This article examines the arrangements that authorities put in place for populations of mixed ancestry from two former colonies in Asia—the Dutch East Indies and British India—and compares them with those of French Indochina during decolonization. These people of mixed ancestry, or “Eurasians,” as they were commonly called at the time, were a heterogeneous group. Some could pass themselves off as Europeans, while others were seen as indigenous people. The arrangements were negotiated during round table conferences, at which decolonization in all three colonies was prepared. Which agreements were made, what consequences did they have, and how and why did these differ across the three colonial contexts? To answer these questions, I use material from governmental archives from all three former colonial contexts. The article shows that information on the paternal ancestry of Eurasians was decisive in the allocation of European citizenship and admission to the colonizing country.
Solved by Migration?
Liesbeth Rosen Jacobson
When compared to the extensive historiography on missionary activity, the anthropology of missions is a relative newcomer, emerging as such in the context of the recent critique of the colonial system. In view of the importance of historiographical literature in outlining the subject, on the one hand, and of the impact of the decolonization of the African continent on anthropology, on the other hand, my purposes in this essay are, firstly, to examine how the historiography of colonial America and of African colonialism has handled the subject of missions; secondly, to describe the role of missionary activity in the historiographical debate in the context of the crisis of colonialism; and, lastly, to analyze how post-colonial critique has given rise to a new anthropology of missions.
Sue Frohlick, Kristin Lozanski, Amy Speier, and Mimi Sheller
What mobilizes people to take up reproductive options, directions, and trajectories in ways that generate the possibilities and practices of mobilities? People’s desires for procreation or to resolve fertility challenges or partake in sperm donation, egg freezing, or surrogacy; the need for abortion services; and forced evacuation for childbirth care all involve movement. Reproductive aspirations, norms, and regulations move people’s bodies, as well as related technologies and bioproducts. At the same time, these corporeal, material, in/tangible mobilities of bodies, things, and ideas are also generative of reproductive imaginaries and practices. Reproduction is mobile and movement affects reproduction. Building from an interdisciplinary workshop on reproductive mobilities in Kelowna, Canada, this article aims to push the mobilities framework toward the edges of feminist, affect, queer, decolonizing, materialist, and nonrepresentational theories in thinking through both reproduction and movement.
Jean Comaroff, Peter Geschiere, Kamari M. Clarke, and Adeline Masquelier
Colonial frontiers, we have long been told, put conventional categories at risk. I grew up on one such frontier, itself an anachronism in the late-twentieth-century world—apartheid South Africa, where many of the key terms of liberal modernity were scandalously, publically violated. Religion was one of them. Some have argued that the act of separating the sacred from the secular is the founding gesture of liberal modern state making (Asad 2003: 13). In this, South Africa was a flagrant exception. There, the line between faith and politics was always overtly contested, always palpably porous. Faith-based arguments were central to politics at its most pragmatic, to competing claims of sovereignty and citizenship, to debates about the nature of civilization or the content of school curricula. As a settler colony, South Africa had long experimented with ways to ‘modernize racial domination’ (Adam 1971) in the interests of capitalist production, frequently with appeals to theology. After 1948, in contrast with the spirit of a decolonizing world, the country fell under the sway of Afrikaner rulers of overtly Calvinist bent. They set about formalizing a racial division of labor that ensured that black populations, the Children of Ham, remained economically subservient and politically marginal.
Nof Nasser-Eddin and Nour Abu-Assab in Conversation
Nof Nasser-Eddin and Nour Abu-Assab
… Intersectionality and Decolonial Perspectives Nour One of the main things we need to consider when thinking about studies of migration and displacement is that, as a field, it needs to be decolonized. What we mean by decolonizing that field in particular
A View from the South
postwar decolonization movements in the “Third World,” from the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, Maori activism in New Zealand, the Native American resistance such as the takeover of Alcatraz, and the Black Power movement in the United States that
with Western that decolonization is strongly associated with “listening” (as in: engagement), sound and history do not necessarily challenge long-established colonialist views. Since “anthropological representations are not neutral, but embedded in
From Hospitality to Solidarity
David Moffette and Jennifer Ridgley
decolonization raise important questions about who, exactly, is positioned to offer hospitality to migrants, and who should be determining the conditions of membership ( Fortier 2013 ; Walia 2012 , 2013 ). Many activists involved in this work have learned from
An Interview with Juliano Fiori
Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Juliano Fiori
oppression. The idea of “decolonizing the curriculum” is, of course, à la mode ( Sabaratnam 2017 ; Vanyoro 2019 ). It is difficult to dispute the pedagogical necessity to question epistemic hierarchies and create portals into multiple worlds of knowledge
Recentering the South in Studies of Migration
knowledge” of and about migration ( Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley 2018: 22 ; see Achiume 2019 ; Grosfoguel et al. 2015 , 2016 ; Pailey 2019 ; Vanyoro 2019 ). 1 However, it is less clear whether the “epistemic decolonization of migration theory