and heritage.
EN
Punch and Judy is one of a number of traditional popular glove puppet forms found across Europe. It is, by a considerable margin, the most numerous of these forms. This paper seeks to account for its relative success. It calls on research undertaken as part of an ethnographic study of contemporary performance undertaken between 2006 and 2007 towards a doctoral thesis. The research consisted of historical analysis and contemporary field-work. The article concludes that the success of the show in part depended on its emergence at a moment when late-modern class identity was coming to be constructed in Britain, that new class-oriented markets were emerging which commoditised cultural products, that performers adapted themselves and the show to these markets, professionalising themselves and, in more recent times, instituting organisations whose purpose was to secure the profile of the form. It goes on to suggest that current western preoccupations with heritage have provided a useful role for the form. The article argues that Punch and Judy puppet show has used the mechanisms of late-modernity to maximise its capital as an ostensibly traditional form.
Asian and African Studies
|
2017
|
vol. 26
|
issue 1
22 – 40
EN
Britain was granted a mandate over Iraq to help it advance to readiness for full independence in the San Remo Conference (April 1920) after World War I. In June 1920, an armed revolt against British rule broke out and quickly spread through the mid-Euphrates regions. The heavily armed and surprisingly determined tribes scored a number of early and significant successes. The crushing of the revolt involved besides the cost of lives the expenditure of huge amounts from the British Treasury. Winston Churchill, in taking charge of the Near and Middle East affairs, called a conference to Cairo on March 1921. The questions considered by the conference included the immediate reduction of British expenditure in Iraq with the consequent revision of policy involving 1. future relationship of Iraq to Great Britain; 2. the person of the future ruler of Iraq; 3. the nature and composition of the defence forces of the new state which was to assume an increasing share of its own defence.
EN
The significance of the Anglo-Iraqi treaty in 1930 stemmed from the fact that it provided for the termination of a mandate - the first such example followed in the Near and Middle East only in Transjordan sixteen years later - and established a new pattern of Anglo-Arab relations. If Britain was prepared to surrender its mandate by 1930, it should arrive at this position reluctantly only after the painful experience of persistent agitation among nationalists in the trust territory and a wide segment of the public in England. The instrument itself assured a preferential status of the United Kingdom in Iraq. For the duration of the alliance Britain was allowed to retain two air bases and to make use of all Iraqi facilities for the transit of British armed forces (land, naval and air). Under the accompanying notes British ambassadors in Baghdad were to enjoy 'precedence in relation to the diplomatic representatives of other Powers', and the Iraqi government undertook to request a British advisory military mission and normally to engage in consultation with Whitehall, 'British subjects when in need of the services of foreign officials'. The twenty-five year treaty, which became operative on Iraq's admission to membership in the League of Nations on 3 October 1932, proved vital to the United Kingdom in the Near and Middle East campaigns of World War II.
EN
The article is based on long term field research and focuses on a community of family-related Vlax Roma from Prešov, Sabinov and Košice regions who created a large community in Leicester, UK. The massive wave of labour migration to UK started in 2004, in the year of Slovakia’s accession to the European Union. The migration to Great Britain has been based on family networks and represents an example of chain migration based on the reciprocal help of family networks. Besides their own relatives other different non-related Roma intermediaries had an important influence on their arrival to Britain. The article focuses on the changing economic strategies of new migrants from the group in focus after their replacement to UK. In the years following Slovak accession to the EU, the prospective Romani migrants explored many illegal paths to arrive to Britain in their struggle for a better life. Approximately after a decade since their arrival, we can find this community as fully integrated into the local British working class, spending their time between my work and my house.
EN
The Hāshimite claim to Arab leadership had been born almost haphazardly in the circumstances of the First World War. It was far from being accepted by all the Arabs and would always suffer from its sponsorship by Britain. But the total Ottoman collapse did give Britain and France a brief period in which they felt that they could act largely as they pleased. Inducing Arabs under the rule of the Ottoman Turks to rebel against their oppressors the British and French during the First World War convinced the Hāshimite clan that they would rule over the Arab Middle East. Later on, having been awarded by the League of Nations the mandates for the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire the victorious powers began to consider those territories as their colonies. Apart from the fighting in Syria, there were uprisings in Egypt, Iraq and Palestine, because the Arab hopes had been thwarted by the establishment of administrations on colonial lines with virtually no Arab participation. The Arab rebellions could be put down only at heavy costs. The post-war economy caused the British government to act. Winston Churchill as Colonial Secretary, with T. E. Lawrence as adviser, held a conference in Cairo in March 1921. No Arabs were present, but the meeting was attended by the high commissioners for Iraq, Egypt and Palestine. It was decided to carry out the arrangement already prepared in London to make Amīr Faysal King of Iraq. Churchill’s decision regarding Iraq was to have calamitous consequences as quite different communities – the Sunnī Muslim Arabs, Sunnī Muslim Kurds, and Shīcī Muslim Arabs – were put under a single ruler. Many people say, that Churchill’s decision of 1921 continue to cause terrible grief to Iraq’s indigenous people and anxiety to the rest of the world.
