AustLit
Latest Issues
AbstractHistoryArchive Description
'Perhaps the most iconic figure that has come to epitomise the earliest interactions between colonial Australia and South Asia is that of the male "Afghan" cameleer. However, the catch-all term "Afghan" (or "Ghan") is a partial misnomer since the cameleers who started making their way to Australia from the mid-1860s onwards were, in addition to Afghan, from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, including Punjabi, Balochi, Kashmiri and Sindhi. Many of these men came from areas that straddle present-day north India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and, therefore, at least some of them were "from British India and were British subjects, originating from east of the Durant line that separated British India from Afghanistan" (Ganter 487). Designating this diverse group of camel-drivers collectively as "Afghans," rather than recognizing their status as British subjects where applicable, was not merely a case of sloppy record-keeping, but was also politically expedient since, as Regina Ganter points out, it "served the purpose of classifying them as Alien or ‘Asiatics' under various restrictive laws curtailing their rights to own property, land, or engage in independent business" (487). This variety of immigration reached its height in the 1880s and the political climate during the 1890s became increasingly hostile towards immigrants from Asia. Though the Chinese "bore the brunt" (Jones 11) of the growing anti-Asian sentiment which culminated in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 (or the White Australia policy), the cameleers too were inevitably affected by it and, of course, by "the invention of the modern engine" which diminished their "utility" significantly (Abdalla 39).' (Introduction)
Notes
-
Contents indexed selectively.
Contents
-
‘Wars Don’t End When the Fighting Is Over’ : Adib Khan’s Homecoming and the Australian Literature of the Vietnam War,
single work
criticism
'The Bangladeshi-Australian writer Adib Khan's fourth novel Homecoming (2003) marked a significant change of direction in the author's work. No longer concerned to give fictional representation to the diasporic experience which had preoccupied him since his own migration to Australia in 1973, he now embarked on a work which addresses one of the most controversial issues of his new country's recent history, its involvement in the Vietnam War and the traumatic consequences for those who fought in it. As an Asian-Australian writer engaging with the legacy of the war, Khan offers an alternative view from a new perspective. His novel presents a compelling psychological study of a veteran's struggle to confront his experience and reconstitute his identity. This article seeks to locate the novel within the wider tradition of Australian war literature, to examine Khan's representation of the war and its aftermath for Australians and Vietnamese alike, and to identify the particular contribution this Asian-Australian novelist has to make to central concerns of his adopted country.' (Introduction)
-
The Retrieval of Women’s Voices, Resistance and Empowerment in Anna Yen’s "Chinese Take Away",
single work
criticism
'In “Chinese Take Away” (2000), playwright, performer and co-producer Anna Yen portrays her matrilineal history by tracing her grandmother’s journey from China to Hong Kong, her mother’s from Hong Kong to Sydney and finally her own in contemporary Australia. In so doing, she exposes their suffering from rape, repeated pregnancies and slavery. Drawing on Gayatri Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988), I consider the women whose stories Yen relates in her play as subalterns. Yen moves from tracing these subalterns’ itineraries, a task Spivak assigns to the “postcolonial intellectual,” to retrieving their voices. By employing the technique of polycharacterisation, Yen opens up a performative site where these women’s stories can be passed on: she constructs their characters on stage, relates their stories and reads their written letters. As a result, their voices are not retrieved decades later by a group of male scholars, namely the ‘Subaltern Studies’ scholars whom Spivak critiques in her essay, but by a woman from the same family. I argue that dramatising these stories in one female performing body becomes an expression of resistance that destabilises the assumption of a fixed image of the Asian woman as a site of sexual appeal, and problematises Spivak’s premise of the inadequacy of the female body to send a message to a receiver. In “Chinese Take Away,” Yen retrieves and empowers her foremothers’ voices as well as resists dominant stereotypes of the Asian woman as submissive and a site of sexual attraction. Furthermore, she negotiates her identity as a playwright straddling two cultures, Asian and Australian.' (Introduction)
