著者

佐々木 豊

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.1995, no.29, pp.197-215, 1995-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

71

著者

荻堂 裕司

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.137-155, 2003-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

67

著者

久保田 きぬ子

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.1968, no.2, pp.161-172, 1968-03-20 (Released:2010-06-11)

参考文献数

24

著者

横山 良

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.87-105, 1984-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

81

著者

加藤 一誠

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.2000, no.34, pp.141-157, 2000-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

43

著者

當間 麗

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.2003, no.37, pp.177-198, 2003

著者

長沼 秀世

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.1968, no.2, pp.71-100, 1968

著者

羽村 貴史

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.49, pp.217-237, 2015

著者

二神 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.1972, no.6, pp.36-51, 1972-03-31 (Released:2010-06-11)

参考文献数

13

著者

志村 正雄

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.1983, no.17, pp.34-48, 1983-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

9

著者

大辻 千恵子

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.1994, no.28, pp.91-110, 1994-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

91

著者

吉見 俊哉

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.85-103, 2005-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

22

著者

佐藤 千登勢

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.83-105, 1997-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

84

著者

大津留 智恵子

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.1991, no.25, pp.143-159, 1991-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

54

著者

河村 哲二

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.23-43, 2003-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

70

著者

上西 哲雄

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.48, pp.21-38, 2014-03-25 (Released:2021-11-06)

---

Mark Twain is said to have written Pudd’nhead Wilson (1892) in a pessimistic mood when his financial situation was rapidly deteriorating. This article essays to examine the novel and its background in search of the cause of his pessimism.The book is composed of two similar stories, “Pudd’nhead Wilson” and “Those Extraordinary Twins,” with the same characters in the same place during the same time period, both of which, however, deal differently with elections. In the latter, Siamese twins run for municipal positions from different parties, only one of them to be elected as an alderman of the city. Meanwhile, in the former story, elections are described in a less complicated way: the twins, physically separated, stand as candidates from the same party, both of them to be defeated. It is noticeable that “Pudd’nhead Wilson” specifies the years of its story: it begins in 1830, a few foreshadowing incidents happen in 1845, and in 1853 appear the main episodes including the municipal elections. This article examines the mid-19th century situation of Missouri State, especially the author’s home town Hannibal, in order to trace his pessimism back to his early life.Eighteen fifty-three was when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was proposed and fiercely disputed, and the next year the act was approved. The act allowed the two territories to become federal states of slavery but also prepared for the transcontinental railroad expected to be constructed in both or either of the two states which adjoin Missouri State. Railroad construction was a driving force of economic growth on the frontier, which brought forth urban areas including Hannibal, and a booming economy including land speculations all over the state. The story uses the specific year to make readers imagine that behind the sleepy town in fiction, real societies were undergoing economic advancement, leading to the urbanization of Missouri State.In “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” the grandees of the old community are plunged into tragedy by an urban character, Tom Driscoll, who is reared by a land speculator and, while studying in the East, learns city fashion and gambling, and, after frequenting the big city of St. Louis for gambling, ends up killing his foster father for money. The tragedy represents urbanization in mid-19th century Missouri society.The author’s father, John Marshall Clemens, who immigrated from the south and ended up planted in Hannibal, had repeated financial collapses due to land speculations, which the very young Twain witnessed. Apart from his financial troubles, John Marshall was a prominent citizen engaging in urban reform activities in the town. It is possible, however, to suppose from reading the novel that experiences in his very young days lead the author to think his own financial trouble originated in his father’s inclination toward speculation, for which, in the story, he seems to blame the age of economic boom and urbanization.

