Asian History

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

George Oberle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Robert Arndt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

David Gilmartin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • partition pakistan and south Asian History in search of a narrative
    The Journal of Asian Studies, 1998
    Co-Authors: David Gilmartin
    Abstract:

    Few events have been more important to the History of modern South Asia than the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947. The coming of partition has cast a powerful shadow on historical reconstructions of the decades before 1947, while the ramifications of partition have continued to leave their mark on subcontinental politics fifty years after the event. Yet, neither scholars of British India nor scholars of Indian nationalism have been able to find a compelling place for partition within their larger historical narratives (Pandey 1994, 204–5). For many British empire historians, partition has been treated as an illustration of the failure of the “modernizing” impact of colonial rule, an unpleasant blip on the transition from the colonial to the postcolonial worlds. For many nationalist Indian historians, it resulted from the distorting impact of colonialism itself on the transition to nationalism and modernity, “the unfortunate outcome of sectarian and separatist politics,” and “a tragic accompaniment to the exhilaration and promise of a freedom fought for with courage and valour” (Menon and Bhasin 1998, 3).

Anthony Reid - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • GLOBAL AND LOCAL IN SOUTHEAST Asian History
    International Journal of Asian Studies, 2004
    Co-Authors: Anthony Reid
    Abstract:

    This article revisits the same author's Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce (1988–93) through the lens of a pattern of alternating globalization and localization in Southeast Asian History. It highlights the effects of the intense globalization of the “age of commerce” (centuries) on Southeast Asian performance traditions, notably the state theatre of the great entrepôts. Reid considers the critiques of his emphasis on a seventeenth-century crisis in the region in the decade since publication, and defends most of his original position against Victor Lieberman and Andre Gunder Frank in particular. He pursues the theme forward in time, to note another period of significant trade expansion and globalization in roughly 1780–1840; the following high-colonial period which paradoxically had more of a localizing effect on most Southeast Asian populations, and the nationalist reaction which (again paradoxically) marked extreme globalization in some respects between the 1930s and the 1960s.

  • An ‘Age of Commerce’ in Southeast Asian History
    Modern Asian Studies, 1990
    Co-Authors: Anthony Reid
    Abstract:

    Since the end of World War II the study of Southeast Asia has changed unrecognizably. The often bitter end of colonialism caused a sharp break with older scholarly traditions, and their tendency to see Southeast Asia as a receptacle for external influences—first Indian, Persian, Islamic or Chinese, later European. The greatest gain over the past forty years has probably been a much increased sensitivity to the cultural distinctiveness of Southeast Asia both as a whole and in its parts. If there has been a loss, on the other hand, it has been the failure of economic History to advance beyond the work of the generation of Furnivall, van Leur, Schrieke and Boeke. Perhaps because economic factors were difficult to disentangle from external factors they were seen by very few Southeast Asianists as the major challenge.

  • An 'Age of Commerce' in Southeast Asian History
    Modern Asian Studies, 1990
    Co-Authors: Anthony Reid
    Abstract:

    Since the end of World War II the study of Southeast Asia has changed unrecognizably. The often bitter end of colonialism caused a sharp break with older scholarly traditions, and their tendency to see Southeast Asia as a receptacle for external influences-first Indian, Persian, Islamic or Chinese, later European. The greatest gain over the past forty years has probably been a much increased sensitivity to the cultural distinctiveness of Southeast Asia both as a whole and in its parts. If there has been a loss, on the other hand, it has been the failure of economic History to advance beyond the work of the generation of Furnivall, van Leur, Schrieke and Boeke. Perhaps because economic factors were difficult to disentangle from external factors they were seen by very few Southeast Asianists as the major challenge. Although political economy has made a recent comeback in the study of contemporary Southeast Asia, the same cannot be said for longer-term shifts. Southeast Asia has scarcely been a part of the fascinating work over recent decades to explore the complex relationships between cultural, political and economic change. The debates about the capitalist transition in Europe and Japan, and about the relative failure of this transition in China and India, have scarcely touched Southeast Asia. This is a loss in terms of our capacity to understand the major turning-points in Southeast Asian History, but also in terms of the global debate about capitalism, to which Southeast Asia should have something to contribute. It was, after all, in quest of Southeast Asian spices that both China (briefly under the Ming Emperor Yong La) and Europe set out on their conquest of the world, and it was to control those spices that the Dutch East India Company (VOC) was formed, one of the most advanced capitalist institutions of its day. Southeast Asia by its geography and its valued products could not escape involvement in the capitalist transition, and in fact did show a shallow-rooted hothouse growth in many quasi-capitalist directions. To underline this neglect, rather than to assert the primacy of oo26-749X/90/ $5.00 + .0oo ? I99 Cambridge University Press

Brian P. Caton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Introduction to Special Section on Teaching Modern Asian History
    The ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts, 2014
    Co-Authors: Brian P. Caton
    Abstract:

    This provides an introduction to the four articles in the special section on Teaching Modern Asian History.

  • Teaching South Asia beyond Colonial Boundaries
    The ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts, 2014
    Co-Authors: Brian P. Caton
    Abstract:

    Because of the methodological innovations of Subaltern Studies in the 1980s and 1990s, most historians’ familiarity with South Asian History is limited to the colonial or modern period. While the subalternist view is undoubtedly useful, it does not provide much help in thinking about what came before or after the colonial period. This limited context may prove to be a problem for a non-specialist constructing a full course in South Asian History or adding South Asia content to a course that seeks to break down area studies or nation-state boundaries. This article provides a starting point for such an enterprise. It reviews the South Asian History textbooks available in the market and identifies some of the scholarship that would suit courses or units organized by theme or by a larger Asian geography. It also reviews some of the collections of primary sources that could be used in such coursework.

Related terms

Asian History - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts