China’s search for modernity included the transformation of its economy, which was partially forced by western semi-colonialism. Karl Gerth argues that the new economy with foreign goods and a consumer mentality drove the development of a national identity for China. Gerth focuses on the guohuo, or “national goods” campaigns that boycotted foreign goods, particularly those by foreign powers that attacked China’s sovereignty. The majority of these campaigns were against the Japanese, but at least one major campaign focused on the United States. These campaigns were not unified, but were a series of interconnecting organizations. Gerth suggests that we think of them as the American Civil Rights movements instead of the NAACP.

These boycotts are not unique to Chinese history. Many colonized cultures had similar movements, with Indian being the most prominent. China was unique, however, in that it was never fully colonized, but still lost control of their tariffs. From that perspective, a boycott of foreign goods seems like the only way to promote national industries, which was one of the prime arguments the guohuo movements used. The importance of these campaigns, Gerth argues, was not the economic benefit they provided, but in the way they involved the populace in the nationalist project and helped it identify itself as Chinese first and foremost.

The movement never had a mass loyal following, except in rhetoric. It had a mass of propaganda, as well as some exhibitions of Chinese goods, but the practice of buying higher quality foreign goods that were often cheaper than local products continued with only minor interruptions. Nevertheless most shopkeepers, as well as local organizations, had to publicly support the boycott. Often, shopkeepers solved the problem by labeling Japanese goods, particularly clothing, as Chinese. Consumers were happy to keep up the pretense when buying them, not interrupting commerce but still reinforcing Chinese identity. Gerth effectively demonstrates how important an emerging consumer culture can be in building nationalism, although he does not investigate the actual economic impact. He suggests that the boycott was counterproductive to the growing economy, but offers no evidence to support this. Since economics were not his focus, the omission is hardly surprising and does not diminish his argument at all. ( )