[Nina Zhou]

Wow, I love this first topic of historial memory and nation-building as the jumping off point for our seminar series! I'm recovering from a finger injury and can't do too much typing, so I'll save some of my thoughts for our discussion today.

Briefly on here - I do think it is particularly important to examine China's interactions with other nations in order to fully understand contemporary China. In the Jiang and Hu eras, Chinese foreign policy has always used the word 和平崛起 or "peaceful rise," which several of the readings alluded to. However, in recent years, Xi Jinping has switched to the idea of 复兴 or "renaissance"--a lot to unpack there simply in the change of wording. Another interesting point that stood out to me is the possible distinctions between what China is currently doing in the continent of Africa (neocolonialism) and historical forms of imperialism/colonialism. I do think that the official narrative in China is seeking to reframe Chinese investment in Africa not as a mimicry of Western neocolonialism, but as a reinactment of traditional Chinese foreign policy (tribute system) in which China is actively trying to export Han Chinese culture and values to other regions. Has this been a successful strategy? It's also interesting to note that Xi has barely mentioned the BRI this year (2022), focusing largely on domestic economic issues instead. In past classes, I've taught comparison discussions looking at the historical Silk Road and the current BRI initiative -- a lot of obvious throughlines that students can pick up. It also leads to a discussion on the nature of globalization and whether it is ethically acceptable for states to advance their own geopolitical interests through foreign aid and direct investment.

*Follow up question after our discussion today* As educators, how can we strive to present an objective (and perhaps, more well-rounded) view of the PRC to our students? At my west LA school (that's quite progressive), students tend to criticize the U.S.'s history of systematic racism and neocolonial initiatives abroad (Afghanistan being a recent example). Sometimes I find it challenging to get students to "open their minds" about China when the PRC is doing actually questionable/problematic things, similar to what the U.S. has historically done. American media tends to present a really negative and black-and-white view of China, but at the same time, a lot of their criticisms are valid. So, how can we as teachers help shake up these perspectives?

Another note - I always teach Benedict Anderson to my students, and we look at historical narratives as examples of "imagining" the national identity. In regards to China, it's particularly interesting how the emphasis in textbooks changed after 1989 to focus on victimhood and the century of humiliation as a way to promote nationalism and dissaude from the West. I can definitely see ways to incorporate the Geopolitical Tourism article into that discussion.

[Nina Zhou]

It's great to be back again for another USCI seminar. My name is Nina Zhou and I currently teach world history and an advanced elective on postcolonial Asia at the Crossroads School for Arts and Sciences in Santa Monica, CA. I am proud to call both Beijing and Vancouver, Canada home, as I was born in Beijing before later immigrating to North America. Prior to the pandemic, I used to travel back to China every year during the summer, and it was always surprising to see how much Beijing has changed each year. I'm excited to continue to learn about contemporary China and its interactions with the global community, especially with what has happened in the past 1-2 years. Looking forward to meeting all of you (virtually) soon!

[Nina Zhou]

Thank you Professor Bharne for another insightful lecture, this time on the intersectionality of colonial legacy, modernization, and urban landscapes. I have already shared some of my thoughts regarding the first lecture/reading set under Nia's post, but here are some of my current wonders related to the second lecture/reading on the expression of modernity in Asian urbanism.

I really enjoyed the in-depth discussion of Japan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai as case studies of Asian modern urbanism and urbanality. It brought back fond memories of hunting for a cheap pair of sneakers in Mong Kok and getting lost in Shinjuku Station for 20 minutes, walking around aimlessly trying to find the correct exit- ha!

I think one of the key reasons why Tokyo's busy and overcrowded spaces still feel so organized is because of the strong adherence and respect for rules and social norms in Japanese culture--this is a trait that is far less dominant in Western cultures, and even other Asian ones. When I lived in Tokyo, I was always surprised at the degree to which local residents followed a set of protocols when conducting daily tasks--sorting trash into precise categories (the cap, label, and bottle of a plastic water bottle go into three separate bins), carrying a tiny trash bag in your bag since there are no trash bins on the streets, standing to the left side of the escalator so that others may pass you on the right, only smoking in public designated areas outside, etc. Urban planning in an intense, post-industrial landscape like Tokyo only works largely because of individual adherence to formalized rules and unspoken norms that turn the transit nodes and neon places into a well-oiled machine. I wonder if this is a reason why we have yet to see any place like Tokyo in European and American urban places.

