Dear Slate, yes there are chocolate bars in China
Lot o' Hotpot: Three Travellers
Obama in China: Long gone, and still headlinin'
Interview: Kerry Ann Lee, culture shock = inspiration
Garbage burning protests: The online life of dissent
From the World’s Biggest Fishing Village to Bruce Lee’s Most Famous Kick ...
By Jeffrey Wasserstrom
As routinely happens with famous cities, there are many things that people think they know about Shanghai—that turn out to be false or only half-true. Hence this “top five list” of myths, which I have come across continually while researching the book that I am finishing up for Routledge, Global Shanghai, 1850-2010. The first three items are unlikely to cause controversy, but the final two might cause a bit of fuming in some quarters. At least, that’s what happened when Robert Bickers and I tried to lay these two legends to rest in “Shanghai’s ‘Chinese and Dogs Not Admitted’ Sign: History, Legend and Contemporary Symbol,” an unexpectedly controversial piece we did for the China Quarterly back in June of 1995.
Legend #1: Before the Opium War (1839-1842), Shanghai was a mere “fishing village.”
No, no, no! This canard keeps being repeated, but “fishing village” just won’t do as a descriptor of a community containing a couple of hundred thousand inhabitants, made up not just of people who farmed and yes fished, but also of people who worked in shops and restaurants, went to sea, taught at academies, tended lavish gardens, kept up temples, you name it. Shanghai’s history was changed forever when, immediately after the Opium War, it became a subdivided international treaty port with special zones set aside for trade and settlement by first Britons and then other foreigners. But before the Western gunboats came it was already a bustling walled town (see this 1817 map) with a port that served as a major transshipment point for goods circulating between China and Southeast Asia. (Why do you think the British wanted a piece of it so badly?)
Legend #2: Shanghai was built on reclaimed swampland.
This was true of the Bund, the most famous section of the city throughout the century-long treaty-port era (1843-1943) and beyond. But even before the rise of Pudong (East Shanghai) across the river, the Bund was just part of a sprawling metropolis, much of which was built on what had always been dry land.
Legend #3: Only Westerners lived in the International Settlement and French Concession.
These foreign-run enclaves were supposed to be just for foreign residents, but they quickly became places where Chinese far outnumbered everyone else. And even among foreigners, by the early 1900s there were many more Japanese than Westerners living in them (see this 1915 census).
Legend #4: A big sign banning “Dogs and Chinese” stood at the gate to the best park.
Bruce Lee kicks such a sign in half in a memorable cinematic scene, but Bickers and I provide a lot of evidence in our China Quarterly article to back up the idea that the sign is best treated as an urban legend. And historians based in Shanghai have begun—albeit sometimes grudgingly—to concur, to the point that even the more carefully done Chinese language guidebooks sometimes refrain from breathing new life into the old tale. Last time, I checked, even Wikipedia was going with the urban legend line, directing readers to our article for evidence.
Legend #5: The Western populations of the foreign-run districts were not prejudiced.
A second point of our China Quarterly piece is that, while a sign that humiliatingly paired “Dogs” and “Chinese” didn’t exist (at least not for decades in a prominent place), the kind of prejudice it has long been said to symbolize definitely did. Not every Shanghailander (as Western residents of the International Settlement were called) viewed Chinese as less than fully human. But many were content to see local Chinese treated like second-class citizens—and to have all Chinese other than Amahs looking after foreign children kept out of the best local park (until the rules for access were changed in 1928). Some of those who couldn’t get past the policemen guarding the entrance to the “Public Garden” in the late 1800s and early 1900s were, to add insult to injury, middle class Chinese whose taxes helped pay for the upkeep of the grounds!
Photo of Nanjing Lu in 1920 from crazy vida
Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom is Professor of History at the University of California, Irvine, and author of the new book China's Brave New World—And Other Tales for Global Times. This article first appeared on The China Beat.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
post to facebook
The sign thing is a huge issue, with people I've talked to swearing down that their grandparents saw it with their own eyes when relating the story to me.
As you point out, the park rules did not allow dogs into the park and also did not allow Chinese unaccompanied by a member of the international community. But suggesting that the sign a myth will understandably get you labelled as an apologist for the whole thing.
