Nawab Sayyid Mansur Ali Khan (29 October 1830 – 4 November 1884) was the Nawab of Bengal from 1838 until his abdication in 1880, whereupon he renounced his titles and position as Nawab. During his reign, he instituted various policies in the princely state he governed, frequently coming into conflict with the colonial government over monetary issues. Khan was a frequent visitor to Britain, and it was there that he often pleaded his case in regards to disputes with the colonial government. In 1880, Khan decided to abdicate in favour of his eldest son. He died four years later.

Life

Early years

Nawab Nazim Mansur Ali Khan was born to Nawab Mubarak Ali Khan II and Rais-un-nisa Begum on 29 October 1830. He was only eight years old when he succeeded his father on 29 October 1838, which happened to be the day of Eid ul-Fitr. He received the titles of Muntizam-ul-Mulk (Ruler of the Country), Mohsen ud-Daulah (Benefactor of the State), Feradun Jah (Of High Rank) and Nasrut jang (Helper in War). However, he was popularly known as Nawab Nazim Feradun Jah or Janab-e-Ali. Later, he was abdicated and received the  lesser title of Nawab Bahadur and was denied the use of the qualification of His Highness.

Reign as Nawab

After Mansur Ali Khan succeeded his father, Mubarak Ali Khan II, on 29 October 1838 at the age of eight years to become the Nawab of Bengal, with Kishvar Khan as his Wazir and Khwaja Fazal Mohammed as the chief Qazi.

Mr W. H. Elliot, appointed agent to the Governor General in December 1838, relinquished charge of the Nizamat affairs in February 1839 and the care of the boy Nawab passed into the hands of Colonel Caulfield. During the period from January 1840 to December 1846, there were many changes, three agents being appointed and relieved. The affairs of the Nawab's family were disordered and what disappointed them more was when Mr Torrens appointed a lot of agents to the Governor General on 17 December 1846.

The Nawab was unable to take part in the management of his affairs as he was very young and was surrounded by intriguers whose only idea was that of self-interest. Mr Torrens was absent from April 1851 to December 1851, and he died on 15 August 1852. When the Nawab grew up, he began to inquire into matters and found that there was confusion in all departments. The main things which were needed was the accounting of money and friendly cooperation between the native officials and the European agents and their officers. The government found it necessary to appropriate the certain so-called Nizamat Funds and made new arrangements with regards to the Nawab's stipend. But, the Nawab wanted full explanation and resented what, for want of full information, he regarded it as acts of injustice.

The Nawab slowly started taking active interests in matters and found much to complain of, which made certain inquiries during the year 1852. Of  16 lacs assigned to him by the East India Company his personal allotment was  7,50,000 lacs only. The remainder was used for the other members of the family and any unexpected balance was transferred to the Nizamat Deposit Fund, which later became the subject of a great controversy.

Nawab Nazim Mansur Ali Khan, better known as Feradun Jah, founded the Nizamat School and College or the Nawab Bahadur's institution, which is also known as the Nawab's High School and the Nawab's Madrassa. The Nawab's High School or the Nawab Bahadur's Institution was set up in 1825 exclusively for the son and akrobas of the Nawab. He also rebuilt the present building of Nizamat Imambara after the fire of 23 December 1846, just parallel to the north face of the Hazarduari Palace, at a cost of more than  6 lacs during those times.

In 1853, it was declared that the Nawab had no treaty rights.  This was followed in 1854 by the abolition of  all the former privileges of the Nazim. The Nawab's salute of nineteen guards was reduced to thirteen for alleged complicity in the murder of two menials on 11 October 1854 in the Nawab's shooting camp. The Nawab's attendant Aman Ali Khan, the principal eunuch, was prosecuted for having done the murder. All the eunuchs were acquitted by the Supreme Court and later they were received back to the Nawab's service but the government ordered their peremptory dismissal.

In the same year (i.e. 1853) the four regulations and Acts of 1799, 1805, 1806 and 1822 securing to him certain privileges were repealed and the Nazim's right of control over the Nizamate Fund Deposit was denied. After the Revolt of 1857, in which Nawab Nazim Feradun Jah had rendered material assistance the salute of nineteen guard was restored. In 1860, Nawab Nazim Feradun Jah memorialized  the Secretary of State for India in council about his numerous grievances. Receiving no redress, the Nawab went to England in 1869 against the advice of his dewan, Raja Prasanna Narayan Deb, accompanied by his private secretary and chief counsellor, Mr H. C. Fox, to prefer his complaint in person to Her Majesty's Government. His grievances were ventilated in Parliament but with little success.

By the time the Nawab was in England, the Nizamate at Murshidabad became involved in debts and people started making several claims against the Nawab Nazim. Thus, as a result attachments were issued against his property. The Government of India there upon moved into an action of freezing the Nawab and his property from suits and attachments and also of discharging portions of the claims. With the further object of exempting him from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, the Government of India passed an Act (XVII of 1873) in 1873 and appointed there under a commission for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the enactment. On 13 December 1875 the commissioners, one of whom was Beaufort, formerly judge of Murshidabad, submitted their declaration with regard to the Nizamat State Property (that is property held by the Government of India for the purpose of upholding the dignity of the Nawab Nazim of Bengal for the time being). In April 1876 the Nizamate commissioners completed and made their awards with respect to the claims of several creditors.

Abolition of the title

It was in 1880 that the title of "Nawab of Bengal" was abolished. When Feradun Jah was in England he entered into a contract with the Secretary of State. In the contract he agreed to receive a sum of (Indian Rupees) 10 lakhs. It was to paid out of his arrears of pension, in full satisfaction of his personal claims. The personal claims were to one of his own and whatsoever he wanted. The Nawab also expressed a desire to retire from the Nizamate and his personal stipend of 10,000 pounds sterling per annum was granted to him, with an option to reside wherever he pleased.

Abdication

Feradun Jah left Murshidabad in February 1869 and started living in England. He remained there until his return at Bombay in October 1881. However, his journey was not much of pleasure as most of his time was spent in pleading his case against orders of the Government of India. At last after it was not resolved the Nawab renounced his styles and titles of Nawab Nazim of Bengal and Bihar and abdicated in favour of his eldest son, at St. Ives, Maidenhead, on 1 November 1880. As he was prone to pleasure and extravaganza he fell deeply into debts and was obliged to dispose much of his family jewels, property and patrimony in return for a life pension of £10,000 per annum, a personal stipend of £83,000 and expenses of £25,000.

Death and legacy

Feradun Jah came back to Murshidabad where he died of cholera at the Hazarduari Palace on 5 November 1884 and was buried in the family cemetery at Jafarganj Cemetery. The place where he was buried in coincidence was the only available space left in the line of the tombs of the Nazims, and were subsequently removed for interment at Karbala in Iraq, in pursuance of his will.. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Nawab Sayyid Hassan Ali Mirza Khan Bahadur as Nawab of Murshidabad.  His great-grandson, Iskander Mirza (through his son Bahadur Syed Iskander Ali and his grandson Mohammad Fateh Ali), became the first president of Pakistan in 1956. His 22nd son was Sahibzada Syed Jafar Meerza Bahadur, whose grandson was Syed Safder Meerza (Bacchu Sir), from his son Syed Haider Meerza (Piare Sahib). Syed Safder Meerza went on to become the chief ata'lliq of Nawab Bahadur's Institution, Murshidabad (ata'lliq - mentor).

Marriage

Principal wives

Mansur Ali Khan had in all six principal wives:

 Shams-i-Jehan Begum Sahiba (H.H. Firadaus Mahal; née Mehar-un-nisa Begum Sahiba). Married Nawab Mansur Ali Khan in Murshidabad. She was a Gaddinashin Begum and died at Calcutta on 21 April 1905.
 Malika-uz Zamani Begum Sahiba (Hazziya Begum). She died at Murshidabad in November 1884.
 Mehr Lekha Begum Sahiba (Guiti Afroz Mahal). She died at Murshidabad on 30 May 1855, she has been buried at the Jafarganj Cemetery. She was previously a mut'ah wife as Hasina Khanum, a former Abyssinian slave girl.
 Shah-un nisa Begum Sahiba. She died at Murshidabad on 16 January 1892. She was previously a mut'ah wife of as Shah-un-nisa Khanum and had been buried at the Jafarganj Cemetery.
 Shams-un-nisa Begum Sahiba. She died before 1865. She too was previously a mut'ah wife of as Shams-un-nisa Khanum.
 Sarah Begum Sahiba (before marriage she was an English woman and was named Sarah Vennell). Their marriage took place at the Alexandra Hotel, St. George's Place in London on 15 May 1870. She was born in 1853 and died on 1 September 1925 at London. She was a daughter of Josiah Godfrey Vennell, of New Barnet, Middlesex. Sarah's brother was George Alexander Vennell who was a barrister of law and represented Mansur Ali Khan in a number of his legal dealings while in England.

Mut'ah wives

 Faiz-un-nisa Khanum
 Mubaraq Khadam (previously Bi Moti)
 Badr-un-nisa Khanum
 Zeb-un-nisa Khanum
 Nazam-un-nisa Khanum
 Muhammadi Begum (an English woman known as Julia Lewis before marriage). Their marriage took place at London. She was a daughter of Thomas Lewis and died at Patcham, Sussex, on 20 December 1948.
 Sambar-un-nisa Begum (previously Bi Sambaran) = Mother of  Sahibzada Sayyid Ja'afar Mirza Bahadur. b. at Hazardowari Palace, Murshidabad, 12th March 1866. m. (first) Jamshid Dulhan Hashmat Zohra  Begum Sahiba.  m. (i) Imami Khanum (d. after 1899), previously Ummat un-nisa. m. (ii) Ghasiti Khanum (d. after 1899). He d. 6th December 1896, having had issue, three sons and one daughter.

See also
 List of rulers of Bengal
 History of Bengal
 History of Bangladesh
 History of India

References

External links

1830 births
1884 deaths
Deaths from cholera
Indian royalty
Monarchs who abdicated
Nawabs of Bengal

Mansur Ali Khan


Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I (when British hegemony was in decline) and the instability of the interwar period (when the American hegemon reduced its presence from world politics).

The key mechanisms in hegemonic stability theory revolve around public goods provision: to resolve collective action problems regarding public goods, a powerful actor who is willing and able to shoulder a disproportionate share of public goods provision is needed. Hegemonic stability may entail self-reinforcing cooperation, as it is in the interest of the hegemon to provide public goods and it is in interest of other states to maintain an international order from which they derive public goods.

