Search

Health promotion is conceived as a unifying concept for improving the health of populations. This means addressing the socio-cultural, economic and commercial causes of ill-health, which are necessarily informed by past policies and socio-cultural contexts. However, historical scholarship has rarely figured in health promotion practice or scholarship. This gap resides in the determinants of health, and notably in the analyses of tobacco control and skin cancer prevention, two long-running campaigns that have shaped modern health promotion in Australia. Both highlight a need for understanding the profound impact of history on the present and the value of learning from past successes and failures. Doing so requires integrating historical analyses into existing health promotion scholarship. To achieve this aim, we present a new 'public health humanities' methodology. This novel interdisciplinary framework is conceived as a spectrum in which historical studies integrate with existing health promotion disciplines to solve complex health problems. We draw on the many calls for more interdisciplinarity in health promotion and derive this methodology from proposals in the medical humanities and cognate fields that have wrestled with combining history and present-focused disciplines. Using tobacco control and skin cancer prevention as case studies, we demonstrate how public health humanities uses interdisciplinary teams and shared research questions to generate valuable new knowledge unavailable with traditional methods. Furthermore, we show how it creates evaluation criteria to consider the powerful impact of issues like colonialism on current inequities that hinder health promotion strategies, and from which lessons may be derived for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why did the Australian far-left, namely the Communist Party of Australia (CPA), and the left-wing of the Australian Labor Party (ALP-left), support Cypriot enosis (union with Greece), when it was led by a violent far-right nationalist group, EOKA, and Greece was a repressive right-wing state? There are two aspects to answering this question: the ideological-intellectual and the political-electoral. Intellectually, the CPA and the ALP-left favoured their anti-imperialism and support for left-wing national liberation over any qualms in supporting far-right nationalist causes. Politically, they saw an electoral opportunity in courting left-wing and potential left-wing Greek-speaking migrants from Greece and Cyprus and championing both their labour and perceived 'national' causes. In doing so, they engaged with the Greek-speaking migrant labouring classes and gave prominence to their perceived 'national' struggles. This article considers why and how the Australian far-left in the form of the CPA and ALP-left became involved in the enosis politics of Greek Cypriots and the violent struggle of a small far-right minority in the island, while attempting to court the votes of left-wing Greek-speaking migrants, by supporting them in what they accepted was their 'national' cause – the 'liberation' of Cyprus and its enosis with Greece. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall aim of the paper is to present evidence on the factors underpinning historical deportation cases, by exploring the reasons, explanations and patterns related to deportation in Australia. The purpose is to consider whether these historical factors are antecedent to current forms of deportation occurring in Australia, and to bring to the fore potential recurring patterns. Deportation is currently conceptualised by border criminologists as a punitive tool of discipline and control, within the realm of penal powers. Some of this work on the 'deportation regime' asserts that certain migrants, or groups of migrants, are undesirable: their identity, (not)belonging and punishment have become inherently intertwined, and their mobility has become politicised and criminalised. This article theorises that deportation has been used in Australia, now and in the past, to expel individuals who are viewed as detrimental to the 'health' of the host society. The 'deportation categories' demonstrate that migrants' desirability has historically been a temporary condition, shifting over time in line with the state's requirements. They also demonstrate the historical regime of criminalisation of undesirable others enacted through Australia's border control regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Undesirables' explores the various border control practices employed against migrant communities that have been branded as undesirable by the authorities, including exclusion, deportation, monitoring and detention. The contemporary approaches to undesirable migrant groups have deep historical connections. This special issue offers evidence that current policy and practices are products of a long-term historical recourse. This proposed issue explores how certain migrant groups (on the grounds of race, gender, ethnicity, political ideology, and perceived criminality) were identified as 'undesirable' by the authorities of the state and subjected to various border and policing practices. This often involved the exclusion of 'undesirable' migrants at the border or the deportation of individuals if found to be 'undesirable', but also included the surveillance, arrest and detention of undesirables from migrant groups by police and intelligence agencies once they had settled in the destination country.This special issue shows that border control practices extended far beyond the physical border and that as well as using border practices to reject or expel 'undesirable' migrants, the state highly monitored those 'undesirable' migrants who had been allowed to enter the country. This builds on Paddy Hillyard's (1993) theory of the 'suspect community', which described the heavy policing of the Irish community in Britain during the 1970s-80s. While some studies have looked at how some community groups have replaced others in the contemporary government's security agenda (Pantazis and Pemberton 2009), this special issue showcases that the 'undesirability' concept has historical origin that still influences current approaches to policies, hence it warrants a more comprehensive investigation and reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores why and how the British and Australian authorities monitored their British Cypriot communities and how this impacted upon their respective immigration policies in connection with British Cypriots. Both the British and Australian authorities monitored sections of the British Cypriot community for similar reasons, especially political, using similar techniques, yet adopted different immigration policies on more Cypriots arriving. While the historiography for this period claims that the British were moving towards restricting immigration from their Empire and Australia was opening its borders, the opposite is in fact the case for the British Cypriots. The British did not alter their policies or procedures very much on the immigration of Cypriots from the 1930s, and even opened their border to Cypriot informers during the EOKA period. On the other hand, the Australian authorities progressively placed restrictions on Cypriots until they suspended immigration in 1956. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]