Advertisement

“This Is My Mother’s Land!”: An Indigenous Woman Speaks Out

  • Siu-Keung Cheung

Abstract

The politics of recognition by definition urges us to see and respect a clear difference among social groups in terms of their identity and that of the culture at large. Charles Taylor is, therefore, correct to claim that the politics of recognition is dialogical and, by implication, totally relational in character (1992). The presence of asymmetric power relationships frequently spoils this dialogical progress, however, and leads to stereotyping of minorities. No culture is single, pure, or monolithic; the same goes for the individual experience that develops from it (Said, 1994; Rex, 1992). All cultures involve encounter and ongoing negotiations of identity. Heterogeneity of historical experience exists accumulatively and indeterminately. But the politics of recognition, along with those with the power to offer recognition, frequently gloss over the diversity of people in their actual setting and flatten the ever-present complexities of the social group, culture, and identity purportedly recognized (Dyson, 1994; Stiehm, 1994). This phenomenological circumstance of culture is incompatible with the politics of recognition that must fix an identity as static and unitary if it is to be a discernible thing for recognition.

Keywords

British Colonial Indigenous Woman Village Leader Chinese Tradition Legislative Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Baker, Hugh D. R. 1966. “The Five Great Clans of the New Territories.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 6, 25–47.Google Scholar
  2. Chan, Selina. 1996. “Negotiating Coloniality and Tradition: The Identity of Indigenous Inhabitants in Hong Kong.” Working Paper Series 131. Singapore: Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  3. Chun, Allen. 1985. “Land Is to Live: A Study of the Concept of Tsu in a Hakka Chinese Village, New Territories, Hong Kong.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Chun, Allen. 1990. “Policing Society: The ‘Rational Practice’ of British Colonial Land Administration in the New Territories ofHong Kong c. 1900.” Journal of Historical Sociology 3, no. 4, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chun, Allen. 1996. “The Lineage-Village Complex in Southern China: A Long Footnote in the Anthropology of Kinship.” Current Anthropology 37, no. 3, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chun, Allen. 2000. Unstructuring Chinese Society: The Fictions of Colonial Practice and the Changing Realities of “Land” in the New Territories of Hong Kong. Australia: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Dyson, Michael Eric. 1994. “Essentialism and the Complexities of Racial Identity.” In David Theo Goldberg, ed. Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, 218–229. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Eastern Express. 1994. “Villages Pledge to Fight for Tradition.” April 18.Google Scholar
  9. Faure, David. 1986. The Structure of Chinese Rural Society: Lineage and Village in the Eastern New Territories, Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Freedman, Maurice. 1958. Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freedman, Maurice. 1966. Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  12. Freedman, Maurice. 1976. “A Report in Social Research in the New Territories of Hong Kong.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 16, 191–260.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, John. T. 2005. “Making Politics, Making History: Chiefship and the Post-apartheid State in Namibia.” Journal of Southern African Studies 31, no. 1, 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldberg, David Theo. 1994. “Introduction: Multicultural Conditions.” In Goldberg, ed. Multiculturalism, 1–44.Google Scholar
  15. Heung Yee Kuk. 1996. “Nanwang de shiyue, nanwang de guanghui, nanwang de chuantong: Xiangyiju qishi zhounian jinian tekan” (Unforgettable Time, Unforgettable Glory, Unforgettable Misery). Special Issue for the 70th Anniversary of Heung Yee Kuk, 78–79. Hong Kong: Heung Yee Kuk.Google Scholar
  16. Hong Kong Government. 1899. “Despatches and Other Papers Relating to the Extension of the Colony of Hongkong.” In Papers Laid before the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printers.Google Scholar
  17. Hong Kong Government. 1905. “New Territories Land Ordinance.” In Hong Kong Government Gazette 3. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printers.Google Scholar
  18. Hong Kong Government. 1910. Law of Hong Kong, Chapter 97, New Territories Land Ordinance. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printers.Google Scholar
  19. Hong Kong Government. 1984. Law of Hong Kong, Chapter 97, New Territories Land Ordinance. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printers.Google Scholar
  20. Hong Kong Legislative Council. 1993. Report of the Meetings 1993/94, PT. 2, 1040–1042. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printers.Google Scholar
  21. Hong Kong Legislative Council. 1994. Report of the Meetings 1993/94, PT. 6, 4539–4589. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printers.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, Shu Min. 1982. “Hong Kong’s Colonial Administration and the Land Tenure System.” In Shu Min Huang, ed. Rural Hong Kong: The Anthropological Perspectives, 56–72. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Department of Sociology and Anthropology.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, Carol. 1995. “The New Territories Inheritance Law: Colonization and the Elites.” In Veronica Pearson and Benjamin K. P. Leung, eds. Women in Hong Kong, 167–192. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lam, Cheong-Yee Eric. 1986. “An Assessment of the Role of the Heung Yee Kuk in the Formulation of Rural Politics in the New Territories.” Ph.D. diss., University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  25. Ming Pao. 1994a. “Xiangyiju chengli baojia weizu kangzheng zongbu, cu gangfu guangfan diaocha yuanjumin yixiang” (Heung Yee Kuk established the communal headquarters in defense families and clans, and urged the Hong Kong Government to collect people’s opinion by full investigation). March 26.Google Scholar
  26. Ming Pao. 1994b. “Yuanze zhide budaibiao chuantong zhishi” (The fight for principle will not result in the loss of tradition). March 31.Google Scholar
  27. Moberg, Mark. 1992. “Continuity under Colonial Rule: The Alcadle System and the Garifuna in Belize, 1858–1969.” Ethnohistory 39, no. 1, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neale, Walter. 1969. “Land Is to Rule.” In Robert Eric Frykenberg, ed. Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, 3–15. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, Howard G. H. 1969. “British Administration in the New Territories of Hong Kong and Its Effects on Chinese Social Organization.” Paper presented at the London-Cornell Project for East and Southeast Studies Conference, Adele en Haut (August 24–30).Google Scholar
  30. Ng, Wai Man. 1996. “Village Revitalization/Disintegration: An Assessment of Suburbanization, Land Administration and Small House Development in the New Territories.” Ph.D. diss., University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  31. Nicholas, Thomas. 1999. Democracy Denied: Identity, Civil Society and Illiberal Democracy in Hong Kong. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Ranger, Terrance. 1996. “The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa.” In Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition, 211–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rex, John. 1992. Race and Ethnicity. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage books.Google Scholar
  35. South China Morning Post. 1994a. “Inheritance Protest Ends in Violence.” March 23.Google Scholar
  36. South China Morning Post. 1994b. “Rural Visit Passes off Peacefully.” March 27.Google Scholar
  37. Stiehm, Judith. 1994. “Diversity’s Diversity.” In Goldberg, ed. Multiculturalism, 140–156.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, Charles. 1992. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Touraine, Alain. 1988. Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Watson, Rubie. S. 1985. Inequality among Brothers: Class and Kinship in South China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welsh, Frank. 1993. A History of Hong Kong. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  42. Wesley-Smith, Peter. 1980. Unequal Treaty 1898–1997: China, Britain and Hong Kong’s New Territories. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Xiandai ribao. 1994. “Xiuding tiaoli wu yingmou, peng dinghang: Shunying nannu pingdeng” (No conspiracy behind the Amendment Bill, Chris Patten: This is just to meet the call for gender equality). March 30.Google Scholar
  44. Zhang, Yuefeng, Jiang Qiongzhu, and Liu Yanfen, eds. 1995. Cong zhe yitian kaishi: Zhengqu pingdeng jichengquan zilaice (From the present day on: A resource book on the fight for equal inheritance right). Hong Kong: Funu Tuanti Zhengqu Pingdeng Jichengquan Lianxi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Siu-Keung Cheung, Joseph Tse-Hei Lee, and Lida V. Nedilsky 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siu-Keung Cheung

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations