I admire the protesters in Hong Kong. On the other hand, I have a great
deal of affection for China - but I do not like China's authoritarian government. The Chinese Communist Party uses patriotism to whip up hostility in China against the Hong Kong protesters. Patriotism in itself is OK. There's nothing wrong
with rooting for your own country. But look out for patriotism’s nasty little
brother, tribalism. That’s where the trouble lies. Tribalism is patriotism made
poisonous by self-righteous belligerence. You can find tribalism in every
country. Trump’s dream of an anti-Mexican wall is an American example of it.
Chinese tribalism, that version of it cultivated
by the Chinese government, has helped provoke months of turmoil in Hong Kong.
Another provocation, festering alongside this tribalism, is the Leninist authoritarianism practiced by the Chinese
Communist Party.
It is not easy for me to criticize China because I
admire so much about that great country. Also, I have experienced countless
wonderful moments in the company of my friends there. In fact, I’ve lived for a
total of about two and a half years in Chinese communities, including one year
in Hong Kong during the mid-1970s and another year in the People’s Republic of
China in the 1990s when I was a visiting professor at Qingdao University. My
time there has offered me rewards I will never forget and from which I continue
to benefit.
Before I began my visiting appointment at Qingdao University (1993-94), I anticipated seeing evidence of systematic oppression by China's communist government. But, to be honest, I can’t say strict authoritarianism was ever-present at the university. I did not witness a daily
dose of Leninist heavy-handedness in the classroom or faculty offices. In fact, I was surprised at
how little my Chinese colleagues cared about local party officials. My
impression was that when they attended their compulsory weekly meetings with
the CCP branch secretary, they listened with reluctant boredom to his edicts
from Beijing. I was told they would often read the newspaper while he spoke.
But I know I was watched closely in the classroom.
I was especially watched by a student monitor who sat in the front row of my senior class whom I
will call Comrade Hu (not her real name). She was clearly respected by her
classmates, Her notes on my lectures – on American culture, English
composition, and other topics – she, no doubt, faithfully turned over to party officials.
One day, while lecturing, I mentioned in passing
that Americans had mixed feelings about imperialism since our nation had been
born in opposition to the British Empire. Several students took sincere but polite exception to
this since, in accordance with CCP teaching, America was “a leading imperialist
power.” I smiled, a little sheepishly and said something like this: “Well, true
enough, we have our imperialist side, but then so does China. After all, the Tibetans did not willingly choose to be part of China.”
At this point, Comrade Hu wheeled around to face
her classmates and said angrily, “That’s enough of this!”
The students were clearly intimidated by her and,
frankly, so was I, a little. It did not escape me that it was my words that provoked
her furious outburst, even though she directed her venom at her classmates. I
remembered then that Tibet was one of the topics I was cautioned not to discuss
in the class, and, in fact, I never did raise that issue again. Chinese imperialism
was not to be mentioned.
When authorities suppress discussions on topics they consider politically uncomfortable or even threatening, democracy can not flourish. That's why Leninist authoritarianism is evil. China would be
much better off if it were to acknowledge authoritarian's moral failings by taking down its portrait of Mao, which hangs over Tiananmen,
and replacing it with a portrait of Confucius.
Mao is problematic because he
introduced the Leninist authoritarianism from which China has not yet been
able to escape. I recognize that he was the very emblem of Chinese righteous pride
when he stood above Tiananmen in October 1949 and declared, “The Chinese people
have stood up!” That was a glorious moment for China, marking the end of 100
years of colonialism and civil war. Mao was dishonest, however, in claiming that he
represented independence, while the Nationalists he had defeated represented
continued colonialism. Mao, after all, was as much indebted to the Russians for
their support as his Nationalist enemies were indebted to the Americans. This
is a point the Chinese Communist Party insists on obscuring in order to strengthen its own claim to the moral high ground.
Mao can also be criticized for dragging the
Chinese economy through decades of communist doctrinaire programs which
resulted in the deaths of at least 20 million citizens and which retarded China’s
development for about 30 years.
Worst of all, is the ruthless suppression of
freedoms that Mao instituted, the lingering effects of which triggered this
year’s protests in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong was formerly a British colony but, when
it was turned over to China in 1997, London and Beijing reached an agreement
that guaranteed a 50-year period of relative freedom for the Hong Kongers.
Beijing has been undermining that agreement for years, and, finally, earlier
this year, when it tried to impose a new law on extraditions further stifling
free speech in the former colony, the Hong Kong protests began.
Let me take a moment here to again express my
admiration for the Hong Kong protesters. I understand that not everyone in Hong Kong supported them, and I realize that part of the motivation for the protests
was a measure of unbecoming anti-Mainland-Chinese tribalism, but nevertheless, the essence
of the movement was for democracy and its watchwords were courage and
determination.
Now the protesters, having forced Beijing to give up
on its extradition bill, are demanding action on other issues, including attention
to acts of police brutality and the freeing of jailed protesters. Even though
they haven’t been granted everything they asked for, the dropping of the proposed
extradition law has to be seen as a significant victory for them and for democracy
itself.
Which brings me to Confucius and those of his virtues
I admire. Admittedly, the Great Sage’s philosophy has its drawbacks. For one
thing, his ideas about male superiority, though normal for his era, make no
sense in the modern world. Secondly, as a Han Chinese, he can’t properly
represent Tibetans, Uighurs and other Chinese minorities. But I still admire
him enough that I believe his portrait should replace Chairman Mao’s over Tiananmen,
at least for this month during which his birthday falls. As a matter of fact,
it might be a good thing if the Tibetans and other minorities were also to get
a turn with portraits of their culture heroes over Tiananmen.
But back to Confucius. The Sage believed that people
are at their best in a society that promotes human decency, honesty, humility, conscientiousness,
and respect for education. He also believed that in a world of rival nations,
the country whose leaders encourage these virtues will ultimately triumph
because people will be drawn to it in a way that undermines its less ethical rivals.
One of his sayings is, “Government is good when it makes happy those who live
under it and attracts those who live far away.” If Beijing’s leaders lived by
this principle, they could easily avoid further trouble with Hong Kong and might even look
forward to a peaceful reunification with Taiwan.
But, of course, they won’t. The leaders of the
Chinese Communist Party, and President Xi Jinping in particular, have one overriding
idea and that is that they should remain in power indefinitely. Even though
their bulging bank accounts show quite clearly that they are not really
communists at heart, they still embrace the Leninist idea of secretive, one-party
rule. And, as long as they do, China’s citizens will be subject to their government's self-serving propaganda and will find themselves unable to understand people,
like those of Hong Kong, who live where the press is free.
I recall from the 1960s anti-Vietnam-War protest era
a proclamation that went something like this: “The government treats us like mushrooms
– it keeps us in the dark and feeds us shit.”
I look forward to the day when China’s Leninist
leaders stop treating their people like mushrooms. The world then will be a
much better place.
Lou Fu Ji - A Favorite Memory from My Hong Kong Days
