Biotic Borders: Transpacific Plant and Insect Migration and the Rise of anti-Asian Racism in America, 1890–1950

Abstract

combination of external and internal factors. The outbreak of World War I is not in itself a sufficient explanation for why women’s suffrage was delayed in Britain. Another insight, resulting from a comparison of the British case to the United States, is the important role of institutions for long-term developments. For example, in the U.S. the legislative text uses a negative formulation, i.e., that “the right of citizens to vote... shall not be denied... on account of sex” (355). It is argued that this way of formulating voting possibilities opens for “a myriad of other reasons by which to prevent those deemed undesirable from casting a vote” (355). What is brought up in the book is the idea that the U.S. legislative text, compared to the British text where rights are formulated in positive language granting voting rights, has, in the US, enabled the persistence of barriers facing black voters and voters of working-class origin. The weaknesses of the book relate to the question who is the intended audience? All texts are well written and, combined with the clear thematic structure, this indicates an intention to reach an audience beyond academic scholars. However, it would have been a help to have a timeline over events and a chart spelling out links between various organizations. Such pedagogical tools would not have undermined the selling point of the book, i.e., the aim to show nuances and complexities, but would have been a useful reference point for readers with less knowledge about this particular period. Another reflection is that the afterword could have been put in the beginning of the book and replaced the current foreword. The afterword does a good job of spelling out the more general patterns that emerge from the various case studies whereas the current foreword is highly specialized on questions of peace and women’s political involvement. The afterword also raises important questions about why countries choose to portray important phases of history the way they do. Finally, it is reasonable to say that celebrations like the one in 2018 give an overly simplistic view of history. The solution however is not to stop celebrating such events but to encourage more research and public discussions on driving forces in important transition periods such as the development from male-only regimes to gender inclusive democracies. In order for such research to flourish, I would encourage more of cross-country comparative studies and the use of research methods equipped for the testing of various hypotheses on factors behind success and failures that can be extracted from the in-depth case studies in this edited volume.