October 9th Discussion Post

Nandita Sharma's WHITE NATIONALISM, ILLEGALITY, AND IMPERIALISM from last week and Professor Tadiar's SEXUAL ECONOMIES IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC COMMUNITY for this week both criticize nationalism as a tool to keep a global hierarchy in place. However, the authors seem to come up with different conclusions as to how to fight the dangers of nationalism. Sharma's piece focuses on "unwanted migrants," individuals or groups of people that do not fit in the imagined, "national community" of a state. Therefore, she concludes by discussing a No Borders movement with their declaration, "No One is Illegal" (139). Unfortunately, the No Borders movement would not resolved the issues described in Tadiar's piece.

Tadiar explores a structure already in place in which Filipino women and children are used as commodities, and move freely among state borders throughout different countries, including Japan. She examines the exportation of Filipino women and children to other countries for sexual exploitation. Tadiar writes, "...nationalities are used as instruments of exploitation. The fact that Filipino girls are imported in Japan to replace the Japanese prostitutes who used to service U.S. soldiers in Okinawa demonstrates that certain national ideologies of discrimination are at work" (238). In this passage, she asserts that Filipino women and children are imported into Japan, because they are outside of the Japanese identity. By outsourcing prostitutes to imported Filipinos, rather than using Japanese women, a power structure is formed based on nationalism in which Japan comes out on top. The use of Filipinos to provide and satiate Japanese consumption and desire, disassociates prostitution from Japanese national identity. The outsourcing of prostitutes implies that there is a market for prostitution in Japan, because there is a Filipino supply, and not the other way around.

Therefore, Sharma and Tadiar provide two ways in which nationalism upholds a global hierarchy. First, it uses state borders and national identities to exclude unwanted "outsiders." Second, it welcomes and imports "outsiders" in order to provide the "dirty" work/commodities that are "beneath" its particular people or community. Is there a way to amend/change Sharma's proposal of the No Borders movement to address both these issues?