Discussion on Xinjiang's "re-education camps" (concurrently discuss many related issues)
Resolving the Xinjiang issue should also respect the interests of the Han nationality; a comparison between China's and other countries' ethnic policies, and the relationship between the main ethnic group and the ethnic minorities18
(Note: The first draft of this article was published in 2021. At that time, due to values and practical reasons, I did not have sufficient understanding and respect for Uyghurs, and my words were quite inappropriate. I should not be too full of blame for the victims and too tolerant of the perpetrators. Therefore, this article has been revised to increase sympathy for Uyghurs, delete some content and wording that did not fully respect Uyghurs and Islamic religious beliefs. In addition, some new content has been added, focusing on ethnic policies during the Manchu and Qing Dynasties Criticism of Manchu aristocratic groups and Han officials, gentry and landlords who killed, raped, plundered, enslaved Uighurs, Hans and Huis and other atrocities, and compared and analyzed the similarities between the ethnic policies of the Manchu Qing and the Chinese Communist Party.
Although revisions have been made to the original draft, some Uyghurs may still disagree with some of my views in this article, and I would still like to apologize if I feel offended. But please also respect my position and concerns)
From 2017 to the present (especially since 2019), due to the widespread establishment of "re-education camps" by the Chinese government/CCP regime (hereinafter referred to according to specific circumstances) and the use of other mass detention methods in Xinjiang, the detention of mainly Uyghur Muslims The crowd sparked widespread international criticism and huge controversy.
The issue is so important and sensitive that it is highly controversial. I personally make some simple analysis and comments with limited knowledge, and try to put forward some personal suggestions to solve the "re-education camp" controversy and related issues, and hope that it may play a certain role in solving related issues.
Overview and Background of the Establishment of "Re-education Camps"
First, an overview of "re-education camps" and similar facilities, as well as various detention measures (hereafter collectively referred to as "re-education camps, etc."). Based on information from various media, research institutions, etc., the "re-education camps" have detained hundreds of thousands to millions of people, mainly Uyghur Muslims. And these "re-education camps" are in a completely closed state, no Western media can independently conduct interviews, and no other personnel not authorized by the Chinese government can visit them. The same is true of prisons and other places of detention.
The background of the establishment of "re-education camps" and mass detention policies is a series of violent and terrorist incidents in Xinjiang over the past few decades, especially after 2008, as well as the Uighur and Han Muslims in Xinjiang that can be traced back for centuries. Conflicts among ethnic groups, conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the accompanying "Xinjiang Independence Movement"/"East Turkestan Independence Movement" (referred to as "Xinjiang Independence"). Among the recent conflicts and violent terrorist incidents, the most prominent is the "7.5 Incident" that occurred in Urumqi, Xinjiang on July 5, 2009. According to reports, the incident killed nearly 200 people and injured more than 1,700. Most of the victims were Han non-Muslims. Although the violent terrorist incident that occurred in Kunming in 2014 resulted in relatively few deaths, it attracted much attention because it occurred far away from Xinjiang and has an overwhelmingly Han population. In the violent terrorist incidents, most of the victims were Han non-Muslims, as well as some pro-government Uyghurs (including many Uyghur civil servants and police officers).
These violent and terrorist incidents have also become the trigger and justification for the establishment of "re-education camps". In addition to the violent terrorist incident itself, there are many other related reasons or factors. The two most important points are "maintaining national unity and opposing secession" and "containing Islamic extremism".
Since the 17th century, sovereign states have been a fundamental component of the modern international system and international relations. Sovereign states include single-ethnic states and multi-ethnic states. No matter what kind of country, it emphasizes sovereign independence and territorial integrity (sovereignty and territory are the basic elements of a country). Although the principle of national self-determination has also existed since then, the principle of national self-determination has long been lower than the importance and priority of maintaining unity and territorial integrity of established sovereign states in reality. Although human rights and the right of national self-determination have received more and more attention since the 20th century, they are still not as high priority as the maintenance of unity and territorial integrity by sovereign states. This is true whether it is a democratic country or a non-democratic country. Therefore, China's opposition to "Xinjiang independence" and related words and deeds on the grounds of "maintaining unity and opposing separatism" has some domestic and international legal basis.
Another factor is the threat posed by the rise of Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism accompanies modern society and has always plagued the world. Islamic extremism not only stays in thoughts and words, but also in actual actions, the so-called "jihad". The "911 Incident" is undoubtedly a typical case of the actual harm caused by Islamic extremism/Islamic terrorism. Similarly, both democratic and non-democratic countries firmly oppose Islamic extremism and use violent means to combat Islamic extremism. However, when it comes to dealing with Islamic extremism in different degrees and situations, different countries have different methods in different periods, with different strengths and priorities. But in any case, there is reason and basis for opposing violent terrorist attacks and related preparations on the grounds of "combating Islamic extremism/terrorism".
Are "re-education camps" legal, reasonable and reasonable?
So, does this mean that the Chinese government is right to set up large-scale detentions of Uighur Muslims and other groups, including "re-education camps"?
The truth is of course not that simple. First of all, China's "re-education camps" are not for detaining violent terrorists (those violent terrorists are in prisons and other places or have died), but for detaining people who were not directly involved in creating violent terrorist incidents. According to various sources, the "re-education camps" mainly detain people who may be related to Islamic extremism, terrorism, and separatism. And this kind of "may" refers to people who the government believes have relevant thinking and behavior signs. These "signs" or "associations" include but are not limited to exposure to religious information (including reading the "Quran"), showing devout religious beliefs (such as frequent visits to religious places, not smoking or drinking), having contacts with overseas relatives and friends, appreciating Politics in other countries, women giving birth too much, there seems to be signs of preparing for violence (such as filling cars with too much gasoline), and "two-faced people (people in the system such as Uyghur Muslims are considered disloyal to the system and falsely loyal)" and so on. And it does not mean that these people must have done the above-mentioned things or performances. If they are suspected of having the above-mentioned behaviors and performances, they may also be sent to "re-education camps". Under such a policy, Uyghur Muslim officials, scholars, artists, white-collar workers, workers, farmers, students and many other occupations and characteristics were sent to "re-education camps", which accounted for 10% of the Uyghur Muslim population in Xinjiang. One or more.
Second, this kind of arrest and detention did not go through due legal procedures, but was achieved using extraordinary or illegal means. In other words, this kind of arrest and detention is often carried out without sufficient evidence (or no evidence at all), and the arrested person does not necessarily break the law.
Third, the "re-education camps" are highly closed and confidential to the outside world. Except for visits and interviews with special approval, everything is kept secret from the outside world. It is difficult for outsiders to know the complete, specific and real situation inside. Moreover, Western countries have proposed to send officials, journalists and various observers to conduct independent investigations, but they have been rejected by the Chinese government. China only accepts visits with additional conditions (designated location, designated time, accompanied by Chinese personnel).
Fourth, there are no clear standards for how long to be detained, when to be released, and how to meet the conditions for release, but are very subjective and affected by factors other than right and wrong.
The above four points are enough to show that there are very serious problems in the "re-education camps", and they are obviously illegal, unreasonable and unreasonable. This kind of large-scale, targeted, lack of procedural justice, closed and opaque, long-term detention must have serious human rights violations. Moreover, under the high degree of opacity actively created by the offending party, any allegations of human rights violations should have certain credibility (although not necessarily completely credible).
Of course, there are many people who justify this, and there are various other ways of defense besides categorically denying the above circumstances. Typical, such as thinking that they are potential violent terrorists, if they are not arrested, there will be more trouble, they will become like Chechnya, or the situation of frequent terrorist attacks in the West; thinking that sympathizing with them is disrespect for victims of violence and terrorism; If you think this kind of defense is hypocritical and selfish, you won’t say that if you were bombed; you think I’m too naive, ignorant of the cruelty and zero-sum nature of racial and religious violence, and talk about unrealistic human rights and so on.
