|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
157519
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For many people, ‘Hong Kong is a cultural desert’. However, we find that Hong Kong plays an important academic role and acts as a cultural bridge between China and Western countries, especially when China experiences unstable political, economic, social and cultural situations. The People’s Republic of China was established in 1949. During this time, numerous scholars fled China and selected Hong Kong as a ‘shelter’. Some decided to stay for good, whereas others viewed the territory as a stepping stone. Regardless of their reasons, their academic performance has significantly influenced Hong Kong. Two of the most famous scholars in this period were Luo Xianglin (羅香林 Lo Shan Lin) and Qian Mu (錢穆). Luo taught at the Department of Chinese of the University of Hong Kong. Qian was a faculty member at the New Asia College, which was one of the founding members of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. This study will examine the following issues: (i) why these two scholars selected Hong Kong, (ii) what role they played in the development of tertiary education with regard to Chinese studies in Hong Kong, (iii) how they developed the role of Hong Kong as a haven for the protection of Chinese culture and (iv) how Qian Mu developed New Asia College as a vehicle for spreading the ‘New’ Asian culture in the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
157521
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article aims to give a broad picture of the development of Chinese/China Studies at the University of Hong Kong until the 1970s. Courses on Chinese were conducted from the very beginning of the establishment of the University of Hong Kong. Chinese Studies at the University of Hong Kong started with the first two migrant scholars to Hong Kong and reflected the pre-Republican style cultivated in the imperial civil service examinations. However, the curriculum changed gradually after the establishment of the Department of Chinese. Xu Dishan and Chen Junbao took the reform further. In the post-World War II period, Frederick Seguier Drake was Professor in the Department of Chinese Studies until 1964 and consolidated the Department. Its development coincided with the basic policy of neutrality pursued by the Hong Kong government with respect to the ongoing tension between the United States and the PRC. By the 1960s, it appeared that more expatriate staff were becoming interested in the study of China and Hong Kong. This led to the establishment of the Centre of Asian Studies in 1967, the first centre where Contemporary China Studies could be pursued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157518
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study examines the experiences of two generations of intellectuals that migrated to Hong Kong in 1919 and 1949.* The earlier generation included the former Qing remnants Lai Jixi (賴際熙) and Chen Botao (陳伯陶), and the latter included Tang Junyi (唐君毅), a prominent advocate of Neo-Confucianism. Although they shared a similar ethnic pride, they developed divergent attitudes about the colony of Hong Kong. The former Qing remnants all harmoniously related with the local Chinese elites and businessmen in Hong Kong and, thus, successfully integrated with the mainstream Chinese community. They maintained their traditional Chinese culture while working together with the colonial government even as the cultural gap between Hong Kong and Mainland China expanded. In 1949, significant political changes caused by the creation of the People’s Republic of China created a second generation of immigrants, including Neo-Confucianist Tang Junyi, who shared similar attitudes about traditional culture with the earlier immigrants. However, they developed totally different ideas about Hong Kong with respect to nationalism and colonialism. Although Tang and other immigrants like him all claimed to be proponents of traditional Chinese culture and to promote orthodox traditions, they also held different ideas about culture. This study investigates how Tang Junyi’s nationalism and critical attitudes towards coloniality developed, while also explaining the limitations of his efforts to re-establish China’s national culture without participating in the local culture. This examination not only facilitates our understanding of how elites and intellectuals in Hong Kong saw Chinese culture through different periods but also helps us reflect on the roles and functions of Hong Kong during the historical and cultural development process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157515
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
157517
