![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On the way to Tescos to buy some lunch I noticed a bunch of police and posh cars outside the main entrance of SOAS, didn't think much of it. On the way back I saw Prince Charles coming out the building (Brunei gallery), and there I was walking about 10 feet from him. I've never been much of a monarchist but it did feel a bit strange, my only thought was, gosh that's a much more famous person than I was expecting. Never in my life did I think I'd be that close to royalty. He was looking a bit old and thin, I feel like I should have yelled something like, congratulations on your marriage, or god save the queen. Living in London is so different to living in a village in the middle of nowhere. Now the worst part about this just seems to confirm American sterotypes of England, where you bump into royalty all the time. I know Bill's mum will freak (she, like all middle class american housewifes, was totally in love with Diana- ICK)! Part of me thinks I must make a pact never to tell her.
今天我的中文课我的老师给我们这个中文课文，很可笑！
克林顿在一个问题上多次碰到了麻烦。有一个女工作员说克林顿跟他有性关系。可是克林顿在电视上对全国人民说：“我跟那个女没有性关系。”他看起来一点儿也没有不好意思。现在我们都知道他当时没有说真话。后来，克林顿对美国人民说了对不起。这种事实在难说是谁的错。有人说是克林顿的错，有人说是那个女人的错，有人说他们俩多有错，有人说他们都没错。我觉得像这样的是谁也说不清楚。可是，说不清楚也要说。特别是搞新闻的人。比方说办报的人，他们对这种是最有兴趣，因为重种事最好的新闻。什么事必有名的人做了见不得人的事更有意思呢？
克林顿 Clinton (the former president)
克林顿在一个问题上多次碰到了麻烦。有一个女工作员说克林顿跟他有性关系。可是克林顿在电视上对全国人民说：“我跟那个女没有性关系。”他看起来一点儿也没有不好意思。现在我们都知道他当时没有说真话。后来，克林顿对美国人民说了对不起。这种事实在难说是谁的错。有人说是克林顿的错，有人说是那个女人的错，有人说他们俩多有错，有人说他们都没错。我觉得像这样的是谁也说不清楚。可是，说不清楚也要说。特别是搞新闻的人。比方说办报的人，他们对这种是最有兴趣，因为重种事最好的新闻。什么事必有名的人做了见不得人的事更有意思呢？
克林顿 Clinton (the former president)
I just got offered a whole week of work the first day of the Easter holidays. Horray! Though bummer as it means I will have to do nothing but that and homework for the following month. Of course I suppose that's what Grad school is supposed to be like! 我很忙！And who knows with the extra money I might even be able to affoard being a drunk student again! (what a day this is turning out to be)
Tanigawa Michio Medieval Chinese Society and the local "Community" translated by Joshua A. Fogel.
There seems to be an increasing interest in Japanese scholarship about the history of China. But few Japanese works seem to get translated into English. So it was nice to be able to find this book, it was recommended to me by my professor as good "background reading" for my essay on Empress Wu. The book begins with a preface by the translator which goes into a detailed analysis of the discussion of marxist concepts within Japanese historigraphy. I'm afraid I found it rather and dull and irrelevant. I just don't understand the need for patterns of development that apply to the whole world, and don't see the point in arguing how a mode which was designed to describe Europe has to be banged about to fit the rest of the world, where it clearly doesn't work. The argument from the Japanese side seemed to be that the choice was between the Marxist model of change, and that of historical stagnation, where a culture remained the same. This view of stagnation was viewed as one of inferiority, especialy when compared with Europe. And therefore it was important to show change. I believe that every where has their own history, social, economic and political and so don't see the appeal of trying to make one model to fit the whole world.
The book itself was divided into two parts. The first part dealt entirely with this idea, trying to debate with previous scholars on the classification of when "feudal" china began and ended, what was medieval china and what was modern china? I have to admit I found the whole thing deathly boring and skimmed quite a bit.
The ironic part was in the secound half when he actually started talking about the specific history of the eras it was absoultly fascinating. He was able to some how bring out insight and interpretation that it seems most English language scholars are afraid to make these days. He began by looking at "antiquity" and trying to establish what was meant by that. But what he came up was an interesting analysis of the social relationships of Chinese people, both ruler and ruled, the familiar and political relationships and determining how the two interacted starting with the Shang and the Zhou through to the end of the six dynasties. He covered the rise and changing nature of the Shi. One of the biggest differences between this and most modern English language books on the subject was the fact that he wasn't afraid to use the word aristocracy, nowadays most English writers use the term "elite" as a catch all phrase for everyone who had money, and this I felt made an important distinction. (However it could just be the translators fault).
The most interesting idea to come out of the book I felt really needed development. I would have liked to have read a whole book on the subject rather than simply a mere 20 pages. His central thesis was that early Taoism sponsered a form of "communitarian" values among the elite that were reflected in the aristocracy and the rest of society. It showed a very interesting interplay between Taoism and Confucanism, and put a whole new outlook on the role of relgion and the state. It was interesting to see this new religious growth as a link between the people and the state. As he got later he moved away from the importance of familiar roles, which I found a bit disapointing as I was hoping to read more about the roles of clans in the Tang, indeed the discussions on the Tang were very short (7 pages) but he seemed to do an excellent job of setting the scence. The last 20 pages were very interesting and I will be photocopying and found them to be very usefull. The first half though I don't think I'll ever bother to read properly!
There seems to be an increasing interest in Japanese scholarship about the history of China. But few Japanese works seem to get translated into English. So it was nice to be able to find this book, it was recommended to me by my professor as good "background reading" for my essay on Empress Wu. The book begins with a preface by the translator which goes into a detailed analysis of the discussion of marxist concepts within Japanese historigraphy. I'm afraid I found it rather and dull and irrelevant. I just don't understand the need for patterns of development that apply to the whole world, and don't see the point in arguing how a mode which was designed to describe Europe has to be banged about to fit the rest of the world, where it clearly doesn't work. The argument from the Japanese side seemed to be that the choice was between the Marxist model of change, and that of historical stagnation, where a culture remained the same. This view of stagnation was viewed as one of inferiority, especialy when compared with Europe. And therefore it was important to show change. I believe that every where has their own history, social, economic and political and so don't see the appeal of trying to make one model to fit the whole world.
The book itself was divided into two parts. The first part dealt entirely with this idea, trying to debate with previous scholars on the classification of when "feudal" china began and ended, what was medieval china and what was modern china? I have to admit I found the whole thing deathly boring and skimmed quite a bit.
The ironic part was in the secound half when he actually started talking about the specific history of the eras it was absoultly fascinating. He was able to some how bring out insight and interpretation that it seems most English language scholars are afraid to make these days. He began by looking at "antiquity" and trying to establish what was meant by that. But what he came up was an interesting analysis of the social relationships of Chinese people, both ruler and ruled, the familiar and political relationships and determining how the two interacted starting with the Shang and the Zhou through to the end of the six dynasties. He covered the rise and changing nature of the Shi. One of the biggest differences between this and most modern English language books on the subject was the fact that he wasn't afraid to use the word aristocracy, nowadays most English writers use the term "elite" as a catch all phrase for everyone who had money, and this I felt made an important distinction. (However it could just be the translators fault).
The most interesting idea to come out of the book I felt really needed development. I would have liked to have read a whole book on the subject rather than simply a mere 20 pages. His central thesis was that early Taoism sponsered a form of "communitarian" values among the elite that were reflected in the aristocracy and the rest of society. It showed a very interesting interplay between Taoism and Confucanism, and put a whole new outlook on the role of relgion and the state. It was interesting to see this new religious growth as a link between the people and the state. As he got later he moved away from the importance of familiar roles, which I found a bit disapointing as I was hoping to read more about the roles of clans in the Tang, indeed the discussions on the Tang were very short (7 pages) but he seemed to do an excellent job of setting the scence. The last 20 pages were very interesting and I will be photocopying and found them to be very usefull. The first half though I don't think I'll ever bother to read properly!
.