Sheila Pais James
This paper further explores how the ambiguous identity of ‘Anglo-Indians’
described in the article by James (2010) was shaped by migration and settlement
in a multicultural Australia. In particular, the focus is how the
Anglo-Indians’ aspirations for and accumulation of white identity evident in
the context of colonial and postcolonial India are refigured on migration to
the settler-colony society of Australia. This paper therefore engages in the
question of how Anglo-Indians negotiate and rework their identity claims in the
context of Australian whiteness and multiculturalism.
There exists ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ on the basis of ‘race’ within
Australian structures of power (Moreton-Robinson 1988, 1998; Jamrozik, Boland
& Urquhart 1995; Gale 2000; Moran 2005c). Further, drawing on Hage (1998),
Cochrane (1995), and Schech and Haggis (2001 & 2004), Australian national
identity is governed by constructions of the dominant white, Anglo-Celtic
culture prevalent in contemporary multicultural society (Jupp 2002, 2004;
Jamrozik, Boland & Urquhart 1995, Jamrozik 2004). In this context, given
that the Anglo-Indians know how to blend into Australian Anglo-Celtic society,
they are already equipped for their assimilation into Australian whiteness.
Multiculturalism in Australia also provides an entry for those Anglo-Indians
deemed ‘not white enough’ by the host society. While the dominant Anglo-Celtic
core remains central and those from non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds who get
accepted within Australian multiculturalism continue to be positioned on the
margins of Australian society (Moreton-Robinson 1998, p. 11; see also Jamrozik,
Boland & Urquhart 1995; Cochrane 1995). This combination shapes the
Anglo-Indians’ identity making process in Australia.
This paper draws connections between the background information about the
Anglo-Indians discussed in James (2010) in the context of whiteness theory. The Anglo-Indians have a long history of
being positioned awkwardly in terms of dominant whiteness. Moreno’s 1908
(cited in Varma 1979, p. 220) poem captures the essence of how the
Anglo-Indians were located within the discourse of race, whiteness and
colonialism in India that shaped their identity as a mixed-race entity. He
captures ‘the dilemma of identity’ and marginalised status of this community,
especially for those Anglo-Indians who are dark-skinned in complexion when he
writes:
He is not wanted by the
merchants
His skin is rather dark
He is not pure European
Nor is he a Babu (Indian man)
He is termed what’s
called East Indian
As a blending of the
two.
Moreno’s poem illustrates essentialist
constructions of ‘race’ and outlines how ‘white race prejudice’ is articulated
through constructions that position people as members of racial categories by
virtue of their skin colour (Perkins 2007; D’Cruz 2007; Hooks 1997;
Moreton-Robinson 1998, 2004; Morgan 1990).
The discussion of colonial India in an earlier paper
demonstrated that the Anglo-Indians’ mixed-race status and identity dilemma was
not just about embodiment (James 2010). As Roediger (1994, p. 2) points out,
“the idea of race is given meaning through the agency of human beings in
concrete historical and social contexts, and is not a biological or natural
category”. The Anglo-Indians’ identity was constructed in reference to British colonial
white identity. Moreno’s depiction of the Anglo-Indians as ‘not pure Europeans’, is another way of describing them as
half-caste people or people of hybrid heritage, reflecting how constructions of
‘race’ and ‘racial prejudice’ are defined by the inclusion and exclusion of
people into racial categories expressive of purity. In particular, the
‘inclusion’ or ‘exclusion’ of races by members of the dominant culture affects
their constructions of mixed-race identity and generates prejudice and
discrimination against the ‘other’. In focusing on the social
constructions of whiteness, I draw from Frankenberg (1993) who defines the
dimensions of whiteness in terms of identity making through life histories:
First,
whiteness is a social location of structural advantage. Second, it is a
“standpoint,” a place from which white people look at ourselves, at others and
at society. Third, “whiteness” refers to
a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed. (Frankenberg
1993, p. 1)
In Frankenberg’s (1993) terminology, whiteness, like any other racial
construction, is not an isolated concept but is situated within a relational
and contextual framework. Frankenberg (1993) argues that whiteness varies
depending on the time and space the person lives in. Hence, as it can differ in
different spatial locations, it takes on a relational dimension of being
socially constructed within a diversity of transformed racial and cultural
factors. For example, in Britain whiteness was not always
accorded to the British working class (Bonnett 1998) or the Irish who became
‘black’ (Hickman
& Walter 1995). Thus, one of the prominent debates that have
concerned whiteness studies has been about the inclusion and exclusion of races
on the basis of heritage and skin colour.
