If we can broaden Western music to all kinds of arts, Mao gave a famous talk at Yan’an (在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话) long before the Communist took power, which decided the tone that art should serve the people. Since then, arts and politics have connected each other. It has remained as a goal or constrain for Chinese artists today.
During the Cultural Revolution, most Western composers and instruments were banned as they represented Western culture and bourgeoisie. But people still loved music and wouldn’t bother to use Western instruments in propaganda. As written in the book “Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress,” a local cadre finds that a sent-down youth brings his violin, which should be confiscated. The young man lies that he can play a piece called “Mozart Miss Chairman Mao” (it’s actually a Mozart sonata), thus he keeps the violin and plays whenever he’s free.
I recommend the documentary “From Mao to Mozart: Isaac Stern in China” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Mao_to_Mozart:_Isaac_Stern_in_China) shot in 1980 after the Cultural Revolution. It records Stern’s visit to China when he gave lessons to Chinese music students and performed in a concert. Besides music, the documentary presents more about the tragic influence of the Cultural Revolution to Chinese, especially Chinese musicians and music education.
Everything seems the opposite today. Many Chinese parents in the city send their kids to learn piano, no matter whether they like it. It’s not only for cultivating interests, but students can gain extra scores for school entrance if they pass certain degrees of piano playing. In the conservatories in the States, piano and violin are almost “Asian instruments,” as most Chinese students here in the Conservatory play piano.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
one child policy
Westerners seem really care about the One Child Policy, which is an inevitable topic when talking about modern China. I’ve been asked so many times, “if you’re only allowed to have one child, what about TWINS?” I couldn’t help laughing, but you can get a sense of how awkward the policy is when facing common sense. On the one side, it sounds scary that a government has the power to control as detailed as how many children you can have in the name of for the better of the country; on the other side, it proves how powerless a policy can be when it confronts traditional values or even natural laws (like twins).
Besides explaining the policy being impossible to accomplish in the countryside, I always try to update the news that the policy is changing and has to change. Chinese scholars have been discussing since 2000, and here’s an article published on the Southern Weekly in 2008: http://www.infzm.com/content/21657. There are a lot convincing statistics and worries from Chinese scholars, while the government still doesn’t move that much. It’s a problem we cannot wait, but everything comes slowly in China.
And for the question of twins, fortunately, the Chinese government is not that brutal to kill the other, so you can have twins, triplets or even quadruplets!
Besides explaining the policy being impossible to accomplish in the countryside, I always try to update the news that the policy is changing and has to change. Chinese scholars have been discussing since 2000, and here’s an article published on the Southern Weekly in 2008: http://www.infzm.com/content/21657. There are a lot convincing statistics and worries from Chinese scholars, while the government still doesn’t move that much. It’s a problem we cannot wait, but everything comes slowly in China.
And for the question of twins, fortunately, the Chinese government is not that brutal to kill the other, so you can have twins, triplets or even quadruplets!
gender issue
I have the feeling that Westerners love talking about the gender issue, whereas in China people only mention the gender relationship on March 8th, the international women’s day. If you look at the school curriculum, I’m afraid no Chinese universities have a major in gender/women studies, at most under the sociology department, while among top American universities it’s hard to find one without this selection. As explained in the reading for today, it is a “male-dominated academy that has been paralysed by political pressures and the corrupt lures of both state power and the market (Perry & Selden, p. 179).”
Not widely discussed doesn’t mean no problem, but on the contrary, being silent is the problem. It forces women to express themselves through other ways, including suicide. In the documentary “China from the Inside,” it’s shocking yet not too surprising to hear that “China has one of the highest suicide rates for women in the world: 150,000 a year. One every four minutes.” It best exemplifies the character of Chinese women: bearing the unbearable. When Mao wrote on women suicide, he noticed, “the more society causes people to lose their hopes, then the more people in the society will commit suicide (Perry & Selden, p. 290).” Women not only need to keep up with their hopes, but actually support to change their socioeconomic positions.
Not widely discussed doesn’t mean no problem, but on the contrary, being silent is the problem. It forces women to express themselves through other ways, including suicide. In the documentary “China from the Inside,” it’s shocking yet not too surprising to hear that “China has one of the highest suicide rates for women in the world: 150,000 a year. One every four minutes.” It best exemplifies the character of Chinese women: bearing the unbearable. When Mao wrote on women suicide, he noticed, “the more society causes people to lose their hopes, then the more people in the society will commit suicide (Perry & Selden, p. 290).” Women not only need to keep up with their hopes, but actually support to change their socioeconomic positions.
state-owned industry reform
The reform of state-owned industry has lasted for a long time, but it’s still controversial and remains a headache for the country. The bigger size it is, the harder to change. For the agricultural reform, decollectivization and marketization worked. But for the industrial reform, especially for state-owned industry, we cannot decentralize it because of its nature, and we are not strong enough to marketize (in other words, to compete with international companies) or we cannot marketize it for national security reason (such as electricity and oil, even till today, there are only limited numbers of state-owned companies competing against each other). Thus the reform we tried for the state-owned industries was privatization – to change them into companies. As Lang Xianping criticized, it caused a huge lose of national properties, which now belong to individuals. In the late 1990s, hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers from state-owned factories also created a social problem, and it’s hard to tell whether the society get recovered from it today.
In terms of state-owned industry, I thought of a movie earlier this year, called “24 City.” It focuses on a military factory with its luminous past and fading present. You can see how government policies changed since 1950’s, and how they affected the factory and its workers, relatives and the small world it constructed. The movie looks like a documentary, which is a collection of several interviews, but actually some actors are mixed into it with other real workers. Through these personal perspectives, you can get a sense of how their lives have intervened with the factory. People are very attached to the factory, the place they were born, they grew up, and they worked for their whole lives (I saw it when I was in France, but I don’t know if there’s a copy with English subtitle).
