It’s time
Perhaps it was in the strictest sense an unlawful gathering; maybe they were naive. But the people who were assembled in Tiananmen Square on this day in 1989 formed a cross section of Chinese society. From farmers to teachers, students to shopkeepers, and factory workers to intellectuals, all were looking to their government to fulfill the promises enshrined in the very name of the country; the People’s Republic of China.
Indignant towards widespread corruption and angered by the staggering indifference of a party elite more interested in their own private power squabbles, the People came together to ask for a better tomorrow. Nineteen years later most of them have their wish.
None of those gathered were enemies of China. Not one of the hundreds, possibly thousands, who fell that night needed to die. None of the parents who came looking for their children the following morning deserved a bullet in the back. It didn’t have to end that way.
The Chinese people have come a long way since then, so too their government. Now is the time to allow free discussion of a pivotal moment in Chinese history; a time to recognise that nations with a wish to be viewed as peaceful, tolerant, and responsible cannot bury the dark episodes of their past. China wouldn’t allow other countries to do that. It’s time for China’s leaders to hold themselves to the same standard.
Tiananmen on this day nineteen years ago is a demon locked inside the hearts and minds of the Chinese people. They should be allowed to talk about this. It’s time.
Light your candles.
It’s a little late in the day for an edit, but one of my favourite bloggers is back and offered this round up of J4 coverage in the Chinese blogosphere.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:31 am
[...] your candles. The following was originally posted at Found in China. Reposted with permission. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share [...]
June 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
It’s classic!
No matter how Chinese try to explain the complexity, the context, and the distortion of a Chinese event, westerners claim they have not only the right to interpret, but also the best interpretation because on one hand TV, newspaper can present more than being in China, on the other hand, Chinese only know things from propaganda without brains.
Is it a Chinese event? I don’t know. Milan Kundera sympathise those writers whose wills had been betrayed in his book The Betrayed Will. Tian’anmen Square has long been betrayed. A westernlised version of Tian’anmen is replacing the real one. Westerners light candles for their Tian’anmen, memorise their Tian’anmen which is betrayed. Who betrays and is betrayed?
Westerners come again with a new Bible. Democracy is the holy trinity. People need to worship “people”. Thy shall be done, democracy says, I will bring you heaven, never worship other gods!
My candle light for the betrayed democracy.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
No matter how Chinese try to explain the complexity, the context, and the distortion of a Chinese event…
I’m not distorting anything Linan. There were many journalists in Beijing nineteen years ago who can verify what happened.
Hiding behind the shields of complexity and context on this issue is a thinly disguised way of saying that westerners don’t understand China, which is how the CCP has taught you to deflect the questions they’d rather not answer.
The greatest distortion of the truth about the massacre is the one almost universally accepted in the minds of today’s young Chinese: it’s the story of a strong, caring government that saved the country from unpatriotic troublemakers through a necessary action. Utter crap!
My central argument is that the Chinese government sound like petulant schoolboys by refusing to acknowledge or allow discussion of the incident. It was too significant a moment in modern Chinese history to be swept under the carpet.
Under these circumstances of obfuscation and denial, just how informed do you expect the majority of Chinese to be?
And it won’t be just westerners lighting candles in memory of those murdered in’89; there are some brave and informed Chinese out there too.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Linan,
Do I perceive a hint of classic fallacy here that only the Chinese can “understand” this? Hell, of course “westerners” have a right to interpret! What’s more, they have a right to say what they think, and guess what, more or less no one can stop them.
In the meantime, let’s cut out this rationalisation BS: Whatever did happen and how, ins and outs of people’s motivations, agendas etc., the fact remains that none of that can ever justify what followed: Not a “mistake”, but a cold blooded murder by a paranoid government of their own people.
So by all means, let’s light a candle for the murder victims. Democracy, betrayed or not, does not need one. It is imperfect, but by definition, it will take care of itself. Democracy, under any name, is a “Work In Progress”, work which the Chinese government has not even begun yet.
Stuart,
Thanks for the post, and for remembering. My family in China have not forgotten, either. Even though those of them who were “there” survived (by a stroke of dumb luck, maybe), many others did not.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I really don’t like this discussion. I’ll keep it short:
1, My parents were not government officers, or CCP members. My father was a civil engineer and my mom was a japanese-chinese interpreter before retirement. I have no personal reason to love CCP. In short, I’m nobody.
2, I was 14 in 1989. In year 1990, my score of politics was 0 because I wrote nothing in the examination paper. In short, I was no brainwashed.
3, Before year 2002, I was a supporter of demonstrators of Tian’anmen Square, although not the strongest.
4, I have watched almost all documentaries from internet after arrived in UK. It’s almost the first thing to do for Chinese after they arrived in “free world”.
5, I’m not stupid.
I think it’s safe to claim that:
… I know more about the event than you do.
… I have no IQ problem.
… I can express my idea freely.
… I have no hidden agenda.
Therefore, I see no reason to deny your argument if you were right. I just don’t understand, why do you think you have a better idea of what happened?
My central point is that you’ve over simplified the event to a good/evil fashion. You have distorted the history to a good demonstrators, bad government story. It’s not that simple.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
In short, I’m nobody. Nobody is a ‘nobody’, but those with power oftentimes treat people as such.
I was not brainwashed
I have not used that term in my post, and you certainly look at issues through a wider lense than most.
However, it is senseless to deny the widespread cerebral obstinacy demonstrated by the apathy towards and dismissal of this issue as a serious talking point.
This is particularly true of those that were too young to understand what was happening in ’89. And I’m sure I spend more time among this Chinese age group than you do, Linan.
Before year 2002, I was a supporter of demonstrators of Tian’anmen square
Glad to hear it. And to change your opinion through informed input and open discussion is your birthright. That’s the discussion and input denied to the people of China by their government.
I repeat; this post is not about the rights and wrongs of what happened in ’89, it’s about the freedom to discuss the issue and the right to express an opinion that doesn’t tow the party line.
Can you take a soap box to the Square and do that?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
My central point is that you’ve over simplified the event to a good/evil fashion.
I don’t believe I did, although frankly it’s something of a no-brainer.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Neddy – thanks for commenting.
I agree with most of the things you said but I think the Chinese government have made some efforts to keep up with the needs of a rapidly changing society and the responsibilities of global influence.
On the issue at hand, however, they appear light years away from having the courage or good sense to acknowledge J4 and allow free discussion of its origins and consequences.
It would be great (without compromising anyone’s safety, of course) to hear your family’s memories of ’89. This is exactly what I’m arguing for; a China in which the people can discuss openly, without fear of beatings or incarceration, an incident that changed China forever.
Not everyone will see things the same way, but in the spirit of moving away from authoritarianism, let’s listen to the views from all sides of the Square.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:27 am
[...] Found in China: “The people who were assembled in Tiananmen Square on this day in 1989 formed a cross section of Chinese society.” [...]
June 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am
But there is a problem, that’s ,most Chinese youth know nothing about this affair. Even if some middle- aged people know about it, they choose to keep silent and wouldn’t like to mention too much of it .
June 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Monica – this is exactly why there is a need for a fresh approach to this issue.
For a country that makes big noises about revisionist texts in other nations, China’s leaders sure know how to rip up the chapters of history that reflect poorly on their own decisions.
China’s anthem calls for the people to ’stand up.’ Nineteen years ago they did just that, only to be told at gunpoint to sit down again.
It’s time for the Chinese government to set an example and ’stand up’ themselves. While they’re on their feet they need to say “mistakes are made – we can talk about this now.”
June 5th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Let’s go back to history.
As you may well know, Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector, is a highly controversial figure . Was he a ridical dictator, or a visionary leader?
Now consider this possiblity: while he was doing his work, USA congress passed bills to against him, accused him anti-human. ( Suppose USA was funded and had been a superpower at that time)
What would happen?
