Jottings from the Granite Studio

New post at The China Beat on The May Fourth Movement

Jeremiah — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:06:42 +0800

Yeah I know…one week late. Ever since my unexpected visa detour to Hong Kong, I’ve been exactly one week behind on everything for a month. Nevertheless, now up at The China Beat (mainland link here):

Like their May 4th predecessors, the young people of China write espousing a strong Chinese nation and their rhetoric is filled with pride and optimism for their country’s future. The passion and fire of May 4 is certainly there as well, even if the new media is an electronic one: Sohu, Tianya, and a universe of blogs and BBSs are the new New Youth.

But something is missing: The marketplace of ideas.

Today in China, even with the government tirelessly trying to limit access to alternative perspectives, bookstores and the Internet still abound with news, essays, translations, history, and philosophy, providing young people with an access to information far beyond the wildest dreams of their May 4 predecessors. But the desire to find out more, the craving to challenge assumptions and formulate multiple perspectives on complex issues is woefully absent. The youth of today write more than ever, more than any generation in recent memory with terabytes of opinion available online—but the anger and passion and fire of the May 4th generation are now enlisted in support of a single worldview and a single perspective on a range of issues. A whole generation whose arguments are hard-wired: an authoritarian success story.

You can read more and join the discussion at The China Beat. Enjoy.

Asian History Carnival on May 12th

Jeremiah — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:29:27 +0800

I will be hosting the Asian History Carnival here on May 12. I’ve already received a lot of great submissions in the past few weeks, if you have a post or an essay you’d like to have included, please drop me an email or leave a comment below.

Back online

Jeremiah — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:48:59 +0800

Sorry for going offline. Had to get my visa situation sorted out here in Beijing (a subject for a future post) and in today’s climate, I thought it best to go dark for a couple of weeks. Thank you to the many readers who emailed me wondering what was going on, it was very much appreciated.

New posts coming soon including a new installment of the Asian History Carnival on Wednesday.

Rantings from the Granite Studio

Jeremiah — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:19:38 +0800

I’m clearly not getting enough roughage in my diet…

Can we all get on board with the idea that whatever you feel about Τibet, the PRC, or the price of cabbage in Zhengzhou, when protesting the Olympic torch relay: leave the athletes alone? Is that too much to ask? And this goes for both sides.

That said, athletes should be free to say whatever they want. If they have political views, let ‘em out. Sports has always had its political side. Lest anyone forget, today is the 37th anniversary of the US Ping Pong team’s historic trip to China.

The Red Sox are 4-4 and people are worried. Really? They opened the season with 18 days on the road covering three countries, and they won 3 out of 7. I’d take that for a late-July trip through the AL Central, never mind to Asia and back.

I’m taking the bus now. It’s partially a fiscal decision and also because YJ spent a Sunday afternoon in the warm embrace of Al Gore and came away thinking that every time we turn on the hot water, somewhere in the world something dies. She’s probably right. But the real reason I’m riding the bus is Beijing taxi drivers.* Seriously. If I get a cabbie that a) knows the Beijing roads b) can break a bill larger than a 5 RMB note without whining and c) doesn’t smell like they’ve used garlic bread as a loofah sponge then I’m happy. And wondering if I’m on camera. I’ve ranted before about the almost blithe ignorance of Beijing geography on the part of many cabbies (though I hear the good people at the Immersion Guides are pitching in on this), but now I’ve put my 0.40 RMB where my mouth is and am riding the bus to and from work. My blood pressure is lower and my wife thinks I’m listening to her so…daily double!

The Nanluoguxiang street festival has been canceled. That small lane, as touristy as it is getting, is still a model for what a ‘cool Beijing’ could look like. No touts. No “lady bar” scam artists. Just good people, both foreigners and Chinese, hanging out, sipping tea, and doing some shopping. Last year’s street fair was incredible: a locally-sponsored endeavor that transformed the hutong into one long block party. It was fun, safe, and community-organized. Needless to say, the government hated it. I guess too many of the man-purse crowd couldn’t get their Audis through or something, whatever the reason, it’s been postponed indefinitely. Which reminds me…I’ve heard a rumor from the hutong that the only reason the eminently sensible step of making the lane a pedestrian-only street hasn’t been taken is that too many KTV Communists choose their mistresses from among the co-eds at the Central Drama Academy and wouldn’t want their polyester-loving little ernai flowers to get too mussed up walking to the end of the street. Anyone hear more about this?

Speaking of which…if you’re going to Houhai or Qianhai on the weekend. LEAVE. THE. CAR. AT. HOME. Narrow streets with a body of water on one side plus trishaws, bar touts, bicycles, and actual pedestrians, are not conducive to two-way traffic. Last Friday, I watched a 35 MINUTE stand off between two Audis result in a 10-car, two-truck, four-rickshaw, and multiple bicycle traffic snarl. The whole scene began–surprise, surprise–when neither breathing/talking/smoking comb over wished to lose face and give way. If ever there was a more poignant metaphor for China’s current political situation, I’ve yet to see the visual.

I’m going to say this once more: Τibet was not “always” a part of China. “Always” is a pretty big claim. Since when? The Mesozoic? Please remove the word “always” from any sentence talking about history unless such sentence begins, “The Yankees have always sucked…”

This Sunday promises to be one of those special days for walking or bicycling around the city. Seriously, spring in Beijing has the shelf life of a med fly, let’s get out there and enjoy it. And while you’re at it…pop on down to Nanluoguxiang and buy something.

Finally, sometime last month, Jottings at the Granite Studio passed 400 posts and 1500 comments. Quite a small number compared to the big boys, but respectable enough for a hobby. Thanks to everyone for stopping by.

—————————————–

*I did in fact take a cab about two weeks ago after the Danwei Plenary session. I got in and the cabbie murmured under his breath: “我不喜欢老外.” “你说什么?” I asked. He said, a little louder and a bit taken aback that I understood him in the first place: “我说：我不喜欢老外.” I just opened the book I was reading and suggested, “那是公平的。我不喜欢素质低的土包子.” Needless to say, the conversation was…strained after that.

What is a studio?

Jeremiah — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:17:29 +0800

I recently had dinner with a fellow blogger, and he asked me: Why a studio?

Well the recent online edition of the China Heritage Quarterly has everything you ever wanted to know about a scholar’s studio but were afraid to ask.

For a Chinese artist, a studio name is suggestive of his or her artistic persona and the creative realm from which they draw inspiration. It is a highly personal construction of words that serves to link the artist to ideas, people or places, often in the past, but also to the present. The name can allude to a physical space such as a studio, a library or a building where the act of painting, writing or thinking happens, but equally it may just be an imaginary place or conjure a poetic sensibility expressive of the artist’s temperament.

Studio names are an integral part of the process of artistic and literary creation. They do not remain static and often shift in and out of use. Many artists and writers adopt new names to reflect changes in physical circumstances or their mental world. Many names refer to desirable human qualities that may be linked to Confucian, Buddhist or Daoist thought, such as modesty, humbleness or rusticity, or to historical or literary allusions that reveal erudition. Studio names usually appear as seals on paintings or in inscriptions on paintings and essays and may be ironic or humorous. They are often playful.

I hardly think that the name of this site reflects any great erudition. As I wrote last year, I chose Hua Gang (Granite) Zhai (Studio) for two reasons. One, I’m a native of New Hampshire (”The Granite State”). Two, the term granite (hua gang yan 花岗岩) also can mean stubborness or obstinacy to the point of stupidity. Perhaps not the most poetical or profound moniker, but I think it suits what I’m trying to do here.

