Live data from Hacker News

Shanghai Before the Foreigners

jaapgrolleman.com

41–43 of 43 posts

Re: Shanghai Before the Foreigners

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you had read his books you wouldn't have been surprised. Is that condescending tone improving the discussion quality, what do you think? I have read at least Tai-Pan, Shogun and Gai-Jin. In Shogun it's harder to point out, but in the others sure. But they describe Western trade houses operating in Asia, so the themes you mention fit them quite well. It's been a while since I read the books, and I might feel diffe…

What does a "randian perspective" mean to you and why would the Clavell's admiration of Rand warrant the comment to "never meet your heroes"?

I enjoyed Clavell's books quite a bit when I read them, so I consider him a good writer. What I know about Rand tho is that she was quite the dummy (starting from naming her very subjective "philosophy" objectivism). Her books have typically been described as hollow (haven't read any and don't intend to). So it's somewhat disappointing to see Clavell admiring her.

By randian perspective I mean reading the books while particularly focusing on themes of liberalism, individualism and the like. Of which there is certainly plenty, but not limited to.

Re: Shanghai Before the Foreigners

#42
post #5

Nice share but after reading the article my existing view that the area of greater Shanghai was an agricultural area without substantial urban development until the opium wars is unchallenged. Nice to see some familiar spots. About 21 years ago I used to go to the Jing'An temple for lunch on weekends and chat with the monks. They had excellent vegetarian food in the temple, and often the monks would buy me lunch. If…

Nanjing, just an hour or so up the river, is multiple thousands of years old and is one of the most important historical cities in Chinese history. So it is really no surprise that Shanghai was not developed until foreign trade became important.

Not sure how you can mention Nanjing without Yangzhou, Suhzou and Hangzhou. Together they basically encircle modern Shanghai.

It is documented in the Tang Dynasty that boats from Japan bound for China would sometimes land along the coast of Jiangsu then the occupants would move inland. IIRC if riverborne the first small town they would reach was Nantong, and the first major town up-river would be Yangzhou. Approaching overland, they would no doubt be escorted directly to Yangzhou. Jiangsu seems to have essentially consisted of a vast canal network and agricultural lands. Presumably the Koreans hit Shandong (dodging pirates), and the South (India) and Southeast Asians (Philippines, Sumatra, Borneo, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia) hit Guangdong or Guangxi. Fujian, in the middle of these landing zones, had sometimes in history a flourishing trading culture, with Quanzhou IIRC the town from which historically attested Chinese Zhenghe expeditions departed as far as Southeast Asia, India, Arabia and Africa, and global religious communities are attested.

Zhenghe was himself a sufi muslim Eunuch born inland in the Himalayas at ~2200m altitude, last bastion of the purged Mongol-era ruling family of Yunnan, descended from the pre-Mongol invasion Emir of Bokhara, Uzbekistan, and through his family thought to be fluent in Persian, which was then something of a pan-regional lingua franca.

Despite this, the modern Chinese state narrative is that everyone is flat "Chinese". Further leaning on the Central Asian cultural nexus, it is worth re-stating that Li Bai, arguably classical China's most famous poet, was actually born in Kyrgyzstan and after moving to China lived primarily in the then-remote province of Sichuan, quite peripheral to northern Chinese culture, in fact the province was contemporaneously successfully invaded by the Tibeto-Burman rival kingdom of Nanzhao, whose still visible legacy includes undeniably Hindu grottoes carved in Sanskrit.

If you want to learn history, don't look at modern textbooks.

Re: Shanghai Before the Foreigners

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a "randian perspective" mean to you and why would the Clavell's admiration of Rand warrant the comment to "never meet your heroes"?

I enjoyed Clavell's books quite a bit when I read them, so I consider him a good writer. What I know about Rand tho is that she was quite the dummy (starting from naming her very subjective "philosophy" objectivism). Her books have typically been described as hollow (haven't read any and don't intend to). So it's somewhat disappointing to see Clavell admiring her. By randian perspective I mean reading the books while…

Atlas Shrugged was her objectivist/philosophy of selfishness novel and it's a terribly wooden and poorly written work of literature. The Fountainhead and Anthem were both written before the formalizing of objectivism and are much more philosophical novels of individualism. While Anthem does lean a little towards her philosophy of selfishness called "objectivism", The Fountainhead is almost completely absent of this. It is the most similar to Clavell's novels, in the way of it's individualist protagonist. Running themes in it include shirking of orthodoxy and cultural norms, and finding success against the odds to achieve lofty unorthodox individual goals, despite much easier orthodox life paths existing. I find it somewhat bewildering that it is sometimes referred to as a conservative novel when a running theme of the novel is to cast away conservative tradition in pursuit of the new progress, as is done by the iconoclastic protagonist.
Post reply on HN