维护边疆民族地区社会稳定的基本对策

在建设全面小康社会的进程中,社会稳定具有基础性和决定性的作用.边疆民族地区作为后发地区,具有边疆、民族、贫困等特点,在整个国家发展战略和社会稳定中具有举足轻重的地位.维护边疆民族地区社会稳定,既有一般的共性,也有其特殊性.强化统一的多民族国家的宣传教育、推动边疆民族地区经济社会发展等十条措施.既是治理边疆的治本之道,也是维护边疆民族地区社会稳定的基本之策.     

The Limits of Tolerance: Nation–State Building and What It Means for Minority Groups

Abstract

When we think of the most egregious forms of intolerance directed against minority communities we tend to associate them with particularly despicable regimes, such as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where racism, ideology or some special route to development is often held to blame, or where ultra-nationalism swamps positive tendencies towards democracy and a civil society. In this essay Levene proposes a partial corrective to this view with reference to the supposedly ‘good’ nation–state derived from the western liberal model. He considers the behaviour of two such states at their inception, Poland and Israel, with regard to two minorities, Jews and Arabs, with the Jews providing linkage between the two state trajectories. Levene charts their respective rejections of bi-national or multinational development, and suggests that the fact that both states today maintain a modicum of tolerance towards their residual Jewish and Arab minorities is more the result of (paradoxical) good luck than of conscious, benevolent design. In conclusion Levene proposes that the very nature of the modern nation–state militates against genuine pluralistic tolerance, a goal that requires a massive structural re-ordering of contemporary society away from global economies to a sustainability of human scale.     

Ethnic Cleansing in Silesia 1950-89 and the Ennationalizing Policies of Poland and Germany

The rise of nationalism in Central Europe in the nineteenth century had dire consequences for Silesia, the far-flung, multi-ethnic frontier region of Prussia/Germany, bordering on Austria-Hungary and Russia. The dividing up in 1921 of Upper Silesia between Germany and the newly established Polish nation-state, and the ensuing ennationalization of both regions, triggered off population movements of 300,000 persons before 1939, when Berlin seized the whole of Upper Silesia and embarked on a policy of thorough Germanization. After 1945 this was succeeded by Polonization as Moscow granted most of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line (including almost the whole of Silesia) to Poland. In consequence, almost the entire Lower Silesian population either fled, was evacuated in 1944-5 or expelled by 1948, and the region was repopulated by Poles. The same was true in Upper Silesia but to a more limited degree as Warsaw decided to retain most of the local population: as 'Poles', they would 'justify' incorporation of the region into Poland, and they would continue to run the Upper Silesian industries so badly needed for the country's reconstruction. Although officially recognized as Poles, Upper Silesians were treated as second-class citizens. Whereas, by 1960, almost all of the remaining Lower Silesian Germans had been allowed to leave, this option was not available to Upper Silesians who, as a result, became more alienated, more German-orientated and even more deeply identified with their specific ethnic groups. Consequently, although Warsaw could not recognize them as non-Poles as it would contradict the offical myth of the state's ethnic homogeneity, an increasing number were allowed to leave for West Germany, especially after Bonn's major concessions to the Polish Communist regime in 1970 which had the dual effect of making hard-to-come-by goods more available for 'real' Poles, and of replenishing the conservative electorate in West Germany. On the other hand, those who stayed successfully defied Poland's ennationalizing policies by the establishment of various German organizations. The emigration of 1950-89 was in fact an 'ethnic cleansing' as it was originally set off by discrimination on ethnic grounds; the growing disparity in living standards between West Germany and Poland was accompanied of a similar gap in the granting of civil and human rights.     

社会主义核心价值体系建设:基于民族地区的特定视阈

推进社会主义核心价值体系建设,能够确保民族地区思想文化建设的性质和方向,引领多元民族文化和价值观最大限度地形成社会共识,形成激发各民族人民改革创新、奋发向上的精神动力,有效抵御敌对势力意识形态的渗透。当前,民族地区社会主义核心价值体系建设面临着一些挑战。     

民族地区政府购买NGO服务研究

民族地区的公共服务存在供给不足的问题,这与社会历史因素有关。政府购买NGO公共服务在一定程度上满足了社会需求,推动了社会建设。目前总体特征是NGO在贴近民生的领域参与意愿较强,但存在能力不足问题,政府的支持力度也不大。基本的经验是政府既要发挥主导作用,还需尊重NGO的创新精神,并对其服务进行项目采购。     

建国前党的少数民族思想政治教育工作述论

思想政治教育对于实现党的民族政策、纲领方式发挥着不可或缺的重要作用。党在革命过程中积累了丰富的思想政治教育的经验,只有在吸收优秀成果的基础上,才能对我们当前少数民族思想政治工作的开展与实施产生重要的促进作用。从这个层面而言,回顾和总结党在各时期的少数民族思想政治教育过程对我们当前的工作有着重大的指导意义。     

民族文化旅游产业可持续发展的综合评价体系及评价方法研究——基于文化经济协同发展的视角

民族文化旅游产业可持续发展的评价指标体系研究目前还是一个空白。基于文化经济协同与可持续发展的视角,构建了民族文化旅游产业可持续发展综合评价的经济指标体系和民族文化旅游产业可持续发展的文化指标体系,并将二者用数学方法进行协同分析以实现对民族文化旅游产业可持续发展的综合评价。     

关于羌族农民收入差异分析及增收的对策研究——以四川省北川羌族自治县为例

农民收入问题是"三农"问题的核心,只有农民收入不断增加,实现农村小康才有基础、农村各项事业才能不断发展。2008年汶川地震后,国家对北川县投入了大量的人力和资本,北川经济得以快速发展,据有关资料显示,北川县在2009年四川省少数民族地区经济综合排序中位于第13位,处于中间位置,和一些发达的少数民族地区相比还有一定的差距。在分析北川县农民收入的现状、形势及存在问题的基础上,针对如何拓展农民增收空间,持续稳定地提高农民收入水平,结合北川县的实际,就构建农民增收的长效机制提出了几点建议。     

田野调查运用于民族教育研究中的反思

在整体性与形象性思维的影响下,在民族教育跨学科属性的背景下,在定性研究范式的助推下,田野调查在民族教育研究中备受推崇。但研究者在运用田野调查进行民族教育研究时,仍存在以民族文化调查附上教育功能阐释为研究模式、以移植人种志的田野调查法为研究模板、视田野调查为民族教育研究的必选方法等误区。于是需要在今后的民族教育研究中具备从田野调查中"走进去、走出来"的思维,实现田野调查在民族教育研究中的因地制宜,运用田野调查扩展民族教育的研究内容。     

少数民族三语教育的纵横解读

本文以我国少数民族三语教育的目标与成效为观察点,在深刻剖析了目前少数民族三语教育的文化价值和市场价值的基础上,认为少数民族的文化价值应该是多元文化的价值理念,并且市场价值应该体现在少数民族个人的理性选择和社会的合理选择。