著者

渡部 桃子

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2002, no.36, pp.75-89, 2002

著者

豊田 真穂

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2004, no.38, pp.159-177, 2004-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

75

著者

大森 弥

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

no.21, pp.p54-73, 1987

著者

小林 剛

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2002, no.36, pp.111-129, 2002-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

76

著者

西出 敬一

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1992, no.26, pp.49-65, 1992-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

83

著者

加藤 幹郎

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2003, no.37, pp.45-63, 2003-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

11

著者

佐々木 孝弘

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2006, no.40, pp.1-17, 2006-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

38

著者

前川 玲子

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2005, no.39, pp.43-61, 2005-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

51

著者

山内 彰

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1997, no.31, pp.139-156, 1997-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

59

著者

小林 剛

出版者

JAPANESE ASSOCIATION FOR AMERICAN STUDIES

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2002, no.36, pp.111-129, 2002

著者

大森 一輝

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, pp.55-73, 2021-04-25 (Released:2021-07-26)

---

Boston at the turn of the twentieth century was regarded as the very embodiment of the American ideal of freedom and equality, with racial discrimination in public places outlawed by the state of Massachusetts soon after the Civil War and overt harassment and violence against African Americans virtually non-existent in this “cradle of liberty.” Blacks in Boston were, however, disproportionately poor due mainly to unfair hiring practices under the pretext of insufficient abilities or qualifications, and their plight and struggles were often neglected. This paper tries to clarify how Americans of African descent in a (supposedly) color-blind city dealt with their impoverishment. It also tries to elucidate the reasons why, in comparison with other ethnic groups, Blacks adopted specific sets of coping strategies and not others.Most Blacks in Boston were trapped in poverty with no way out. Those black Bostonians who were lucky enough to secure education and employment nonetheless urged their fellow African Americans to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. So did social workers, who paid far more attention to all the other peoples from abroad than to black migrants from the South. Slighted by the “elite” of their own race and by white professionals who were supposed to help them, needy Blacks had fewer places to turn to than immigrants and were left to their own resources. Still, they did not ask for public assistance, which, given the almost negligible black political influence, did not reach them even during the Great Depression.By contrast, the Irish, who came to dominate city politics by the first decades of the twentieth century, made the most of government aid as well as Catholic charities. Likewise, the Jews expanded their philanthropies in addition to receiving greater public support. The Chinese helped each other, so much so that none of them were on the welfare rolls at the worst point of the economic crisis.Poor African Americans in Boston had to help themselves because no help was coming either from the “upper class” of their own people or from outside. Moreover, personal recollections and other sources tell us that they seemed to believe in the principle of individual self-help and chose to improve their situation on their own. They were so “American” and independent that they could not rely on the patronage of political bosses, as the Irish tended to do, or band together on religious or cultural grounds to forge a separate community for mutual help, as the Jews or the Chinese tended to do, even though American democracy, culture, and Christianity did not do justice to African Americans.These proud Americans of African ancestry in “freedom’s birthplace,” who had internalized the ethics of individual responsibility, had a long way to go before claiming public aid as a right and fighting against the stigma of poverty and welfare.

著者

古屋 安雄

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1969, no.3, pp.53-68, 1969-02-20 (Released:2010-06-11)

参考文献数

41

著者

生駒 孝彰

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1984, no.18, pp.47-66, 1984-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

57

著者

河野 徹

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1986, no.20, pp.68-85, 1986-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

31

著者

土屋 和代

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, pp.75-95, 2021-04-25 (Released:2021-07-26)

