Home > Uncategorized > Book Summary George SteinmetzL The Devil’s handwriting

Book Summary George SteinmetzL The Devil’s handwriting

German colonialism as interpreted with interaction of local and german at level of ethnographic representations, social capital between home and colony, psychic levels.

Conclusion: No German anti-colonial sentiment in West Germany. Only in East Germany in which colonialism was torn down as imperialism. The west maintained a sense of colonial attitude.

(510) “Much of Africa continues to suffer from the destruction wrought by European colonialism”  But he disparity in situations on the ground means that we can provide no one model to guide us in analyzing the effects.

Colonialism was justified on the fact that indigenous societies were unable to sustain “statehood”.

(512) One legacy of German colonialism in Namibia is the privatization of land. Even today 30 percent of private land in Namibia is owned by Germans or German descendents.

In Samoa Germany was better than New Zealand which used machine guns on peaceful protesters. (again on the taking of western methods of the periphery and using them in the core in protests today)

(514) In Qindao many colonial remnants were reappropriated as touristic landmarks or facades of a cultural heritage (like the German train station design) but intellectuals are aware that this is a depoliticization of the legacy of colonialism. “The heuristic fiction running through this book has been that ethnographic discourse has little realistic content, little indexical relationship to its purported

Object … My aim has been to examine the effects of precolonial perceptions on colonial policy and not to trace their genesis or adequacy.” The assumption or heuristic fiction doesn’t affect the book, but it is worth noting that German studies of ethnography became more accurate as time passed. The more the European  scholar relinquished claims to superiority, the more his accounts converged with the local accounts. (So is it possiblt to understand other cultures, perhaps this suggests that yes)

(516) Why did China have such a unifying pull and state building where the Samoa failed? One explanation is that yes society and politics was more developed in China “There is overwhelming evidence that stateless societies are not only less complex institutionally, but also, as a result, less

powerful and effective. They have lower levels of the sorts of power sociologist Michael Mann calls “authoritative power” and “diffused power.”” The evidence points to the importance of social complexity and social power in determining colonial outcomes. Or perhaps the very weight of Chinese culture forced its colonial leaders to pay attention to it. “fact that more and more Germans wanted to interact with China on an equal basis was partly a function of China itself. China’s ancient literary and philosophical tradition, its capacity to generate a leisured and learned ruling class, proved extremely attractive to Europeans. The continuing political power of the Chinese state, however diminished, played a part in this “conversion” of Europeans. The fact that China had an independent system of schools, universities, and examinations made Europeans more likely to accept the Sinophile interpretation regardless of the actual contents of Chinese education.”

The Chinese autonomy of the provinces from the empress indicated that the empire was in decline, but the regional centers still commanded political unity and an economic foundation on which to base it. (Is he saying that rationality in organization or bureaucratization is superior? Is this a narrative of Chinese exceptionalism?)

(517) “But if this book has demonstrated one thing, it is that the “hard” structures of colonial states, economies, and societies are shaped by and consubstantial with ethnographic discourses, symbolic struggles among the colonizers, and psychic identifi cations across the colonial boundary. This book

has also demonstrated that ethnographic discourse, colonial subjectivity, and the colonial state were less uniform and more internally complex and heterogeneous than has usually been argued. Except in the most extreme and unusual situations, European representations of non-Europeans were

much more layered and fragmentary than theories of “Orientalism” have led us to believe.”

Colonialism and its results were related to the ethnographic discourse of the places it visited. Perhaps then European racism prevented them from seeing the cultural richness that was found in Africa because lesser racism allowed them to accept china because it had a complex place in the imagination of Europeans. Colonial government was more complex and prone to  sudden shifts in policy, it had an autonomy from the European state that could warrant us calling it a state in itself. There is no one colonizer mind as colonial literature tells us, just as there is no one colonized mind, Europenas were also divided in their opinions by their social stratification.

Chapter 1:

“Ethnographic discourse cannot entirely explain the contours of colonial native policy or the shift to massacre and genocide in certain settings. Nonetheless, the inherited archives of precolonial ethnographic representations provided the ideological raw materials for almost everything that was done to colonized peoples in the modern era.” (XIV)

Ethnographic writing of colonial german officials as infernal. Also german class tensions between landed elite and bureaucrats ascendant but without title or land was transposed into the colony from the metropole.

Two more concepts in the book, cross-cultural identification, in which Germans surprisingly frequently identified and wanted to emulate the Chinese people that they saw despite a militancy of colonialism. For Germans especially the sympathy was rooted in being taken away to a dream like world with social mobility. Fourth determinant of native policy (German social dynamics, Ethnography as devil, Ethnography as sympathy, and how the colonized reacted to their portrayal as demon or as child)

Unlike Marxists the state developed not out of economic mode of production being revolutionized, but rather the outcome which was the state was the result of the interaction of colonial decisions and local resistance in the social rather than the economic realm. With colonizer putting forth his vision and colonized resisting and trying to direct it.(XiX)

Three Theories underlying this work: Edward Said Orientalism: Devil’s handwriting thesis (discursive), ethnography allows horror. Bourdieu: Fields of power (social). And Hani Bhabha based on Lacanian psychoanalysis (psychic). The book seeks to provide an interpretation of precolonial ethnography and an explanation of colonial native policy. The focus is on three german colonies over a span of 30 years.

On method “This is crucial since the mechanisms that produce social events (as opposed to the causal mechanisms studied by the natural sciences) vary across space and over time, meaning that there can never be a general law or theory of human practice.”

Postcolonialism not as a chronological concept, but to describe the persistence of the colonial past in the present.

On present relevance of the study of colonialism and ethnography:

“A much more influential student of Lewis was Vice President Dick Cheney, who “immersed himself in a study of Islam and the Middle East” after September 11, 2001, “meeting with scholars such as Bernard

Lewis and Fouad Ajami.”34 Similarly, we could think of the precolonial ethnographic texts on China and Southwest Africa that German officials read before arriving in those colonies as bearing titles like What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Chinese Response or, perhaps, Namibia for Dummies.”

(note he defines Michigan as leading center in US for historical sociology)

(2)Variation in colonial policies even within German modern colonialism from 1884 to ww1.

To see how ethnography affects colonial policy we can look at colonies whose inhabitants were defined  differently by Europeans. 4 determining causal mechanisms: precolonial ethnography, symbolic competition among colonial officials for recognition of their superior ethnographic acuity, colonizers identification with the colonized, and responses by the colonized.

(3) General theory and laws are recognized as implausible goals in the social sciences. So no one model fits all but a number of different situations. (Jacksons critical realist)

Hypothesis of different national colonial styles shoud be laid to rest assumption that British practiced indirect rule, French direct, American “democratic tutelage” and German as scientific or brutal are all wrong. Even between Germany’s colonies there was variation that disputes this claim. Each colony played out a different story in interacting  with different nad even similar  colonial techniques. The idea of national adjective colonialism ignores the colonized’s influence in colonialism.

(6) some claim a link between german colonial military practices and the holocaust or France’s Algeria experience and its own war like attitudes. This is absolutely Eurocentric. No opinion on whether it is true. Footnote lists: See Zimmerer 2003. For germany and see Le Cour Grandmaison 2005, p. 337–38.

(6) on negative and positives of Colonialism “For the colonized, the salient facts were subjugation, exploitation, and loss of sovereignty, not the merits or demerits of Germans relative to other imperialists.”

(8) Germany bought its African colonies from a bankrupt trader who had signed agreements with locals. Kind of like England moving into India but not really. 1890 till Germany really began administering the territory and the German massacre of the Ovaherero in 1904 is widely recognized as “the first genocide of the twentieth century”. (9)It was devastating. German narrative that Germans had to fire first to avoid an imminent uprising not founded. Liberal militarism in German colonies where private individuals did the dirty work of killing fits in with Mann’s narrative. Mass killing, concentration camps, forced labour, kill on site. So I guess it is similar to Holocaust. But within narrative of center taking methods of the periphery.

(12) Salvage colonialism in Samoa, Germans trying to maintain local culture from the influence of capitalism.

(13) German governor of Samoa forbade mixed marriages so as to retain purity of Samoa from miing with the whites. Funny. Cultural sympathy and admiration. Samoa lies between southwest Africa and china Qingdao. There was nocultural exchange with Samoa but there was with china but laso no brutal massacres as in Africa.