My point is, yes, you have the right to interpret, do whatever you like. However, given the fact that the west, including EU and USA, is in the super influentical position, your interpretation(s) has potentials to change a country. What if you were wrong? Even if you were right, how do you know it won’t be a problem 1000 years later? As westerners, your ideas matter.
@Neddy
Forgive my arrogance: are you sure you understand your husband/wife/parterner? Do you really know yourself? How many people do you really understand? How can anyone possibly understand a country?
June 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Stuart,
Thanks for your kind words. But first, I need to clear a (possible) misunderstanding. Indeed my family are Chinese (say about 95% of them) – by marriage. I am not. My Chinese (language) is nonexistent, but my nearest relatives speak anything from broken to fluent English. So there are difficulties, but the tenor of their voice is understandable and unmistakable, and it is very harsh on the party/government.
Which seems peculiar, since they live a good life, and their children, of 30+ y of age, are only the 2nd generation away from their rural roots. Both elders and youngsters have been fairly successful in either a profession or a business. Are they being”ungrateful”, while many others of their social strata are falling over praising, or apologising for, the CCP?
No. In essence, they maintain that the progress in China is due to not the party, but Chinese (as in “people”). The party’s only contribution ever was the removal of their own insane strictures laid on an industrious nation.
I also perceive a suspicion on their part, that this government’s newly found sanity was, and still is, primarily in the party’s own interest anyway, that is, for it to survive, and remain in power. The benefit to the nation being secondary to it.
I say all this for you to understand where I am coming from. I hold similar views myself, but this is “from the horse’s mouth” so to speak, and if I presented it as entirely my own POV, I would qualify as a China basher. And I also want you to understand, that while I appreciate your bright view of progress and your optimism, I don’t quite share it: No, The Chinese government has not started the real “progress works” yet, not by a long shot.
I am not talking about day-to-day management; any competent bureaucrat can do that, and it’s his/her job. I mean things like responsible global citizenship (infinitesimal), transparency (none), answerability to its own society (none), rule of law (a sham while the government is above the law).
In short, any right or freedom (including the economic liberty) is granted from above by a benevolent emperor, and can be taken away whenever. Real freedom of anything exists only when there is, more or less, nothing the government can do about it. In China as we know it, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Right now, the government’s “progress” boils down basically to a longer leash, a more comfortable prison, and plenty of privileges for those who toe the line.
But, funnily enough, I am still not a pessimist myself. But my faith is not in the government, but in the people who make the best of their lives, maybe keep their heads low for now, but never forget. They’ll make it.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Linan,
No, I do not forgive it. Keep your pop psychology to your own immature self. Or better still, seek a professional help, you need it. If it was not for my respect to our blog host, I would singe your ears until you crawled away on your knees, you brainless whelp! You are not really stupid, but that goes against you, because while you are capable of doing better, you choose not to.
Your fiddling with the “history” as if it was dandruff is trite and frivolous, and an insult to China and to the humanity. It does not change a iota of the bottom line, which is a murder, by a government, of its own people. But who cares, right! Uncle Mao did the same on 50 to 70 million scale, and got away with it.
When a criminal government feels cornered, it reverts to its true form, and kill. Not because it is evil, but because it can. And it is feeble intellects like yourself who are complicit by their acquiescence and apologism, who help it to kill.
Presumably you fancy yourself to understand China, but you have yet to begin to understand the difference between up and down, let alone people around you. So spare us of your lame psychoanalysis, you witless schmuck, and go back to school. No amount of blah blah can cover up your own moral and intellectual inadequacy.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Stuart,
My apology for the outburst, but there are thing I do not tolerate. I can be civil in a civil company, but I won’t turn the other cheek.
I was planning to follow up my last comment with an actual story as you suggested (not that there was much of an action in it), but not right now.
Your resident troll may not be a bad man, but he needs to learn his limits, and pick up some manners. Encouraging him is OK, but indulging him is not. Right now, he is a brat in need of a hefty kick to where it hurts.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Thank you for a live demonstration of free speech and open mind.
I can be civil in a civil company, but I won’t turn the other cheek.
It’s typical and straight to the point: you are civilised westerners and we are uncivilised beasts.
