From: wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng)
Subject: South China in <Dem. China> - a review
Organization: The Ohio State University; Department of Phyiscs
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:49:56 GMT

This   issue,   #10,   1992-6,   of  FDC's  magazine  <Democratic
China>    (Minzhu  Zhongguo)  is  VERY  interesting.     A  whole    
subsection  is devoted to the  economically rising  South  China.      
Su  Xiaokang  (So  Hiu-Hong) has a general introduction   to  the    
historical  shift of power and  culture  from the North to  South    
in China.    Kong Jiesheng (Hung Jeet-Sung),   who is a Cantonese    
native, has an article about the special cultural characteristics    
of the Cantonese.   
   
I have very special interest in these articles because 1) I am HK   
Cantonese,  2)  on 3-23-91,  I posted an article "Whither  China"   
discussing  precisely this theme,  the progressive role played by   
South China in history.   
    
----------    
    
Su pointed out that before Tang almost all political figures came     
from the North.   After Tang times,  almost all cultural  figures     
came from the South.  By the end of Qing Dynasty, it was the turn     
of Guangdong to produce Kang and Liang.    
    
The unified imperial system,  he says, does not have the material     
structural  sophistication support the complexities required by a 
commercial society.   As a result the oceanic culture was never a   
match  for  the  landlubber culture  in  China.   The  landlubber   
culture completely negated the progress of South China.   As  the   
latest example,  Southeast-capital-supported Chiang Kai-shek lost   
the mainland to CCP's landlubberism, as a result of which another   
imperial  system  got  established in place  of  the  (bourgeois)   
republic.   
   
Only the total inadequacy of the old imperial landlubber  culture   
practised  by the PRC in economic matters forced Deng Xiaoping to   
change course and foster development in South China.  Today there   
is  hope in the South,  but its fate is still tied to  the  other   
half, which has not seen hope yet.   
   
----------   
   
Kong  pointed  out  that  the  "Southern  Barbarians" in GD  have   
centrifugal tendencies because they "work hard, don't worry, like   
to  fight,  and are adventurous."  The rear part of the skull  of   
the Cantonese  is even different from that of  N.   Chinese,   he    
said tongue  in  cheek,  and that protruding structure is  called    
the  "rebellious bone" (fan gu,  fahn guat).   All Cantonese folk   
heroes  are anti-establishment,  and this "establishment"  refers 
primarily to the ruling dynasties located to the North.  
  
The  ocean-faring  tendencies of the Cantonese are caused by  the   
presence  of  the  Pearl River and its  many  tributaries.   Even   
though  a  village  is located hundreds of miles  from  the  blue   
ocean,  one  can  take  a row boat and  navigate  through  myriad   
waterways from one's house directly to the ocean.   
   
Cantonese  refer ALL other provinces as the "North",  and do  not   
feel  much  kinship  at  all  with  the   wheat/sorghum-ingesting   
compatriots way up North.   
   
The   province  supported  the  CCP  revolution  of   1949   only   
lukewarmly.   The  GD  local  communists  insisted  upon  special   
treatment  and lenient policies for the landlords,  until Beijing   
got  upset  and replaced native Ye Jianying with  Northerner  Tao   
Zhu.   
   
In  a  few years,  GD has developed into the  richest  region  in     
China.  There are plans to build freeways,  subways, and airports     
near  Guangzhou,  but  interesting,  ALL  in the  area  SOUTH  of     
Guangzhou, in the area adjacent to HK.  GZ is attracted to HK the     
magnet,  much  more  than  it is attached to Beijing way  to  the 
North.
 
----------
 
I would summarize that Kong is saying that GD is both  rebellious
and  realistic  in  nature.   It is etched  into  the  historical
collective  memory of Cantonese that the bad guys swept down from
the North,  killed a large number of Cantonese,  and then after a     
long  long  time,  some  charismatic Cantonese arose  and  led  a     
REBELLION  that  destroyed these usurpers.   In 1644 it  was  the
Manchus, and Cantonese boys Hong Xiuquan (Hung Sau-chuen) in 1860
tried, while Sun Yat-sen finally succeeded in 1911.
 
CCP  bad  guys  swooped  down  from  the  North  again  in  1949.
Realistic  Cantonese  kept  quiet and  waited.   "Open  Door  and
Reform" came,  and GD grabbed the opportunity to enhance its  own
power and wealth.  GD saw June 4th from the antennas that receive
HK TV,  and knew the whole truth,  and yet tantalizingly it still
waited.  Maybe time was not yet ripe in 1989.
 
Maybe time will be ripe in a few more years.
 
----------
 
Kong implied that GD has separatist tendencies.   Another  author
in  the issue even mentioned the possibility of the "Republic  of
Guangdong".
 
Interestingly,  neither  Su  nor Kong gave any prominence to  Sun
Yat-sen, the greatest son of GD, most certainly also the greatest     
son of all China.   Sun was not just interested in saving his own     
village,  nor in just saving his own home province.   Instead  he     
made and implemented plans to save ALL China.   Sun Yat-sen as  a     
model is also deeply etched into the historical collective memory     
of all Cantonese.  Thus is almost no separatist voice even in HK,     
which is even more distinct and actually separated from China for     
130  years,  and  is faced with being forced to kowtow  to  those  
creeps who brought us June 4th.
 
Fears of GD separatism is yet premature at this time.   But  then
if  the other regions in China stubbornly refuse to see the light
and  insist upon embracing eternal tyranny,  maybe they cannot be
helped.
 
Wing
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong