A Multi-Cultural National Identity
Steve Tsang’s A Modern History of Hong Kong is a comprehensive while accessible history, spanning just over 150 years. Tsang, born in the latter portion of Hong Kong’s modern era is a scholar and historian who writes to further the national and international perspective on Hong Kong. Taking more than a decade to compile his sources, Tsang’s detailed narrative is, as one reviewer noted, impressive.[1]
One of the most fascinating aspects of Tsang’s writing is his diplomatic voice while telling the story of his people. He gives great detail to the transition of power, the wars, the settlements and disputes between the Chinese and British, and the mass change to the economic structure of the country.
In reading a review by Allan Chun, it was made evident that Tsang, for being a Hong Kong native does not give much bias yet his bias is implicit. “Despite Tsang’s deep understanding of Hong Kong as a native and scholar, he refrains from making judgments about the nature of such experiences, except to show how the politics has unfolded in historical terms and in light of the motivations of the people involved… His self-characterisation as ‘an academic historian of the British liberal tradition who grew up in Hong Kong’ (p. 274) reveals much more about his subtle subjectivity than his impartial history would care to admit.”[2]
As this is not a sociological text, Tsang lightly touches on the ways this effected the people and their identity. The growth of Hong Kong from scarce fishing villages to modern day super economy has much to do with those in power and the way Hong Kong was led throughout its recent history. Yet, in the telling of the story of the people of Hong Kong, it seems their identity is not a point worth spending much more than one portion of one chapter on, as their identity is largely muddled by the nearly two hundred years of foreign leadership.
What does it mean to have a history of change from one foreign leadership to another, even if Hong Kong was considered Chinese pre-1842? What about those born within their own country but having never known governance without a foreign power? Likely this would seem normal, as it is the circumstance of life they entered into. But with war and transitions from China to Britain and back, along with a brief stint of Japanese rule in the 1940’s, one’s national identity, especially as a young adult growing up in the latter period might be confusing or at least layered. Tsang, born in 1959, reveals the difficulty of the Hong Kong identity:
“The Hong Kong identity that emerged was based on a shared outlook and a common popular culture which blended traditional Chinese culture with that imported from overseas, with the influences of the USA, Britain and Japan being particularly noticeable. This shared outlook incorporated elements of the traditional Confucian moral code and emphasis on the importance of the family, as well as modern concepts like the rule of law, freedom of speech and of movement, respect for human rights, a limited government, a free economy, a go-getting attitude and pride in the local community’s collective rejection of corruption.”[3]
This blending of cultures made Hong Kong unique in its East meets West persona. Although many who felt themselves Chinese in heritage would still claim a British nationality as well, neither of course being representative of their roots, even perhaps generations back in Hong Kong proper. Relatable to Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Community, there is also the shared sense of ownership from modern history and popular culture that made Hong Kong own their complex national identity.
The complexity of identity reminds me of a story a friend of mine recently shared about being Korean-American with his family in Korea. After having lived in the US and raising two sons here, he and his wife took their children to Korea for a year to live. During that time, one of their sons, after being called out as an American (even though he had a flawless Korean accent), asked his parents if he was Korean or American. He was confused because he knew where he was raised but he also knew another culture by his race, his familial culture, and his language. His mom asked him what he perceived to be. The son’s response was both. He felt that he was both Korean and American, not simply one or the other. Although my friend’s child was a neutral participant, not in control of his heritage or his present nationality, he actively owned his identity among both.
Tsang relates being Chinese in Hong Kong to Christendom in the West. For one to be Chinese meant belief in China (both the ideology and religion) and being Chinese.[4] Christendom in the West, though not connected to ethnicity, is largely equated through belief in the ideology of the Christian religion as well as participation. This is an interesting simile, as Christendom has drifted to become more about the ownership in name while not necessarily following the teachings of Christ.
When considering the identity of a people group, whether nationally or ideologically (or both), the cultures, history and belief systems all matter, even if their governance is out of their control. As it is with many in Hong Kong and with my friend’s son, they choose to own their complex multi-cultural identity. To own one aspect, such as a history but not the ideology is only a partial identity and belies the truth of one’s reality. As a Hong Kong native, such as Tsang, or a Christian, identity as complex as it might be, requires both the acknowledgement of a history and an honest practice of lived belief.
