| 000 | 03455 a2200637 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1134009631 | ||
| 005 | 20250317111605.0 | ||
| 008 | 250312042009GB eng | ||
| 020 | _a9781134009633 | ||
| 037 |
_bTaylor & Francis _cGBP 55.99 _fBB |
||
| 040 | _a01 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 072 | 7 |
_aLNSH _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAFS _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aNHG _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLB _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aJHM _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAZ _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aNHTQ _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aJP _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aGTM _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLNT _2thema |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_a1FB _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_a3M _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLNSH _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAFS _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aHBJF1 _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLB _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aJHM _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAZ _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aHBTQ _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aJP _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aGTB _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLNT _2bic |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_a1FB _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_a3J _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aHIS009000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aHIS015000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aHIS026000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aHIS037070 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAW000000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAW017000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAW060000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aLAW074000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aPOL010000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aPOL046000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aPOL047000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_aSOC002000 _2bisac |
|
| 072 | 7 |
_a956.9404 _2bisac |
|
| 100 | 1 | _aZeina B. Ghandour | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aDiscourse on Domination in Mandate Palestine _bImperialism, Property and Insurgency |
| 250 | _a1 | ||
| 260 |
_aOxford _bRoutledge-Cavendish _c20090910 |
||
| 300 | _a216 p | ||
| 520 | _bBritish discourse during the Mandate, with its unremitting convergence on the problematic ‘native question’, and which rested on racial and cultural theories and presumptions, as well as on certain givens drawn from the British class system, has been taken for granted by historians. The validity of cultural representations as pronounced within official correspondence and colonial laws and regulations, as well as within the private papers of colonial officials, survives more or less intact. There are features of colonialism additional to economic and political power, which are glaring yet have escaped examination, which carried cultural weight and had cultural implications and which negatively transformed native society. This was inevitable. But what is less inevitable is the subsequent collusion of historians in this, a (neo-) colonial dynamic. The continued collusion of modern historians with racial and cultural notions concerning the rationale of European rule in Palestine has postcolonial implications. It drags these old notions into the present where their iniquitous barbarity continues to manifest. This study identifies the symbolism of British officials’ discourse and intertwines it with the symbolism and imagery of the natives’ own discourse (from oral interviews and private family papers). At all times, it remains allied to those writers, philosophers and chroniclers whose central preoccupation is to agitate and challenge authority. This, then, is a return to the old school, a revisiting of the optimistic, vibrant rhetoric of those radicals who continue to inspire post and anti-colonial thinking. In order to dismantle, and to undo and unwrite, A Discourse on Domination in Mandate Palestine holds a mirror up to the language of the Mandatory by counteracting it with its own integrally oppositional discourse and a provocative rhetoric. | ||
| 999 |
_c4471 _d4471 |
||