RAS-1987 — Page 301

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

276

A lot of work on local history is being done in Taiwan, and the only thing that I can say about it is that the local life they describe is exceedingly peculiar compared with the New Territories. What's coming out from Taiwan does not represent the same society at all; and I'm sure that the researchers in Taiwan are as eminently honest as we are. It seems you've got a divergence, but then we all know (for instance) that local Cantonese think that Chiuchaus are “barbarians” anyway, and the same goes for the Taiwanese. So almost certainly, there is a substantial cultural 'divide' between this part of Canton and Taiwan.

Next speaker — Who wrote these classic works, and when?

PH— Some of the classic works were written in the 20's, many of them are dated in the 30's, and some are as late as the 1940's. They were almost all by anthropologists, who were also people with a major political connection. In other words, they were senior figures in the KMT or they were people connected with the Communist party at the time; and their books were almost written in major cities of China like Shanghai, Nanking or Peking with a few in Canton. The villages that were being studied were close to, sometimes within walking distance of, those cities which themselves are situated in the most fertile parts of China. Hong Kong, as you know, is only a city by pure chance, being very mountainous and a poor and remote area. My own guess is that what you see in Hong Kong is probably more likely to be closer to the truth; in that two thirds of rural China is mountainous, poor, and far from the major cities. But whilst I wouldn't like to put my hand on my heart and say that it was true for the major areas at the doorsteps of the big cities, I think it is worth stressing that the work we are doing shows that one shouldn't try to say that all Chinese village life was this or that, because it almost certainly was not.

DF— But the unity of China was not skin-deep.

PH— The unity of China was not skin-deep, no, but some of the cultural and managerial practices were. At least, they differ from district to district.

The impression we get, if we in Hong Kong now have to

Edit History

2026-05-13 04:13:17 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

276 A lot of work on local history is being done in Taiwan, and the only thing that I can say about it is that the local life they describe is exceedingly peculiar compared with the New Territories. What's coming out from Taiwan does not represent the same society at all; and I'm sure that the researchers in Taiwan are as eminently honest as we are. It seems you've got a divergence, but then we all know (for instance) that local Cantonese think that Chiuchaus are “barbarians” anyway, and the same goes for the Taiwanese. So almost certainly, there is a substantial cultural 'divide' between this part of Canton and Taiwan. Next speaker — Who wrote these classic works, and when? PH— Some of the classic works were written in the 20's, many of them are dated in the 30's, and some are as late as the 1940's. They were almost all by anthropologists, who were also people with a major political connection. In other words, they were senior figures in the KMT or they were people connected with the Communist party at the time; and their books were almost written in major cities of China like Shanghai, Nanking or Peking with a few in Canton. The villages that were being studied were close to, sometimes within walking distance of, those cities which themselves are situated in the most fertile parts of China. Hong Kong, as you know, is only a city by pure chance, being very mountainous and a poor and remote area. My own guess is that what you see in Hong Kong is probably more likely to be closer to the truth; in that two thirds of rural China is mountainous, poor, and far from the major cities. But whilst I wouldn't like to put my hand on my heart and say that it was true for the major areas at the doorsteps of the big cities, I think it is worth stressing that the work we are doing shows that one shouldn't try to say that all Chinese village life was this or that, because it almost certainly was not. DF— But the unity of China was not skin-deep. PH— The unity of China was not skin-deep, no, but some of the cultural and managerial practices were. At least, they differ from district to district. JH The impression we get, if we in Hong Kong now have to

Baseline (Original)

276 A lot of work on local history is being done in Taiwan, and the only thing that I can say about it is that the local life they describe is exceedingly peculiar compared with the New Territories. What's coming out from Taiwan does not represent the same soci- ety at all; and I'm sure that the researchers in Taiwan are as emi- nently honest as we are. It seems you've got a divergence, but then we all know (for instance) that local Cantonese think that Chiuchaus are “barbarians” anyway, and the same goes for the Taiwanese. So almost certainly, there is a substantial cultural 'divide' between this part of Canton and Taiwan. Next speaker — Who wrote these classic works, and when? PH-Some of the classic works were written in the 20's, many of them are dated in the 30's, and some are as late as the 1940's. They were almost all by anthropologists, who were also people with a major political connection. In other words, they were senior fig- ures in the KMT or they were people connected with the Commu- nist party at the time; and their books were almost written in major cities of China like Shanghai, Nanking or Peking with a few in Canton. The villages that were being studied were close to, sometimes within walking distance of, those cities which them- selves are situated in the most fertile parts of China. Hong Kong, as you know, is only a city by pure chance, being very mountain- ous and a poor and remote area. My own guess is that what you see in Hong Kong is probably more likely to be closer to the truth; in that two thirds of rural China is mountainous, poor, and far from the major cities. But whilst I wouldn't like to put my hand on my heart and say that it was true for the major areas at the doorsteps of the big cities, I think it is worth stressing that the work we are doing shows that one shouldn't try to say that all Chinese village life was this or that, because it almost certainly was not. DF But the unity of China was not skin-deep. PH- The unity of China was not skin-deep, no, but some of the cultural and managerial practices were. At least, they differ from district to district. JH — The impression we get, if we in Hong Kong now have to

2026-05-13 04:13:17 · Baseline

View content

276

A lot of work on local history is being done in Taiwan, and the only thing that I can say about it is that the local life they describe is exceedingly peculiar compared with the New Territories. What's coming out from Taiwan does not represent the same soci- ety at all; and I'm sure that the researchers in Taiwan are as emi- nently honest as we are. It seems you've got a divergence, but then we all know (for instance) that local Cantonese think that Chiuchaus are “barbarians” anyway, and the same goes for the Taiwanese. So almost certainly, there is a substantial cultural 'divide' between this part of Canton and Taiwan.

Next speaker — Who wrote these classic works, and when?

PH-Some of the classic works were written in the 20's, many of them are dated in the 30's, and some are as late as the 1940's. They were almost all by anthropologists, who were also people with a major political connection. In other words, they were senior fig- ures in the KMT or they were people connected with the Commu- nist party at the time; and their books were almost written in major cities of China like Shanghai, Nanking or Peking with a few in Canton. The villages that were being studied were close to, sometimes within walking distance of, those cities which them- selves are situated in the most fertile parts of China. Hong Kong, as you know, is only a city by pure chance, being very mountain- ous and a poor and remote area. My own guess is that what you see in Hong Kong is probably more likely to be closer to the truth; in that two thirds of rural China is mountainous, poor, and far from the major cities. But whilst I wouldn't like to put my hand on my heart and say that it was true for the major areas at the doorsteps of the big cities, I think it is worth stressing that the work we are doing shows that one shouldn't try to say that all Chinese village life was this or that, because it almost certainly was not.

DF But the unity of China was not skin-deep.

PH- The unity of China was not skin-deep, no, but some of the cultural and managerial practices were. At least, they differ from district to district.

RAS-1987 — Page 301

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note