I became aware of it when I visited the Bund Museum under the monument in the park itself in 2002. There was a photo of the sign among the old photos there. It was clearly a new photo of some sort that had been through the faux black and white print process on a colour machine. It was sharp too and out of place with the others.
When I asked some friends about it and mentioned the movie they got very defensive - and I sympathize with them on the general issue of colonialisation - so I didn't pursue it.
Jeffery, have you been down to that museum? I wasn't sure if it had been closed back when they started on the weir for the Suzhou Creek.
dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513362&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true#StartComments
Britain kow tows to China as athletes are forced to sign no criticism contracts
By ROB DRAPER and DANIEL KING - More by this author » Last updated at 13:07pm on 10th February 2008
Comments Comments (95)
Paula Radcliffe
Gagged: Marathon runner Paula Radcliffe is likely to be one of those affected by the ban
British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China's appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.
The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.
The controversial clause has been inserted into athletes' contracts for the first time and forbids them from making any political comment about countries staging the Olympic Games.
It is contained in a 32-page document that will be presented to all those who reach the qualifying standard and are chosen for the team.
From the moment they sign up, the competitors – likely to include the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips and world record holder Paula Radcliffe – will be effectively gagged from commenting on China's politics, human rights abuses or illegal occupation of Tibet.
Prince Charles has already let it be known that he will not be going to China, even if he is invited by Games organisers.
His views on the Communist dictatorship are well known, after this newspaper revealed how he described China's leaders as “appalling old waxworks” in a journal written after he attended the handover of Hong Kong. The Prince is also a long-time supporter of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader.
Yesterday the British Olympic Association (BOA) confirmed to The Mail on Sunday that any athlete who refuses to sign the agreements will not be allowed to travel to Beijing.
Read more...
* Shameful picture of England squad giving Nazi salute still haunts British sport. Why, 70 years later, do we still suck up to dictators?
Should a competitor agree to the clause but then speak their mind about China, they will be put on the next plane home.
The clause, in section 4 of the contract, simply states: “[Athletes] are not to comment on any politically sensitive issues.”
It then refers competitors to Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter, which “provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.
Zara Phillips and Toytown
Contention: the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips stands to be among the athletes who will be forced to sign the gagging order
The BOA took the decision even though other countries – including the United States, Canada, Finland, and Australia – have pledged that their athletes would be free to speak about any issue concerning China.
To date, only New Zealand and Belgium have banned their athletes from giving political opinions while competing at the Games.
Simon Clegg, the BOA's chief executive, said: “There are all sorts of organisations who would like athletes to use the Olympic Games as a vehicle to publicise their causes.
“I don't believe that is in the interest of the team performance.
“As a team we are ambassadors of the country and we have to conform to an appropriate code of conduct.”
However, human rights campaigner Lord David Alton condemned the move as “making a mockery” of the right to free speech.
The controversial decision to award the Olympics to Beijing means this year's Games have the potential to be the most politically charged since 1936.
Adolf Hitler used the Munich Games that year to glorify his Nazi regime, although his claims of Aryan superiority were undermined by black American athlete Jesse Owens winning four gold medals.
More recently, there was a mass boycott of the 1980 Games in Moscow in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
But Colin Moynihan – now BOA chairman Lord Moynihan – defied Margaret Thatcher's calls for British athletes to stay at home and won a silver medal as cox of the men's eight rowing team.
Former Olympic rowing champion Matthew Pinsent has already criticised the Chinese authorities over the training methods used on children, which he regarded as tantamount to abuse.
Scroll down for more...
England Nazi salute Berlin 1938 Olympics
Past shame: The England team give Nazi salutes at the 1938 Berlin Olympics, a memory which critics do not want to see recalled in China
Young gymnasts told him they were repeatedly beaten during training sessions.
Mr Clegg confirmed that such criticisms would be banned under the team's code of conduct, which will be in force from when athletes are selected in July, until the end of the Games on August 24.
Mr Clegg said: “During the period of the contract, that sort of action would be in dispute with the team-member agreement.
“There are all sorts of sanctions that I can apply. I had to send a team member home in Sydney because they breached our sponsorship agreement and that is the first time it happened.
“I have to act in the interest of the whole British team, not one individual. No athlete is above being part of the team.
