-
World Heritage, National Culture, and the Restoration of Chengde
- positions: east asia cultures critique
- Duke University Press
- Volume 9, Number 1, Spring 2001
- pp. 219-243
- Article
- Additional Information
positions: east asia cultures critique 9.1 (2001) 219-243
[Access article in PDF]
World Heritage, National Culture, and the Restoration of Chengde
James L. Hevia
[Figures]
On 4 July 1995 China Daily, the English-language newspaper of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), reported that the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had added four historic sites in greater China to its World Heritage list.1 These included the Potala at Lhasa and the Mountain Resort and Its Outlying Temples at Chengde.2 Located some two hundred miles northeast of Beijing, Chengde (also known as Rehe) contained an eighteenth-century palace and temple complex built under the early Manchu emperors of the Qing dynasty. One of its temples is an almost full-scale reproduction of the Potala. As if to provide its own commentary on the relations between these various historic sites and transnational cultural organizations, the same issue of China Daily also ran excerpts from an article by Zhang Zhiwei, vice chairman of the Literature and Art Association of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Noting that it was important to preserve Tibet's unique folk culture, Zhang [End Page 219] indicated that it was also imperative to raise the cultural quality of Tibetans, The UNESCO announcement and Zhang's statements on culture occurred against the backdrop of a controversy of international proportions, one that, circulating more or less freely through global news services and on the Internet, would come to include Tibetan incarnate lamas, the State Council of the PRC, the U.S. Senate, the European Parliament, On the face of it, Zhang's statement and the PRC rebuttal of the Dalai Lama both celebrate and colonize domestic differences within the borders claimed by the PRC. Once we have acknowledged that protecting historical sites is not a politically innocent act, such gestures can be seen as business-as-usual for modern nation-states.