Podcast appearances and mentions of michael keevak

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In On Saving Face: A Brief History of Western Appropriation (Hong Kong UP, 2022), Michael Keevak traces the Western reception of the Chinese concept of “face” during the past two hundred years, arguing that it has always been linked to nineteenth-century colonialism. “Lose face” and “save face” have become so normalized in modern European languages that most users do not even realize that they are of Chinese origin. “Face” is an extremely complex and varied notion in all East Asian cultures. It involves proper behavior and the avoidance of conflict, encompassing every aspect of one's place in society as well as one's relationships with other people. One can “give face,” “get face,” “fight for face,” “tear up face,” and a host of other expressions. But when it began to become known to the Western trading community in China beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, it was distorted and reduced to two phrases only, “lose face” and “save face,” both of which were used to suggest distinctly Western ideas of humiliation, embarrassment, honor, and reputation. The Chinese were judged as a race obsessed with the fear of “losing (their) face,” and they constantly resorted to vain attempts to “save” it in the face of Western correction. “Lose face” may be an authentic Chinese expression but “save face” is different. “Save face” was actually a Western invention. Michael Keevak is a professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University. His books include Embassies to China: Diplomacy and Cultural Encounters Before the Opium Wars (2017), Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (2011), The Story of a Stele: China's Nestorian Monument and Its Reception in the West, 1625–1916 (HKUP, 2008), The Pretended Asian: George Psalmanazar's Eighteenth-Century Formosan Hoax (2004), and Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship, Portraiture (2001). Li-Ping Chen is Postdoctoral Scholar and Teaching Fellow in the East Asian Studies Center at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include literary translingualism, diaspora, and nativism in Sinophone, inter-Asian, and transpacific contexts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

本期节目的嘉宾是我们的朋友陈昶羽。昶羽是纽约大学东亚系的博士学生，研究兴趣包括后殖民理论、华语影视与文本、身份认同。从流行文化中的中国元素到时事新闻报道中的中国立场和态度，这些叙述中都或多或少暗含着一种对中国形象的描绘或者想象。这是一种怎样的想象？这种形象又怎样与中国历史、历史上中国与世界的关系相关？虽然历史是由一个又一个历史事实构成，但因为我们终究不是历史中的人，只能在想象中经历前人的经历，对历史的分析和对世界未来发展方向的理解也常常依赖于某种历史想象。我们作为“东方”试图去理解的以西方为主导的现代性就是一种特殊的历史想象。为什么说这种历史想象是以线性史观作为支撑的？在线性史观下，后发现代性国家与先发现代性国家的关系是什么？如何超越先发现代性国家？如果不可能有真正的超越，我们又如何突破这种特殊的历史想象？从对中国形象的叙述讲起，昶羽和我们在这期节目中聊到了他者、线性史观、现代性、替代性现代性、如何突破线性史观等话题。本期嘉宾陈昶羽内容提要+精彩预告00:33 嘉宾自我介绍01:27 民族主义和自我文化画像“两个辛丑年对比”“国学、汉服作为消费品”“中国特色版本，和世界其他地方的不一样”07:30 西方作为中国历史建构的“他者”“后发现代性国家把先发现代性国家作为他者”“论证自身的合法性是和先发现代性国家做比较，去超越”“冲击-反应模式作为文化想象“13:30 历史事实vs历史想象“历史事实的虚构性””用以想象中国的现代化“柯文（Paul A. Cohen） 《在中国发现历史》王德威 《被压抑的现代性》“二分法会把西方和东方分开，比如科技看西方，文化看东方”18:00 民族主义的不在场对象（西方）对自我建构的影响“后发者对于先发者的表面反对之下，在深层次继承了先发者的思维框架”“对线性时间、现代性的想象”21:55 日本的历史经验津田左右吉 《什么是东洋文化》竹内好 《中国的近代与日本的近代》沟口雄三 《作为方法的中国》“在同一条线上比先后，西方永远是一个参照”“我们能不能既不落后也不先进”“不需要挖空心思去想独特性是什么”28:40 科技与经济发展合理化线性时间“现代化理论：经济发展水平越高的国家，幸福度越高，思想更加自由，所以经济发展好的国家更加先进“31:20 我们为什么要突破这种现代性想象？“因为它成为了殖民的理由””如果后发现代性国家接受这种想象，是削足适履“36:00 普遍vs特殊“当前的现代性想象是把特殊经验普遍化了”38:00 alternative modernity替代性现代性日本“现代的超克”overcoming：“以西方的方式超越西方”“其实是走向了帝国主义”43:45 后发现代性国家如何理解自己的位置？同质与纯粹vs异质与杂糅：奇迈可（Michael Keevak）《成为黄种人：种族思维简史》”随着工业革命的发展，东方显得越来越落后，科学种族论出现““黄种人是被建构的概念”51:26 本质vs过程：玛格丽特·麦克米伦“把民族国家的形成比作抢椅子的游戏”“民族国家形成的那一刻就是坐下来的那一刻”“民族边界的划分有高度的历史偶然性”“但这种划分常常会被本质化”Helen Siu “study China as a process”56:50 为什么关注过程可以突破线性史观？”