Monthly Archives: March 2012

Mar 12

Spring Schedule

Posted on by

March 27 (Tuesday): Julia Strauss ( Senior Lecturer in Chinese Politics, SOAS, University of London)

“Theatres of Land Reform: Repertoire and Campaign in Su’nan and Taiwan, 1950-53″

 

April 12: Jacob Eyferth (Associate Professor, EALC, University of Chicago)

“Women’s work and the Politics of Homespun in Socialist China, 1949-1980″

 

April 19: Pär Cassel (Assistant Professor, History, University of Michigan)

“Tinker, tailor, consul, sailor: Sino-Japanese Extraterritoriality under the Treaty of Tianjin, 1871-95″

 

May 2: Prasenjit Duara (Raffles Professor of Humanities, Director of Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore)

“Competitive Temporalities and Historical Societies: The Place of Early Modern Circulations”

 

May 17: Deokhyo Choi (PhD Candidate, History, Cornell University)

“Racializing the Postwar Crisis: Democratization and the Making of “the Korean Problem” in U.S./Allied-occupied Japan, 1946-1947″

 

May 24: Seongun Kim (PhD Candidate, History, University of Chicago)

“Entertaining Japan: Japan’s Postwar Entertainment Broadcasting and the Discourse of Media Responsibility”

 

June 1 (Friday): Joshua Fogel (Professor, Canada Research Chair, History, York University)

“The Afterlife of a Material Object: The Mysterious Gold Seal of 57 C.E.” 

 

Mar 07

March 27 (Tuesday): Julia Strauss

Posted on by

Julia Strauss

Senior Lecturer in Chinese Politics, SOAS, University of London

“Theatres of Land Reform: Repertoire and Campaign in Su’nan and Taiwan, 1950-53″

(co-sponsored with East Asia: Politics, Economy, and Society workshop)

4-6 pm, March 27 (Tuesday)

Location: Pick Hall Lounge

  

Abstract: Although scholars have been reluctant to directly compare the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan, in the early to mid 1950s, these two consolidating party-states had far more in common than is generally supposed. For both,the pursuit of land reform was key to the regime consolidation and perceived legitimacy of the regime. For both land reform was a signature policy and was implemented as a campaign by which each regime fundamentally reordered relations economic and political relations in the countryside. This article explores a range of surprising similarities as well as points of divergence. It focusses in particular on the ways in which land reform campaigns were organized, justified and pursued, the ways in which particular pre-existing rhetorics and repertoires were invoked, the ways in which large numbers were mobilized in support of the campaign, and the specific “theatres” in which the power of state mandated land reform was displayed.