"It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough." Liu Xiaobo made himself quite clear back in the 1980s. The in 1996, he further argued that
"progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress."
I thought China should be allowed to preserve it own culture and independence. Liu seemed to hold a quite different idea.
btw, it must be quite a shock for you to know such fact. I mean please feel free to downvote if you agree with Liu's very repressive view on how China should be colonized by the west for 300 years to get better argument. The whole "progress in China depends on westernisation" also sounds like a cultural genocide to me.
> I thought China should be allowed to preserve it own culture and independence.
Alas, the 'cultural revolution' destroyed most of that culture. You can still find some remnants of parts of it in the overseas chinese communities of southeast asia.
I always felt that China simply faced much starker realities and choices than ever we are able to fully appreciate when we complain about the systems they have.
I'm no Sinophile, and I think Great Britain should have built a floating desalination plant before ceding Hong Kong Island. But the little I know about Chinas history, the fragmentation of historically antagonistic races among the Chinese diaspora we call a people, and the immense variety of issues that have developed in isolation unique to their world, I believe all conspire to alienate the most rational observers from true neutrality. My mind blows fuses just contemplating the pressures and tensions that abound seemingly everywhere in their daily lives.
Is he actually arguing that China should be colonised? Or just making a comparison with Hong Kong's development and hypothesizing how long it'd take the mainland under similar yoke and rule.
I believe he did believe China should be colonized. Even he didn't, his audience are genuinely considering and discussing that option.
We have a word called "带路党", which literally means road-leading party, to describe people who think China being colonized is a viable idea and do whatever they feel it's helpful to achieve that goal. "Road-leading" means giving directions to intruders (or saviours in their view), in many cases, the US army.
> Liu admitted in 2006 that the response was extemporaneous, although he did not intend to take it back, because it represented "an extreme expression of his longheld belief."[32] The quote was nonetheless used against him. He has commented, "Even today [in 2006], radical patriotic 'angry youth' still frequently use these words to paint me with 'treason'."[32]
Take that as you will. I've heard many Chinese call him racist and treacherous because of these words, that he deserved to die in prison. That is ridiculous, the position was definitely cringe worthy to many people, it isn't one I would agree with, but it was just one position made with lots of resignation.
There is a reason why we just shrug out arms at this, not because we agree with the opinion, but because intellectuals are bound to hold a few opinions that are worse (as judged by whoever) than others. You can crucify almost anyone if you cherry pick.
Thanks for your reply, I don't see it getting lots of down votes - it seems reasonable and has contributed to this discussion in a way lots of comments here haven't!
> Even he didn't, his audience are genuinely considering and discussing that option.
Imagine if this was a thirty year misunderstanding! In that case though, it'd be 100% his fault for allowing it to continue.
I suppose we can only really go on by taking the view that the man is dead, and said a lot of things that you might and might not agree with.
Take the good, learn from the bad, remember the writer of both as a flawed human like we all are and move on to the future right?
I posted my comments above because you are blindly defending Liu's repressive comments without providing any 3rd party proof that can be publicly verified.
For your concerns regarding my post above, maybe you can start to back up your claims by providing some proof? For example, when you painted Liu's "China should be colonized by the west for 300 years" comments as some so called "misunderstanding", can you be more specific and shed some light on what makes you to believe that? Surely some convincing evidence is going to mute my doubts.
If you check my posts, I've provided his comments together with some analysis on his stands from a mainstream western media. You posted 4 times in this thread but everything was just what _YOU_ believe.
> I posted my comments above because you are blindly defending Liu's repressive comments without providing any 3rd party proof that can be publicly verified.
I'm not defending them. I'm questioning the interpretation of the quote posted which doesn't imply should. There is a difference and I can be swayed either way.
> when you painted Liu's "China should be colonized by the west for 300 years" comments as some so called "misunderstanding"
It was a joke. Can you imagine the absurdity if it was a 30 year misunderstanding?
