Well, as any partially housebroken border collie can tell you — herding sheep is a hard way to make a living.

Speaking at an event commemorating the 60th anniversary of China’s ‘volunteers’ entering the Korean War, CCP heir apparent and hair product aficionado Xi Jinping once again let the gel do the talking:

In his address on behalf of the CPC Central Committee and the CMC, Xi said that the Chinese movement 60 years ago was “a great and just war for safeguarding peace and resisting aggression.”

“It was also a great victory gained by the united combat forces of China’s and the DPRK’s civilians ]]> A few months ago I wrote a post about the Korean War and how the dominant narrative here in the PRC about the start of that bloody conflict has changed over time.  While it’s true that the nitwits in the CCP (and the academics who shill for them) frequently rely more on “truthiness” than actual evidence when discussing history, in the case of the Korea even the most hardcore sheep couldn’t continue to bleat the previous party line that it was the US and the American ROK puppets who invaded the north and started the war.

Well, as any partially housebroken border collie can tell you — herding sheep is a hard way to make a living.

Speaking at an event commemorating the 60th anniversary of China’s ‘volunteers’ entering the Korean War, CCP heir apparent and hair product aficionado Xi Jinping once again let the gel do the talking:

In his address on behalf of the CPC Central Committee and the CMC, Xi said that the Chinese movement 60 years ago was “a great and just war for safeguarding peace and resisting aggression.”

“It was also a great victory gained by the united combat forces of China’s and the DPRK’s civilians and soldiers, and a great victory in the pursuit of world peace and human progress,” Xi said.

Huh?

Well…I’ll give the volunteers credit for stopping MacArthur from fulfilling his wildest Genghis Khan fantasies and invading the PRC, but considering that the DPRK’s goal was to reunify the Korean peninsula by force, it takes a special kind of moron to call the Korean War a “a great victory” never mind one in the pursuit of “world peace and human progress.”

Fortunately, most actual historians in the PRC are well aware of the trove of documents from the USSR and other archives that detail the origins of the Korean War, and even school textbooks (a bastion of CCP truthiness if there ever was one) punt the question of who started the war with a tepid “After the war started, China….”

First of all, I’m going to really enjoy the Xi Jinping era. If this is the kind of unintentional comedy we can expect from the Hair Apparent for the next decade then I’m all for it.

BUT…South Korea was less than pleased by Xi’s remarks. (Oddly enough, the DPRK press was quite supportive , hmmm…)  This of course all came on the heels of Yang Jiechi throwing an absolute hissy fit at a meeting of Southeast Asian states this past July.  Then the fracas with Japan.  Whatever your feelings on the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands, the Chinese government’s handling of the mess was amateur at best, and the number of times I read an article — from both sides — leading off with “history proves…” (which is of course code for “the writer of this piece has no understanding of history as a discipline”) made me want to start chewing on my own extremities.  And, frankly, whenever a Chinese politician or editorial writer bases an ‘argument’ on “China has never provoked anyone” or “China has never invaded a neighbor” the good people of Vietnam must just roll their eyes and wonder if the only reason anybody remembers 1979 is because it was the last time the Pirates actually won a World Series.   For a group so ready to whinge about historical inaccuracies and demand apologies for every perceived slight, the rhetoric coming from the CCP toward its Asian neighbors over the past few months has been oddly tone deaf…

Ah, Xi Jinping: like some sort of unholy cross between Glenn Beck and a rabid wombat, it’s gonna be a wild ride.  Thanks for getting an early start.

Having a bit of a break from family to-do’s, we wandered around the downtown area and found ourselves at the Vermont History Museum.  $5 per person meant entrance and brochure and as we meandered our way through Abenaki wigwams and farmers cabins, I was struck by how much I had become accustomed to China’s museum culture.

Apart from the obvious (not being reminded every ten minutes to warmly love the Party and the Motherland), I was struck once again how, in the hands of thinking and thoughtful historians, the narrative of history — whether in words, pictures, or artifacts — can give a visitor a greater appreciation for a place and its people even if that narrative includes uncomfortable truths.  The entry way to the exhibits is an Abenaki wigwam with information markers describing the horrific fate of those people as European settlers made their way into Vermont during the 17th and 18th centuries.  Vermont’s participation in ]]> Christmas in Montpelier, VT.  We’re up here visiting my sister and I have to say…it’s been a nice break from the daily grind of Beijing living.  YJ and I are constantly amazed over such commonalities as “pedestrian right of way” and “customer service.”

Having a bit of a break from family to-do’s, we wandered around the downtown area and found ourselves at the Vermont History Museum.  $5 per person meant entrance and brochure and as we meandered our way through Abenaki wigwams and farmers cabins, I was struck by how much I had become accustomed to China’s museum culture.

Apart from the obvious (not being reminded every ten minutes to warmly love the Party and the Motherland), I was struck once again how, in the hands of thinking and thoughtful historians, the narrative of history — whether in words, pictures, or artifacts — can give a visitor a greater appreciation for a place and its people even if that narrative includes uncomfortable truths.  The entry way to the exhibits is an Abenaki wigwam with information markers describing the horrific fate of those people as European settlers made their way into Vermont during the 17th and 18th centuries.  Vermont’s participation in the Revolutionary War gives as much space to the ongoing struggles between settlers and land grant holders as it does to larger issues of a new nation fighting against the British crown.  The development of agriculture and quarrying in Vermont is balanced by discussions of unionization and environmental degradation.  An 18-minute film juxtaposes legislative debates from centuries past over abolition and women’s suffrage with the divisive battle from earlier this decade over civil unions.

History doesn’t only have to be a celebration of what is, it can also be a story of what might have been.  It can talk about the past, the good and the bad, and its relationship to the present.  It can inspire and inform, even when events of the past make us reflect on the cruelty of humanity.  The past can teach.  But only if it is allowed to speak ill sometimes.

Those who censor the past atrophy our understanding of history and do an injustice to those who came before.

If the British takeover of Hong Kong was the moral equivalent of three guys kicking in the back door and at gunpoint turning your suburban home into a crack house, then the Portuguese in Macau were more like a couple of shady dudes who wanted to rent out your old tool shed, hoped you’d forget they were there, and when you reminded them that it was time to pay up and that you’d strongly prefer they NOT set up a craps game on your property or pimp out your children they decided to stiff you on the rent and declare squatters’ rights in your backyard.

On the evening of December 19, 1999, the flag of Portugal was lowered for the final time in Macau and at midnight on December 20, the tiny former colony officially became a part of the People’s Republic of China…more or less.

I say more or less because, unlike its glitzy neighbor Hong Kong, the nature of Macau’s sovereignty and even its status as a “colony” has frequently been open to debate and interpretation.

The Portuguese first showed up in the early 16th century, using the waters around the peninsula and islands as an anchorage and ]]>

If the British takeover of Hong Kong was the moral equivalent of three guys kicking in the back door and at gunpoint turning your suburban home into a crack house, then the Portuguese in Macau were more like a couple of shady dudes who wanted to rent out your old tool shed, hoped you’d forget they were there, and when you reminded them that it was time to pay up and that you’d strongly prefer they NOT set up a craps game on your property or pimp out your children they decided to stiff you on the rent and declare squatters’ rights in your backyard.

On the evening of December 19, 1999, the flag of Portugal was lowered for the final time in Macau and at midnight on December 20, the tiny former colony officially became a part of the People’s Republic of China…more or less.

I say more or less because, unlike its glitzy neighbor Hong Kong, the nature of Macau’s sovereignty and even its status as a “colony” has frequently been open to debate and interpretation.

The Portuguese first showed up in the early 16^th century, using the waters around the peninsula and islands as an anchorage and a temporary refuge for traders.  In 1552, the Portuguese built storage sheds to dry out trade goods, following that up a few years later by erecting a couple of stone huts and then…you know, since they “improved” the property and all…they asked if they could rent the place for awhile.  The Ming government — never having heard of Steve Wynn — approved the deal and for the next three centuries the Portuguese had de facto control over Macau, paying rent to the Ming (later Qing) court in Beijing.  The decision in 1583 to create a local assembly of Macanese settlers and the appointment by Lisbon of a series of governors strengthened the hand of the Portuguese in managing the affairs of the settlement, but the exercise of power was not uncontested and had to be carried out by negotiating competing interests among Portugal, the Macanese settlers, and local Chinese officials.