---

The welfare rights movement, led by the National Welfare Rights Organization, is one of the least-studied social movements of the 1960s and 70s. NWRO activists insisted on the right to decent clothing, heating in the middle of winter, and other basic needs—along with the right to conduct rent strikes. They fought against involuntary sterilization and advocated for a guaranteed adequate income for all. Yet despite the significance of their discourses and influence in the political debate over “welfare,” their critical narratives have been consistently overlooked.When the NWRO folded in 1975, scholars have offered explanations for this outcome. Quoting the words of George Wiley, civil rights activist and executive director of the NWRO, Nick Cotz and May Lynn Cotz contended that poor women, like anyone else, had taken advantage of the minor perks of office, and the taste of power it offered. The NWRO eventually collapsed because these poor women were “merely interested in being leadership and maintaining their own position.” Guida West, on the other hand, argued that the demise of the NWRO was due to the contradictions and tensions that existed within the organization from the very beginning: while architects of the NWRO had set up a “new, nonpaternalistic model” that challenged the stereotypes of poor people as subordinates, middle-class, white male staff ended up dominating the movement activities of poor African American women.Yet, how had these “tensions” surfaced in the early 1970s? Based on Wiley’s papers, NWRO archives, NWRO’s newsletters, and other primary documents, this article illustrates how the backlash against “welfare mothers,” hand in hand with anti-welfare ideology, led to shrinking donations and the contract funds to the NWRO, tightening finances. Politicians and the press came to represent welfare recipients—increasingly African American and unmarried/divorced—as unworthy of public support. Due to these financial difficulties, many organization personnel were eventually fired, exacerbating “tensions” among them, as well as those between the staff and the recipients. The demise of the NWRO cannot be fully understood without considering the changing political and social climate surrounding Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which became increasingly unpopular in the late 1960s with the rapid expansion of membership rolls and its payments.Johnnie Tillmon, the first chairperson of the NWRO, believed in “working together to do something about the problems that affect poor people across the country.” Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, calls for new imaginings of public safety, addressing the need for divestment from police, prisons, and surveillance, as well as investment in the communities that are most directly impacted by “the violence of poverty.” COVID-19 laid bare “the systemic inequalities within America,” from who dies and who receives good care, to who gets to work from home and who has to choose between making money and risking their health, says William Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign. Centering the voices of welfare recipients—who have long been silenced, both in the debate over “welfare” and the history of American social movements—would be one of the first steps necessary in untangling the connections between systemic racism and the “violence of poverty” in the U.S.

著者

鵜飼 信成

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1976, no.10, pp.1-8, 1976-03-25 (Released:2010-06-11)

参考文献数

18

著者

風呂本 惇子

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2004, no.38, pp.21-39, 2004-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

38

著者

草野 大希

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, pp.41-60, 2015-03-25 (Released:2021-11-05)

---

This article highlights the characteristics of the Monroe Doctrine that are the roots of both American unilateralism and multilateralism. It achieves this objective by examining the utilization of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States to justify its interventionist policies in the Americas since its declaration in 1823 and traces its development over time as a justification for individual or collective intervention.As Gaddis Smith, a prominent historian of U.S. foreign policy, stated in 1994, the end of the Cold War seems to have put an end to “the last years of the Monroe Doctrine.” Actually, we rarely see the words of the Monroe Doctrine in American interventions any longer, especially those of the last two decades, including the recent statements by President Obama on his decision to begin a new military intervention against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. However, looking back on the history of the Monroe Doctrine and U.S. interventions, it is evident that this doctrine still continues to affect American policies even today. The validity of this assertion is confirmed by contemporary interventions, which as in the past, are marked by the problem of whether the U.S. can undertake these actions unilaterally or multilaterally, that is, the very problem that it had to confront in the Western Hemisphere under the Monroe Doctrine, long before the end of the Cold War.It is true that many scholars, especially those who study the history of the Monroe Doctrine and U.S-Latin American relations, have already argued that the doctrine relates not only to American unilateralism but also to its multilateralism. However, few articles explicitly regard the Monroe Doctrine as the ideational source of both unilateralism and multilateralism and clarify its historic development to the present day, which ultimately created the multilateral framework. In addition, generally speaking, the Monroe Doctrine is still only usually associated with U.S. unilateralism, while the effect of the doctrine on the development of multilateralism has been ignored. For this reason, this article promotes a more rigorous understanding of the role that the Monroe Doctrine has played in creating the two core principles of U.S. behavior.This paper addresses the following issues: (1) President Monroe’s declaration of the original Monroe Doctrine, (2) the Roosevelt Corollary as the transformed Monroe Doctrine for U.S. interventions, (3) the trial of and backlashagainst the multilateralizing of the Monroe Doctrine under the Wilson administration, (4) the multilateralized, Monroe Doctrine from the 1930s’ Good Neighbor policy to the establishment of the United Nations, (5) the Monroe Doctrine during the Cold War, and (6) the effect of the Monroe Doctrine on U.S. interventionism in the post-Cold War era.

著者

佐藤 円

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2005, no.39, pp.181-185, 2005-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

著者

飯島 徹

出版者

アメリカ学会

雑誌

アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1982, no.16, pp.222-230, 1982-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

68