Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Suborientalism and the Subimperialist Predicament: Aboriginal Discourse and the Poverty of State-Nation Imagery

Suborientalism and the Subimperialist Predicament: Aboriginal Discourse and the Poverty of... positions 8:1 Spring 2000 eral claim or the claim of an overarching orientalist reflexivity. The East Asian corner of the globe —were it not so easily (too easily) dismissed, either despite or precisely because of its heavy involvement in a neocolonial project of co-option—has so far been safely immune from any orientalist sensitivity as such. To be specific, one would have tremendous difficulty in locating any significant or meaningful orientalist critique — or, for that matter, colonial discourse — from either the Japanese, the Koreans, or the Han-dominated fragments of “Chinese” societies that are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and mainland China. This needs some qualification, as Japan has never been really colonized, while it, of course, colonized Taiwan and Korea. We, at the same time, should remember that both Singapore and Hong Kong were colonized by the same British Empire that also colonized Egypt, India, Jamaica, and Turkey, while China itself has been repeatedly proclaimed by its revolutionaries, on the left and the right, as either a semicolony or a subcolony of the various West(s). What has made such a conspicuous absence of colonial discourse perverse is that the silence signifies not an exception but an anomie. The http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png positions asia critique Duke University Press

Suborientalism and the Subimperialist Predicament: Aboriginal Discourse and the Poverty of State-Nation Imagery

Chiu, Fred Yen Liang
positions asia critique , Volume 8 (1) – Mar 1, 2000
Download PDF
49 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/suborientalism-and-the-subimperialist-predicament-aboriginal-discourse-XU1JZmCR4T
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press
ISSN
1067-9847
eISSN
1527-8271
DOI
10.1215/10679847-8-1-101
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

positions 8:1 Spring 2000 eral claim or the claim of an overarching orientalist reflexivity. The East Asian corner of the globe —were it not so easily (too easily) dismissed, either despite or precisely because of its heavy involvement in a neocolonial project of co-option—has so far been safely immune from any orientalist sensitivity as such. To be specific, one would have tremendous difficulty in locating any significant or meaningful orientalist critique — or, for that matter, colonial discourse — from either the Japanese, the Koreans, or the Han-dominated fragments of “Chinese” societies that are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and mainland China. This needs some qualification, as Japan has never been really colonized, while it, of course, colonized Taiwan and Korea. We, at the same time, should remember that both Singapore and Hong Kong were colonized by the same British Empire that also colonized Egypt, India, Jamaica, and Turkey, while China itself has been repeatedly proclaimed by its revolutionaries, on the left and the right, as either a semicolony or a subcolony of the various West(s). What has made such a conspicuous absence of colonial discourse perverse is that the silence signifies not an exception but an anomie. The

Journal

positions asia critique – Duke University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.