The Revitalization of Eurasian Identity in Singapore

Abstract

This paper accounts for the revitalization of Eurasian identity in the 1990s. The revitalization was instrumental, as Eurasians had found themselves socially marginalized, particularly since the other ethnic groups were becoming more assertive about their respective ethnic identities since the 1980s. To counter this, the Eurasians selectively constructed a set of cultural practices and outlooks which were unique to the group, but not necessarily reviving practices that were "lost". The revitalization was therefore not a deep-seated emotional or primordial attachment to their identity; instead, it was used to improve the position of the community in Singapore.

Inclusion, exclusion, and racial identity in Singapore's language education system

“…As with the Peranakans, Eurasians were among the first of Singapore's communities to learn English (Wee, ). English has subsequently become virtually the sole language of the community, with only a handful of native Kristang speakers remaining (Pereira, : 15–16).…”

Multiplicity within Singularity: Racial Categorization and Recognizing “Mixed Race” in Singapore

“…Being (literally) "othered" by the state had important consequences for the community, which was already culturally ambiguous and built on a history of hybridity (Braga-Blake 1992). The CMIO model meant that Eurasian culture was not officially recognized by the government, not being symbolically linked to a language, a homeland, or a distinct set of cultural practices (Pereira 1997).…”

“…Against this divided backdrop, mixedness remained difficult to assert, particularly for individuals of mixed descent and for individuals who identified with the hybridity of the Eurasian community. By 1980, the Eurasian community was largely excluded from dominant narratives of nation building and belonging, as the hybrid Eurasian culture could not fit easily into the multiracial model and was not seen as Asian enough to possess traditional Asian values (Pereira 1997(Pereira , 2006.…”

“…This was done by recalling, consolidating, borrowing and even inventing unique aspects of Eurasian culture which could then be labelled as typically and traditionally Eurasian: Eurasian cuisine such as devil's curry, the language of Kristang (a patois of Portuguese and Malay originating in Malacca), and the branyo (a traditional dance). The definition of Eurasian was also officially broadened by the EA, moving away from a paternal European line, and allowing for anyone of mixed European and Asian descent (Pereira 1997(Pereira , 2006. By creating distinct markers, the community worked to essentialize and distill aspects of Eurasian culture from the wider region, diluting hybridity to fit within a simplified grid of racial groups.…”

“…As a result, the government began to support the Eurasian community's efforts at self-definition and revitalization. It co-opted the EA to act as the "self-help" group for the Eurasian community, and acknowledged the Eurasians as a distinct cultural group with official representation, both politically and symbolically (Pereira 1997(Pereira , 2006. While Eurasian culture has been promoted and solidified in order to fit within the CMI(E)O framework, much like other racialized groups, the social reality of Eurasians remains much more complicated.…”