For centuries after, Macau played an important historical role as a transit point in the long journey between East and West.  In addition to its role, gradually eclipsed by Hong Kong, as an important port in the growing European trade along the Pacific rim, it was also an entry point into China for missionaries, most notably the Jesuits who played such an important role in the 17^th and 18^th centuries as a conduit of ideas between Europe and Asia.  In the mid-19^th century, following the abolition of outright slavery in many parts of the world, Macau became a key port for the shipment overseas of “coolie” laborers.  For many Chinese — some escaping poverty and war, others simply kidnapped from villages and towns in South China — Macau would be the last they would ever see of their homeland as they boarded ships bound for hard labor in far flung lands.

While Portugal’s reach as a global power had significantly declined by the 19^th century, the Portuguese were more than happy to piggy-back on British attempts to hijack Qing sovereignty during the Opium War of 1840-1842.  In 1849, Portuguese authorities kicked out the Qing officials and decided to simply stop paying rent, figuring if the Qing government really wanted Macau back they could come and get it. This arrangement was formalized under the 1887 Sino-Portuguese Treaty which recognized Portugal’s continued administration of Macau in perpetuity.

(If the whole thing were a bar fight, Britain would be the guy punching some poor sap in the mouth for “looking at him funny” while Portugal would be Britain’s friend, staring down at the guy lying on the floor surrounded by the bloody chiclets of his former teeth and asking him if he’s not going to finish his beer can Portugal have it?)

Not that the 1887 treaty settled a whole lot.  Macau’s territory is a fraction the size of Hong Kong and has always been dependent on outside sources for critical resources like, say, food and water.  Moreover, unlike in the case of Hong Kong, the Sino-Portuguese Treaty only transferred administrative control – not full sovereignty – of Macau to Portugal, leaving the exact status of the settlement a matter of interpretation.  As a result, maintaining the legitimacy and position of Portuguese rule over Macau always required a delicate balancing act on the part of Lisbon and her representatives in the territory.

With the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, this “matter of interpretation” began to get a bit sticky, and a series of anti-government riots in the 1960s served notice to the Portuguese administrators that they may have started to overstay their welcome by a few centuries.  Portuguese politics back home further muddied the Macanese waters, when following a coup in 1974 Lisbon began to reassess the status of its overseas holdings.  Finally, in 1987, the joint Sino-Portuguese commission worked out the framework by which control of Macau was handed over to the PRC in 1999.

Naturally, state media in the PRC (and on Macau) are making a bit of hay over the 10-year anniversary of the handover, though how you can have a news story about Macau in the 21^st century that doesn’t include the words “casino” or “gambling” repeated as many times as possible in the first two paragraphs is beyond me.  Nevertheless, adding this final (or penultimate, depending on your view of Taiwan) part of the Chinese territorial puzzle was an important moment for the PRC and the CCP.  For the latter, it serves to reaffirm their self-professed credentials as the only government in the past 200 years capable of protecting Chinese sovereignty against the forces of imperialism, so long as your definition of “imperialist forces” excludes gaudy, over-the-top casinos sucking money from the pockets of the Cantonese nouveau-riche.

This narrative – that the CCP was the sole force capable of ‘liberating’ China and, by implication, remains the only thing standing in the way of chaos and the resumption of unchecked foreign aggression leading to a loss of Chinese sovereignty – is an important part of the PRC origin story. Because of this, the tendency of the information and education authorities in the PRC is to turn history into a simplistic morality play of heroes and villains bleached of nuance, or else to pump up old stories with righteous indignation drenched in the nauseating syrup of victimhood.

But the thing is, this history doesn’t necessarily need any kind of embellishment or blanching.  It’s hard to make imperialism look good so I can’t for the life of me understand why the CCP feels the need to try so hard making it look bad.  That is, until I remember that when a teleological narrative of nationalist liberation is one of only two tricks in your bag (the other being “promise of economic development and increased standards of living”) you gotta go with what you’ve got.

