From: pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon)
Subject: Re: HK "roots"?? << was: "I love Hong Kong, too! But why? >>
Keywords: Culture and People
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:37:31 GMT

hyx1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Harry Y Xu) writes:

>In article <1992Apr09.220718.25524@r-node.gts.org> yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.010551.3145@en.ecn.purdue.edu> kwan@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Yik-Yin Edwin Kwan) writes:
>>>no American has root except the Indians.  If you say Americans have roots,
>>>those roots took 200 years to develop.  Hong Kong (British Colony) will
>>>only be given 150 years.  Just 50 years short.  Romantic isn't it? :))

>What took 200 years to develop is not "root".  It's Americana, what we now
>consider to be American culture.  American culture needed to be developed
>because the "Americans" didn't want to adopt to the Indian culture.  In the
>case of HK, the culture came with the people.  In America, the culture at 
>the begining was a misture of different European cultures that needed to be
>"unified" to form an "American" culture.  That takes generations.  Where as
>in HK, the culture is homogeneously Chinese since the foundation.

	Don't completely agree.
	Canton is a strange place.  Cantonese try their best to sperate from
	the mainstram of Mandarin influence.  Just look at the effort we made
	on preserving our language, Cantonese, since Tong dynasty; you would
	understand what I mean.  Therefore HK in 100 years ago was greatly
	influenced by the Mandarin culture, but HK culture at that time is not
	homogeneous with the maninstream "Chinese" culture.
	The consequence is that HK's weak cultural background (with strong
	sense of Cantonese pride) can turn all the people from all parts of
	China around and melt the cultures together.

>>I don't think the concept of "root" has a lot to do with "time". The
>>only thing that counts is the sense of belonging. Most, if not all,
>>Americans "feel" american. Hong Kong people, imho, developed their
>>sense of belonging only until recently which TVB and all those popular
>>culture media could claim a lot of credits.

>Concept of root is the sence of attachment to the culture/people/environment
>in which a person grows up.  Time dilutes memory and nurtures adoption.  
>As a result, time dilutes the sence of attachment to origin.  After some time,
>the word "root" is not operational anymore. 
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
	I like the way you choose the word. Are you a sociology major?
	I agree with you on this point.

>[..]  Living condition, to a great 
>extent, determines the sence of attachment/belong.  Example: A person lived
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in Chine until 15 years old, then move to live in HK since then.  I would
>think it's safe to claim that 90% of such persons would have a greater sence
>of attachment/belonging to HK than China.  Simply because people favor HK 
>over mainland China.  Comparing the two places in this case: culture--same,
>people--mostly same origin, same ethical ideals, environment--major differing
>element.

	Personal attitude alone is not sufficient to define "root".  An ABC
may have a very strong sense of attachment to HK, but his root is not in HK
because he does not have enough culture traits and cultural background to share
with the real HKese.  Culture traits means the tools we used to live our lives.
(eg. food, landscape, public transportation vehicles, clothing, etc. ) And
cultural background is referred to the knowledge which is available to every
member of the environment of interest. (eg. TV news, education, movies, etc.)

	You may argue that this fact just proves that ABC is not HKese. However,
a "root" has to mount on something.  That something is our culture traits and
cultural background.  Time effect can wash off our our sense of attachment,
but time cannot fake our memory on certain things easily.  

>	If "root" is interpreted otherwise as the origin of the tracable
>family tree, then few of the HK'ese can claim a HK root.

	I agree. "Root" should not be solely defined by family tree.
>-harry/kb2lha,	Just my thoughts.

Peter

Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong