64 replies to this topic

[fcharton]

check this out(a another PQ leader blamed ethnics for making them lose the '95 referendum..when ethnics only compose less than 5% of the total pop. of the province of Quebec..just using us as scapegoats): (look at 3:55..you'll hear him say "blame money and the vote ethnic" NB: money = l'argent and ethnics = ethniques).

Pff, when you hear the whole five minutes, this is hardly a racist speech... Basically they lost a referendum by a small margin, which makes it likely that small groups could have the last word. The whole question is 'was there a community vote?' during this referendum, if there was, and if it was against separation, (and all your previous posts suggest that it was), then Pariseau is basically right.

Francois

[Yun]

Re the "No dogs and Chinese allowed" sign: it was only believed to have existed in Shanghai, never in Hong Kong. And for the proof that it is a myth, see http://blog.vdare.co...ical-too/print/ (though you are advised not to take the writer's slightly Euro-chauvinistic attitude too seriously)

Not to say that British racism against the Chinese was not a problem in those times, but to make up a story to prove that it existed goes entirely against the ethics of history. I have zero tolerance for the promotion of historical myths, because they have so often been used to stir up bigotry or hatred.

That said, I believe the myth about the sign really took off with the "Fist of Fury" film, and was not consciously manufactured by the PRC government.

[bayonet]

Whether it is fictional or not is not important. The presence of west power on our territory and being exempted from Chinese laws itself is a big humiliation on us. And they treated Chinese as uncivilised. My grandama once told me she saw how those red headbanded Indian police whipped Chinese arbitrarily.

[Yun]

My grandama once told me she saw how those red headbanded Indian police whipped Chinese arbitrarily.

Ironically, these Sikhs were themselves vulnerable to racism from their British officers. I doubt they were very happy people.

The presence of west power on our territory and being exempted from Chinese laws itself is a big humiliation on us. And they treated Chinese as uncivilised.

Another irony of this is that a big part of the 19th-century European perception of the Chinese as barbaric was based on the heavy use of capital and corporal punishment in the Chinese legal code. The extraterritorial rights issue developed from cases before the Opium War, when certain British sailors were executed by Chinese authorities for accidentally causing the death of Chinese subjects. Yet before the mid-18th century, capital and corporal punishment were commonplace in European criminal justice, and were never regarded as overly inhumane (ever heard of drawing and quartering?). Indeed, French Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire idealized China's Confucian society as more civilized and humane than Christian Europe. But it was the same Enlightenment values that by the early 19th century had caused Europeans to perceive capital and corporal punishment as uncivilized, and thus look down on the Chinese.

[bayonet]

The heavy use of capital and corporal punishment was no more than a pretext to keep the privileges the west powers enjoyed. It was not those brutal punishment that caused discriminations by westerners on Chinese but just another proof to justify their prejudice. Additionally, the coporal punishments were abandomed in the law system reform in late 1900s. The West powers yield no rights which the Chinese should have in 1930s when modern continental law system had been established and exerted for decade in China. The maltreatment were everywhere, for example, the Bund 12, where HSBC once located at , banned Chinese enter from the main door but a back door and were restricted whithin a small narrow place in the corner. This is not some kind of rumor, several relatives of mine who experienced confirmed it.

[fcharton]

Indeed, French Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire idealized China's Confucian society as more civilized and humane than Christian Europe. But it was the same Enlightenment values that by the early 19th century had caused Europeans to perceive capital and corporal punishment as uncivilized, and thus look down on the Chinese.

This is very true. Interestingly, in the late 18th and in the 19th century, the perception of China by european intellectuals was globally positive. Voltaire, for instance, wrote a whole tragedy, L'orphelin de la Chine (the orphan of China), from a chinese play, which was inspired from a passage in the Zhao chapter of the Shiji. The story showed how enlightened the chinese were, and was typical of the opinon educated europeans in the 19th century had of China. So, the situation is a bit more complex than the simplistic "europeans (as a whole) despised chinese".

One point which must be mentioned was that the colonies, or the chinese concessions, were some kind of "frontier" for europeans in the 19th century, ie a ruthless place when one could get rich quickly. This is not, btw, totally different from the expat mentality we see nowadays...

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 17 March 2007 - 11:36 AM.

[snowybeagle]

I don't know how others might think of this line of reasoning, but to me, it was unlikely the Brits put up that sign in HK because ... the Brits are famous/notorious for treating their pet dogs super-duper well ...

[Howard Fu]

for example, the Bund 12, where HSBC once located at , banned Chinese enter from the main door but a back door and were restricted whithin a small narrow place in the corner. This is not some kind of rumor, several relatives of mine who experienced confirmed it.

As far as I can remember, Edgar Snow in his Red Star Over China confirmed this. He was a journalist of British newspaper then. He wrote an article to compain this discrimination and that cost his job.

There is a big turn of altitude to China in European philosophers around 18th and 19th century. Leibniz and Voltaire's view of China are almost Utopian, but Jean-Jacques Rousseau is very critical. But they have no direct contact with China anyway, they were mostly using China to promote their own philosophy.

[fcharton]

There is a big turn of altitude to China in European philosophers around 18th and 19th century. Leibniz and Voltaire's view of China are almost Utopian, but Jean-Jacques Rousseau is very critical. But they have no direct contact with China anyway, they were mostly using China to promote their own philosophy.