The space itself can hardly match the wonderful libraries and writing rooms of China’s past. It’s a simple “Scandanavian Modern” desk, a smattering of books and reference works, and a lap top. There’s also a couple of plants and a perturbed turtle adding touches offeng shui in vain hopes of balancing the negative energy seeping from stacks of ungraded papers, endless documents in desparate need of translation and explication, and the usual deadlines, both past and present.

Jeremy Goldkorn at Danwei has a wonderful post built around an article by Claire Roberts on George E. Morrison’s studio. Morrison (1862-1920) was a translator and Sinologist who had his library and work space in central Beijing, near today’s Wangfujing Street. Sadly, the building recently became a casualty of Olympic dreams, and was torn down last year in the latest paroxysm of urban renewal.

That’s the thing about studios. They aren’t physical spaces, and it is precisely this lack of physicality which gives them a timeless quality, associated in memory with work and ideas that linger long after bodies fail and buildings tumble. I can’t claim any great ideas, or even many good ones, but through the miracle of Internet caches, data-bytes , and net clusters, there is a certain immortality to blogs, even small ones such as this–as long as somebody keeps feeding juice to the machine.

Perhaps a studio isn’t such a bad name after all.

Chinese History by Fidel Castro

Jeremiah — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:38:52 +0800

Given his retirement–and a handy staff of ghost writers–Comrade Fidel casts his thoughts to Chinese history with a few digs thrown in on separatism of the Taiwanese and Tibetan varieties. No real shockers here, pretty much boilerplate Party line/Marxist theoretical reductionism, though for obvious reasons Fidel focuses particular attention on US support for Chiang Kai-shek and the American involvement in Tibetan independence movements of the 1950s. (Apparently the ex-El Presidente and I have the same nightstand reading list as well as taste in cigars–I read Kenneth Conboy’s The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet last spring.)

At first, I thought it odd that his historical narrative stops roughly at 1949 before moving on to contemporary political tussles, but then it started to make sense.

In 1960, Cuba became the first Latin American country to recognize the PRC. But in the pragmatic world of big brother politics, Castro needed his friends in Moscow too much and Khrushchev’s views of Beijing were well-known. Following the Sino-Soviet split, the Cuban leader had little good to say about Mao’s regime, and publicly criticized China’s 1979 invasion of Vietnam. Relations have since normalized, and in recent years Cuba has been reaching out to Beijing trying to cash in a little on the China boom. But Fidel’s never been one to let a grudge go, so who knows?

Nevertheless, I’m sure Beijing is pleased as punch to receive the firm support of Cuba’s revolutionary strongman emeritus.

Voices from China’s Past: Liang Qichao and the role of the newspaper in society

Jeremiah — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 08:36:05 +0800

On a Sunday morning with thoughts of the role of the media and the power of the press fresh on my mind, I thought it appropriate to note this passage from one of Modern China’s early influential journalists, Liang Qichao. Here Liang is writing in the inaugural issue of his newspaper The Eastern Times (时报), first published in 1904:

Using fair and honest discussions, we will analyze the positive and negative, advantageous and disadvantageous aspects of these problems. We will also investigate methods for delivering the nation from danger and coping with the current situation, while cooperating with the government and conferring with the citizens.

It is the duty of newspapers in advanced/civilized nations (文明国) to report on the facts in the news, to follow the trend of international public opinion, to investigate the trend of international public opinion, to investigate conditions in the interior of the nation, to develop knowledge of politics and the arts, to introduce new ideas, and to provide materials for leisurely reading. We must drive ourselves on. We will use our writings to define and convey the will of the nation. We must also, however, take note of the saying of Western philosophers that ‘perfect things must be produced in perfect times.’

Today, given that our nation is still young in terms of development, I realize that it is not appropriate for us to wish to place ourselves among the great newspapers of all of the nations of the world. But by taking one step after another, a distance of of one thousand miles can be eventually overcome, and by joining together one hundred streams, the four seas could eventually be formed. it is certain that sooner or later, our newspaper’s trajectory will not only follow but parallel the progress of the nation. This is what we will assiduously work toward every day.

