| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191776
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In April 1957, Chinese educators from across the Philippines gathered in Manila for the First Convention of Chinese Schools in the country. This article comprises a translation of and commentary on the declaration that was published to commemorate the occasion. I use it to illustrate the little-known extent to which elite-authored Chinese identity in the Philippines was deeply infused with a particular strain of Cold War ideology that emphasized unyielding support for the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan and Sinocentrism. Texts such as these call attention to the Philippines as a largely neglected site for historicizing and differentiating among Southeast Asia’s Chinese communities after 1945. Read carefully and contextually, they offer a very different perspective on identity formation within these societies from that found in mainstream, typically Malaya-focused narratives of cultural hybridization, localization, and depoliticization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
191774
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Southeast Asia is an important region for working through questions of Chineseness. It is, however, a notoriously heterogeneous region, and conclusions derived from some parts of it can be of limited applicability elsewhere. This special issue offering empirically-grounded, multi-disciplinary research engages with and expands on existing scholarship on Southeast Asia’s Chinese. By focusing on Indonesia and the Philippines, the articles in this special issue investigate diverse models of being Chinese in Southeast Asia and depart from the familiar paradigms offered by Singapore and Malaysia, where ethnic Chinese populations are in the highest proportions and hold significant political power, and where Anglophone institutions transmute formulations of Chineseness into academic and political discourse. In so doing, we call for recognising diversity within Chinese communities in the region, not only among localised, hybrid expressions of Chineseness, but in the coexistence of both hybridity and persistent identification with Chineseness in multiple forms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|