邵冠祥与天津海风社

邵冠祥(1916—1937),江苏宜兴人.抗战前在天津求学.因组织进步青年文学社团,出版刊物,宣传抗日救亡,被日本帝国主义者绑架杀害,时年21岁,所著有《风沙夜》、《白河》、《晚集》三部诗文集.     

《新华日报》与抗日民族统一战线

《新华日报》是我党在国民党统治区公开出版的唯一机关党报 ,在抗日战争期间 ,贯彻新闻事业的党性原则 ,大力宣传中共的抗日主张 ,加强同国民党积极因素的联合 ,加强同世界新闻界的广泛联系 ,建立和扩大了新闻界的统一战线 ,坚定地站到了坚持抗日民族统一战线的前沿 ,成为我党在国统区思想战线上的一面光辉旗帜     

漫画与政治:抗美援朝运动中的漫画——以《人民日报》为中心的考察

在近代以救亡与革命为主题的时代变局中,作为一种艺术形式,漫画始终与政治上不同类型革命潮流之消长密切相关。在中共建国之前,漫画一直呈现着"艺术性"与"政治性"的多重面相。抗美援朝运动中兴起的漫画运动在"化大众"的过程中实践着艺术的"大众化"从而政治化,漫画开始疏离其"艺术性"取向而成为主要体现其"政治性"的意识形态宣教工具,并由此建构了一种"非我即敌"、"非敌即我"的极端化革命两极思维模式,这种思维模式对普通民众有极深远影响。     

从清帝退位到洪宪帝制——《许宝蘅日记》中的袁世凯

新近出版的《许宝蘅日记》堪称反映清末民初北京政治和社会风俗的资料宝库。许宝蘅清末任职军机处、承宣厅,民国初年又任总统府、国务院秘书,长期活动于政治中枢,对袁世凯在光绪帝、慈禧太后去世、辛亥清室让位、民初获取大总统职位的活动均有记载。在新旧政权交替的过渡时期,许氏身为幕职人员,敬业为公,谨慎忍耐,顾全大局,因而很受袁世凯的信任。民初官场黑暗,许宝蘅始终能有一个狭小的生存空间,多少与"项城旧人"的特殊身份有关。日记中对袁氏活动的零星记载,除了披露内幕和细节,也可对今人了解鼎革之际政治演化过程有新的启示。     

中日两国日报发行市场集中度比较

通过比较发现,中日两国日报发行市场集中度存在明显差异。我国日报发行市场集中度较低,近年来变化幅度不大,属于分散竞争型市场结构;而日本日报发行市场集中度很高,近年来呈下降趋势,属于寡占型市场结构。造成这种差异的主要原因在于管理体制、市场经营行为和市场绩效等方面。今后需要有针对性地调整报业管理体制,借鉴日本先进的发行方法,改进我国日报发行工作,适度提高日报发行市场集中度,做大做强报纸产业。     

辛亥革命前夕新加坡《中兴日报》所刊小说的历史意义

尽管《中兴日报》的立场更激进：＂反对保皇党,推翻帝制＂,但所刊反满小说的主题比较隐喻。该报＂小说＂栏目容纳侦探小说,下意识地追随东西方长久以来打破雅俗之分缓慢进展的潮流。《中兴日报》在选刊中国小说来稿的同时,也输出该报所刊登过的小说到中国的报刊。因此,该报所作的中新文化交流,可以说是双向的。     

20世纪初年的报刊广告与政治宣传——围绕《俄事警闻》、《警钟日报》排满宣传广告所作的考察

20世纪初年的中国,报刊广告逐渐成为革命派展开政治宣传的方式之一。在此背景下,《俄事警闻》、《警钟日报》创刊,并利用广告进行革命排满宣传,从揭露清朝的专制腐朽、残暴统治,到发掘传统文化中的反满思想,再到鼓吹暴力革命,在中国确立西方式的民主政治,大致形成为一个完整的体系和运作程序,反映了20世纪初年革命党人应对、解决当时中国内外社会危机的主流思路,为辛亥革命的爆发奠定了舆论基础。     