Early development
Charles Kindleberger is one of the scholars most closely associated with HST; commentators such as  Benjamin Cohen regard him as the theory's founder and most influential proponent. In his 1973 book The World in Depression: 1929-1939, Kindleberger argued that the economic chaos between World War I and World War II that led to the Great Depression was partly attributable to the lack of a world leader with a dominant economy. Kindleberger's reasoning touched upon more than economics, however: the central idea behind HST suggests that the stability of the global system, in terms of politics, international law, and so on, relies on the hegemon to develop and enforce the rules of that system. Other key figures in the development of hegemonic stability theory include Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner.

In his major work, Gilpin theorizes world history as imperial cycles until late modern times and the succession of hegemonies in  late modern times when first Britain and later the United States stabilized the international system. Gilpin opposes balancing and the  balance-of-power theory. He contends that the system naturally goes toward equilibrium. From global war or "hegemonic war" emerges a new hegemon who creates and keeps the new world order with its own set of preferences. This is partly accomplished by providing public goods. In the case of the hegemony of the United States after 1945, there took place attempts at initialising a stable currency by means of the International Monetary Fund, the Bretton Woods system, establishment of the World Bank, security alliances (such as NATO), and democratisation.

Gilpin argues further that in the global system, the more decisive a victory is after the "hegemonic war", the more stable the new system will be. He agrees with Paul Kennedy's view of "imperialistic overstretch" as one of the reasons that hegemons fall. Gilpin adds that all hegemons inevitably fall because at a certain stage expansion exceeds benefits, distribution of power in the system shifts and other states rise and challenge the hegemon. Eventually, a dissatisfied great power that approaches the power of the current hegemon will cause a new global war and the cycle repeats.

Robert Keohane coined the term "Hegemonic stability theory" in a 1980 article. Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemony used insights from the new institutional economics to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus questioning hegemonic stability theory. John Ruggie's work on embedded liberalism also challenged hegemonic stability theory. He argued that the post-WWII international order was not just held together by material power but through "legitimate social purpose" whereby governments created support for the international order through social policies that alleviated the adverse effects of globalization. John Ikenberry argues that hegemony is not a precondition for international stability, pointing to path dependence and "stickinesss" of institutions.

Hegemonic attributes

In order for a nation-state to rise to the level of hegemon, such a state must combine all or most of the following attributes:

 Superior military force is necessary for the ability to forge new international laws and organizations.
 Insularity provides added security and the potential to project military forces, though in some cases hegemons have not been insular or peninsular. The United States of America, for instance, has become a virtual island. It has two massive seaboards, and its neighbors are long-standing allies, setting it apart from the rest of great powers. Nuclear weapons and superior air force add to its national security.
 A large and growing economy. Usually, unrivaled supremacy in at least one leading economic or technological sector is necessary. Military and economic powers compose the capability to enforce the rules of the system.
 The will to lead and to establish a hegemonic regime by enforcing the rules of the system. After World War I, the United States possessed the capacity to lead, but lacked the will to do so. Without the will to force stability on the international system, the United States missed an opportunity to prevent the onset of the Great Depression or World War II.
 A hegemon must commit to the system, which needs to be perceived as mutually beneficial by other great powers and important state-actors.

Competing theories of hegemonic stability

Research on hegemony can be divided into two schools of thought:  the realist school and the systemic school.  Each school can be further sub-divided. Two dominant theories have emerged from each school. What Robert Keohane first called the "theory of hegemonic stability", joins A. F. K. Organski's Power Transition Theory as the two dominant approaches to the realist school of thought. Long Cycle Theory, espoused by George Modelski, and World Systems Theory, espoused by Immanuel Wallerstein, have emerged as the two dominant approaches to the systemic school of thought.

Systemic school of thought

According to Thomas J. McCormick, scholars and other experts on the systemic school define hegemony "as a single power's possession of 'simultaneous superior economic efficiency in production, trade and finance.'" Furthermore, a hegemon's superior position is considered the logical consequence of superior geography, technological innovation, ideology, superior resources, and other factors.

Long cycle theory

George Modelski, who presented his ideas in the book, Long Cycles in World Politics (1987), is the chief architect of long cycle theory.  In a nutshell, long cycle theory describes the connection between war cycles, economic supremacy, and the political aspects of world leadership.

Long cycles, or long waves, offer interesting perspectives on global politics by permitting "the careful exploration of the ways in which world wars have recurred, and lead states such as Britain and the United States have succeeded each other in an orderly manner."  Not to be confused with Simon Kuznets' idea of long-cycles, or long-swings, long cycles of global politics are patterns of past world politics.

The long cycle, according to Dr. Dan Cox, is a period of time lasting approximately 70 to 100 years.  At the end of that period, "the title of most powerful nation in the world switches hands.".  Modelski divides the long cycle into four phases.  When periods of global war, which could last as much as one-fourth of the total long cycle, are factored in, the cycle can last from 87 to 122 years.

Many traditional theories of international relations, including the other approaches to hegemony, believe that the baseline nature of the international system is anarchy.  Modelski's long cycle theory, however, states that war and other destabilizing events are a natural product of the long cycle and larger global system cycle.  They are part of the living processes of the global polity and social order.  Wars are "systemic decisions" that "punctuate the movement of the system at regular intervals."  Because "world politics is not a random process of hit or miss, win or lose, depending on the luck of the draw or the brute strength of the contestants," anarchy simply doesn't play a role.  After all, long cycles have provided, for the last five centuries, a means for the successive selection and operation of numerous world leaders.

Modeslki used to believe that long cycles were a product of the modern period.  He suggests that the five long cycles, which have taken place since about 1500, are each a part of a larger global system cycle, or the modern world system.

Under the terms of long cycle theory, five hegemonic long cycles have taken place, each strongly correlating to economic Kondratieff Waves (or K-Waves).  The first hegemon would have been Portugal during the 16th century, then the Netherlands during the 17th century.  Next, Great Britain served twice, first during the 18th century, then during the 19th century.  The United States has been serving as hegemon since the end of World War II.

The traditional view of long cycle theory has evolved somewhat, as Modelski now suggests that Northern and Southern Sung China, Venice and Genoa were each the dominant economic powers during medieval long cycles.  However, he does not classify any of these states as world powers.  Only when Portugal gained hegemony after 1500 is that distinction made.

Other views of hegemonic stability

Neorealist interpretation

Neorealists have been focusing on this theory recently, the main proponent of it being John J. Mearsheimer who is trying to incorporate it into 'offensive realism'. In his book 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics' Mearsheimer outlines how the anarchic system that neorealists subscribe to (see Kenneth Waltz for original theory) creates power hungry states who will each attempt to install themselves as regional and global hegemons. The system is created, shaped and maintained by coercion. The hegemon would begin to undermine the institution when it is not in their interests. With the decline of a hegemon, the system descends into instability.

Classical liberal interpretation
It is motivated by enlightened self-interest; the hegemon takes on the costs because it is good for all actors, thereby creating stability in the system, which is also in the interests of all actors.

Neoliberal interpretation
Neoliberals argue that the hegemon wishes to maintain its dominant position without paying enforcement costs, so it creates a system in which it can credibly limit the returns to power (loser doesn't lose all) and credibly commit to neither dominate nor abandon them. This is done through institutions, which are sticky, (hard to change, more convenient to continue using than to revamp.) These institutions favor the hegemon, but provide protection and a stable world order for the rest of the world. The more open this world-order, the less likely that there will be a challenger.
With the decline of the hegemon, institutions don't automatically die, because they were constructed in a way that benefited all stakeholders; instead, they take on a life of their own (see regime theory).

Criticism
Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemony used insights from the new institutional economics to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus rebutting hegemonic stability theory. Keohane showed that international cooperation could be sustained through repeated interactions, transparency, and monitoring. These factors could reduce transaction costs and provide information about other states (for example, whether the states are cheating or contributing). Duncan Snidal argues that international cooperation is sustainable even after hegemony because smaller states derive sufficient benefits to be willing to contribute towards international institutions.

Using insights from historical institutionalism, John Ikenberry argues that the international institutions set up by the United States are sustainable due to feedback effects, whereby it is costly for actors to set up alternative institutions. Ikenberry also argues that hegemonic stability theory fails to account for regime types, which is essential to understanding why democratic hegemons such as the United States created institutions during periods in which they were hegemons, whereas non-democratic hegemons in previous eras did not set up institutional orders when given the opportunity. Consistent with hegemonic stability theory, Ikenberry argues that the ability to create institutions is partly due to power preponderance.

Dominic Tierney argues that hegemonic stability theorists are wrong in assuming that unipolarity leads to a stable order. He argues that it is the contestation that compels the great power and other states to build international order.

Maria Gavris has criticized HST for its underdeveloped conceptualization of hegemony.

Post-Cold War period

Theory
On the "unipolar moment" in 1990, the leading expert on the world-systems theory, Christopher Chase-Dunn, linked the forthcoming period with the HST. He reminded that hegemonic rivalry led to World Wars and in future such a rivalry among core states is only likely if the US hegemony continues to decline. But the current situation of single superpower is eminently stable.

To the mainstream International Relations (IR below), the unipolar world came as a surprise. Realists, shaped by "two World Wars and the Cold War, understood the differing logics of multipolar and bipolar systems, but apparently failed to envision a unipolar world because none of their works before the end of the Cold War accounts for it."

For several more years following the "unipolar moment", IR analysis overwhelmingly argued for instability and imminent collapse of the hegemonic order. Mark Sheetz was one of the first IR scholars to explicitly link the post-Cold War order with the HST: The US strategy, he wrote in 1997, fits "the expectations of hegemonic stability theory more comfortably than do other Realist theories. The latter predict that efforts to preserve hegemony would be futile and counterproductive, but not so hegemonic stability theory."

Only in 1999, came to light an article completely and explicitly devoted to the subject. William Wohlforth titled it "The stability of a unipolar world", paraphrasing the 1964 title, "The stability of a bipolar world", by the founder of Neorealism, Kenneth Waltz. Wohlforth stressed the theoretical lag: "[The] hegemonic theory has received little shrill in the debate over the nature of the post-Cold War international system. This omission is unwarranted, for the theory has simple and profound implications for the peacefulness of the post-Cold War international order that are backed up by a formidable body of scholarship."

The first obstacle facing the IR research after the Cold War was mathematical - how many poles gives two minus one. There is no evidence the IR scholars collaborated with the department of mathematics and probably worked on their own. In 1997, Michael W. Doyle summarized six years of calculations: We declare that the new world order exists "and now we must ask what do we mean."  Two poles minus one might give one, three, four, five and even zero poles. Doyle concluded with undefined number of "many" poles.