[1] “Tsang, Steve, A Modern History of Hong Kong,” Chun, Allen, East Asia: An International Quarterly, Spring, 2006, Vol.23(1), p.86(3)
[2] “Tsang, Steve, A Modern History of Hong Kong,” Chun, Allen, East Asia: An International Quarterly, Spring, 2006, Vol.23(1), p.86(3)
[3] Tsang, Steve. Modern History of Hong Kong, A: 1841-1997 (pp. 194-195). I.B.Tauris. Kindle Edition.
[4] Tsang, Steve. Modern History of Hong Kong, A: 1841-1997 (p. 195). I.B.Tauris. Kindle Edition.
About the Author
Trisha Welstad
Trisha is passionate about investing in leaders to see them become all God has created them to be. As an ordained Free Methodist elder, Trisha has served with churches in LA and Oregon, leading as a pastor of youth and spiritual formation, a church planter, and as a co-pastor of a church restart. Trisha currently serves as leadership development pastor at Northside Community Church in Newberg, OR. Over the last five years Trisha has directed the Leadership Center, partnering with George Fox and the Free Methodist and Wesleyan Holiness churches. The Leadership Center is a network facilitating the development of new and current Wesleyan leaders, churches and disciples through internships, equipping, mentoring and scholarship. In collaboration with the Leadership Center, Trisha serves as the director of the Institute for Pastoral Thriving at Portland Seminary and with Theologia: George Fox Summer Theology Institute. She is also adjunct faculty at George Fox University. Trisha enjoys throwing parties, growing food, listening to the latest musical creations by Troy Welstad and laughing with her two children.7 responses to “A Multi-Cultural National Identity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Trish,
Will your baby make the trip to Hong Kong with you? I don’t want to assume so, but I am quite sure you will work it out however is best, as I hope you know, we all have confidence in you and support you, not only in parenting, but in your Doctoral capabilities. You are a shining star, and are doing amazing things.
Your mentioning of your friend’s son really made me think. Thank you for including that. My niece is from China, and to this day even 17 years later, there are issues relating to blending two cultures, even though she left China as an infant…
Jay, yes I am planning to bring our baby with me. My mom will join too to help me be able to balance both caring for her and fully participating in our cohort. I am excited to bring both of them.
Glad my story hit home for you. It made me think too about some of my family who are bi-cultural being born abroad and being adopted into the US as young children. As American as they are, they still have another culture and heritage they don’t necessarily know.
Trish, thanks for your post clarifying some of the components of Hong Kong nationality. I wonder if there is a generational identity shift in Hong Kong, if the older feel they are more chinese, or if it is the younger who feel more chinese.
Kyle, I wonder what the generational identity is as well. It will be interesting to experience when we are there.
I thought his generally biased account was incredible knowing his background. There were times my mine kept coming back to imagined communities as well. How the rally against British rule and then against chinese has both unites groups. I find it fascinating that those in HK look down on mainlanders. There is a united front against those that want to change the norm here. I appreciated your thoughts.
I did not read the part where Tsang made this comparison to Christendom. “This is an interesting simile, as Christendom has drifted to become more about the ownership in name while not necessarily following the teachings of Christ.” Are you referring specifically to the States in this comment? We are in Spokane right now, and just heared that Franklin Graham is coming for a one-day evangelism stint. One of the promoters said it was to “push out the blue,” overtly conflating Christianity with being “red” or republican. The promo poster has an eagle, and American Flag, and reads, “Decision America.” Not a single Christian symbol on the flyer. check it out here: https://pnw.billygraham.org/download-resources/
Lord, have mercy.
Thanks for this post, Trisha,
Very interesting focus on the kind of “implicit bias” that Tsang has, whether he knows it or not. It seems like it is easier for us to recognize, or for other reviewers to call out, than maybe for him to see for himself. That’s certainly how it seems to be for me in my own context– since I’m immersed in it. One of the helpful parts of our program seems to be in getting us into other contexts, seeing them with our outsider eyes, and then to come back to our own and see things in a new way.