Morgan Tsvangirai and the Beleaguered Zimbabwe Nation

Well, as I reported yesterday, some of the early AP reports carried on some other sites, like the unfortunately equally-beleaguered Yahoo, were carrying reports that Susan Tsvangirai was seriously injured but not dead. I checked later and the story Yahoo's AP feed was carrying finally acknowledged that she had died.

I cannot express enough sadness for this country and its struggles since it finally threw off the shackles of colonialism.

Now of course there are questions of whether this was an intentional assassination attempt on Tsvangirai himself. That remains to be seen, and is clearly a very sensitive subject given the very delicate position he occupies, vis-a-vis Robert Mugabe and his cohort.

But I express my deepest, most heartfelt sympathy for the man, and his movement. And I hope that the situation improves, though I have my doubts.

James Otis Auctions Mohandas Gandhi's Items

It's true, the Indian businessman who successfully bid on the glasses and other personal items from James Otis, a self-proclaimed "pacifist".

But the problem with Mr. Otis, and others in this country like him, is that although he claims to respect India, he refused to honor their sovereignty by fundamentally recognizing that his act of putting them up for auction was a cultural, if not ethical and moral violation.

Why is it a violation? Imagine if some Indian, or, gasp, Chinese person owned some memorabilia of Abraham Lincoln's. Can you imagine the uproar, the American national outrage? And then, imagine if this foreign national said, "Well, I'll give these over to your government to display in the Smithsonian, but only if you agree to raise your national spending on Welfare Programs, especially for single parent households."

Imagine that. Can't do it? Well, that's exactly what Mr. Otis did. Since when did we allow someone from another country who possessed cultural icons from our country hold those items hostage until we changed our domestic policies? Never? Right.

So where do Americans think it's alright to coerce other countries that they should change their policies or they'll go right on doing the wrong thing and sell off/auction off their cultural icons?

Oh, right, Western Europeans and Euro-Americans like James Otis, and Mr. Berge, Yves Saint Laurent's partner.

French Man Refuses to Return China's Imperial Bronzes

It should have been deemed an illegal auctioning of two Chinese imperial bronzes looted from the Imperial Palace when the French and the English sacked it during the Opium "War." That "war, by the way, was really a shameless attempt again by the Brits and French to colonize China because, after all, they were so used to colonizing everyone else in the world. Christie's response? They couldn't deny the right to auction the pieces, owned by the partner of the late Yves Saint Laurent.

One wonders. If this were the Italian government, protesting that the Getty had yet again acquired more statues illegally, of course both Christie's and this French man, would have acquiesced, stopped the auction and returned the pieces.

But it's China. Hey, they are just so easy to scapegoat. Again and again. So this French man said that he would return the illegally obtained bronzes if China "improved its human rights record."

That's shorthand for, you know, I'm really irresponsible, I'd rather have the money, and since everyone else points to China's human rights, I will too. It's convenient, rather than actually confronting the central issue: these were looted bronzes, illegally obtained during a war that was, frankly, a colonialist attempt by the French to subjugate the Chinese by inducing rampant drug addiction. When that didn't work, hey, why not just invade them? It's our right, after all, isn't it? We're from the West, we're French. We can do anything.

Why doesn't Mr. Pierre Berge confronting real history and examining what his country did to acquire these pieces in the first place?

The issue is not what China does do, the issue here is what other countries also do but don't take responsibility for because they avoid the issue by pointing the finger at China. That's the issue Westerners often don't grasp.

See the entire article here.

Being Western Isn't Enough of a Credential Anymore

The days when being a Westerner, especially one form Western Europe (read: Britain) or from the U.S., in order to be instantly credible, experienced and desirable, are over. In what context? In the East Asia context.

Americans and Western Europeans who travel to India still experience some cache, as do those same people who also travel to other countries in South Asia. They've been colonized enough to be "used to" Westerners who treat a trip to India, for example, as a spiritual pilgrimage. Usually these same people don't subscribe to a "conventional religion" but they sure don't mind using an entire country to activate their "spirituality."

But more and more, partly because much of East Asia was not colonized by these same Western countries, Americans, Brits, French, they aren't instantaneously viewed as more capable, more skilled, more intelligent, or otherwise more informed, than the indigenous peoples. Travel to any of the major cities in China, for example, and one will find more sophistication in the young people than anything Americans might offer. More ambition, better gadgets, and for those born in the city, better educated.

It must be so disappointing for travelers who assume that just because they are less than stellar in their own country, either sexually or professionally, they can still establish their cultural hegemony over there. Well, they can no longer.

Being Euro-American just isn't enough of a credential anymore. Wherever one goes in East Asia, one will find that not only can they do things just as well, they can often do it better, with better technology. It can be done more quicker, and their adoption of newer, more sustainable and efficient technologies is far more rapid and agile than the slow process made in Euro-American countries. Except perhaps those in North-western Europe, where many of these technologies originate.

