Cultural Reconstruction

A moving and reflective article by Leon Wieseltier on "Cultural Reconstruction" for the Jewish people, after their population, communities and heritage were devastated by the Holocaust. In it, he discusses a dialogue between Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt, noted historians and philosophers of Jewish ancestry about a major enterprise to recover artifacts, and above all, books that had been left behind and scattered throughout Europe.


Here is an excerpt of a key passage:


In 1944, Arendt prepared a "Tentative List of Jewish Cultural Treasures in Axis-Occupied Countries" for the Commission on European Jewish Cultural Reconstruction, and in 1948 she became executive director of Jewish Cultural Reconstruction, for whom she went on an extended fact-finding mission in Europe in 1949 - 1950, searching for Jewish ceremonial objects and, mainly, for Jewish books. [She catalogs these remaining cultural inheritances and documents the efforts to return them to the libraries they came from before the war.]


...


Arendt writes to Scholem about her investigations. He writes back to her with his characteristic ferocity of purpose. It makes no sense to restore the books to localities that have no more Jews. He wants them to be allocated to the place where Jews will use them--to Jerusalem. "I herewith file the claim of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with regard to the material in France." "I feel that the Bavarian archives should be allocated to the Hebrew University." He cannot understand why Hermann Cohen's library would be shipped anywhere else. He asks Arendt to send him the full list of the rare books at the huge depot in Wiesbaden. He insists upon the "priority rights" of the Hebrew University to "things which exist only in one copy," and to archives that "are of general Jewish historical significance." His goal is a living and self-respecting culture, which must be built on a foundation of books, and even manuscripts.


Jewish Cultural Reconstruction recovered 1.5 million Jewish books. What are 1.5 million recovered books, next to 6 million unrecovered people? It is a fair question, except that there was nothing petty or indecent about this bibliophilia. This was a campaign for the re-capture of a people's dignity. Its objective was to affirm the sovereignty of the Jews over their own resources. The book-hunt in the ruins was based on a proper understanding of the historical role, and the spiritual power, of the books that were hunted. They are the edifices of the Jews. I hold my palaces in my hands. My cathedrals are on my shelves. One loves books because one loves life. Is it possible any longer to grasp that books once meant so much? Does anybody still weep for lost books? It is an illusion that digitalization has made culture less vulnerable: it has invented a new method of erasure. I can morbidly imagine a day when they come for the Kindles, and the only way to save a piece of a culture will be to print out a book and take the paper into hiding, until hell passes. The common enemy of Scholem and Arendt was oblivion.


Oblivion comes in many forms. There is natural oblivion, the Ozymandian kind, the ordinary forgetfulness that secures the future against the disabling suspicion that everything has already been done; and there is unnatural oblivion, coerced oblivion, the apparently ineradicable desire to wipe some group or some culture from the face of the earth. A people that has suffered unnatural oblivion will find it hard to acquiesce in the natural sort, because it looks like disappearance by another name. It is said that the "memory" of the computer marks the end of oblivion. I think not: cyberspace, too, is a sinkhole. The only defense against oblivion is the human defense--the will to remember, to defy time, which must be nurtured with reasons. War is not the only circumstance that enjoins cultural reconstruction.

孟子與兩岸關系

新加坡聯合早報 2010年10月31日
http://realtime.zaobao.com.sg/2010/10/101031_23.shtml

　　（綜合訊）中廣新聞報道，臺灣馬英九今天在參加一貫道活動時，引用孟子梁惠王篇「唯仁者為能以大事小，唯智者為能以小事大」*，比喻兩岸關系，馬英九說，大陸應該以仁道對待臺灣，而臺灣要善用智慧與對方打交道。

　　一貫道玉山寶光聖堂今天舉行一貫學制測驗，馬英九受邀致詞，特別引用孟子梁惠王篇中，齊宣王問孟子「交鄰國有道乎？」的章句形容兩岸關系。他說，兩岸隔海分治，大陸是大國、臺灣是“小國”；大陸要用仁與臺灣打交道，而臺灣要用善於運用智慧。孟子2500年前所講的道理，到現在還適用。

　　馬英九表示，中華文化並非無為而治，而是進取而不掠奪、進步而不害人，了解四書五經中的道理，要找出裏面有哪些道理是已經過時的，又有哪些是仍然適用的，可培養更好的世界觀。

*白話文翻譯：只有仁人能以大國的地位侍奉小國，只有聰明的人能以 小國的地位侍奉大國。

Protest over Mandarin

As much as we love Chinese culture, China still needs to learn the virtues of tolerance and respect for other cultures. There is beauty in diversity ... a society that is diverse can eventually be harmonious too, if there is responsible and moral governance. Social harmony is not created simply because we all speak one single common language (Mandarin) at the expense of other local languages.

Another Province, another protest over Mandarin
http://shanghaiist.com/2010/10/21/another_province_another_protest_ov.php

On Tuesday, a group of Tibetan students in Rebkong took to protesting over educational reforms that require all subjects be taught in Chinese except for Tibetan and English language classes. The students were reportedly chanting, "We want equality of culture" and number estimates go from as low as 800 up to 6,000 demonstrators. Police did not interfere with the protest, but its leaders were warned they would be expelled if the demonstration continued.

If you look past the inflammatory statements and propaganda certain groups are throwing around (because the demonstrations are Tibetan), you'll see that the objections the students raise aren't unique to that region, or even to China. However it does voice some important concerns of the trade-off between efficiency of communication and linguistic diversity. Especially with a country as massive as this one, it's proving to be a complicated balancing act.

While many European languages usually have some overlap, even dialects in China are mostly mutually unintelligible. Shanghainese and Mandarin are perfect, easy examples of that. Mandarin has been the lingua franca of China since the Qing dynasty and has became even stronger since 1949 when the Communist party encouraged its use. But many groups have been complaining about how dialects or languages other than Mandarin are being pushed aside to the point of elimination in favor of this standard.

Similar protests of this nature have occurred elsewhere, at home and overseas. Pro-Cantonese demonstrations were sparked in Guangzhou and in Hong Kong this summer when bureaucrats proposed to air prime-time shows in Mandarin instead of Cantonese to accommodate for the upcoming Asian Games. Even Singapore saw a similar backlash against its Speak Mandarin campaign.

As a Hong Kong Cantonese, I empathize fully with the Tibetan students' concerns over the thought of linguistic elimination. I know I'll lament any toll Mandarin might take on Cantonese as the SAR reintegrates further into the mainland. Nonetheless, I don't think that's any reason not to learn the standard language of the nation. Shanghai is a perfect example of a region that has a good handle of Putonghua while still retaining the strong use of Shanghainese--proof that Mandarin can be implemented with minimal damage to local dialects.

Whether or not Mandarin should be promoted in schools across the whole nation isn't really up for debate. It needs to be, no matter how you look at it--especially in regions like Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang where Mandarin fluency is poor. What we should be discussing are the ways to ensure that the beauty and richness of local languages do not fall by the wayside while we learn a common language.

Hold on to the things that you are

John Stanmeyer, an award-winning photographer, published a new book of photos about Balinese culture, called "Island of the Spirits." He was interviewed by The New York Times about the endeavour. Photos and the full interview are available here. In the Q&A, he expresses some very heartfelt and meaningful thoughts about cultural preservation and why it matters.

"This is a book, in many ways, for the Balinese. The Balinese culture is under severe stress from development and modernity. How much longer will the Balinese even be speaking their own language? How much longer will people be able to read the ancient Sanskrit texts?

I’m intense and passionate about it because I do feel in some regards, around the world, we’re having cultural genocide. Cultures are vanishing. We’re homogenizing ourselves across the planet. We have language loss on an epic level and we have cultural loss on an equally epic level. And that I find to be tragic, especially when you have rich, ancient cultures that haven’t changed for so long but now are on the verge of a breaking point.

It’s not a Western innovation anymore. Look at development in Asia. The biggest number of tourists coming to Bali right now are Chinese and Japanese. We should have the freedom to intermingle and experience the brilliance of life, wherever it may be. But what’s happening is that a lot of traditions that have taken millenniums to build and evolve are now becoming tragically dismantled.

Boy, when you look at this book and Balinese society, you don’t want this to be lost. It’s very much a reminder to the Balinese to hold on to what they have. And it’s a reminder to all cultures on earth to hold on to what you have. Don’t fall victim to the Nike shirt, to blue jeans. Hold on to the things that are you, because sooner or later the next generation isn’t going to know it and we’ll forget it and it will be lost.

Woot! Culture +1

胡同 community gets a reprieve for now.
Come on, go go go! 加油！

China: Redevelopment Plan Scrapped for Historic Beijing Neighborhood
By MICHAEL WINES
September 7, 2010

Beijing officials have shelved a much-attacked plan to redevelop the Gulou Drum Tower neighborhood, a warren of alleys and small homes dating from the Qing and Ming dynasties, into a tourist spot with high-end stores, The Beijing Times reported.

The alleys, called hutongs, are among the few historic residential areas that have not been demolished in the city’s rush to accommodate a fast-growing population and capitalize on ballooning land prices. The redevelopment plan called for the hutongs and the old Drum Tower, a Beijing landmark, to accommodate a new museum of timekeeping, a high-end underground shopping center and parking.

Most residents had been awaiting an order to move out. The newspaper quoted an unidentified city official as saying the so-called Time Cultural City is “a thing of the past,” but said the neighborhood’s future remained unclear.

Character amnesia (提筆忘字) - 你忘了嗎？

漢字包含了中國的傳統美學、文化淵源等，是中國文化的載體和根。中國人連漢字都寫不好，如何談文化傳承？

The Straits Times: Prime News Aug 27, 2010
http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_571488.html

HONG KONG: Like every Chinese child, Li Hanwei spent her schooldays memorising thousands of the intricate characters that make up the Chinese writing system.

Now 21 and a university student in Hong Kong, she admits she is finding it difficult to write some characters.

'I can remember the shape, but I can't remember the strokes that you need to write it,' she said.

Surveys show that the phenomenon, dubbed 'character amnesia', is widespread across China, causing Chinese to fear for the future of their ancient writing system.

A poll commissioned by the China Youth Daily in April found that 83 per cent of the 2,072 respondents admitted having problems writing characters.

Young Japanese people also report the problem, which is caused by the constant use of computers and mobile phones with alphabet-based input systems. There is even a Chinese phrase for it: tibi-wangzi, which means literally 'pick up pen, forget character'.

As a result, Ms Li said, she has become almost dependent on her phone. 'When I can't remember, I will take out my cellphone, find (the character) and then copy it down,' she said.

Agreeing, Mr Zeng Ming, 22, from the southern Guangdong province, added: 'I think it's a young people's problem, or at least a computer users' problem.'

The problem is common among young Japanese as well.

'We rely too much on the conversion function on our phones and PCs,' said Ms Ayumi Kawamoto, 23. 'I've mostly forgotten characters I learnt in middle and high school and I tend to forget the characters I use only occasionally.'

Tokyo student Maya Kato, 22, said: 'I hardly write any more, which is the main reason why I have forgotten so many characters. It is frustrating because I always almost remember the character, and lose it at the last minute.'

Chinese characters are so complex that communist leader Mao Zedong told United States journalist Edgar Snow in 1936: 'Sooner or later, we believe, we will have to abandon characters altogether if we are to create a new social culture in which the masses fully participate.'
Mao eventually chose to simplify many characters into forms that are now the standard in mainland China.

Some argue that the perceived decline in character knowledge is, in fact, nothing to worry about.

A survey by the southern Chinese news portal Dayang Net, found that 80 per cent of respondents had forgotten how to write some characters - but 43 per cent said they needed to write only for signatures and form-filling.

'The idea that China is a country full of people who write beautiful, fluid literature in characters without a second thought is a romantic fantasy,' wrote blogger and translator C. Custer on his Chinageeks blog.

The explosion of Internet and phone technology has itself led to the creation of new words and forms of writing. In 2008, Chinese people were sending 175 billion text messages each quarter, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

Still, Ms Li and Mr Zeng were concerned enough about their character amnesia that they started to keep a handwritten diary.
Asked when else they would pick up a pen, Ms Li said after a pause: 'When I have to sign the back of my new credit card.'

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Pinyin and the spread of character amnesia:

Character amnesia happens because most Chinese people nowadays use electronic input systems based on pinyin, which renders Chinese characters into the Roman alphabet. After a user enters a word in pinyin, the device throws up a menu of characters matching the word. The user needs only to recognise the character he is looking for and click it. In Japan, where three writing systems are combined into one, mobile phones and computers use only the simpler hiragana and katakana scripts for inputting and leave out kanji, which uses Chinese characters. Character amnesia matters because memorisation is so crucial to character-based written languages, according to assistant professor of linguistics Siok Wai Ting at Hong Kong University. Forgetting how to write could eventually affect reading ability. ''There is no way we can learn the writing systematically because the writing itself is not systematic - we have to memorise, we have to learn by rote,'' she said. ''Through writing, we memorise the characters. Reading and writing are more closely connected in Chinese,'' she added. Chinese language and literature professor Victor Mair at the University of Pennsylvania says character amnesia is a part of a 'natural process of evolution''. ''The reasons why characters are innately difficult to enter into computers and mobile phones are innate to the character-based writing systems themselves,'' he said. ''There are no magic bullets that will make it easy to input characters,'' he added.

如果技術發展所帶來的只是進一步吞噬我們的傳統文化，那我們應該反思 - 課堂教學對於技術的依賴性，以及老師和家長對孩子認讀和書寫漢字的督促有待加強。再也沒有更便利的捷徑，還是老老實實地多讀多寫吧!

The Revival Begins ...

I saw this piece in the NY Times, and I was absolutely stunned by the beauty and the sense of what might be.

"Music Bridges the Political Divide Between China and Taiwan"

When a Taiwan music ensemble performed its reconstruction of Chinese imperial court music last year in Beijing, it marked not just a cultural milestone, but a political one.

The concert provided a rare opportunity to hear ancient sounds salvaged from a nearly vanished musical tradition. The 3,000-year-old genre known as yayue, or “elegant music,” faded with the collapse of dynastic rule in 1911, and nearly succumbed to the later Maoist assault on “feudalistic” elements of China’s past. [e.g. the Cultural Revolution].

But it was also a chance for people from both sides of the long-divided Taiwan Strait to compare notes on which parts of their joint Chinese heritage have been preserved, or not.

“The audience response was quite strong. Many were hearing this music for the first time,” said Xie Jiaxing, director of the China Conservatory in Beijing, which had invited the Yayue Ensemble of Nanhua University to perform in the capital.

“For political reasons, we haven’t done enough to research yayue,” Mr. Xie said. “Taiwan’s Nanhua University has done a really good job in this respect. Afterwards, our students wrote to the school saying how happy they were to discover such a great treasure in ancient Chinese culture, even though they don’t really understand it.”

I am suffused with joy and pride and a deeply emotional sense of possibility ... despite the horrific harm and damage that it suffered on the Mainland in the 20th century, maybe Chinese culture can make a comeback. Taiwan is a treasury of Traditional Chinese Culture, and now it has a chance to share it with the Mainland.

We have cultural elements that have been preserved and are continuing to be lived all over the Sinic world -- Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, other Overseas Communities in SE Asia. 希望可以讓他傳回中國.

Chen Huei-ying, director-general of the cultural and education affairs department of the Mainland Affairs Council, the Taiwan government body in charge of policies toward China, sees benefits. “Cultural exchanges are helpful to peaceful development of cross-strait relations,” he said. “They increase understanding and appreciation for each other and especially feelings people on each side have for one another.”

They are also allowing mainland Chinese visitors to see how their culture evolved on Taiwan, shielded from the Communist campaigns against many traditional practices.