In terms of state-owned industry, I thought of a movie earlier this year, called “24 City.” It focuses on a military factory with its luminous past and fading present. You can see how government policies changed since 1950’s, and how they affected the factory and its workers, relatives and the small world it constructed. The movie looks like a documentary, which is a collection of several interviews, but actually some actors are mixed into it with other real workers. Through these personal perspectives, you can get a sense of how their lives have intervened with the factory. People are very attached to the factory, the place they were born, they grew up, and they worked for their whole lives (I saw it when I was in France, but I don’t know if there’s a copy with English subtitle).
All under Heaven
To answer whether there’s anything “socialist” left after the reforms, we need to clarify the major trends of the reforms. As shown in the documentary “All under Heaven,” we could see the process of decollectivization and marketization, which basically turned back to the time before those radical Maoist reforms. In this sense, the “socialist” experiments were gone. However, the “socialist” political structure was still there. Farmers still worried whether the policy would change again, as they have never been constant. Local cadres still need to balance between the government orders and local wealth, just as the one in the documentary said “to play tricks.” Besides these political elements, all traditional cultures, values and rituals sustained, as they did for thousands of years. It’s such a precious documentary to hear what Chinese farmers really thought about the reforms and their life changes. They were practical, frank and never lie. The documentary was shot in such a transiting time (1979-1981), which gave us a glimpse of what has been changed (back) through the reforms, and what has remained through all times.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Tibet & Xinjiang
On March 14th 2008, several months before the Beijing Olympics, the Tibet incident happened. Simultaneously, Chinese and Western media reported completely opposite stories, leaving people to discover who was expressing the truth. On the mainland, Dalai Lama was placed as the back stage leader of the incident, and his followers were trying to separate Tibet out of China through riots on streets. In Western countries, the incident was described as a peaceful demonstration shut down by violent Chinese police. Both sides proved their claims by presenting photos of burned cars and shops, but claims as to who was responsible varied greatly.
At that time, I was at Ithaca, a town for exile Tibetans in the States. Dalai Lama even visited the year before. After the incident, some exile Tibetans went on demonstration at the downtown. I was also talking with a Tibetan employee on campus about the incident. He disliked the Chinese government for sure, but he didn’t believe what the U.S. media was saying either, since Americans didn’t know what’s really happening there, but simply love the idea of “free Tibet.” He felt Tibetan people were asking for more autonomy, rather than separation from China.
For Chinese, people believe that Tibet has been a part of China for a long time, as we could make a long list of examples how each dynasty related to Tibet throughout history, and it’s impossible to separate Tibet from the rest. For Westerners, Tibet was invaded and taken brutally by People’s Republic of China, no matter how many connections Tibet had had with other dynasties before.
I went to Tibet in 2006, right after the opening of the train from Beijing to Lasa. Besides the stunning beauty, I was impressed by the central government’s contribution to Tibet, as all the highways were built by the central government, which was totally different from other provinces. The newly constructed train station was unbelievably luxurious, just like an airport.
On July 5th this year, a similar incident happened in Xinjiang. It was a terrifying attack at the center city of Urumqi, resulting in nearly 200 people’s death, including both Han Chinese and Uyghur people. Chinese government learned their lesson from the Tibet incident, as they reacted more openly to media, as least put them in the position to let people know what was happening in Xinjiang. But the same as the previous time, voices from China and elsewhere were still in contrast. While trying to figure out who is distorting the truth, many Chinese were correcting misinterpretation by Western media online, but nobody questioned Chinese media, or such kind of voice was never heard.
At that time, I was at Ithaca, a town for exile Tibetans in the States. Dalai Lama even visited the year before. After the incident, some exile Tibetans went on demonstration at the downtown. I was also talking with a Tibetan employee on campus about the incident. He disliked the Chinese government for sure, but he didn’t believe what the U.S. media was saying either, since Americans didn’t know what’s really happening there, but simply love the idea of “free Tibet.” He felt Tibetan people were asking for more autonomy, rather than separation from China.
For Chinese, people believe that Tibet has been a part of China for a long time, as we could make a long list of examples how each dynasty related to Tibet throughout history, and it’s impossible to separate Tibet from the rest. For Westerners, Tibet was invaded and taken brutally by People’s Republic of China, no matter how many connections Tibet had had with other dynasties before.
I went to Tibet in 2006, right after the opening of the train from Beijing to Lasa. Besides the stunning beauty, I was impressed by the central government’s contribution to Tibet, as all the highways were built by the central government, which was totally different from other provinces. The newly constructed train station was unbelievably luxurious, just like an airport.
On July 5th this year, a similar incident happened in Xinjiang. It was a terrifying attack at the center city of Urumqi, resulting in nearly 200 people’s death, including both Han Chinese and Uyghur people. Chinese government learned their lesson from the Tibet incident, as they reacted more openly to media, as least put them in the position to let people know what was happening in Xinjiang. But the same as the previous time, voices from China and elsewhere were still in contrast. While trying to figure out who is distorting the truth, many Chinese were correcting misinterpretation by Western media online, but nobody questioned Chinese media, or such kind of voice was never heard.
Change
In terms of things hadn’t been changed, as Blecher wrote, “the Dengist leadership adhered to the same Leninist principles of democratic centralism and the party’s political monopoly within the state and over society.” As long as people remembered how the government dealt with the June Fourth Incident, it would remind us how hard to reform political institutions, though it’s called a structural reform period and leaders were determined to change from the Maoist period.