Secondly, Professor Bharne's final point on sustainability challenges in Asian urban development reminded me of the existing tensions between the East and West, Developing and Developed, Global North and Global South, surrounding environmental responsibility. Through the lens of geopolitics and international relations, one of the biggest criticisms Asian countries like China and India have thrown against the U.S. and other European nations is the West's tendency to point fingers at developing nations for contributing to climate change, when in fact the majority of our current environmental issues have been caused by industrialization and modernization in the West. Shouldn't the less-economically developed nations, after centuries of colonization, deserve to build, expand (and pollute) in the same way as those western nations? Obviously, this is a rather nationalist perspective in thinking about environmental responsibility. I am curious if a similar discourse exists in the realm of urban studies and sustainability, and if so, what this discourse looks like. Is sustainability an universal value that is being embraced by all, or is it considered a rather Western/European sentiment that shouldn't take precedence over development needs and financial costs?

[Nina Zhou]

Thanks for raising this thoughtful point, Nia! I definitely found myself thinking similar things after reading Wallach's article and watching Professor Bharne's first recorded lecture on colonial legacies. I am curious about how we can consider the power dynamics that implicitly exist in the European-style architecture in Asia today. While Professor Bharne described colonialism as a complex process in which the diverse culture and histories of the local people also influenced Europe, we haven't seen many examples in this seminar that help illustrate this point. In comparison, there are clearly a pleathora of examples that show the influence Europeans have left on Asia. Interestingly, Wallach chose to characterize the relationship of globalization/urban development between Europe and Asia as one-sided. He pointed to the fact that even today, the architects of the most impressive projects in Asia are foreign in background or training. Similarly, the global dominance of Western culture (and lifestyle) seems to have pushed many Asian countries to embrace urban development projects and policies that adhere to the West's way of life (Singapore as the example, pg. 18). I find Wallach's point to be at odds with Professor Bharne's, which seems to suggest a more equal and mutual cultural exchange and hybridization. I'd love to learn about any counter-examples that could help show the ways in which European architecture and urban planning were influenced by Asia as a result of colonization.

[Nina Zhou]

I just need a certificate of completion. Thanks 🙂

[Nina Zhou]

This is the question I wanted to raise during our seminar today. I'm still formulating the ideas in my head, so apologies if it is not written in the clearest way.

 

I am curious how the concept of modernity is defined in the field of urban studies (and beyond), and how it connects to the idea of westernization. The two obviously have a close correlation, since many aspects of what we consider "modern life" (clothing, government systems, school systems) are the products of European and North American societies that subsequently spread around the world through colonization. Both the second lecture and the "Framing the Asian City" reading pointed to this process of westernization, urbanization, and rapid modernization as the result of colonial contact. However, the lecture and reading also seem to differentiate between westernization and newer forms of urban expression in East Asia. I would love to learn more about these definitions since it's so hard to truly separate our modern cultural and material landscapes from the West. Are there forms of non-Western urbanisms, and if so, what are some examples? When I think of the Bird's Nest Stadium in Beijing or Shinjuku in Tokyo, while these urban spaces are so iconic that they are undeniably "Japanese" or "Chinese," the essence of their characteristics--skyscrapers, steel beams, neon lights--seems to still emulate the West. Similarly, are the post-industrial urban models (landscape #10) an attempt to define a new form of urbanism separate from modernity, or is it an extension of western modernity with "Asian characteristics"?

 

I understand that the physical and cultural landscape of East Asia is a hybrid product of centuries of cultural exchange, and perhaps my thinking is too black and white. I'd appreciate any clarifications on these ideas, and I welcome comments from everyone in the seminar 🙂

[Nina Zhou]

Hi everyone! My name is Nina Zhou, and I am currently teaching high school History and Social Sciences at a progressive independent school in Santa Monica, CA. Previously, I taught high school History at an independent school in Honolulu, HI, including an upperlevel elective on East Asian studies. As a third-culture person who calls Beijing, Vancouver, and Los Angeles home, I grew up navigating the different cultural and historical landscapes of East Asia and the West. In college, I studied International Relations and Asian Studies, focusing on the political and cultural spheres of China and Japan and their relationship with the U.S. I am fluent in Mandarin Chinese and conversational in Japanese, having studied abroad in Tokyo and conducted field research throughout Japan.

I've always been interested in the programming and curriculum coming out of the U.S.-China Institute at USC, and I'm really excited about this opportunity to learn about an aspect of East Asia that I am less familiar with--its art, asethetics, and architecture. Last year, I taught an Asian Studies course that included a focus on the art of China and Japan. It was the first time I incorporated the study of art and art history into my curriculum, and I really loved how well the students reacted to the more artistic components of the course. Since my academic background is more focused on political science and economics, the experience pushed me to expand my own knowledge of East Asia. Looking forward to learning more awesome things alongside each of you this summer 🙂

[Author]

Posts