The mathematical breakthrough occurred two years later in the above-mentioned work by Wohlforth: Two states measured up as polar powers in 1990. "One is gone. No new pole has appeared: 2 - 1 = 1. The system is unipolar." The article by Wohlforth, according to Stephen Walt, broke the theoretical path.

In the following decade, the IR research tentatively switched to the unipolar or hegemonic stability, which replaced the balance of power as the focus of intense debate among IR scholars. Charles Kupchan, who since 1991 expects an imminent end to the US hegemony, in 2003 agreed that this hegemony causes the present peace and stability.

Until the early 2000s, Jack S. Levy and William Thompson adhered to the main Realist paradigm that hegemonic stability is theoretically impossible because other states would counter-balance. By the end of the decade, however, both engaged in search for the causes of the present hegemonic stability. In 2009, the student and follower of Waltz, Christopher Layne, confessed: "As events transpires, however, the fate of earlier hegemons has not befallen the United States." In the 2010s, more IR scholars accepted the hegemonic stability as a theory most fitting the post-Cold War period.

Curiously, one of the classics of the HST, Gilpin, denied the existence of the post-Cold-War hegemony and never applied the theory to this period. In 2002, Gilpin referred to some scholars who define the present system as hegemonic. "Less sanguin observers," however, countered that the bipolar system was supplanted by "chaotic, multipolar world of five or more major powers." The proclamation of the "new world order" he attributed to the end of the Gulf War in 1991, though the proclamation is attested from 1990 and the Gulf War had been regarded as the first test to the already existing new world order.

Application

United States

Although the Hegemonic stability theory is attributed to the 1973 work by Kindleberger and the Realist mainstream rejected it for three decades longer, several scholars since World War II had theorized about the US preponderance of power which is identical in its arguments to the hegemonic stability. Similar arguments ping-ponged in the literature about the American foreign policy until the 2017 Peace through strength promised by Donald Trump.

Three scholars described how the US-led hegemonic system produces stability in the Twenty-First century: The United States makes its power safe for the world and in return the world agrees to live within the hegemonic system maintaining formal or informal alliances and open markets. The United States has been influential in moving many countries towards embracing the free market through institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank (see Washington Consensus).

Curiously, at the peak of the 2003 anti-hegemonic crisis, the world public opinion remained highly pro-hegemonic and convinced in the hegemonic stability. Large majorities of people in most surveyed countries thought that the world would be a more dangerous place if there were a rival to the American superpower. 64% of the French, 70% of the Mexicans and 63% of the Jordanians thought this way.

The US network of alliances created in the early Cold War remains intact in the post-Cold War period and NATO almost doubled in members. When NATO counted only 16 members, it was already described as the most successful alliance in history. As of 2023, it counts 30 members. The exact number of US allies worldwide is undefined because there is no clear criteria for counting unofficial defense partnerships. Bradley A. Thayer counts 84; Max Ostrovsky over 100. 130 countries or even more host US bases. Most of these countries are either formal allies or informal defense partners.

Fifteen years in the post-Cold War period, Thayer calculated the hegemonic stabilization: Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America and they include almost all of the developed economies. That is a combined GDP ratio of almost 17 to 1, a big change from the Cold War when the same ratio was about 1.8 to 1. Never before in history had any country so many allies. Ostrovsky outlined a political-economic rule which, he claims, has a very few exceptions: countries with the nominal per capita GDP above the world average formally or informally ally with the United States.

These are not alliances in the Westphalian sense characterized by impermanence and power-balancing; rather it is a hegemonic system of the Roman kind. Most states of the world host the hegemonic bases, many of them partly cover expenses for running them ("host nation support"), integrate their strategic forces under the hegemonic command, contribute 1-2% of their GDP to the integrated forces, and tip military, economic and humanitarian contributions in case of the hegemonic campaigns worldwide. Actually, these states, some of them recent great powers, surrender their strategic sovereignty en masse in favor of the hegemonic stability.

External balancing
While the hegemonic bloc concentration is overwhelming, anti-hegemonic military alliances do not form. No power entangles itself in military alliance against the United States. "No counter-hegemonic coalition has taken shape, and none is on the horizon." The only visible pattern to the relations between Moscow and Beijing since the late 1950s is that there is no pattern. There is no evidence that they want to transform their strategic partnership into a military alliance and much evidence to suggest that they do not.

China
The United States is still considered by most analysts to be at the top of the world, both economically and in terms of military strength. With these abundant resources and power, the world remains "a single superpower world". However, many analysts envisage the emergence of new giants which threaten  the U.S. hegemony. These giants, they argue, create new power centers all over the world and the world becomes ever more multipolar. Of those new giants, the single greatest competitor of United States is China as it is growing rapidly with "no equal in modern history". Historically, examples of hegemonic decline come in two prime sectors: the leading state's military and its economy. Both arenas are crucial for the analysis of the shifting power structure.

With the highest gross domestic product at purchasing power parity, China poses a significant challenge to U.S. economic primacy especially with the expectation that U.S. national debt could explode to 717% of GDP by 2080 according to Congressional Budget office. Moreover, this debt is financed largely by China through the purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds.  On the other hand, China's economic power, not limited to but including industrialization and modernization, is rapidly burgeoning with high consumption and increasing foreign investment. As Global Trends 2025 points out, the rise of China and India to great power status will restore each to "the positions they held two centuries ago when China produced approximately 30 percent and India 15 percent of the world's wealth."

By 2018, Michael Beckley counted hundred of books and thousands of articles envisioning the decline of the US, the rise of China and the multipolar world, and outlined an element common to these works—they all relied on gross indicators of power, such as GDP or military spending. These are the same indicators that made China look like a superpower during its century of humiliation (1839-1911). They reflect large population but do not consider welfare costs—the expenses a nation pays to provide this population with food, health care, social security, police, administration and education. Deducting these costs from gross indicators would give net indicators. Beckley suggests considering GDP per capita, more precisely multiplying it by total GDP. According to this net indicator, China still lags far behind the US.

U.S. military can be characterized by "imperial overstretch," wrote Paul Kennedy in 1987. Fifteen years later, Kennedy re-estimated: "Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing. I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close… There is… no comparison."

By the time Kennedy invented "imperial overstretch," the declinist paradigm of the US hegemony counted already two decades and, two years before The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Bruce Russett collected an impressive list of works on the "mysterious case of vanishing hegemony." Russett called the case "mysterious" because he found no confirming evidence. The hegemony was intact. He associated his conclusion with the popular words of Mark Twain, the "report of my death was an exaggeration." Written in 1985, this article has not aged.

Writing in 1992, Andrew L. Shapiro assured regarding the U.S.: With troops operating abroad in more than fifty-five countries, "a military force is extended so much that it nears a breaking point." After three decades of "nearing a breaking point," the U.S administration approved a record–breaking peacetime national defense budget of $813 billion. Meanwhile, Shapiro continued in 1992, China is taking advantage by industrializing its army using their wealth. China's military budget is increasing and the troops are expanding. A decade later, Steven W. Mosher insisted that China is building up its armed forces "to break America's back in Asia and thus end America's reign as the sole superpower in the world."

It remains unknown whether the aim of the Chinese build up is America's "back breaking," but definitely its pace is not neck-breaking. By 2022, China was estimated to accumulate between 350 and 400 nuclear warheads, just exceeding Charles de Gaulle's force de frappe and 15 times short of the U.S. arsenal. The disparity of the delivery means is even greater. As of 2023, China has not yet introduced its first intercontinental bomber. The longest-range Chinese Xian H-6 bombers can reach Guam. The Soviet bombers could reach the continental United States on a one-way suicide mission; the best Chinese bombers are good enough only for a half-way suicide mission.

Moreover, the Chinese nuclear force remains unsophisticated and highly vulnerable. The official Chinese nuclear doctrine is "assured retaliation," as distinguished from "assured destruction," or "minimum deterrence." In case of attack, China would only retaliate, not destroy the aggressor. But there is little evidence that even the retaliation is assured. The US force stationed in Guam alone might eliminate China's nuclear arsenal in one conventional strike, leaving China for assured retaliation a little more than the traditional "millet plus rifles."

As of 2023, China has two outdated Kuznezov-type aircraft carriers. When China purchased the first, analysts supposed that it would serve as a tourist attraction like Soviet carriers Kiev and Minsk used to. The Chinese anti-hegemonic challenge is like horizon - never gets closer. Decades pass and the US fleet continues to maneuver around Taiwan without the Chinese counterpart around Cuba.

Furthermore, many argue that China has a symbiotic relationship with the United States. If the United States declines, it is likely that China also may be in jeopardy. John Gulick points out that China's prosperity is "deeply ensconced in the 'China produces and lends, the US borrows and spends' framework". Economic interdependence of China derives from the fact that they are a producing state rather than a consuming state.  China's economy is export heavy as its driving force lies in "export processing measures". The export dependent structure could severely dampen economic growth if demand for Chinese exports is reduced by another economic crisis in the United States. Besides the economic interdependence, China might face additional barriers to its hegemonic aspirations, such as domestic political instability, environmental degradation, public health issues, and demographic trends.

Russia
More revisionist appeared Russia under Vladimir Putin. Repeatedly he addressed the international community with anti-hegemonic agenda, arguing that the post-Cold War hegemony is unstable: "After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability." Key international institutions are ignored by the United States and its western allies. They use force against sovereign states. Instead of settling conflicts they contribute to their escalation, instead of democracy and freedom they support a very dubious public ranging from neo-fascists to Islamic radicals, and instead of stable states they produce chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. A "unilateral diktat" leads to instability. The leaders of Belarus, Iran, North Korea and Bashar al-Assad shared the view. The rest of the world, however, remained unmoved and unwilling to join the anti-hegemonic crusade.

The Russian foreign policy under Putin steadily became more aggressive, culminating with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The United States responded with sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. This U.S. response was criticized by some officials and experts as appeasement. Timo S. Koster who served at NATO as Director of Defence Policy & Capabilities criticized: A massacre is taking place in Europe and the strongest military alliance in the world is staying out of it. Philip Breedlove, a retired four-star U.S. Air Force general and a former SACEUR, said that the West have "ceded the initiative to the enemy." No attempt was made by NATO to deter Moscow with the threat of military force, wondered another expert. Nevertheless, the U.S. response, combined with similar measures by the NATO allies and the Ukrainian resistance, was enough to roll back the Russian troops on most fronts and, as of 2023, reduce the Russian conquests to the regions with pro-Russian majority.

