THE SOVIET VIEW OF EAST-WEST COMPETITION IN THE THIRD WORLD

A dualism in Europe between immigration of European and of non-European origins increasingly characterized the 1970s and the 1980s; i.e., the time span following the phase of the massive labor migration of the 1950s and 1960s after the break marked by the end of active recruitment in 1973–1974. The result was, on the one hand, the integration of a considerable number of immigrants of European origin into the society of the host country. On the other hand, it resulted in the nonintegration of immigrants of non-European origin and their social isolation as well as scenarios of conflict with this group. The consequences of the process of European integration highlighted this dualism. It was beneficial for most of the immigrants of European origin in terms of improved social and legal status and especially in terms of free movement. The dualism was likewise emphasized by increasing immigration flows from different parts of the Third World which could be observed in the 1970s and 1980s.

Download Full-text

Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography

Comparative Studies in Society and History ◽

10.1017/s0010417500016534 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 32 (2) ◽

pp. 383-408 ◽

Cited By ~ 331

Author(s):

Gyan Prakash

Keyword(s):

Third World ◽

The Third ◽

Fixed Space ◽

Historical Writings ◽

The Third World ◽

East West

To ask how the “third world writes its own history” appears, at first glance, to be exceedingly naive. At best, it reaffirms the East–West and Orient–Occident oppositions that have shaped historical writings and seems to be a simple-minded gesture of solidarity. Furthermore, in apparently privileging the writings of historians with third-world origins, this formulation renders such scholars into “native informants” whose discourse is opened up for further disquisitions on how “they” think of “their” history. In short, the notion of the third world writing its own history seems to reek of essentialism. Seen in another way, this formulation can be construed as positing that the third world has a fixed space of its own from which it can speak in a sovereign voice. For many, this notion of a separate terrain is rendered problematic by the increasing rapidity and the voracious appetite with which the postmodern culture imperializes and devours spaces.

Download Full-text