The back-cover blurb (“In the summer of 1997, without discussion or announcement, a decision was made to eradicate old Beijing…”) piqued my interest; its sentiment was further echoed in the introduction which describes the eviction of the old city’s populace. As the city was rebuilt, physical memories of earlier protests, such as Democracy Wall, were bulldozed: “the state only protected sites that served to bolster its own self-justifying version of history…[and] as they were destroying Beijing’s past, the authorities boasted of how they were spending US$ 800 million on preserving its traditional culture” (11-12). This was done by the creation of about 150 new museums that allowed the regime to present history when and how it wished.

Of course everything from the past cannot stand indefinitely. Societies need to make room for new realities. To put it another way, when I asked an English host once as to why British train stations are outside towns whereas French stations are often in the town center, he responded that the French were never hesitant about razing their past. Of course, some people would argue that twentieth-century Britain was a living museum with all its protected properties and spaces. Continue Reading