126
H. G. H. NELSON
case put by Fei Hsiao-tung and others who were influenced by the "orthodox" Marxist-Leninist interpretation is now convincingly shown to be oversimplified and misleading; and if not wholly unsatisfactory, at least open to serious question. Nevertheless, by his change of title, Potter exposes himself to the criticism that his original choice of field and the data he drew from it may not have been an adequate testing ground for so large an hypothesis. He asserts that in all relevant respects, the situation of Ping Shan resembled that of villages in the hinterland of other Western Treaty Ports; and although he acknowledges the fact of the security of land-tenure given by the British registration of all holdings in the Colony, he is inclined to minimise its importance. Villages in the Chinese mainland, however, had no such security, and, more importantly, lacked the benefits of the Pax Britannica. Hong Kong's peaceful development was interrupted only by the Japanese Occupation, and Potter recognises that as a watershed of change: how much greater changes must have been caused in China by the long series of upheavals that took place there?
Potter's objections to the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of rural China's economy are otherwise well-founded. He shows that while in some areas rural handicrafts were destroyed, the extent to which peasants depended for their livelihood on rural handicraft industries was in general very slight: relatively few areas were as dependent as was Fei's Kaihsienkung on the silk industry. There is, in fact, evidence for the stimulation of China's rural industries by the presence of the Treaty Ports. Similarly, absentee landlordism was not so major a problem as has been supposed. Potter adduces data from a wide variety of sources on other villages in comparable situations, and concludes that the "orthodox" interpretation is invalidated by its failure to take into account the tremendous complexity and diversity of the data. He could indeed have brought his point home by citing the wide variety of reactions to modernisation apparent within the limited compass of the New Territories themselves.
Potter has tackled a problem which is of major significance not only to the history of modern China but to the worldwide impact of the developed upon the undeveloped nations. It is not only the student of China who will welcome his eclectic approach and thorough re-examination of accepted views. He has made us aware of the diversity of China's rural scene before 1949, the com-
126
H. G. H. NELSON
case put by Fei Hsiao-tung and others who were influenced by the "orthodox" Marxist-Leninist interpretation is now convincingly shown to be oversimplified and misleading; and if not wholly un- satisfactory, at least open to serious question. Nevertheless, by his change of title, Potter exposes himself to the criticism that his original choice of field and the data he drew from it may not have been an adequate testing ground for so large an hypothesis. He asserts that in all relevant respects, the situation of Ping Shan resembled that of villages in the hinterland of other Western Treaty Ports; and although he acknowledges the fact of the security of land-tenure given by the British registration of all holdings in the Colony, he is inclined to minimise its importance. Villages in the Chinese mainland, however, had no such security, and, more importantly, lacked the benefits of the Pax Britannica. Hong Kong's peaceful development was interrupted only by the Japanese Occupation, and Potter recognises that as a watershed of change: how much greater changes must have been caused in China by the long series of upheavals that took place there?
Potter's objections to the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of rural China's economy are otherwise well-founded. He shows that while in some areas rural handicrafts were destroyed, the extent to which peasants depended for their livelihood on rural handi- craft industries was in general very slight: relatively few areas were as dependant as was Fei's Kaihsienkung on the silk industry, There is, in fact, evidence for the stimulation of China's rural in- dustries by the presence of the Treaty Ports. Similarly, absentee landlordism was not so major a problem as has been supposed. Potter adduces data from a wide variety of sources on other vil- lages in comparable situations, and concludes that the "orthodox" interpretation is invalidated by its failure to take into account the tremendous complexity and diversity of the data. He could indeed have brought his point home by citing the wide variety of reactions to modernisation apparent within the limited compass of the New Territories themselves.
Potter has tackled a problem which is of major significance not only to the history of modern China but to the worldwide impact of the developed upon the undeveloped nations. It is not only the student of China who will welcome his eclectic approach and thorough re-examination of accepted views. He has made us aware of the diversity of China's rural scene before 1949, the com-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.