Sunday, October 10, 2010
Expo
369,300; that is how many people went to the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai on the same day I did which seems like a lot until compared to the Expo’s peak day, the 15th of June, which saw 518,000 people attend.
The exhibition, which opened on 1st May and runs until the end of October, has been seen as Shanghai's chance to showcase itself to the rest of the world. In spending a reported $46 billion spent on the Expo, China has invested more money in it than the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Official figures have predicted 70 million visitors will flock to the 240 pavilions and exhibitions staged by participating countries and organizations, spread out over 2.5 miles of Shanghai's Huangpu riverbank. So far 58,386,600 visitors have visited the Shanghai expo. While most come from China itself some, like me (technically), are overseas visitors.
I had gone to the expo briefly with Aya in June when we were here for a couple of days, but because of time constraints we only went in for a couple of hours and saw just two pavilions. I only remember one, Israel, which I thought was rather disappointing. The building itself looked very cool from the outside, but the main portion of the inside was dedicated to a movie showing the advancements in technology Israel has made and connections with China. In my eyes both subjects were forced and not very interesting.
This time around I went alone. I intended to spend a whole day, but arrived a bit late around 10am and then left a bit early at 4pm because me feet were starting to hurt and lines were getting monstrously long. This time around I went to 5 pavilions, the African Shared Pavilion, the South American shared Pavilion, the Cuban pavilion, the USA pavilion, and the New Zealand pavilion.
The Cuban pavilion was terribly depressing and the only thing I remember from it is that there was a man selling bottles of rum, or some kind of liquor. There wasn’t even a line, just two open doors leading in and out of the pavilion. I guess you can’t have a line if there is nothing to wait for. The African shared pavilion and the South American shared pavilion had some interesting points, but also some very shabbily put together areas. At some times I imagined that a class of 6th graders had been put to task setting up displays. The New Zealand pavilion was neat. There was a giant green stone in front for visitors to touch, nice displays of NZ life and overall a cool design. The USA pavilion was by far my favorite, which feels boastful for me to say because I took pride in what the USA pavilion focused on in contrast to what other pavilions focused on. In every other pavilion I saw the focus was on physical achievements like mining, exports, advancements in technology, or the unique regions of a country. All those are fine things to be proud of and showcase, but America’s pavilion focused on something intangible.
Yes, I can barely believe it myself, American’s did not focused on the goods they make, the land they have, or the advancements in technology. Rather they were focused on ideas. Yes, ideas. As the pavilion’s site says, “The Pavilion presents the U.S. as a place of opportunity and diversity where people come together to change their communities for the better.” There were three films in three different rooms of the pavilion as a group of a couple hundred people we were moved from room to room. The first film had an array of ordinary and not so ordinary Americans, including Kobe Bryant, Tony Hawk, and Michelle Kwan, attempting to speak to visitors in Chinese(for the record Kwan has no trouble speaking Chinese). The takes are not perfect and visitors get to see the many mistakes that people make trying to say something in Chinese. It was great. It set the audience in a playful mood and got everyone smiling. Next visitors are led to see a second film featuring the likes of U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Here they and a group of children talk about the innovative ideas that Americans will come up with in the future. Kind of a ‘Promise of Tomorrow’ type film. The third film features a story on urban landscapes with moving seats for thunder and a sprinkling of water for rain when those parts come up in the narrative.
At the end of the second film the audience cheered! Can you believe that? Cheered! I never saw anything like that at the other pavilions. No one cheered the guy selling rum in Cuba. The Green stone of New Zealand was cool, but no one laughed. Pointing out the connection between Israelis and Chinese was nice, but didn’t get any applause.
I could feel the emotion from the films and the emotion from the audience around me and I could see, for the first time here, the way that some Chinese people look at the United States. Outside waiting in line I met a young girl who I talked to for the 30 minutes or so it took for us to get through the line. She told me about her family, her upbringing and her desire to study in the U.S. Inside the pavilion I met two young men who were anxious to speak to me about what I thought of the US pavilion. Listening to them I was put into the perfect mindset for what I was about to see.
The Expo’s slogan is ‘Better City, Better Life’ and I have to imagine that if the estimated 70,000,000 visitors come to Shanghai in the course of 6 months that indeed the city will become better. The government will be forced to clean up, for at least 6 months, and the economic activity visitors bring with them will improve the city of Shanghai. No matter what happens, I can take away a little peace of mind. A reminder to myself that even with all the wealth of land and achievements that America has the potential of America's future might be more valuable than all of that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Pretty funny. It's a good thing you enjoyed the films, 'cause you're gonna pay for them -- all 15 minutes of jive. The price? A mere $23 million. All paid for with tax-exempt contributions so that you, the American taxpayer, get to make up the difference when you pay your taxes.
Each of the three films came with corporate advertising, which isn't surprising since only corporations were asked to pitch in as "marketing partners." In fact, except for the three films -- which, I have since learned, many Chinese feel were condescending and trite -- the entire pavilion was dedicated to the making and selling of things, mostly things made and sold by giant multinationals.
You didn't get that? Well, I guess their $100 million-dollar was wasted on you. Or maybe, you weren't the audience. Glad you are so proud of the pavilion, which is privately owned. It's no more "USA" than a can of beans is.
Anonymous - who are you? If you can't own up to what you write, you should not write anything.
Hi there! I'm an employee at the USA Pavilion and I came across your blog via a repost. I just want to say I'm glad you enjoyed the pavilion. We definitely try to make sure our guests do. As I'm sure you know, there's been more than enough negative press about the pavilion back at home in the States, so it's definitely refreshing to see some words of appreciation. Hope you enjoyed the Expo!
Anonymous, how did the price of the pavilion go up from 23 mil to 100 mil in only two paragraph? I am glad your post didn't go on any longer, because then the expo might have sucked up the whole American economy.
Good one Dave!
And by the way, anonymous, a can of beans IS very American!
The price of the films was $23 million. We may never know how much the whole operation cost because the private company set up to run the pavilion, Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., hasn't opened its books or filed a required tax since it was founded three years ago. A fair estimate based on the 70-plus corporations who funded it entirely out of the goodness of their hearts, at $500,000-$5 million plus apiece, would be $100 million.
Nevertheless, it's tax exempt, which means that the corporations get to charge it off and we, the rest of America's taxpayers, have to make up this difference in our taxes. That's how it works in America these days.
I actually know quite a lot about the pavilion, how it works, what it's for, and the people behind it. It's not what it appears on its surface. That story will out with time.
But honestly, you can't believe this used-car mall cum propaganda mill was (a) the best pavilion at the Expo or (b) the best that America could do! Visit http://Expomuseum.com for a taste of what America once was capable of at Expos, before the Government decided to outsource this one to the Chamber of Commerce. Oh yes, does that give you some idea of what's going on here? Hmmm?
What a boring debate this is. Look, if the American gov't built the pavilion, it would have cost taxpayers whatever the price of the pavilion would have been. If businesses make tax-exempt contributions, then taxpayers pay the price of the pavilion times whatever the relevant marginal tax rate is (maybe 35%). Thus businesses are paying for something like 65% of the cost of the pavilion. Furthermore, businesses are probably willing to pay their share because of the advertisement value for their exports. At a time when there is a ton of stimulus spending and a weak economy, one could think of this as a way of stimulating Chinese demand for American goods, and therefore creating American jobs.
In any case, while, say, 35 mil is a lot of money for US taxpayers to spend, the US annual FEDERAL budget alone is 3.5 trillion dollars. 35 mil is 1/100 thousandanth of the annual budget. You people are spending your valuable time worrying a drop in the ocean. The federal defense budget is 750 billion, more than 25,000 times 35 mil.
Drop in the bucket is the truth. But I must say I think it is an interesting debate, which I think should be granted more time or space from the author.
I have thought of many side points and haven't done any research, regardless, two things come to mind while reading the responses.
First and foremost, how much more of a pussy can you be to not even own up to an internet comment on a blog. Leave your name or leave nothing.
Secondly, Americans are not paying more for this with corporations using tax-exempt contributions. If it wasn't going to be done here, it would be somewhere else. Gone either way, it is a wash, the IRS was never going to see the money regardless. The true debate here could be the tax system, but this is not the point of the post.
Kevin, great work, you should write a book.
I'm not much of a "ra ra America!" type person, but was moved by what I saw in the American pavilion (the one in 2010 btw, not comparing to past ones). Despite all the bad press that America gets, and apparently is even subject to in my blog's comments, there are some things that make America great. That was the point of my post.
If you have a beef about the cost, which Dave is right, you shouldn't, then you should find a post about that and hold your discussion there.
Kev - you have great friends.
Mom
Post a Comment