From: Wing Ng <wing@pegasus.com>
Subject:      Re: <Dem. China> article
Reply-To: Wing Ng <wing@pegasus.com>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:45:55 GMT
Comments: To: 3011_6470@UWOVAX.UWO.CA, CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

3011_6470@UWOVAX.UWO.CA writes re my <Dem. China> article:

> Land  reform could not be implemented by local cadres was a  well
> known fact.  Their relatives were the landlords.  Most of the CCP
> officials,  who  had  a little education,  came from not  so  bad
> family,  including  Mao  himself,  who  defined  his  own  family
> background  as  between Rich Peasant to Small Landlord.  Can  you
> imagine  the  tough job of doing land reform  in  Chairman  Mao's
> hometown?  GuangDong was not special in this case at all.

I think that GD, being relatively rich even by 1949, does not have
as much class hatred as some other poorer provinces.

> There  was a simple explanation to the fact that Chinese  culture
> had been dominated by Southerners from Tang to Qing, specifically
> by 5 provinces:  JiangSu,  Anhui,  Zhejiang,  Jiangxi and Fujian.
> The  reason  was two fold:  1.  These were the economically  most
> developed  regions  (with the available agricultural  tools  back
> then).   and 2.  Refugees moved in from central China into  these
> regions  because  of the invasion from Northern China and it  was
> usually  the well-to-do family that had the (financial) means  to
> survive such forced "immigration".

Basically that's what Su said, I did not have space to detail his
narrative.

> After Opium War, it was the coastal provinces absorbed (or forced
> with) Western "learning" first,  especially in JiangSu, Zhejiang,
> Fujian  and Guangdong.   Before Qing,  Guangdong and  South  West
> China  were not fully developed agriculturally and they were  the
> frontier regions.  The so-called "Ocean Culture" and "Landblubber
> Culture"  were ill-defined and were not necessary to explain  the
> absence  of  Guangdong Ren in Chinese politics before late  Qing.

Well, I said in the 3-23-91 article that in early Ming, there was
a rather clear split of "ocean" and "land".  Cheng Ho's southern
sea expedition was a demonstration of Chinese oceanic prowess, but
it was simply called off by imperial fiat and the Chinese shipbuilding
industry went atrophy.  As a result, China did not round the Cape
of Good Hope to go to Europe, the West Europeans came to Asia
instead.

> Guangdong was the first province which had extensive contact with
> the  West.   Guangdong people were thus among the most  patriotic
> and anti-foreign,  among other things, at least during late Qing,

It was naked aggression from the West in the 19th century, and GD
and Chinese people were well justified in being patriotic and
anti-foreign.  I think there is hardly any reason to be anti-foreign
today.

> Guangdong  contributed  a  lot  to the  modern  Chinese  history,
> reflecting her rapid economic development in the last century and
> her  advantageous geographic position.   By  the  way,  Guangdong
> contributed  both  to the KMT and the CCP movements.   The  trade
> unions  in  both Canton and HongKong,  and the  earliest  peasant
> movement  led by Peng Pai were important contributions  to  CCP(I
> don't  know  how does these fit into Su's ocean culture  theory).

My own interpretation is that the GD Communists were more or less
"ocean"-oriented, or more open-minded.  Marx and Engels were kind
of open-minded compared to Lenin, Stalin, not to mention Mao.  There
are still open-minded CCP, Hu, Zhao and certainly Bao Tong.

> On  the KMT side,  it was even more prominent.   But whether  Sun
> Yat-sen  really  contribute positively or negatively  to  China's
> development is an open question and is not definite at all.

The original KMT was of course dominated by GD-ers, but leadership
was usurped by CKS, and GD ceased to identify with it by 1949.  As
to the appraisal (ping-jia) of Sun Yat-sen, that's too BIG a subject
for this :-).

> I  am  amazed that Kung JieSheng was able  to  find  anthropology
> reasons for Guangdong's success (sounds almost like racism).  His
> theory  could be best termed as stereotype.   An analysis of  the
> economical  and  social  conditions would  probably  uncover  the
> unique position of Guangdong much better.

I am amazed that <Dem. China> printed all that "rebellious bone"
stuff with a straight face.  GD-ers talk about such things in jest,
almost never in the presence of our compatriots from the "North".

> As for Guangdong independence, was that a joke?  Let's talk about

Again, two of the authors discuss GD indep. with a straight face.

> HongKong  instead.   As  much as HongKong contributed to  China's
> economy,  the  economic boom in HongKong was  impossible  without
> China.   Cheap  labor and cheap resource of China was one of  the
> most important reasons for HongKong's boom in late 1970s.  It was
> a testimony to Beijing's mismanagement that HongKong could profit
> so  much from China,  not Shanghai or Qingdao.   I don't  believe
> HongKong's economy could realistically afford a sour relationship
> with China.

Singapore became independent from Malaysia and had mildly friendly
relations with it and it did prosper.  However, indep. for HK is
not a realisitc prospect with the present regime, so realisitc
HK-ers say, "why talk about it".  Moreover, most HK-ers do identify
themselves emotionally primarily as Chinese, perhaps to a greater
extent than those articles suggest.

> Guangdong's boom has many reasons.  The provincial leadership was
> one of them.   Another two important reasons was hard-working and
> closeness   to  Hongkong.    Yet  there  was  also  an  important
> administrative reason,  the central government in  Beijing,  like
> the Qing dynasty before opium war, used Canton as a trading port,
> and  granted them more freedom in foreign trade as an experiment.
> Guangdong  also enjoys less taxation as a favor from the  central
> government. These are the underlying reasons for other provinces'
> complaints against Guangdong and they are not totally groundless.

Massive investment from HK is probably the biggest factor.  My friends
and compatriots from other provinces tend to think that the lenient
central taxation of GD is a big factor; I argue with them and say
that's secondary to the HK investment factor.  Well, I don't really
have any figures to back it up.

> Guangdong  has achieved remarkable success over the last  decade.
> But  it  doesn't  mean  Guangdong  independence  is  viable   and
> desirable.  Realistically,  I believe the independence would be a
> disaster for everyone.
>
> Dave Sheng.

Ukraine became independent from Russia, and is apparently still
surviving.  I don't think it is possible to predict future developments
with any certainty.  If enough circumstances change, it might happen.
All I can say is that I personally do not advocate it, but as I said,
"if  the other regions in China stubbornly refuse to see and  insist
upon embracing eternal tyranny,  maybe they cannot be helped", and
Chinese history is full of surprises.

Wing
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china