‘Ways of the World’: Don’t judge by words but by actions (Lee Yee)
The tables are turned as the Sino-US relations have reverted to half a century ago. No, it is even worse.
In 1969, the evil flames of the Cultural Revolution were still burning and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) led the blind crowd to shout every day, “Down with American Imperialism, Down with Soviet Union Revisionism.” During that year, there was the Sino-Soviet border conflict between the Soviet Union and China in the vicinity of Zhenbao (Damansky) Island. The border clashes were so serious that the Soviet Union was ready to employ nuclear weapons on China’s nuclear military base. At that time, the Soviet ambassador to the US informed the US National Security Advisor Heinz Alfred Kissinger of this intention, hoping that the US would remain neutral. However, President Nixon categorically rejected as he believed once Pandora's box of nuclear weapons was opened, the entire world would kneel before the polar bear. He opposed the Soviet’s operation and leaked the news to a newspaper for publication. China immediately called “the entire nation to enter a ‘Ready to fight’ mode.” The actions of the Soviet Union were contained and the nuclear disaster did not occur.
The following year, in 1970, Mao Zedong invited American pro-CCP journalist Edgar Snow who made a trip to China for an informal talk. Snow might have been entrusted by Nixon to investigate the possibility of breaking the ice in Sino-US relations. In July 1971, Dr. Kissinger made a secret visit to Beijing and facilitated Nixon’s ice-breaking journey to China the year after, and thus began the China and US strategic interactions.
After the Cultural Revolution, China and the US established diplomatic relations in 1979. In that same year, Deng Xiaoping visited the US. On the plane, he said to his associate, “As we look back in the past few decades, all those countries that were in good relations with the US have prospered.”
China has indeed become rich. The American policymakers and businesses all expected that economic freedom would lead China towards political freedom, but no such thing happened. On the contrary, China’s authoritarian politics became harsher and harsher and finally fulfilled Nixon’s frightful prophecy: fearing that he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP.
If dictatorship does not carry out political reforms in response to economic needs, then all dictators will eventually become a giant monster. What is more terrifying than any other dictators in history is that the US and the Western world have fattened China. Rich and powerful in military strength, its money and influences have penetrated across the globe, giving rise to a situation of what US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described in his speech last week, “If we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build...If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us.”
Pompeo’s speech not only declared the start of the cold war between the US and China, but also signified that a tougher, close-to-war era is looming.
He quoted President Reagan’s saying, that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, said Pompeo, they must “distrust and verify.” “Trust but verify” means they would trust what one says but also observe how one acts; “distrust and verify” on the other hand, means they do not listen to what the person says, but only watch what the person does. Facing deterioration of the relationship with the US, the CCP keeps saying both parties should resume dialogue. But the US is fed up with dialogues. As Pompeo said, all the dialogues with Yang Jiechi are nonsense.
Comparing with speeches made by Chinese politicians, which are often lacking substance but full of self-praise, what touched me most about Pompeo’s speech was how he acknowledged and reflected on previous policy mistakes. He said, “Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a ‘peaceful rise.’”
Actually, being naive, triumphalist, hoodwinked, were all one, or all of the mistakes committed by numerous countries, investors, people in the past 50 years. Now Pompeo, openly reflecting on these, suggested that the US has completely awakened. Yesterday, Xinhua News Agency was still mumbling about “China-US cooperation would be a win-win situation; fighting against each other would only lead to a lose-lose one.” From the US point of view, the win-win of working together only means China would win twice; when fighting against each other, it would be lose-lose, losing twice for China.
Over a hundred years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian famous for his studies on the new world’s politics and culture, said, “America is great not because she is cleverer than the other countries, but she is more capable of repairing mistakes she made.” This is down to the fact that the US has sufficient freedom of speech, which China lacks. And it is exactly because China prohibits people from “unwarranted public distortion” of the central government, that it keeps making mistakes, again and again.
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「we in french informal」的推薦目錄:
- 關於we in french informal 在 李怡 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於we in french informal 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於we in french informal 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於we in french informal 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於we in french informal 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於we in french informal 在 2 Ways of Saying "WE" in French: NOUS vs ON - YouTube 的評價
we in french informal 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
NOTES ON CHARLOTTESVILLE:
OR, WHY WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST AS A PEOPLE
I've heard some several buddies, people I know well and care about (most of them not in comment boxes or in public) asking about the moral equivalency between the neo Nazis, white nationalists, and other white ethnostate type supporters and groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa (short for Antifascists), and other direct action groups.
I'd like to speak to that comparison a bit and then turn to a more important part of it that I worry about. Before I get to that, I should first say that I've said enough about Trump. Honestly, the guy confuses me. He swings from a nihilistic idiot to a idiotic nihilist. His inconsistencies pile so high that you either get lost in them or you use them wholesale to try and make your point. He wins in the time and toll it takes. He also, I think, has found a very particular niche worldview for his newfound politics and is willing to, at the end of the day, embrace ANYONE willing to give him what he wants the most: affection. Never, at least to my memory, have we had a more emotionally needy president. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.
If you look at most social protests and revolutionary movements you will find a basic set of factions that don't change. They tend to spread between non violent oppositions and even less violent moderates, both winged by some type of pragmatists who are not in principle opposed to violence. Different sides will use the radicals of different parts of this division to throw away the entire argument of one side or another, and this is not an even equivalent exchange in the history of US racial tension. But I want to stay away, mostly, from broad historical claims here.
The point I am driving at is evident when we realize that the Civil Rights activists who practiced non violent acts of resistance were often lumped in with Black Panthers, or others not opposed to violence, although the two groups were ideologically fairly different. But I am not willing to say that they were so different as to not be judged as being on roughly the same side of the discussion. After all, the Civil Rights movement was not just the movement for the passage of legislation nor did it belong to the non violence of MLK Jr entirely. This is not historical. If you don't see that the US institution of slavery was a grave moral evil and that the Jim Crow laws that succeeded it were demonic in their formal and informal application, and that, as a result, those determined to end these things were in principle on the side of justice, then you really have no moral compass. Say what you will of the vast differences between MLK Jr and Malcolm X, but it is hard to argue that their social protest was off key in the tonic.
The more popular -- but equally as appropriate -- comparison these days is to Nazi Germany. (Of course, a great deal of the sentiment of the Civil Rights movement was a direct result of the effects that US wars had for those within its ranks who were not white, but that might be slightly off the mark in this case.) There is a bright and clear moral line between the Nazi ideology and its perverse Final Solution and those who sought to oppose it. This line, by the way, finds its way directly into the symbolism and rhetoric of the neo Nazi's at Charlottesville. Not only were there swastikas, there were Nazi crosses and other niche paraphernalia. There were the salutes, yes, but there were other salutations and insider ways of speaking going on. There were also the tiki torches, the modern Pepe Wal-Mart replacement for the burning torch rallies and burning crosses of the KKK. The grand knight of that sick group was standing by. They brought their own military-grade armed militia to protect those who came in homemade riot gear. This was not the making of a peaceful protest or free speech of the sort that we see the Westboro Baptists practice (not that they are emblems of public virtue, far, far from it!).
As I said earlier, if you find yourself unable to distinguish between Nazism in its original form and neo Nazis, white nationalists, and others like them and those who through what ever means they find useful (which one can disagree with in practice while still endorsing in principle) oppose them, then you are morally corrupt. If you can't quite figure out how the math works in this moral calculus, you are morally mindless and incompetent.
Of course, within any opposition to these (supposedly) easy immoral targets one can find many arguments and even passionate disavowals. But there are real moments when these lines are simply drawn and one must take a side. I have in the past even used the language of "alt left" in an entirely different usage, but I regret it deeply, now, seeing its life-cycle. I will not exchange my allergies to the ideological types of identity politics I have long opposed nor will my more specific critique of the critics settle. All that fuss gets set aside in these events. If I have to choose whether to stand next to a neo Nazi or Antifa, I'll choose the latter on pain of eternal damnation. To those who say you don't have to choose, that risk is one I am not willing to make. I would rather be a black panther than a lynch mob, as much as my truer sympathies lie somewhere else. Despite all my oppositions to modern warfare, I would pick up arms against the Nazis long before I'd "peacefully" cheer on their side. I think most people feel this way.
But something remains and this is what I worry about and even dread most: we are not fighting Nazis or lynch mobs. Most people would never go to march in Charlottesville. And even when you talk to many of the white nationalists they will say something along the lines of "I'm not racist." To them, their present politics is no longer that of the slaver or the KKK. They don't wear hoods and they don't want to own people as property anymore, it seems. They hate the Jewish people for reasons I am still not able to process in my mind, but their argument is more separatist than colonial -- so they claim.
They seem to think that the USA was founded by *their* ethnic ancestors, who hailed from Europe, gathered together in this ancient race called "White" that has recently, especially after the activism surrounding police brutality against African Americans, fallen into a disrepute that is sending the world into a globalist terror to come, in the biggest of the big governments.