—————

Sources and further reading:

Edmonds, Robert Louis. “Macau and Greater China,” The China Quarterly, No. 136 (Dec, 1993)

Gunn, Geoffrey. Encountering Macau: A Portuguese City State on the Periphery of China, 1996.

Porter, Jonathan. Macau: The Imaginary City, 1996.

Yee, Herbert S. and Lo, Sonny S.H. “Macau in Transition: The Politics of Decolonization,” Asian Survey, Vol 31, No. 10 (Oct, 1991)

————————–

Shortsighted governments using the power of the state to silence criticism is nothing new, in China or anywhere else. Sima Qian, the founding father of Chinese Historiography, dealt with similar sorts of narrow-minded rulers in his day (and paid a steep price for it), and gave China’s future officials and princelings this timeless advice, in the form of an anecdote about King Li of Zhou:

[King Li of Zhou] acted cruelly and extravagantly.  The people in the capital spoke of the king’s faults.  The Duke of Shao remonstrated, saying: “Your people can no longer bear your orders.”  The king was angered.  He found a shaman from Wei and had him watch for criticism.  Whomever he reported was killed.  The criticism subsided, [but] the feudal lords stopped coming to court.  In the thirty-fourth year [of his reign], the king became even more stern.  No one in the capital dared to say a word, but ]]> Ed Note: This post is the first by Sean, a graduate school colleague of mine currently in Taiwan doing research for his dissertation.  He’s one of the smartest guys I know and I’m really happy to have him contributing here to the Granite Studio.  Enjoy.  

————————–

Shortsighted governments using the power of the state to silence criticism is nothing new, in China or anywhere else. Sima Qian, the founding father of Chinese Historiography, dealt with similar sorts of narrow-minded rulers in his day (and paid a steep price for it), and gave China’s future officials and princelings this timeless advice, in the form of an anecdote about King Li of Zhou:

[King Li of Zhou] acted cruelly and extravagantly.  The people in the capital spoke of the king’s faults.  The Duke of Shao remonstrated, saying: “Your people can no longer bear your orders.”  The king was angered.  He found a shaman from Wei and had him watch for criticism.  Whomever he reported was killed.  The criticism subsided, [but] the feudal lords stopped coming to court.  In the thirty-fourth year [of his reign], the king became even more stern.  No one in the capital dared to say a word, but only glanced at each other on the roads.  King Li was pleased.  He told the Duke of Shao: “I was able to stop the criticism.  Now they dare not speak.”  The Duke of Shao said: ] “This is [merely] stopping up criticism.  To block peoples’ mouths is worse than blocking a river.  When an obstructed river bursts its banks, it will surely hurt a great number of people.  People are like this, too.  For this reason, those who regulate rivers dredge them and let them flow; those who regulate people broaden [channels] and let them talk.

Sima Qian then goes on to point out something that supporters of democracy have long maintained, that the criticism and opinion of the governed is not just an irritation to put up with, but a great resource for the wise ruler:

People having mouths is similar to the land having mountains and rivers, from which the daily needs are drawn; and [it is also] similar in that there are highlands, lowlands, swampy lands, and irrigated lands, from which clothes and food are produced.  When mouths are made to express words, [both] good and degenerative [ideas] will arise.  To put the good ones into practice and to guard against the degenerative ones are the ways to make daily necessities, food, and clothing abound.  As people have thoughts in their minds and express them through their mouths, if [the ideas] are constructive, you should finish them and put them into practice.  If you gag their mouths, how many of them would support [you]?”

Then, as now, the duke’s advice was ignored, and criticism of King Li continued to be censored. The result?

 The king would not listen.  Then no one in the capital dared to say a word.  Three years [later], they joined each other in rebellion, and attacked the king.  King Li fled to Chih.

Those who do not learn from history…well, you know the rest.

Translation taken from Ssu-ma Ch’ien, The Grand Scribe’s Records, Volume I: The Basic Annals of Pre-Han China (ed. Nienhauser), Shiji 4 (142).