Kina i ørerne: Top fem over foredrag og podcasts

kommentar 1
Diverse

china.gif Her er en top fem over foredrag, forelæsninger og podcasts om Kina.

• På University of Edinburgh er der guf for filmnørder. Her er en lang liste med 15 podcasts, som kommer hele vejen rundt – for eksempel om kvindelige stjerner i filmindustrien i Shanghai i 1930erne; køn, revolution og modernitetet i kinesiske film; kommunistiske film om krigen mellem Japan og Kina; Heshang og The River Elegy; instruktøren Zhang Yimou’s film; og meget mere.

• UCLA’s Center for Chinese Studies har også en lang samling podcasts om Kina og en lang række forskellige emner. Om klassisk litteratur; arbejderloven; det diplomatiske forhold mellem Taiwan og Kina; om at samle moderne kinesisk kunst; og så videre.

• Professor Craig Clunas fra Oxford University holder forelæsning om Kinas plads i kunsthistorien (åbner i iTunes). (Lyden er desværre lidt dårlig.)

• Kina får stadig mere indflydelse i Afrika – hvad betyder det for USA og resten af verden. Det er emnet for denne debat (åbner i iTunes) på Center for Strategic and International Studies. Debatten er fra 2007, men den er stadig holdbar, og det er ikke blevet mindre aktuelt siden. Rapporten, de omtaler, kan du læse her (.pdf)

• London School of Economics har en lang række forelæsninger om Kina. For eksempel om forholdet mellem EU og Kina, som du kan lytte eller downlade her. Du kan læse en beskrivelse af det her. Der er også foredrag om Kinas finansielle reformer – lyd og info. Et foredrag om klimaændringer og kampen mellem USA og Kina – lyd og info. Og et foredrag om de 200 millioner kinesere, der søger mod byerne i en søgen efter lykke, arbejde og en bid af det moderne Kina – lyd og info.

:: Jeg har tidligere skrevet en Top 15 over foredrag og podcasts om Kina, som kan downloades på iTunes.

Skribent

Hurtige klik fra Kina af Kim Rathcke Jensen. Jeg er journalist og BA i kinesisk. Jeg bor i Beijing, hvor jeg arbejder som Politikens korrespondent i Kina og Asien.

1 Kommentar

  1. stud siger

    I’m impressed by your reply that takes this debate deeper.
    The art of deviousness and allusion in every corner of Chinese social life – a cultural heritage that a large group of Chinese elites appreciate may still sound mysterious or even ridiculous to you as well as many foreigners living in China. I’m not professional but in my horizon, this convention can be traced back to the
    way that ancient Chinese philosophers and ministers(大臣) have to follow to express ideas to emperors both in writing and debate (It requires academic composition in literature and liguistics that all middle-school students in China have to learn these “hardcore” in their senior Chinese class now. In Denmark, political files are never recorded in the form of “music in french salon” in history, are they?). For a better understanding, the ancient Chinese politics is not science that requires clear logic to balance profits, rights or social resources between classes or groups, but an extension of art in literature, history and philosophy and psychology.
    Actually, the deviousness and allusion are known primarily as graceful advanced rhetorics in ancient Chinese literature but not politic features. For example, in Chinese literature the appearance of lotus may imply a decent person who lives under bad circumstance, since its root grows beneath the river mud while the flower is not contaminated. Simpler and more straight the depict is, less space for the broad imagination to survive in literature. Dynasty after dynasty the way never changes, but due to the abuse of literature in politics (proposals are written in form of longsome literature, and debate is held in form of singing poetry in turns) by those part politician, part literati, part philosopher and part historian, the political proposals and debate becomes even more obscure and academic because of those rhetorics that only minority of well-educated can grasp the implied policy precisely (well, at that time education is not quite a privilege, but still fogyish). So if I portrait a lake full of lotus flowers and present to the emperor, it’s more likely that I’m suggesting to strengthen action to prevent corruption. You can image how unlikely a national-wide civil democracy is to turn up when politics is such a weird field of mixture of different academic fields and distant from common civilian. So from long long ago, education outweighs overwhelmingly and is the major fact contributing to the compartmentalization of social hierarchy. This also explains why in ancient China, academic achievement in literature, history and philosophy(such as Zhuangyuan 状元) entitles one as officers. (Luckily, education is not absolutely closed to civilian all through the history).
    As a conclusion, since it’s born the Chinese politics is never civil. The threshold keeps most out, but for the winners it’s another open world. Even though there are few times of folk resistance raised (such as the establishment of Han Dynasty and TaiPing Heavenly Kingdom), the death and birth of most empires are dominantly caused by infight but not civil revolution.
    I hope my explain can better tell why the Chinese politics sounds so secret, unfriendly closed to most of the Chinese civilian as well as many foreigners. As to the internal democracy, it’s just a phase used to describe that open world.

Skriv et svar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *