COMPARING SOUTH AFRICA AND THE UNITED STATES The Comparative Imagination: On the History of Racism, Nationalism and Social Movements. By GEORGE M. FREDERICKSON. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Pp. 259. $27.50 (ISBN 0-520-20996-6).

2001 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-352
Author(s):  
SHULA MARKS
1966 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 318
Author(s):  
Max Savelle ◽  
Louis Hartz ◽  
Kenneth D. McRae ◽  
Richard M. Morse ◽  
Richard N. Rosecrance ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Or Rabinowitz ◽  
Nicholas L. Miller

How has the United States behaved historically toward friendly states with nuclear weapons ambitions? Recent scholarship has demonstrated the great lengths to which the United States went to prevent Taiwan, South Korea, and West Germany from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet seemingly on the other side of the ledger are cases such as Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, where the United States failed to prevent proliferation, and where many have argued that the United States made exceptions to its nonproliferation objectives given conflicting geopolitical goals. A reexamination of the history of U.S. nonproliferation policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, based on declassified documents and interviews, finds that these cases are not as exceptional as is commonly understood. In each case, the United States sought to prevent these states from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite geopolitical constraints. Moreover, once U.S. policymakers realized that prior efforts had failed, they continued to pursue nonproliferation objectives, brokering deals to prevent nuclear tests, public declaration of capabilities, weaponization, or transfer of nuclear materials to other states.


2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 577
Author(s):  
Susan K. Key ◽  
Rosalia N. Scripa ◽  
Robert Juneau

Smoking bans have gone from being essentially non-existent to being the norm over the course of the last 50 years. When some of these authors started teaching, it was the norm to smoke in the classroom, in hospitals, on airplanes, in prison and in the office. Times have changedsmoking is no longer allowed in these locations in the United States. In this paper, an overview of the history of smoking advocacy, the impacts of smoke-free legislation on different stakeholders, and changes in public perceptions of smoking are provided. Mitchell and Agles 1997 Stakeholder Salience Model are used to illustrate the changes over time in stakeholder status for both smokers and nonsmokers. The Mitchell Model could have been useful to predict the change in status that the two stakeholder groups experienced and the authors suggest that management should note the emergence of urgent stakeholders in the future, as they may gain salience in other matters that can impact company wealth. Firms have to be aware of both their customers needs (smokers) as well as other social movements that may affect the use of their product, such as nonsmoking legislation. This is the first paper to apply stakeholder salience, including the concepts of urgency, power, and legitimacy, to the changing fortunes of smokers. It looks at how smoking and smokers have gone from the norm in U.S. society to outlaw status.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document