Your hostility in this thread isn't helping your case at all, which in spite of you attacking me I still believe can probably be made very well!
I believe my questions have been quite reasonable, and I am the kind of person who can be 'won' over with good argument.
What really turns me off is the kind of absolutist hostility that you're displaying.
Check the rest of the thread. A number of people have indicated that there isn't much doubt about the interpretation of Liu's comments. You aren't contributing anything to the discussion by continuing to ask a question that's already been answered by a number of native Chinese speakers.
> that's already been answered by a number of native Chinese speakers.
I don't think it's been answered to a reasonable level of certainty.
The closest to a good answer was one guy who said he'd seen an interview in which the guy clarified that yes he did mean that.
But nobody has been able to find that interview, so to my mind it's still an open question. I'm being very careful to not accept statements of opinion as statements of fact.
You can find further confirmation of his views very easily by googling the English language media. Doing this could have saved a lot of pointless back and forth:
> In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human".
> In a well-known statement of 1988, Liu said:
> It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough.
> Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress.
> In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human".
> Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress.
Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense. I've removed the quote we are discussing for clarity of my reply I hope you understand.
My takeaway from everything I've read in the past few hours is that he was a bit of a cantankerous guy who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted and used to ruin him. He then refused to take it back either because he was unable to or too stubborn to do so.
I'm glad I pushed as hard as I did for clarification of the colonisation thing. In the end there were a few good interpretations (some conflicting!) and we are richer for having read them rather than taking the first presented as gospel.
The funny thing is I don't really give a shit about this dude, and actually don't think that he should have been given a nobel prize (nor Obama lol...) I think Nobel prizes for peace should go to those who actually promote or create peace... in whatever political framework that comes. Democracy isn't a panacea!
But I feel like a lot of the criticism of this guy has been super heavy handed and like many young western men I bristle at the idea of being told what is right/acceptable without good explanation. I hope you understand my perspective and why I kept questioning when I I did.
I was hoping for a more conciliatory ending to our conversation from you, but I suppose when you arouse someone's passions that isn't possible. Have a nice week.
I am a decently educated Chinese native speaker. The quoted Chinese sentence from Liu is not acceptable to me. I do not think it is a direct comparison against HongKong.
I am fine with him arguing about changing the political situation of China or whatsoever. And, actually, the discussion on that should be more open. However, I cannot agree on his view about changing China through colonial no matter what he tries to justify. And I believe no rational Chinese people will agree him on this.
Well, I am from China too. Unlike some of my fellow countrymen, I don't find it offensive at all because I know the speaker is a true patriot who cares about basic human rights for every Chinese and fights for the cause until his very end. This statement is more about the weakness of Chinese citizen than an actual call for China to be colonized. It is brought up during an interview[1], and for some reason Liu may be speaking with a hot head and a big mouth. Let's stop attacking Liu's character with just one careless sentence.
That appears to be just the same quote in Chinese. I'm not sure if it contains more nuance to bring clarity to the situation - perhaps you can assist there?
What would also help is more context for the quote. Is it a part of a bigger piece of writing?
I'm not asking you to do all the research for me, feel free not to reply - my interest is only really in passing. Though if you do reply feel free to use as much original Chinese text as you like to lend clarity. [1]真是我会度看可是我写中文写得不好。
[1] For those of you playing at home I can read, but my written Chinese is a bloody disaster.
The interviewer says “colonial” is an expression and sarcasm. It’s Liu’s writing style. It’s said to him as he’s Liu’s editor and long time friend, so he understood what Liu meant. Liu did explain what he meant in an article sent to him in 2007.
Some excerpts:
1. “由此可見，劉曉波的意思是要在中國實行英國在香港推行的資本主義政策，起碼需要三百年，才會變得和香港一樣好。他並不是
要中國再去當誰的殖民地”
Liu meant China can benefit from westernisation like HK, he didn’t meant for it to be really
colonised.
2. “為甚麼搞「一國兩制，港人治港」？皆出於此：香港人認為殖民地好過共產專制...”
How to view colonisation is a debated issue in HK, Liu pick it up as he just arrived there.
3. “曉波從北京發來一篇〈我與開放雜誌結緣十九年〉稿子。文中主動談起八八年那次訪問，寫道... 他說，一句「三百年殖民地」
的即興回答，成為中共迫害他的「典型證據」，但他不會為自己辯解，「特別是民族主義佔據話語制高點的今日中國，
我更不想收回這句話。」... 他用一句話來解釋那犯眾怒的「三百年殖民地」之說。即「中國的現代化需要經過長期的西化過
程方能實現。」”
He sent me an article mentioned the 88’ interview. He said the prompt answer has been used as
an accusation against him. Yet as China’s nationalism is now the highest moral, he will not
take it back. In the article he explained “300 years’ colonisation”, as “China’s modernisation
needs a long process as westernisation.”
4. “劉曉波被稱為「黑馬」，那放言無忌、一針見血的表達方式，已成為他的標誌… ”
Liu is an abrupt literature critic. Sarcasm is his writing style.
As a native Chinese, I think Mr. Liu is a rare hero in China. I didn’t think or hear much people was still fighting for democracy in Mainland, since the 89’ Tiananmen crackdown. For it’s risking your job, freedom and putting your family in danger. Not until I heard of Mr. Liu and his persistent work. It’s so sad most of my countrymen don’t even have an access to know who he was and what he really did. Due to the censorship in Mainland, you can’t find any concrete facts about what he did on the internet. Most people searched to know him from “baike”［1］，Chinese equivalent of wikipedia. It only mentions his “colonial” comment, offers no facts about his pro-democracy work. I’ve heard college professor who doesn’t know how to use VPN to visit internet outside China asks “Who is Liu Xiaobo? What did he do except making the ‘colonial’ comment?” No wonder some of the hatred towards him. Yet his relentless effort kindled a fire in those who still wish for democracy in China. Just hope his work will be known to ordinary Chinese other than the ‘colonial’ comment in the future. He will be judged fairly and get the respect he deserves from fellow countrymen.
I can read Chinese as well and I don't see anything opinionated in that quote. There is nothing that says anything positive or negative about Hong Kong. It just says that he suspects that China would have to be colonized for 300 years to reach the same state as Hong Kong, due to its large size.
He does not say whether it would be a good or bad thing. I don't even notice an undertone.
I am a native Chinese, which also implies I understand more of the language context. Also it implies I probably can share more of the sentiment as other Chinese people do. So, yes, there is a difference between how people view the exact same content. And I was trying to clarify that.
> China would have to be colonized for 300 years to reach the same state as Hong Kong
Why China needs to reach the same state as Hongkong through Colonial? Does he feel HongKong was at a worse state compared to China at that point? Or HongKong was at a better state?
And, yes, no matter what state Hongkong was at due to the Colonial, China SHOULD NEVER go that path. That is where I cannot agree with Liu.
Any one can justify his words. But I will still hold my opinion on this specific issue after I read quite a lot about Liu, about what he said, about what he wrote, in both Chinese and English articles and documentary.
Neither I nor the quote said that China has to reach the same state as Hong Kong. Nor did I or the quote say that Hong Kong's state was better than China's.
Now maybe it is Liu Xiaobo's belief that China should be like Hong Kong, but that is not necessarily implied by the quote.
Do you also believe that "brain in a jar" thought experiments imply that someone wants to cut your brain out and put it in a jar?
He doesn't need to say if it's good or bad. Google "china africa neo colonialism" to decide for your self if colonization is a good thing for the colonized countries in the eyes of the Western people, unless you think the Chinese merchants and the government behind them are meaning well toward the African poor?
If colonization is a good thing, why in the first place the colonies all sought independence as soon as they had a chance?
Why should China be colonized if colonization is not a good thing (for the Chinese people)?
There are a lot of problems with Chinese authorities. There are a lot of things I cannot agree on with them, and I am one of the Chinese people that are trying hard to fix them by doing real work.
Moreover, China != Chinese government. I, personally, hate the opinion that Chinese people who has a "traditional" view is inferior. Yes, they might be "washed" by todays "Chinese system" or education, and you disagree with them. But, it is not their fault.
And most of Liu's view is going towards the direction I really hate. Another example is his calling Chinese people "slaves transformed by the education system".
Again, I am not saying the authorities did the right or best thing. But just Liu is not the person that I would respect.
In other words, if I understand you, imprisoning someone for advocating white supremacy, say, is wrong. On the other hand, advocating white supremacy is not good even if it would be wrong to imprison someone for it.
Love it when topics on China or India pop up. You get all the same subservient pundits posting, but anecdotally the Chinese bots have spelling on their side.
Did you actually read the "I Have No Enemies" speech (the linked article)? It is as far from extremism as you can get.
In the speech, Liu spends considerable time praising the Communist Party's progress on human rights:
'The weakening of the enemy mentality has paved the way for the regime to gradually accept the universality of human rights. In [1997 and] 1998 the Chinese government made a commitment to sign two major United Nations international human rights covenants, signaling China's acceptance of universal human rights standards. In 2004, the National People's Congress (NPC) amended the Constitution, writing into the Constitution for the first time that "the state respects and guarantees human rights," signaling that human rights have already become one of the fundamental principles of China's rule of law. At the same time, the current regime puts forth the ideas of “putting people first" and "Creating a harmonious society," signaling progress in the CPC's concept of rule.'
After that, he even praises the progress he saw in jail conditions during the decades he's been in and out of the prison system, and offers thanks to a corrections officer who treated him well!
The core issue is that the Chinese government locked someone up for stating an opinion. An opinion not much different in substance than then ones you are stating in this thread.
Would you consider it just for you to be imprisoned for your views alone? I would not, and I think that is also true for other people.
>Would you consider it just for you to be imprisoned for your views alone?
In most western democracies, you can be imprisoned for a multitude of "thought crimes" - denying the holocaust, inciting racial or religious hatred, encouraging acts of terrorism etc.
The US has uniquely strong protections for free speech, but even there I expect that many people would support a ban on certain kinds of speech. How many Fox News viewers believe that jihadi preachers should be locked up? How many New York Times readers believe that white supremacists should be locked up?
Would you consider it just for Snowden to be exiled out of the country?
Would you consider it just for Assange to be under house arrest in an Embassy?
Would you consider it just for Liu Xiaobo to be under house arrest at his own home?
Well, IMHO, all 3 incidents are unjust. However, they all happened.
Interestingly, Liu Xiaobo earned a Nobel price, but Snowden didn't. Not sure what would happen if the Chinese government awarded Snowden or Assange some special prizes.
Remember Assange is wanted for sexual assault and probably should face the sexual assault charges. But it's not realistic that he could do without facing charges related to wikileaks.
This has been repeatedly explained: he was not jailed for what he said. His very offensive comments should not get him jailed but with those words in mind, do you think he deserve the nobel peace prize?
If you are interested in how he was jailed, search google, there are tons of articles there.
Hello, I did google it and all I got was he was jailed for 11 years after being convicted of a mysterious charge called "Inciting subversion of state power (煽动颠覆国家政权罪)".
It's not a charge that means a lot to those educated in the west, who would probably view it as a thought crime charge.
Hmm, if Trump speaks for the Russian, persuading the Americans that the US should be colonized by the Russians for 300 years, would you think he should be free doing his presidential business? Especially after he (for example's sake) got awarded some Russian prizes?
If he only expresses some views of his, it's probably OK if he's not influential. If he got awarded some prize that's important worldwide and sometimes awarded to POTUS, well, it's totally a different thing.