But there were many actual changes, which at least made hope and optimism alive. I believe the most important one was the thought liberation, which emphasized on practice and being pragmatic. At that time, not only leaders, but most Chinese felt that we must get away from class struggle or non-stop fighting in ideology. When the editorial of People’s Daily came out with the saying “practice is the sole criterion of truth (实践是检验真理的唯一标准),” people knew that the change was coming. It’s just like a second spring to China, pushing it back to a normal track.
The change of attitude from above definitely contributed to the economic reforms. Since everything depended on practice, all methods could be used, regardless of their ideological labels. With an effective method, hard-working people, and national or collective ownership, it wouldn’t be too big a surprise for the economic boom.
But there were many actual changes, which at least made hope and optimism alive. I believe the most important one was the thought liberation, which emphasized on practice and being pragmatic. At that time, not only leaders, but most Chinese felt that we must get away from class struggle or non-stop fighting in ideology. When the editorial of People’s Daily came out with the saying “practice is the sole criterion of truth (实践是检验真理的唯一标准),” people knew that the change was coming. It’s just like a second spring to China, pushing it back to a normal track.
The change of attitude from above definitely contributed to the economic reforms. Since everything depended on practice, all methods could be used, regardless of their ideological labels. With an effective method, hard-working people, and national or collective ownership, it wouldn’t be too big a surprise for the economic boom.
Zhang Chunqiao and his bourgeois right
Zhang first became known by the public because of his article on bourgeois right, “Destroy the Ideas of Bourgeois Legal Ownership.” (In Chinese, bourgeois right and bourgeois legal ownership is the same thing.) He argued the core thought of bourgeois right is hierarchical system, which contributes to the principle “to each according to one’s work,” instead of “to each according to one’s need.” Mao noticed and praised the article, which was published soon on “People’s Daily.” Zhang became a top official in Shanghai afterwards.
But in 1975, when Zhang published the article “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship over the Bourgeois,” Deng raised problems in the article to Mao, who later criticized the “gang of four” at a central political committee meeting. In the article, Zhang seemed to be “politically correct,” as it stuck with the struggle between proletarian and bourgeois, and the ownership of people. He tended to label all political enemies as bourgeois and exaggerate potential bourgeois elements. Looking backwards of history, the reality of China was still way far away from bourgeois and capitalism, as it shows today dramatically. Fortunately, he was not the one who grabbed the power at the end, or it would be terrible to think China with on-going class struggle and ideological fight.
But in 1975, when Zhang published the article “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship over the Bourgeois,” Deng raised problems in the article to Mao, who later criticized the “gang of four” at a central political committee meeting. In the article, Zhang seemed to be “politically correct,” as it stuck with the struggle between proletarian and bourgeois, and the ownership of people. He tended to label all political enemies as bourgeois and exaggerate potential bourgeois elements. Looking backwards of history, the reality of China was still way far away from bourgeois and capitalism, as it shows today dramatically. Fortunately, he was not the one who grabbed the power at the end, or it would be terrible to think China with on-going class struggle and ideological fight.
Line Struggle & Class Struggle
Class struggle (阶级斗争) became a very familiar term once the Communist took power, and Mao warned people not to forget class struggle, which should be reminded every year, every month, and even every day. In 1962, Mao raised another specific struggle, as he said, “there still exist class, class contradiction, and class struggle; and that also existent is the struggle between socialism and capitalism and the danger of a comeback of capitalism.” The latter is the line struggle (路线斗争).
The leaders of two lines were not clear at first, as “Mao felt that the forces of capitalism operated primarily in the form of unreconstructed consciousness among certain strata.” As the time developed, the party leadership was stratified on the issues like land reform, socialization in 1951-1956, response to the condemnation of Stalinism, the Great Leap Forward and the People’s Communes. Mao sensed “some comrades” (which he never exactly pointed out, but everyone else knew who he’s referring to) were “taking the capitalist road.”
In 1965, Mao used his favorite method of class struggle while “identifying the class enemy as people in positions of authority in the Party who take the capitalist road (走资本主义道路当权派, 简称走资派),” who were actually Mao’s political enemy. Thus he combined the class struggle and line struggle, as Blecher wrote, “class struggle was to be undertaken, in which ‘capitalist roaders’ would be attacked in a broad mass movement.” In other words, Mao tried to eliminate his line struggle opponents, Liu and Deng, through class struggle with mass support on Mao’s side.
Later in the Cultural Revolution, the whole society joined in the “game.” People fought against each other in the name of class struggle, and people put their enemies to the other line. All those political terms acted as excuses for a group to punish the other group, as Mao set a good example ahead.
The leaders of two lines were not clear at first, as “Mao felt that the forces of capitalism operated primarily in the form of unreconstructed consciousness among certain strata.” As the time developed, the party leadership was stratified on the issues like land reform, socialization in 1951-1956, response to the condemnation of Stalinism, the Great Leap Forward and the People’s Communes. Mao sensed “some comrades” (which he never exactly pointed out, but everyone else knew who he’s referring to) were “taking the capitalist road.”
In 1965, Mao used his favorite method of class struggle while “identifying the class enemy as people in positions of authority in the Party who take the capitalist road (走资本主义道路当权派, 简称走资派),” who were actually Mao’s political enemy. Thus he combined the class struggle and line struggle, as Blecher wrote, “class struggle was to be undertaken, in which ‘capitalist roaders’ would be attacked in a broad mass movement.” In other words, Mao tried to eliminate his line struggle opponents, Liu and Deng, through class struggle with mass support on Mao’s side.
Later in the Cultural Revolution, the whole society joined in the “game.” People fought against each other in the name of class struggle, and people put their enemies to the other line. All those political terms acted as excuses for a group to punish the other group, as Mao set a good example ahead.