Test against historical evidence

Complications
The first complication for testing the HST against history is the absence of a case to test. The world hegemony is unprecedented. William Wohlforth emphasized that we are living in the world's first hegemonic system. Even the leading Realist opponent of the HST agreed on the matter: A dominant power without rivals rising to challenge is a position without precedent. Hence, Walt concluded in 2009, there is no yet consensus on the overall impact of hegemony. The phenomenon is recent and has yet to receive a sustained theoretical attention.

Moreover, the historical IR research remains Eurocentric and Europe has not experienced pan-European hegemony since the fall of Rome.  The world during the Pax Britannica was multipolar rather than hegemonic and the period is characterized by hegemonic rivalry rather than stability. Earlier modern European powers named hegemonic in some works, such as the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, were even less hegemonic than Britain.  Gilpin noted that Portugal and the Netherlands only dominated trade. Modern Europe before 1990 had never been hegemonic system, which by definition has only one unrivaled power.

A product of eurocentric research, the Hegemonic Stability Theory was as much theory about instability. In a cyclical pattern, the hegemonic stability would be followed by violent hegemonic power transition to rising competitors (Gilpin, Modelski, Organsky). Periods of expansion are followed by equilibrium which is "merely a temporary phenomenon in the continuing process of international political change." Organsky, having combined the Hegemonic Stability Theory with the Power transition theory, created a perfect oxymoron. Bound to the modern Europe, the IR research found dubious hegemons, drew from these cases the paradigm of imminent hegemonic fall and implied it to the United States:

Beyond modern Europe
With the American hegemony counting its first decade (since 1990) and showing no signs of collapse in sight, several IR scholars supposed that to find something similar even on regional scale it is necessary to descend to pre-modern times and extend the scope beyond Europe. In 2007, two books devoted to pre-modern civilizations came to light. One was edited by Wohlforth with contributions from experts on several pre-modern civilizations. One of the contributors was Victoria Tin-bor Hui, whose civilization (China) experienced  centuries-long unipolar stability. The other book was by Max Ostrovsky, who completed two degrees in world history and PhD in International Relations. This book became the first attempt of theory by a professional historian and at the same time the first IR research extensively based on primary sources.

Both works found that most civilizations most of time were unipolar and the European long balance of power was exceptional in world history. Victoria Tin-bor Hui and Ostrovsky explained it by the expanding nature of the European system, while hegemonic stability needs a geopolitically closed system. The next complication, however, was the kind of unipolarity. Most of unipolar civilizations were universal empires rather than system-wide hegemonies. The former are distinct by formal rule, territorial conquest and annexation, and regular taxation. The team of Wohlforth disregarded this complication. Ostrovsky found in world history three system-wide hegemonies—Sumer, Qin in 364-221 BC and Rome in 189-63 BC.

Three known cases
The first striking element is that system-wide hegemonies were rare occasions in world history. The second striking element is that all three known hegemonies were anything but stable. Ostrovsky tested the HST on the three known cases: The hegemon of Sumer, House of Kish, sent envoys to Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh addressed the assembly of warriors: "Let us not submit to the House of Kish, let us smite it with weapons!" The assembly wholeheartedly agreed. "At the word of the fighting men of his city his heart rejoiced, his spirit brightened." A battle was fought and the hegemon was defeated and imprisoned. Hegemony is as old as history. According to the Sumerian King List, Kish established the hegemony yet before the Flood. The anti-hegemonic resistance dates to the same dawn of history too, recorded in one of the earliest literary legacies of mankind.

The hegemonic Qin did not produce anymore stability. The Warring States went more warring. Qin emerged victorious and hegemonic after a war in 364 BC. Shortly, almost all the rest of the Chinese world united into an anti-hegemonic alliance, called Vertical or Perpendicular, and at least once the whole Chinese world "united their wills and joined their forces to attack Qin." "With a force of 1,000,000 soldiers drown from area ten times large than Qin, they  beat upon the Pass [to the land of Qin] and pressed forward toward Qin." The same dreadful scenario repeated itself several times. Massive anti-hegemonic alliances characterized the period. As in Sumer, in the Warring-States China hegemony was bound with anti-hegemony. The Qin armies repeatedly crashed the anti-hegemonic alliances in at least 15 major campaigns Eventually, Qin launched a universal conquest and established universal empire.

The contemporary to Qin Roman hegemony was more stable with longer periods of peace, but almost each generation the system experienced major wars. The last war against Macedonia (148 BC) and the last Punic War (146 BC) were wars of annexation. Three Mithridatic Wars (88-63 BC) were anti-hegemonic wars led by Pontus and similarly ended by annexation of Pontus and the Near East. In the course of these and other wars, Rome, like Qin, evolved from hegemony into universal empire.

"Balance of power, repeatedly remarked two proponents of hegemonic stability, predicts that states will try to prevent the rise of a hegemon; it tells us nothing  about what will happen once a country establishes such a position," nor history yields such an implication. History, however, yields. Rome and Qin were well established hegemons but were repeatedly counter-balanced by rival powers or coalitions until they conquered and annexed them.

Hegemonic stage
Historic cases of system-wide hegemonies accord Balance of Power theory rather than the HST—anti-hegemonic balancing happened and on large scales, as Balance of Power predicts. The only difference is that counter-balancing did not lead to the restoration of balance in the system but in the opposite direction—the hegemonies prevailed and established universal empires. Hence, Ostrovsky concluded that the three cases - of Qin, Rome and the US - are analogous systemic transformations from warring states to hegemony to universal empire with the modern process being presently uncompleted.

Remarkably, all three great powers, Rome, Qin and the US were on the edge of the contemporary civilization and geographically protected, Rome by sea, Qin by mountain ranges and the US by oceans. All three began by the policy of isolation using their natural barriers. Rome initially maintained the doctrine of "no foreign foot in Italy" and later of "no foreign foot in Europe;" Qin began with analogous policy of no foreign foot within the passes. And the US began with the policy of isolation and no foreign foot in the Americas. All three abandoned isolationism in favor of hegemony. Rome and Qin were the only cases in world history when great powers first established a system-wide hegemony and later universal empire. All other known universal empires were established directly out of the system of warring states and avoiding the hegemonic stage. Probably geographic isolation favors this particular hegemonic stage.

Earlier, Pentagon strategist, Edward Luttwak, turned into Roman historian and produced a famous research on the Roman hegemony. Implicitly advocating hegemony for the United States, Luttwak argued that transforming hegemony into empire was Rome's fatal mistake. By contrast to empire, hegemony saves much power.

Basing on the comparative analysis between Rome and Qin instead of the single case of Rome, Ostrovsky countered that the transformation of hegemony into empire is not always fatal mistake - China still exists. And in both cases the transformation resulted in a more stable order and "Golden Age." Replying on Luttwak's thesis of the "economy of force" by a hegemonic power, Ostrovsky suggested that it "naturally results in the economy of obedience by a ruled periphery." A year after Ostrovsky published this anti-thesis, Russia invaded Georgia and began ever more anti-hegemonic policy, culminating with a full scale invasion of Ukraine.

Permanent hegemony
The anti-hegemonic initiative of Vladimir Putin, however, fell short. No major power joined him in the endeavor, international opposition was unanimous and his troops were forced to retreat on most fronts, holding only regions with pro-Russian majority as of 2023. Yet four years before Russia suffered the setback in Ukraine, Ostrovsky completed an advanced analysis of the present hegemonic stability. The latter analysis indicated that, despite the best efforts by Putin, the anti-hegemonic resistance in our world is incomparably weaker than in the ancient Roman and Chinese worlds, and the overall trend in our world is toward hegemonic stabilization. "At this point, he concludes, world history runs out of samples."  World history knows stability of universal empires; it does not know hegemonic stability and hegemonic systems themselves were exceptional. But the real puzzle history poses to the HST is not why the American hegemony did not fall but rather why it did not evolve into empire and, for the first time in world history, produced hegemonic stability.

See also
 Power transition theory
 Realism (international relations)

References

External links
 Summaries of International Relations Theories
Assessment of the United States' Impact on the United Nations While to Maintain Its Hegemonic Stability, KÜRESEL SİYASET MERKEZİ

International relations theory
Political realism
Hegemony

Hegemonic stability theory


D-Psicose (C6H12O6), also known as D-allulose, or simply allulose, is a low-calorie epimer of the monosaccharide sugar fructose, used by some major commercial food and beverage manufacturers as a low-calorie sweetener. First identified in wheat in the 1940s, allulose is naturally present in small quantities in certain foods.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted a petition for Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) for allulose as a sugar substitute in various specified food categories. Because it is absorbed and metabolized differently from other sugars, the FDA has exempted allulose from the listing of total and added sugars on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels, but requires its weight listing as a carbohydrate, with 0.4kcal/g (about 1/10 the calories of ordinary carbohydrates).

Studies have shown the commercial product is not absorbed in the human body the way common sugars are and does not raise insulin levels, but more testing may be needed to evaluate any other potential side effects. In 2020, the U.S. FDA accepted the conclusion by Samyang that the maximum tolerable consumption for a 60 kg adult was 33 to 36 grams per day.

Biochemistry
The sweetness of allulose is estimated to be 70% of the sweetness of sucrose. It has some cooling sensation and no bitterness. Its taste is said to be sugar-like, in contrast to certain other sweeteners, like the high-intensity artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharin. The caloric value of allulose in humans is about 0.2 to 0.4 kcal/g, relative to about 4 kcal/g for typical carbohydrates. In rats, the relative energy value of allulose was found to be 0.007 kcal/g, or approximately 0.3% of that of sucrose. Similar to the sugar alcohol erythritol, allulose is minimally metabolized and is excreted largely unchanged. The glycemic index of allulose is very low or negligible.

Allulose is a weak inhibitor of the enzymes α-glucosidase, α-amylase, maltase, and sucrase. Because of this, it can inhibit the metabolism of starch and disaccharides into monosaccharides in the gastrointestinal tract. Additionally, allulose inhibits the absorption of glucose via transporters in the intestines. For these reasons, allulose has potential antihyperglycemic effects, and has been found to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia in humans. Through modulation of lipogenic enzymes in the liver, allulose may also have antihyperlipidemic effects.