Bonnett (1998, p. 327) writes that from being
marginal to whiteness in the nineteenth century the British working class came
to adopt and adapt to this identity in the twentieth century. The discourse on
whiteness, as a theoretical notion, attempts to uncover the way in which
invisibility operates as a form of power. The works of Bonnett and Frankenberg
seek to analyse how European whiteness has been constructed as a norm, not just
for Europeans, but also for the whole of humanity (Bonnett 2000a; Bonnett 2000b;
Dyer 1997). In doing so it promotes the understanding of race and racism and
the inferior positioning of the ‘other’. Other scholars have used the concept
of hybridity to challenge whiteness as a static and unchanging notion and as a
dominant identity (Bhabha 1986, p. 96). Hybridity allows for those that are
gazed upon to gaze back and challenge normative constructions of identity. It
also allows for the possibilities to select or accumulate aspects of whiteness
that are necessary to engage and access opportunities, which lead to certain privileges. In this way hybridity as an
identity paradigm challenges the white gaze (Bhabha 1990).
In post-war Australia, we see the shift from biological racialisation to
cultural difference as a mechanism of racialised inclusion (partial and
selective) and exclusion (Anderson 2002). The structures of racialisation and
the understanding of identity-making in relation to home, nation and belonging
were explored by Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1992, p. 14) and others who cautioned
against the premise that contemporary racism can be studied on the basis of
biological notions of race. This shift occurred in the 1980s, which led to a
crisis in representation in relation to the construction of race (Denzin &
Lincoln 2000, p. 16). As a result, discourses about race and nation are
intricately linked to social constructions of identity (Jackson & Penrose
1993, p. 1) and informed the ‘new racism’.
Tucker (1987, p.18 cited in Wadham 2004, p. 20) argues that in Britain,
‘new racism’ operated through the endorsement
of homogeneity as a pre-requisite of a harmonious society. Through this process
difference from whiteness became a form of new racism (see also Markus &
Rasmussen 1987).
Stratton (1998, pp. 13-14) points out how this contemporary ‘new racism’ in
Australia was exemplified in Australian politician Pauline Hanson’s calls to
reinstitution of white Australian cultural dominance. In her Maiden Speech
delivered in the Australian Federal Parliament in 1996, Pauline Hanson, leader
of One Nation Party, advocated policies “in favour of national protection” and
“ an ethnically homogeneous Australia” and “mobilised voters on race and ethnic
issues” (McNevin 2007, pp. 616; see also Gale 2000, 2005; Jupp 2001, 2002). In
other words, she sought to exclude and discriminate against other cultures that
she considered would not be able to be assimilate into the dominant
Anglo-Celtic Australian national culture (Gale 2005, p. 7). These views exemplify Hanson’s role in ‘new
racism’ evident when she influenced public opinion and mainstream voters to
oppose ‘otherness’ resulting in a resurgence of anxieties to maintaining
maintain ethnic homogeneity in a ‘white Australia’ (Ang 1999, pp. 189-190; Jupp
2002, pp. 130; see also Betts 2002). This new politicised form of
racism was based less on biological constructions of race than on migrants’ and
Indigenous peoples’ assumed inability to assimilate (Moran 2005a; 2005b;
Langton 1981). The racialisation of the ‘other’ is based on their difference
from those who were ‘same’ in white Australia (Lattas 2001, p. 108).
Clearly, the adoption of multiculturalism in the 1970s did not
necessarily end the racialised nature of the Australian immigration policy. As
a number of scholars have argued, multiculturalism as a policy framework was
“designed to manage a variety of white cultures all of which were presumed to
share the same moral assumptions” (Stratton 1998, p. 10). The Anglo-Indians who
migrated to Australia during the White Australia policy era were affected by an
overtly racist migration policy while those Anglo-Indians who came later were
facing less overt racialisation in the context of multiculturalism. However,
from both time periods, the Anglo-Indians who experienced racism in Australia
were of dark skin colour despite the fact they had internalised the morals and
values of whiteness.