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the late 1920s, cultural nationalism in Hong Kong was imbedded in Confucianism, having been disappointed with the New Culture Movement and Chinese revolutionary nationalism.1 It also inspired British collaborative colonialism. This study attempts to explain the link between Hong Kong and the Confucius Revering Movement by analysing the essays on Hong Kong of Lu Xun (1881–1936), the father of modern Chinese literature and one of the most important revolutionary thinkers in modern China. The Confucius Revering Movement, which extended from mainland China to the Southeast Asian Chinese community and then to Hong Kong, formed a highly interrelated network of Chinese cultural nationalism associated with Confucianism. However, the movements in these three places had different cultural and political roles in keeping with their own contexts. Collaborative colonialism’s interference with the Confucius Revering Movement is one way to understand Lu Xun’s critical reading of Hong Kong. That is, Hong Kong’s Confucius Revering Movement was seen as an endeavour of the colonial authorities to co-opt Confucianism in order to deal with influences from China. This article argues that Hong Kong’s Confucius Revering Movement should be regarded as one of the main perspectives through which to understand Hong Kong’s educational, cultural and political histories from the 1920s to the late 1960s. Lu Xun enables us to see several links. The first link is the one connecting the Confucius Revering Movement in Mainland China, Hong Kong and the Chinese community in Southeast Asia. This leads to the second link, that is, Lim Boen Keng (Lin Wenqing), the leading figure of the Confucius Revering Movement in the Southeast Asian Chinese community who later became the President of Amoy University, where Lu Xun had taught before his first visit to Hong Kong. The third link is the skilful colonial administrator Sir Cecil Clementi, who came to British Malaya in February 1930 to become Governor after being the Governor of Hong Kong. We can observe a network of Chinese critical/resistant and collaborative nationalism from these links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
157520
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article attempts to interpret the narratives presented in the autobiography of Situ Hua (Szeto Wah, 1931–2011), well-known activist and leader of pressure-group movements in modern Hong Kong, in order to understand his ethnic and national identities. This exploration can illustrate the interaction between collaborative nationalism, critical nationalism and colonialism that is ongoing and constantly changing in modern Hong Kong. The article suggests that during his childhood and youth, Situ ethnically identified himself as being Chinese and, in terms of his national identity, he longed for a strong communist Chinese state. Second, it argues that Situ’s national identity was hollowed out by the Chinese Communist Party while his ethnic identity remained unchanged from his youth. Finally, Situ’s success in promoting pressure-group movements in Hong Kong led him to believe in democracy. His belief in democracy resulted in the convergence of his ethnic and national identities. He still wanted to build a strong Chinese state, but believed that this state should be democratic. It was his democratic Chinese nationalism that propelled him to embark on such a political pursuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
157522
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article divides China watching by the two dimensions of position and purpose. By position, the article asks if a narrator looks at China from an external or an internal perspective. By purpose, it asks if the narrative is to critically provide an evaluative perspective, to objectively represent an authentic China, or to practically discuss a life and identity strategy of Chinese people. Specifically, the complex sensibilities towards China among Taiwanese migrant scholars reify the genuine and yet often-unnoticed agency required to proceed with writing on China. With initially both the Chinese Civil War and later pro-independence politics in Taiwan poisoning relationships with China, the politically divided Taiwanese scholars enter a different environment in Hong Kong, which urges neither total confrontation nor complete loyalty in approaching China. How the Hong Kong circumstances have impacted upon the choices of these Taiwanese intellectuals in their presentation of the subject matter of China, in comparison with their other colleagues in Hong Kong, is the primary goal of the following discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
157516
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Hong Kong exemplifies a geo-cultural path that the literature on hybridity has not seriously considered. Hong Kong’s particular geo-cultural path is different from what the literature refers to as hybridity because Hong Kong’s identity encompasses non-synthetic, lingering Confucian, Christian, liberal, patriotic and other identities that exist parallel to each other, rather than merging into a certain hybrid identity. Because of this unique identity, the already hybrid identity of Hong Kong could disintegrate at any time because of re-imagined or re-enacted traditions. In other words, the coexisting parallel identities support a cyclical historiography rather than the celebrated postcoloniality that moves Hong Kong irrevocably away from any alleged past. Hong Kong demonstrates this constant re-appealing that takes place on the basis of solid traditions in Confucianism, Christianity and patriotism, in addition to the familiar liberalism and anti-Communism. Chineseness has become extremely difficult to define and attempts at doing so generate bitter feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|