Liu was not sentenced due to this <三百年殖民地。香港一百年殖民地变成今天这样，中国那么大，当然需要三百年殖民地，才会变成今天香港这样，三百年够不够，我还有怀疑。>
And, yes, what you just described is also well known. No one in this thread said Liu should be sentenced. And no one in this thread said they agree with what Chinese gov did.
What we suggest is that some of Liu's opinions are not acceptable by Chinese people. And he is not well respected as people might think. Some facts are provided in this thread.
Since that is a well known issue about him. No one thinks it is conspiracy theory. If you want to discuss about Liu, I assume you should do some homework first?
Ok, here is another quote from Xiaobo in 1990 which shows that he did not hold extremist views as you falsely claim:
My tendency to idealize Western civilization arises from my nationalistic desire to use the West in order to reform China. But this has led me to overlook the flaws in Western culture — or, even if I see them, to set them aside intentionally. I have not, therefore, been able to stand apart from Western culture, take a critical view of it and perhaps get a better view of human frailty more generally. I have been obsequious toward Western civilization, exaggerating its merits, and at the same time exaggerating my own merits. I have viewed the West as if it were not only the salvation of China but also the natural and ultimate destination of all humanity.
he was. and in a later interview he clarified he was not joking, nor metaphorically speaking. he said he literally wanted China to be colonised for 300 years.
the best explanation I could think of, is that he was young and tried to make an extraordinary statement to express his view. we all did this.
I would love to see that interview! Link? That pretty much solves it and leaves no room for doubt.
> the best explanation I could think of, is that he was young and tried to make an extraordinary statement to express his view. we all did this.
That is a very charitable interpretation. It's a difficult thing to view view someone's contentious statements through a kind lens like that. I don't mean to lay it on thick but in a thread with a lot of hostility I'm thankful for your thoughtful contribution.
sorry I couldn't find it any more b/c suddenly articles about him is all over the internet and google doesn't help.
since 1898, China has been through a process longer than a century trying to figure out why we lagged behind. many had sharply criticised Chinese history, political system/heritages, culture, language, writing system, geological layout, even Chinese as a race. amongst them, Liu's view was actually not that extreme, nor innovative. It's fascinating to read through this slice of history, laughing at some remarks made by great figures, while appreciate their frustration as flawed human beings constrained by their times/knowledge/visions/environments.
as an entrepreneur, I think Liu's view is probably wrong and his political campaign has no clear target market. but he deserved a longer and healthy life.
You make a good point about famous figures remarks. It's important to keep in mind the kind of absurdity we've seen from prominent people in the past when we hear something shocking from the public figures of our own time. The people of the past are flawed, and the people of the present are flawed.
I don’t think he made such an interview. The only time he explained his comments was in an article he sent to the original interviewer Jin Zhong in 2007. Jin later wrote to clarify the context of the comment in 2011. As by then Liu was in jail and never offered an explanation publicly. People have turned to Jin for clarification.
he made that argument almost 30 years ago, he never offered any explanation or clarification to state that his comments were just a comparison.
note that:
1. he had numerous interviews after publicly making that comments.
2. he is widely criticised for that even by his peers, if that was an misunderstanding, why he refused to offer any clarification?
Cultural genocide is an abomination of a term. It misappropriates a word that conjures up unspeakable horror of mass extermination in order to make suppression of cultural activities / works as bad as mass murder. Its about as bad as statutory rape.
Here's the thing. You don't have to agree with his political views. You don't have to pick a side. But you can still see his treatment as bad. This man is in prison for disagreeing with the government, that is very bad.
"My tendency to idealize Western civilization arises from my nationalistic desire to use the West in order to reform China"
I cannot read this without translating it in the way I imagined it would be heard in the offices of power, to mean he is freely admitting to the desire to subvert his own nation with foreign culture, no matter or difference his meaning or intent.
I'm being as literal as ever I can be, but I have understood that sentence as if I just read it being said about my country and not China. I would not be amused with someone saying that about England.
