At the elaborately renovated National Museum of China in Tiananmen Square, visitors interested in the recent history of the world’s fastest rising power can gaze at the cowboy hat that Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) once wore when he visited the United States, or admire the bullhorn that Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) used to exhort people to overcome hardship after the Sichuan Earthquake in 2008.
But if their interests run to the Cultural Revolution that tore the country apart from 1966 to 1976 and resulted in millions of deaths, they will have to search a back corner of the 186,000m2 museum, which will complete its opening this month, for a single photograph and three lines of text that are the only reference to that era.
China spent more than a decade and nearly US$400 million to remake the National Museum into a leading showcase of history and culture, a monument to its rising power no less grand — it is designed to be the world’s largest museum under one roof — and more enduring than the Olympic Games it hosted in 2008.
Photo: National Art Museum of China Via Bloomberg
But one tradition has remained firmly in place: China will not confront its own history. The museum is less the product of extensive research, discovery or creativity than the most prominent symbol of the Communist Party’s efforts to control the narrative of history and suppress alternative points of view, even those that exist within the governing elite. It is also an example of how China finds it difficult to create cultural institutions that prove equal to its economic achievements.
Interviews with participants describe a tortured reconstruction that dragged on years longer than envisioned, with plans constantly revised to accommodate political twists and turns, many decided personally by top party leaders.
Officials rejected proposals for a permanent historical exhibition that would have discussed the disasters of early Communist rule — especially the Great Leap Forward, a political campaign and resulting famine that killed more than 20 million. Some organizers also wanted a candid appraisal of the Cultural Revolution, a decade-long attack on traditional culture and learning, but that effort was squashed.
Instead, the authorities decided that the exhibition on contemporary China should focus, as did the museum before its extensive makeover, on the Party’s triumphs.
Another permanent exhibit, on China’s ancient history, also presents an idealized version of the past. It tells the uplifting story of Chinese ethnic groups pulling together to create “brilliant achievements.”
“The party wants to determine historical truth,” said Yang Jisheng (楊繼繩), a historian whose landmark book on the Great Leap Forward famine was banned in China. “It worries that if competing versions are allowed, then its legitimacy will be called into question.”
Many countries do not present their history in terms independent historians consider fully credible. US museums have been under pressure to account more fully for slavery. American Indians won a long battle to open their own museum on the Mall in Washington; other museums celebrate the westward expansion of the US but give short shrift to the displacement and killing of American Indians.
LACKING PERSPECTIVE
Even so, few countries can compete with China in so completely suppressing the shades of gray about their past. One result is that the Chinese public rarely has access, even on the Internet, to versions of history that differ from party propaganda, and popular support for some nationalist causes is sometimes even stronger than the party’s own stances. Many Chinese are bewildered, for example, that some Tibetans or Uighurs are dissatisfied with Chinese rule or that Japanese and Taiwanese might have differing views of China’s claims on their territory.
This means that the National Museum, which has been granted unlimited access to treasures and relics of China’s long history, has failed to escape the political constraints that for centuries have hobbled the study of Chinese history. Then, as now, rulers used history to shape the present, a leitmotif that has marked almost every era.
“A public museum in China is seldom about the past,” said Hung Chang-tai (洪長泰), a professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology who has written on the museum. “It is about the current image of the party and how the party wants itself to be seen.”
The National Museum has its roots in the Communist Party’s desire for a legacy. In his memoirs, Wang Yeqiu (王冶秋), who would become the museum’s director, recalls joining Communist troops as they entered Beijing in 1949 and making straight for a prison to secure a scaffold used in 1927 to hang one of the party’s founding members. The scaffold became the first item in the museum’s collection. But its opening in 1959 was marred by problems that would haunt it to the present — politics. Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai (周恩來) visited the proposed exhibition and said it did not emphasize the “red line”: the line of thought of Mao Zedong (毛澤東), the country’s supreme leader.