Now, these conspiracy theories do not need to be true or believed to find where they hit a live nerve in a lot of people. Some people do ask why white people cannot have rallies for themselves without longing for ethic purity. Some people do think that white folks today are being washed away through interracial marriage, but many more who don't mind interracial romance still worry that white people are on the losing end of public sentiment. Lots of people who try to counter this tend to make it worse by appealing to gotcha replies about privilege or other things. I tend to find that too complex.
I recently commented to one of my friends that I don't think of myself as having very many "white" friends. Some of you might balk since many extremely intimate people in my life are, supposedly, white. And of course if we use one way of thinking about what "white" is, that is true. On the same logic, I would be, in certain real scenarios, white as well. But what I meant when I wrote to my friend was that I see my friends of European descent as from where they are. Those who don't know where they are from share with me a genealogical confusion that I can also understand.
Maybe this weirdness is partly because, on the vulgar ethnic analysis I am used to, I am neither white nor Black. And, of course, as many Africans who are neither black nor American will remind you, things become quite complex depending on what rules we are using to count the deck.
My point is this, and if you read nothing else, please read this: There is no such thing as "white people" in history. Most folks who use the expression were not allowed to use it only a few decades ago. The white supremacy of the KKK of old hated Blacks, yes, but also Mexicans, and Catholics, and Jews (of course), and atheists, and more. Depending on how you see it, whiteness was either more or less ecumenical, but just as ideologically religious.
Let me say it again: There will never be a "white ethnostate" based on European culture because the history of Europe is covered in ethnic feuds and wars. If you've never heard of a guy named Napoleon, check him out. I'm being serious. If you think of yourself as being "white" in some serious ancestral way, you're not. You are wearing a name tag your family was GIVEN at some point but never had by its own right. There are no white people in this familial sense. (Settle down critical race theorists, I am well aware of the whiteness that is real, too, but this ain't it.) There is no such thing as a white European culture or of a white heritage in that sense at all.
Again and again: The most scandalously false part of the neo Nazi mentality is as old as its previous, original half baked idea in Hitler's weak mind. The concept of a master race doesn't work for mastery of people nor does it work for figuring out who you really are. We come from places with names and languages and peoples and legacies that are concrete. Some of us lost a lot of memory at the hands of another, and others lost through the same hands. Today we tend to think that the ancestors of slaves, or indigenous peoples, or mixed-up mestizos are the ones who lack a strong identity and the rest have theirs in bold font. Not true. From your family to your soul, you don't really know who you are if you are using ideological pet words to hang the hat of your self.
I'm not a real Mexican and I'm not a real American -- and I'm no Canadian, either. My father was an orphan, so I've taken his bloodless name as my own, a Portuguese word by etymology. I of course will pass as a white guy at a Black family reunion, just as I passed as an indigenous guy today on the pier (until I produced a fishing license instead of a status card), just as I passed as an Iranian at a birthday party last week, and so on. But the real facts of who I am don't work in the abstract.
This is why if you want to find a better substitute for whiteness find a Greek Festival or an Irish Pub or a German Beer Garden or a French Restaurant. This is food and drink, and it is a set of multicultural cliches, but enjoy an Italian family dinner and tell me there is nothing about who someone is at stake there. The point is that the real identity we can and do celebrate is everywhere and it is not necessarily riddled with guilt, even if sometimes it could use some (or far less). None of it calls itself "white." None. If you are using "white" as your only name tag, then I am sorry to say that you've been fooling yourself. You don't have a people by that name. There is no such thing. Your great-great-great grandmother would mostly likely not answer to "white."
Personal history quickly becomes social, national, and regional histories and we find ourselves, again, at Charlottesville. All I can say for now about it, to my dear and beloved friends who I suspect think that they are "white," is this: We cannot have white rallies because there is no such thing as a "white" people. Black Lives Matter is not a movement for everyone who is of one dark color in the world -- it is about the US experience for those living within the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow over the past three years (some Black activist groups are critical of this aspect of BLM, by the way). If you want a "white" identity, then look to the folk expressions of it that we have and should treasure like music, food, and regional folk ways of being. Poetry, dance, dialect, accent, story. These are not safe or sanitary places -- I tend to think this story of a "white people" got made up there, too -- but they also don't pretend like people are any more or less related than they really are.
Donald Trump is a German-American man, not a white man. His whiteness is an entirely different issue that I am disinterested in getting into right now. If you wonder why white people are seen as bad sometimes, it is largely because of this false assumption: that white people exist as a people when they so manifestly do not.
we in french informal 在 2 Ways of Saying "WE" in French: NOUS vs ON - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>