Shanghai

Spring Prospectus: Boating and the Bund: The Shanghai Yacht Society and the masculinity of leisure, c.1890-1930.

This blog is a short introduction to my Spring essay followed by a short analysis of a few primary sources intend to use as part of the final analysis.

The relationship between sport and empire initiated the homogenization of societies, cultures and institutions whilst introducing western sports globally.1 This essay will explore the relationship between the Shanghai Yacht Club and its use as a font of colonial masculinity.  Through the club’s role as a site of leisure, its function consolidated the British settler community in Shanghai as an economically, politically and racially separate and exclusive social unit from its establishment in 1868. The first recorded yacht race along the Shanghai River was in 1869 and soon after in 1871 the private Shanghai yacht club Boat house and Slipway Company was established in the bund; a ‘‘spatial form’’ that was already was backed up by a full set of strong and largely autonomous Western dominated institutions such as Shanghai Municipal Council, Mixed Court, Volunteer Corps, and Maritime Customs.2 The racially exclusive nature of these events distinguished British Settlers from the rest of the International Settlement. Resultantly, the club became a source of institutionalized identity for the settlers who controlled access to the bund and therefore, activities such as rowing or yachting which took place on the waters parallel were a physical manifestation of their ethnic and economic elitism.  

Boating and the Bund is an essay of three parts, it firstly asks, how did the leisure activities of rowing and sailing buttress the social lives and status of British male colonial identity in the Shanghai International Settlement from c.1890s-1930? The Shanghailanders, a nickname for the British settlers in Shanghai, were a social and ethnic group causing significant issues for the British State because if the legalities of their informal prescience in Shanghai.  With their financial successes tied inextricably to the treaty port system and their extraterritorial privileges, British settlers used social activities to create a unity and a sense of community identity.3 Articles in the Social Shanghai, a tabloid style magazine that as published by the North-China daily New and Herald Limited performed as a public newsletter focused on elevating the prestige associated with the British Settler’s leisure activities and the reputation of prominent men within these groups. A section of the Social Shanghai entitles ‘Well-Known Shanghai Residents’  in the 1908 January- June edition includes a section on MR G. W. Noel ‘a native of Surrey, came to Shanghai in 1895’, a reputable local man who became a partner at the auctioneering firm Makenzie and Co to form ‘one of the best known  and most highly esteemed auctioneers in the Far East’.4 Dubbed a great success, Mr. Noel is immediately named as an ‘active member’ of over 12 clubs in Shanghai (fig. 1) including the yacht club. tis clear that prestige and charisma, qualities of foremost importance within Shanghai’s British elite, were expressed primarily through visibly participating in community building leisure activities in order to highlight that your wealth and social standing was substantial enough to afford such pastimes. 5 On one level, participation was an illustration of a mans wealth and on another it was a sign of commitment to the Shanghailander community by investing in their shared value system, operated through leisurely clubs. Consequently, this essay asks; Why did the North China Herald and China Daily newspapers build such substantial excitement around the British clubs (as in rowing/sailing etc. rather than dancing clubs) of Shanghai and make their events into a source of tabloid media?  

Figure 1: Social Shanghai,  January-June 1908.6

Secondly, executing the Yachting races along the bund illustrates how British settlers used the site to reinforce their identity spatially. As figure 2 illustrates, it is clear that the Bund is a site of exerting British culture and national identity through architecture and leisure. Sailing and rowing were primary opportunities to display agility and skill whilst asserting spatial control over the bund. These club also used their institutions and infrastructures to generate British imperialism within Shanghai’s international settlement during the decline of the Shanghailander political authority. By racing with British settlers from the Hong Kong yacht club to provide a vector through which the British settlers of Shanghai could associate themselves with the colonial authority of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Telegraph and the China Herald report extensively on the relations and competitions between the two British yachting clubs.7 This essay argues that this relationship was co-constitutional. Whilst the Shanghailanders need to outsource their authority as British Settlers form their more stable Hong Kong associates, equally British colonial masculinity was supported significantly by the use of sport to illustrate their capacities and therefore the Hong Kong club also boosted their colonial identities from the racing tournaments.

 

Figure 2: The Bund, Shanghai by Sunqua (1830-1870).8

Thirdly, as the Nationalist Revolution took hole in 1923-1928, dependence on Leisure as a source of strength established competing masculinities. with the boom of Chinese clubs were challenged by Chinese alternatives in the leisure and club scene, no evolution occurred within British circles. Therefore, using articles from North-China Herald, China Mail and the Hong Kong Telegraph to track the growth of their Chinese counterpart clubs,  the this essay aims to analyze how this decline impacted the relationship between the British and other ethnic groups within the international settlement as they were no longer able to rely on this source of colonial masculinity which was fundamental to asserting their control in treaty port Shanghai. 

This essay will argue that the creation of social anticipation and a group mentality through clubs like the Yacht Society were established to separate the British Shanghailander from other international settlers and local Chinese residents. Consistent records of races between Shanghai and Hong Kong Yacht and Rowing Clubs further illustrate that this was an inter-treaty port social system through which British treaty port settlers were able to justify each other’s permanency.  

  1. Ning Jennifer Chang, ‘Women in the Chase: sports Empire, and Gender in Shanghai, 1860-1945’, Chinese studies in History 54, no. 2 (2021), pp.130-148. [↩]
  2. Christian Henriot, ‘The Shanghai Bund in Myth and History: An Essay through Textual and Visual Sources,’ Journal of Modern Chinese History 4, no. 1 (2010), pp.1–27 [↩]
  3. Robert Bickers, ‘Shanghailanders: The Formation and Identity of the British Settler Community in Shanghai 1843-1937’, Past and Present (1998), pp.161-211. [↩]
  4. North China Daily News and Herald Ltd., ‘Social Shanghai: A Magazine for men and women’ Vol V (January-June 1908), p.31. Accessed at: Social Shanghai Vol V January-June 1908 : Shorrock, Mina : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (accessed 20/03/2024) [↩]
  5. ‘Social Shanghai: A Magazine for men and women’ Vol V (January-June 1908), p.31. Accessed at: Social Shanghai Vol V January-June 1908 : Shorrock, Mina : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (accessed 20/03/2024) [↩]
  6. North China Naily News and Herald Ltd., ‘Social Shanghai: A Magazine for men and women’ Vol V (January-June 1908), p.31. Accessed at: Social Shanghai Vol V January-June 1908 : Shorrock, Mina : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (accessed 20/03/2024) [↩]
  7. Anonymous 1925, Feb 09. HONG KONG YACHT RACERS WINNERS FROM SHANGHA, The China Press (1925-1938), p.1. (Accessed at: HONGKONG YACHT RACERS WINNERS FROM SHANGHAI: Full Account Of Interport Regatta; Some Very Good Sailing – ProQuest) Accessed on 20/03/2024 [↩]
  8. The Bund, Shanghai by Sunqua (1830-1870) in the Ashmolean Library collection, Accessed at: https://collections.ashmolean.org/object/359962  (Accessed 20/03/2024) [↩]

Policing, News and Government: Public law and order from the outside.

A pertinent chapter in the public order and policing of Shanghai was the 1930s when simultaneously, the looming threat of Japan led to a spike in public demonstrations in China, and Shanghai’s Public Safety Bureau came under strict anti-communist leadership who were extremely determined to eliminate radicalism from the city. This ‘red hysteria’ was so intense that the Bureau put aside its nationalist-fuelled disdain for Shanghai Municipal Police (SMP) and co-operated with them to root out radical individuals and police the mass assemblies, whether student demonstrations or public celebrations (1). SMP’s increased anxiety and involvement in intense policing may have been seen as conducive to those in the cities, but to the foreign governments who backed the council, this shift in approach likely led to some reflection on the nature and perception of public order abroad, particularly at a time when imperial powers were struggling to mitigate unrest and loss of control in colonies

A useful source in considering the official British reaction to the public order in Shanghai is an exchange in the House of Lords between Lord Marley, Chief labour Whip, and the Earl of Stanhope, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during a Sitting on 5th of February 1936 (2). During this Sitting Marley had called for papers from Stanhope in regards to the allegations surrounding police violence during a student demonstration on the 24th of December the previous year. Drawing from witness accounts Marley outlines accusations of unprovoked police brutality and calls for further inquiry into police conflict. Stanhope contends these allegations. There are three primary areas the two figures clash over: sources, justification and nature of police violence, and finally consequences of inappropriate policing. It’s clear that both sides see business as a prime motivator to keep law and order amicable, but they differ in terms of authority, in which evidence holds it and how best to instil it in overseas settlements.

In terms of sources, Marley is largely drawing from witness accounts, although they contextualise this evidence with newspaper coverage and complaint letters to newspapers describing other demonstrations in China such as Peking. They substantiate their claims by describing their witnesses as an American who is ‘entirely trustworthy’ and a Chinese lady who is ‘well known throughout the world’ and thus ‘whose evidence cannot be but reliable’. (3) In opposition, Stanhope bases all of his opinions on newspaper reporting and questions the journalistic research of Marley ‘I am bound to add that the report which I have read in the Press on this matter differs very materially from the one he has given to you Lordships’. (4) This prioritisation of the newspaper over first-hand accounts results in an echo chamber in opinions surrounding law and order, as the SMP were closely monitoring reports on their policing. Records from their archive show them disciplining several newspapers for breaking the Chinese Press laws which relate to disparagement of public services (5). SMP made sure they were represented in line with official attitudes to policing, and foreign officials used said newspapers to justify that their policing was appropriate. The weight Stanhope puts on these pro-police accounts in English newspapers indicates not only how important the press played in overseas policy, but also why the Shanghai Municipal Council’s control over journalistic reporting was important in asserting control and confidence in overseas government.

An important element of Marley’s case is that the procession was ‘entirely peaceful’ before the police came to break it up, He highlights the age of the participants as mostly ‘children of middle school age’, who were met by a fully armed band of foreign amel British officers (6). He noted that one officer started beating protesters over the head, leaving them bloody and unconscious. He implicitly praised the patriotism of these protests in the face of Japanese aggression and argued that such protests taking place here would be praised by intellectuals. He, then, deliberately parallels the British subject to the Chinese subject, with equality in rights.

In opposition to this, Stanhope highlights that, far from being fully innocent, these protesters were disrupting the traffic and business in the railway station for at least 30 hours (7). While discussing Japan, Jordan Sand highlights why demonstrations in urban railway stations represented both an effective site of public lobbying and a source of great annoyance and disorderliness for authorities (8). According to Stanhope, if you’re causing such a disruption to travel, ‘it is quite obvious’ any government must do what they need to ‘to secure control again’ (9). He also argued that a report in the paper counters the claim that the students were armless and peaceful. While he doesn’t explicitly agree undue force was used, his argument mostly suggests that he, and suggestively the government, believe state violence is necessary.

Interestingly, where Marley and Stanhope align is their framing of why appropriate enforcement of public law and order is important. While Marley highlights the unjust harm the police have potentially caused, he doesn’t present his case as a humanitarian plea, but as a business move. He highlights that excessive force could cause tensions to escalate between the British and Chinese populations, and increase anti-British sentiment (10). He argues that this would waste the opportunity British businesses have to snatch trade that used to be Japanese. Stanhope points out that the municipal council
are largely made up of businessmen so they’d be highly aware of the optics of their police on trade and keep it in check (11). Notably, however, he doesn’t counter Marley’s claim that public order isn’t just about a moral code or power hierarchy, but also a matter of good business. This is perhaps hardly surprising given, as Frederic Wakeman highlights, disorder itself was also often about trade, in this case, Shanghai’s notorious international narcotics trade (12).

(1) Frederic Wakeman Jr., “Policing Modern Shanghai,” The China Quarterly, no. 115 (September 1, 1988), pp.408–40, pp.433-436

(2) United Kingdom, Debate, House of Lords, v.99, (05 February 1936), pp.439-446, https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1936/feb/05/the-international-settlement-in-shanghai

(3) UK, Debate, House of Lords, 1936, p. 441

(4) Ibid, p.443

(5) See file D-7518 in the SMP Archive, ‘Allegations Against The Police By The Shanghai Public Daily News 1569’

https://archive.org/details/smpa-files-16/page/n1/mode/2up

(6) UK, Debate, House of Lords, 1936, p. 441

(7) Ibid, p. 443

(8) Jordan Sand, Tokyo Vernacular: Common Spaces, Local Histories, Found Objects (University of California Press, 2013), pp.42-70.

(9) UK, Debate, House of Lords, 1936, p. 443

(10) Ibid, p.442

(11) Ibid, p.444

(12) Wakeman Jr, ‘Policing Modern Shanghai’, p 409

 

 

 

Between the Municipal and Inhabitant: The Push and Pull of Power

The battle for power expression and control between the municipality and their inhabitants is a recurring theme in many of the stories that discuss cities and their development. These groups are by no means monolithic and many have substantial splits in their interests, however, as analytic units, it is fair to categorise them as such. From Shanghai to Singapore, Beijing to Changchun, there were also, subtle interplays of power and class that hint towards wider power structures. It is this combination of push and pulls between the municipality and its inhabitants, and the way that power was negotiated that is the main subject of this post.

In the case of Shanghai, an often hilarious but deeply saddening state of affairs was the segregation of Chinese and European populations. The imagined signposts saying “No dogs or Chinese”, although more a myth than reality, is a reminder that many European municipal councils had clear ideas over specific racial usages of space. [1] In the Shanghalander case especially, desires to enforce extraterritoriality and full sovereign control would have meant within these “European spaces” whether represented or real, were backed by real expressions of power.

For Singapore, the representations and usage of space laid out by the plan strongly indicated that colonial and later municipal authorities struggled to identify and assert control over the various Malay “Kampungs” (living areas). This was mostly because many lived outside of the main areas that were of interest to Raffles and Farquhar and that language provided a formidable barrier to understanding these places. [2] The Chinese areas were also dominated by various bāngqún (幫群) organisations that represented the inhabitant population. These “bāng” held considerable power that sometimes ran against colonial designs for the city. [3]

For both of these cities, there were clear examples where attempts to assert municipal or colonial control were either subverted or resisted. Although there has not been much mention of Malay or Indian resistance towards certain municipal policies. The Chinese community in Singapore, being larger in size and power, did actively mobilise their influence. In response to the unilateral passing of Police Acts in 1857, the entire Chinese community went on strike, effectively halting the economy for a few days. Despite this strike not being an act of open and violent revolt. It nonetheless serves as an example where local inhabitants expressed power through shockingly effective strategies. For Shanghai, unarmed demonstrations against what was presumably the exclusion of Chinese from public parks and spaces amongst other measures is a good example of inhabitant resistance towards assertions of municipal power. Furthermore, Chinese requests for better municipal representation could also be counted as legitimate bids to integrate inhabitant interests into municipal decision making.

That being said, the case of Shanghai is unique, as what qualified someone as an “inhabitant” was quite nebulous. Did the community of White Shanghailanders count as inhabitants? Or was this definition limited to the Chinese. The somewhat cop-out answer of “both”, makes the most sense. While local Chinese were most definitely counted as the original inhabitants of the city, many Europeans eventually were considered ‘local’ inhabitants of the area. The main difference was that often Europeans were allowed to actively participate in the decision-making processes that ran through the SMC, while the Chinese struggled to acquire that privilege. [4] Singapore’s definition for “inhabitant” was often a lot clearer, the existing Chinese, Malay, Indian and Orang Laut settlements created a distinct divide between European colonisers and local communities.

This leads us to the interesting intersection of class and race in both Singapore and Shanghai. In both cases, English educated and typically Chinese businessmen were sometimes permitted to join the ranks of municipal decision-makers. This was more so the case in Singapore where businessmen of considerable stature such as Seah Liang Seah, founder of the Ngee Ann Kongsi and Choa Giang Thye, also a prominent member of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, actively participated in municipal politics and advocated for the Chinese Community as early as 1857. [5] The English language ability of these higher-class Chinese businessmen afforded them access to the primarily European sphere of politics. They often acted as interlocutors for local populations, albeit only to a degree. Their lack of sustained and direct involvement in Clan and Bāng organisations may have impacted their ability to fully represent their constituent compatriots. In Shanghai, SMC postings were barred to the Chinese until 1920, the ‘virulent racism’ of Shanghailanders often prevented even prominent Chinese businessmen from entering the municipal sphere.

In conclusion, throughout any spatial story, there was often a battle for power expression and control between the municipality and their inhabitants. This was sometimes mediated by prominent members of the inhabitant community (often Chinese) that could communicate in English and thus partially enter into municipal decision-making. The reality is that the interests of municipal bodies and the actual inhabitants did not always coincide, whether due to racism or language (mostly racism). Although the impacts of this are not necessarily felt today, we can certainly see the struggles of the voiceless coolie, or hawker store vendor, that rarely had a voice in how their city was run.

[1] Robert Bickers ‘Shanghailanders: The Formation and Identity of the British Settler Community in Shanghai 1843-1937’ Past and Present (May, 1998), p. 205 

[2] The Jackson Plan (Singapore, National Library of Singapore, 1822

[3] Brenda Yeoh Contesting Space in Colonial Singapore (Singapore, 2003) p. 39

[4]Robert Bickers ‘Shanghailanders: The Formation and Identity of the British Settler Community in Shanghai 1843-1937’ Past and Present (May, 1998), p. 205

[5] Brenda Yeoh Contesting Space in Colonial Singapore (Singapore, 2003) p. 61