Ang (1996) looks at the ambivalent location of ‘Asians’ in Australian multicultural social space. She
writes that Australia’s desire to be a tolerant culturally pluralist society is
utopian. This aspiration avoids the reality of the racist history of Aboriginal
annihilation and the White Australia Policy, which did not permit non-whites,
especially ‘Asians’, to enter Australia. She is concerned with how this debate
suppresses the reality of these ongoing processes of racialised and ethnicised
‘othering’ in contemporary Australia. She suggests that the processes have
evolved into an ambivalent and contradictory process of ‘inclusion by virtue of
othering’ (Ang 1996; see also Moreton-Robinson 1998). In the light of Ang’s
argument, embodiment could affect the Anglo-Indians’ constructions of identity
formation. In particular, some fair skinned Anglo-Indians could pass as English
or Australian and might not be classified as the ‘other’.
The ‘inclusion’ or ‘exclusion’ of people on the basis of their embodiment
affects constructions of mixed-race identity and so-called prejudices and
discrimination against the ‘other’ (Young 1995; Perkins 2007; Brah & Coombes
2000; Ifewunigwe 1999). Cochrane (1995), Jamrozik, Boland & Urquhart 1995,
Stratton (1998) and Hage (1998) argue that Anglo-Celtic culture remains at the
‘core’ of Australian multicultural society. Within this ‘core’ the “British
(English) cultural [colonial] inheritance” (Jamrozik, Boland & Urquhart
1995, p. 1) is the dominant point of reference for the Anglo-Indians, rather
than the Indigenous Australians’ culture (Jordan 1988).
While the concept of assimilation in Australia is concerned with adopting
the ‘core’ culture, there are limitations to this process. As Hage (1998, p.
62) argues, no matter how many attributes of the dominant culture they might
accumulate, Australian migrants may still be recognised as a
Third-World-looking because they have merely acquired these attributes and were
not born with the ‘essence’ of whiteness
which the national aristocracy possess. There are examples of Australian
immigrant Muslims who are stereotyped as ‘terrorists’ and who are not included
or admitted entry into Australia (Imtoual 2004, p. 82; see also Batrouney 2000;
Saniotis 2002; Hage 2002; Gale 2004, 2007; Moran 2005a; 2005b).
I propose that some mixed-race Anglo-Indians
are positioned within Australian whiteness as either ‘less dark non-whites’ or
‘paler non-whites’ but ‘never white enough’. They share this positioning with
the Southern Europeans who did not “receive the very same privileges to British
nationals” (Vassilacopoulos & Nicolacopoulos, 2004, p. 76), while other
Anglo-Indians pass as white. In essence, James (2009) explored whether Anglo-Indians possess
aspirations and choices to capture and retain white identity either given or
withheld from them in the past. Underlying all these choices is the notion that
whiteness is not fixed and is a socially constructed fluid and variable
category (Bonnett 1998; 2000a & 2000b; Frankenberg 1993 & 1997; Brodkin
2000: Jacobson 1998; Roediger 2005 & Ignatiev 1995). However, while many
critical whiteness scholars write about people of white skin colour who struggled
and were accepted into ‘the white race’, Hage (1998) differs from these authors by
pointing out that even non-whites can claim whiteness by virtue of their
accumulation of whiteness and governmental belonging in multicultural
Australian society.
According to Hage (1998, pp. 58-59), although even the Third
World-looking migrant can accumulate percentages of whiteness, there are limits
to ‘culture’, whiteness and accumulation of whiteness. Hence, physical
characteristics like skin colour are not the only factors to be isolated, due
to the fluid nature of whiteness. Hage’s (1998) point applies
to migrant Anglo-Indians. As transnational migrants (Caplan 1998), the
Anglo-Indians have located themselves within the Australian nation. Many
Anglo-Indians, as discussed in James (2010) migrated from India because there
was a sense of being an insecure minority threatened by the dominant Hindu
majority (Anthony 1969; Gaikwad
1967; Gist & Wright 1973). In contrast, their easy assimilation and
integration into Australian white society is articulated within their
‘Australian national identity’ and the progressive accumulation of whiteness in
their new ‘home’.