一个个体不是自我构成的，而是和与其他部分一起组成的““打破的是普遍和特殊的唯二选项”“每个国家的历史都是全球史的注脚”“都是全球史过程中的小过程”“共同创造更美好的未来”01:05:00 总结“不要把现代性的替代方案当作西方的替代方案”“这不是有建设性的历史想象”“Us with modernity”参考资料Cohen, P. A. (2010). Discovering history in China: American historical writing on the recent Chinese past. Columbia University Press.王德威. (2006). 被压抑的现代性. 社会科学论坛, 2.津田左右吉. 什么是东洋文化. 支那思想と日本 (1937年) (岩波新書). 竹内好. (1948). 中国的近代与日本的近代.沟口雄三. 孙军悦(译). (2011) 作为方法的中国. 生活·读书·新知三联书店.Keevak, M. (2011). Becoming yellow: A short history of racial thinking. Princeton University Press.Helen Siu, https://campuspress.yale.edu/helensiu/玛格丽特·麦克米伦.《历史的运用与滥用》片头片尾音乐《Sunrise at Seaside》by 王乾-----------双重意识是一档「让我们认识到那些我们以为此时此刻与我们生活需求没有关联的东西其实和我们紧密相关」的播客节目。你可以在苹果播客, 喜马拉雅，网易云音乐，荔枝fm，小宇宙APP和Spotify搜索"双重意识DoubleConsciousness"找到我们，关注我们并收听我们的节目。欢迎大家在微信后台或是微博(@双重意识DoubleConsciousness)等各大平台给我们留言、提供反馈意见。

In 1817 a young woman appeared in the English village of Almondsbury, speaking a strange language and seeking food and shelter. She revealed herself to be an Eastern princess, kidnapped by pirates from an exotic island. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll tell the story of Princess Caraboo, who was both more and less than she seemed. We'll also discover a June Christmas and puzzle over some monster soup. Intro: In 1988, Martine Tischer proposed wrapping gifts in uncut U.S. currency. In 1948, Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe, and George Gamow seized the chance of an immortal byline. Sources for our feature on Princess Caraboo: John Matthew Gutch, Caraboo: A Narrative of a Singular Imposition, 1817. Sabine Baring-Gould, Devonshire Characters and Strange Events, 1908. Anonymous, Carraboo, Carraboo: The Singular Adventures of Mary Baker, Alias Princess of Javasu, 1817. John Timbs, English Eccentrics and Eccentricities, 1877. C.L. McCluer Stevens, Famous Crimes and Criminals, 1924. J.P. Jewett, Remarkable Women of Different Nations and Ages, 1858. The Lives and Portraits of Curious and Odd Characters, 1852. Mrs. John Farrar, Recollections of Seventy Years, 1869. Margaret Russett, "The 'Caraboo' Hoax: Romantic Woman as Mirror and Mirage," Discourse 17:2 (Winter 1994-1995), 26-47. Michael Keevak, "A World of Impostures," Eighteenth Century 53:2 (Summer 2012), 233-235. Shompa Lahiri, "Performing Identity: Colonial Migrants, Passing and Mimicry Between the Wars," Cultural Geographies 10:4 (October 2003), 408-423. "Top 10 Imposters," Time, May 26, 2009. "Local Legends: Bristol's Princess Caraboo," BBC (accessed Jan. 31, 2021). Corrie Bond-French, "The Tale of a Mysterious Princess," Gloucestershire Echo, June 7, 2018. "Story of Exotic Beauty Still Fascinates Us Today," Mid-Devon Gazette, May 3, 2016, 21. Nazar Iene Daan Kannibelle, "Servant Girl Hoaxed All Great Britain by Pose as Princess," Washington Times, November 6, 1921. "A Singular Imposture," Strand 9:52 (April 1895), 451-456. "The Pretended Princess Caraboo," Gloucestershire Notes and Queries 35 (July 1887), 627-629. "The Princess Caraboo," Curiosities of Bristol and Its Neighbourhood 7 (March 1884), 48. "Caraboo," Notes and Queries, June 3, 1865, 447. F.W. Fairholt, "The Curiosities of Eccentric Biography," Bentley's Miscellany 69 (Jan. 1, 1851), 180-193. "Princess Caraboo," Museum of Hoaxes (accessed Jan. 31, 2021). John Wells, "Baker [née Willcocks], Mary [alias Princess Caraboo]," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Sept. 1, 2017. Listener mail: Wills Robinson, "For Once, a Good Excuse for Bad Handwriting: One of Admiral Nelson's First Letters Written Left-Handed After He Lost His Right Arm in Battle Is Unearthed," Daily Mail, Feb. 16, 2014. "Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson," Wikipedia (accessed Feb. 5, 2021). Maev Kennedy, "Nelson's Right and Left Hand: Wellcome