Asian and African Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 24
|
issue 1
18 – 44
EN
Tipu Sultan of Mysore, Mughal Empire (1782 ‒ 99) and Emperor Tewodros of Ethiopia (1855 ‒ 68) were regnant rulers who wished to modernise their respective realms with the help of Western powers. Tipu sought French assistance to fight the British and Tewodros sought British military and technical aid to ward off Ottoman menace from Ethiopia’s northern borders as well as to subdue the intractable domestic feudal warlords with a view to unifying and stabilising his fledgling empire. Both demanded to be treated by their preferred donor countries as equals. However, they failed to achieve their ends and collided with the British ‒ Tipu Sultan against the British East India Company and Tewodros against Queen Victoria’s (1837 ‒ 1901) government. Consequently, both rulers lost the battle and their lives, the causes of their defeat and downfall being, inter alia, their personality traits and their lack of understanding of Anglo-French diplomatic and colonial complications.
PL
Istotną część brytyjskiej mitologii narodowej stanowi idea, według której Wielka Brytania miała być miejscem schronienia dla uciekających przed wojną i prześladowaniami: od francuskich Hugenotów w XVII wieku, przez Polaków w czasie II wojny światowej, po Hindusów z Ugandy w latach 70. Ta idea brytyjskiej gościnności wydaje się jednak sprzeczna z obecnie rozpowszechnioną niechęcią do przyjmowania uchodźców. Dysonans ten możemy tłumaczyć tym, że pamięć zbiorowa nierzadko zaprzecza faktom: w historii każda fala uchodźców spotykała się z niezadowoleniem i wrogością, gdy docierała do brytyjskich brzegów. Taką tendencję dobrze ilustrują zbieżności pomiędzy brytyjskimi reakcjami wobec dwóch grup uchodźców, które przybyły do Wielkiej Brytanii w odstępie stu lat. Pierwsza grupa to Żydzi, którzy docierali na Wyspy Brytyjskie w latach 1880–1940, uciekając przed pogromami w Rosji i prześladowaniami nazistowskimi. Drugą grupą są Muzułmanie, przybywający na Wyspy w ciągu ostatnich dwóch dekad. Pojawienie się obu grup stawało się źródłem tych samych obaw: przed obcością kultury i religii, która miałaby stanowić zagrożenie dla brytyjskich zwyczajów; przed rozprzestrzenianiem się radykalnych, agresywnych ideologii; oraz przed tym, że nowi przybysze będą konkurencją ekonomiczną dla mieszkańców. Niniejsza praca poświęcona będzie podobieństwom i różnicom w brytyjskim dyskursie na temat żydowskich i muzułmańskich uchodźców, a także spróbuje zestawić te zbieżności i kontrasty z mitem gościnności uznawanej przez wielu Brytyjczyków za ich narodową cechę.
EN
A prominent part of Britain’s national mythology is the idea that the country has, throughout its modern history, provided refuge to those fl eeing war and persecution around the globe. Yet this perception of hospitality as an historical British trait sits dissonantly alongside a widespread reluctance to accept today’s refugees. Th is is because, as so oft en, collective memory contradicts historical fact: each wave of refugees has actually faced strong opposition to their arrival, and hostility once they reach Britain. Th is pattern is well illustrated by the parallels between British reactions to two groups of refugees that arrived a century apart from one another: Jews, who migrated in large numbers in the period 1880–1940, fl eeing fi rst Russian pogroms and later Nazi persecution; and Muslims, who have come in the last two decades. Both have aroused many of the same concerns: that their alien culture and religion represents a threat to Britain’s way of life; that they are responsible for spreading radical, violent ideologies which threaten British security; and that they would be an economic burden on the state and compete with the native population for resources. This paper will explore the similarities – and differences – between British discourses regarding Jewish and Muslim refugees, and use these to reflect upon Britain’s self-perceived national trait of hospitality.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.