Expansionism

About: Expansionism is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 979 publications have been published within this topic receiving 11169 citations.

The Evolution of Cosmopolitan Attitudes in Polish Musical Culture of the Twentieth Century / Magdalena Dziadek.

Abstract: This paper aims to examine the varieties of programmes for expanding Polish musical culture beyond Poland’s boundaries in the twentieth century. These programmes were based on specific ideas about the place of Polish culture within Europe, and these, in turn, were shaped by discussions involving long periods and generations of participants. They were committed to defining the ideological foundations of these programmes, as well as to planning or investigating their practical premisses. To start with, I would like to explain why, out of the rich selection of terms used in the last two hundred years to indicate expansionist tendencies in cultures, such as expansionism, Europeanism, supranationalism, suprapatriotism, I have chosen the somewhat dated and seemingly pejoratively laden word “cosmopolitanism”, associated in common usage with lack of patriotism and a submissive imitation of Western cultural models. One should recall here that this kind of approach, which characterized the ideas prevalent in Polish Enlightenment, was very persistent even later, and, in the nineteenth century, became on a number of occasions a weapon in the discussions about the desired shape of Polish culture, as for instance when Seweryn Goszczynski used it in a total condemnation of the works of Fredro which, according to him, were of little use to the nation. The pejorative understanding of the term “cosmopolitanism” lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century. The entry for “cosmopolitanism” in Samuel Orgelbrand’s Encyklopedia powszechna provides us with a model ex-

Warfare at Sea, 1500-1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe/The Anglo-Dutch Naval Wars 1652-1764

Abstract: Jan Glete, Warfare at Sea, 1500-1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe, Routledge, London, 2000, pp. viii + 231, pb. £15.99, ISBN: 0415214556; Roger Hainsworth and Christine Churches, The Anglo- Dutch Naval Wars 1652-1764, Stroud, Sutton Publishing, 1998, xi + 212, £20, ISBN: 0750917873Ever since A. T. Mahan linked the rise of the Western European empires of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to their ability to effectively harness and exercise naval power, colonial, economic and military historians have sought to unravel the complex connections between technological advance and territorial expansionism which afforded a disproportionate advantage to the dominant maritime states of England and Holland in their single-minded pursuit of diplomacy, as well as of trade, by other means.1 Yet the foundation of permanent national fleets, staffed by professional officers and laid down as the result of central planning, expertise and direction, had its origins in a much earlier period and can be located in the struggles of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires to eliminate competition and to secure the prime Mediterranean trade routes for themselves. As Jan Glete emphasises in his thoroughly revisionist re-opening of the debate upon the 'Military Revolution', naval warfare has always been primarily about establishing control over maritime lines of communication; however, from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries, innovations in hull design, the art of navigation, seamanship, and the introduction of light weight, mass produced, artillery pieces presented the opportunity to effectively convoy merchantmen - free from the depredations of corsairs and commercial rivals - to exercise near total command of the sea lanes, and to guarantee the resupply of far-flung colonies with at least a degree of certainty.The relative reluctance of previous scholars to acknowledge these seminal influences, or to seek to prematurely dismiss or downgrade the effectiveness of the Ottoman and Venetian galleys, is forcefully exposed by the author who contrasts the technological parity enjoyed by navies of the late middle ages with the rapid divergence in design, range and armament which was characteristic of the early modern period. These changes were significant contributory factors to the expansion of longdistance commerce and the shift away from the traditional northern European markets, such as the Hanseatic ports, to the far more lucrative entrepots afforded by the Mediterranean, the Atlantic rim and Asia. Were Glete to have stopped at an analysis of the rise of the square-rigged ship and the growing influence of the Dutch Republic, then this, in itself, would have been a substantial and rewarding study. What sets his work apart is the sheer scope of its remit. In charting the rise of, and challenges to, Swedish and Danish-Norwegian pre-eminence in the Baltic, the rapid expansion and flowering of the Portuguese empire and the first European inroads into the continents of America and Asia, he masters an enormous range of disparate and often complex sources, succinctly marshalling them in order to support his major thesis. In revealing the struggle over 'the monopoly of violence' between private and national interest groups, and the perils inherent in the ultimate failure of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires through their unwillingness - or simply inability - to pursue this new arms race to its logical conclusion, Glete advances a well founded and persuasive argument which restores maritime endeavour to prominence in any future discussion of state and empire building.That the victors and beneficiaries of these advances in applied science should very quickly fall out amongst themselves and seek to wrest commercial advantages from their opponents by force, as the first option, appears in this light as no great surprise. By the close of Glete's study, England and the United Provinces had already established their dominance over the northern European carrying trades and were looking to expand their influence into the territories of the New World and Asia which had, hitherto, been the sole preserve of Spain and Portugal. …

THE PARADOX OF EXPANSIONIST STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS[dagger]

Abstract: INTRODUCTION 1207 I. A POSITIVE POLITICAL MODEL OF LEGISLATIVE BEHAVIOR AND STATUTORY ENACTMENT 1212 A. Legislative Coalitions 1213 B. Legislative Bargaining 1215 C. Legislative Rhetoric 1219 D. Implications of the Theory 1222 II. WHAT is STATUTORY EXPANSIONISM? 1223 A. Modeling Statutory Expansionism 1223 B. Legislative Intent Revisited 1226 C. From Simple to Sophisticated Intentionalism... 1229 III. THE PARADOX OF STATUTORY EXPANSIONISM 1234 A. A Model of Judicial Expansionism and Congressional Polarization ........ 1235 B. Illustrations of the General Thesis 1241 IV. IMPLICATIONS 1250 A. Policy Tradeoffs Implied By Judicial Expansionism 1251 B. Reinforcing Polarization. 1253 CONCLUSION 1254 INTRODUCTION For scholars interested in the currents of modern public policy, the recent history of progressive social legislation at the national level provides a workable paradigm. The 1960s and 1970s were the well-advertised heyday of progressive public policy at the federal level. In this relatively short period, Congress transformed the relationship between the federal government and both the economy and the rights of American minorities by enacting the modern era's central pieces of social legislation, including1 the Civil Rights Act,2 the Voting Rights Act,3 the Clean Air Act, and other watershed statutes.4 This transformation has waned significantly, however, over the next quarter century. The twenty-five years since the end of the 1970s are notable for the absence of watershed social legislation, which raises a puzzling question: Why the relative paucity of progressive social legislation following the orgy of statutory enactments in the mid-1960s to late- 1970s period? One explanation for this phenomenon is that Congress has become more polarized. To be sure, partisanship and polarization increased sharply over this period; and we can expect, therefore, that it would be much more difficult to reach the sort of compromise illustrative of the 89th through 92nd Congresses.5 Yet, this explanation merely raises a second question: What explains this growing divide within the contemporary Congress? To say that a polarized legislature made legislative compromise implausible begs the question of why legislators first became so polarized. Moreover, the polarization explanation is hard to square with the evidence that the American public is considerably less polarized than are their elected officials.6 In this Article, we suggest an explanation for the first question, and, in so doing, shed new light on the second. Moreover, we draw prescriptive lessons for scholars interested in promoting progressive social agendas through their exhortations to courts and legislators. …