Excluding and Including "Natives of India": Early-Nineteenth-Century British-Indian Race Relations in Britain
Excluding and Including "Natives of India": Early-Nineteenth-Century British-Indian Race Relations in Britain
复制标题
排除与包含“印度原住民”：十九世纪初英国的英印种族关系
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Fisher
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Fisher
与民族国家相反，英国、奥斯曼帝国和其他帝国声称，它们天生就拥有对各种臣民的权威。这种状况驱使帝国走向相互矛盾的目标：使臣民感到他们与帝国有利害关系，同时将他们与统治者区分开来，并排除他们充分参与国家权力的实际行使。这些帝国为区分统治者和被统治者而构建的广泛的分叉概念通常似乎在总体上起了充分的作用。然而，在实践中，这种区分标准随着时间的推移而改变，并且由于定义的内在矛盾和波动性、精英群体之间的竞争以及受到这种分类的个人的抵制和适应，在特定情况下经常崩溃。英国人和科摩罗人都以他们的“现代性”和“法治”为荣，试图根据所谓的客观标准，通过法律的和行政条例来分离人民。然而，这些标准随着时间的推移而改变。印度和英国在亚洲的其他殖民地距离较远，这促使英国人建立基于“种族”（定义各异）的区别，并通过统治者和被统治者之间的空间距离来加强。相比之下，奥斯曼帝国领土的连续性使得奥斯曼国家更难实施类似的监管行动。相反，奥斯曼人将宗教作为区分统治者和被统治者的主要标准，强调伊斯兰教的作用，这是由奥斯曼苏丹定义的，他同时也是逊尼派哈里发。然而，对于这两个帝国来说，由于具有不同利益的敌对帝国当局所主张的不断变化的文化结构，在应用精确的法律的边界方面存在困难。与此同时，这些新兴的规则也受到了“混血”人、宗教皈依者和定居在帝国大都会的殖民地移民的挑战，特别是对英国人来说。这些边缘或异常的例子揭示了帝国二元微分的构造性质及其不一致的假定基本原理。
he British, Ottoman, and other empires, in contrast to nation-states, claimed by their very nature authority over a variety of subject peoples. This condition drove empires toward contradictory goals: making subject peoples feel they had a stake in the empire while simultaneously differentiating them from the rulers and excluding them from full participation in the actual exercise of state power. The broad bifurcating concepts these empires constructed to distinguish between ruler and ruled often appeared to work adequately overall. In practice, however, such discriminating criteria changed over time and often broke down in particular cases as a result of the defi nition’s inherent contradictions and volatility, the competition among elite groups, and also the resistances and adaptations by individuals subject to such classifi cations. Both the British and the Ottomans, priding themselves on their “modernity” and “rule of law,” sought to separate peoples through legal and administrative regulations, based on allegedly objective criteria. Yet these criteria shifted over time. India and the other British colonies in Asia lay at some remove, encouraging the British to establish distinctions based on “race” (variously defi ned), reinforced by the spatial distance between rulers and ruled. In contrast, the contiguous nature of the Ottoman domains made it more diffi cult for the Ottoman state to carry out similar regulatory action. Instead, the Ottomans applied religion as a major measure of difference between ruler and ruled, stressing the role of Islam as defi ned by the Ottoman sultan, who was simultaneously the Sunni caliph. For both empires, however, diffi culties in applying exact legal boundaries arose from the changing cultural constructions asserted by rival imperial authorities with disparate interests. Simultaneously, these emerging rules were also challenged—for the British in particular—by people of “mixed race,” religious converts, and immigrants from the colony who settled in the imperial metropolis. Such marginal or anomalous examples reveal the constructed nature of imperial binary differentiations and their inconsistent putative underlying principles.