John Fitzgerald (2)

A well-researched academic history of Chinese and the anti-Chinese policies of the Australian government.

When I discovered from the Australian Women Writers Challenge that a wide variety of peoples had migrated to Australia, I was fascinated. I know the story of immigration to America and the opposition to immigrants this nation has periodically displayed. I was curious about how immigration had played out in Australia. This book was a first step toward learning that story.

Fitzgerald has specialized in researching Chinese history and teaching it in Australia. He is well qualified to write this book and has thoroughly researched the topic, identifying misconceptions that Australians have had about the Chinese in their country. Without any background in Australian history, I stumbled at times trying to follow events and debates he assumed I understood.

His main points, however, were clear. Chinese had filled important roles in Australian history, not simply as laborers but as leaders of businesses and reform organizations. Given the relative closeness of China and Australia, they often provided links between the two countries. They created their own organizations in Australia and worked in reform movements in China before the fall of the Manchu dynasty. Individuals and ideas moved back and forth more than was possible for Chinese migrants who went to the United States.

As Fitzgerlad explains, Australians were narrow-minded in defining themselves and excluding Chinese by declaring that the Chinese lacked particular Australian values of freedom, justice, and “mateship.” As their activities show, the Chinese did not lack these values. Countries need to define themselves in universal human terms, not the more limited national ones.

I found Fitzgerald’s book helpful, if not ideal for me. I recommend it to others interested in the topic and somewhat knowledgeable about Australian history.… (mais)

This book uses the metaphor of “awakening China” to demonstrate how it moved from the almost feudal Qing dynasty to mobilize the Chinese people into a nation-state. Fitzgerald’s focus is on revolutionaries who helped shape Chinese nationalism. He focuses on leading theorists, including Kang Youwei, Sun Yatsen, and Mao Zedong, as well as writers of fiction, who wrote heroic novels and poetry.
The nationalist movement was not a simple progression, but was filled with fits and starts. The initial reforms suggested by Kang were crushed and the 1911 revolution led by Sun’s Revolutionary Alliance collapsed into a network of warlords. With the establishment of the Kuomintang (KMT) in 1912, Sun embarked on yet another nationalist enterprise that would have more success. In the light of the twenty-first century, Sun may not seem terribly revolutionary, especially when compared to the radical Kang a generation earlier. In the 1910’s, however, Sun’s ideas of democracy, nationalism and social welfare represented an enormous break with tradition. Yet Sun did not make this break on his own. Fitzgerald suggests that Sun’s ideas were a result of an increased intellectual dialogue in China on politics and society. Near the end of his life, Sun shifted his ideas to suit the changing times and included a call for a strong party-state to ensure national unity and strength. Although he meant the KMT, this would eventually be the model taken by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) when they established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949.

The party-state was made possible by an enormous propaganda machine that utilized cultural icons to energize the support of the people. This could be an awakening dragon or a lion defending its cubs. The party’s propaganda also included novelists and poets, some sponsored by the party and other who recognized market trends. Fitzgerald argues that this mobilizing effort turned the population’s resentment against imperialism into modern nationalism.

Fitzgerald’s work is somewhat scattered. He makes a very strong case for the interplay between intellectuals and the political leadership. He also clearly demonstrates how propaganda efforts were pointed to recovering national dignity. However, there are some areas where he seems to gloss over subjects that don’t necessarily support his argument. He barely discusses Confucianism, which is a problem since it represents the traditions that supposedly kept China asleep. Also, he makes Soviet involvement with the KMT and Sun seem of only minor importance, whereas conventional wisdom is that Sun adopted large portions of the Soviet propaganda system. Neither of these are serious problems, but do raise questions if there are any other less obvious omissions. In general, however, Fitzgerald’s work is an excellent contribution to understanding the nationalist thought and propaganda.… (mais)