IHS Podcast: E Pluribus Tria: Colonial Racial Formation in the Making of American Culture

Histor

Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States: Report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseasesâ Sponsored Expert Panel

BackgroundFood allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even lifeâ threatening, and may be increasing in prevalence. Beginning in 2008, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with other organizations and advocacy groups, led the development of the first clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. A recent landmark clinical trial and other emerging data suggest that peanut allergy can be prevented through introduction of peanutâ containing foods beginning in infancy.ObjectivesPrompted by these findings, along with 25 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases facilitated development of addendum guidelines to specifically address the prevention of peanut allergy.ResultsThe addendum provides three separate guidelines for infants at various risk levels for the development of peanut allergy and is intended for use by a wide variety of health care providers. Topics addressed include the definition of risk categories, appropriate use of testing (specific IgE measurement, skin prick tests, and oral food challenges), and the timing and approaches for introduction of peanutâ containing foods in the health care provider’s office or at home. The addendum guidelines provide the background, rationale, and strength of evidence for each recommendation.ConclusionsGuidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanutâ containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135514/1/pde13093_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135514/2/pde13093.pd

Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135363/1/pde13092.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135363/2/pde13092_am.pd

Black Loyalists in Sierra Leone and Black Royalism in the Revolutionary Atlantic

I will begin with Jordan and Morgan and the way both framed the origins of racism within a move from seventeenth century Virginia to the founding of the United States, and did so in order to explore the shortcomings of the Founding (as a “paradox” for Morgan, or as a psychological failure writ large for Jordan). Both authors assumed that the Revolution was a fundamentally progressive event and that it’s problems rested on the exclusion of African-descended people. It would be too simple to say that they viewed that failure as simply a flaw—both insisted in different ways that the exclusions were so deeply rooted in American republicanism (and, by extension, in most Atlantic republicanism writ large) as to be constitutive elements in the founding. Both set up a story of American history as the struggle to overcome exclusions and thus make good on the promises of republican ideology. Black Loyalists, I will suggest, have always fit uneasily into this narrative. Most historians have explained their decision to side with the King’s forces in purely pragmatic terms; that they fought with whatever army offered them the best chance for freedom as individuals. Pragmatism certainly played a role in determining black allegiance, as it did in determining white allegiance. But recent research has uncovered mounting evidence that African and African descended people living through the Age of Revolution frequently sided with monarchies rather than republics. I will use a case study of black loyalism/monarchicalism in Sierra Leone in 1800 to suggest that we need to pay greater attention to the ideological (as opposed to pragmatic) appeal of monarchicalism to blacks in the Age of Revolution. The case study involves an uprising by black settlers in Sierra Leone who the British had evacuated from New York City at the end of the Revolutionary War. Most were American born, and a plurality had been slaves in Virginia. They posted a set of “settlers’ laws” in Freetown to announce what turned out to be a short-lived rebellion against the authority of the Sierra Leone Company. It’s a fascinating document, reflecting much that they learned while living through the American Revolution. In fact, Sierra Leone Company officers made occasional comments about the degree to which the “Nova Scotians,” as the settlers called themselves, had been infected by republican doctrine. But the Nova Scotians did not seek independence. They sought instead to win recognition of their corporate rights within the British monarchical system. In this, they resemble many of their black contemporaries in societies as disparate as St. Domingue/Haiti, Jamaica, New Granada (present-day Columbia), Cuba and Brazil. After offering a close reading of the 1800 uprising in Freetown, I will zoom back out to place it in this broader context and to ask what questions black monarchicalism raises for the way we think about the struggle between tradition and ‘modernity’—progress and reaction—in the Age or Revolution. To make that point I will close with a discussion of Toussaint Louverture and the appeal of black republicanism in St. Domingue/Haiti

Making History: Houston’s “Spirit of the Confederacy”

Histor