Due to its effect of causing incomplete absorption of carbohydrates from the gastrointestinal tract, and subsequent fermentation of these carbohydrates by intestinal bacteria, allulose can result in unpleasant symptoms such as flatulence, abdominal discomfort, and diarrhea. The maximum non-effect dose of allulose in causing diarrhea in humans has been found to be 0.55 g/kg of body weight. This is higher than that of most sugar alcohols (0.17–0.42 g/kg), but is less than that of erythritol (0.66–1.0+ g/kg).

D-allulose was found to be more reactive than fructose and glucose in glycation reactions.

Effect on carbohydrate absorption
A meta-analysis was conducted of the effect on postprandial glucose and insulin responses of adding a median of 5 grams of allulose (range, 2.5-10 g) to a fixed carbohydrate-containing drink or meal, versus the same meal alone. Overall, compared to the carbohydrate-containing meal alone, the same meal with a small dose of added allulose resulted in a 10% lower integrated area under the curve (iAUC) of postprandial glucose. The quality of the evidence was rated as moderate.

Chemistry

Allulose, also known by its systematic name D-ribo-2-hexulose as well as by the name D-psicose, is a monosaccharide and a ketohexose. It is a C3 epimer of fructose. Fructose can be converted to allulose by the enzymes D-tagatose 3-epimerase () and/or D-psicose 3-epimerase (), which has allowed for mass production of allulose. The compound is found naturally in trace amounts in wheat, figs, raisins, maple syrup, and molasses. Allulose has similar physical properties to those of regular sugar, such as bulk, mouthfeel, browning capability, and freeze point depression. This makes it favorable for use as a sugar replacement in food products, including ice cream.

In a paper produced for the European Food Safety Authority, the enzyme d-psicose 3-epimerase, manufactured by Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Ltd, was investigated for safety and allergenicity.  No DNA of E. coli (used for production of the enzyme) was found in the enzyme preparation, and no match was found in the enzyme amino acid sequence with those of known allergens.

History
Allulose was first discovered in the 1940s. The first mass-production method for allulose was established when Ken Izumori at Kagawa University in Japan discovered the key enzyme, D-tagatose 3-epimerase, to convert fructose to allulose in 1994. This method of production has a high yield, but suffers from a very high production cost.

Regulatory history
In June 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted the assertion of CJ CheilJedang, Inc. of South Korea that allulose is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) as a sugar substitute in various specified food categories. In June 2014, a similar GRAS letter was issued to Matsutani Chemical Industry Company, Ltd. of Japan. Non-GMO allulose manufactured by Samyang Corp. of South Korea was approved as GRAS in March 2020.

In the European Union, although allulose is a naturally-occurring saccharide, under their regulations, monosaccharides and other saccharides are not considered food additives, and thus cannot be approved as such, but must be approved as ingredients.  CJ-Tereos Sweeteners of France filed for such an approval in April 2018.  The Allulose Novel Food Consortium (ANFC) was formed in 2021 by four Japanese, Korean, U.S. and European food ingredient companies to speed its approval as an ingredient in Europe, including exemption from sugar labelling.

The U.S. FDA in October 2019 announced the exemption of allulose from total and added sugars on nutritional labels, but manufacturers must continue to include allulose in the total carbohydrates declaration, with a value of 0.4kcal/g, "0.4 calories per gram of allulose".

Manufacturing
Allulose is produced by an enzymatic reaction that converts fructose into allulose. As of 2018, most commercially available allulose uses corn (maize) as the source of fructose. Allulose is also produced from sugar beet.

Commercial application
Commercial manufacturers and food laboratories are looking into properties of allulose that may differentiate it from sucrose and fructose sweeteners, including an ability to induce the high foaming property of egg white protein and the production of antioxidant substances produced through the Maillard reaction.

Commercial uses of allulose include low-calorie sweeteners in beverages, yogurt, ice cream, baked goods, and other typically high-calorie items. London-based Tate & Lyle released its proprietary variant of allulose, known as Dolcia Prima allulose, and U.S.-based Anderson Global Group released its own proprietary variant into the North American market in 2015. The first major food company to adopt allulose as a sweetener was Quest Nutrition in some of their protein bar products.

On April 16, 2019, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a draft guidance, allowing food manufacturers to exclude allulose from total and added sugar counts on Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels. Like sugar alcohols and dietary fiber, allulose will still count towards total carbohydrates on nutrition labels. This, combined with the GRAS designation, has increased interest in including allulose in food products instead of sucrose.

References

Ketohexoses
Pyranoses
Furanoses

Psicose


Antonio Prohias (January 17, 1921 – February 24, 1998) was a Cuban-born cartoonist. He is best known as the creator of Spy vs. Spy. The running gag is of two incompent spies-one in black clothing-one in white clothing-who consisity try to outdo each other in comic mayhem. Although one comic only identies their countries as Black/White  another one tells their nationalities are given in an International border cartoon in which the Black Spy from the "East" tries to sneak over to the "West" [Guarded by the "White Spy."]-although a later cartoon identies their countries as "Black SpyLand" (and presumedly "White Spyland")  Likewise the Spys parents  and their Children are cloathed as Black/white Miniature copies of their fathers Even in childhood and old age the two spys began their mayhem against one another-although their feuding goes back to Caveman times and the Roman Empire In the Spy Vs Spy World even innocenet human bystanders  toys  and the Spys animals are cloathed in Black/White They even have their own Spy Cemeteries [ID only as Agent Number but no names]; and Fan Clubs; their newspapers are called "Spy News" The Spys weopons could be anything-from antique Biplanes to Jets Each spy would be attached to either their own embassy or their respective Spy Hq-a running gag is that each spy would try to steal secrets from the enemy spy embassy  On occasion Prohias would introduce a variation in which one Spy would embaress -but not kill-the enemy spy Other variations-more than One spy of the same color vs enemy Spy; and occasionally the introduction of a third Spy..the femme fatalee female "Grey Spy" would always trick the two love struck bumblers to their doom. In Honor of St Patricks Day another Spy was introduced the "Green Spy". When "Mad Magazine" had its own TV Show they would show 3D Cartoons of Spy Vs Spy shorts. After Prohias demise the Cartoon has been drawn by Kupper

References

Cartoonists
Cuban people
1921 births
1998 deaths

Antonio Prohias


Juba Kalamka  (born July 12, 1970) is an African American bisexual artist and activist recognized for his work and founding member of homohop group Deep Dickollective (D/DC) and his development of the micro-label sugartruck recordings.

Kalamka has coordinated the release and promotion of five critically successful D/DC albums, the Outmusic Award winning solo debut of former Sister Spit member Rocco "Katastrophe" Kayiatos, and the distribution of the work of numerous other artists in the homohop community.

Kalamka's personal work centers on dialogues on the convergences and conflicts of race, identity, gender, sexuality and class in pop culture. He has written and illustrated several articles for pop culture magazines and journals, Kitchen Sink, ColorLines, and the now-defunct bisexual issues magazine Anything That Moves.

He has been a speaker, panelist, and curator for numerous organizations and conferences, among them the San Francisco Black Gay/Lesbian Film Festival, GLAAD, Hip Hop as a Movement at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Burning Closets/Working Our Way Home at Oberlin College. In November 2005, Kalamka was chosen to be one of six plenary speakers at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's 2005 Creating Change Conference and received a Creating Change Award for his activist work in queer music community.

Kalamka served as Festival Director for the now defunct East Bay (Oakland, California) Pride  in 2003 and the curator/director of PeaceOUT World Homo Hop Festival which ran annually from 2001 through 2007. The success of PeaceOUT inspired the creation of three now-defunct sister festivals; Peace Out East in New York City, Peace Out South in Atlanta, Georgia, and Peace Out UK in  London, England.

Kalamka appears extensively in Alex Hinton's 2005 documentary Pick Up the Mic, an active survey of the scene through documentation of homohop artists on tour and in performance at the various PeaceOUT festivals.

In 2003, Kalamka continued his personal and artistic dialogues on sexuality and race with appearances in three sex films; Good Vibrations/Sexpositive Productions G Marks the Spot, Joani Blank's Orgasm: Faces of Ecstasy, and the unreleased Radio Dildo Libre (David Findlay/Blissful Itch Productions). In 2005, Kalamka was contacted by artist and sex worker advocate Annie Oakley (whom he'd met at the Olympia, Washington queer arts fest HomoAGoGo) and accepted an invitation to tour with The Sex Workers'Art Show, a month-long cross-country cabaret-style theater event featuring current and former sex worker artist/activists. Deep Dickollective's fifth and final disc, On Some Other was released on Sugartruck in June 2007.

In December 2006, Kalamka completed the MFA program in Poetics (minoring in Queer and Activist Performance through the schools Experimental Performance Institute) at New College of California in San Francisco. An essay/interview with Kalamka and former bandmate Tim'm West appears in hip hop writer Jeff Chang's collection Total Chaos: the Art and Aesthetics of Hip Hop (Basic Civitas Books). He was elected to the Board of Directors of the Queer Cultural Center (producers of the National Queer Arts Festival) and the Strategic Committee of sex worker advocacy organization Desiree Alliance in 2011. He joined the board of national bisexual advocacy organization BiNet USA in 2018 and was elected Vice President in 2019.
Kalamka resigned as Vice President in August 2020 and left the organization in October 2020.

On January 18, 2022 Kill Rock Stars announced the release of the first single and accompanying music video(directed by media artist John Sanborn) by queer rap rock/nü metal collective COMMANDO, featuring performances by Kalamka, The Living Earth Show, former Tribe 8 lead singer Lynnee Breedlove and RuPaul's Drag Race performer Honey Mahogany, with a full-length album to be released on March 4, 2022.

Kalamka's first poetry collection Son of Byford was released by Nomadic Press in July, 2022.

Discography

with Deep Dickollective

 2001 BourgieBohoPostPomoAfroHomo    sugartruck recordings
 2001 Independent Sounds:Amoeba Music Compilation Vol. III  Hip Hop Slam
 2002 Phat Family Compilation Volume One:Tha Dozens Phat Family Records
 2003 Them Niggas Done Went And Said...   sugartruck recordings
 2004 Azadi!: A Benefit CD For RAWA (compilation) Fire Museum/ElectroMotive Records
 2003 Movin' b/w Straightrippin'(C-Phlavormix) (7" single) Agitprop!/sugartruck
 2004 The Famous Outlaw League of Proto-Negroes  sugartruck recordings
 2004 Phat Family Compilation Volume Two:Down 4 Tha Swerve Phat Family Records
 2005 Live at Wildseed and Mo  sugartruck recordings
 2007 On Some Other   sugartruck recordings
 2012 With The Key(Sissies):The Very Best of Deep Dickollective sugartruck recordings

as Juba Kalamka

 2012 Ooogaboooga Under Fascism  sugartruck recordings
 2012 This and That (Instrumental/s)  sugartruck recordings
 2014 Codeswitchings (Black Things Tomorrow?) sugartruck recordings

as The Joe Louis Milk Company

 2020 You Don't Have To Be (instrumentals)  Motisa Methods/sugartruck recordings

with Rainbow Flava

 2001 Family Business  Phat Family Records

with Leroy F. Moore Jr. (as JKLM)

 2018 Invalidations, Volume Too  sugartruck recordings/KripHopNation

with Marvin K. White (as Black Ellipsis...)

