Ape Rifle

In case you are confused with the title of this post, I have not suddenly become a Republican (heck, I'm not even American). Rather, I'm referring to the stellar, long running tv series. To be honest, I haven't seen a new episode in years; my love for Law and Order is based solely on the classic season reruns that dominated A & E for years (and probably still do). These are the years of Logan and Stone.

So it was perhaps karma that my brother gave me the complete first season on DVD for Christmas. Given my current bout of sickness, I have been running my own little Law and Order marathon. The first few episodes are a bit off (everyone is trying to find their feet), but by the end of the season all the things that made the show great are already firmly in place (like the ultra-sarcasm and Mike Logan roughing people up). How many other shows can you say that for? My favourite character is definitely Captain Donald Cragen, who doles out a major percentage of the humour in the first season.

Since my cold persists in ruining my ability to breathe and see properly, I'm not going to write much more. Instead, I will ask you this: what combination of characters do you think was the best? Who was the best cop? Who was the best assistant DA? What were Law and Order's glory years? Why is DA Adam Schiff so damn grumpy? Fire away.

Due to illness, I will not be writing a blog post this evening. Ape Rifle Week will be extended to Thursday accordingly (I promised seven decent posts, and seven decent post ye shall receive). Right now I just want to go pass out in a hallucinatory swirl of Paracetamol. Maybe I'll come up with something interesting to write about.

I apologize in advance for the rather suspect quality of this post, but I have finally been felled by the cold/flu bug that has been residing on my rez floor for the past week. Nevertheless, your intrepid urban wanderer still managed to take a walk along the Thames to get some fresh air, hoping to avoid acute cabin fever. So all bundled up like a little boy going out to play in the snow (although this is NOT winter, I don't care what anyone says), I headed for the mysterious land that is 'non-touristy' London.

It's frankly amazing how quickly the hordes of tourist all around Big Ben and Parliament vanish once one passes Westminster Bridge on the Southbank. Postcard London gives way to a more desolate environment, the kind of place where the tourist coaches park while their passengers go see the interesting stuff across the river. Hulking complexes (including the MI6 headquarters) come right up to the river's edge, leaving room only for a small pedestrian walkway amongst the cast-iron fences and CCTV cameras. That is one thing that really creeps me out about London- so many buildings are fenced, barricaded and filmed from all angles (supposedly- someone told me that most of the time the cameras are off) you'd think we were all back in some feudal warlord state. And I'm not just talking about government ministries; simple residential complexes get in on the act. But that is a whole other story, one that I will likely come back to again in a post on my visit to the strange, alternate universe of Canary Wharf.

Ok, back to the point, I promise. As I reached Vauxhall Bridge, I was greet by an absolutely huge development project. I stopped. I gasped. I stared. I couldn't believe my eyes....Had someone transported me to Beijing or Hangzhou? This thing had China written all over it, from its complete disregard for scale to its unabashed love for, well, whatever you call those random wavy things on the roof. Its unwillingness to fit in with the surroundings, its disregard for history, its likely astronomical price and rather random location- all of these brought a smile to my face. I miss China. If things were right in the world, this place would have a name like "Morden City London" (misspelled on purpose) , "Forever Garden New Town" or "Renaissance New York Soho Modern Home". If I was in charge, though, I would call it "China-on-the-Thames".



My little piece of China in London

And just in case you were wondering why I decided to head down that way in the first place, I was looking for the old Battersea Power Station, made famous to many by its appearance on the cover of a certain classic rock album. Well, I did find it (kind of hard to miss!), sitting all by its lonesome among aged industrial clutter. I'm sure it's waiting for its turn to be redeveloped, just like its cousin further down the river. For now, though, it remains a rather sinister symbol of a time when people thought it was a decent idea to locate huge coal power plants in the middle of a city. So here's a picture of Battersea Power Station in 2005 (without the flying pig, obviously). Enjoy.

This post is dedicated to my Montreal friends. I know they haven't really been mentioned much on this site (or at all), and I attribute that to 1) this site's purpose as a chronicle of my time in China and 2) my hesitation to post the stories and pictures that will likely void any run for public office in the future.

But I have to admit it: these awesome people are a big part of my life, no matter what part of the planet I'm currently calling home. They fully deserve a hallowed place in the pages of Ape Rifle, and I've decided to give them one. A question remains: how do I do them justice? I could wax on about friendship and life bonds and all the good times spread across several years and eastern Canadian cities, but I have a feeling that would just get too sappy. I could talk about how, despite all the partying, we have managed to make respectable young men of ourselves, be it at Ohio State, as an accountant, in law school or here in London. I could talk about how the first of the four is turning 25 next month, a milestone which I find rather scary (especially since the years have gone by so damned fast). When you've known people since childhood, there is a lot to talk about.