Two Co-ops
When I heard of Oberlin’s Co-ops, I thought it’s such a great idea for students to own their dorms and dining. It’s not only much cheaper than school owned things, but students are in charge of everything they eat and live. However, I never connect Oberlin’s Co-ops to the ones we had in modern Chinese history. How could it be the same thing, at least sharing the same name? If you ask Chinese peasants, they might have very complicated feelings about the Co-ops. It might be a good idea, but the consequences it led to afterwards were not pleasant at all.
I was searching what Chinese scholars think about the Agriculture Production Co-op Movement, and interestingly, I found some very different ideas. They argue the direct reason accelerating the movement was the government unified grain purchase, which destructed the economic structure and market network originally existed in Chinese countryside. Through the process, local cadres paid the most efforts, but such expense was never taken into consideration when the central government made up the decision. It certainly caused peasants’ anti-sentiments, and Xinhua news agency reported (only to officials) that many places had peasants’ suicides. In order to pull through the purchase since 1953, the government started the Co-ops, which took away all surplus products from peasants and private market was no longer necessary. The speed of transition was super fast: for 90% of Chinese peasants, it only took a year from individuals to higher-stage Co-ops, most without experiencing the so-called MATs or LAPCs.
Here’s the link to the article, written by Zhang Ming, a Chinese politics professor. http://blog.china.com.cn/art/show.do?dn=zhangming&id=333122&agMode=1&com.trs.idm.gSessionId=0CD22EE4BC222AA6344EC24BE7337762
I was searching what Chinese scholars think about the Agriculture Production Co-op Movement, and interestingly, I found some very different ideas. They argue the direct reason accelerating the movement was the government unified grain purchase, which destructed the economic structure and market network originally existed in Chinese countryside. Through the process, local cadres paid the most efforts, but such expense was never taken into consideration when the central government made up the decision. It certainly caused peasants’ anti-sentiments, and Xinhua news agency reported (only to officials) that many places had peasants’ suicides. In order to pull through the purchase since 1953, the government started the Co-ops, which took away all surplus products from peasants and private market was no longer necessary. The speed of transition was super fast: for 90% of Chinese peasants, it only took a year from individuals to higher-stage Co-ops, most without experiencing the so-called MATs or LAPCs.
Here’s the link to the article, written by Zhang Ming, a Chinese politics professor. http://blog.china.com.cn/art/show.do?dn=zhangming&id=333122&agMode=1&com.trs.idm.gSessionId=0CD22EE4BC222AA6344EC24BE7337762
Reading Government Papers
I enjoy reading those government papers, which are great primary resources. When learning history in China, I never had the thought to see these authentic works, but now I’m glad to read the original materials of what I’ve learned before and know where do there come from. I tried to find the respective Chinese documents and read, which is easier and makes more sense to me. The English translation always seems funny somehow, especially some ideological terms Chinese politicians loved to use.
Among these papers, Mao’s works are the most interesting and important ones, since he used a lot slangs to make himself understood, and others had to follow his thoughts, at least in accordance with him. Mao usually made a list in his writings, which sound very logical. Mao liked to use philosophy in his articles, which he believed it’s Marxism.
But ironically, what’s written on papers was usually not what he did in reality, if not completely opposite. Such as today’s reading, “On the Ten Major Relationships (论十大关系),” he tried to be balanced in each relationship, but it was not the case in practice, not only at that time, even today some of the relationships are hard to deal with. Mao was a combination of poet and politician, and inevitably, he’s more idealistic than practical.
Among these papers, Mao’s works are the most interesting and important ones, since he used a lot slangs to make himself understood, and others had to follow his thoughts, at least in accordance with him. Mao usually made a list in his writings, which sound very logical. Mao liked to use philosophy in his articles, which he believed it’s Marxism.
But ironically, what’s written on papers was usually not what he did in reality, if not completely opposite. Such as today’s reading, “On the Ten Major Relationships (论十大关系),” he tried to be balanced in each relationship, but it was not the case in practice, not only at that time, even today some of the relationships are hard to deal with. Mao was a combination of poet and politician, and inevitably, he’s more idealistic than practical.
longevity of China’s agrarianism
The extraordinary longevity of China’s agrarianism might be explained in three terms: politically, no matter which dynasty or emperor was on stage, they all tried to control everything. “The landlords, state officials and scholars were bound together in a complex web of mutually reinforcing roles and self-interest (p.8).” Thus the power and abundant resources were upheld, instead of distributing to locals or the public; economically, traditional China followed a pattern of natural and self-sufficient economy, which feeds everything on its own but not encouraging exchange with the outside world; and culturally, the traditional Chinese thought of emphasizing on agriculture while deemphasizing on commerce was well recognized throughout each dynasty, first written into policy since Shang Yang Reforms in Qin dynasty.
The question says “it never makes a breakthrough into industrialization,” but I would argue Chinese industrialization was delayed, extended and just not as crisp as in other countries. Actually, in late Ming dynasty, the “sprouts of capitalism” emerged in southern coast area, which might be China’s first step to enter industrialization, yet doomed to fail due to the above reasons and the changing of dynasty. Then was the “self-strengthening” movement in the 1860s, when several local figures tried to introduce Western industry to Chinese people without much support from the emperor. Such attempt also happened in early 20th century and 20’s to 30’s, unfortunately none of them fully developed.
The question says “it never makes a breakthrough into industrialization,” but I would argue Chinese industrialization was delayed, extended and just not as crisp as in other countries. Actually, in late Ming dynasty, the “sprouts of capitalism” emerged in southern coast area, which might be China’s first step to enter industrialization, yet doomed to fail due to the above reasons and the changing of dynasty. Then was the “self-strengthening” movement in the 1860s, when several local figures tried to introduce Western industry to Chinese people without much support from the emperor. Such attempt also happened in early 20th century and 20’s to 30’s, unfortunately none of them fully developed.
