英语论文网

tion (European and Chinese) that shape the building.

If the notion of locality is kept in the discussion, it should be referred to this cultural identity; the Chinese, who played important role in shaping the city. Noticing how the Chinese cultural identity is still preserved and practiced by the Chinese in this area, a part from the context of several repressions and violence befell to them; assimilation policy during the old and new regime, 1998 riot, the city is always a home for them; the city is their own sense of place. The city was and is always attached with them, which then notifies the concept of locality.

However, the point that I am trying to argue here, is not to suggest the notion of locality; as the existence of the Chinese in this city cannot be separated from the existence of other ethnics, brought by the flow of the ethnoscape into this landscape. What I am trying to suggest is that the concept of locality should include other cultural identities overflowing this landscape, not in a summarized version personified and embedded in Betawi culture.

The most problematic thing that I am trying to argue here is the notion of locality itself. Locality implies the categorization of, using postcolonial point of view, who is us and who is the other; who is local and who is not local. Related to the museum, this perception is so apparent whether in the structure of the building or in the narrative constructed by the arrangement and selection of collection. For the colonial scheme of perceptions and practices which imply the past sensibility, the Chinese is categorized local and non-local; local in a sense of the privileged, local and non-local in a sense of the different classification compared to other local ethnics.

While, for the present narrative the Chinese cultural identity is localized, quoting Appadurai; indigenized, into the signification of Betawi cultural identity as Jakarta cultural identity. Missing and ignored from both scheme of perceptions and practices is the context of this place, which is never local. From the past until present, this city and its landscapes are always porous for the global context; in other words, this city is always global and globalized.

At some points the narrative constructed by the museum implies the global context of this city. Started from its name as Sunda Kalapa, Jayakarta, until it was named as Batavia, this city had attracted the flow of ethnic, finance, techno, media [9] , and ideoscapes inside and outside its landscapes. However, this context is raptured and suspended in the present perception of this place as implied by the summarization, not to say celebration, of this complexity into the notion of Betawi as the identity of the city.

The logic of this summarization cannot be separated from the function of the museum in creating and shaping the notion of the nationhood, paraphrasing Anderson, to the imagination of the community; to construct the signification that this city has its own distinctive identity and people which are different from other cities, places; while actually the distinctiveness of this city lies on its multicultural aspects, not in its melting pot form as represented in Betawi ethnicity. Appadurai reminds us that 'one man's imagined community is another man's political prison' (50); therefore, to release this city from the confinement, it is better to paint it in multicolo