It has been reported that the tomb of Cai Jing, a disputed Chinese historic figure, will be restored at the end of this year in Putian, southeast China’s Fujian Province. Since the plan was introduced by Cai’s offspring, the money for the restoration will mainly come from Cai’s family, a few NGOs and the local government. The restoration work is estimated to reach 9 million yuan ($1.410 million) to cover more than 30 mu (20,000 square meters) of the site.
Cai is notorious for his corruption as an official during the Song Dynasty (960-1279). But he is also a very famous and talented calligrapher with many renowned works. When details for the restoration work were released, a heated public debate ensued over whether it is appropriate to restore the tomb.
Supporters think Cai’s resting place has great value in academic research and is an important historical relic that needs to be protected. Besides, it can be a future tourist spot for the local economy. It also serves as a warning against corruption for current politicians.
Opponents think restoring the tomb will ruin the national spirit. The local government shouldn’t put economics and the potential to spur tourism in Putian over the importance of culture and morality.
Historic value
Zhang Yuzhe (Wenzhou Evening News): The restored tomb will serve as an excellent reminder of the dangers of corruption.
Cai is a very important figure in history, which is not controversial at all. Keeping the tomb and former residence of historical celebrities can serve as an educational tool and way of improving archaeological research. We shouldn’t be against the restoration.
Judging a historical figure should be divided into two parts. Cai was corrupt but he also made indispensable contributions to China’s calligraphy.
We should respect these facts and use them to educate people. No matter the tomb of Cai or the former residence of Wang Jingwei, head of a puppet regime in Nanjing backed by the Japanese dur-
ing China’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1937-45), we should maintain all of them and give moderate restorations and let them be great examples to educate people.
Cai Hui (http://news.163.com): Cai was a zai xiang, the prime minister in ancient times, for 18 years. Besides, he was a talented scholar who made huge achievements in calligraphy, poetry and other writings. Nowadays, more people are studying his life and the restoration of his resting place can offer scholars more materials for studying the times he lived in. The tomb and its environs will be a famous resort for academic research, travel and cultural education.
Chen Lianghong (http://news.163. com): Despite his controversial reputation, Cai is a famous figure in Chinese history, which will propel the tourism industry in Putian if his tomb is properly restored.
Second, speaking from the perspective of protecting historical relics, Cai’s tomb has some value for academic research and it’s a good thing that common people voluntarily offered to restore and protect it.
Zheng Qiujian (http://china.huanqiu.com): Restoring Cai’s tomb is more about the value of historical relics instead of discussing his reputation. No matter if his reputation is good or bad, the tomb is of important academic and research value.
We understand that Cai is questioned for his behavior. But he also had many other interesting stories that we hope more people can learn about. Cai contributed to the educational and scientific improvement in his times. Besides, he made great achievements in calligraphy.
We don’t care whether he was a good or bad figure in history. As a local historical relic, it deserves a decent makeover. It’s ok to restore it.
Bad influence
Chao Bai (Nanfang Daily): We definitely shouldn’t restore it. When using historic resources for current purposes, we always seem to forget what we really want. Shouldn’t we stick to the historic and moral bottom line when using celebrities and relics to gain economic benefits? We need some retrospection in this area.
Ling He (Hefei Daily): Why should we restore the tomb of a notorious historic figure while many other positive figures’ tombs are still a mess, such as Qi Baishi (1864-1957) and Zhang Jiluan (1888-1942), both brilliant and important artists in history?
This is because of the so-called “attraction of villains,” which is an often used pattern in the tourism industry today. For instance, a hand-written letter from Wang Jingwei has been sold for 220,000 yuan ($34,474). If villains get this kind of special attention, then people will surely want to restore the tomb of the notorious Cai.
Xu Guilong (Xiaoshan Daily): Why is the local government so interested in supporting the restoration of a notoriously corrupt historic figure? Apparently, it only sees the economic value of the relic. For local people, Cai is a celebrity that they are“proud of” and is an exceptional intangible resource they feel they should put to good use. Besides, after the tomb is restored, the city will be more famous. So, by restoring the tomb, the local government can reap both fame and money.
Now GDP seems to be the only standard for judging the performance of local governments. Some become obsessed in achieving higher GDP. With a hidden economic consideration, some vulgar cultural projects that would hurt people’s feelings have been put on stage. Culture has lost the decent appearance it should have. It is apparently a moral decline. If the local government insisted on restoring it, it will be notorious just like Cai in history.
Yin Yushi (Guangzhou Daily): Using cultural resources to reap cash has its benefits. And some local governments are willing to ignore even the lowest moral standard. This kind of “creativity” in tourism must be stopped, or it will cause chaos in society.
The “creative” cultural industry reflected a twisted viewpoint of economic development. Cultural tourism should offer special cultural products in accordance with the mainstream of society and moral standards. Hence, relevant government departments should eliminate the “cultural pollution” and enhance tourists’ ability for appreciating higher-level cultural products. Creativity in tourism development shouldn’t create pollution.
Shu Xiao (http://jjw.voc.com.cn): We should try to prevent culture from being sacrificed or tainted in the name of spurring the local economy.
The tourism industry can offer special attractions for the common people. The basic bottom line for people in this industry should be in accordance with the mainstream value and moral standards. Supervisory departments should immediately take action and actively guide the industry into implementing proper, morally conducive concepts. For those who offer so-called “creative cultural projects,” supervision departments should punish them severely.
Zhu Sibei (Yanzhao Metropolis Daily): The local government has been clear about its purpose of the restoration: creating a tourist attraction. I think this purpose is a clear demonstration of today’s pragmatism. The final purpose of the tourist attraction will have nothing to do with the value of historical relics but will be all about huge economic benefits. In order to grab headlines, the local government is us- ing the restoration as a breakthrough for developing tourism industry.
Nowadays, local governments are busy competing for the original residences of historical celebrities, but they don’t emphasize the culture behind it any more. What they can see is only the economic benefit it can bring.
Here, the value of relics has become an empty shell for pursuing economic benefit. This has become a common problem nowadays. Restoring the tomb of Cai is just a game for collecting money.