William Hinton
The first time I started reading “Fanshen,” I was so glad that everything’s connected! I’ve seen and loved Carma Hinton’s documentaries for a long time (especially the Morning Sun and the Tiananmen), and just found out William Hinton is her father! No wonder they both did a great job telling the other side of the world what was really happening in China. I’ve also noticed the “Long Bow Group” as always a contributor to those documentaries, and just figured out that name came out of the town William Hinton visited and wrote on! As I was reading the Chinese version of the book translated by Carma Hinton, I never felt it was written by an American, not only because the translation is perfect, but all details are down to earth and very real. For the class, while we’re reading mostly theories, “Fanshen” seems more enjoyable and fresh.
Surprising Chinese History
Maybe it’s the reason that I’ve been studying Chinese history over and over again since middle school, all those dramatic shifts don’t seem surprising any more. To the opposite, I found more similarities between different historical events. Such as those students in June Fourth, their patriotism, idealism and irrational behaviors might be traced back to May Fourth movement in 1919, or even 1895 when some civil examination candidates expressed their opposition to the treaty of Shimonoseki to the Qing emperor. Or when reading the history of Soviet Union, I was terrified by how identical those tragedies happened in both countries. If traditional China recycled itself by changing dynasties and emperors, who know whether modern China is just entering into another cycle? Talking of June Fourth, everyone wishes it will never ever happen again. However, it’s neither the first, unfortunately, nor the last in long terms. History tends to repeat itself if we don’t learn from our past.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
National Security vs. Personal Liberty
Before talking about the tension between security and liberty, I think we need to clarify it is national security against personal liberty. National security is different from personal sense of security. America is supposed to be the most secured country with its most advanced weapons, but since 911 its national security is facing great challenge. When I came to America, however, I still feel more secured than I was in China; at least there aren’t that many thieves! Personal liberty more refers to the rights individuals have, and Americans are supposed to have the most rights of liberty.
I have read a series of books written by a Chinese couple who came to America for many years. Their books about American politics, laws and history are very popular in China, just like a window for Chinese to know what America is. Using tons of examples in American history, the books continually talk about the tension between national security and personal liberty, which is not an issue just started but definitely outshined since 911. I’m very much influenced by their books, which shape most of my view of America. As I said before, US is a human experiment, including the test on how many rights individuals should have while not interfering national security, and how to prevent government from using the name of national security to steal rights from its people.
I and my friend ever talked about the Internet censorship between China and America. China might be the most severe Internet censored country. I personally experienced a lot, such as we couldn’t check Wikipedia, my blogs being deleted the second day after publishing, and very interestingly, my friends in China couldn’t see what I wrote on this Blogspot. But my friend also mentioned that you know there’s Internet censorship in China, while you don’t know there’s also censorship in America. You don’t feel it, but “the big brother is looking at you” anonymously. In this sense, who has more liberty? I don’t know.
I have read a series of books written by a Chinese couple who came to America for many years. Their books about American politics, laws and history are very popular in China, just like a window for Chinese to know what America is. Using tons of examples in American history, the books continually talk about the tension between national security and personal liberty, which is not an issue just started but definitely outshined since 911. I’m very much influenced by their books, which shape most of my view of America. As I said before, US is a human experiment, including the test on how many rights individuals should have while not interfering national security, and how to prevent government from using the name of national security to steal rights from its people.
I and my friend ever talked about the Internet censorship between China and America. China might be the most severe Internet censored country. I personally experienced a lot, such as we couldn’t check Wikipedia, my blogs being deleted the second day after publishing, and very interestingly, my friends in China couldn’t see what I wrote on this Blogspot. But my friend also mentioned that you know there’s Internet censorship in China, while you don’t know there’s also censorship in America. You don’t feel it, but “the big brother is looking at you” anonymously. In this sense, who has more liberty? I don’t know.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
V for Vendetta
The script for the film is so well written that makes me want to quote on and on. The most famous anti-authoritarian saying is “people should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” Ironically, it’s in huge contrast to what happened in reality. At the end, V sacrifices his personal life, as he believes “beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea… And ideas are bulletproof.” Thus it doesn’t matter whether he would die or not, since his idea has already spread to everyone.
However, no matter how inspiring those sentences sound to be, I still keep my suspicion for such character like V. I would rather think revolution is just a temporary illusion, and I never agree with the means to use violence to anti-violence in the name of revolution. In the introduction of V himself, he explains “the only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta...held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such...shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.” But is revenge the only thing we could do? Should we sacrifice some people’s lives in order to exchange for “the happiness of majority,” or could we?
Evey actually has her doubts for V. In their conversation, she raises the question.
Ｅ－You really think blowing up Parliament's going to make this country a better place?
Ｖ－There's no certainty, only opportunity.
Well, there are so many opportunities come and go. Every time the revolution is supposed to liberate all human beings, but at the end, it’s just a switch to another dictatorship. V criticizes the dictator as “he promised you order, he promised you peace and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.” But who knows after the revolution there won’t be another dictator just like that?
At least, that’s the cycle happened in Chinese history over thousands of years, and we still haven’t get out of it. I’d like to quote from someone said in the documentary of “Tiananmen”: “In the past century or so, the Chinese people have shed blood time and again, without losing the courage to fight for their ideals. Each battle, however, has ended in a new tragedy, another shattered dream. I believe that what the Chinese lack are not ideals, but the means through which to realize them; not courage, but the wisdom necessary to achieve their goal. What the Chinese lack is not a heart, but a mind.”