Over the next decades, the museum spent more time closed than open. It formally opened in 1961, then closed at the onset of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, reopening in 1979 and then going through a series of closings and openings as leaders strove for an interpretation of the past they could accept. The exhibition on contemporary history closed for good in 2001 as officials began to see the museum as an anachronism that did not promote a modern image to the outside world. That year, Beijing won its bid to host the 2008 Olympics, and officials were worried that the national capital would not be a worthy host. A year earlier, a British research institute rated Beijing a third-tier city on a par with Warsaw and Bangkok. The report was widely discussed in China, with officials noting that Beijing had no noteworthy museums or galleries.
What Beijing needed, officials decided, was a world-class museum in time for the Olympics. In the past, the site on Tiananmen Square actually housed two institutions: the Museum of Chinese History and the Museum of the Chinese Revolution. In 2003, the two were combined and renamed the National Museum of China, excising the Communist-sounding nomenclature. The name change also allowed for shows that did not directly touch on Chinese history, although history was to remain its focus.
Officials created an international architectural competition won by the large German firm Gerkan, Marg and Partner. The Germans called for a huge atrium, in which Chinese history could be exhibited overlooking important sites of the country’s past and present. Construction was to begin in 2005.
But senior officials rejected the plan, setting off years of meetings and redesigns, according to an official in the Ministry of Culture who asked to remain anonymous because of the issue’s delicacy. China’s cabinet, the State Council, weighed in, saying the new, arching roof would destroy the building’s original design. Other critics said the atrium was too grandiose, while the museum’s new director, himself an architect, wanted more floor space, according to participants in the meetings. The opening date was pushed back to Oct. 1, 2009, the 60th anniversary of Communist rule.
All told, there were seven major revisions. In the end, they kept a grand entrance hall — 260m long and 30m high — linking the two old wings. But most of the original open area was now filled with a giant new building. One of the primary goals was to make the museum the world’s largest.
“I got a call asking how many square meters is the Louvre,” recalled Martin Roth, director of Dresden’s state museums and an informal consultant to the museum for a decade. “Then 10 minutes later another call asking how many square meters is the British Museum. I said, ‘You guys are sitting with the architects and are figuring out how to be the biggest, right?’ They laughed and said yes.”
Chinese officials are reticent about the new museum. Repeated requests over two months for interviews with the museum director or other senior officials were rebuffed. Instead, online publicity material was printed and faxed in response to written questions.
Finally, in 2006, a member of the nine-man Standing Committee of the Politburo, Li Changchun (李長春), gave the go-ahead and an official notice was issued by the State Council. Construction began in 2007, but the opening date was again pushed back until this year.
As officials debated the architecture, they also scrutinized the content. Although the museum now has a broader focus than before — one exhibition late this month will survey Incan civilization — its centerpieces are two permanent exhibitions on Chinese history, one on its ancient past and one looking at the past 150 years.
The biggest — taking up a quarter of the entire exhibition space — is Ancient China, a mammoth survey of thousands of years of history scheduled to open on April 15.The exhibition walks a delicate line. Organized by Chinese dynasties, it tries to show how all of the 56 ethnic groups in today’s China have always worked together harmoniously. Even the Mongolian Empire, which conquered China in the 12th century, is made part of the story. It is referred to as a precursor of today’s multicultural China.
REBUFFED
“It ignores the conflicts, which real history shouldn’t do,” said an archaeology professor at Peking University who asked to remain anonymous because of the issue’s delicacy. “This is why I would not call this exhibition real history but propaganda.”
According to the archaeologist, who was consulted on the exhibition, a panel of experts considered other versions of history, but this was quickly rebuffed. Officials from the party’s Propaganda Department, who were observing the meetings, said the museum should adopt a policy to “emphasize precious objects.” That is reflected in the final product, which will feature 2,520 “precious objects,” including 521 “first-class precious objects.”
Politics, by contrast, defines the other exhibit, The Road to Rejuvenation, which recounts the history of China from the First Opium War of 1839 to the present day. This was the exhibit that in past years was fraught with the most blatant simplifications — and the new one is no different.