Your resident troll may not be a bad man …
Yes, it’s a REALLY good way to democracy: why kill those voices, don’t let them in in the first place!
June 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Go ahead, Linan, and be sorry for yourself. When I respond to your BS, I am talking to you, personally, NOT to your compatriots! Learn to appreciate the difference, and leave the “we” out of it! You speak for no-one but yourself, and not very well at that.
And you bet I won’t turn the other cheek: Neither the “westerners” nor any others will gladly suffer any twat to fu*k around with them. Get used to paying some respect to HUMAN race, else you’ll end with a black eye, or worse.
You do not need to agree with others to have your say, but you MUST respect what THEY have to say themselves, too. If you don’t, you are out of the game, and a dogfood; no apologies.
This goes for individuals as well as for countries: Tolerance is a two-way street. Get used to the way of the world. It’s time.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
On the Tian’anmen Massacre issue:
I’ve found it hard to find some claimed facts by the Chinese government on Western material about the J4 Massacre. They mention the beating to death of soldiers and burning of army jeeps who tried to enter the sieged center of Beijing on different days prior to the successful entry of the tanks and the massacre by the military. There’s even a report of the burnt corpse of a soldier hung from a bridge with the eyes gouged out. This last one seems very horrifying, even though it could never excuse the massacre of so many innocents later on. This I read first on a US book about China, so I am never forgetting that we have more freedom of speech and information than the Chinese. Still, it was only in the material quoted from the Chinese government, not from any other Western article, and not even mentioned as a government claim.
My point is that being critics of the biased news of China, we have to be a better example giving all the facts, even if they won’t change our position on the matter and even if it doesn’t let people see it as a good vs. evil problem, because the truth is, almost nothing is. The same has happened with news on Tibet and Falun Gong. All are issues where I mostly condemn the Chinese government for their crimes, but where I feel we have to improve in our approach and coverage. Chinese government also has a blame on this when they don’t let foreign media verify their sources, of course.
On the Neddy and Linang thread, Neddy, you really got out of hand! Most of the time when I read Chinese vs. Westerners discussions, the Chinese tend to be the ones who are verbally more offensive, but Neddy, you beat them all at it and that, with all due respect, definitely makes you a bad example for us.
Anyway, thanks god I can read whatever I want now that I’m out of China and that there is the freedom for this discussion.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
My apology for the outburst…
Your resident troll…
Neddy – strong language to express strong opinions are fine, but it shouldn’t get personal.
I often disagree with Linan’s view but he/she is not a troll, really.
I also believe China has many things to do to become the civilised country that it likes to portray itself as. But that journey has begun – and acknowledging J4 would be a further step in the right direction.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Shaday – thanks for commenting. More later; work now.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Thank you again Neddy for yet another demonstration of how you and of course people who have same mind appreciate the difference.
We, (by “we” I refer to those who share same idea), respect you, and respect your right to attack me personally only because we are not divined people, not blessed by your God or your democracy.
@everyone,
I can’t find a better example of what the westerners may really think. Democracy is, as far as I concern, fundamentally flawed, because it strictly requires everbody appreciate the right of free speech, therefore inherently vulnerable. What if someone like me does not? Well, you can either tolerate like Stuart does or react like Neddy and George W. Bush, in name of human race. If you ultimately choose the violent way (for example, like in Tian’anmen Square 19 years ago), what’s the difference between democracy and the dictatorship? If you don’t, what if I can influence others by devising this example? After more than 2000 years, it is still an unsolved problem posed by Socrates, the guy who was sentenced “corrupting the youth”.
More about so called “free speech”: it indeed produces cowards without the idea of responsibility. As a mature man, everybody needs to response for what he does and say. However, this responsibility is automatically removed in name of free speech. He can say what he feels right without concern the consequences. There is always consequence, especially in the digital age, when the main production of human race turns out to be intellectual properties and propagate around internet. I don’t know how many Chinese will read through the post and what they will react. I hope those who are reading can have a better idea of the other side of democracy demonstrated by Neddy. The crucial fact is, on internet there is no way to take your words back: google, baidu, yahoo, msn automatically cache every web page and store in the huge database. There is no need to detail the other products of free speech: porn, cult, …
For Chinese readers:
Our civilisation is not built upon the individual freedom. We have been honest people over 2000 years: yes, we consider there is something higher than individual. We are going to do whatever it is necessary to sustain our civilisation. Do you think the “democractic” can tolerate us? Rethink about it!
June 6th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I also believe China has many things to do to become the civilised country that it likes to portray itself as.
I hope it does not reflect what you really think.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:31 am
@ Shaday,
It is called distrust chain. Suppose two people: A and B, don’t know each other, in their first encounter, how could their trust each other? Suppose A sends a friendly message to B, how can B know it’s not a trap? If B chooses to reply in a friendly manner, how can A know the reply is not a trap that B pretend to interpret A’s message in a friendly way? Like in joke, someone would say how can I know that you know I know you know what I mean… It is almost unbreakable.
In the Tian’anmen case, given the fact is that Chinese government does not trust the western media, and the fact that any information can be interpreted largely in western’s favor, Chinese government’s best choice is not to allow the free information access. Consequently, western media will suspect that the real situation is worse that its original guess. Naturally this idea will reflect in the newspaper. Then Chinese government will be more worried about the interpretation of the west if it have the data. It is a typical distrust chain.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:48 am
More about so called “free speech”: it indeed produces cowards without the idea of responsibility.
I think the opposite is true; free speech ensures that individuals will be held accountable for their actions.
Acts of brutal cowardice occur when individuals or groups have unbridled power and are accountable only to themselves.
We are going to do whatever it is necessary to sustain our civilisation.
This seems to be a contradictory sentence to me. Surely one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the refusal to engage in unlawful, amoral, unfair, or violent behaviour in order to solve economic, social, or political problems. ‘Whatever is necessary’ is a term that excludes the attributes of a civilised society.
I’m reminded of Gandhi’s response when asked what he thought of western civilisation: “I think it would be a good idea.”
This is also true of rising eastern powerhouses China and India, despite thousands of years of cultural heritage between them. In your model, Linan, ‘the ends justify the means’ is the overriding philosophy – and that is not a path that leads to a civilised outcome.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:53 am
It is called distrust chain.
The irony is that the distrust China feels towards the west is based on media output that the state controls.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:40 am
We seem to be drifting, which is fine. But to return to the topic before moving on to less choppy waters, let me pose a question:
Would the Chinese government have acted so swiftly to accelerate the process of reform and opening up without the mass protests of ’89?
While thinking about that, give some consideration to this:
Whatever arguments, reasonable or otherwise, can be put forward in defence of the Chinese leaders’ orders to clear the square ‘by any means’, there is simply no justification for what happened the morning after.
The dead and injured had been removed; the Square was under the control of the PLA. As the relative calm of the new day unfolded, the parents of those that never returned home the previous night began arriving at the Square to look for their missing children.
Acting under the highest authority, PLA troops then gave a few seconds (literally) warning to the gathered parents of lost loved ones before opening fire.
Was this volley of gunfire directed over the heads of the parents as they ran away from the Square? No. Mothers and fathers fell with bullets in their backs.
I defy any caring, responsible parent, past, present, or future, not to behave exactly as the Tiananmen parents did on that fateful morning. Their children were missing.
There was nothing civilised in the CCP’s response to the concerns of worried parents, and China has been less than honest with confronting the true events of ’89.
I say again: if the Chinese government wants the respect it craves, there is no better place to start than acknowledging and remembering ’89 with openness and compassion. It really is about time.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Mouring 4 people dead in 1989!
They r HEROES!!!!!!!
The CCP shud be shameless,as the Warlords did in Tiananmen.they r all dictators!