“The strength comes from united, and the united comes from belief.” V usually likes to draw a huge V on this government slogan, so as to show he’s against it. But if think again, V actually practices the same idea as the government, when we see thousands of people march to the government building under V’s masks.
Again back to what happened in 1989, China. During that time, some people shouted, “down with Li Peng.” Such a slogan was exactly what people used in the Cultural Revolution. It is still the same tactic the Party used when they tried to accuse a person. Students tried to oppose the government’s misbehavior, but they ended up just like them, because they were educated by the same ideology from the government.
So the real question is what would happen after the revolution? The explosion could be seen as a carnival, but it doesn’t bring anything. People have to back to their normal life. Then who should bring back the order, and what kind of order? The film ends there, but the real life has to go on.
However, no matter how inspiring those sentences sound to be, I still keep my suspicion for such character like V. I would rather think revolution is just a temporary illusion, and I never agree with the means to use violence to anti-violence in the name of revolution. In the introduction of V himself, he explains “the only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta...held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such...shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.” But is revenge the only thing we could do? Should we sacrifice some people’s lives in order to exchange for “the happiness of majority,” or could we?
Evey actually has her doubts for V. In their conversation, she raises the question.
Ｅ－You really think blowing up Parliament's going to make this country a better place?
Ｖ－There's no certainty, only opportunity.
Well, there are so many opportunities come and go. Every time the revolution is supposed to liberate all human beings, but at the end, it’s just a switch to another dictatorship. V criticizes the dictator as “he promised you order, he promised you peace and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.” But who knows after the revolution there won’t be another dictator just like that?
At least, that’s the cycle happened in Chinese history over thousands of years, and we still haven’t get out of it. I’d like to quote from someone said in the documentary of “Tiananmen”: “In the past century or so, the Chinese people have shed blood time and again, without losing the courage to fight for their ideals. Each battle, however, has ended in a new tragedy, another shattered dream. I believe that what the Chinese lack are not ideals, but the means through which to realize them; not courage, but the wisdom necessary to achieve their goal. What the Chinese lack is not a heart, but a mind.”
“The strength comes from united, and the united comes from belief.” V usually likes to draw a huge V on this government slogan, so as to show he’s against it. But if think again, V actually practices the same idea as the government, when we see thousands of people march to the government building under V’s masks.
Again back to what happened in 1989, China. During that time, some people shouted, “down with Li Peng.” Such a slogan was exactly what people used in the Cultural Revolution. It is still the same tactic the Party used when they tried to accuse a person. Students tried to oppose the government’s misbehavior, but they ended up just like them, because they were educated by the same ideology from the government.
So the real question is what would happen after the revolution? The explosion could be seen as a carnival, but it doesn’t bring anything. People have to back to their normal life. Then who should bring back the order, and what kind of order? The film ends there, but the real life has to go on.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Brave New World vs. 1984
When I knew Huxley was a student of George Orwell, I began to have more interested in the book of “Brave New World,” but I found Huxley and Orwell actually described two very different worlds, though they were both anti-authoritarian. Since I read “1984” during last summer, the comparison between these two books is more attractive to me.
“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.”
For me, “1984” is not only a fiction, but an ironic version of the reality. Many things in the book are not only imagination, but truly happened and still happening in the world, which is the point why I was kind of terrified by the book, because I could relate to my real life. Books being banned, information against authority being deleted, truth being covered or revised, fear dominated in any invisible ways… As long as authoritarian society exists, all these characters are real, no matter in 1984 or 2084.
Comparatively, “Brave New World” seems more out of reach, at least it still sounds like a fiction, and many things in the book are still beyond imagination. But the interesting thing is, when thinking about the overwhelming information we have today, the preference of popular entertainment rather than reading or thinking, our desires more and more getting out of control of traditional morality, I’m not sure the world Huxley described would never happen in the future.
“Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.”
For me, “1984” is not only a fiction, but an ironic version of the reality. Many things in the book are not only imagination, but truly happened and still happening in the world, which is the point why I was kind of terrified by the book, because I could relate to my real life. Books being banned, information against authority being deleted, truth being covered or revised, fear dominated in any invisible ways… As long as authoritarian society exists, all these characters are real, no matter in 1984 or 2084.
Comparatively, “Brave New World” seems more out of reach, at least it still sounds like a fiction, and many things in the book are still beyond imagination. But the interesting thing is, when thinking about the overwhelming information we have today, the preference of popular entertainment rather than reading or thinking, our desires more and more getting out of control of traditional morality, I’m not sure the world Huxley described would never happen in the future.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Racism, Fascism, Skinheads USA
When thinking about fascism today, we usually have the impression that everyone is very alert of fascism or anti-fascism, but we tend to ignore the fact that it still exists today. Especially in America, as the video showed, fascism is actually related to one of the most severe social problems: racism. In Moser’s article, he found “with whites already a minority in some parts of the U.S., it’s a pitch that has become very popular among extremist groups.” If we assume fascism is no longer popular, it’s hard to explain why racial discrimination still exists, and why resegregation of schools is even more obvious than in 60s.
Listening to what Bill and those young kids in the Skinhead group said, it sounded like fascists are still alive, and they truly are. Such as their 14 words: “we must secure the existence of our people and our future for white people,” which was repeated more than once in the video. And someone also said “my only nation is my race.” Making parallel between nation and race is not uncommon is Hitler’s theory.
In both the video and Moser’s article, they focus on young extremists. Statistically, Moser showed that “the number of hate crimes by kids has risen sharply.” I believe it does not only happen in America, but becomes a world phenomenon, but reason varies in different places. Moser explained that “these kids aren’t prepared for people who are different,” and “they want to know why the world seems so messy, so complicated, so out-of-control.” There is no easy answer to the question, but young people might simplify the problem, which results in violence, or be attracted by extreme groups like Skinhead. In the video, the tacit to recruit young people is pretty simple: “We’ll feed you. You have a home now.” The sense of belonging and the need to be taken care of are what these young people lack, but unfortunately, it’s extreme group like Skinhead who fills the gap. In the video, a kid was asked “where is Hitler,” he answered, “in my heart.” I couldn’t imagine what kind of future the boy would have.
At the end of the video, Bill was arrested, because the police claimed “though fiery rhetoric is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, he organizes and mobilizes disenchanted young white males to acts of violence makes him dangerous.” I was actually more amazed by the constitution, which allows fascist groups like Skinhead to exist, and have their voice heard, though most people don’t agree with them.
I always think of America as a place for human experiment to let all different races of people try to live together, which might be the future of the whole world. Whether it would be successful remains a question, as long as racism or fascism or groups like Skinhead exists.
Listening to what Bill and those young kids in the Skinhead group said, it sounded like fascists are still alive, and they truly are. Such as their 14 words: “we must secure the existence of our people and our future for white people,” which was repeated more than once in the video. And someone also said “my only nation is my race.” Making parallel between nation and race is not uncommon is Hitler’s theory.
In both the video and Moser’s article, they focus on young extremists. Statistically, Moser showed that “the number of hate crimes by kids has risen sharply.” I believe it does not only happen in America, but becomes a world phenomenon, but reason varies in different places. Moser explained that “these kids aren’t prepared for people who are different,” and “they want to know why the world seems so messy, so complicated, so out-of-control.” There is no easy answer to the question, but young people might simplify the problem, which results in violence, or be attracted by extreme groups like Skinhead. In the video, the tacit to recruit young people is pretty simple: “We’ll feed you. You have a home now.” The sense of belonging and the need to be taken care of are what these young people lack, but unfortunately, it’s extreme group like Skinhead who fills the gap. In the video, a kid was asked “where is Hitler,” he answered, “in my heart.” I couldn’t imagine what kind of future the boy would have.
At the end of the video, Bill was arrested, because the police claimed “though fiery rhetoric is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, he organizes and mobilizes disenchanted young white males to acts of violence makes him dangerous.” I was actually more amazed by the constitution, which allows fascist groups like Skinhead to exist, and have their voice heard, though most people don’t agree with them.
I always think of America as a place for human experiment to let all different races of people try to live together, which might be the future of the whole world. Whether it would be successful remains a question, as long as racism or fascism or groups like Skinhead exists.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf
Hitler started with exploration about principles of Nature, as he believed, “the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.” Honestly, I did feel the invisible line between different races when I first time came to America. I doubted whether it’s kind of human nature to search for “people like us,” but after getting to know more friends in different racial backgrounds, the gap seemed not that hard to jump as before, but I still wasn’t sure it didn’t exist anymore. In saying so, I’m by no means trying to agree with Hitler, but to understand why he felt the Nature in this way, and how he developed his theory.
Hitler’s theory, in today’s term, is more like social Darwinism, such as “in the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest.” I’m wondering when Darwin discovered the rule of the nature, whether he thought of someone in years later applied his theory into human society, which caused probably the most horrible catastrophe in human history. According to Hitler, the relationship between people is fighting, a matter related to life or death, as he wrote, “those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” It implies those who don’t deserve to live should be killed, which was the actual case in later history.
In order to get uniform character, Hitler made up his racial purity theory, which specified social Darwinism into particular race. He argued “the stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness.” I couldn’t believe how arrogant and narrow-minded this sounds to be. Hitler even assumed “everything we admire on this earth today is only the creative product of a few peoples and originally perhaps of one race,” which was Aryan.
Hitler’s understanding of the state was also in consecutive with his theory of race. He defined state is “the organization of a community of physically and psychologically similar living beings for the better facilitation of the maintenance of their species and the achievement of the aim.” I would rather say he’s setting his personal ideal on a state stage, which surprisingly but very unfortunately succeed. He switched the purpose of a state normally should have, as he said “the urge to preserve the species is the first cause for the formation of human communities; thus the state is a national organism and not an economic organization.”
The relationship between individual and state in fascism is a little bit similar to socialism, both demanding “the ability and will of the individual to sacrifice himself for the totality.” But their reasons are different: in socialism, individuals sacrifice their property so as to live in a community; in fascism, “the sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species.” Again, it’s back up to the whole theory of race.
Hitler’s theory, in today’s term, is more like social Darwinism, such as “in the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest.” I’m wondering when Darwin discovered the rule of the nature, whether he thought of someone in years later applied his theory into human society, which caused probably the most horrible catastrophe in human history. According to Hitler, the relationship between people is fighting, a matter related to life or death, as he wrote, “those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” It implies those who don’t deserve to live should be killed, which was the actual case in later history.
In order to get uniform character, Hitler made up his racial purity theory, which specified social Darwinism into particular race. He argued “the stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness.” I couldn’t believe how arrogant and narrow-minded this sounds to be. Hitler even assumed “everything we admire on this earth today is only the creative product of a few peoples and originally perhaps of one race,” which was Aryan.
Hitler’s understanding of the state was also in consecutive with his theory of race. He defined state is “the organization of a community of physically and psychologically similar living beings for the better facilitation of the maintenance of their species and the achievement of the aim.” I would rather say he’s setting his personal ideal on a state stage, which surprisingly but very unfortunately succeed. He switched the purpose of a state normally should have, as he said “the urge to preserve the species is the first cause for the formation of human communities; thus the state is a national organism and not an economic organization.”
