In the article, Ackbar Abbas examine the tradition and the traits of Hong Kong buildings. He first raises an interesting opinion of Frantz Fanon – “it is the colonialist who becomes defenders of native styles.” After nearly a century’s colonization, Western culture, especially British culture, is becoming an important part of Hong Kong’s tradition. That’s true, as the preservation of Hong Kong buildings offer by Chinese government is rather based on the disappearance of historical site.
He also discusses some traits of Hong Kong building. It is an open city exposed to all styles and influence, and it constantly refreshes itself by building and rebuilding, and its hyper density of population also makes it a completely different city compared to Western countries. I agreed with all of these, and I also have a opinion as addition. The most unique part about Hong Kong is its colonial period. This mixes traditional Chinese culture and Western culture. For example, Shanghai is also an open, rapid changing and hyper-populated city, what makes it different is from Hong Kong is the lack of this colonial period. These together make Hong Kong a unique city in the world, possessing culture and architecture traditions that can’t be duplicated.
CCHU9034
Wuyang Du
u3583012
Feb 10, 2021
Appreciate that you pointed out Hong Kong’s past as a colonial city as part of its identity and what makes it unique. To better narrate your argument throughout your essay, you could highlight some of its outstanding key characters, historical buildings or area, etc that you think is significant yet were not mentioned in Abbas article. Then, analyse these additional sites through Abbas’ concept of disappearance/reappearance. I’m pretty sure you might find some interesting surprises when you unpack the historical site. Also, to pick up on your point on how Hong Kong and Shanghai are different due to their colonial past (or the lack thereof), you could elaborate more on what the differences are and how they are affecting each city’s identity?