“There is a requirement on team members to sign the agreement. If athletes step out of line, action will have to be taken.”
Darren Campbell, Olympic relay gold winner at the 2004 Games in Athens, said the BOA's move would “heap extra pressure on athletes”. But he added: “We are there to represent our country in sporting terms, just as our Army do when they go off to war. It is not supposed to be about politics.”
The BOA is taking a far more stringent stance than authorities in other countries. Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates said: “What we will be saying to the athletes is that it's best to concentrate on your competitions.
“But they're entitled to have their opinions and express them. They're free to speak.”
Jouko Purontakanen, secretary general of the Finnish Olympic Committee, said: “We will not be issuing instructions on the matter. The freedom of expression is a basic right that cannot be limited.
“But the starting point is that we will go to Beijing to compete, not to talk politics.”
Political gestures have been made at previous Olympics, most famously in Mexico City in 1968 when black American 200m champion Tommie Smith and bronze medallist John Carlos raised their fists in a black power salute.
Both were suspended from the US Olympic team and barred from the Olympic village.
Forty years on, British athletes face similar sanctions if they highlight the abuse of human rights in China.
Last night Edward McMillan-Scott, Conservative MEP and the European Parliament vice-president, predicted a public outcry over the BOA's move.
He said: “Foreign Secretary David Miliband is off to China soon. But before he gets on the plane, he and the rest of the Government should tell the BOA to take this clause out of the agreement.”
Potentially the contract means that a British athlete who witnesses someone being mistreated on the way to a stadium is forbidden from even speaking to their colleagues about it.
Competitors emailing home or writing blogs will also have to exercise self-censorship – or face having their Olympic dreams ruined.
Lord Alton said: “It is extraordinary to bar athletes from expressing an opinion about China's human-rights record. About the only justification for participating in the Beijing Games is that it offers an opportunity to encourage more awareness about human rights.
“Imposing compulsory vows of silence is an affront to our athletes, and in China it will be viewed as acquiescence.
“Each year 8,000 executions take place in China, political and religious opinion is repressed, journalists are jailed and the internet and overseas broadcasts are heavily censored.
“For our athletes to be told that they may not make any comment makes a mockery of our own country's belief in free speech.”
Those fascist Brits are at it again...
Wow, what the fuck is England thinking on that one?
On #1, the map linked shows the round Old City, which if you look on modern maps of Shanghai *is tiny* compared to the city as a whole. I think Mr Wasserstrom is thinking of the Shanghai self-governing area, which contains cities/towns with a much longer history like Songjiang and Qibao.
On #5, see modern-day rules about ayis and compound shuttles ;)
re Nos. 4 and 5, I quote from Foreign Devils in the Flowery Kingdom by Carl Crow, who lived near the park in question during the years when the sign was supposed to exist:
"Chinese were excluded but not in the gratuitously insulting way that the supposed sign would indicate. In fact no such sign existed. At the time it was supposed to be displayed I lived in the neighborhood of the little garden for four or five years and in pleasant weather I walked through it several times daily on my way to and from my office. There were a lot of regulations. One of them provided that dogs could not be brought into the park. Another was to the effect that Chinese were excluded, except personal servants accompanied by their foreign employers. This was to provide for th amahs who brought the foreign babies to the parks. The youngsters slept or tumbled about on the lawn while the amahs told all the scandals of the households in which they worked. A stranger who strolled into the place on a fine afternoon might have thought it was an amahs' country club. The two rules were not joined together in the insulting way the old story indicated.
"The park existed for many years before it occurred to any Chinese that they should be admitted. The issue was raised in 1881 by some one who wrote a letter of complaint to the council pointing out that as the garden was supported by municipal taxes which were levied on Chinese and foreigners alike it was unfair to refuse admission to Chinese. The reply was to the effect that owing to the small size of the garden it was obviously impossible to to throw it open to the general public, but an attempt was made to meet Chinese desires by a police order to the effect that the garden would be open to any "well-dressed natives." But the individual Chinese did not know whether or not the gatekeeper would consider him to be a "well-dressed native." The chance of being humiliated by a refusal was so great that few asked for admission."
The book (and many other interesting old China books, by Chinese people and foreigners) is available here.