Suchergebnisse

Introduction: Between two global Easts -- Victimhood nationalism : national mourning and global accountability -- The Second World War in global memory space -- Postcolonial reflections on the mnemonic confluence of the Holocaust, Stalinist crimes, and colonialism -- A postcolonial reading of Sonderwege : Marxist historicism revisited -- Imagining Easts : co-figuration of Orient and Occident in the global chain of national histories -- World history as a nationalist rationale : -how has the national appropriated the transnational in East Asian historiography? -- Nationalist phenomenology in the East Asian history textbooks -- Nationalist message in socialist code : on the party historiography in People's Poland and North Korea -- Mapping mass dictatorship : toward a transnational history of twentieth-century dictatorship -- Nationalizing the Bolshevik Revolution transnationally : in search of non-Western modernization among "proletarian" nations -- Epilogue: Blurring dichotomy of global Easts and Wests in the age of neo-populism.

A Postcolonial Reading of the Sonderweg: Marxist Historicism Revisted This article deals with the Sonderweg thesis by reconciling David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley's criticism of the German Sonderweg with a postcolonial critique of Marxist historicism. The global trajectory of Marxist historiography shows that the «singularity » of the Sonderweg came to be conceptually translated as «particularity» within the Eurocentric and capitalocentric «universality». This sublime transmutation of the singularity into the particularity through the Leninist trope of the «Prussian path» implies the temporalisation of historical spaces in a linear development scheme, which accommodates global historicist time in a twisted form of «first in Europe, then elsewhere». A postcolonial reading of the Sonderweg throws light on Marxist historiographical debates on colonial modernity versus Sonderwege by subjecting the Eurocentric conception of the «Prussian path» to the complexity of global modernity.

What is the difference between pre-modern despotism and modern dictatorship? The answer is simple: despotism does not need massive backing from below, but dictatorship presupposes the support of the masses. This simple distinction is the starting point of the three-year 'mass dictatorship' project, launched in December 2002 with the financial support of the Korea Research Foundation and Hanyang University, Seoul. The project aims to position Korean debates about coming to terms with its dictatorial past in the context of other countries' experiences with dictatorship.