 2020 Tth Spc Btwn...A Seminary Avenue Motisa Methods/sugartruck recordings

with He Who Walks Three Ways

 1994 Me, IBM and The Baby Jesus (self-released demo) Biglip/WGBL?
 2020 Technology Delivered 91/94 Motisa Methods

with COMMANDO

 2022 Hotel Essex (single) Kill Rock Stars

 2022 COMMANDO (album) Kill Rock Stars
 2023 EMET(Izdis Hymn?) (single) Kill Rock Stars
 2023 Diet Soda (single) Kill Rock Stars
 2023 Four (single)Kill Rock Stars
 2023 Big Big Black
(single)Kill Rock Stars
 2023 Luggage n'Umbrage:The Skeebo Sides EP
(EP)Kill Rock Stars

Filmography

 2003 G Marks The Spot:The Good Vibrations Guide to the G-Spot  Sexpositive Productions
 2004 Orgasm!The Faces of Ecstasy  Joani Blank, dir. Blank Tapes
 2005 Pick Up The Mic  (as himself) Alex Hinton, dir. Planet Janice Films
 2006 Making It (background music) Sobaz Benjamin, dir. National Film Board of Canada
 2007 Godspeed  (Weed Man/Dime Bag Dealer) AltCinema Productions
 2008 La bisexualité: tout un art?  (as himself) Laure Michel and Eric Wastiaux. dir.
 2010 That's So GAY! (as himself) KB Boyce, dir. QPOC Artists and Mass Media
 2011 The Craving  (prod., additional music) Val Killmore Castro, dir. Hellfire Cinema
 2012 Heavenly Spire: Juba (as himself) Shine Louise Houston, dir. Pink Label
 2013 Sins Invalid   (producer, additional music)  Patty Berne, dir.
 2014 Fuckstyles 2   (as himself)  Trouble Films Courtney Trouble,dir.
 2014 Fucking Mystic (as himself) Trouble Films Courtney Trouble, dir.
 2019 Is Friendship Legal Ms. Zoe Kat and Salty Brine, dir.
 2019 Whores On Film (aka The Celluloid Bordello) (as himself) Juliana Piccilo, dir.
 2020 The Shock of Gary Fisher(w/COMMANDO) music video John Sanborn, dir.
 2021 The Friend (as St. Fractious) John Sanborn, dir.
 2022 Hotel Essex(w/COMMANDO) music video John Sanborn, dir.
 2022 Prince(w/COMMANDO)   music video Daniel Foerste, dir.

References

External links
  Juba Kalamka official website
  Deep Dickollective official website
 Son of Byford at Nomadic Press
 COMMANDO official website

1970 births
Living people
LGBT rappers
Bisexual male musicians
African-American rappers
American bisexual musicians
Rappers from Chicago
African-American LGBT people
21st-century American rappers
LGBT people from Illinois
20th-century American LGBT people
21st-century American LGBT people
21st-century African-American musicians
20th-century African-American people
African-American poets
American LGBT poets

Juba Kalamka


Joanna Pettet (born Joanna Jane Salmon; 16 November 1942) is a British-born Canadian retired actress.

Early life
Pettet was born in Westminster, London, England, daughter of Harold Nigel Egerton Salmon and Cecily J. Tremaine, who were married in Chelsea, London in 1940. Her father, a British Royal Air Force pilot, was killed in the Second World War in 1943. After the war, her mother remarried and settled in Montréal, where young Joanna was adopted by her stepfather and assumed his surname of "Pettet".

When Pettet was 16, she moved to New York City.

Career

Pettet studied with Sanford Meisner at the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre, as well as at the Lincoln Center, and made her debut, aged 19, on Broadway in Take Her, She's Mine (December 21, 1961-December 8, 1962). She also appeared on Broadway in The Chinese Prime Minister, and Poor Richard.

Beginning in 1964 with an episode of Route 66, she began making guest appearances in several US dramatic television series of the mid-sixties, including The Doctors, The Nurses, The Trials of O'Brien, The Fugitive, A Man Called Shenandoah, and Dr. Kildare.

In 1966, she was cast in writer/producer Sidney Buchman's 1966 adaptation of Mary McCarthy's novel The Group. The success of that film launched a film career that included roles in The Night of the Generals (1967), as Mata Bond in the James Bond spoof Casino Royale (1967), Peter Yates's Robbery (1967) with Stanley Baker, Blue (1968) with Terence Stamp, and the Victorian period comedy The Best House in London (1969).

In the 1970s her feature film appearances became sporadic and included roles in the cult horror films Welcome to Arrow Beach (1974) and The Evil (1978). Pettet re-emerged as the star of over a dozen television movies, including The Weekend Nun (1972), Footsteps (1972), Pioneer Woman (1973), A Cry in the Wilderness (1974), The Desperate Miles (1975), The Hancocks (1976), Sex and the Married Woman (1977), Cry of the Innocent (1980) with Rod Taylor, and The Return of Frank Cannon (1980).

She guest-starred four times on the classic Rod Serling anthology series Night Gallery, appearing with her then-husband Alex Cord in the episode  "Keep in Touch - We'll Think of Something". She starred in the NBC miniseries Captains and the Kings (1976), starred in the episode "You're Not Alone" from the 1977 NBC anthology series Quinn Martin's Tales of the Unexpected (known in the United Kingdom as Twist in the Tale), was a guest on both Fantasy Island and The Love Boat (appearing three times on each series), and had a recurring role on Knots Landing in 1983 as Janet Baines, an LAPD homicide detective investigating the murder of singer Ciji Dunne (played by Lisa Hartman).

Through the 1970s and 1980s, Pettet made appearances on the television series Harry O, Banacek, McCloud, Mannix, Police Woman, Knight Rider, Tales of the Unexpected (the UK series) and Murder, She Wrote. In 1984, she appeared as herself in a James Bond tribute episode of The Fall Guy with ex-Bond girls Britt Ekland and Lana Wood.

Her final role was in the 1990 thriller Terror in Paradise, after which she retired from acting, still in her 40s.

Personal life
On 8 August 1969, Pettet had lunch at the home of actress Sharon Tate, hours before the crimes were committed at that residence by members of the Manson Family. This event is illustrated in the 2019 film Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, in which Pettet is portrayed by Rumer Willis.

In 2003, actor Sir Alan Bates bequeathed Pettet £95,000 () upon his death.  The two had been friends for many years, and Pettet provided support and companionship during his final months after he had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2002. Pettet was quoted as saying: "It was a very touching gesture because he had done everything while he was in hospital to make sure I would be looked after following his death."

Recognition
Pettet won a Theatre World Award for 1964–1965 for her work in Poor Richard.

Filmography

Film

Television

Awards and nominations

References

External links

1942 births
20th-century English actresses
Actresses from London
British people taken hostage
English film actresses
English television actresses
Foreign hostages in the Philippines
Formerly missing people
Living people
Missing person cases in the Philippines
Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre alumni

Joanna Pettet


This is a list of mayors of Geneva, Switzerland. The office of mayor of Geneva (maire de Genève) rotates annually among the five members of the Conseil administratif, the executive government of the city. The new mayor takes office in June.

Between 1842 and 1954, the title of the person presiding the executive of the City of Geneva was Président du Conseil administratif; since 1954, the title Maire (mayor) is used.

Numbers in brackets after names indicate the ordinal of the term, e.g. (2) indicates that individual's second term as mayor.

External links

City of Geneva: The composition of the Executive Council
Maires de la Ville de Genève depuis 1842 (PDF version)

Geneva
Geneva-related lists

List of mayors of Geneva


The Whitney Museum of American Art, known informally as "The Whitney", is an art museum located in the Meatpacking District and West Village neighborhoods of Manhattan in New York City. The institution was originally founded in 1930 by Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney (1875–1942), a prominent American socialite, sculptor, and art patron after whom it is named.

The Whitney focuses on collecting and preserving 20th- and 21st-century American art. Its permanent collection, spanning the late-19th century to the present, comprises more than 25,000 paintings, sculptures, drawings, prints, photographs, films, videos, and artifacts of new media by more than 3,500 artists. It places particular emphasis on exhibiting the work of living artists as well as maintaining institutional archives of historical documents pertaining to modern and contemporary American art, including the Edward and Josephine Hopper Research Collection, the Sanborn Hopper Archive, and the Arshile Gorky Research Collection, among others. The museum also heads the Whitney Independent Study Program and organizes the Whitney Biennial, an exhibition which showcases the work of emerging artists and which has maintained an important influence on contemporary American art.

From 1966 to 2014, the Whitney was located at 945 Madison Avenue on Manhattan's Upper East Side in a building designed by Marcel Breuer and Hamilton P. Smith. The museum closed in October 2014 to relocate to its current building, which was designed by Renzo Piano at 99 Gansevoort Street and opened on May 1, 2015, expanding the museum exhibition space to 50,000 square feet. In 2022, the Whitney was the 67th most-visited art museum in the world and the 10th most-visited art museum in the United States.

History

Early years

Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney, the museum's namesake and founder, was a well-regarded sculptor and serious art collector. As a patron of the arts, she began acquiring art in 1905, and had achieved some success with the Whitney Studio and Whitney Studio Club, New York–based exhibition spaces she operated from 1914 to 1928 to promote the works of avant garde and unrecognized American artists. Whitney favored the radical art of the American artists of the Ashcan School such as John French Sloan, George Luks, and Everett Shinn, as well as others such as Edward Hopper, Stuart Davis, Charles Demuth, Charles Sheeler, and Max Weber.

With the aid of her assistant, Juliana R. Force, Whitney collected nearly 700 works of American art. In 1929, she offered to donate over 500 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but the museum declined the gift. This, along with the apparent preference for European modernism at the recently opened Museum of Modern Art, led Whitney to start her own museum, exclusively for American art, in 1929.

Whitney Library archives from 1928 reveal that during this time, the Studio Club used the gallery space of Wilhelmina Weber Furlong of the Art Students League to exhibit traveling shows featuring modernist work. The Whitney Museum of American Art was founded in 1930; at this time architect Noel L. Miller was converting three row houses on West 8th Street in Greenwich Village—one of which, 8 West 8th Street had been the location of the Studio Club—to be the museum's home, as well as a residence for Whitney. The new museum opened in 1931. Force became the museum's first director, and under her guidance, it concentrated on displaying the works of new and contemporary American artists.

In 1954, the museum left its original location and moved to a small structure on 54th Street connected to and behind the Museum of Modern Art on 53rd Street. On April 15, 1958, a fire on MOMA's second floor that killed one person forced the evacuation of paintings and staff on MOMA's upper floors to the Whitney. Among the paintings evacuated was A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, which was on loan from the Art Institute of Chicago.

Move to the Upper East Side

In 1961, the Whitney began seeking a site for a larger building. In 1966, it settled at the southeast corner of Madison Avenue and 75th Street on Manhattan's Upper East Side. The building, planned and built 1963–1966 by Marcel Breuer and Hamilton P. Smith in a distinctively modern style, is easily distinguished from the neighboring townhouses by its staircase façade made of granite stones and its trapezoidal windows. In 1967, Mauricio Lasansky showed "The Nazi Drawings". The exhibition traveled to the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York, where it appeared with shows by Louise Nevelson and Andrew Wyeth as the first exhibits in the new museum.

The institution grappled with space problems for decades. In 1967, the museum opened a satellite space called the Art Resources Center (ARC). Originally intended to be located in the South Bronx, the ARC opened on Cherry Street on the Lower East Side. From 1973 to 1983, the Whitney operated a branch at 55 Water Street, a building owned by Harold Uris, who gave the museum a lease for $1 a year. In 1983, Philip Morris International installed a Whitney branch in the lobby of its Park Avenue headquarters. In 1981, the museum opened an exhibition space in Stamford, Connecticut, housed at Champion International. In the late 1980s, the Whitney entered into arrangements with Park Tower Realty, IBM, and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, setting up satellite museums with rotating exhibitions in their buildings' lobbies. Each museum had its own director, with all plans approved by a Whitney committee.

The institution attempted to expand its landmark building in 1978, commissioning UK architects Derek Walker and Norman Foster to design a tall tower alongside it, the first of several proposals from leading architects, but each time, the effort was abandoned, because of the cost, the design, or both. To secure additional space for the museum's collections, then-director Thomas N. Armstrong III developed plans for a 10-story, $37.5 million addition to the main building. The proposed addition, designed by Michael Graves and announced in 1985, drew immediate opposition. Graves had proposed demolishing the flanking brownstones down to the East 74th Street corner for a complementary addition. The project gradually lost the support of the museum's trustees, and the plans were dropped in 1989. Between 1995 and 1998, the building underwent a renovation and expansion by Richard Gluckman. In 2001, Rem Koolhaas was commissioned to submit two designs for a $200 million expansion. Those plans were dropped in 2003, causing director Maxwell L. Anderson to resign. New York restaurateur Danny Meyer opened Untitled, a restaurant in the museum, in March 2011. The space was designed by the Rockwell Group.

Move downtown

The Whitney developed a new main building, designed by Renzo Piano, in the West Village and Meatpacking District in lower Manhattan. The new museum, at the intersection of Gansevoort and Washington Streets, was built on a previously city-owned site and marks the southern entrance to the High Line park. Construction began in 2010 and was completed in 2015. It cost $422 million. Robert Silman Associates was the structural engineer; Jaros, Baum & Bolles provided MEP services; Ove Arup & Partners was the lighting/daylighting engineer; and Turner Construction LLC served as construction manager.

The new structure spans  and eight stories that include the city's largest column-free art gallery spaces, an education center, theater, a conservation laboratory, and a library and reading rooms. Two of the floors are fully devoted to the museum's permanent collection. The only permanent artwork commissioned for the site—its four main elevators—were conceived by Richard Artschwager. The new building's collection comprises over 600 works by over 400 artists. Observation decks on the floors five through eight are linked by an outdoor staircase.

The new building is much more expansive and open than the old ones. As one New York Times review described the building:

The museum needed to raise $760 million for the building and its endowment. In May 2011, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced it had entered into an agreement to occupy the Madison Avenue building for at least eight years starting in 2015, easing the Whitney's burden of having to finance two large museum spaces. The occupation of the old space was later postponed to 2016.

After an April 30, 2015, ceremonial ribbon-cutting attended by Michelle Obama and Bill de Blasio, the new building opened on May 1, 2015.

Collection

The museum displays paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, installation art, video, and photography.

The original 600 works in the permanent collection grew to about 1,300 with the opening of the second building in 1954. This number grew to around 2,000 following its move to the Breuer building on Madison Avenue in 1966. It began collecting photography in 1991. Today, spanning the late 19th century to the present, the collection contains more than 25,000 artworks by upwards of 3,500 artists. Artists represented include Josef Albers, Joe Andoe, Edmund Archer, Donald Baechler, Thomas Hart Benton, Lucile Blanch, Jonathan Borofsky, Louise Bourgeois, Sonia Gordon Brown, Charles Burchfield, Alexander Calder, Suzanne Caporael, Norman Carton, Carolina Caycedo, Ching Ho Cheng, Talia Chetrit, Ann Craven, Anna Craycroft, Dan Christensen, Greg Colson, Susan Crocker, Ronald Davis, Stuart Davis, Mira Dancy, Lindsey Decker, Martha Diamond, Richard Diebenkorn, Daniella Dooling, Arthur Dove, Loretta Dunkelman, William Eggleston, Helen Frankenthaler, Georgia O'Keeffe, Arshile Gorky, Keith Haring, Grace Hartigan, Marsden Hartley, Robert Henri, Carmen Herrera, Eva Hesse, Hans Hofmann, Edward Hopper, Richard Hunt, Jasper Johns, Corita Kent, Franz Kline, Terence Koh, Willem de Kooning, Lee Krasner, Ronnie Landfield, John Marin, Knox Martin, John McCracken, John McLaughlin, Robert Motherwell, Bruce Nauman, Louise Nevelson, Barnett Newman, Kenneth Noland, Paul Pfeiffer, Jackson Pollock, Larry Poons, Maurice Prendergast, Kenneth Price, Robert Rauschenberg, Man Ray, Mark Rothko, Morgan Russell, Albert Pinkham Ryder, Cindy Sherman, John Sloan, Frank Stella, Andy Warhol, and hundreds of others.

Every two years, the museum hosts the Whitney Biennial, an international art show which displays many lesser-known artists new to the American art scene. It has displayed works by many notable artists, and has featured unconventional works, such as a 1976 exhibit of live body builders, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In addition to its traditional collection, the Whitney has a website, Artport, that features "Net Art" that changes regularly. The Whitney will not sell any work by a living artist because it could damage that artist's career, but it will trade a living artist's work for another piece by the same artist.

Gallery

Library
The Frances Mulhall Achilles Library is a research library originally built on the collections of books and papers of founder Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney, and the Whitney Museum's first director, Juliana Force. The library operates in the West Chelsea area of New York City. It contains Special Collections and the Whitney Museum Archives. The archives contain the Institutional Archives, Research Collections, and Manuscript Collections. The Special Collections consist of artists' books, portfolios, photographs, titles in the Whitney Fellows Artist and Writers Series (1982–2001), posters, and valuable ephemera that relate to the permanent collection. The Institutional Archives include exhibition records, photographs, curatorial research notes, artist's correspondence, audio and video recordings, and trustees' papers from 1912 to the present.

Highlights:
 Arshile Gorky research collection, 1920s–1990s
 Edward Hopper research collection, 1894–2000

Books and materials in the library can be accessed in the museum's database.

Independent Study Program
The Whitney Independent Study Program (ISP) was founded in 1968 by Ron Clark. The Whitney ISP has helped start the careers of artists, critics, and curators including Jenny Holzer, Andrea Fraser, Julian Schnabel, Kathryn Bigelow, Roberta Smith, and Félix González-Torres, as well as many other well-known cultural producers. The program includes both art history and studio programs. Each year, the ISP selects 14 students for the Studio Program (artists), four for the Curatorial Program (curators) and six for the Critical Studies Program (researchers). It is a one-year program that includes both visiting and hired artists, art historians, and critics, and involves the reading of theory. Clark retired in 2023; its incoming director is Gregg Bordowitz.