Exhibit Reveals How Past Leaves Its Mark," Guardian, Nov. 24, 2010. "Peter Butterworth," Wikipedia (accessed Feb. 6, 2021). Lucy Thornton and Mark Branagan, "Carry On's Peter Butterworth Rejected to Play Himself in Role Because He Was 'Too Fat'," Mirror, Aug. 16, 2020. "Stray Cat With Shocking Facial Growth Rescued," Catcuddles, Aug. 10, 2020. Rae Gellel, "Catcuddles Cat Hodge to Follow in Doorkins Magnificat's Paw Prints," Catcuddles, Dec. 6, 2020. Andrew Nunn, "Welcome to Hodge by the Dean of Southwark," Southwark Cathedral (accessed Feb. 6, 2021). Jane Steen, "Southwark and Hodge and Dr Johnson," Southwark Cathedral (accessed Feb. 6, 2021). This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Lucie. Here's a corroborating link (warning -- this spoils the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

In 1703, London had a strange visitor, a young man who ate raw meat and claimed that he came from an unknown country on the island of Taiwan. Though many doubted him, he was able to answer any question he was asked, and even wrote a best-selling book about his homeland. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll consider the curious question of the man from Formosa. We'll also scrutinize a stamp forger and puzzle over an elastic Utah. Intro: In 1892 a legionnaire in West Africa met a rifle he'd owned 22 years earlier in France. Americans and Canadians can visit one another's territory through a Peace Arch on the border. Sources for our feature on George Psalmanazar: Michael Keevak, The Pretended Asian, 2004. Frederic J. Foley, The Great Formosan Impostor, 1968. Tobias B. Hug, Impostures in Early Modern England, 2010. George Psalmanazar, An Historical and Geographical Description of Formosa, 1704. George Psalmanazar, A Dialogue Between a Japonese and a Formosan, About Some Points of the Religion of the Time, 1707. George Psalmanazar, Essays on the Following Subjects ..., 1753. George Psalmanazar, An Enquiry Into the Objections Against George Psalmanaazaar of Formosa, 1710. Memoirs of ****. Commonly Known by the Name of George Psalmanazar, a Reputed Native of Formosa, 1764. "George Psalmanazar," National Magazine 6:1 (1859), 123-127. "George Psalmanazar," Dictionary of National Biography, 1896, 439-442. Benjamin Breen, "No Man Is an Island: Early Modern Globalization, Knowledge Networks, and George Psalmanazar's Formosa," Journal of Early Modern History 17:4, 391-417. Michael Keevak, "A World of Impostures," Eighteenth Century 53:2 (Summer 2012), 233-235. Donald Rayfield, "Forgiving Forgery," Modern Language Review 107:4 (October 2012), xxv-xli. C. Macfie Campbell, "A Note on the Imagination and Its Exploitation: Psalmanazar and Hélène Smith," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 92:5 (November 1940), 605-613. Ben Downing, "Psalmanazar the Amazing," Yale Review 90:3 (July 2002), 46-74. Peter Mason, "Ethnographic Portraiture in the Eighteenth Century: George Psalmanaazaar's Drawings of Formosans," Eighteenth-Century Life 23:3 (November 1999), 58. Kembrew McLeod, "The Fake 'Asian' Who Fooled 18th-Century London," Atlantic, April 22, 2014. Benjamin Breen, "Illustrations From an 18th-Century Frenchman's Completely Made-Up Book About Taiwan," Slate, Nov. 6, 2013. Listener mail: Jessica Bineth, "Somerton Man: One of Australia's Most Baffling Cold Cases Could Be a Step Closer to Being Solved," ABC News, Jan. 1, 2018. Colin Gleadell, "Art Sales: The Finest Forger of All Time?" Telegraph, Jan. 9, 2007. Rosslyn Beeby, "The Rubens of Philately," Sydney Morning Herald, March 31, 2012. Elle Hunt, "New Zealand's New Flag: 15 Quirky Contenders," Guardian, May 14, 2015. "Are These The Craziest Designs for a New Flag?" TVNZ, July 15, 2015. "The Colourful Contenders for New Zealand's New Flag," BBC, May 15, 2015. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Michael Förtsch, who sent this corroborating link (warning -- this spoils the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or Google Play Music or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

In the course of his concise and clearly written new book Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (Princeton University Press, 2011), Michael Keevak investigates the emergence of a “yellow” and “Mongolian” East Asian identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Becoming Yellow incorporates a wide range of sources in... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the course of his concise and clearly written new book Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (Princeton University Press, 2011), Michael Keevak investigates the emergence of a “yellow” and “Mongolian” East Asian identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Becoming Yellow incorporates a wide range of sources in... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the course of his concise and clearly written new book Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (Princeton University Press, 2011), Michael Keevak investigates the emergence of a “yellow” and “Mongolian” East Asian identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Becoming Yellow incorporates a wide range of sources in...

In the course of his concise and clearly written new book Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (Princeton University Press, 2011), Michael Keevak investigates the emergence of a “yellow” and “Mongolian” East Asian identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Becoming Yellow incorporates a wide range of sources in its exploration of the European imagination of an East Asian racial identity, including poetry, travel accounts, medical and anthropological texts, and children’s toys. Over the course of our interview, we talked about the difficulties and rewards of trying to situate the idea of a “Yellow Peril” in historical context, and the potential pitfalls along the way. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the course of his concise and clearly written new book Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (Princeton University Press, 2011), Michael Keevak investigates the emergence of a “yellow” and “Mongolian” East Asian identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Becoming Yellow incorporates a wide range of sources in its exploration of the European imagination of an East Asian racial identity, including poetry, travel accounts, medical and anthropological texts, and children’s toys. Over the course of our interview, we talked about the difficulties and rewards of trying to situate the idea of a “Yellow Peril” in historical context, and the potential pitfalls along the way. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the course of his concise and clearly written new book Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (Princeton University Press, 2011), Michael Keevak investigates the emergence of a “yellow” and “Mongolian” East Asian identity in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Becoming Yellow incorporates a wide range of sources in its exploration of the European imagination of an East Asian racial identity, including poetry, travel accounts, medical and anthropological texts, and children’s toys. Over the course of our interview, we talked about the difficulties and rewards of trying to situate the idea of a “Yellow Peril” in historical context, and the potential pitfalls along the way. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices