Prior to the Opium War China was central to Pacific Asia, but it was not in control of its neighborhood. The mobility of the various nomadic groups threatened China’s northern and western frontiers, and Vietnam’s successful resistance to Ming annexation set a southern boundary-stone. While China’s centrality was not hegemonic, its location, demographic preponderance, and artisanal production made China the center of regional attention. Conversely, because of China’s demographic and production centrality, China was more interested in defending what it had than in imperial adventures abroad. Its foreign policy was one of controlling exposure in relationships—thin connectivity. By the Ming Dynasty this evolved into the tribute system, whose core was a ritualized exchange of deference by the neighbor for acknowledgement of autonomy by China.

This chapter explores the ways in which blue-and-white porcelains travelled away from their site of production in Jingdezhen, into new cultural contexts, where they acquired new meanings and values. In that process, this chapter argues, the blue-and-white porcelains retained a certain distinctiveness: their attraction and high value was in part to do with the fact that they were associated with a remote site of production, and a cultural context that was different from their new environment. Their value was in some ways determined by the fact that they were exotic and different, but their difference did not prevent them from becoming part of a new cultural context. They became embedded into new localities, where they acquired specifically local meaning and significance. The evidence is drawn from a fourteenth-century manuscript in Bagdad, a ritual manual from fifteenth-century Korea, a shipwreck in the Philippines, and an Italian Renaissance painting. The combination of exotic distinctiveness and local significance underscores again that the story of porcelain is an intertwined story of global and local meaning.

Chinese immigrant communists who were members of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) invented the national discourse of a multiethnic Malayan nation in 1930 through the medium of a semantic slippage of the Chinese word minzu (nation, nationality, ethnic group). The MCP, which mixed elements of a traditional Chinese association and a Bolshevik party, was a product of the ideological and organizational hybridization common to anti-imperialist organizations in Southeast Asia in the interwar global moment. The Malayan nationalism of the MCP built on the official nationalism of the British government and was shaped by Comintern ideas concerning the internationalism of national communist parties and by the need for political inclusion of immigrants in the Malayan body politic. This idea of a Malayan nation wherein nationalism and internationalism did not contradict each other was a derivative discourse originating in colonialism, though it became central to the Malayan nation after independence. The heterogeneous origins of the Malayan national concept highlight the ambiguities of nationalism and help us understand why this concept is still under debate today.

Communist efforts to recruit students and often unsuccessful attempts to tap into the student movement were contingent on GMD education in overseas Chinese schools. The Guomindang promoted Asianist ideas aiming to increase Chinese influence in Southeast Asia, including the idea of a regional International of Nationalities. On one hand, the GMD’s education policies were responsible for the rise of Chinese identification among the locally born Chinese. The rise of Chinese identity among locally born Chinese contributed to increasing the MCP’s popularity among students on the eve of the war and after the start of the Japanese occupation in 1942. On the other hand, the younger generation of Malayan-born Chinese rebelled against GMD indoctrination, which, however, successfully instilled in them identification with China. Both the MCP and the Communist Youth League had similar shortcomings due to the lack of cadres, finances, and knowledge of language. Teachers in Chinese schools, who often had communist views, instilled in their students the “modern” cosmopolitan outlook, which included Western music, arts, and communism.

Structural, contextual, and contingent factors led to the improbable survival of the MCP in the interwar years. When the Japanese invaded Malaya, the MCP’s influence was strongest among the Chinese community. The experience of the Japanese occupation, first in China and then in Malaya, further shaped the territorial notion of Malaya for the MCP, and the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese population resulted in mass support for the party. The MCP’s Malayan nationalism connects with how another Chinese association, the Malayan Chinese Association, credited with the creation of coalition politics in Malaya, embraced the discourse of multiethnic Malayan nationalism after the war. The MCA also led the Malayan nation to liberation in 1957 through a political alliance of ethnic parties, which had first been envisioned by the MCP in 1930. The MCP and the MCA’s efforts ran along parallel tracks. These were the outcome of the Malayan multiethnic environment, British policies, and the localization of Chinese organizations. One cannot fully understand revolution and nationalism either in China or in Malaya except in conjunction with one another.

Chinese immigrant communists who were members of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) invented the national discourse of a multiethnic Malayan nation in 1930 through the medium of a semantic slippage of the Chinese word minzu (nation, nationality, ethnic group). The MCP, which mixed elements of a traditional Chinese association and a Bolshevik party, was a product of the ideological and organizational hybridization common to anti-imperialist organizations in Southeast Asia in the interwar global moment. The Malayan nationalism of the MCP built on the official nationalism of the British government and was shaped by Comintern ideas concerning the internationalism of national communist parties and by the need for political inclusion of immigrants in the Malayan body politic. This idea of a Malayan nation wherein nationalism and internationalism did not contradict each other was a derivative discourse originating in colonialism, though it became central to the Malayan nation after independence. The heterogeneous origins of the Malayan national concept highlight the ambiguities of nationalism and help us understand why this concept is still under debate today.