Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,395

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race.

Brantlinger, Patrick, Young, Robert J. C.·1996·The American Historical Review

Abstract

The language of contemporary cultural theory shows remarkable similarities with the patterns of thought which characterised Victorian racial theory. Far from being marked by a separation from the racialised thinking of the past, Colonial Desire shows we are operating in complicity with historical ways of viewing 'the other', both sexually and racially. Colonial Desire is a controversial and bracing study of the history of Englishness and 'culture'. Robert Young argues that the theories advanced today about post-colonialism and ethnicity are disturbingly close to the colonial discourse of the nineteenth century. 'Englishness', Young argues, has been less fixed and stable than uncertain, fissured with difference and a desire for otherness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2170185

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 2,395

Metadata

Authors
Brantlinger, P., & Young, R. J. C.
Venue
The American Historical Review
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1996-12
Volume
101
Issue
5
Pages
1519
ISSN
0002-8762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2076283118
Cited by
2,395
References
0
FWCI
1335.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2170185
The paper
Brantlinger, P., & Young, R. J. C. (1996). Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. The American Historical Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2170185

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.