Most of their knowledge of China came from the Jesuits there, notably people like Amyot, who spoke of themselves as "we the chinese" (and who, btw, was the first translator of the Art of War). Confucianism, as an idealised, non religious, philosophical theory, was the major reason why these philosophers had this utopian vision of China. But then, wrong as they might have been, the respect these people had for chinese civilisation is interesting, because it shows the contrast between intellectuals in the age of Reason, and the ruthless realists of the Opium Wars. Basically, I think it shows that, just as Qing China cannot be summarised in a few sentences, the Western conception of China at the time is more complex than mere racism and spite.

Francois

[Yun]

The story showed how enlightened the chinese were, and was typical of the opinon educated europeans in the 19th century had of China.

I see the turning point as being the widespread adoption of the ideal of Progress in the early 19th century. This can be seen in Hegel's "The Philosophy of History" lectures delivered not long before the Opium War, in which he calls China a stagnant, backward-looking civilization that will eventually go the same way as India because it has not embraced Progress like the Europeans have.

By the mid-19th century, European intellectual attitudes towards China had mostly shifted to contempt, to a large extent because the Opium War seemed to 'prove' that China was stagnant and weak, and no match for European civilization.

[fcharton]

By the mid-19th century, European intellectual attitudes towards China had mostly shifted to contempt, to a large extent because the Opium War seemed to 'prove' that China was stagnant and weak, and no match for European civilization.

I believe intellectual attitudes branched more than they shifted. After 1850, there really are two positions. In politics, China, or, more precisely, its government, is despised as decadent and corrupt. On the other hand, the admiration for chinese art, and culture in general was expanding, and getting to larger and larger audiences.

Many intellectuals collected chinese objects (I visited Victor Hugo's house in paris today, I was amazed at the number of Chinese things he had, and he was no more a sinophile than any other, just typical of his time). This is also the time when chinese (Tang, generally) poetry was translated and put into western songs (Mahler, and then Berg and Webern), or made into collection, which enjoyed some publishing success. The second half of the 19th century was also the moment when major classics (Confucius and Laozi) were translated an popularised, and when quite a number of stories taking place in China (from Anderssen's Nightingale, to Puccini's Turandot) were written.

Again, I think a difference must be made between the opinion educated europeans had of chinese art and culture, which was quite positive through all the 19th century, and the judgment passed by europeans on the government and the state of China in their time, which was not very flattering.

Francois

[Richard Lim]

Not sure whether any actual signs survived, but this often quoted observation by a late Qing/early Republic writer Yao Gonghe (姚公鹤) recalls the practices in the various foreign concessions in Shanghai. There were signs excluding Chinese and dogs from various facilities such as race courses and parks etc. Those signs that he comments on were posted on the gates and are specifically mentioned by Yao as being in English (今门首高标英文于木牌，所云：‘狗与华人不准入内’是也。)

Sorry I won’t translate in full but an interesting thing that he mentions is that the sign was an extrapolation from earlier signage forbidding dogs from entering particular areas of the park, presumably so that the flowerbeds would not be trampled etc. and that this was extended to Chinese because they were thought to be rather unsparing of the trees and flowers (i.e., would vandalise them).
Another thing he mentions is the building of a segregated "Chinese park" for the locals’ use (另建华公园，为华人游息之所).

姚公鹤说：“租界中外人公共建筑所在，每不准华人之擅入，喧宾夺主，无过于此……惟此事并无国际强弱之关系，乃国民教育之关系。闻昔时外人并无此项禁令，历见华人一入公共地方，折花驱鸟，糟蹋地方，无所不为，于是跑马场首以营业公司名义，禁止华人之涉足。今门首高标英文于木牌，所云：‘狗与华人不准入内’是也。公园禁止华人于理较欠圆转，不得已，就苏州河浜，南自白大桥起，另建华公园，为华人游息之所。此项公园建筑，远不逮西公园，然尚必派捕照料，故树木尚少攀折。呜呼！教育不普及，又曷怪公益之心薄弱耶！”

You can find the passage quoted in various places on the internet, including this site:
http://book.sina.com...ngdao/104.shtml

What I have not been able to find is a text (online) of the original work in its entirely.

[Andy Lau]

Pff, when you hear the whole five minutes, this is hardly a racist speech... Basically they lost a referendum by a small margin, which makes it likely that small groups could have the last word. The whole question is 'was there a community vote?' during this referendum, if there was, and if it was against separation, (and all your previous posts suggest that it was), then Pariseau is basically right.

Francois

Well..not all ethnics and anglophones are anti-quebec nation or Federalist...so it"s not a community vote. The majority of ethnic minorities and anglophones are federalist..but still you should not go blaming ethnic groups like that in public(after the referendum). Parizeau is an racist..there wuz this press conference(in '95)..where he pointed a finger @ a ethnic minority and said out loud "it's because of you people" He is wrong to say it's the fault of "Ethnics" and Money..when ethnics comprise of less than 5% of the quebec population in '95 and where the english community comprised of about 10%. The ethnic minorities are not a significant group..as compared to the english and the majority french(over 85%).

Edited by Andy Lau, 18 March 2007 - 08:16 PM.

[Tibet Libre]

check this and tell me if this wuz true during british occupation of Hong Kong in the past or was that sign made up.

Why don't you post the whole link? It says clearly that the story was made up respectively fiction from a Bruce Lee movie.

http://www.zonaeurop.../20050618_1.htm
http://pekingduck.or...ives/002522.php

[Andy Lau]

lol..i didn't see that, i got that link from google image..so it only gave me the picture. I found out after posting that link that it wuz from a bruce lee movie. But even if it wuz from a movie, the point is that there wuz discrimination against chinese from the British in HK(in the past) and the "no dogs and no chinese allowed" incident was also present..as according to what my grandparents told me.