著者

寺地 功次

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.1996, no.30, pp.57-77, 1996-03-25 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

120

著者

奥出 直人

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.1985, no.19, pp.81-103, 1985-03-25 (Released:2010-10-28)

参考文献数

83

著者

平体 由美

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.56, pp.49-68, 2022-03-25 (Released:2022-03-30)

---

The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health was founded in 1916 on the recommendation of the Welch-Rose report submitted to the Rockefeller Foundation International Health Board (IHB) to modernize public health education. This research-oriented graduate school not only generated notable scientists but also became a model for other universities; however, it did not directly contribute to the improvement of rural health. Wickliffe Rose, one of the contributors to the report, had had a vision to train personnel as public health officers for rural areas who would supervise and educate people to improve rural health. Rose did not promote his idea in the Welch-Rose report due to the IHB’s bias against him, but his vision was passed on to John A. Ferrell, an IHB director who strongly believed that every county must have a health board with a skilled public health officer. In the early 1920s, Ferrell launched a campaign in rural counties and secured budgets from the IHB to support local health boards and to induce public health students to apply for internships. Counties and towns were experiencing a growing need for public health personnel, but many of them could not employ a health officer because of budget shortfalls. Graduates from best schools were not attracted to such underpaid and unstable jobs with slim future prospects. Meanwhile, public health nurses and school nurses filled the role of local health workers and educated families on personal hygiene, nutrition, and childcare, paving the way for more organized community health institutions. The presence of nurses in the southern and western mountain areas encouraged women to enter medicine but marginalized public health work. To Ferrell, rural counties still needed a health officer to administer broad health-work with the local government, the courts, physicians, and civic organizations—a role nurses would be unable to fill. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided federal subsidies for rural public health work; however, a discrepancy between the counties’ requirement of field-based health workers and the scientific training of specialists promoted by the IHB continued to shape the rural public health structure until the 1950s.

著者

高橋 博子

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.42, pp.1-19, 2008-03-25 (Released:2021-11-06)

---

After the detonation of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many people were exposed to the blast, heat and initial radiation. In addition to these people, many more people were exposed to the residual radiation which came from black rain, water and food, radioactive dust and so on. In 1947, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission was established by the Presidential Order of Harry Truman for research on people exposed to the Atomic Bomb. This article focuses on how the U. S. Government handled the facts about residual radiation and how ABCC scientists discussed it in the 1940s and 50s.On September 5, 1945, Wilfred Burchett, a correspondent for the Daily Express, based on data gathered in Hiroshima reported as follows: “People are still dying, mysteriously and horribly―people who were uninjured in the cataclysm―from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague.” Concerned about this report, Brigadier General F. Thomas Farrell, chief of the War Department’s atomic bomb mission (Manhattan Project), issued a statement denying that the damage was from radiation. He said, “the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated at such a high altitude that no radiation remained, and that even if some people died later, it was because of injuries sustained at the time of the explosion.” According to The New York Times on September 13, 1945, he said, “The weapon’s chief effect was blast" and that "his group of scientists" found no evidence of continuing radioactivity in the blasted area on Sep. 9 when they began their investigation.After this statement, the Manhattan Engineer district continued an investigation of residual radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mentioning the data which were collected in late September and early October 1945, they concluded, “No harmful amount of persistent radioactivity was present after the explosion.”However, in 1950, scientists of ABCC noticed the effects of residual radiation and started the “Residual Radiation Survey” by collecting information on the people who had radiation signs and symptoms after entering the city after the bombing. However, according to Lowell Woodbury, physician in the statistic department of the ABCC, “Due to pressure of other work and a shortage of investigators, this project was not actually initiated.”Woodbury pointed out the possibility that “The black rain left a deposit sufficiently radioactive to cause radiation signs and symptoms in extremely sensitive individuals, and that deposit was largely washed away in the September rains and typhoon,” and the necessity of more detailed investigations. But this investigation was not conducted. On the other hand, the conclusion of the Manhattan District Report, “No harmful effect of residual radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” even though it was conducted after the typhoon and rains, is still the standard which is applied today.The US government has continuously denied the influence of residual radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However this official view was not based on detailed scientific research.