(19) China Until 1905 was very violent and after 1905 Chinese were even sometimes referred to as citizens. Move from sinophobia to sinophilia.

(20) World System’s explanation of economics as the position in the periphery of the colony is inadequate and too coarse, the economic output of a colony was never unitarily determined. (if everything is so vague how do you make policies for the future?) Likewise neo-marxist determinism of the state as economic rational in the hands of the upper class doesn’t tell us anything. The determination of who was the dominant class was political and the state’s policies did not correspond to  the dominant class’s interests domestically.

(21) Colonial administration was funded by the metropole so they were impervious to the capitalist  trends and were in this sense like third world states: “In this respect, colonial states were more akin to despotic “Third World states,” insofar as their structural ability to ignore the interests and demands of their own dominant social classes, including local economic elites, was rooted in the availability of resources from sources external to their own territory”

Likewise number of settlers doesn’t explain why colonies succeed (against other theory which claims that settlements with less white people were more successful because they needed natives. Samoa had more white colonial persons than Southwest Africa but the massacre happened there. Agrarian settlers are brutal but colonial government doesn’t always bow in their favour. Likewise environmental explanations (some lands are fit for some economic output) do not explain why Samoa was not proletarized and Africa was even though the former is far more lush.

(26)On Said’s devil’s handwriting thesis, that ethnography directed colonial practice. Initially this is true but with experience these narratives were revised and even abandoned, and they gave rise to a heterogeneous understanding by the colonizers. Three mechanisms mediate pre-colonial ethnography and colonial practices. The patterns of resistance and collaboration by colonized. The symbolic competition among colonizers, and Colonizer’s imaginary cross-identification with images of their subjects.

(28) Yes colonies were not sovereign, could be traded, had no foreign policy … but they also had some attributes of statehood even as colonies though foreigners were administrators. (Interesting on link between colony and post-colonial state) (32) Colonies meets Weber’s criteria of statehood in permanence over territory even though they did not penetrate society or had indigenous legitimacy. They still had a huge effect  on it. State was shallow but symbolically everywhere, in currency signs, railroad, official holidays.

Note: Is 30 years sufficient time to draw such conclusions?

(31) isolation of local governors and the great powers they had. Metropole would pay bill, no taxes, and no civil society effects. Local policy then hinged on one man at times and therefore could change with intense rapidity.

(35) on the importance of symbolic presence of foreigners even without arms, and on the ethos or expectations of Europeans so that their word and symbols meant as much as if their guns were there: “Yet it is equally remarkable that Goering had succeeded in getting most Namibian leaders to act as if the German “protection” treaties were valid before there were any German troops in the colony. At a minimum, the sheer presence of signs of alien sovereignty and the reputation of European powers led the colonized to orient their own activities toward the foreigners’ presence and their obvious intention to stay.”

(40) Interesting. Many East Germans felt that unification was a colonial take over. Author argues this isn’t fair since they had equal rights and even social status. Bu somewhere lie North Ireland does indeed conform to colonialism.

(40) The modern colonial state is defined by: Foreign sovereignty and state institutions and practices that define. Express, and reinforce a cultural difference and fundamental inferiority of the natives.

(42) Even before colonialism the colonized people had experience with Europeans, no place even most remote could be said to be untouched and pristine. In these experiences they attempted to learn and use European technology weapons and writing in order to avoid being overtaken and assimilated by the Europeans. The flexibility and dynamism of the colonized the horror of seeing them become European yet not European is at the heart of the colonial state attempting to freeze colonies in situations that they found them in. The categories of locking raged between total difference and equality and could be anywhere on that scale. Children, fallen civilization, imperfect, primitive.

(47) the changing colonial ethnographies and senses of the other can be linked to the social field in which social actors are placed in the metropole itself. So china was liked then disliked then liked because of the rising and falling fortunes of the german middle class. but other cases are extremely monovocal ethnographies that do not change like Namibia. So a scale does exist.

Note: Maybe in Germany because of the fluid power arrangements between social groups in the German field the colonial practices were discrepant. Perhaps France and the UK with more rigind social classes do have consistent national style colonies.

