{"title":"“伪君子”与“大伯”:后帝国时代英国不可能的南亚家庭","authors":"Radhika Natarajan","doi":"10.1093/tcbh/hwad039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Between 1962 and 1965, a broad definition of dependence allowed for the migration of Commonwealth Citizens to join working family members in Britain. This article investigates how the Home Office targeted male dependent youth as a category that could reduce unwanted immigration from the Commonwealth, particularly South Asia. Home Office officials obscured the stories of dependent migrants, constructed the figure of the 'bogus child', and denigrated male familial connections, which resulted in the denial of family reunion. Colonial assumptions about the mendacity of South Asians and the illegibility of South Asian family forms shaped British policy. The 1965 White Paper and the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act foreclosed the possibility of a broad definition of family and consolidated the legitimacy of the cisheterosexual family. Home Office discussions dovetailed with an emergent common sense circulated in newspapers and public debate about the illegitimacy of the South Asian family in Britain. This article interrogates the racist reasoning of the Home Office and this emergent common sense not only to show how immigration policy generates racialization but also to reveal the specificity of South Asian racialization in the post-imperial social formation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46051,"journal":{"name":"Twentieth Century British History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The 'Bogus Child' and the 'Big Uncle': The Impossible South Asian Family in Post-Imperial Britain.\",\"authors\":\"Radhika Natarajan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tcbh/hwad039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Between 1962 and 1965, a broad definition of dependence allowed for the migration of Commonwealth Citizens to join working family members in Britain. This article investigates how the Home Office targeted male dependent youth as a category that could reduce unwanted immigration from the Commonwealth, particularly South Asia. Home Office officials obscured the stories of dependent migrants, constructed the figure of the 'bogus child', and denigrated male familial connections, which resulted in the denial of family reunion. Colonial assumptions about the mendacity of South Asians and the illegibility of South Asian family forms shaped British policy. The 1965 White Paper and the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act foreclosed the possibility of a broad definition of family and consolidated the legitimacy of the cisheterosexual family. Home Office discussions dovetailed with an emergent common sense circulated in newspapers and public debate about the illegitimacy of the South Asian family in Britain. This article interrogates the racist reasoning of the Home Office and this emergent common sense not only to show how immigration policy generates racialization but also to reveal the specificity of South Asian racialization in the post-imperial social formation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Twentieth Century British History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Twentieth Century British History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwad039\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Twentieth Century British History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwad039","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The 'Bogus Child' and the 'Big Uncle': The Impossible South Asian Family in Post-Imperial Britain.
Between 1962 and 1965, a broad definition of dependence allowed for the migration of Commonwealth Citizens to join working family members in Britain. This article investigates how the Home Office targeted male dependent youth as a category that could reduce unwanted immigration from the Commonwealth, particularly South Asia. Home Office officials obscured the stories of dependent migrants, constructed the figure of the 'bogus child', and denigrated male familial connections, which resulted in the denial of family reunion. Colonial assumptions about the mendacity of South Asians and the illegibility of South Asian family forms shaped British policy. The 1965 White Paper and the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act foreclosed the possibility of a broad definition of family and consolidated the legitimacy of the cisheterosexual family. Home Office discussions dovetailed with an emergent common sense circulated in newspapers and public debate about the illegitimacy of the South Asian family in Britain. This article interrogates the racist reasoning of the Home Office and this emergent common sense not only to show how immigration policy generates racialization but also to reveal the specificity of South Asian racialization in the post-imperial social formation.
期刊介绍:
Twentieth Century British History covers the variety of British history in the twentieth century in all its aspects. It links the many different and specialized branches of historical scholarship with work in political science and related disciplines. The journal seeks to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries, in order to foster the study of patterns of change and continuity across the twentieth century. The editors are committed to publishing work that examines the British experience within a comparative context, whether European or Anglo-American.