The Anglo-Indians in South Australia accumulated whiteness in Australian
society and thereby claimed white identity. Their community is linked to their
own aspirations for and accumulation of Australian white identity in terms of
Hage’s (1998) terminology. The oral histories collected for James’ (2009)
thesis of some Anglo-Indians who came to Australia during the White Australia
Policy reveal the processes of cultural inclusion and exclusion evident in the
practices of whiteness. Respondents who migrated in the 1960s and 1970s when
multiculturalism became popular passed into whiteness more easily.
Arguably, Australia is
‘home’ for these diasporic Anglo-Indians who lay claim to their ‘Anglo’
heritage (James 2008; 2010). However, while some Anglo-Indians have undoubtedly
been economically successful (Gilbert 1986) it is unclear whether Anglo-Indians
have reached the end of their search for identity or their sense of belonging
in Australia. The white locations that they live in are essential to the
understanding of the accumulation of whiteness and the beliefs of the subjects
regarding the rules of inclusion and exclusion of whiteness, identification
with their ‘Anglo’ heritage, identification with their Indian heritage and with
their relatively new Anglo-Australian identity. By situating them within the
Anglo-Celtic culture and space through the structures and institutions in their
daily life, the choices that they make between their identification as an
Australian, Anglo-Indian, Indian or English person is dependent on their
experiences.
Thus, this paper linked how whiteness shapes the Anglo-Indians as a
mixed-race identity formation. More specifically, it focused on the relevance
of the concept of whiteness in explaining constructions of white identity
making among the respondent Anglo-Indians as a transnational and diasporic
entity. With their migration and settlement in Australia their pre-migration
claim for ‘Britishness’, is fulfilled while their claim ‘Australian whiteness’
within multicultural Australian society.
Anderson, W
2002, The cultivation of whiteness:
science, health and racial destiny in Australia, Melbourne University
Press, Victoria.
Ang, I 1996, ‘The curse of the smile: ambivalence and the ‘Asian’ woman
in Australian multiculturalism’, Feminist
Review no.52, spring, pp. 36-49.
Ang, I 1999, ‘Racial/ spatial Anxiety: ‘Asia’ in the psycho-geography of
Australian whiteness’, in G Hage (ed.), The Future of Australian
multiculturalism: reflections on the Twentieth anniversary of Jean Martin’s the
migrant presence, The Research Institute for Humanities and Social
Sciences, Sydney.
Anthias, F & Yuval-Davis, N 1992, Racialised boundaries: race,
nation, gender, colour and class and the anti-racist struggle, Routledge,
London.
Anthony, F 1969, Britain’s
betrayal in India: the story of the Anglo-Indian community, Allied
Publishers, Bombay.
Batrouney, T
2002, ‘From ‘white Australia’ to multiculturalism: citizenship and identity’ in
G Hage (ed.), Arab-Australians:
citizenship and belonging today,
Melbourne University Press, Carlton South.
Betts, K 2002,
‘Boat people and the 2001 election’, People
and Place, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 36-55.
Bhabha, H 1986, ‘Of
mimicry and man: the ambivalence of colonial discourse’, in J Donald & S Hall (eds.), Politics and ideology, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Bhabha, H 1990, ‘Interrogating identity: the
postcolonial prerogative’, in DT Goldberg (ed.) Anatomy
of racism, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Bonnett, A
1998, ‘How the British working class became white: the symbolic (Re) formation
of racialised capitalism’, Journal of Historical Sociology, vol. 11, no
3, pp. 316-340.
Bonnett, A
2000a, White identities: historical and international perspectives,
Prentice Hall, Harlow, England.
Bonnett, A
2000b, Anti-racism, Routledge, London, New York.
Brah, A &
Coombes, AE (eds.) 2000, Hybridity and its discontents: politics, science,
culture, Routledge, London and New York.
Brodkin, K
2000, How Jews became white folks and what that says about race in America, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, London.
Caplan, L 1998,
‘Colonial and contemporary transnationalisms: traversing Anglo-Indian
boundaries of the mind’, International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies,
vol. 3, no. 2, viewed 1 December 2012, <./cap0399.html>.