(53) the colonial state’s field was not simply a mirror of the metropole it rewarded native policy, ie policy which stabilized the native categories and therefore metropole social field wasn’t replicated but changed in the colony.

Note: This book feels like it wants to be objective neither on colonizer nor on colonized side. But the content (or theoretical framework) is mostly about europeans and in that it has the same failings as Said does in his focus on the western.

(53) again nuance, in china the middle class of educated background could overcome the military by playing a ethnography of china as intelligent and showing military as brutish. In germany African ethnographies were limited and therefore the middle class and personally middling governor could not prevent his own ouster by a general whose military sensibilities and ethnographic knowledge led him to think of Africans as only understanding by power and to wipe them out. The merchant mentality  saw people as labourers and therefore also avoided complete wipe outs. Part of the monocausality of the ovaherero ethnography is because of its secrecy and avoidance of penetration and I don’t know what the author is implying here some sort of normative good in interpenetration to somewhat justify german slaughter. What of jews in Europe is their lack of interpenetration partially a factore in the holocaust. Or racism against Polish?

Final factor that there are predispositions that tend to one ethnographic view more than the other.

(60) On how colonizer sees an image of the ideal reflected in the colonial subject when he is sympathizing with them or wanting to learn from them. Not as becoming native in a negative sense but as fulfilling his own metropole ideal as he sees it reflected in the native. (Or vice versa?)

Note: is the conceptual apparatus or realist causal variables isolated here useful for other situations? Seems to me only good for use in German case.

Note (64): 1878 ottoman empire a German administrating Albania became pasha of Sudan. But in this case it isn’t about colonialism or leaving Germany behind but the flexibility and tolerance of the ottoman system asopposed to the European system. Why should it be unusual for a European to adopt non-europena customs. Ok because seen as inferior but I guess only in Europe. Hmm I see why it is unusual but not in Ottoman empire though where European Albanians and others constantly made it to high positions. (another note: ottoman policy of displacing rulers from their homes works well to avoid the local ruler from breaking off and forming an autonomous power base.)

(65) analyzing the psychology of the German administrators allows us to make sense for when they conform or break from the ethnography they know.

Note: although it might not  be the author’s intention he is undermining  the sense of unity in colonial ideas. Actually it is his intention but this doesn’t mean that the civilizing mission was not held by Europe as a whole as underlying idea.

Trope: to say that nothing and no one has written about a subject. (mechanisms of prestige in academia) To say that your approach breaks radically and is new.

Chapter 2: Namibia. The Ovaherero were only known by the 19th century their secrecy was seen as primitive and on the way to extinction the khoi khoi, and witbooi with their familiarity from 17th and 18th century allowed them to be treated more pliably. Time period 1400-1600 discovery of khoikhoi.

(90) three alternative narratives of khoikhoi, as noble savages, as different but not inferior, or as on the path to civilization.

(101)Note: interesting that the khoikhoi learned European quickly but not vice versa. Why was this?

British historicist writing in late 1700s only elements but still write acknowledging that this society may not have been like this since time eternal and that it might change. That they are not savage and perhaps are ill suited as savages.

Two forms of mimicry first pre-colonial mimicking European which threatened colonizer and empowered colonized. The second is colonial mimicy in which forced policies  attempted to shape the native. Trading with khoi khoi in 1652, some of them travelled to Europe and therefore they were already changing by the time colonialism came along.

Developments that promoted hostility were khoikhoi wearing European clothes and speaking cape dutch which led them to be seen as monstrosities. At first used in british army but after kiat river rebellion seen as threatening. New science of race covered human beings and put natives in weird position. Increasing racial animosity. This led to a paradox that the Khoikhoi became more mysterious the more they contacted the Europeans could no longer be called natural savages but what were they. No categories in Europe for it.

Every ethnography and idea of a people has its roots in a historical interaction, comes from somewhere and develops. Not stagnant.

(145) after colonialism set in state form, the actions of the state began to affect ethnography more than ethnography did the actions and perceptions of the state. Thus german state intervention cemented the ethnography it created.

(149) Henrik Witbooi one bad ass mofo: “In June 1892 Landeshauptmann von François offered Hendrik Witbooi an annual salary of fi ve thousand marks if he would submit to a protection treaty. But Witbooi remained a “principled opponent of any subjection to German rule,” as von François reported.

