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.
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.
Yeah, amusing, I know.
I don't have the exact definition of the word, here's an old meme people used during NSA's PRISM went viral, hope you get the idea. http://photocdn.sohu.com/20130613/Img378667270.jpg
The text on the right means "it's necessary to speak English well."
This comment is not going to be popular here though, predictable downvotes incoming, but I'm fine with it.