后殖民视域中的个案：过渡时期澳门文学的中华性

《澳门日报》副刊是澳门文学最重要、最核心的载体,以它为主要案例,可以充分探讨回归过渡时期澳门文学的特征。首先指出澳门文学在＂后殖民＂语境中的特殊性及其与中华文化圈不可分割的关系,从历史角度分析造就这种特征的根源;再探讨回归过渡期澳门文学的中华性,并分析文化身份认同与现代性反思的微妙契合、自觉靠拢的实践与文化特质的模塑的共同作用、本位文化与西方文化关系的可能选择等问题。     

大型冶金企业设备点检工作的思考

为了提高设备的可靠性、维修性和经济性,针对某大型冶金企业点检工作中存在的问题,提出相关对策,确保"万点受控"管理工程的不断深化。     

Kämpfen gegen Windmühlen und reale Mächte: William Lottigs Tagebuch (1919–1921) als Ausdruck der politischen,pädagogischen und schulinternen Machverhältnisse in einer Hamburger Gemeinschaftsschule zu Beginn der 1920er Jahre

In his daily journal on the founding of the public experimental school, a “community school” at the Berliner Tor in Hamburg between spring 1919 and September 1921, Lottig describes the everyday issues confronting the principal of the “new school” at that time. These concern classroom instruction, teachers, parents, external pressures on the Berliner Tor-School, the relationship with the school administration, political issues prevalent in Hamburg at that time, ideological and philosophical debates as well as personal and family relationship problems, all of which Lottig describes in his journal. Lottig also noted the reasoning underpinning the development of the school experiments: the “old” schools in Hamburg had been closed, and the state had in their place established experimental schools. The journal clearly records the difficulties, issues and successes of a principal of one of the newly established community schools (Lebensgemeinschaftsschulen), which had been established as experimental schools. A perusal of the diary indicates that Jakob Robert Schmid’s sole and up to now only one known analysis of the journal comes off as biased and misleading. Schmid, professor of education at the University of Berne, had, at the beginning of the 1930s, only perused and analysed those portions of Lottig’s journal in which Lottig describes the rather turbulent if inspiring – and yet chaotic – operation of the community school in its first two years. While Schmid analysed these portions, he did not consider Lottig’s other, more favourable and constructive comments. Schmid also did not explain his one-sided selection of journal passages. Schmid brands Lottig and his team of teachers as educational novices and classifies the Berliner Tor-School as an “anti-authoritarian” institution, an experimental school like any other school experiment which overshoots the mark, not being educationally and institutionally meaningful. A more objective and principled approach in examining Lottig’s journal would have revealed that Lottig and his teachers were well aware of the main issue confronting the school, an issue that Schmid would also have found relevant: the relation of freedom and compulsion, within a setting that Lottig wanted to revitalise, to productively equilibrate without employing the customary disciplinary instruments. Lottig furthermore again and again points emphatically to the “growing pains” of all alternative schools (even when regulated by the state as an experimental school), whose goal it had been, to establish, even under difficult circumstances, a “new school-type” not utilising the traditional instruments of discipline, instruction and school management. This proves that Lottig was neither an educational ignoramus nor unaware of the basic issue of classroom instruction: how one can instruct with or without compulsion. Lottig’s goal had always been – and this Schmid also disregarded – to replace traditional, imposed, mandated or even self-imposed rules and regulations by new, commonly worked out rules. Lottig’s journal is a good example of the steadfast, unrelenting and energy-sapping aspiration of a school principal to balance the relation of school management versus a school’s self-development under the given circumstances. In addition, Schmid’s misinterpretation is a good example of how an observer, who hardly knew the Berliner Tor-School, would misuse this historical source by means of a biased interpretation to further his own views on scholastic education, views that Lottig himself would have preferred to provocatively examine – Schmid’s “authoritative pedagogy”, which goes beyond all authoritarian and non-authoritarian educational policies. What, then, would Lottig have recorded in his journal about a meeting with Schmid?