“We Tend to Think of It as Australian History, but It’s British History”: Screening Colonisation in Banished (2015)

Redefining Semi-Colonialism:A Historiographical Essay on British Colonial Presence in China Taoyu Yang Introduction The tumultuous relationship between Britain and China in the second half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century has attracted considerable attention and continues to pique scholarly interests. Many existing older studies pertaining to Sino-British relations advanced multi-pronged analysis into the entangled economic, political, and diplomatic relations between the two. However, despite this notable body of scholarship on the various types of Sino-British interaction, China was largely ignored for some decades in the literature on the British colonial history.1 The reasons for China's relative low profile in scholarship on British imperial history stemmed from scholars' understandings of China's minor significance within the British Empire and from practical difficulties such as limited access to primary sources and lack of linguistic skills. More importantly, the very designation of China as a "semi-colony" provided scholars of colonialism with justifiable reasons for downplaying China's relevance in colonial studies on the ground of its partial and incomplete coloniality. However, in the last two decades, scholars have made remarkable progress in incorporating China into the academic literature on British colonial history. Such a scholarly trend has taken place in a changing intellectual milieu. The conscious efforts by historians of China to move beyond the "China-centered approach," a methodological orientation popularized by Paul Cohen,2 have propelled scholars to reexamine the role of British imperialism in the modern history of China. In particular, the studies of Sino-British interaction have changed because of the significant revisionist works on the Qing Empire and the increasingly transnational focus in works on the late Qing and Republican period.3 Additionally, the rise of "New Imperial History" and the continual growth of postcolonial studies have lent scholars new analytical tools to explore Sino-British interactions.4 Another important factor that has contributed to the upsurge of studies on British colonialism in China lies in improvements in access to archival sources in China and beyond. As a result, instead of dismissing the sui generis coloniality of China, a growing number of scholars have, as James Hevia advocates, brought China into colonial studies.5 The goal of this essay is to synthesize and analyze recent scholarship on British colonialism in China through a conceptual approach. In doing so, I choose to revisit and redefine the notion of "semi-colonialism," a term favored by many American and Chinese scholars. The concept of "semi-colonialism," or "semi-colony," has its distinctive genealogy. It was originally coined by Vladimir Lenin and later adopted by Mao Zedong in the 1920s and 1930s. They both underscored semi-colonialism as a unique social formation characterized by the coexistence of colonialism and native feudal structure.6 Although semi-colonialism, as used by these two Marxist critics, helped legitimize their respective political and ideological agenda, it did reflect the need to modify the term "colonialism" in the Chinese context. The subsequent generations of scholars, most notably Jürgen Osterhammel and Shu-mei Shih, have used this term to conceptualize China's distinctive coloniality vis-à-vis other colonial settings. As Osterhammel explains, semi-colonialism can be used "to make sense of a historical process in which 'feudalism' obviously disintegrated, but no significant transition to capitalism took place."7 In a somewhat different vein, Shih uses semi-colonialism to "describe the cultural and political condition in modern China to foreground. . . [the] incomplete and fragmentary nature of China's colonial structure."8 Moreover, scholars like Tani Barlow and Bryna Goodman have suggested that the outcomes of semi-colonial rule were distinct from those of other total colonies and that "semi," as a qualifier, remains useful to explain the specific colonial conditions in China.9 Previous discussion of semi-colonialism has attached importance to the partial and incomplete penetration of imperial powers in China, and this concept has often been used to stress the qualitative differences between China and other colonized settings. Instead, this essay throws new light on and offers a more nuanced understanding of the concept of semi-colonialism by drawing on recent scholarship on British imperial history in China. This newly defined notion of semi-colonialism highlights...

The 156 years of British colonial rule (1842-1997) finally ended when the sovereignty over Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. Since 1980, many new policies had been introduced in Hong Kong for the purpose of smoothing the process of handover. Some of the policies were introduced out of consideration for new political circumstances. Others were launched with the hidden agenda of erasing colonial history. The implementation of Chinese as an official medium of communication in the judicial system reflects the former, whereas the change of the Chinese titles of government officials reflects the latter. Many translation issues were involved in these so-called localization policies. In this regard, the change of Chinese titles for government officials in Hong Kong is a subject worthy of study. The Chinese titles of major government officials in colonial Hong Kong were actually taken over from those of Imperial China. Therefore, they are marks of Chinese imperial history rather than British colonial history. However, for the apparent propose of erasing colonial history, these proper Chinese titles were changed to newly coined Chinese titles that are not found in Chinese history. The aim of this paper is to use the issue of translation as an example to demonstrate that in the decolonization process of Hong Kong, as in that of many other colonized countries which intended to break with their colonial past, many decolonizing policies were actually self-defeating in purpose.