Some folk customs — such as the worship of Mazu, the sea goddess — thrive here in ways they no longer do on the mainland. Chinese temples are seeking help from their Taiwanese counterparts on how to revive Mazu festivals.

These kinds of folk practices and traditional customs, which were discarded or forgotten on the Mainland -- now there's a way they can start to be explored, and maybe become relevant to people's lives again. Because there is meaning there, in the past and in traditions that have been passed down for generations -- an inheritance which we have not only the responsibility, but also the wonderful privilege to explore.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/arts/21iht-music.html

《預見中國 - 通過孔子而思》—— A Talk by Roger T. Ames

We attended this talk on Confucianism at Tsinghua Science Park 19:00-21:30 tonight.

A little background on the speaker:
Currently a professor at University of Hawaii's Department of Philosophy, Prof. Roger T. Ames spent many years abroad in China and Japan studying Chinese Philosophy. He has been Visiting Professor at National Taiwan University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Peking University, and has lectured extensively around the world. His publications include 《預見中國-對中國與西方文化的思索與詳述》、《對孔子思想的思索》、《道德经的哲学释义：让生命更有意义》etc.

We all know that China has no predominant religion, and that the term "Philosophy" has its Western origins... However, it may be contended that Confucianism has religious roots, as there is a form of ethical and moral guiding principle behind it. So, how should Confucianism be perceived in the Chinese society? Is it some sort of guiding principle in the Chinese way of life? What exactly is its significance in contemporary China? Are the post-80s and 90s youngsters concerned with Confucianism? Do they even practise any of its teachings?

Throughout the talk, a central takeaway: Instead of viewing China through Western lens, we need to understand China in the Chinese context, via her philosophy, culture and way of thought.

The talk kicked off with one of the most classic quotes from 《論語》:

有子曰：“禮之用，和為貴。先王之道，斯為美。小大由之，有所不行。知和而和，不以禮節之，亦不可行也。”---《論語，學而第一》

He made a comparison between Western and Chinese culture: the classic "Individualism VS Collectivism". Contrary to Western belief of an almighty God, the Chinese adopts a humanistic and more people-oriented approach in their daily personal relations. The "family system" (家庭制度) is highly emphasized, often seen as the root of social harmony (和) and stability.

Next up, it was a debate on Confucius's position toward justice and ethics.

葉公子高問於孔子曰：‘吾黨直躬者，其父攘羊，而子證之。何如？’孔子曰：‘不可。吾黨之直者異於是：父為子隱，子為父隱。’ --- 《邵氏聞見後錄卷十三》

In this case, Confucius believes that from the perspectives of filial piety (with reference to 《孝經》),the son should not testify against the father who stole a lamb. Is this ethical, is it justified? Can we still do this in modern society? Is Confucius's serving principle always just? Apparently, using the notion of "ethics" and "justice", we are viewing Confucianism from a Western lens. In the Chinese context, however, it may be regarded that personal relations form the bedrock of society. When this becomes distorted, perhaps it becomes a convenient excuse to corrupt? We need to note that, at times, Confucianism may seem irrational and unfair because it seems to prioritize personal relations over social justice.

Prof. Ames proceeded to illustrate how absolute principles can become a problem in real life: In the Hawaiian context, a princess of the Kamehameha Dynasty, established Kamehameha schools to educate native Hawaiians in the spirit of cultural preservation. It was intended to benefit indigents and orphans,with preference given to native Hawaiians. It became controversial because there were critics who claim that "everyone should have equal rights to education", and that the Kamehameha schools discriminate against the other races by denying them of a chance to be educated in these schools. Hence, this goes to show that we cannot rely on absolute principles to question these schools in this context. And similarly, China and the western world are vastly different. According to him, we should not be imposing American standards or theories (like Democracy? Human Rights? Freedom?) onto China. True, to a certain extent. But what political model has China adopted thus far? Authoritarian-styled? Pursuing economic development at all costs? The irony is that Chinese society has seemed to embrace Westernization in whole (in terms of expressions of liberalization in the people's way of lives), yet they bemoan and attribute the loss of tradition and culture to Westernization, instead of their own doing --- Cultural Revolution(!)

And when we talk about China, very often, the word "morality" comes into picture. Confucius talks about “恕”(Morality): 設身處地為他人著想 (Putting oneself in another's place and doing one's best (忠).“仁” is seen as a consummate person/conduct. Ethics is viewed as a form of sustaining satisfactory inter-personal relations.

Following which, Prof. Ames continued with a description of "human beings" (western concept - expressed by 2 disjointed sets) --> "human becomings" (chinese concept - the process of becoming humans; expressed by 2 overlapping sets) It is assumed that the growth of relationships justifies relations between people. The example of abortion was used to illustrate the point about "individuality": (1) It's the mother's right to abortion; (2) The fetus has the right to live. In this case, "individuality" as an accomplishment, becomes distinguished in relations.

There was constant emphasis on “仁 = 自愛”；“仁”在這個世界上永遠在“關系”中生長出來．This is manifested in Confucius's “因材施教” --> based on each disciple's personality, Confucius acknowledged each of their answers to “仁”. For instance，子贡：“使人愛己”；颜回：“自愛”（實際是愛別人，珍惜你和周圍人的一切)。

Also, potentiality is not an individual's problem, it's more interlinked with the external environment. Potentiality exists in a process and the importance of the surroundings cannot be more emphasized. Think 孟母三遷 => we can change our environments.

On Prof. Ames' new research: Role Ethics

君子務本，本立而道生。孝弟也者，其為人之本與？

The Question: 先有家庭還是先有人？
=> Roles as concrete "grandmother" him, "brother" him, etc! In role ethics, people base their personal relations on the roles they play. Concrete conduct is viewed as the source of principles and virtues. The "father" and "son" relation appeared simultaneously and is relative to each other.

The Zhou/Mao Saga

It all started from this New York Times article:

"Rival Museums Retrace Route of China's Imperial Treasures" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/arts/design/07treasures.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)

The article chronicles the joint efforts by the National Palace Museum in Taipei and the Palace Museum in Beijing to retrace the steps of the imperial collection—an important repository of Chinese culture—after it was packed up and evacuated in advance of the Japanese invasion of 1937. The dedication of the museum staff (curators, historians, archaeologists and even laborers) in safeguarding the artifacts on that arduous journey from Beijing to Chongqing is extremely inspiring.

The piece is generally well-written; however, there’s a bit of a factual error that we are very concerned about. The reporter claims that “During the Cultural Revolution, when Red Guards tried to destroy anything associated with tradition, Mao ordered the museum protected.”


Yet the texts we have encountered cite Zhou Enlai protecting the museum—probably at some personal risk, as he was swimming against the political tide. (We have consulted several sources and also checked with China scholars).

In contrast, Mao spearheaded the Cultural Revolution, publicly condoning the actions of the Red Guards and sanctioning the destruction of cultural artifacts everywhere. Not only did he author the piece “Bombard the Headquarters” and proclaim that “to rebel is justified,” [1] he also presided over massive demonstrations where millions of Red Guards from all over the country were exhorted to “Smash the Four Olds”—old thoughts, old culture, old habits, old customs. [2] Central authorities made statements that relics were to be considered “spirit kings and little devils that must be thoroughly smashed along with the anti-Party anti-socialist blackguards.” [3]

MacFarquhar and Schoenhals’ highly-regarded history of the Cultural Revolution explicitly notes:

“The Forbidden City (Palace Museum) escaped only because Zhou Enlai got wind of a planned Red Guard attack. On August 18 he had the gates closed and ordered the Beijing Garrison to send troops to protect it; on August 28, he told [Red Guard] representatives ... that the Forbidden City, the Great Hall of the People, the broadcasting station, newspaper offices, and airfields were absolutely off-limits. But when Zhou tried to follow up [the warning] by issuing a nationwide directive down to county and regimental levels, listing a wide variety of protected establishments, Mao vetoed the document.” (Mao’s Last Revolution, p.118-119)

In public, Mao assiduously cultivated an appearance of supporting the Red Guards. He condemned relics of the "feudal" past, and supported the smashing of anything associated with the "Four Olds." From this source and numerous others, Mao did not appear interested in protecting cultural artifacts or historical sites—and even willfully prevented actions (like Zhou’s) that would have mitigated the destruction, not to mention the torture and deaths of countless people.

Perhaps Mao did enjoy the Palace Museum collection in private—who knows what hypocrisy took place behind closed doors? (One source noted how he grabbed ancient books from the houses looted by Red Guards for his personal collection.) But conjecture aside, when it comes down to real consequences, his words and actions visited terrible harm on Chinese culture.

We are highly concerned at this misleading portrayal in The New York Times, a “newspaper of record.” On matters of historical responsibility and legacy, we should strive to give credit where credit is due. We should also disclose the full story: it would be tragic if readers who are not familiar with this period become confused about what happened during the Cultural Revolution. How inappropriate if they mistakenly came to believe that Mao was a great defender of Chinese culture, when in fact, he was one of the people who green-lighted its destruction!

So, we started writing letters to Prof. Shambaugh, Mr. Barboza, his news assistant and NYT editor.

Prof. Shambaugh's 1st response to our letter:

"You are right that it was Zhou Enlai who ordered the Gugong protected during the GPCR. So, technically this is true, but Mao likely also approved the order. So I don't think the quotation is wholly inaccurate. Please don't bother Mr. Barboza about this matter."

His 2nd response:

"I am glad you read the book and are interested in this subject! It
is a fascinating subject worthy of much more research!"

This coming from a well-respected Professor, we were conveniently snubbed! He wasn't interested to discuss further. It seems like he wasn't entirely sure of his theory either.

Following which, we proceeded to contact Mr. Barboza's news assistant, Angela Bao Beibei. Her *official* reply came swiftly:

"Hi this is Angela Bao from New york times shanghai bureau and David's research assistant. Thanks for expressing such deep concerns over our stories and your persistence in pursuing truth is awesome. but what we wrote in the article that Mao ordered the palace museum protected was not from us, it is a quote from Porf.David shambaugh.

In an email that prof.shambaugh wrote to us, he said it's Mao and zhou enlai who personally intervened the destructive actions. he wrote very clearly and we wrote back to confirm, and he said yes again. maybe he didn't give credits to Mao in his book, but he did say so in the email to us. he read our story before it's run and add the sentence that Mao and zhou enlai personally intervened the destruction in.

before many other serious scholars and students like you have written to us to ask why the credits didn't go to Zhou enlai, we replied in the same way. Prof.Shambaugh is a very respected professor in this area and he confirmed that Mao involved in the palace museum protection, so it's our responsibility to publish what he said.

Please contact prof.Shambaugh if you have any other questions. Thanks."

Isn't it TOTALLY WEIRD that she mentioned Prof. Shambaugh said clearly it was BOTH Mao and Zhou who personally intervened the destructive actions, and yet the article published conveniently omitted Zhou Enlai? Is this RESPONSIBLE reporting, at all?

Next up, Mr. Barboza replied:

"I have written a story about how the rival museums are working together not about what role mao and zhou enlai played in the cultural revolution. I quoted mr shambaugh fairly and understand that it bothers you that zhou enlai was not mentioned.My story is not a history of the cultural revolution and in the course of writing journalism many things are edited out for space and other considerations. But we strive to be objective and fair. Every article I write, by its very nature, omits some important references. So don't treat this as the last word on the subject or a historical document. Professor shambaugh said mao played a role. ."

Urmmm is this what you call "objective and fair", when you only rely on a single source to decide who is the defender of Chinese culture?!? (This is how we readers infer from your article!) Why do you worship Prof. Shambaugh's theory like GOD? Goodness!

The night ended with my NYT intern friend telling us to stop writing letters to Mr. Barboza, since it's most likely they know it's an obvious mistake, and yet they can't admit it; and that journalists do not have much time to plow through academic stuff. HM... ?