I’m not sure Liang Qichao would completely support the notion of the ‘free press’ as the term is understood in Europe and North America today. On some level, he still saw the role of the journalist as actively supporting the interests of national development, and the idea of the media cooperating with the government seems antithetical to the western notion of the ‘watchdog media,’ nevertheless, there is much in Liang’s vision that is admirable, and quite a bit that today’s journalists would do well to remember.
————————-
Translated in Sources of Chinese History: Volume II, Wm. Theodore de Bary and Richard Lufrano, eds. (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2000), pp. 301-302

“Τibet always a part of China”: Chiang Kai-shek and the China Daily

Jeremiah — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:42:53 +0800

As the fascinating rapproachment between historical frienemies the KMT and the CCP continues, The China Daily is citing Chiang Kai-shek as proof “Τibet has always been a part of China.”

The papers, co-released by the Hoover Institution, under Stanford University of the United States, and Shanghai’s Fudan University, comprise archival documents and telegrams from T. V. Soong, [And Chiang’s brother-in-law] the financial minister of the Kuomintang (KMT) prior to 1949.

In a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek, then Chinese leader and KMT chairman, dated May 21, 1943, Soong wrote: “(Then British Prime Minister Winston) Churchill said that recently it has been alleged that China has concentrated troops in order to attack Tibet I replied that I have never heard of such a message.

“And meanwhile, I said that Tibet is not an independent nation, as Churchill had claimed. All previous agreements between China and Britain have recognized that China possesses sovereign rights in Tibet, and I believe this fact has already been under your careful examination.”

Chiang wrote back, saying: “By treating Τibet as an independent country, Churchill has denied the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. It’s a great insult. I did not expect Britain would make such a statement Tibet is part of China’s territory, and Tibetan affairs are China’s domestic affairs.”

Wu Jingping, professor of the department of history at Fudan University, said on Friday: “From these historical documents of 65 years ago, people can be sure that China undoubtedly possesses the sovereign rights in Tibet.”

I’ve mentioned numerous times my frustration with the use of history in this contemporary political squabble, and I love it when the word “always” is included in any historical claim, but this is really bottom of the barrel stuff. Of course Chiang Kai-shek believed Τibet was a part of China, I seem to remember he thought outer Mongolia should be too. Hell, the man claimed to rule all of China, including Τibet, while cooling his heels in Taipei for 26 years.

But on a note of–you know–actual serious historical research, the release of Chiang’s diaries is a fabulous boon for the study of Modern Chinese history, and kudos to the Hoover Institute at the Stanford Center for assisting in the compilation and cataloging of these important documents. It also sets a good example for the CCP to consider releasing the private papers of key historical figures such as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai as well as allowing scholars greater access to archival material from the PRC era.

Western media bias on Τibet?

Jeremiah — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:51:32 +0800

In response to a comment left on an earlier post, I’ve posted a new essay at The China Beat on western media bias and the ongoing situation in Τibet. (Mainland link)

“It’s true that following the outbreak of unrest on March 14, many in the foreign media dropped the ball, in some cases due to lazy or mistaken reporting, in others as the result of preconceived notions of the situation and a misunderstanding of the complexities in the Sino-Tibetan relationship. Meanwhile, coverage in the Chinese state media was little better in its histrionic attempts to portray the Dalai Lama as a demonic mastermind bent on splitting China and “re-imposing a slave society” on Tibetans. Chinese netizen response was sparked by justifiable outrage at faulty and biased foreign coverage of the event, but was also the product of an environment where the Party line is the only possible interpretation of either historical or contemporary ‘reality.’ Unfortunately, I fear this is not the last time in this Olympic year that competing expectations and perceptions, by the Chinese state and public on one side and the foreign media on the other, will result in unpleasantness.”

Once again, I’m going to suggest that rather than leave comments here, readers can go over to The China Beat website, read the essay in its entirety, and join in the discussion there. (Though obviously if the GFW makes that problematic, feel free to leave a comment here.)

Voices from China’s Past: Zhang Binglin on Manchu Assimilation

Jeremiah — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:31:49 +0800

One of the more persistent myths of Qing dynasty (1644-1912) history is the hoary old story of the Manchu conquerors realizing their inherent inferiority and meekly taking on the culture of their subjects. The essence of the argument is that the success of the Qing in conquering and ruling such a large empire was due to the Manchu invaders’ wholesale assimilation of Han political institutions and cultural values, an explanation of Manchu success that unsurprisingly proved quite palatable to patriotic Chinese historians. Like a lot of historical myths, there is embedded in the embellishment the grains of truth.

The Qing rulers did adopt quite a few of their political institutions from the preceding Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) both before and after the conquest of China proper, and were assisted in this endeavor by a legion of Han officials who either defected or were captured and forced to serve. It’s also worth noting that even at the height of the Qing Era, few of the ‘Banner People’ spoke Manchu in their daily lives or practiced the traditional Manchu arts of horsemanship and archery. All of which was much to the chagrin of the Qing rulers, even as these same rulers, mindful of their largest constituency, were themselves carefully showing their respect to the Confucian political tradition.

At the same time it is important not to overstate the case. Research done by scholars such as Mark Elliot, Pamela Crossley, and Evelyn Rawski on Qing politics and society utilizing both Manchu and Chinese language sources has–at the very least–problematized long-held assumptions about assimilation. Their findings suggest that not only did the Manchu ruling class not become as completely ‘Sinicized’ as once thought, but in fact Qing rule in its own way ‘Manchufied’ Chinese politics and society. (The latter especially apparent in the capital, where the cultural and linguistic proclivities of the Qing Banners survive in ‘lao Beijing’ culture to this day.)

This inherent ‘foreignness’ of the Manchus did not escape the notice of 19th century and early-20th century Han nationalists. Writers such as Zhang Binglin, Zou Rong, and even Sun Yat-sen, built upon a tradition of anti-Manchu rhetoric from the early years of the Qing conquest, most notably in the writings of Wang Fuzhi, Gu Yanwu, and Huang Zongxi.

In 1903, Zhang Binglin (1868-1936) wrote this passage as part of an ‘open letter’ to Kang Youwei, a key figure in the 100 Days Reforms of 1898 and a supporter of constitutional monarchy. Zhang mocks what he saw as Kang’s slavish devotion to the “foreign” rulers and questions the notion of Manchu assimilation:

“Today, have the Manchus assimilated to the Han people? Or have they conquered the Han people? Manchu shamanism is not the orthodox imperial religion; queues and jeweled necklaces are not the Chinese caps; and the documents of the Qing in its own language are not traditional Chinese characters. The Manchus merely respected Confucius, followed the ways of Confucianism, and presented a false picture as a technique for claiming the emperorship and fooling the people. Their talk is of the ’same race’ is not to tun the Manchus into Han people, but to make Han people Manchus!”

Obviously, Zhang Binglin has an axe to grind, and how one reconciles his use of ‘Han’ and ‘Manchu’ with the more general term ‘Chinese’ is also a point worthy of discussion. But to simply say, as I’ve heard once too often here in the PRC and spoken by people who ought know better, that “The Manchus were Sinicized (汉化),” is to ignore a great deal of groundbreaking research about how Manchu identity was created, perceived, and deployed in the formation, consolidation, and perpetuation of Qing rule.
——————–
“今彼满洲者，其为归化汉人乎？其为陵制汉人乎？堂子妖神，非郊丘之教；辫发璎珞，非弁冕之服；清书国语，非斯、邈之文。徒以尊事孔子，奉行儒术，崇饰观听，斯乃不得已而为之，而即以便其南面之术，愚民之计。若言同种，则非使满人为汉种，乃适使汉人为满种也.”

Translation found in Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume II. Wm. de Bary and Richard Lufrano eds. (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2000), pg. 310.