Unlikely Allies: Britain, America, and the Victorian Origins of the Special Relationship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The title of his book is “somewhat misleading,” Duncan Andrew Campbell confesses, as his account extends beyond the Victorian era (p. 2). It also employs the adjective “special” and takes the popular works of Winston Churchill and the academic study Conflict and Concord (1959) by H. C. Allen as historiographical starting points. Yet the special nature of the Anglo-American relationship was called into question immediately after that starting point by the Eisenhower administration's response to the Suez crisis, and while the problems were subsequently papered over, few Britons have relished the recent image of Prime Minister Tony Blair's cockboat travelling in the wake of George W. Bush's man-of-war. At much the same time, Churchill's version of the World War II alliance was exposed as a myth. If the tale of the gradual development of a measure of cooperation and mutual understanding during the nineteenth century is a familiar one, it is retold with zest and skill. Campbell is dismissive of “notions of American exceptionalism” (p. 9). The United States was not man's last best hope, Abraham Lincoln's evocative peroration at Gettysburg notwithstanding, yet this was an illusion to which many Americans clung and politicians paid lip service. Its influence on the Anglo-American relationship merited at least passing consideration. In his otherwise interesting brief discussion of the impact of immigration on the relationship, Campbell surprisingly ignores, the Fenians excepted, the domestic political consequences of the massive, century-long Irish movement across the Atlantic Ocean. Thus William Henry Seward is assailed, as in an earlier book, without due consideration of the anglophobic popular context in which he operated. Nevertheless, a distinctive, informative, and frequently engaging feature of this study is the author's use of individuals to illustrate his sweeping generalizations. For example, Andrew Jackson and Viscount Palmerston become representative of anglophobia and anti-Americanism, respectively. There are pitfalls in the approach that Campbell disdains to avoid out of a desire, or so it seems, to be provocative. The much admired Charles Francis Adams was a “political crony of Seward's” who spent much of his time as American minister in London “misrepresenting” the intentions of the British government to Washington (p. 148). D'Arcy McGee, the Irish Canadian political martyr, would be mortified by the inaccurate inscription Campbell chisels into his historical headstone: “repentant Fenian” (p. 178). Campbell might also have qualified his assertion that prior to the late nineteenth century, British society was more racially tolerant than that of the democratic republic. As evidence, he offers the reception given to black American visitors to Britain. But well before his death in 1862, Robert Knox, a father of “scientific racism,” had accused the editor of Britain's most influential newspaper of plagiarizing his ideas on race, while George Dallas, Adams's immediate predecessor as American minister, believed he had detected a significant shift in British racial attitudes with the collapse of West Indian plantations dependent on free labor and then the mutiny by Indian sepoys.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».