Nevertheless, the idea of the BRIC economy is more than merely the latest wave of strong, developing economies. It is of cultures that are rapidly gaining on those of the West, building upon both their developments and their mistakes. Americans in particular should take note and stop being so arrogant.

The Rafael Vinoly "Grant"

The premise of Rafael Vinoly’s research grant is to foster deeper understanding, one presumes, in the arenas of architecture, urbanism and material culture.

However, this premise seems to be a sham. This year’s competition explored the built environment of developing nations. The purpose was to understand and address problems inherent in countries like China, India, and presumably those in Africa. But China was the first area they specified as being interested in understanding.

So I submitted a proposal. It was a critique on the fact that Westerners, Americans and Europeans alike, assume that western designs in China, including the Nest, the Egg, CCTV Tower and the Cube, are representative of both the problems and the inadequate solutions for a unique Chinese urbanization.

The problem is that Chinese modernization supposedly victimizes the individual. It tears down “traditional” architecture like hutongs, which no one ever acknowledges are a uniquely Beijing typology.

Well, Beijing is not a stand-in for all of China. But it has become that.

As for Beijing “fatigue,” a phenomenon in which architects think they have fully explored Beijing, the problem is they haven’t explored it at all. What they have explored is themselves: Western architecture in Beijing. The editor in charge of Beijing at Architectural Record, for example, never actually explores Beijing. Instead, he helps people exoticize elements of Beijing that Westerners find interesting. Not coincidentally, these elements are the Western designs in Beijing named above.

But as for documenting the rest of Beijing, what Beijingers really experience, no, that’s not interesting. That does not reinforce assumptions westerners have about Beijing: that it dehumanizes people with its monument, that it is an out-of-control city developing with not regard for the people, and that Beijinger’s really miss their traditional architecture, which supposedly represents the pinnacle of Chinese architecture.

First, there are innumerable neighborhoods in Beijing of a human scale. No one ever bothers documenting those. And since Western architects can’t never speak the language when they go over there, how would they know what Beijingers feel about their city, anyway? Imagine if some Chinese person came over to the U.S. to study NY architecture, assuming it represented all of the U.S., and didn’t speak the language? Americans are so narrow-minded and gringoistic that they would immediately protest, “How can you study us without speaking American?” Yes, and the same goes for architectural tourists traveling in China who lament what’s going on without understanding the first thing about China. Like William Menking. The arrogance of his assumptions about China is mind-boggling: he knows nothing about it, doesn't speak the language, doesn't hold a degree in it, and has never visited there. But he sure is certain that the U.S. is superior, it doesn't trample people's human rights. Evidently, he has been out to lunch during this entire administration, doesn't understand how our prison system is racist, and knows absolutely nothing about institutionalized racism, sexism and classicism. But since he knows nothing of these problems in the U.S., it's alright to engage in architecture here.

Modernization is not defined by Western progress. It just isn’t. Other countries must necessarily define and determine their own trajectory towards a modernization that is uniquely their own. The West does not equal Modernization with a capital “M” but just typifies a modernization, one of many.

And the argument that “traditional” architecture represents the pinnacle of Chinese architectural innovation and that it should be saved? Well, as long as these people have access to other housing, do white Americans traveling as architectural tourists to Beijing know for a fact that they lament losing their housing? Have most of these hutongs actually been seen by superior Americans, or is that just a projected lament about our own inability to preserve our own monuments? Yes. That’s what these people do best: project.

Indeed, what is never specified is what elements of “traditional” architecture the hutongs represent that are so great. Never once is that specified. Instead, hutongs are used as an indictment of how the “Chinese government” is insensitive to the “people” and victimizes them. Of course, then when Americans begin talking about those “people” they begin talking about the ethnic minority, in a dizzying display of a lack of logic. These writers and architects don’t really care about the Han Chinese except as a symbol to indict the government. But as for actually understanding what these people want and need? No. That task is reserved for the ethnic minorities, the Tibetans and Uighurs are current favorite darlings of Westerners, but again, the discourse is “Isn’t the Chinese government awful?” The goal is never to truly understand but to reinforce the superiority of Americans and Western Europeans.

Finally, Rafael Vinoly grant doesn’t seem interested in people actually qualified to determine what is needed by Chinese people in order to propose architectural proposals that are not just projections. After all, in order to determine what is needed, one needs to speak the language. Have studied the history and culture so as not to exoticize. And have, finally, training in architecture. But one needs all those things. Speaking the language or living in China do not necessarily qualify one because again, one needs training in how to approach the problem.

In other words, one needs to know how to critically think. Something most architects lack. Critical thinking skills. They are too often seduced by surface. Which inevitably, always, culturally colonializes the Other.