The general story line, ingrained in every Chinese student, is that China was humiliated by Western powers. Then some well-meaning but misguided patriots took up the fight until they were properly led by the Communists, whose inevitable victory in 1949 started China’s recovery. After “building socialism” during the Communists’ first 30 years in power, the country took off during the past 30 years of reform. There is no discussion of why the party dropped central planning policies in the late 1970s, or even that such a momentous shift took place.
In the 1990s, museum curators proposed a much franker look at the problems that led to the current era of reform. Initially, they designed a section called “10 years of tortuous development” on the 1950s and 1960s, including the Great Leap Forward’s devastating famine, according to Kirk Denton, a professor at Ohio State University who is writing a book on China’s museums. Curators proposed a similar section in the current exhibit, arguing that this era was decades in the past and the party now strong enough to withstand criticism. That idea was rejected, however, after a lengthy debate, according to Ministry of Culture officials.
In the end, the famine, widely regarded as the worst in recorded history, is only euphemistically mentioned by the phrase that “the project of constructing socialism suffered severe complications.”
Meanwhile, the Cultural Revolution was reduced to the photograph and brief caption.
Likewise, there is no mention of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989 or the disgraced party secretary, Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽), who helped pioneer economic reforms but was forced out of power after the unrest that year.
Instead, the exhibition features relatively anodyne objects such as Deng’s cowboy hat and Hu’s bullhorn. It also displays “A double-edged sword inlaid with diamonds, presented to Hu Jintao from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.”
Some visitors said they had hoped for more. Zhang Zhencai, a 65-year-old retired storeroom manager in a logistics company, said he expected a closer look at the first 30 years of Communist rule.
“I wondered why there was not more on it,” Zhang said. “The younger generation should see all that history, so they are able to compare it to what we have today.” His wife, Wang Jusheng, however, said she was not surprised: “What happened in those years, especially the late 1950s and 1960s, were mostly errors.”
In the mainstream view, the Philippines should be worried that a conflict over Taiwan between the superpowers will drag in Manila. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr observed in an interview in The Wall Street Journal last year, “I learned an African saying: When elephants fight, the only one that loses is the grass. We are the grass in this situation. We don’t want to get trampled.” Such sentiments are widespread. Few seem to have imagined the opposite: that a gray zone incursion of People’s Republic of China (PRC) ships into the Philippines’ waters could trigger a conflict that drags in Taiwan. Fewer
March 18 to March 24 Yasushi Noro knew that it was not the right time to scale Hehuan Mountain (合歡). It was March 1913 and the weather was still bitingly cold at high altitudes. But he knew he couldn’t afford to wait, either. Launched in 1910, the Japanese colonial government’s “five year plan to govern the savages” was going well. After numerous bloody battles, they had subdued almost all of the indigenous peoples in northeastern Taiwan, save for the Truku who held strong to their territory around the Liwu River (立霧溪) and Mugua River (木瓜溪) basins in today’s Hualien County (花蓮). The Japanese
Pei-Ru Ko (柯沛如) says her Taipei upbringing was a little different from her peers. “We lived near the National Palace Museum [north of Taipei] and our neighbors had rice paddies. They were growing food right next to us. There was a mountain and a river so people would say, ‘you live in the mountains,’ and my friends wouldn’t want to come and visit.” While her school friends remained a bus ride away, Ko’s semi-rural upbringing schooled her in other things, including where food comes from. “Most people living in Taipei wouldn’t have a neighbor that was growing food,” she says. “So
Whether you’re interested in the history of ceramics, the production process itself, creating your own pottery, shopping for ceramic vessels, or simply admiring beautiful handmade items, the Zhunan Snake Kiln (竹南蛇窯) in Jhunan Township (竹南), Miaoli County, is definitely worth a visit. For centuries, kiln products were an integral part of daily life in Taiwan: bricks for walls, tiles for roofs, pottery for the kitchen, jugs for fermenting alcoholic drinks, as well as decorative elements on temples, all came from kilns, and Miaoli was a major hub for the production of these items. The Zhunan Snake Kiln has a large area dedicated