Cochrane, P
1995, ‘Anglo-Saxonness: ancestors and identity’, Communal Plural, vol.
4, pp. 1-16.
D’Cruz, G 2007,
‘Where are you coming from, Sir?’ in M Perkins (ed.), Visibly
different: face, place and race in Australia, Peter Lang, Bern.
Denzin, N K
& Lincoln, YL (eds.) 2000, The handbook of qualitative research, 2nd
edition, Sage, California.
Dyer, R 1997, White,
Routledge, London.
Frankenberg, R
1993, White women/race matters: the
social construction of whiteness, Routledge, London.
Frankenberg, R
1997, Displacing whiteness: essays in
social and cultural criticism, Duke University Press, Durham, North
Carolina.
Gaikwad, VR
1967, The Anglo-Indians: a study in the
problems and processes involved in emotional and cultural Integration, Asia
Publishing House, London.
Gale, P 2000, ‘Constitutions of whiteness in
the Australian media’, in G Fischer & J Docker (eds.) Race, colour & identity in Australia
and New Zealand,
University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
Gale, P 2004, ‘The refugee crisis and fear:
populist politics and media discourse’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 40,
no. 4, Dec, SAGE, pp 321-340.
Gale, P 2005, The politics of
fear: lighting the Wik, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest NSW.
Gale, P 2007, ‘Moral panic and white Australia: The politics of
division’, in S Petrilli, White Matters, (ed.) ATHANOR. Semiotica, Filosofia, Arte, Letteratura, Anno XVII, n. 10 General Editor
Augusto Ponzio, pp. 332-45.
Gilbert, A
1996, ‘The Anglo-Indians in Australia, from unsuccessful caste members to
attaining immigrants: an examination of Anglo-Indian labour force performance
and their life perceptions’, PhD Thesis. Monash University, Melbourne, viewed 1
December 2012, <./agthesis.html>.
Gist, NP &
Wright, RD 1973, Marginality and identity: Anglo-Indians as a racially mixed
minority in India, Leiden, Netherlands.
Hage, G 1998, White nation: fantasies of white supremacy
in a multicultural society, Pluto, Annandale, NSW.
Hage, G 2002, ‘Citizenship and honourability: belonging to
Australia today’ in G Hage (ed.) Arab-Australians
today and belonging, Melbourne
University Press, Victoria.
Hickman, MJ
& Walter, B 1995, ‘Deconstructing whiteness: Irish women in Britain’, in
Irish Women in Britain/The Republican feminist Agenda, Feminist Review,
no. 50 Sum, pp. 5-19.
Hooks, B 1997,
‘Representing whiteness in the black imagination’, in R Frankenberg (ed.), Displacing
whiteness: essays in social and cultural criticism, Duke University Press,
Durham, North Carolina.
Ifewunigwe, JO
1999, Scattered belongings: cultural paradoxes of ‘race,’ nation and gender,
Routledge, London & New York.
Ignatiev, N
1995, How the Irish became white,
Routledge, New York, London.
Imtoual, A
2004, “‘Whiteness’ studies, Christianity and religious racism in ‘secular’
Australia,” in S Schech & B Wadham (eds.), Placing race and localising
whiteness, Flinders University Press.
Jackson, P
& Penrose, J (eds.), 1993, Constructions
of race, place and nation, University College London Press, London.
Jacobson, MF
1998, Whiteness of a different color:
European immigrants and the alchemy of race, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, London.
James, SP 2009,
‘Wanting to be ‘white’ or not? The Anglo-Indians and the dilemma of identity’,
PhD dissertation.
James SP 2010, ‘Who are the Anglo-Indians?’, International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, vol.10, no.2, viewed 1 December 2012,
<
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/whoare1.html>.
Jamrozik, A,
Boland, C & Urquhart, R 1995, Social
change and cultural transformation in Australia, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Jamrozik, A
2004, The chains of colonial inheritance: searching for identity in a subservient
nation, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney.
Jordan, D 1988,
‘Aboriginal identity: uses of the past, problems with the future?’, in J Becket
(ed.), Past and present: the construction
of Aboriginality, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
Jupp, J 2001,
‘Is Hansonism dead? Immigration and race issues in the ballot box’, in
M Kalantiz
& B Cope (eds.), Reconciliation, multiculturalism identities:
difficult dialogues, sensible solutions, Common Ground Publishing, Australia.
Jupp, J 2002, From
white Australia to Woomera: the story of Australian immigration, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Jupp, J 2004, The English in Australia, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Langton, M
1981, ‘Urbanising Aborigines: the social scientists’ great deception’, in Social
Alternatives, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 16-22.
Lattas, A 2001,
‘Redneck thought: racism, guilt and Aborigines’, UTS Review,
Subaltern/Indigenous/Multicultural: Cultural Studies and New Writing, vol.
7, no. 1, pp.106-124.
Markus, A & Rasmussen, R 1987, Prejudice
in the public arena: racism, Centre for Migrant and Intercultural Studies,
Monash University, Victoria.
McNevin, A 2007, ‘The liberal paradox and the politics of asylum in
Australia’, Australian Journal of
Political Science, vol. 42, no. 4, Dec, pp. 611-630.
Moran, A 2005a,
Australia: nation belonging and
globalisation, Routledge, New York.
Moran, A 2005
b, ‘White Australia, settler
nationalism and Aboriginal assimilation’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 51, no. 2, June, pp. 168-193.
Moran, A 2005c,
‘Trust and uncertainty in a settler
society: relations between settlers and Aborigines in Australia’ in S Watson
& A Moran (eds.) Trust, Risk,
Uncertainty, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Moreton-Robinson,
A 1988, ‘White race privilege: nullifying native title’, Bringing Australia Together: The structure
and experience of racism in Australia, Foundation for Aboriginal and
Islander Research Action, Woolloongabba, pp. 39-44.
Moreton-Robinson,
A 1998, ‘Witnessing whiteness in the wake of the Wik’, Social Alternatives, vol. 17, no. 2, April, pp. 11-14.
Moreton-Robinson,
A 2004, Whitening race: essays in social and cultural criticism, Aboriginal Studies
Press, Canberra.
Morgan, S 1990,
My place, Arcade Publishers,
New York.
Perkins M (ed.) 2007, Visibly Different: face,
place and race in Australia, Peter Lang, Bern.
Roediger, DR
1994, Towards the abolition of whiteness: essays on race, politics and
working class history, Verso,
London, New York.
Roediger, DR
2005, Working toward whiteness: how America’s immigrants became
white, the strange journey from Ellis Island to the suburbs, Basic Books, New York.
Saniotis, A
2002, ‘Australian Muslims: the new “others”’, in Online Opinion, viewed
1 December 2008, <www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/Nov02/Saniotis.htm>.
Schech, S &
Haggis, J 2001, ‘Migrancy, multiculturalism and whiteness: Re-charting core
identities in Australia’, Communal/Plural, vol. 9, no. 2,
pp.143-159.
Schech, S & Haggis, J 2004, ‘Terrains of Migrancy
and Whiteness; how British migrants locate themselves in Australia’, in A
Moreton-Robinson (ed.) Whitening Race, pp 177-191, Aboriginal Studies
Press, Canberra.
Stratton, J 1998, Race daze, Australia in identity crisis, Pluto
Press, NSW.
Varma, LB 1979,
Anglo-Indians: a historical study of Anglo-Indian community in nineteenth
century in India, Reena Roy, Bhasha Prakashan, New Delhi.
Vassilacopoulos, G & Nicolacopoulos, T 2004, ‘Indigenous and white
Australians: the ontological encountering and the betrayal of thought’ in S
Schech & B Wadham (eds.), Placing race and localising whiteness, Flinders
University Press, Adelaide, Australia.
Wadham, B 2004,
‘What is whiteness? Authenticity, dominance and identity’ in S Schech & B
Wadham (eds.) Placing race and localising
whiteness, Flinders University Press, Adelaide.
Young, RJC
1995, Colonial desire: hybridity in theory, culture and race, Routledge,
London and New York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Pais James teaches at Flinders University. Her
main interests include Anglo-Indian studies, Development Aid Programmes and
Social Health Research. She is involved with inspiring confidence and success
among International and Australian students in their academic life at Flinders
University. Her PhD thesis researched the social constructions of identity
among the Anglo-Indians of South Australia.