Indeed, Witbooi asked impertinently, “What is ‘protection’? What are we being protected against?” and maintained that it was “the German himself is that man who . . . is doing exactly what he said we would be protected from…. An independent and autonomous chief is chief of his people and land. . . . When one chief stands under the protection of another, the underling is no longer independent, and is no longer master of himself, or of his people and country. . . . This part of Africa is the realm of us Red chiefs. . . . ‘Come brothers, let us together oppose this danger which threatens to invade our Africa, for we are one in colour and custom, and this Africa is ours.’”” (1888)

First defeat witbooi, then ovaherero using witbooi then finish off witbooi after their uprising becaue of worsening conditions and new genocidal governor. Germans try to preserve local culture in ways that strengthen the colonizer. Witbooi were spared because of the local rulers class affinities saw himself in hendrik witbooi and wanted to discredit other classes through his better ethnography.

Economics ties into this in changing models of economy. First as farming by germans, then as cattle rearing to take away from the herero, and finally for mining diamonds which required even more forced labour.

(187) government not only interested in economic exploit. So native policy aimed ultimately at stability confine the herero but don’t kill them, limit land sales. So gradual bleeding to death. The genocide and massacre can be seen as an interruption of the continued native policy not the native policy itself. It was settler activism and local autonomy. Because a general won out in ethnographic capital back home when old administrator was seen as too soft by colonial bureaucracy back home he was able to be brutal and exceptional abroad once placed.

(198) explanation behind ovaherero genocide. Yes threat of rebellion, economic need, orders from center of germany, but also psychic factors in which the general from the german class of army officers saw extermination as necessary reflecting image of herero as himself, he saw himself as the cruel herero shedding rivers of blood,  and monovocal ethnography. The pleas of the middle class economic Leutwein did not strike a cord for there was no ethnographic precedent. After great battle obaherero scattered then worked as slaves and then free labourers continued genocide to 1907.

Note: this is horrible. Really chilling. How do you deal with this? Are we living in better times? But the past was not all terrible, just European colonialism, but also much worse in Africa than anywhere else. If one lived at the time what  would have been the best course of action. Seems like nothing, not even subservience. Holywood movies seem so trivial now. How can I watch any movie and feel moved after whatr I have read and seen from human history. It is all a sham and there is no pleasure to partake from it.

Part two Samoa:

Here the texts from 18th century played the noble savage early on(1767 first European explorer). Not only narrative. Noble savage was pacific (Polynesia) whereas ignoble savage was warlike and aggressive (Melanesia) (behavior of locals factoring into narratives). Unlike Namibia which was not acquired as a colony in intention at the beginning Polynesia was colonized by a determined policy of exploring and discovering and colonizing. Noble savage as welcoming women’s sexuality becoming a trope of welcoming indigenous culture. Sex tourism having roots here. Images that did not fit the narrative of the noble savage or paradise were sidelines, and those that did were embellished and even fabricated. By the time that romanticism gave way to naturalism in Europe the popular image of Polynesia has been cemented as a paradise. One problem is that there were clear signs that the men were actually militant and not docile or peaceful, but these were  not a great factor in disrupting the general thrust of the discourse and were often dissociated as separate tribes. Germany was exposed to this by the Forster brothers who were on cooks boat. They used the “good” savage narrative, in which this society was peaceful because it was primitive and had not decayed yet, sometimes Europe was above in the hierarchy  others this was questioned. The impact of Europe as destructive was also forged here especially the actions of missionaries. (Reading women’s sexuality as gifts and not as prostitutions also meant that the Polynesian were not seen as trading partners but as giving up gifts freely). Image of original man in German narrative, garden of eden where men could reconnect with god and see what it was like to be in a pure state. (273) Emergence after 1780 and 1800 highlight of romanticism before naturalism of sever critiques of colonialism in Tahiti, as the corrupting influence of the European destroys the idyllic state of the native. Longing for native land without indigenous men. First imagination of colonizing Tahiti began with a play about a german stranded there resuced by native woman (another trope) and she combines best of both worlds while Europeans remain corrupted. The trope that colonialism can be based on intimate relations between europenas nad natives was destroyed in the 18th century. The foundation of the colony was no longer the marriage of native and colonizer, that became impossible (1820). Europeans praised the equality of native societies and preferred it to monarchy (a reflection of the class inequality found in Europe and rising class consciousness). 1820 account had a privileged native informant signaling perhaps how he may have contributed to the merging narrative about their own habits.

Once Tahiti, Samoa Fiji, New Zealand, were officially colonized after missionaries paved the way (1840-1870) the violence was largely by colonials and while there was resistance there were relatively not uprisings as those in Africa or China and this strengthened the noble savage image as peaceful. Missionaries generated counter-discourse to savagery seeing Polynesia as corrupt and women as ugly, instituted a missionary theocracy. And on the other side  strong criticism of missionaries as corrupting local paradise with European influence. As discourse of decay on Tahiti grew, Samoa came to replace it in 1850-1920 but with lessons of the way Tahiti got corrupted Germany then was set to be ready to preserve it. (violence is much less present in this account)

1830 Samoan native converts go to the island establish a church. 1860 conversions are so frequent that the whole island is said to be Christianized by the time the Germans arrive. Christianity however did not refer to German or Western Christianity but to a local mix of practices.

Alliance of traders, settlers and missionaries who wanted to exploit Samoa provided a counter-noble savage narrative (which in some ways was more accurate since they lived there for three decades and saw that the native could and did go to war with one another).

(296) Age not gender as basis of social stratification in Samoan culture. Jeez Europeans must have been really miserable if all they saw was sex and sensuality in contrast to their own fucked up conditions back home.

After 1890 turn from Plantation interests to salvage colonialism. Intense anthropology looked up elders and wrote down as much as they could before this place disappeared and colonial policy attemptedto preserve it. Samoans themselves however also looked unfavourably upon European encroachment, bringing in of labourers from outside and the influx of European goods. There was an indigenous clinging to tradition. That samoans could be governed into submission by their own traditions (hospitality). The only way to defend Samoa from the missionaries and trade is to colonize it (Kramer)

“colonialism redefines indigenous culture in the very act of traditionalizing it.” (314)

Colonial government 1900 took cues from  non-missionary ethnography and opposed planters. The europeans lived in reserves here as opposed to Africa.

(Continuous theme, the largest disruption of European colonialism is land organization parcelization and privatization in ways that clashed with local customs. Something about European land distribution is weird in a way that every place in the world felt. In Samoa Germans retained complex local land customs and therefore was less destructive)

(were pigs indigenous to Southeast asia? What about corn in China?)

(Samoans saw Christianity as an extension of domestic war goddess as an evolution within their own religion so adopted it readily but kept traditional elements as well)

Paternalism by colonial authorities is tense-ridden. For though it contains hierarchy it also contains familiality and familiarity. So Samoans also sometimes picked up on it and claimedthat they were children and Solf their father.

(350)The German colonial state was independent enough from the locally dominant social classes to ignore their demands and interests. Solf the local governor was a middle class intellectual studied Sanskrit, he wanted to circumscribe the elite military class and clashed with them. Solf psychically saw himself as a Samoan chief.

In many ways Samoans cooperation with the german’s their giving up their weapons, their willingness to meet the German official in his house and on his terms, their cooperation in the mat regulation and negotiations over forms of rule allowed Solf to sell the image of Samoa better in Germany and to pursue his policy.

Part three: China

(362)Three stages of Chinese ethonographic narrative in Europe. Marco polo and rise of china as exotic place of riches and wonderful land from 1200 to 1500 Sinomania. 1500s to 1750 when more detailed accounts became available and China was seen as an advanced civilization counterpart to Europe emergence of sinophilia. 1750 on negative views of sinophobia, described like India as corrupt and less than civilized. Sinophobia emerged with economic development of Europe in which china was seen as untapped market as the equality between the two was shifting to a European lead. Another reason is Chinese resistance by turning the label of barbarian back onto the Europeans. Initial Jesuit missionaries accompanied portugese capital expansion and assimilated well, spoke local language, wore local clothes and made a place for Confucianism. Turn to phobia as merchant’s tales of barriers to trade were published in 1795 in a book that was widely popular. As Jesuits receded and their mission ended in 1773 protestant missionaries were much less favourable to the Chinese culture. Sinophobia was changed later on with scientific racial categories and cemented under a new European attitude to china. Liekwise moves to democracy in Europe focused attention on Chinese rule negatively and move from appreciating mandarins towards looking at the lower classes. Marx, Weber and Hegel themselves were sinophobic. Sinophobia did not displace sinophilia however but the two were superimposed creating multivocality in the same periods of time.