June 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I thought about reacting on single aspects of Linan Wang, but after what he wrote “for Chinese readers”, I think I won’t make the effort. Just this one (to everyone, not to Chinese or non-Chinese in particular): The public out side China (Western societies, too) have kept June 4 in public debate and research. I think they all have the right to do so, some Chinese people abroad actually find that useful, and non-Chinese definitely have the right to judge the events, no less than the Chinese themselves.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
@ Shaday : “There’s even a report of the burnt corpse of a soldier hung from a bridge with the eyes gouged out.”
Not only a report, but a photo, too. It was published some time after June 4 (if we are talking about the same case).
I think we shouldn’t talk like if the two alternatives were the massacre, or a chaotic uprising (if that is what continued demonstrations would have led to). There were a lot of options between these two alternatives.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
justrecently – …and non-Chinese definitely have the right to judge the events, no less than the Chinese themselves.
You’re right, of course, although hardliners would still say that any outside comment on the events of ’89 was ‘interfering in China’s internal affairs.’ Not that ‘inside’ comments are tolerated either.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
That “internal affairs” line is nice cherry-picking. But foreign investment, foreign markets and foreign ideas are harder to seperate from each other than cherries and trees.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
… or cakes.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Back at Linang:
I don’t have words to express how satisfied I feel that I have the freedom to participate in this blog. You get out of China, have the freedom to see what you couldn’t, but just because you don’t like the way it was presented, you give up on having new information. I pity that. Wouldn’t it be better to put your own grain of sand and contribute with your dissidence with the articles instead of altogether criticizing the same freedom you’re enjoying as you post on this blog? It’s not having freedom or not, it’s knowing how to use it.
Yes, idiots can speak too when you give them freedom to speak, but only idiots agree with idiotic ideas. And like my girlfriend smartly commented, “how do you know that those censoring speech are not idiots themselves?”
Linang, with all due respect, you’re full of contradictions from one point to the other. The “distrust chain” that you explain doesn’t seem to go anywhere but to propose that we should all keep to ourselves, China deals with its stuff and the West with its. An attempt that is like saying “care about us when the government wants you to, don’t when the government doesn’t want you to” and “forget about opening up, we open and close as we want”. Furthermore, you’re skipping an important distinction, that between facts and the way they are presented. We could discuss the presentation of events from a thousand viewpoints, but the knowledge of the facts is the due right of the people. We rely, therefore, on knowing how to distinguish them. How do you think the proof of the 5 burnt girls during the Lhasa riot would’ve been wrongly used by the West? There are things, that no matter how you cover them, they shock.
If you want to talk about decorating the truth with language, Western media are way behind compared to Chinese media. The little the West does in lacking objectivity is just merely an excuse for the Chinese government to continue doing three times worse. That excuse is what you call the “distrust chain”. It’s just an excuse to keep local control.
Also, on using “democratics” as your bull’s eye, be careful, because you seem to be using the word “democracy” with as much lack of sense of it as George W. Bush. What civilization are you fighting to keep? The dynasty one, where the people entrust their lives to the judgment of the ruling class? You can get lucky with some leaders and praise that system, but if you don’t get lucky, you get to endure poverty and misery wishing for a Deng Xiaoping to come by.
To Linang and all Chinese:
We have too much to learn from each other still, within small and big circles, from different histories. There are many values that you’ve kept strong that haven’t been kept as strong in the West, like family and being responsible for your elders. There are things you have gained as a culture. As well, we have gained much as a culture too. We have lost traditions and you’ve lost traditions too. The values we enjoy and cherish, the freedoms that those who know how to use it praise, are also our gains. Closing up won’t help us on both sides to learn from each other better and become better humans, not just better Chinese or Westerners. The embrace of contrasts as the completion of the self is in your own philosophy. No side has to be perfect for both to improve together.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
…criticizing the same freedom you’re enjoying as you post on this blog? It’s not having freedom or not, it’s knowing how to use it.
Are you suggesting that since I’m enjoying “free speech” I should not criticise it? Are you suggesting there is a standard way to use it?
And like my girlfriend smartly commented…
It is a Hollywood style comment. Although I will point it out later that censoring is not the only option except “free speech”, I’d like to play the devil’s advocate: if it is idiots who are censoring, you don’t have to worry about their censorship at all since by definition idiots don’t have the ability. What you are trying to say is: what if smart bad guys control the system? My response is: never underestimate people, if you look into the history, censorship has never worked. The “free speech” is only an ideology myth to encourage irresponsible abuses. The whole idea of “free speech” is to make the spreading of any ideas morally low cost while financially high cost. It naturally favors rich guys and powerful groups unless the moral cost is too high to ignore. In short: it’s evil.
Linang, with all due respect, …
As I have pointed out early in other threads about the Tibetan Flag: Tibetan Flag is not a pure symbol but conveys a full package of meaning. It’s same here, the west is a complex package for China and there is no way to disconnect the recent west media with the whole history, including invasion and treaties. It is not too long ago that Rambo fought against USSR with Islamic fundamentalists. What are the roles of the righteous media then and now? Where is it when southeast Asian was robbed in 1997? In front of the big R, where is it?
BTW, my name is Linan.
What civilization are you fighting to keep? The dynasty one, where the people entrust their lives to the judgment of the ruling class?
It is a myth that positive factors and negative factors can be separated from a civilisation. Do you think the Chinese dynasties could possibly sustained over thousands of years without the “good traditions” like being responsible for elders as you mentioned later? They are two sides of one coin. For your question, I, hopefully other Chinese, fight for the civilisation that believe there is something higher than individual freedom.
We have too much to learn from each other still,…
I doubt if we can accept each other in the first place, before learning. Maybe only one of us can appreciate the other from books, after it is destroyed.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Shaday – Closing up won’t help us on both sides to learn from each other better and become better humans
True. And that process is underway, even though governments get in the way sometimes.
if you look into the history, censorship has never worked.
Linan – it might not be possible to cover up the truth forever, but censorship and propaganda can be devastatingly effective tools, especially in the hands of autocrats.
Where is it when southeast Asian was robbed in 1997?
Are you talking about a crime against one individual, Linan? It’s way off topic, but have you any idea how many foreigners get robbed (and occasionally worse) in China? Do you ever read a single article in China Daily about such incidents? Are they headline news on CCTV?
You’ve got to ask yourself why that is the case, and, more significantly perhaps, why China makes such a big noise when one of its citizens meets troubles overseas.
Maybe only one of us can appreciate the other from books, after it is destroyed.
Not a very optimistic outlook. Were you able to appreciate the ’89 protesters after they were destroyed?
June 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Linan, first of all, sorry for misspelling your name. You can take by default that I won’t be against you presenting your opinion. I’d be contradicting myself, of course. Maybe because you’re not used to using this freedom you don’t understand that criticizing each other is normal, it doesn’t mean I’m against you having the freedom to have your say. My point of knowing how to use your freedom is more on how you enjoy it, how you take advantage of it, so it’s not something you find more evil than good, but the other way.
If your point, from a social poitn of view, is what opinions go mainstream through the media, then the media problem is something else. Their control of the information is another issue besides free speech. And on that point, you’ll find me criticizing media companies in the US, for example.
If you don’t believe censorship works and are against free speech, could you please present your alternative? Are you suggesting control on what goes mainstream and what stays small and not widely heard? Making your voice useful with concrete propositions would be a nice way, in my opinion (not by rule), of you using the freedom of speech.
“I doubt if we can accept each other in the first place, before learning.”
There’s people on the West that can and will be willing, because we don’t close ourselves to the rest of the world. Chinese have accepted more than the conservatives would like to acknowledge. China’s most revered periods of time, Tang and now, are distinguished by their opening to the outside, including the West as well, of course. Buddhism, Communism, the present capitalist economy of China, they’re all non-Chinese, adopted by Chinese. There’s no need to loose all you are by opening yourself. You have changed all along and you will continue to, you just gotta choose how. Closing yourself up will narrow your options. You can choose to fight to keep some things, but polarizing the West and China more doesn’t help at all.
Something higher than individual freedom? Take freedom of speech for the whole people, not for some selected individuals who agree with the government. We’re are not so absolutely “individual” as you may want to portray us, nor are you so community-oriented. If you want to understand this, you gotta study us more the same way we should study you more.
Going back to the point of Stuart’s blog, there are many of us (I believe most) who care about J4 not merely because we want to bring an opposing view to the Chinese government, but because we care about the innocent lives being forgotten, the dissidents and the bystanders, their mothers, all unarmed and massacred. If one government wants them forgotten, they won’t succeed, at least on our side. They are remembered. We owe them that as humans.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
@stuart
are you talking about a crime against one individual, Linan? …
It appears to me that the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis has never been on your radar. Check it out if you have spare time.
@Shaday
.. the media problem is something else. Their control of the information is another issue besides free speech ..
We have a saying that “Investigate the head if you have headache.” to describe those who believe a problem of a system is only about the part the problem locates. I have expressed the idea couple of times that “free speech” is part of the democracy system, it’s inseparatable from other components. So does the mainstream media. It’s part of the free speech deal. You can’t correct the problems of mainstream media without touching the system.
OK. My proposal is based on two ideas:
… The free speech is morally low cost and financially high cost. Obviously it’s almost impossible to increase the moral cost, then the only choice is to decrease the financial cost of spreading idea. A living example is wikipedia.
… The news articles has three strong characteristics: storytelling, text based, and mixing facts with interpretations. If we look into the structure of “story”, we can see it is not necessarily the best structure to accommodate news since it naturally requires cause-effect logics. The textural representation is limited by the sequential expressing. The problem can be solved by the IT.
I have been working on a web application that addresses the two problems. Hopefully it will ready later next year.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:44 am
It appears to me that the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis has never been on your radar. Check it out if you have spare time.
Of course it has – I was thrown by “…southeast Asian was robbed in 1997″.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Who robbed whom in 1997? Is the West referred to as a “robber” in this context? Is Suharto (RIP)?
June 10th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
@Linan
To cut out free speech because of problems with media coverage of the facts is like cutting the head of a person because of a headache. Media coverage is and will always be subjective. How subjective it is is a boundary we cannot impose to all media. We can give better choices of more objective media, promote it, fight for it, but it shouldn’t be imposed, because it would always fail to cover everything in single articles that don’t take a whole newspaper. Subjectivity is unavoidable.
Basically, on one side you got free media with subjective coverage, and on the other you got censored, limited media with subjective coverage. Explain how the latter looks better than the former.
Wikipedia wouldn’t be my ideal example of an alternative, even though I love Wikipedia and I feel so relaxed that I can access it without freely outside of China. Yes, it may be low cost, but Wikipedia is still edited as any article is and is till relying on one article, even though it tends to cover the main points of view and it gives you links to other sources (something that should be done more).
My choice would be RSS feeds reading pages like Google Reader. There you can access blogs, main newspapers, Wikipedia, small newspapers, you name, as long as it has RSS subscription. Like that you can browse all kinds of media, including media with your web application.
I don’t think all news articles are written with the structure of a story. I think most aren’t, unless you just mean that they are like stories because they have cause-effects logic, which is not typically of a story structure, but of an essay structure.
Eliminate cause-effects logic and you got holes on the why, which if it doesn’t have a clear answer, it should be presented as a mystery. As it often happens, reports on events choose one of the possible causes or answers to the why, but the asking of why is natural and it shouldn’t be imposed nor censored. How you ask why is also something which, as all, falls to subjectivity.
It would be nice to see your web application project. Still, whichever it is, it shouldn’t be a model to impose. Essays, blogs, loose comments, article and blog threads, story-like news articles, straight-report articles, in the end, they’re all part of the banquet of media that we should have, instead of a strict diet or model of eating (writing) chosen by some most possibly according to their benefit.
@Stuart
Sorry for the digression…
April 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
[...] Read that last bit again. The “revulsion for the regime” has been swept away through repression and propaganda to the extent that today’s Chinese youth (and most of their parents) thank the regime for saving them from criminals. The rest of us aren’t so easily fooled. Get ready to remember. [...]
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 am
[...] Don’t forget to light your candles. [...]