But, as someone once said, talk is cheap. So here's a picture. Ladies and gentlemen, the future elite of Canada hard at work....


Words fail me

And lest that sketchy bastard presently living in Serbia thinks I've forgotten about him, well, he's got another thing coming. One of my best friends since high school, times are never boring (nor pretty) when he's around. From sessions at Mad Hatters to a variety of half-baked plots to take over the world, this outstanding gentleman (cough...cough...) has always been there for a great chat, a beer and a good insult or two. Unfortunately, his time in the Balkans meant he was unable to join us in Montreal over the holidays. So we caused trouble in Belgrade instead.


The future dictators of some small, unlucky island nation

Here's to you, gentlemen.

One of the benefits of attending LSE is the ability to attend a near infinite amount of guest lectures, speeches, discussion panels and debates. Recently, Tom Ridge of US Dept. of Homeland Security fame came by campus to give a speech. It's pretty easy to tell when an important government official is around, considering the travelling crew of burly men in suits and black, tinted-window sedans they bring with them. Of course, there are also many more low-key, less security-obsessed academic presentations to help one spend an hour or so feeling smart and informed.

Earlier this evening, I attended just such an event. It was a public lecture entitled "Is China's Growth Real and Sustainable?" given by Justin Yifu Lin, the director of the Center for China Economic Research (CCER)at Peking University.

In brief, Mr.Lin's answer is that, yes, China's economic growth is both real and sustainable. I would classify him as an unabashed, economistic China optimist, which means that I disagreed with a lot of his conclusions. Nevertheless, the lecture was interesting and Mr.Lin did make some interesting, if debatable, points.

The first portion of the lecture dealt with a point that, I think, almost all China pundits can agree on: China's growth has confounded more than a few economic theorists. He addressed the confusion over how, in the late 1990s, China experienced deflation and a decline in energy consumption while still managing to post significant GDP growth rates. This led certain economists to question the veracity of Chinese economic statistics, especially given the likelihood of political manipulation. In turn, this doubt over the numbers coming out of China led to all sorts of predictions concerning the imminent collapse of the economy, revaluation of the currency and financial crisis (none of which have yet happened).

Mr.Lin explained, in a narrow economistic sense, how China's growth in the late 90s and early 2000s was indeed real despite the conflicting economic signals of deflation and reduction in energy use. First, the deflation was a result of huge oversupply coming online through massive government investment and foreign investment. Second, the decline in energy use was brought about by the replacement of older, inefficient industry by newer technology brought in by the new round of investment, and not by a reduction in economic activity. I'm no economist, but those explanations make sense to me.

Perhaps Mr.Lin's strongest point, however, was made when he was addressing why so many pundits and economist theorists around the world constantly get China wrong, their predictions (often of the negative variety) rarely panning out. He attributes this to the fact that too many of the theorists are assuming, consciously or not, that China is something it isn't: a fully functioning, market economy. When making economic predictions, they are using models that assume certain institutional and market structures (often those of Western market economies) that, quite simply, don't exist in China (or if they do, they are in mutated form: a bastardized mix of command capitalism with socialist characteristics).

Basically, no one really knows what China's communist/authoritarian/capitalist/regional/centralized/chaotic economy really is. Given that the very structure itself is in constant transition only makes matters worse. Thus, any predictions of boom or gloom based on Western models are doomed to be wrong: China plays by its own rules, if by any at all. It will continue to confuse, confound and amaze theorists the world over, perhaps even giving rise to new economic theories to explain just what is going on. On this point, I certainly agree with Mr. Lin.

However, he lost me when he confidently predicted that China's growth would continue at 8-9% a year for the next two or three decades. His reasoning? Basically, that several indicators show that China is now where Japan was back in the 1960s, and where South Korea was in the 1970s. Following the development of these economies through the decades allows us to extrapolate that, by 2030, China will have overtaken the US as the world's biggest economy. Simple economics, right?

Well, if you ask me, this sort of reasoning has a huge theoretical hole. On the one hand, Mr. Lin argues (and rightly so, in my opinion) that China's economic structure is so unique that any attempts to understand it through currently accepted economic rationale will fail. And then, on the other hand, he argues that to determine China's future, we simply have to look at what has happened to other countries (he even mentioned the Industrial Revolution in there somewhere). So if China is a unique, unpredictable economic system, how can we predict its evolution based on the history of other economies?

I got the impression that China's future is assured because, well, look how Japan and South Korea turned out! This became particularly evident in the question session, when a guest asked Mr.Lin how China planned to deal with its environmental mess. His answer? Growth is the only answer, since as countries get richer they tend to address environmental issues. He used London and Tokyo's drastic environmental improvements over the past few decades as examples (at this point, the guest raised the very valid point that 'developed' countries haven't so much solved their environment problems as exported them to places like...China! So I guess the question remains where China is going to dump its mess when it gets wealthier. Africa, perhaps?).

...but London and Tokyo aren't China. If China is such a unique system, then how can we say with any confidence that increased wealth will lead to an improved environment (especially considering the lack of political freedom and a certain distaste for the expression of grievances)? I, for one, can easily imagine a China that gets even more polluted as it gets wealthier, given that a good chunk of wealth generation will likely depend on the continued ability to pollute like there is no tomorrow.

My basic problem with Mr.Lin's lecture was this: you can't say that China's unique economic structure means it won't fail according to established economic models, and then turn around and say that China's future as a 'developed' country is assured by the historical experience of other 'developed' countries. China is either unique or it is not: you can't have it either way when it suits you.

Perhaps underlying this was the feeling that I was at a China foreign investment sales pitch. Mr.Lin seemed a bit too confident in the Chinese government's ability to solve the plethora of serious problems facing the country, which might not be too surprising considering his position (what's that saying about not biting the hand that feeds you?). Environmental degradation, huge income disparities, a mess of a financial system: all of this was to be inevitably sorted out because the Chinese government is "pragmatic" and, well...because other countries have shown this is what happens. I guess I'm just one of those people that doesn't accept "the government will solve it, don't worry" as a valid, theoretical argument.

Well, there you go: another intellectually stimulating evening here in London.

"Shanghai is modern."
"Canada is developed."
"China is developing."
"Africa is undeveloped."

Many of you, I'm sure, have heard these sorts of statements before. Pick up a newspaper, read the internet or spend approximately three seconds in China, and chances are you will be treated to heavy use of the words 'modern', 'developed', 'undeveloped' and 'developing'. Countries, regions and cities are known as much for their supposed rank in the hierarchy of 'modernity' as any other national trait.

Spend enough time immersed in this language and, soon, you too will be spouting such gems as, "This street is modern!" or, "That restaurant is not very developed!". I myself fell into this trap, and by the time I left China I had somehow been brainwashed into categorizing the world into neat little levels of development. Recently, however, I was thinking (yes, it happens) about the use of these words and had a sudden moment of existential panic: what the fuck are we all talking about?

This confusion saw its beginnings last year. In my freshman English class out on the urban fringe of Hangzhou (which, I'm told, is very modern and developed), my students had a habit of throwing around the suspect words to an extent I would almost call dangerous. They sure loved modernity and development considering they could never explain to me what these terms even meant to them. And they weren't the only ones: my favourite words often turned up in the strangest of places, put to questionable use.

My fun with development and modernity continues unabated this year, not very surprising since I'm studying urbanization and development. For the past few months I've been immersed in analysis of development theory and competing understandings of modernity, specifically as they relate to urban processes. So, I think it would be fair to say that my mind in now thoroughly modernized, although still developing.

So, what has come of all this? A personal distaste for the terms 'modern' and 'development' and all that they imply in their common, everyday use. When a city, let's say Dalian, is described as 'modern', just what exactly are we saying? If we say Qinghai is 'undeveloped', what value judgments are we making?

This is where we get to modernization theory. It works on the assumption that all human societies are located somewhere along a single line, a "path of development", with some far back in the traditional stage (ie backwards), while others are far ahead in the modern stage (ie advanced). The goal, and fate, of all societies is to move themselves along this line, experiencing something wonderful called progress (of course, there has been a ridiculous amount of debate as to just how societies move along this line towards modernity).

In China, I would dare say that this model is accepted rather uncritically (and, I should add, it is far from the only place where this is done). Development is a universal, objective process; one in which humanity experiences politically neutral, inevitable progress. In modernization theory, moving along the line is inherently good, because a society is becoming more modern and advanced. Not moving along the line is inherently bad, because being traditional is backwards and thus inferior. Modernity thus becomes good in itself, as that's what we are supposed to be chasing.

Of course, this begs a serious question: if societies are placed on a scale from traditional to modern, what criteria are being used to judge what is traditional (and bad) or what is modern (and good)? I would like to say that the world got together for a huge meeting to decide what being 'modern' meant, but I'm afraid that role was left to the usual culprit: the West. Now, don't think I'm attacking the United States here: this dates back to before they were the biggest kid on the block. Yes, European colonialism, I'm looking your way. The original West did such a good job of 'civilizing the savages' that Western ideals are now largely, and uncritically, understood as objective, universal goods (well, at least the ones that don't involve human rights). Whether that is a good thing or not is a whole other debate, but I'm constantly amazed at how few people (outside of the ivory tower, obviously) pick this up.

It is thus that places that are described as 'modern' are inevitably the ones which are the most Westernized. Modern form means an industrialized space, while modern institutions mean rationality, efficiency and rule of law. So, is modernity really that objective and culturally neutral? It sounds strangely Western to me.

So, another question arises: why has Western-style industrialization come to be the benchmark by which societies are judged as 'backward' or 'advanced'? Because the West designed the whole game, that's why. What about Religion? Corruption? Family ties? Culinary abilities? Imagine if societies were judged by how good their food was- the list of 'developed' places would look quite different. China might be one of the most developed places on earth.

As an Anglo-Saxon Westerner, I'm aware that the game continues to this day. Fresh-faced tourists show up in Shanghai, amazed at "how modern!" the city appears. But our idea of modern is so rooted in our own notions of success and progress that what these people are really saying is "Look how Western this city is! Isn't it great?". Modernity and all its guises are taken as value neutral, and yet I find the whole concept deeply rooted in a specific set of cultural and political processes.

It's not hard to see how this happened. If you (or Europe) somehow reach a point where you can define your interests as the rules of the game that everyone else accepts as objective, then you will. Gradually, your ideas of success become interpreted as universal measures of success, and then eventually people forget where the standards even came from in the first place. Industrialization becomes modernity becomes inherent good. End of story. Let's go for a drink.

So, perhaps this little rant explains (I hope) why the usage of the terms modern and development increasingly get on my nerves. When Western China is called 'undeveloped' and Eastern China is called 'developed' (at least they say), what value judgments are being made? Well, obviously, that the latter is superior to the former. But why? Because it is more industrialized? I'm not comfortable with judging one place as superior to the other, because no standard of measurement can be ever be objective or neutral.

I'm sure some of you are thinking, "C'mon, this rambling theoretical mess is getting way out of hand, 'modern' just means new while 'traditional' means old". To you I say: why do we consider Shanghai to be a symbol of the new, while a little village in Hunan is considered representative of the old? Both exist in our present, 2005. You could say that a poor farmer is as equally representative of our 'modern age' as a glittering skyscraper surrounded by freeways.

Modernity and its development theory judge societies based on their level of Western-style industrialization, and attributes various stages of 'development' to certain time periods through its obsession with progress. It's, honestly, not much more than an euro-centric attempt to classify societies through very subjective criteria. And, frankly, I think it has been quite successful.

But take this industrialization ranking out of the picture, and a much more confusing, ill-defined and ultimately interesting place emerges. We aren't developed or undeveloped, traditional or modern; we just are. The developing world/developed world dichotomy becomes, quite simply, absurd. The idea of progress becomes meaningless. Long live post-modernism!

So, the next time you visit a place, feel free to call it huge, tall, nice, ugly, vibrant, clean, organized, chaotic, industrious, dirty, wild, boring or fascinating. But, for the love of whatever God you may believe in, please don't call it modern. :)

After a month-long hiatus, the Ape is back with a vengeance. To you, my neglected fan(s) (whose numbers have now likely dwindled to nothing given this site's mini-hibernation), I offer a treat: not one new post, but SEVEN. That's right: starting tomorrow night, I will put up at least one new post every day until next Wednesday. The week will be a celebration of all things Ape Rifle. What can I say, really; I'm in a blogging mood!

Now, I know what many of you are thinking: "listen to this blowhard, I bet he'll just put up random pictures, given them pretentious titles and consider them posts". I'll be the first to admit the thought did cross my mind, but in my infinite generosity I have instead decided to subject you to the rambling, misspelled messes that pass for writing on this site.

So...Is there any specific theme to Ape Rifle Week? The answer is a definite no. Posts will include random thoughts, rants, wild exaggerations of mundane experiences around the world and maybe even a word or two about London. There is even a possibility I will write a daring exposé on my Montreal friends, the ones who complained that I never mention them on this site (you know who you are...Expect messy pictures).

I guess the most obvious question is, necessarily, left for last: why in the hell haven't I posted anything for more than a month? It certainly wasn't for lack of material: Serbia turned into London turned into Montreal turned into London again, facilitated by more time in subways, airplanes and Heathrow terminals than any sane person should care for. My time at home over Christmas was great, and there is always some drunk throwing things on a night bus to write about here in London. So, to help justify my lack of blogging, I present to you a list of excuses. Pick whichever one you want, and chances are it's true.

Why I Didn't Blog for More than a Month

1) I've been busy trying not to sit in front of my computer

2) When I've been sitting in front of my computer, it has been to

a) pretend I'm writing an essay

b) be thoroughly entertained by the comment wars over at
Peking Duck

c) read some great blogs (here, here, here, here, here and here)

d) thank the unspecified, gender-neutral deity that Sinobling FINALLY started blogging again, with some of the best posts yet

3) I've had class

4) I've had jetlag

5) I've been spiritually and emotionally dead

6) I've seen old friends- and gotten quite drunk in the process

7) I've been waiting for the night bus to show up (wow, my first London joke!)

8) I've been out taking pictures with my monstrous new camera

9) I've been wondering where my girlfriend is (and, furthermore, who she might be)

10)I'm lazy