Beyond reparations: Justice as indigenism

For the peoples who have inhabited, since time immemorial, the lands within the external borders of the U.S., remediation of genocide, land theft, and ethnocide is a pressing issue. However, monetary reparations would frustrate the reacquisition of the American Indian capacity to self-determine on ancestral lands. Because the injustice at the core of U.S. history is neither broadly acknowledged nor deeply understood, Part I provides historical foundation and sketches the factual predicate to the American Indian claim for redress. Part II presents and evaluates theories of justice with respect to this claim. Part III counters the shortcomings of these theories with a theory, Justice as Indigenism, that propounds a program of land restoration and legislative reform that will accord the full measure of relief to American Indians consistent with the requirements of justice for all peoples. Chiricahua Apache and Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, Indiana.     

Introduction: China,Ltd

The study of Chinese nationalism is very popular—both in China and the West. This article introduces a special section of seven articles (four of which are in this issue) on ‘The Limits of Chinese Nationalism’, arguing that our understanding of nationalism in China is problematic. This special section aims to explore the limits of many of the statements about Chinese nationalism that have now become ‘common sense’: the rise of Chinese nationalism, nationalism filling an ideological vacuum, elites manipulating nationalism to gain legitimacy, and so on. Using critical IR theory this Introduction explores the concept of limits to argue that borders in China are not just territorial, but cultural, economic and thus political. It seeks to change the objective of our discussion of Chinese nationalism from seeking an Answer—either as a measure of the objective nature of Chinese nationalism or as a moral judgment of it as good or evil—to seeing ‘nationalism’ as a provocation which pushes us to think about China and identity in a host of different and productive ways.     

Demographic change and industrialization in germany, 1815–1914

This article analyzes demographic change in Bremen 1815–1914 against the background of changing employment opportunities. Within the pre-industrial employment structure, which still prevailed in the decades after 1850, in-migrants were particularly disadvantaged. When modern industries developed, the situation changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century both male and female in-migrants benefited from a higher life expectancy than the city-born population had. The strong sectoral changes in employment opportunities in Bremen at the turn of the century reinforced the trends towards family limitation. More skilled in-migrants felt the need to adapt their reproductive behavior to facilitate upward social mobility. The article argues for a wider use of archival data, like those used in their study, to explore issues relating to urban demographic change in German cities during industrialization.     

SOUTH ASIA

For nearly a hundred years, to many foreigners “Peking” meant the foreign legation quarter and its colourful western inhabitants. The article gives details of the extraordinary life they led a stone's throw from the Emperor's palace in a city that remained virtually untouched by the modern world. After the Boxer Rising of 1900, the legation quarter became a Treaty Port with its own laws and administration. That status continued through the First World War and beyond. But just as the foreigners were at last beginning to value Peking's uniqueness, the end was in sight. Life changed a lot after the 1937 Japanese invasion of China and, for many, internment followed the attack on Pearl Harbour. But the end came when Treaty port status was abolished for good at the end of the War     

Bypassing Congressional Committees: Parties,Panel Rosters,and Deliberative Processes

Although scholars have examined committee rosters extensively, no study has considered the relationship between the ideological composition of panels and their participation in bill drafting. I thus ask: Which committees are frequently excluded from legislative deliberations? Does the composition of committees affect the degree to which they contribute to bill development? Using DW‐NOMINATE data, I calculate ideological scores for congressional panels between 1989 and 2010 to see whether certain committees are routinely bypassed. I find that moderate panels, polarized panels, and panels with moderate chairs are often excluded, while extreme committees in the majority direction tend to retain bill‐writing duties.