Notable alumni

 Damali Abrams — 2015-2016
 Elia Alba — 2000-2001
 Jennifer Allora — 1998–1999
 Charlie Ahearn — 1972-1973
 Laylah Ali — 1991-1992
 American Artist — 2016-2017
 Richard Armstrong — 1973-1974
 George Baker — 1994-1995
 Jack Bankowsky — 1981-1982
 Carlos Basualdo — 1994-1995
 David Bates — 1976-1977
 Zoe Beloff — 1985-1986
 Naomi Beckwith — 2002-2003
 Judith Bernstein — 1975-1976
 Ashley Bickerton — 1984-1985
 Kathryn Bigelow — 1971-1972
 David Birkin — 2012-2013
 Hannah Black — 2013-2014
 Maura Brewer — 2014-2015
 Natalie Bookchin — 1991-1992
 Power Boothe — Fall 1967; Spring 1968
 Gregg Bordowitz — 1985-1986
 Candice Breitz — 1996-1997
 Gavin Brown — 1988-1989
 Gerard Byrne — 1998-1999
 Matthew Buckingham — 1996-1997
 Tom Burr — 1987-1988
 James Casebere — 1977-1978
 David Černý — 1995-1996
 Laura Cottingham — 1981-1982
 Tony Cokes — 1983-1984
 Renee Cox — 1992-1993
 Susan Daitch — 1976-1977
 J. Yolande Daniels — 1996-1997
 Moyra Davey — 1988-1989
 Edit DeAk — 1972-1873
 Danielle Dean — 2013-2014
 Al-An deSouza — 1993-1994
 Nitasha Dhillon — 2012-2013
 Mark Dion — 1984-1985
 Peter Doroshenko — 1986-1987
 Gardar Eide Einarsson — 2002-2003
 Coleen Fitzgibbon — 1973-1974
 Andrea Fraser — 1983-1984
 LaToya Ruby Frazier — 2010–2011
 Victoria Fu — 2005-2006
 Rainer Ganahl — 1990-1991
 Andrea Geyer — 1999–2000
 Melanie Gilligan — 2004-2005
 Ken Gonzales-Day — 1992-1993
 Félix González-Torres — 1980-1981
 Renée Green — 1989-1990
 Johan Grimonprez — 1992-1993
 Madeleine Grynsztejn — 1985-1986
 Catherine Gund — 1988-1989
 Allison Janae Hamilton — 2013-2014
 Lyle Ashton Harris — 1992-1993
 K8 Hardy — 2002-2003
 Heather Hart — 2008-2009
 Sharon Hayes — 1999–2000
 Jenny Holzer — 1976-1977
 Ashley Hunt — 1999–2000
 Bryan Hunt — 1971-1972
 Ryan Humphrey — 2005–2006
 Adelita Husni-Bey — 2012-2013
 Jeanette Ingberman — 1975-76
 Rajkamal Kahlon — 2001-2002
 Emily Jacir — 1998-1999
 Jane Jin Kaisen — 2007-2008
 Tom Kalin — 1987-1988
 Nina Katchadourian — 1995-1996
 Devin Kenny — 2014-2015
 Jon Kessler — 1979-1980
 Michael Kessler  — 1976-1977
 Laura Kipnis — 1978-1979
 Carole Ann Klonarides — 1972-1973
 Jutta Koether — 1992-1993
 Miwon Kwon — 1998-1999
 Pamela M. Lee — 1990-1991
 Sam Lewitt — 2004-2005
 Glenn Ligon — 1984-1985
 Maria Lind — 1995-1996
 Cameron Martin — 1995-1996
 John Miller — 1977-1978
 Yong Soon Min — 1980-1981
 Helen Molesworth — 1989-1990
 Mariko Mori — 1992-1993
 Meleko Mokgosi — 2007–2008
 Sarah Morris — 1989–1990
 Carlos Motta — 2005-2006
 Ulrike Müller — 2002-2003
 Eliza Myrie — 2019-2020
 Narcissister — 2004-2005
 Dona Nelson — Spring 1968
 John Newman — 1972-1973
 Angel Nevarez — 2001-2002
 Hương Ngô — 2011-2012
 Jacqueline Hoang Nguyen — 2010-2011
 Senam Okudzeto — 1999-2000
 Tom Otterness — 1973-1974
 Clifford Owens — 2000-2001
 Christiane Paul — 2005-2007
 Claire Pentecost — 1988-1989
 Mai-Thu Perret — 2002-2003
 Paul Pfeiffer — 1997–1998
 Lisa Phillips — 1976-1977
 Sarah Pirozek — 1987–1988
 William Pope.L — 1977-1978
 Bettina Pousttchi — 1999–2000
 Sreshta Premnath — 2007-2008
 Sean Raspet — 2007-2008
 Michael Richards — 1992-1993
 Carrie Rickey — 1975-1976
 Walter Robinson — 1972-1973
 Carissa Rodriguez — 2001-2002
 Emily Roysdon — 2000–2001
 Jayce Salloum — 1988-1989
 Julian Schnabel — 1973-1974
 Aliza Shvarts — 2014-2015
 Katharina Sieverding — 1976-1977
 Shelly Silver — 1980—1981
 Xaviera Simmons — 2004—2005
 Jason Simon — 1984-1985
 Michael Smith — 1972-1973
 Roberta Smith — 1968-1969
 Emily Sundblad — 2005–2006
 Ho Tam  — 1996-1997
 Javier Téllez — 1997-1998
 Valerie Tevere — 1999-2000
 Mungo Thomson — 1994-1994
 Rirkrit Tiravanija — 1985-1986
 Oscar Tuazon — 2001–2002
 Fatimah Tuggar — 1995-1996
 Julia Wachtel — 1978-1979
 Marianne Weems — 1985-1986
 Roger Welch — 1970–1971

Governance

Funding
As of March 2011, the Whitney's endowment was $207 million; the museum expected to raise $625 million from its capital campaign by 2015. As of June 2016, the endowment had grown to $308 million.

Historically, the operating performance has been essentially breakeven. The museum restricts the use of its endowment fund for yearly operating expenses to 5% of the fund's value. The Whitney has historically depended on private collectors and donors for acquisitions of new art. In 2008, Leonard A. Lauder gave the museum $131 million, the biggest donation in the Whitney's history. Donations for new purchases dropped to $1.3 million in 2010 from $2.7 million in 2006.

Directors
The museum's director is Adam D. Weinberg (since 2003). Former directors include Maxwell L. Anderson (1998–2003), David A. Ross (1991–1997), Thomas Armstrong III (1974–1990), and Juliana Rieser Force (1931–1948).

Board of trustees
For years, Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney supported the museum single-handedly, as did her daughter, Flora Whitney Miller, after her, and until 1961, its board was largely family-run. Flora Payne Whitney served as a museum trustee, then as vice president. From 1942 to 1974, she was the museum's president and chair, after which she served as honorary chair until her death in 1986. Her daughter Flora Miller Biddle served as president until 1995. Her book The Whitney Women and the Museum They Made was published in 1999.

In 1961, the need for outside support finally forced the board to add outside trustees, including bankers Roy Neuberger and Arthur Altschul. David Solinger became the Whitney's first outside president in 1966.
 Leonard A. Lauder, Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees
 Flora Miller Biddle, Honorary Chairman of the Board of Trustees
 Robert J. Hurst, Co-Chair of the Board of Trustees
 Brooke Garber Neidich, Co-Chair of the Board of Trustees
 Neil Bluhm, President of the Board of Trustees
 Adam D. Weinberg, Alice Pratt Brown Director of the Whitney
 John Stanley, Chief Operating Officer

Criticism

The Board of Trustees has come under criticism since November 2018 by groups including Decolonize This Place, the Chinatown Art Brigade, and W.A.G.E., for vice chair Warren B. Kanders' ownership of the company Safariland, which manufactured tear gas used against the late-2018 migrant caravans; 120 scholars and critics published an open letter to the Whitney Museum asking for the removal of Kanders from the museum board; additional signatories after the letter's initial posting included almost 50 artists who have been selected for the 2019 Whitney Biennial. A series of nine weeks of protest by Decolonize This Place highlighted the use of Safariland weapons against protestors and others in Palestine and other places.

On July 17, 2019, calls for Kanders's resignation were renewed following Artforum's publication of an essay, "The Tear Gas Biennial", by Hannah Black, Ciarán Finlayson, and Tobi Haslett. On July 19, four artists (Korakrit Arunanondchai, Meriem Bennani, Nicole Eisenman, and Nicholas Galanin) published a letter, also in Artforum, asking their work to be withdrawn from the exhibition. (The first artist to withdraw was Michael Rakowitz, who withdrew his work before the Biennial opened.) A day later, a second wave of artists (Eddie Arroyo, Christine Sun Kim, Agustina Woodgate, and Forensic Architecture) also withdrew.

On July 25, 2019, Warren B. Kanders announced his resignation from the Board of Trustees of the Whitney Museum. Kanders cited no wish to play a role in the museum's demise and urged fellow trustees to step up and assume leadership of the Whitney.

See also
 Whitney Museum of American Art (original building)
 List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City
 List of Whitney Biennial artists
 Whitney Biennial
 The Catalog Committee

References
 Citations

External links

 Whitney Museum Library
 Artport: The Whitney Museum Portal to Net Art
 Conservation Lab Interiors
Whitney Museum within Google Arts & Culture

Art museums established in 1931
Buildings and structures completed in 1966

Museums of American art
Art museums and galleries in New York City
Museums in Manhattan
Modern art museums in the United States
Meatpacking District, Manhattan
1931 establishments in New York City
Art museums established in 2015
Renzo Piano buildings
Modernist architecture in New York City
Contemporary art galleries in the United States

Whitney Museum


The 171st Ohio Infantry Regiment, sometimes 171st Ohio Volunteer Infantry (or 171st OVI) was an infantry regiment in the Union Army during the American Civil War.

Service
The 171st Ohio Infantry was organized in Sandusky, Ohio, and mustered in May 7, 1864, for 100 days service under the command of Colonel Joel F. Asper.

The regiment served guard and fatigue duty at Johnson's Island until June 8. Moved to Covington, Kentucky, then to Cynthiana, Kentucky. Attached to General Hobson's Command, District of Kentucky, Department of the Ohio. Action at Kellar's Bridge, near Cynthiana, June 11. At Cynthiana, June 12. After putting up strong resistance at John Hunt Morgan, the regiment was captured, robbed, and paroled June 13 and ordered to Camp Dennison near Cincinnati, Ohio. Served duty there and at Johnson's Island, until August.

The 171st Ohio Infantry mustered out of service August 20, 1864.

Ohio National Guard
Over 35,000 Ohio National Guardsmen were federalized and organized into regiments for 100 days service in May 1864. Shipped to the Eastern Theater, they were designed to be placed in "safe" rear areas to protect railroads and supply points, thereby freeing regular troops for Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's push on the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia. As events transpired, many units found themselves in combat, stationed in the path of Confederate Gen. Jubal Early's veteran Army of the Valley during its famed Valley Campaigns of 1864. Ohio Guard units met the battle-tested foe head on and helped blunt the Confederate offensive thereby saving Washington, D.C. from capture. Ohio National Guard units participated in the battles of Monacacy, Fort Stevens, Harpers Ferry, and in the siege of Petersburg.

Casualties
The regiment lost 32 enlisted men during service; 17 men killed or mortally wounded, 15 men due to disease.

Commanders
 Colonel Joel F. Asper

Notable members
 Colonel Joel F. Asper - U.S. Representative from Missouri, 1869-1871

See also

 List of Ohio Civil War units
 Ohio in the Civil War

References
 Dyer, Frederick H. A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion (Des Moines, IA:  Dyer Pub. Co.), 1908.
 Ohio Roster Commission. Official Roster of the Soldiers of the State of Ohio in the War on the Rebellion, 1861–1865, Compiled Under the Direction of the Roster Commission (Akron, OH: Werner Co.), 1886–1895.
 Reid, Whitelaw. Ohio in the War: Her Statesmen, Her Generals, and Soldiers (Cincinnati, OH: Moore, Wilstach, & Baldwin), 1868.
Attribution

External links
 Ohio in the Civil War: 171st Ohio Volunteer Infantry by Larry Stevens
 Detailed, but unsourced, account of the 171st Ohio Infantry at the battle of Cynthiana

Military units and formations established in 1864
Military units and formations disestablished in 1864
1864 disestablishments in Ohio
Units and formations of the Union Army from Ohio
1864 establishments in Ohio

171st Ohio Infantry Regiment