After reading Wasserstrom’s book China in the 21st Century, gave me a different perspective on Chinese history and Western interpretation of these events. A number of questions arose after reading this text mostly involving the connections the United States has with China as well as commonalities between the two cultures.
My first question is after reading Wasserstrom it seems that both China and the United States link present culture with great historic figures or events in the past (e.g. using Confucius texts at the Olympics). Why are particular individuals or events chosen over others?
My second question involves misunderstandings between China and the United States. While this book is design to educate a Western audience, I wonder what misunderstandings Chinese citizens have about the United States. I also wonder about documentation and display of cultural material. A while ago I read an article by Tamara Hamlish titled “Preserving the Palace: Museums and the making of nationalism(s) in twentieth-century China” which discussed collecting cultural material as “an integral part of constructing the modern Chinese nation.” Constructing narratives based on traditional cultural values is important for both Chinese and American cultures, providing a platform for these narratives is important for education and preservation of traditional culture.
Here is the link to the Hamlish article if anyone is interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/mua.1995.19.2.20/pdf
Megan- As you point out, the intertwining of “national” narratives and documentation/representation are key elements of both U.S. and Chinese governmental policy and practice…though to differing degrees and manners. The question of “who/what” is chosen or identified as “important enough…” to warrant inclusion in the official/normalized history is rich—and not easily answered in the case of either country. Think about Howard Zinn’s critique of “history” as taught/told/cemented in a range of U.S. institutions (from schools to museums); much is left out, often following on the maxim of “history is written by those who win…”
Your second question points us toward the notion that misunderstandings or faulty interpretations often occur across national boundaries (esp. in times of political/economic strife), but it is also interesting to think about how “internal” misunderstandings (cf. Zinn’s take on U.S. history) might be exported and/or reworked in other political/nation-state contexts. That is, it might not just be that Chinese misunderstand U.S. citizens (or vice versa), but that commonly-accepted yet historically-inaccurate understandings held within the U.S. might form interpretations/perspectives that Chinese hold (and, again, vice versa). Certainly, all of this points to the role of cultural workers (documenters, representers, etc) in navigating differences via ethical and well-grounded interpretation…Great questions!