The relationship between individual and state in fascism is a little bit similar to socialism, both demanding “the ability and will of the individual to sacrifice himself for the totality.” But their reasons are different: in socialism, individuals sacrifice their property so as to live in a community; in fascism, “the sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species.” Again, it’s back up to the whole theory of race.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
This Is What Democracy Looks Like?
I found I’ve been thinking about the function of protests or rallies for a long time since I came to America. On the one hand, it’s kind of normal and very often to see different kinds of rallies going on in America every day, and I’m jealous that Americans have the right of rally to make their voices heard, which is almost impossible in China. On the other hand, I truly doubt whether such kind of protests could contribute to any actual social change, or just causing social turmoil.
The documentary “This Is What Democracy Looks Like” reminds me another documentary “Tiananmen” about the world shocking student protest happened in China in 1989. Western people know it mainly through a picture of the “tank man.” In both events, we could see students or young people are the majority of the protest, who are active, idealistic and somewhat irrational. We could also see the confrontation between protesters and the police, which might last a long time but it’s always the police who own the power and control at the end.
There are many controversies I couldn’t deal with. First, why anarchists supported the protest against WTO? Globalization is the ideal WTO aims at, which also helps anarchism to decentralize states, as I said in last blog. Then were anarchists targeting at the institution of WTO, or the trend of globalization? I understand those NGOs concerning labor issues, the environment or the consumer protection, but I still cannot get it from the point of anarchists.
Then, even if they protested, did they win? At the end of the film, I heard “we win.” In Wikipedia, there’s an entry of “WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity” and I found that “to many in North American anarchist and radical circles, the Seattle WTO riots, protests, and demonstrations were a success and are thought of as the most recent victories in the U.S. Prior to the ‘Battle of Seattle,’ there was almost no mention of ‘anti-globalization’ in the US media, while the protests are seen as having forced the media to report on why anybody would oppose the WTO.” But did they really win if we look at it today? At least I couldn’t find any possible stop of globalization.
On the side of the police, were they violent and acted as the “bad” people? Police are supposed to protect people, not using violence against people. But was the protest really peaceful? In the film, it looked like so. Was that biased? In Wikipedia, I saw “The situation was complicated around noon, when black-clad anarchists began smashing windows and vandalizing storefronts, beginning with Fox's Gem Shop. …This set off a chain-reaction of sorts, with additional protesters pushing dumpsters into the middle of intersections and lighting them on fire, deflating the tires of police vehicles, non-black bloc demonstrators joining in the property destruction, and a general disruption of all commercial activity in downtown Seattle.” Then should we let the violence keep going out of control? What’s appropriate for the police to do?
The title of the film is very interesting: this is what democracy looks like. Really? They mean the protest, the confrontation? Ironically, that’s exactly the reason why Chinese government doesn’t want “democracy,” because they think we need social stability, not chaos. Why the student protest in 1989 was brutally stopped? Because we cannot tolerate turmoil any more; we need control. Since then, it’s almost hard to find any political reform in China.
I especially remember in the film when they talked about Chinese labors, they described them as cheap labors, in poor working conditions, not allowed to talk during working or would be fined… but one thing they didn’t mention is Chinese labors are not allowed to make unions to fight for their rights or protests like them. That’s why labors’ situation doesn’t change too much up till now.
The documentary “This Is What Democracy Looks Like” reminds me another documentary “Tiananmen” about the world shocking student protest happened in China in 1989. Western people know it mainly through a picture of the “tank man.” In both events, we could see students or young people are the majority of the protest, who are active, idealistic and somewhat irrational. We could also see the confrontation between protesters and the police, which might last a long time but it’s always the police who own the power and control at the end.
There are many controversies I couldn’t deal with. First, why anarchists supported the protest against WTO? Globalization is the ideal WTO aims at, which also helps anarchism to decentralize states, as I said in last blog. Then were anarchists targeting at the institution of WTO, or the trend of globalization? I understand those NGOs concerning labor issues, the environment or the consumer protection, but I still cannot get it from the point of anarchists.
Then, even if they protested, did they win? At the end of the film, I heard “we win.” In Wikipedia, there’s an entry of “WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity” and I found that “to many in North American anarchist and radical circles, the Seattle WTO riots, protests, and demonstrations were a success and are thought of as the most recent victories in the U.S. Prior to the ‘Battle of Seattle,’ there was almost no mention of ‘anti-globalization’ in the US media, while the protests are seen as having forced the media to report on why anybody would oppose the WTO.” But did they really win if we look at it today? At least I couldn’t find any possible stop of globalization.
On the side of the police, were they violent and acted as the “bad” people? Police are supposed to protect people, not using violence against people. But was the protest really peaceful? In the film, it looked like so. Was that biased? In Wikipedia, I saw “The situation was complicated around noon, when black-clad anarchists began smashing windows and vandalizing storefronts, beginning with Fox's Gem Shop. …This set off a chain-reaction of sorts, with additional protesters pushing dumpsters into the middle of intersections and lighting them on fire, deflating the tires of police vehicles, non-black bloc demonstrators joining in the property destruction, and a general disruption of all commercial activity in downtown Seattle.” Then should we let the violence keep going out of control? What’s appropriate for the police to do?
The title of the film is very interesting: this is what democracy looks like. Really? They mean the protest, the confrontation? Ironically, that’s exactly the reason why Chinese government doesn’t want “democracy,” because they think we need social stability, not chaos. Why the student protest in 1989 was brutally stopped? Because we cannot tolerate turmoil any more; we need control. Since then, it’s almost hard to find any political reform in China.
I especially remember in the film when they talked about Chinese labors, they described them as cheap labors, in poor working conditions, not allowed to talk during working or would be fined… but one thing they didn’t mention is Chinese labors are not allowed to make unions to fight for their rights or protests like them. That’s why labors’ situation doesn’t change too much up till now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