(367) (Note Giovanni Botero Ragion di stao (Reason of State) published 1589. So we definitely had states in 1500s in Europe, or the idea of states.)

Chinese narratives were presented as dialogues not one sided even early on. This is because of some Chinese Jesuits in Europe and in Rome earlier, as well as a wide publishing and printing and written industry. For Voltaire (1755) China was the possible alternative to Europena despotism and limits of the political. Allowed him to see new political arrangements even though imagined, that they were possible in China is important.

(376) begs the point as to why it was Christian missionaries that went first. Christianity is so damn expansive whereas Confucianism is not I guess. On another front the Christians must have come across some Islam in northern China. No mention of that.

Synophobia, first step make the Chinese yellow not white. Move to associate china with Mongols. Emphasis and creation of despotism in China, an asian political mode montesqieu especially. China as dormant in hibernation requiring Europeans to wake it up china’s stability became negative. Chinese literacy as impotent and ineffective against immorality, and other times as prudish. Racial writers brought racism to the descriptions turned virtue into vice, but even they could not sustain this attac kmonovocally and often admitted the technical literary achievements of China (unless you were purely theoretical like Weber or Hegel For herder and Hegel china had played its part in history and was done with its role). Resistance by Chinese themselves also played an important role.

(repeating trope the threat of mimic men, those who look like Europeans but are not and are therefore liars. Challenge European sense of superiority) German Sinophobia was always multivocal unlike the British which was worse never was simply phobic even in most virulent accounts. German colonialism to go beyond economic and to westernizing China in narratives.

Von Richthofen German noble background Prussian but also saw himself as self made man had image of mandarin as himself. Promoted and cultured by own merit.

After 1870 Synophilia was back in swing especially after the emergence of the power of the bourgeoise class in german society. Professional Synology throughout the 1800s however always maintaind synophilia despite the peak of hatred. Academic synophilia had its exceptions most notably Weber.

Bishop Anzer another crazy man who became Chinese in almost  every way despite his hostility to the Chinese state but had good will for Chinese culture. Saw himself as mandarin looked for status wore all the bells and whistles to make up for his impoverished background. Sexuality was never part of the European portrayal of China, more of a political narrative and the place of the individual in it. Aristocratic Von Heykings felt no need to learn Chinese or prove their knowledge of Chinese because they were safe in their position back in Germany. The wife was also a major bitch.

Prior to colonialism Chinese had  the most  complicated narrative history both positive and negative.

Kiaochow was divided in urban space with European, Chinese and in between quarters, as well as legally. It was social apartheid. Chinese like ovaherero treated as radically different but unlike them were not seen as amenable to culturalization since they had their own. Legally the Chinese had to obey german and Chinese laws and tried by german judge, the europenas only obeyed European laws.

First 7 years were utter cowing into submission efforts by Germans, complete cultural insensitivity and brutality.

(461) How can European and American countries even begin to criticize China after what was done to it. It’s so fucking impertinent and crass. They changed the entire mandarin Confucian system to mimic European success because only a break could provide the requisite rationality to compete with Europe. And it’s good that they are winning, European fear of what China might do is nothing in comparison to what Europeans actually did in China.

Narrative of despotism also used in iraq as in China. That the armies are weak and people unresistant because despotism had bread them into an attitude of subservience. When in fact this despotism was praised before and as prof mentions, no form of rule can take place without some cooperation.

Segregation of Chinese due to hygiene reasons just like Indians at first.