Criminalizing children: welfare and the state in Australia By David McCallum Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in Law and Society Series, 2017. 978‐1845656676, 316 pp, Hardcover $116.00, Paperback $35.99.

This historiographical review engages with recent works in British colonial and South Asian history that shed light on the emergence of the concept of ‘society’ or the ‘social’ in South Asia. The review explores three main areas for the study of the social concept including: scholarship on liberalism and colonial law; histories of colonial sociology and knowledge production; and materialist histories of political economy and concept formation. The review then outlines some avenues for further research, focusing particularly on questions of form, language, and translation that have largely been overlooked in existing scholarship. It suggests that while there are robust accounts of the uses of the social concept in South Asia, what is missing is a consideration of the vernacular histories of this concept, including how it came to be articulated in South Asian languages. Ultimately, the review makes the case that conceptual history must take into account both the historical transformations that produced certain concepts as well as the languages and aesthetic and documentary forms through which we come to know those concepts.

"We Will Show the Country": Bringing History to Life

This study problematizes English language teaching departments (ELT) in Turkey that have ignored the importance of radical pedagogy, the history of British colonialism and neoliberalism in the curriculum because Orientalist, Occidentalist and neoliberal discourses have led to the exclusion of critical discourses in ELT in Turkey. Therefore, the possible reasons for the absence of some curricular topics present a complicated structural problem. Exclusionary practices of ELT departments can be ascribed to Turkey’s political regimes that have reinforced both nation-state ideology and Anglo-American neoliberal policies. The English language has also been reified as a gateway to westernization and globalization under the feeling of urgency and fear of falling behind. Therefore, the spread of English has been allowed in almost all spheres of life even if neglecting local, national and international languages has violated linguistic human rights. This paper proposes that the dominance of English can be deconstructed by including radical pedagogy and the history of British colonialism and neoliberalism into the curriculum and by prioritizing linguistic human rights to allow more space for the survival of other languages.

This article explores the Bristol‐based ss Great Britain and the heritage industry dedicated to it. It critically examines how the museum, which is based within the ship itself, allows visitors to ‘feel good’ about the history of British colonialism by acting as a container for British collective memory. It examines how the key narrative in the exhibition is structured as an affective journey of hope for a better future based primarily around the journey of British people to Australia in the mid‐nineteenth century. It is argued that it is no longer acceptable that public heritage institutions, such as the ss Great Britain, continue to represent British colonial history as a voyage of economic and personal discovery for white settlers.

Over the last two decades, many Western writers have tried to situate the analysis of sport within the context of history and social development. Rather than viewing the development of sport in isolation, interests have been directed towards tracing its role in relation to politics, economics, power, ideology, religion, tradition and culture in the society. It is reviewed that in the history of British colonialism, the development of British sport has carried a significant function of cultural control and domination across colonies. In the following study, I will(1)provide a theoretically analysis on cultural imperialism(2)examine the inter-relation of sports and British cultural imperialism in South Africa, India, and Ireland(3)highlight the function of sport and physical education as a tool of British cultural imperialism. In the end, we will discover that the British cultural imperialism is not just a product of political, economical and military imperialism, but also of cultural imperialism through which her ideas, beliefs, language, rules, hobbies, custom, conventions and etc. are spread.

Why has science expanded more in some nations rather than others? The few studies addressing this issue have attributed variation in science to differences in economic development and religion. This article discusses additional explanations, including the impact of domestic political structure, colonialism, and world-system dependency. Also, developing a neo-institutional line of research, I argue that scientific institutions spread to non-Western nations via international organizations (e.g., the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), which encouraged the widespread adoption of taken-for-granted governmental policies. Cross-sectional and panel regression models of national science infrastructure in the contemporary period are used to evaluate theories. Results show that domestic economic development is associated with the expansion of consistent with previous research. Results also find that science expands faster in nations linked to international organizations of the world polity, consistent with neo-institutional theory. Finally, Protestantism and a history of British and French colonialism appear to have had an impact in the past but do not explain growth of science from 1970 to 1990. Other factors have little effect on the expansion of science. The global expansion of science has been both rapid and dramatic. In the early nineteenth century, science was practiced mainly in Europe and some of its current or former colonies. The phrase Western science, however, is no longer apt. The activities and infrastructures of that scientific tradition can now be found throughout the world. For instance, employment data collected by the United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) show that credentialed scientists are present in just about every country, colony,

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.-J. C. Beaglehole, of the Victoria University of Wellington, was until his death in 1970 the doyen of New Zealand historians and-together with J. W. Davidson of the Australian National University, who died in 1973-a leader in developing historical consciousness and historiography in the South Pacific world area. His editions of the journals of Captain Cook and his Life of Captain James Cook (published in 1974 by Stanford University Press) are not only masterpieces of scholarship and insight into the eighteenth century but unrivaled in their penetration of oceanic, as well as merely maritime, history. The New Zealand Historical Association maintains an annual lecture in his memory, and the essay which follows was originally delivered as the first Beaglehole Memorial lecture when that association met at the University of Canterbury in May 1973. It was subsequently printed in the New Zealand Journal of History (vol. 8, no. 1, April 1974) and is republished here with minor alterations by the generous permission of that journal's editors. What follows is a modified version of an essay in historical restatement, which owes much to John Beaglehole's own vision and his understanding of what vision is.

B ) ORN in Dublin on April 24, i909, I had my elementary schooling in Clara in the Irish midlands, an unusual village because it had an exceptionally large and active Protestant element dominated by a Quaker hierarchy. My secondary education was at a famous Belfast public day school, the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, from which I went to The Queen's University. There I was taught by James Eadie Todd, who demanded a great deal from his students and gave them much in return. I was also influenced by E. Estyn Evans, a polymath geographer, who left me forever dissatisfied with the narrower kinds of history. When I graduated in I93 I, I went to King's College and the Institute of Historical Research in London to study under A. P. Newton, Rhodes Professor of Imperial History, who set me to work on British colonial history and, in parallel, on that of Ireland in the early modern period. It was he who got me my first post at University College Southampton, I934-I939, where my special responsibility was British colonial history, although my dissertation had been on early Tudor rule in Ireland. From there I moved to Belfast where, at Queen's, I helped Todd develop Irish history, but soon I found myself, somehow, in I 944 as professor and head of department at a campus of the University of Wales at Swansea, where I remained until I957, when I moved to the Andrew Geddes and John Rankin chair of modern history at the University of Liverpool. There my developing concern with early European expansion, North America, and Ireland could find fuller expression. Between I927 and I 946 1 had lived in a regime of one professor, one lecturer, and one assistant lecturer (the earlier assistant to the sole professor). From I 946, things began to move and specialist appointments made it possible to cover more and more extra-European history, in Liverpool as elsewhere. My North American preoccupations led me to visit the United States in summers in I948, I957, and I959, as I became recognized as something of an authority in the early history of North America. My authority was admittedly minor, but it was enough to enable me to obtain my first sabbatical in i963, when with Alison, my wife and working companion since I 937, I ranged through the land and libraries of North America. We had another fine year in i969-i970, when I was Visiting Harrison Professor at the College of William and Mary. The years down to I976, when I retired at age sixty-seven, were punctuated by research or lecturing opportunities in Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, and Hungary, and we visited New Zealand universities for the British Council. On retirement I became visiting professor at St. Mary's College of Maryland, for some part

Recent attempts to revive counterinsurgency strategies for use in Afghanistan and Iraq have been marked by a determination to learn lessons from history. Using the case of the campaign against the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya of 1952—60, this article considers the reasons for this engagement with the past and the issues that have emerged as a consequence. The article disputes the lessons from British colonial history that have been learned by military planners, most obviously the characterization of nonmilitary forms of British counterinsurgency as nonviolent. Although it contests some of these supposed precedents for successful counterinsurgency in British military history, the article also identifies more generalizable elements of the Kenyan case. Particular emphasis is given to the effects on the nature of counterinsurgency, a reliance on locally recruited allies, and the decentralization of command.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsJohn M. CarrollJohn M. Carroll received his doctorate in History and East Asian Languages from Harvard University in 1998. An assistant professor in the Department of History at Saint Louis University, his research interests lie at the intersection of modern Chinese history and British colonial history: Hong Kong. He is the author of Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005) and is completing a concise history of Hong Kong, to be published by Rowman and Littlefield. Carroll's current research focuses on Hong Kong during the 1950s, [carrolj@slu.edu]

Introduction: Beyond the Anglophone—Comparative South Asian Literatures

The Nightmare Island: Representations of St. Barthélemy in Swedish Novels