Adopted territory: Transnational Korean adoptees and the politics of belonging

material change surface in several occasions along the volume. By saying this, am I conceding too much to the myth of ‘primitive purity’, or acknowledging the ‘good savage’/‘bad savage’ dichotomy? I do not believe so. To say that the goods and techniques brought by colonisers had effects on the colonised does not amount to saying that the colonised were perverted or depraved in the process. Social change does not mean depravation, transformation does not mean ‘impurity’. These points are also part of Dousset’s argument. Minimizing the impact of technologies and goods contributes to proving this point, albeit partially. Mythes, missiles et cannibales raises interesting questions. It would be good to find more detailed accounts of how social structures take advantage of material parameters: What is modified and how? How do local actors perceive material benefits and needs in colonial situations? To which extend were colonizers aware of the social consequences of their technological input? Did Australian colonial governments and missions manipulate these factors consciously, rather than blindly provide goods in a bid to obtain power, or avoid doing so in the fear of perverting ‘noble savages’? In conclusion,Mythes, missiles et cannibales is an important critical contribution to our understanding of colonial interactions, in Australia and elsewhere, and it would be good to see Dousset’s volume translated into English. Dousset clearly articulates and deconstructs colonial ideology, connecting it with historical facts. With respect to this deconstruction, the book opens up important questions to be addressed in future research.