(468)After 1904-1905 Sinophiles were in administration of China and a more collaborative trend emerged in which Europeans attempted to coax out the soul of china, mixing increased, and more feedback was taken by Chinese. Sinophilia entered in training seminars by sinologists who were sinophiles and undermined the administration by training a new class of sinophilic germans. (interesting on how academics interact with governance prof in Guineau teaching officers) Move towards building cultural exchange institutions between two equal cultures. 1913 toppling of Xi dynasty Chinese elites fled into European quarter and this led to greater mixture and exchange. New education institutions with mixed faculty and curriculum, new architecture. The reason why there was a shift were economic, Chinese resistance, and changes in german military and foreign policy considerations.(490) As Germany was being isolated in Europe it wanted better relations with China. German translator class sinophilic by education had great reservations and even animosity towards the initial military Prussians.

Class notes

Bushmen used to be urban and were displaced into the desert, they became bushmen, no one is naturally a bushman. Recurring trope of Bushmen “Gods must be crazy” as if Bushmen had been without contact with technology since forever. Bushmen are constantly discovering technology for the first time. 1904-1999.

Native policy differentiated colonial state from other state forms. Native policy “stabilizes status groups” that is why the genocide in Namibia is an exception of national policy. (undifferentiated)

N: On responses of colonized giving some agency to colonized. Is the European land distribution law “weird”? Would Chinese or Arabs in Africa been more tolerant/ Europeans seem to spread land laws and destroy old ones wherever they go.

If today we can still see the influence of an individual on policy? Watering down of the effect o one person and making policy consistent.

Nils: Chinese case stands out from others . The framework doesn’t really work in theory.

Fernando: Language of causality and theory and explanation in intro is interesting choice, maybe for funding. It doesnt play out in the narrative, but why did he use it?

Connection between holocaust and Namibia is direct. brown shirts Nazi took their uniforms from African colonial army.

Difference between colonial genocide and holocaust is only in rule of difference, colonial states are different. but its methods were used from Africa to Europe. This is why he emphasizes not to make the comparison to other cases, even though there is a link.

Federization of constitution. All people in state are equal. Colonial state was different because it did not apply it equally they tried to create differences.

Japanese imperialism is different because they wanted to emphasize similarity between Korea and Taiwan, we are the same people.

Cooperation between Europeans against other colonies. So Brits even while at war with Germans allied with them on their side.

three laws: International law, law between Europeans and colonies,l law between Europeans in colonies.

So Japan was isolated couldn’t do like the germans did and rely on Britain to put down the bastards, when they rebelled while they fought the ovaherero. So it led to rely on discourse of similarity.

The global political pressures on Gemrany should have been included. So while it is appreciated that he puts his theory upfront the dynamic of Germany in the world of superpowers is an important explaining variable.

So while each case is unique the Germans didn’t  invent concentration camps. the British has used it in the Boer wars against the Boers. The british also took  the lessons from the US in the trail of tears. US as colonial power. So yes each case is different we can use social fields to trace how these methods were transferred.

Slaughter of Niger, disappearance of villages by French. So not just  Germans. Maybe they got it from Geworge Washington who was called the devourer of villages. Abe Lincoln hanging of natives.

Post-colonial scholarship is not about condemnation or looking at  past as just past, but to recognize our inheritance.

In all situations where there is a big war,  rebellions by natives were dealt with in the same way. Abe Lincoln, Germany, UK .. so to say that Abe is a mass murdered is not to single him out but to draw links to present raise warnings, not about evil  or good.

Post-colonial not a chronology but a process.

Leave past behind, not morality, it is about how to guide yourself to the future. you’re not responsible for the past but you are a product of it. Just don’t defend the past.

Yes you can identify with the past but don’t defend it. You’re not living there, you’re not a peasant anymore, you’re in the US. But it is important to know what we are talking about and to avoid generalizations.

UN states, threat vs fear. Threat is actionable fear is not. What happened after 9/11 was fear.

Today fear is a basis for strategy and that is worrying.

Could the post-colonial exist without the colonial state as it emerged looking just like the colonial state.

But is colonial stae difference in degree or difference in kind? Tendency in class is difference in degree. But except strategies of assimilation of indigenous which leads to wanting to reflect our metropole values. if we have true assimilation we have citizens not subjects.

Israeli land buying not just buying land but it’s also buying sovereignty. So sure israelis or jews can buy land in palestine but they become palestinian citizens and on palestinian land. Not buy sovereignty.

Human rights originated in colony not western region. First person to say “sir you shall not beat me” were the slaves and the colonized. Where HR came from Human and rights are most closed, not western.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: