(De)colonisation and (de)industrialisation: the heritage-making of Harbin, China

Colonial heritage and industrial heritage are two of the most frequently-researched themes in the field of heritage studies. Yet people hardly reflect on the interrelationship between these two heritage themes and tend to examine those currently successful cities, which actually overlook some typical, interesting and inspiring cases. Harbin, the capital city of Heilongjiang Province, China, is exactly one of these overlooked cities.

Harbin was not a human settlement until the early 18th century, and only started its urbanization in the late 19th century. There were around 73 villages on the site in 1895, three years before Russia started to construct the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1898. It started its rapid urbanisation as the Chinese Eastern Railway Zone which is the Russian administration over the railway. After being occupied by Japan (as a part of Manchukuo 1932-1945), in 1946, Harbin became the first big city emancipated by the Chinese Red Army of CPC. The city later became a nationally important industrial city which support the whole country after the establishment of P. R. China. Born in a colonial background and pioneering in China’s industrialisation and modernisation, Harbin was once a most prosperous city in the country, but is becoming more and more marginalised because of the comparative disadvantage caused by the decolonisation and deindustrialisation processes of the city itself, and the massive overall urbanisation and globalisation phenomena in China. However, the life and death of this former internationally and nationally important city clearly illustrates the way in which narratives of the colonial and/or industrial pasts are interpreted and used, which sometimes even merge with each other or substitute for the other through heritage making. It also sheds light on how such interpretation and use of colonial and/or industrial heritage refer to the contemporary political and economic agendas in China.

This paper argues that colonial heritage and industrial heritage can be inherently interrelated in some cases. The discourse of colonial/industrial heritage is not fixed, but a process of making that continuously refer to the contemporary political and economic agendas. In this sense, the narrative of its colonial and/or industrial pasts can be transformed into a tool for further urban development.