Translations in Children's Paradise (1970-1979): the Union's agendas and the Cold War cultural diplomacy in Hong Kong

The article investigates how translations in Children's Paradise (CP), a leading Hong Kong children's magazine run by the Union, functioned within Cold War cultural diplomacy during the 1970s. Translation was a key instrument across the Iron Curtain, with US-backed initiatives (e.g., via the Asia Foundation) aiming to counter communist and leftist ideologies. Prior scholarship often reads such cultural products primarily through the lens of American patronage, underplaying the variegated roles and agendas of semi-independent, unofficial actors. The Union, part of the "Third Force," shared anti-communist convictions but pursued its own China-centric agenda emphasizing a democratic China rooted in authentic Chinese cultural traditions. In 1970s Hong Kong—amid shifting Sino–US relations, British colonial governance reforms after the 1967 riots, and Asia Foundation funding changes—CP thrived. The study asks: What characteristics defined CP’s translations? What rationales underpinned them? How did they reflect the Union’s agendas while interacting with changing Cold War dynamics in Hong Kong? The research aims to re-evaluate CP beyond a monolithic patronage framework by foregrounding local context, editorial autonomy, and the Union’s distinctive cultural objectives.

The paper surveys work on Cold War cultural diplomacy and translation, noting that translation campaigns in Asia were often implemented by decentralized agencies (USIS, Asia Foundation) working with local partners (Li 2013, 2022; Wang 2014, 2022; Wang 2020; Du 2022). Scholars highlight tensions between state agendas and non-state cultural actors; unofficial entities pursued their own goals and localized strategies (Jiang 2021; Otmazgin 2012; Popa 2018; Lygo 2018; Von Flotow 2018). Within Hong Kong studies, CP has frequently been interpreted as "green-spine" literature aligned with US anti-communism (Wang 1998; Zhao 2018). However, newly surfaced archival materials and personal accounts suggest the Asia Foundation did not directly fund CP in the 1970s when CP actually reached peak popularity (Lo and Hung 2014, 2017), challenging a simplistic patronage reading. Scholarship on the Union and its periodicals indicates a China-centric agenda critical of both CPC and KMT while advocating preservation and revival of Chinese cultural heritage (Fu 2019a, 2019b; Lin 2018; Zhao 2017). This literature motivates a localized, agency-focused analysis of CP’s translated picture stories.

The study combines: 1) a historical overview of the Union, its publications, and Cold War cultural diplomacy in Hong Kong; 2) a brief quantitative survey of CP’s picture-story translations from 1970–1979 (approximately 120 identifiable translations, predominantly from English and Japanese—about 83 and 25 instances, respectively); and 3) close textual-visual analysis of serialized translations across the 1970s, focusing on major series (Gulliver Guinea-Pig, Little Bear, Dr. Seuss, Doraemon). Treating translations as collective editorial outputs (Editor-in-Chief handling verbal content, illustrators repainting visuals), the analysis identifies recurrent translation strategies (omission, substitution, addition, domestication/sinicization, localization) and interprets them in relation to the Union’s agendas and 1970s Hong Kong sociopolitical context. Examples include: omission of a "China" episode in Gulliver; removal of "China" in Little Bear’s Wish; re-routing geography in Dr. Seuss’s The Big Brag; domestication of mythological and historical elements; localized references to Hong Kong public campaigns; and Cantonese-based renaming practices.

• CP’s translations displayed three salient characteristics aligned with the Union’s agendas and local conditions:

1. Exclusion of political/geographical "China": The term "China" was consistently omitted or replaced (observed roughly ten times), e.g., the Gulliver episode "Gulliver and the Chinese Prince" was not included; Little Bear’s wish to go to China was removed; Dr. Seuss’s The Big Brag re-mapped the worm’s vision to avoid naming China. Notably, CP did not similarly exclude the Soviet Union, sometimes presenting it neutrally or positively (e.g., Gulliver dances ballet in the USSR; Doraemon line preserving US–USSR space-race rivalry), indicating decisions were not simply US-scripted anti-communism.
2. Promotion of cultural/historical "China": Extensive domestication/sinicization replaced foreign verbal and visual elements with Chinese mythological, folkloric, and historical motifs (e.g., "Jack Frost" to "Frost Spirit" and "Summer Queen" to "Spring Goddess"; settings renamed with Chinese resonance). Japanese source contexts were reframed through Chinese historical analogs (e.g., labeling Japan’s Sengoku as the Chinese “Warring States Period”), and visuals were altered to align with Chinese iconography. This elevated Chinese civilizational heritage for young readers.
3. Adaptation for Hong Kong consciousness: Additions and substitutions addressed local civic life and policy (e.g., inserting the "Clean Hong Kong Campaign" into Doraemon dialogue); geographic references shifted from Japan/London to Hong Kong locales (e.g., Repulse Bay); maps and mentions of Japan were replaced with Hong Kong equivalents; and character naming adopted Cantonese forms with embedded Chinese cultural connotations. These adaptations resonated with rising local identity while still advancing the Union’s cultural agenda.

• Quantitative context: ~120 translated picture stories in the 1970s; major series and counts include Doraemon (Transparent Paint and 159 other episodes), Gulliver Guinea-Pig (It’s a Sailor’s Life for Me! and 36 others), Dr. Seuss (If I Ran the Circus and 9 others), and Little Bear (Little Bear and 7 others).

The findings show that CP’s translations were not mere conduits of US cultural diplomacy; rather, they were purposeful editorial rewritings serving the Union’s China-centric agendas within Hong Kong’s evolving Cold War context. By excluding the political/geographical "China," CP distanced itself from both PRC and ROC political projects that conflicted with the Union’s vision of a democratic, tradition-rooted China. Simultaneously, by promoting Chinese cultural-historical heritage, CP fostered a shared civilizational identity among Chinese readers, offering a depoliticized basis for community in a period of ideological division and diaspora. Localization for Hong Kong consciousness—through civic references, geographic substitutions, Cantonese naming—aligned CP with British-era societal reforms and emergent local identity, maintaining relevance and readership after other Union periodicals declined. Preserving certain Soviet references further illustrates CP’s editorial autonomy and localized logic, producing cultural outcomes beyond Cold War binaries and the presumed top-down patronage model. Overall, the translation strategies answered the research questions by clarifying how CP operationalized the Union’s agendas while navigating the layered interplay of US, PRC, and British influences in 1970s Hong Kong.

The study demonstrates that CP’s translation practices were a strategic cultural diplomacy by the Union: (1) excluding "China" as a political-geographic label to reject both CPC- and KMT-led state projects, (2) elevating China as a civilizational and historical heritage to unify young readers around shared cultural roots, and (3) adapting content to Hong Kong’s civic life, language, and geography to sustain engagement amid a surge of local consciousness. These editorial choices enabled CP to flourish in the 1970s, reinforcing Chinese heritage as subtle resistance to colonial assimilation while moving beyond simplistic US patronage narratives. The article argues for nuanced analyses of Cold War cultural products that foreground local agencies, editorial autonomy, and multilayered mediation in transnational cultural diplomacy. It suggests future research can further explore localized, agency-focused interpretations of translation practices across different regions, genres, and media to capture the complex, non-linear dynamics of Cold War cultural flows.