Film Review – Iron Road: A Disingenuous ‘Apology’

Blog post by admin | June 24, 2009 | | No Responses Yet

*WARNING: SPOILERS*

In a recent Toronto Star review of “Iron Road”, the writer commented that “for Chinese railroad workers and early migrants to Canada, the new movie Iron Road rivals in significance to what The Pianist means to Jews living with memories after the persecutions during World War II – both dramas give a face to those nameless and voiceless who perished en masse in history.” Unfortunately, Chinese railroad workers and early migrants are more likely to be rolling in their graves, given Iron Road’s misrepresentation and whitewashing of history, whether intentional or not.

That this film might lack in historical accuracy is clear from the start with Chinese workers speaking Mandarin; most migrant workers spoke Toisanese or Cantonese and not Mandarin. But frankly, this isn’t a big deal really, especially when compared to some of the other inaccuracies.

At the start of the film, James Nichol, the son of a railroad contractor, travels to China to recruit workers for the construction of the railway. Travelling up river to the protagonist Xiao Fu’s home village, he asks Xiao Fu about why they were going there to recruit workers. She explains that people there are in destitution after war against the Manchus (I assume they are speaking of the Taiping Rebellion*) and famines. While it is true that there were conflicts within China and other problems that caused great hardship to the Chinese people, it’s a glaring omission not to mention European and Japanese imperialism in China. The local economy of China was destroyed after the Opium Wars, with the carving up of the country into ’spheres of influence’ and the subsequent influx of Western commodities and capital. This in conjunction with massive indemnities forced on to the Chinese government left many Chinese workers and peasants in poverty. Thus, it could be argued that Chinese peasants were left with no choice but to take up work in North America because of the actions of Western capitalists. The Western capitalists should not be seen, as portrayed in the film, as benevolent individuals giving opportunities to the poor Chinese.

The portrayal of these individuals as benevolent can almost be seen as having undertones of ‘white man’s burden’. As stated above, Chinese workers were not being ’saved’ and given ‘honest work’, they were put in that position by these very people in the first place. Whether or not conditions in North America railway construction were shown as poor is besides the point.

Undertones of ‘white man’s burden’ would not be the only example of racist stereotyping. An early scene also alluded to a sort of despotic relationship between triads and the Chinese people, further substantiating the idea that White capitalists were saving Chinese people from destitution of their own making. This fits neatly into traditional Orientalist landscapes that portray Chinese communities, whether in North America or in Asia, as havens of crime. The quite frankly racist imagery is completed when another white contractor comments, “you will find that business is done quite differently here”, juxtaposing the West as the moral antithesis of the East. Ironically, at this time period, triads were not necessarily criminal gangs, and were instead, a major component of the Chinese revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty. That said, to be fair to the screenwriters, the gang was not identified as triad.

The problematic representation of history did not end with scenes set in China. Upon arrival in British Columbia, Chinese workers were taunted with racial epithets. However, the lack of critical explanation of how these views emerged leads to assumptions that such behaviour was natural examples of simple xenophobia. In truth, race as a social construct requires institutional legitimization. In the case of discrimination against Chinese workers, a major cause was the dissemination of racist propaganda by Onderdonk, the chief contractor for the Canadian Pacific Railway, presumably to deter solidarity between white and Chinese workers. The movie appeared largely uncritical of the actions of the railroad company. The only wrongdoing apparently was that of bookkeepers committing fraud by continuing to collect the payrolls of deceased Chinese workers. Not much attention was given to how the railroad company contributed to poor work conditions or the differentiated pay between Chinese and white workers.

Lastly, there is a lack of critical perspectives on the Canadian Pacific Railway. This criticism is not only being directed towards this film, as this type of discourse is fairly common. The railway has often been celebrated by white Canadians and Chinese Canadians alike, as an engineering masterpiece that united the Canadian nation. Indeed, it is sometimes argued that discrimination against Chinese should be addressed for the Chinese played an important role in the construction of the railway – as if equity was something to be ‘earned’. What is not recognized though is that the Canadian Pacific Railway allowed for the dispossession of First Nation lands and the continued development of the Canadian colonial project. It is imperative that we are critical of the treatment of Chinese railroad workers; however, it is just as imperative that we, the Chinese community, recognize our role in the subjugation of other peoples – whether or not blame can be assigned.

Raymond Massey, a producer of the film, stated in an interview that “this is our way of saying sorry”. It is clear that this is completely consistent with the kinds of disingenuous apologies given by the Canadian state – whether it is regarding residential schools or the head tax. This film is, at best, well-intentioned but ignorant. At worst, it is a part of continued attempts to erase the history of oppression in this country, masquerading as an enlightened voice.

*Ironically, European powers gave military support to the Qing dynasty during the Taiping Rebellion. Considering how the Qing had hunted down Xiao Fu, it’s strange how receptive she is to these foreign contractors.

Note: This is a review of the two hour cinema version and not of the miniseries.