Search results

Among the wine producing countries of Europe, Italy takes the second place after France. And it is not at all a bad second, as the figures of the average wine production of the vine‐growing countries of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin for the ten years prior to the outbreak of war, i.e., from 1929 to 1939, will clearly demonstrate. They were: France, 58,624,000 hecto‐litres; Italy, 39,189,000 hectolitres; Spain, 19,290,000 hectolitres; Algeria, 17,309,000 hectolitres ; Roumania 8,281,000 hectolitres; and Portugal, 7,289,000 hecto‐litres. The six countries then produce an average of roughly 150,000,000 hectolitres of wine annually, or approximately 80 per cent. of the total world production, which is in the neighbourhood of 187,000,000 hectolitres. Thus Italy's output stands for just over one‐quarter of the European production and one‐fifth of the world crop. From her grape harvest, Italy produces each year round about 6,000,000 hectolitres of wine of quality and 1,200,000 hectolitres of Vermouths, Marsala and other special wines. Then roughly half a million hectolitres are devoted to the making of vinegar and another 4,000,000 go to the production of second‐class alcohol. The remainder of the crop is converted into the ordinary wines which until recently were mainly consumed by the Army and the civil population. But while quantitatively Italy takes second place among the European wine producers, actually, from the point of view of the yield per square kilometre of vines planted, she ranks first. That will be obvious when it is pointed out that France obtains a crop of approximately 114 hectolitres for every square French mile or kilometre, while the Italian figure for the same area is 132 hectolitres. No other country equals this.

General and Historical Works, Nevins, Allan. The Gateway to History. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1963.

This writing reveals Hong Kong’s role as the center of China research. Before Reform and Opening in 1979, the British colony was the only place in the world where all international China experts stopped over and obtained the latest and the most accurate accounts of PRC.

The paper analyzes how Hong Kong serves as the intellectual mecca through examining the lives of China scholars amid building up their international profiles. What prompted them to join the China field? How were their lives like in the British crown colony? This paper also unveils the roles of the two research institutions played on Communist China studies: University Services Center (USC) and Union Research Institute (URI). In addition to relying on archival correspondences, personal interviews were also conducted in the last two years.

Despite being the mecca of PRC research, Hong Kong was not the first destination for most aspiring China scholars from the West. Most of these Western scholars did not even plan to devote their whole working lives to the study of China. Through luck, draft avoidance and generous grants from Ford and Carnegie Foundations, these young men and women became internationally iconic figures of East Asian research. To complete their Ph.D. theses and subsequent China-related projects, Hong Kong was a “must-go” destination for them. Under the full protection of the Union Jack, these scholars enjoyed the freedom to speak, write, research and publish. God blessed Hong Kong with such a unique political status amid the Cold War.

155 Argyle Street was the Art Deco compound where Red China experts produced most groundbreaking scholarships. It was not only a two-story structure where they acquired their first-hand resources but a platform where any China-related topics were discussed openly under the auspices of British colonial rule of law. Despite claiming themselves as apolitical, both USC and URI were products of US containment policy against communism. Even so, the colonial government never prohibited the two’s operations. Through this paper, readers will also discover how young men and women became inspired into a career in China studies.

In this chapter, we draw on trans-informed theoretical frameworks to provide insights into gender justice and gender democratization in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Our purpose is to illuminate the systemic impact of cisgenderist and cissexist beliefs which refer to the legitimation of birth-assigned gender identity and what this means for embracing a critical project of gender expansiveness in the ECEC classroom. More broadly, we explicate how our engagement with trans studies informs a critique of existing debates about masculinities, boys and male teachers in the early years. We draw on the work of trans scholars in the first part of this chapter to ground an epistemological basis for our understanding of gender expansiveness and masculinities that challenges a cisnormative framing of gender justice in ECEC. In the second part, we draw specifically on scholars in the field who have been pivotal in elaborating what we understand to be gender expansive identities and what this means for thinking about gender justice in the early childhood classroom. In the third part, we reflect on the pedagogical implications of boyhood sissiness through a trans-informed lens and explicate its implications for understanding boys and masculinities in the early years. Finally, we draw on transgender studies-informed perspectives on masculinity which call for ‘de-essentializ[ing] masculinity as grounded in a cis-male body’ (Gottzén & Straube, 2016, p. 217) and explore their implications for re-envisioning masculinities as a gender-transformative project in ECEC.