Abstract

Resumos The view of historical writing as a mere objective and dispassionate recording of the past is already passé. From the outset of postmodernity, historiography was already seen as a tool either for oppression or empowerment. Integral to the role of historiography in this oppression or empowerment tendency is the construction of identity. In earlier stages of Southeast Asian scholarship, the common pattern among the historiographical materials produced (often by the intelligentsia of the colonial establishment) is the depiction of Southeast Asia as an artificial buffer region that serves as a watershed of "Sinicization" from the East and "Indianization" from the West, and even "Islamization" later on. Very illustrative in this regard is George Coedes seminal work, "The Indianized States of Southeast Asia" (1968). This will in turn act as an intellectual conditioning to prepare others to passively recognize the legitimacy of Westernization and Modernization as the rightful heirs of Sinicization and Indianization. The period of decolonization will change the landscape of historiography, specifically in insular Southeast Asia, or what Zeus Salazar would call "Dunia Melayu" (1998). Post-coloniality would give birth to the indigenization of historical discourse in the region and, as a corollary, to a reactive movement that would challenge colonial identity politics. The Austronesian complex would serve as a major hermeneutical tool in asserting the nationalist agenda towards the collective Malayan past of the Maphilindian countries. This paper would attempt to survey major historical works, from colonial historiography to national historiography, with an emphasis on their roles in the identity politics of the region.