I can answer all these questions.
First, no matter what, the principle of reciprocity should come first. The so-called "reciprocity" means to respond appropriately, similarly, and proportionally to the other party's hostile thoughts and behaviors under the premise of being reasonable and counterattacking, and should not exceed a certain reasonable range. No matter how many Uighur Muslims have extremist and separatist tendencies in their hearts, only the violent terrorists and their direct assistants, who account for a very small number of their population, actually act. Of course, the direct participants can be severely punished, but they should not be affected on a large scale to those who may have sympathy for the acts of violent terrorists and to some extent cover up, but have not directly participated in violent terrorist acts, even if they belong to a certain type of enemy. Unless, they've done this to us before (although in some sense they shouldn't).
Even if we don’t talk about the innocence of those who have nothing to do with violence and terrorism, even those who may passively participate in some kind of cover for violent terrorists cannot be punished beyond the limit. It’s true that during the violence and terrorism, the Uyghurs did not completely “cut their seats” (although in fact most of them “cut their seats”, not many people really like terrorism, and they don’t think it will bring good things. things), nor should excessive punishment be imposed and the spread too far.
Just like the Nanjing Massacre, there were indeed situations where Chinese soldiers hid in civilian houses and were covered by civilians. However, this cannot be a reason for the Japanese army to kill and rape civilians on a large scale in Nanjing, nor should they kill captives who surrendered in the war, at least that kind of large-scale systematic killing and rape is absolutely unacceptable (of course this is not to say that accidental incidents can be forgiven, but the degree must be different).
Of course, the violations of the "re-education camps" in Xinjiang are far inferior to those of the Nanjing Massacre (I will explain this later), and the two are not at the same level. However, such large-scale spread and human rights violations are still evil and need to be condemned.
In fact, in the violent terrorist incidents in Xinjiang and the Uighur-Han conflict, the Uighurs are still relatively more victimized. Not to mention the various related effects ranging from discrimination to arbitrary detention and even killing, the Uighurs have also been relatively victimized in the direct violent terrorist conflict and its follow-up. Of course everyone saw the brutality of the Uyghur Muslim terrorists in the "7.5" incident, but they actually ignored the fact that after the incident, the Chinese government took strong quelling measures, killing and arresting hundreds to thousands (or even more) terrorists Molecules and associates of suspects. Except for those who were directly killed by the military and police, all the rest were put in prison. Some were sentenced to death, while others were sentenced to long prison terms. Those who were not sentenced to death were not necessarily more fortunate than those who were sentenced to death, because they generally suffered brutal treatment. These people are called "dangerous criminals" and are the most severely treated criminals in prisons. According to the dictation of some non-"dangerous safety prisoners" who were released from prison, "dangerous safety prisoners" were often brutally beaten inside, and broken bones were very common (don't plan to get good treatment or simply won't be cured). Of course, I am afraid that there are even more cruel abuses that have not been noticed. Just multiply the level of torture in the "Abu Ghraib Prison" by ten times and a hundred times (this is a metaphor of course). In addition, many criminals and suspects suspected of planning terrorist attacks were killed or detained during the period when there were no violent terrorist incidents. .
To put it bluntly, for those acts of violence and terror, the Chinese government, military and police have avenged the victims, mainly Han people, and killed, killed and maimed many times the number of victims. Therefore, in terms of "reciprocity", the Han nationality and other victims have already "earned", so is it necessary to retaliate? What else is enough? (Of course, the above words are very cold-blooded or even "anti-human", but they are also very reasonable)
Of course, many people think that is not enough. The death of an innocent victim of violence and terror is not enough to replace the lives of tens of thousands of terrorists or those who support terrorists. This feeling is certainly understandable, but this kind of thinking is not good. "Blood for blood, tooth for tooth" is already the biggest punishment (and it has been clearly prohibited by civilized society), and it is a beast if it is added. Even if the increase is not as cruel as the Nazis and Japanese devils, but to the current level, it is unacceptable.
Of course I know that "equivalence" is fragile in the face of cruel reality, but it needs to be maintained, and it is not invalid (on the contrary, this principle of "equivalence" has reduced many killings in many cases, from ancient times to the present).
Second, violent conquest and coercion beyond the limit will not bring about real surrender, but will only increase hatred and promote the centripetal force of the rebels, and it is likely to lead to extremely violent backlash. Ethnic oppression is painful, and human rights violations are painful. Ethnic oppression and human rights violations are even more painful, and the pain of Ling Chi can be compared. The Chinese nation and the Han nationality have been temporarily conquered many times in history, and have been invaded and hurt by many nations from the north to the east and west (although the degree and specific situation are different each time, and the historical stage is also different), this should feel the most pain. thorough.
So, expect to subdue Uyghur Muslims forever with violence? Is this possible? Doing so did stop some terrorism in the short to medium term, but it was unlikely to stop it permanently. Instead, it just created the bane for a greater disaster (although it is still possible to avoid it now). The so-called "Although Chu has three households, if Qin dies, Chu will be destroyed", "Will it be possible to avenge for ten generations? It will be possible for a hundred generations" are not only the backbone of the Han civilization. By saying this, I do not mean to encourage vendettas, or to say that the future is completely inevitable, but to emphasize the fundamental futility of violent conquest.
Also, some people "can't stand up after kneeling for a long time" and are used to living in a cage. This does not mean that anyone or any nation is like this. Although people bully the weak and fear the hard, they generally know right from wrong, good from evil. Indeed, if you are good to others, others may not treat you well or even repay your kindness; if you are bad to others, you have power and power and have various overwhelming advantages. Maybe the victim will "kneel and lick", but in fact, in more cases It is still good for good, and evil for evil. Also, gains and losses for a moment (even if it is a decade or a hundred years in history) do not mean permanent gains and losses. The most important thing is to understand that violent conquest (excluding counterattack in self-defense and restrained occupation and revenge) is wrong and wrong. As long as there is one Uighur, the earth will exist for a day, and sooner or later the verdict will be overturned (the same is true for the Han).
On the contrary, without violent conquest or limited suppression, although terrorist attacks may be unavoidable in the short term, and some people will suffer, including death, it may not be a bad thing in the long run, or at least it is not better than doing things absolutely. Uyghur originally had no unresolvable blood feud, but now he has added an account that may become an unresolvable feud.
Third, the pursuit of absolute "perfection" often requires a greater price, and the bearer of this price is often more innocent victims of the weak. Totalitarian and powerful pursuit of certain goals is often at the expense of other interests, especially human rights. From the piles of bones built by Qin Shihuang to build the Great Wall, to the tragic death of the Soviet Union's White Sea-Baltic Canal, all reflect the cruelty of totalitarianism to achieve its goals at any cost. After all, there are disputes about the merits and demerits of these, but there are still some that obviously outweigh the gains. For example, the impact of China’s city closure and isolation during the recent COVID-19 period, not to mention other economic, social and human rights harms, only caused many people to delay medical treatment and commit bankruptcy. , Reduced income, shortened life expectancy under various pressures and pains, probably many times the number of similar deaths caused by the new crown.
The same goes for counter-terrorism. In order to "clear" terrorist attacks, a large proportion of a nation, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, are sent to "re-education camps" that are actually concentration camps, which harms human rights more than terrorist attacks how many times? How ugly does it appear in modern civilized society? How much trauma has it caused to the present and future Uighurs and Hans? What kind of bad example will it set for the world? Prevention is necessary, but in order to prevent greater disasters, the gains outweigh the losses (of course, the "gains" and "losers" may not necessarily be the same, the same group). Many people in the country always talk about Chechnya, but they are as strong and cruel as Stalin and Putin, and they didn’t put all Chechens in prison (there are hundreds of thousands of Chechens in Russia, and it is not difficult to pass the customs). Conflicts between ethnic groups also require certain rules, such as "two countries do not fight each other", find a place to win or lose without deliberately attacking civilians, and do not rape women or hurt babies, etc. Locking so many people of other ethnic groups in a closed space, letting them be manipulated by others in a highly infringed environment, and the inevitable various cruel persecutions, including the destruction of human dignity, independence and freedom, is more violent than Putin’s suppression of Chechnya. Cooler and cooler behavior.
In addition, although terrorist attacks are indeed terrible, if you look at them rationally, the casualties caused by terrorist attacks in most places, including Xinjiang, are far lower than those caused by diseases, accidents, accidents and other causes. A common flu alone (rather than a severe epidemic like the new crown) kills tens of thousands of people every winter in a country the size of the United States. Traffic accidents also cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and disabilities in China every year. At least dozens of people are killed by lightning strikes in the United States every year, more than the number of people killed by terrorist attacks in the United States in most years. Even if the casualties caused by other non-terrorist intentional homicide and intentional injury criminal cases in China and the United States each year are significantly more than the terrorist attacks in the two countries (even in the period of high incidence of terrorist attacks). Of course, terrorist attacks also have their particularities such as being indiscriminate, carried out in public places, and cruel means, but we must also see that compared with other factors that cause death or injury, the consequences are not extremely terrible and unacceptable. On the premise of combating terrorism, we can treat it as a terrible but unavoidable thing in life, and just prevent and fight against it, instead of "clearing it to zero".
Of course, if it is not "cleared to zero", it will be difficult to not have a single victim of violence and terrorism as it is now, and there will almost certainly be violence and terrorism, and some people will die of violence. Whoever dies is the destruction of his/her whole world. No one wants to die. Even if I have the spirit of sacrifice, I will not be willing to be killed by terrorists on purpose. But this is just like in the objective reality, there are always many people who die directly or indirectly due to intentional injury or negligent injury, and it is impossible to completely eliminate it. It is impossible to imprison all human beings and put them in chains just because they have the possibility of committing a crime. The same is true for those who are more likely to harm others. Men can all rape women, so are they all chemically castrated? We can only chemically castrate accomplished criminals rather than "potential rapists". It sounds scary, but it's the reality. Just like the well-known cruel "track problem", let the train crush four to death on the same route and change the barrier to save four but crush the other. It is impossible, including me, to choose a certain item directly, because it is too cruel up. But in fact, the human world makes thousands of similar and even more dire consequences every day, but the prerequisites are often vague. But it is impossible for us not to make a choice, and there will be more terrible consequences (and such a choice of "doing" itself means all kinds of life and death, which is a terrible thing).
Fourth, don't only resent public violence and individual terrorist acts, but ignore systemic violence and state machine-style violence. It can be said that in any period since human beings entered the slave society from primitive society to the present, the damage caused by institutions and state apparatuses (or strictly speaking, not state apparatuses but similar to state apparatuses (such as local power ruling apparatuses)) has caused far more harm than individuals (or by a minority of rebel groups). Of course, there are many times when system and state machine violence are justified, but there are also many times when it is not justified. Even relatively righteous times often hurt the innocent and cause more harm than individual violence. Moreover, the perpetrators of individual terrorism are overwhelmingly dead (by suicide attacks, repression) or imprisoned for life, with little escape from punishment. But the perpetrators of institutional and state machine violence can often escape punishment or reduce punishment (and this is the norm, and being liquidated is the abnormality).
What I said is not to oppose the existence of system and state apparatus violence, on the contrary sometimes it is better to strengthen it. However, because of the exposure and prominence of individual terrorism, the relatively hidden and routine system and state machine violence should not be ignored, especially when the two conflict and the good and evil are not relatively clear. Of course, people may not necessarily ignore system and state machine violence and only see individual terrorism as a whole and at all times, and sometimes it is even the opposite, but the opposite cannot be ignored.
As I mentioned earlier, in the violent and terrorist conflict, although the Uighur terrorists killed some Han Chinese and other ethnic groups, not only these people basically died, but also related people and even some innocent people. So it is clear that the system and the state apparatus have greater damage consequences than individual terrorism. Although this is not to say that system and state violence should not exist (on the contrary, they should exist), but people should take this comparison into consideration in their judgment and follow-up responses, so as not to increase system and state violence unnecessarily.
Fifth, this should not be done even to foreigners, let alone to our compatriots. No matter what the future holds, at least for now the Uighurs are still their compatriots and citizens of the People's Republic of China. Since the Chinese government is acting in Xinjiang in the name of anti-separatism and national unification, it should not specifically selectively cruelly treat one of the Uyghur and Han ethnic groups, so excessively favoritism. In history, the Uighurs have never completely conquered the Han nationality. On the contrary, the Han nationality has been in the upper hand for a long time in the Uighur-Han conflict. Today, the Han people still have this advantage, they can relatively calmly choose the way to solve the problem (including letting violent terrorists slip through the net). Under such circumstances, imprisoning millions of people from another ethnic group in concentration camps is totally outrageous and hateful, both emotionally and rationally.
The humanitarian disaster of "re-education camps" has not reached the extreme level
First of all, it needs to be said that "re-education camps" are evil and unacceptable, and need to be criticized and changed. However, one point of crime is one point of crime, and no point is concealed for the crime, nor is one point added to the fabrication of the crime.
Compared to the Nazi massacre of Jews, the Nanjing massacre and other systematic atrocities by the Japanese army in China, the Ottoman Turkish massacre of Armenian adults, the Soviet purges, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Bengal massacre (massacres before and during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War), Huge crimes such as the Khmer Rouge massacre and the Rwandan genocide, the "re-education camps" and other human rights violations in Xinjiang are still "much smaller."
Although about one million people, mainly Uyghur Muslims, were sent to "re-education camps", it does not mean that all of them were killed or cruelly tortured. According to the comprehensive analysis of various information, it can be concluded that for most of them, there is "just" no torture and cruel torture education in detention. The environment in which they are detained is of course a simple detention facility similar to a prison but better than most Chinese prisons. They need to receive brainwashing education, be forced to be anti-religious, engage in activities that insult their religious beliefs, and be insulted and threatened. Some people need forced labor, and the labor has no or meager income.
And there are a small number of people (maybe 1%-10%, maybe higher or lower) who are suspected of serious "problems" and refuse to bow their heads to plead guilty and obey. "Tiger Bench"/no sleep/starvation and other methods of torture and ill-treatment, as well as injuries with a strong humiliation nature (including sexual aspects such as various forms of assault), some people were maimed, insane and even died as a result. Among them, women will have a certain probability of being raped and abused, and there will almost certainly be a large number of such cases, and more cases will accumulate. But these cases still represent "only" a relatively small proportion of all detainees. And not systematic and very brutal rape. In addition, the absence of active treatment, or no treatment at all, for a serious illness or injury is cruel abuse.
Maybe I underestimated or overestimated, but I think this should be roughly the case. In addition to being "lighter" than the previous catastrophes, it is also "lighter" than the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Indonesia's "930 Incident" after the massacre of Chinese, the Belgian Congo massacre under the rule of Leopold II, North Korea's long-term purge, "Islamic massacre". What the country does is "light".
Of course, I do not mean to deny evil by saying this, but to remind people that there are more cruel situations in this world. This kind of comparison is very cruel, but we still have to compare, otherwise I am sorry for all the victims.
Even so, this kind of detention deprives freedom, creates fear and oppression, is forced to endure and obey, causes psychological trauma such as loss of dignity and personality damage, loss of jobs and income, and family separation (children lose their parents to look after them, and the elderly have no children to support them), etc. Great crimes leave lasting scars. (The core is that losing freedom and being at the mercy of others makes all evil possible)
For the Uyghur Muslim community as a whole, this is a cruel setback, and it will also result in a significant reduction in the population. Of course, there are many specific injuries, which I will mention in various places in the article, but mainly these two points can be summarized.
Also, even if a person is raped, it is rape, and if a person is beaten to death, it is homicide. For the victim, her/his own pain is the pain of this person's world, the destruction of this person's world. And this kind of cruel atrocities must have happened in the "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, and there have been a lot of them.
Similarly, everyone has the choice to raise their guns an inch. Every relative kindness to the innocent, every restraint of harm that does not exceed the necessary limit, is a contribution to the love and peace of this world, and it is a soul. a redemption.
What needs to be emphasized is that, now and in the future, the entire humanitarian disaster must be investigated in detail, and the truth should never be avoided, suppression of complaints and evidence, and avoiding the important for the sake of so-called harmony or reconciliation. Again, it should not be exaggerated, but the truth is what it is.
Opposing 're-education camps' does not mean ignoring religious extremism and terrorism
However, what I said above does not mean I sympathize with or even support religious extremism and terrorism. On the contrary, I detest religious extremism.
First of all, I respect freedom of religious belief and religious believers. However, in my opinion as an atheist, although religion has reasonable factors that exist in history and reality, and has a certain positive effect on human society and even everything in the world, its idealism, exclusiveness, and conservative characteristics determine its limitations.
Religious extremism (including fundamentalism and extreme "heresy") is a branch of religion with the most negative factors. Whether it is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion, there are such extremist branches. Although extremism may not be particularly harmful all the time, its harmfulness is obviously enormous. It advocates injustice and non-self-defense violence, anti-intellectualism, and complete exclusivity, which of course will endanger human rights, human beings, and the survival and civilization of the earth.
However, due to the uneven distribution of religions in different regions and various realities (including those caused by the religion itself), the degree and form of extremism are different. Among them, the reason why Islamic extremism is relatively prominent is largely due to the fact that the political, economic, cultural and social conditions in the areas where Islam is distributed are very different from those in other religious areas, such as the lack of modern democracy and the rule of law, the low degree of industrialization and the economic structure. There are problems, social closure, strong economic and social inequality, etc. As for the causal relationship between these and Islam, it is a complicated account that is difficult to figure out. But these factors make Islamic extremism particularly prominent among religious extremism. Its prominence is not so much in thought (see what Christian and Jewish fundamentalists thought) but in action. Its non-state form of extremism is particularly prominent among religious extremism (of course, its state form of extremism is also prominent, but it is not as prominent as non-state form of extremism).
The environment in Xinjiang is not good, and it seems to be a breeding ground for extremism. Due to historical conflicts with other ethnic religions, Uyghur (often translated as Uighur in the 19th century) Muslims have lived in an unstable environment all year round. Although Xinjiang is rich in oil resources, oil was useless before the modern industrial society, so it has been relatively barren for a long time. As for some "oases", they are just embellishments in deserts and mountains, and they are deeply inland, so the whole is of course barren. This makes their living conditions relatively poor.
A "Brief History" of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang
However, during the period when the Manchu regime controlled Xinjiang, the extreme side gradually displayed by the Uyghurs and other Muslim groups was not mainly caused by religion itself or geographical factors, but by the brutal colonial rule of the Manchu regime.
The Manchu Qing regime conquered and controlled Xinjiang during the reign of Qianlong. In the process of conquering Xinjiang, the Manchu, Han, and Mongol armies under the command of generals such as the Manchurian aristocrat Zhaohui brutally slaughtered the Huoji Zhan tribe, which is dominated by Hui Muslims, and gained control of Xinjiang. Although the Hui-Han and other ethnic groups resisted bravely, they wrote epic chapters of resistance (for example, Mr. Jin Yong's "Book, Sword, Enmity and Enmity" used this as the background, praising the heroic resistance of the Hui-Han sons and daughters against the Manchus in a literary and martial way. The glorious story of the brutal rule of the Qing Dynasty), but ultimately failed in the bloody massacre of the Manchu and Han colonists. After the Manchu Qing regime occupied Xinjiang, it set up several military strongholds and stationed a large number of Manchu nobles and Han soldiers to suppress the resistance of the Han, Hui, and Uighur ethnic groups. During the course of their rule, the noble generals and their families of the Manchurians plundered, plundered women, destroyed pastures and gardens, and committed all kinds of evil. It is said that Qianlong himself forcibly took Huo Jizhan's wife, jokingly called it "destroying Hui Fu", and later adapted it into a "good story" through imperial literati, which is extremely shameless. The Manchu Qing regime ruled Xinjiang just like it ruled the mainland, relying entirely on high pressure and violence, and deliberately instigated conflicts among other ethnic groups other than Manchu, so as to facilitate its consolidation of colonial rule over various ethnic groups.
This aroused the anger of people of all ethnic groups and beliefs, including Uyghur Muslims, and they launched an uprising during the Tongzhi period. The uprising army composed of Hui, Uighur, and Han nationalities once killed a large number of Manchurian colonists and Han servants, but was suppressed due to lack of follow-up. As Zuo Zongtang, the leader of the Han landlord class supported by the Manchurian nobles, entered Xinjiang, defeated various forces and forced Tsarist Russia back, rebuilding the Qing government's control over Xinjiang. In this process, Hui Muslims suffered heavy casualties, while Uyghur Muslims suffered relatively small losses because they were not involved in the center of the conflict. However, the Uighurs also became the objects of plunder and slavery by the Manchu and Han rulers, and lived together with other Han Hui civilians in the "big prison of people of all ethnic groups" under the rule of the Manchu Qing regime.
Therefore, after the outbreak of the Revolution of 1911, the Uighur Muslims, together with the Han and Hui, lifted the military power of the Manchu nobles stationed in Xinjiang, realized the change of flag in a relatively peaceful way, and joined the Republic of China. However, the Manchu and Han ruling classes that suppressed Uighurs and Muslims at that time were not liquidated; the government of the Republic of China and the local government of Xinjiang did not fully expose and reflect on the oppression and killing of ethnic groups in Xinjiang and even throughout the country during the Manchu and Qing Dynasties. Various conflicts and tragedies, including "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, have sowed the seeds of disaster.
After the establishment of the Republic of China, the relatively enlightened ethnic policies of some prominent local politicians allowed various ethnic groups, including Uyghurs and Muslims, to live in peace. For example, after the Revolution of 1911, the local strongman Yang Zengxin held power in Xinjiang for 17 years. During this period, he treated all ethnic groups in Xinjiang relatively equally, allowing all ethnic groups in Xinjiang to live a relatively stable and prosperous life. After him, Jin Shuren messed up Xinjiang, but for a short time. After Jin Shuren, Sheng Shicai was another capable hero. Although he brutally suppressed the resistance, it also allowed Xinjiang's economy and humanities to develop greatly, and all ethnic groups basically lived in harmony under relatively high pressure. During Sheng Shicai's reign, Uyghur Muslims made great achievements in the field of ideology and culture, and gradually accepted the idea of Pan-Turkism. The Uyghur Muslims who are in the limelight are of course not going to extremism, but they have given Uyghur Muslims a stronger national identity.
Compared with the Republic of China dominated by Han people, and the Sheng Shicai local regime also led by Han people, Uyghur Muslims are relatively closer to the Soviet Union, which claims to eliminate ethnic differences and barriers. In order to expand its power and contain the Republic of China, and to please the Muslims in China, especially in Central Asia, the Soviet Union was also willing to support the Uighur Muslim forces in Xinjiang. The "Three Regions Revolution" that took place from 1944 to 1949 was the political and military action of Uyghur Muslims against the National Government and seeking independence, which was accompanied by the genocide against the Han people, showing that this "revolution" was ostensibly a "socialist nation" "Democratic Revolution", but actually has a strong tendency towards racism and religious extremism.
If the Kuomintang won the civil war between the KMT and the Communist Party, then some parts of Xinjiang may be encouraged to become independent by the Soviet Union (though not necessarily). But the CCP unexpectedly won the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. At that time, the CCP and the Soviet Communist Party had a close relationship. Due to national interests and ideology, the Soviet Union decided to allow Uyghur Muslims to give up their independence or merge into the Soviet Union. After joining the People’s Republic of China, due to the suppression and dissolution of nationalism and religious thoughts by Marxist-Leninist ideology and Mao Zedong Thought, Uyghur Muslims have maintained relative peace and loyalty to the CCP’s rule for a long time, as well as relations with other ethnic groups such as Han Hui. Relatively harmonious. Although the Cultural Revolution seriously damaged the peaceful life of Uyghur Muslims, it did not strengthen their nationalism and religious beliefs at that time, but weakened both (because the Cultural Revolution wanted to "sweep all monsters and monsters", and nationalism and religion were the main targets of sweeping away) .
It is worth noting that some Uyghur scholars and foreign researchers said that "Uyghurs were genocide and oppressed during Mao Zedong's time" is not true. Because, during Mao Zedong’s rule, including the Cultural Revolution period, although there were killings against Uyghur Muslims, at the same time, a large number of Han people in Xinjiang and the interior were also killed or died of other reasons. If you count the deaths caused by famine and poverty, even the death rate of the Han people is much higher than that of the Uyghurs (the total number is of course more). No oppressor nation has a higher death rate than the oppressed nation. Similarly, the destruction of traditional culture and cultural relics is not only aimed at ethnic groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. The Han people suffer equally or even more. Only the Manchus and their culture and historical sites have suffered the least impact.
However, after the reform and opening up, various historical problems including the traumatic sequelae of the Cultural Revolution began to appear, and the nationalism and religious complex of Uyghur Muslims increased significantly. At this time, the disadvantage of Xinjiang's relatively barren geographical location in the deep inland began to become prominent, and the living standards of the people became relatively backward compared with those in the coastal areas and even in the central area. As for the benefits brought by oil resources, people in Xinjiang benefited unevenly. Members of the Xinjiang Construction Corps, mainly Han people who went to Xinjiang after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, got most of the oil benefits, while those Han and Uighurs who lived in Xinjiang earlier received less. Looking at the Han and Uighur ethnic groups in Xinjiang as a whole, the Han clearly benefited more from oil revenues. In addition, since the Uyghurs are mostly distributed in the barren southern Xinjiang and rural areas, and the Han people are more concentrated in the relatively affluent northern Xinjiang and towns, the gap between the rich and the poor is obvious, and the gap has obviously increased rather than narrowed after the reform and opening up. .
Of course, this gap is much smaller than the income gap between the nationals of the colonial master country and the people in the colonized areas when the era of global colonialism was in full swing (it is also much smaller than the gap between the rich and the poor between the Manchus and the Han during the Qing Dynasty, which was also colonialism. ), and there is no obvious institutional systemic ethnic oppression, all are equal in law (even once had a certain superiority over Han people, that is, various preferential policies for ethnic minorities represented by "two less and one lenient" in the 1980s). So even though there was a wealth gap between the Uighurs and the Han and ethnic estrangement, Xinjiang at that time was obviously not a colony where the Han people ruled the Uighurs (although the "Xinjiang Construction Corps" had a certain colonial color).
Although there is a certain gap between the rich and the poor, in the 1980s when Hu Yaobang was in power, he implemented an "enlightened" ethnic policy that almost discriminated against the Han people in reverse, and put forward the so-called "Han people should make amends for the ethnic minorities" in disregard of historical facts (of course, this statement was made during the Mao Zedong period. That is, such a point of view seriously ignores two issues. First, since ancient times, the Han and ethnic minorities have killed each other more than one side alone oppressed the other; In fact, it was done by the Manchu Qing and the earlier Mongol regime. The Han nationality is at most servants, and the main responsibility should be borne by the Manchu Qing rather than the Han people. On the contrary, the Han nationality is also the victim of the Manchu Qing and Mongolian Yuan rule), suppressing the Han nationality At the same time, it condones the nationalism of ethnic minorities, allowing the Han people to transfer their interests to the ethnic minorities.
So at this time, the Uighurs still had no extremist thoughts, let alone large-scale violent terrorism. On the contrary, they still supported the CCP regime/Chinese central government during Hu Yaobang's rule. Wuer Kaixi, one of the leaders of the Chinese student movement in the 1980s, was a Uighur Muslim in Xinjiang. Not only was he not discriminated against, but he became a widely supported student leader, which to a certain extent explains the status of Uyghur Muslims at that time. However, the Uyghur Muslims at this time did not weaken their national consciousness, but instead strengthened their national and religious identity, which was closely related to Hu Yaobang's blind "enlightenment" who did not consider the long-term consequences.
At this time, the future of Uyghur Muslims remains bleak. If China moves toward democracy, it is impossible to predict whether the Uyghurs will remain in democratic China as a minority or whether they will go out independently through various means. But the events of June 4, 1989 turned this uncertainty into another uncertainty about whether Uyghur Muslims would stay in China under dictatorship (rather than democracy) or break away.
Looking at June 4th so far (only the answers given during this period do not represent the future), it is a painful life with the Han people in autocratic China. On the surface, they abide by unity and national unity, but in fact they are alienated from morality. Typical manifestations are the growth of extremism and the emergence of a large number of terrorist activities. Starting with the Baren Township riot in 1990, extremists among Uyghur Muslims began a terrorist activity that lasted for more than 30 years and has no end in sight.
Behind the terrorist activities is the proliferation of religious extremism and extreme nationalism. In fact, Muslims of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, including Uyghur Muslims, have not been more extreme than Muslims in other regions for a long time. Most of them believe in the Hanafi sect in the Sunni sect of Islam. This sect and related religious laws are relatively looser than other sects, especially compared with the Wahhabi/Salafis who are also Sunni sects.
After June 4th, Xinjiang Muslims in China, especially Uyghur Muslims, because of the internal factors of political dictatorship and economic poverty, and the external factors of religious infiltration by Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, many converted to extreme Wahhabis/Salafism group. This faction is famous for its minority but extremely active "jihadists". The wealthy Saudi royal family also governs the country with Wahhabi teachings, and it also has great financial support for foreign Wahhabist forces. The ideology of the Wahhabi sect is obvious Islamic fundamentalism/extremism, requiring members to strictly follow Islamic law, and advocating "jihad" against infidels.
At the same time, the trend of Pan-Turkism/Great Turkism is also revived among Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang ("revival" refers to the first rise compared to Sheng Shicai's period). The fantasy of establishing a "Great Turkic State" from Turkey to Xinjiang has become the dream of some Uyghur Muslims. For this dream, they resort to violence including indiscriminate terrorist attacks. The solidarity and linkage of foreign pan-Turkic forces played a big role. In particular, the rise and power of political and ideological forces represented by Erdoğan, who are a mixture of pan-Turkism, Islamic conservatism, and populism, have inspired pan-Turkists from all over the world, including the pro-Turkish forces in Xinjiang, China. .
Religious extremism and extreme nationalism have become the "two wings" of the thinking of some extremists among Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. Xinjiang has also become volatile and threatens to reach the interior. Terrorism is a manifestation, but its essence is the flourishing of extremism and violence. Of course, they also have dissatisfaction with the lack of freedom, democracy, fairness and justice under the autocratic system (although if they can become independent, they may not necessarily establish a country of democracy, freedom and the rule of law). In this regard, the Uighurs are the same as the Han people, so there is no need to introduce them in detail.
In short, since the Uyghurs (almost all Muslims) formed their national identity, they have had a long period of peaceful coexistence with the Han people, unlike some other ethnic groups that have long-term oppressive relations. However, due to various reasons, especially the lack of democracy, the rule of law, fairness and justice under authoritarianism, all kinds of legitimate and improper thoughts and demands are suppressed at the same time, leading to the proliferation of extremism in ethnic and religious identities. The Han people also suffered from it, and they could not justly oppose the history of being oppressed by the Manchus for a long time (and this is not a conflict, but a long-term and extremely cruel oppression of one side against the other, which is actually colonialism). All ethnic groups live together in the big prison under despotism (this is very similar to the period of Manchu Qing rule, but there are also differences. At that time, the Manchus were in a dominant position and brutally oppressed the Han nationality, the Mongols were also oppressed but slightly privileged, the Han nationality Uighurs (and Uyghur predecessors) are oppressed.
Although the Han people in China are now in a dominant position, they are not in a dominant position. Many Han people are oppressed and suffering more than most ethnic minorities, and the total number of these miserable and desperate people should be more than the combined population of all ethnic minorities. What's more worth mentioning is that the Uighurs, Han and Tibetans were sent to the "Great Prison" precisely because of the Manchu Qing's conquest and oppression, and it has continued into today's "Post-Qing". "Hou Qing" is not a joke or even a metaphor to a certain extent. Not only ethnic relations, political and social systems, governance models, and value orientations, the CCP and the Manchu Qing are all highly consistent. Due to space constraints, they will not be expanded here, and will be described in other articles.
The Spread and Influence of Islamic Fundamentalism and Extremism in Xinjiang
The narration and analysis of the brief history of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang comes to an end, and we return to religious issues.
Due to the negative characteristics of religion, especially the harm of religious extremism, and the relatively prominent characteristics of Islamic extremism, global Islamic extremism and terrorism are very prosperous. With the end of the Vietnam War and the end of the Cold War, the harm of Islamic extremism has become relatively more prominent. The "September 11 Incident" in 2001 became the first terror peak of Islamic extremism. And the "second peak of terror" can be considered as the siege of the "Islamic State" that rose in 2014 and was relatively weak in 2018. This not only had a great impact on the world structure, but also spread "Islamophobia" in the world, and greatly damaged the reputation of Islam in the world.
But while we oppose "Islamophobia", we cannot give up criticizing the inferiority of religion. There is no contradiction between respecting religion and criticizing religion (although you have to say that there is no way to contradict). Secularism should be the future direction of mankind. Or, at least it should be "religiously culturalized".
What is "religious culturalization"? Why "religious culture"? I don't have a particularly systematic theory on this issue, at least I don't have the ability to create such a theory at present. But to put it simply, it is to change the religion with a strong "divine nature" into a more humane and desacralized cultural nature, so that it can be directly questioned, criticized and transformed like other non-religious ideologies.
As mentioned above, the characteristics of religion are idealism and exclusiveness, and "God" cannot be questioned. Judaism is looking for words in the Bible (Old Testament) as a creed of thought and a guideline for action. This is obviously wrong (sorry for not disrespecting religion, but I have to use this word).
It is undeniable that these scriptures were indeed great when they were written. Because compared with other ideologies and cultural customs of that era, Christianity and Islam were very progressive. For example, when it comes to women's rights, the Bible and the Qur'an are more pro-women than most other pantheistic, animistic beliefs of the time, and more pro-women than most non-religious people were treating women at the time . Many other ideas, including the shaping of human value and the way of dealing with the world, can be described as quite "civilized", and they are pearls in the dark night of that era.
However, everything has the limitations of the times, and it is impossible to follow it generally. It is obviously outdated to measure everything in the world, especially human society, with things that were more than a thousand or two thousand years ago, and as a code of conduct. Everything in the book has permanent value). But religious dogmas cannot be questioned directly, but can only be interpreted differently (religious believers refuse to admit that scriptures can be wrong, and there are things that need to be discarded over time, at most saying "those words are sacred and correct, but I can interpret them like this") , which makes religions limited even when modified, and makes extremism always attractive. Because extremism is largely fundamentalism. What does "fundamentalism" mean? It can be understood just from the words, that is, the value of extremely respecting the original meaning of the scriptures. If you read the original text of the scriptures, you will know how terrible it is to follow.
And culture is different. Culture is relatively secular, or at least non-religious in nature, and as such can be constantly criticized openly and safely. In this regard, China has a very good history for a long time. Religion was weak most of the time in Chinese history, and what flourished was the non-religious ideology and culture in which Confucianism was the largest sect and a hundred schools of thought contended. Although Confucianism has also been admired as a religion-like system of thought that could not be criticized for a long time, even when it is emphasized that Confucianism is the most exclusive, it does not have the strict observance and high exclusion of religion. different situation. In the era when Confucianism was not respected as a religion, it was even more free, and all kinds of thoughts could flow into exile. It is also true that China has not been bound by religion for a long time, and there have not been particularly bloody religious wars. Of course, the most important thing is to allow social thinking and human values to be constantly revised and developed with the times. Of course, China was severely imprisoned by the imperial power, and cultural freedom was also affected, but the degree of restraint was far less than that of religion.
Therefore, I believe that "religious culturalization" is the only good way out for religious reform and even revolution. And "religious culturalization" is actually equivalent to secularism. And so, all religions in China, including Islam, also need to carry out such reforms. Otherwise, only atheism can replace it.
So, I think that secularization is indeed needed to solve the Islamic extremism in Xinjiang. The human rights and freedom of religious belief of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang need to be respected, but secular human rights need to be respected more than freedom of religious belief. In addition, while respecting the human rights of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, we must also oppose their religious extremism, and at the same time criticize negative religious issues.
The secularism promoted by the CCP is the secularism of Dahl culture and cynicism in the society under the dictatorship. The direction we should work hard is to promote the secularism of democracy, rule of law, fairness and justice, and scientific rationality. We must not only affirm the general direction of the CCP’s promotion of secularism, but also oppose the specific direction of the CCP’s promotion of secularism, as well as the methods of promoting secularism. That is to say, we should not only oppose religious extremism and even boldly criticize religion itself, but also oppose the CCP's "re-education camp" policy, so that the future Xinjiang and China will become democratic and progressive secular regions and countries.
Ethnic and regional issues: national unity and territorial integrity are priorities but not absolute priorities
Speaking of religion, let's talk about ethnicity. Ethnicity is different from religion in that it is a system of thought with a positive meaning. Although it has indeed caused many bloody storms in history (of course it is still bloody storms now), it has also contributed to the formation of today's civilization. Of course, in the future, human beings should have a unified world regardless of national boundaries (although this may not be the case in reality). However, before Datong, the ideology/thought system of nation was still valuable and necessary.
Nationalism is also different from racism. Racism is genetically based, nationalism is more culturally based. Genes have a fixed and natural inheritance, at least for now, people cannot change genes. But the nation can be transformed. The so-called "Huaxia enters the barbarians and the barbarians belong to the barbarians, and the barbarians enter the Huaxia and the Huaxia homes", of course, "entering the barbarians and staying in the Huaxia", "after the Huaxia, remain the barbarians". Therefore, he is not as extreme as racism, so it can be kept temporarily.
Not only can it be temporarily reserved, but it must be temporarily reserved. Because the reality of the world still exists, develops, and competes in the form of nations/nations. Under such circumstances, abandoning nationalism is tantamount to unilateral surrender, and will only become a victim of cruel international competition, especially conflicts. The experience of the Jews and Gypsies is an example, and the situation of the Rohingya and Kurds is also telling us the cruelty of this world. These are extreme examples, and there are many more that are not so miserable and extreme but still suffer from various losses. They are everywhere in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Developed countries are more civilized but not without fierce conflicts. The United States, France, Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc. China has a very high degree of democracy and a very high degree of internationalization, but these countries still have discordant interests and constant conflicts (see the recent "submarine incident" that plagued the relationship between France, Britain, the United States, Australia and other countries), not to mention others.
I also know, of course, that nationalism itself is a factor in this brutal outcome. However, if some forces unilaterally abandon it, they will only end up tragically or at least be marginalized. They may be courteous for a while in conflicts of interest, but they will still be victims in the end. Human beings are still in the jungle or have not completely gotten rid of the jungle, equality and fraternity are still far away, and various calculations and conflicts are still common or even necessary. Therefore, we must stick to nationalism. Even if nationalism is abandoned in the future, it is necessary to make other relevant countries relatively "reciprocal" to weaken nationalism like disarmament, and eventually the world will be unified.
As Chinese and Han people with a sense of responsibility, we must have a heart of fraternity for the people of the world, but we must not sacrifice our compatriots for fraternity. We do not protect our own shortcomings or whitewash the ugliness of our own nation, and we do not protect our own nation's villains, including those who have committed crimes against other nations. However, it is also impossible to "measure the material strength of China and form a bond with the country", because that would be a betrayal of our compatriots. The sons and daughters of China and the descendants of Yan and Huang, although they often fight among themselves, they also support each other, so that they have come from ancient times to the present. Our nation has experienced common ups and downs, and we have tasted the bitterness and sweetness of the changing world together. This is like a big family, with conflicts of interest but also a community of destiny, the other in the eyes of others, and the self in the heart of oneself. Even for the benefit of all mankind, we must first strengthen ourselves, win in the international jungle, and then transform the Quartet to be more civilized and fraternal than the US and European countries treat other countries, so as to make the world a better place.
The Chinese nation, especially the Han nationality, has suffered many disasters. Most of the time, especially in modern times, they are invaded rather than invaded by others. They are more innocent and have less historical debt than other nations. Some nations and civilizations in the world are more engaged in construction and self-sufficiency, while others are engaged in destruction and plunder. The Han people and Chinese civilization, compared with the nomads and fishermen and hunters, are obviously constructive and introverted, and have developed a splendid civilization, which has made great contributions to East Asia and the world. The Han civilization was not only far more advanced than the civilizations of the surrounding grassland and mountain peoples, but also more enlightened and tolerant than the contemporary European civilization. For example, when Europe in the Middle Ages was deeply involved in religious wars and sectarian vendettas, and the people trembled under the power of the Inquisition, China was a secular and rational society that tolerated relatively humane religious beliefs such as Buddhism and Taoism. Compared with the Islamic civilization, which has gradually turned from open to closed, and from aggressive to conservative, Han civilization is relatively more flexible, pragmatic, and innovative. It is not immutable but keeps pace with the times.
The ancient world is a history of conquering and being conquered. Rather than barbarism conquering civilization, it is better for civilization to conquer barbarism. Although the Han people also expanded and invaded, they were not only lower than the surrounding barbarians in proportion and degree, but also brought more civilization than rape and burning. For example, during the Qin and Han Dynasties, the Han people went south, which promoted the economic and cultural development of Jiangnan and Lingnan; This enables Sichuan, Chongqing, Yunnan and Guizhou to be fully developed. However, the surrounding ethnic groups who invaded and enslaved the Han people brought cruel slavery, barbaric ignorance, humane destruction, and ideological imprisonment to the Han people and even all ethnic groups. If the Han nationality did not have the continuous national awareness and defense from the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States to the present, the Han people would have become rootless pariahs (you can see the tragedy of the Indian aborigines who have been repeatedly invaded by foreigners, many of them have become caste systems The most oppressed low-level civilians in China, "untouchables". The "fourth-class system" in the Yuan Dynasty was also a similar system, but it was not implemented for a long time because the Mongolian Yuan was overthrown), and there was no civilization in the land of China. Although the Han nationality revived in the Ming Dynasty and the Republic of China, the rule of the Manchu Qing Dynasty and the CCP caused the Han people to be enslaved and sunk again. If the banner of Han nationalism cannot be held high, China will still be poisoned by long-term autocracy and violence.
The Chinese and Han people overseas are also more tolerant than most other ethnic groups. But we are always quite cruel to our own people. We don't want to change from "cruel inside and cruel outside" to "cruel inside and outside", but we also don't always abandon our compatriots in international competition. Just like the two bloody anti-Chinese in Indonesia, we don’t necessarily want to retaliate against Indonesia, but should we at least bring back those compatriots who are connected with us by blood, have a common cultural identity and a history of similar suffering, or not take them back but find ways to protect them? take care of it? For the Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia, on the basis of not compromising the sovereignty of Singapore and Malaysia and respecting their independence, we can also extend more olive branches, so that the sons and daughters of China can feel the warmth of home, and jointly create the brilliance of the Chinese people in the world. Let’s see how the Jews treat their compatriots who are scattered around the world. Like the Jews, we also suffered great disasters after the opening of modern civilization. Why can’t we also care for our compatriots of the same race? After letting go, did those Tu Hua's hands soften? It just makes them more reckless. Even if it is treated as a foreign citizen, there should be humanitarian help. Why do you ignore so many tragic deaths in order to avoid suspicion and keep a low profile?
Therefore, nationalism cannot be discarded, but needs to be promoted conditionally.
So, under such a premise, how to solve the problem of Uighurs in Xinjiang? Of course, while opposing "re-education camps", we must still uphold national unity and territorial integrity, and oppose "Xinjiang independence." The right of national self-determination is important, but national self-determination also takes into account other national interests.
Let me post an excerpt of my other article discussing the issue of national unification here:
Regarding "the relationship between grand unification and the future democratic constitutional system", I have made many speeches on Twitter, commenting that the two are not contradictory, and that territory, population, and sovereignty are the core interests of the country, and are important to the country and the people . Except for special circumstances such as some areas in Xinjiang, I oppose the independence of any region, and advocate the unity of the country, the recovery of lost land, and the integrity of the territory. Here I only select some series of tweets that I commented on the issue of reunification and independence, democracy and reunification on Twitter, slightly modified, and the excerpts are here:
I do not agree with the views and remarks of those pro-independence pro-democracy activists. If a pro-democracy activist is an Indian, and then he asks Modi to let Kashmir referendum, withdraw the army from Punjab, Bangladesh, and the seven northeastern states of India, will Modi agree? Will he be arrested for endangering national security?
Similarly, democratic countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Nigeria have also used force to suppress areas that are trying to become independent, such as Aceh and West Papua in Indonesia (while the independence of East Timor paid 100,000 to 300,000 people, or 100,000 people in total, One-quarter to one-quarter of the heavy price), the Muslim-inhabited area of Mindanao in the Philippines, and the Biafra region in Nigeria. On the one hand, Europe and the United States have recognized the "velvet separation" of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but for Ukraine, which is also a democracy, even if Crimea "returns" to Russia through a referendum, two states in the Donbas region have separated from Kiev's jurisdiction and established a The two "republics" are all refused to be recognized by Western countries. The same goes for South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. Among the developed countries, although there was a referendum on Scottish independence, more developed countries tried their best to obstruct and suppress the secession and independence movement. For example, Canada set up the "Clarity Act" to restrict the rule of law on the issue of Quebec's independence, which is of course to prevent Quebec's independence. The Spanish central government, whether in the era of Franco's dictatorship or the era of democracy from the 1980s to the present, has also been very strong in suppressing the Catalan independence movement. After the referendum in Catalonia, almost all Western countries, including the European Union, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, all claimed to respect Spain's sovereignty and territorial integrity and did not recognize Catalonia's independence. Japan has also adopted both soft and hard methods to suppress the "national self-reliance" movement after the awakening of the Ainu's national consciousness, as well as the Ryukyu autonomy and even independence movement, and firmly opposes Ryukyu independence. Movements such as "California Independence" and "Texas Independence" in the United States were also suppressed by the U.S. federal government. The Civil War in which Lincoln defended American unity by force was even more bloody and cruel.
Both democracies and autocracies must maintain territorial integrity. It is a practical reason to maintain the rule or increase the support rate by defending sovereignty. But more importantly, and most fundamentally, it is to safeguard the core interests of the country. Since the signing of the "Westphalian Peace Treaty" in 1648 and the establishment of the "Westphalian System", the concept and rights of a sovereign state have been established, and it has become the cornerstone of the international order today. And this has nothing to do with democracy and dictatorship. In the absence of a better alternative system, and the world is still competing and cooperating with sovereign states, this order still has the importance and necessity of existence.
In addition, the people of each region need to consider the interests of all people, the interests of each individual people. If it becomes independent and becomes a country with worse human rights, it will be detrimental to local nationals and detrimental to its minority groups. Moreover, independence will also cause potential or obvious threats to the original country in the military and economic fields, and endanger the country's strategic interests. Mr. Wang Lixiong has discussed the Tibetan issue in his book "Sky Burial-The Fate of Tibet".
Moreover, independence and self-determination have complexities and hypocrisy. Just like Taiwan has 23 million people (approximately 19 million people with voting rights), even if more than half agree to independence, what about the people who are less than half? Shouldn't their rights be guaranteed? On the surface, support for independence through a referendum is to respect the public opinion of the minority in the original country. But the majority of this minority disenfranchises the minority in the region who oppose independence. For example, Taiwan independence advocates believe that the opinions of more than 1 billion people cannot obstruct the public opinion of 23 million people. Do those 23 million people respect the public opinion of at least a few million Taiwanese who oppose independence?
An article in the Southern Zhou Dynasty, "The Poverty of National Self-determination", analyzed this situation very thoroughly: "If Scotland is really independent (first-order independence), then if more than half of those who support staying in the UK can get together Independence from Scotland (Second Independence)? This region is... gathered into a smaller place... Independence (Third Independence)... and so on and on..."
Such a case is not fantasy. In Northern Ireland next to Scotland, after the independence of Ireland, 60% of the people supported staying in the UK, and 40% advocated independence or integration into the Republic of Ireland, and then fought for decades. Does 40% have to obey 60%? There are also Crimea and the three eastern states of Ukraine, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Kosovo and Vojvodina in Serbia, Kolojna in Croatia, Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia The Albanian Autonomous Region, the Dezuo region of Moldova, the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan... and India and Russia after the partition of India and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a large number of people who want to be independent... are all secondary independence.
Although none of the above cases split indefinitely, they created more conflict and confusion. The most important thing is that most of them are not independent, which in itself is a satire on self-determination and national self-determination, which shows that it is power, strength, and international situation that determine whether self-determination can be realized, rather than the legal basis for self-determination. For example, from a jurisprudential point of view, since Ukraine is allowed to secede from the Soviet Union, the eastern part of Ukraine naturally has the right to secede from Ukraine; Taiwan’s pro-mainland and anti-Taiwan independence parties also have the right to form a country after independence from Taiwan in the concentrated area; if Xinjiang is independent, and the Han and Kazakhs in Xinjiang also have the right to be independent from that country. If not allowed, then why? In other words, those who support and participate in self-determination generally use double standards and inconsistent logic, which is tantamount to destroying the rationality of self-determination.
Is it not true that the countries to which the above-mentioned regions now belong or nominally belong have become independent through national self-determination, but these regions themselves are not independent, or are not generally recognized, even if they have the same reasons as when the countries to which they nominally belonged were self-determination? The greatest irony of self-determination? The examples are too numerous to list. If things go on like this, then they will really be "Balkanized" and "Caucasianized", and they will become a mess.
So, don't take "independence" and "self-determination" for granted. Moreover, independence is not all good, the human rights situation is even worse. During the years of Chechnya's actual independence, extremist religious elements and separatists not only continued to create terrorist attacks, but also robbed, kidnapped and killed people everywhere with local warlords and even powerful and armed families. Both Iran and Iraq support the Kurdish independence movement in the other's territory, but both oppose the independent establishment of the Kurdish people in their own territory.
Mr. Li Weidong once tweeted about the 82nd anniversary of the July 7th Incident: "I was thinking, why did Japan dare to swallow elephants? Because in the eyes of Japan, China is divided into many parts, and different regions have different actual rulers And the army, they can gradually divide and take it (first buy and blend and then take it by force). Why did they expand the conquest by force in 1937, because Chiang Kai-shek basically unified China and began to modernize it without compromising with Japan. If you are weak, you have no chance."
This is why I insist on national unity. Territory and population are the basic elements of a country and the core part of its national strength. No country is willing to voluntarily give up these pillars of society that are more precious than gold. India claims to be "the world's largest democratic country", but it has used force many times for its territorial integrity and strategic interests. It has used troops against Hyderabad, Goa, Kashmir, Sikkim and the seven northeastern states. But many Chinese people instead encourage and advocate the division of the country. They don't understand or don't care about national security and interests at all. This kind of shortsightedness, ignorance and narrowness is very scary. If the United States is divided into fifty-one countries, will it still have the ability to lead the world now? If the United States now has only thirteen states when it became independent in 1776, its national strength may not be as good as Britain, France and Germany. If it was difficult for both sides to win the Civil War and the United States was divided into two parts, it would not be able to become the most powerful country in the world today, nor would it have such influence on the world. Therefore, the importance of territory and population and the huge development potential attached to them should not be given up by any country out of national interests.
(After I wrote the above-quoted article and published it, two more things happened in the world. One thing was the anti-extradition law movement and riots in Hong Kong, China. None of the riots and peaceful protesters were directly Killing. After being appeased by soft and hard methods, the Chinese government/CCP regime implemented the "Hong Kong National Security Law" and took back most of the governance power. "One country, two systems" is almost empty. Then, Western countries strongly condemned and sanctioned China; another The thing is that India abolished the provisions of the special autonomy of Jammu-Kashmir in the constitution, transferred the autonomy power to the central government, suppressed the resistance of local Muslims, and tortured the rebels, and many peaceful protesters died. Then, The West is very low-key about this, at least far less attention is paid to the Hong Kong incident. Is it fair? Just?
Of course, we have to reflect on ourselves, why is this so? China is an autocratic country, and India is a democratic country (even if it is becoming authoritarian now), is it the reason for being "double-standard"? This "double standard" right? Should we bear it? )
Therefore, national unity and territorial integrity are of paramount importance.
But we can also look at another situation and imagine China. That is the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many people think that the disintegration of the Soviet Union was mainly due to the intentional peaceful evolution of the West and the independence of ethnic minorities. In fact, this is not the case, or not quite so. First of all, the West did not regard the disintegration of the Soviet Union as its primary goal, but hoped for the democratization and transparency of the Soviet Union, which would already benefit the interests of the West and world peace. The West thinks so, and most of the time most forces do too, only a few radical anti-Soviet forces like the CIA want the Soviet Union to break up and have some involvement in it.
But the Soviet Union still disintegrated. Why? First, because after democratization, the Gorbachev regime faced the two choices of killing the Soviet Union in order to be able (and not necessarily) to keep the Soviet Union, and achieving a peaceful disintegration without bloodshed. Which one to choose? Gorbachev chose first and did, killing double digits in "hot spots" like the Baltics (Lithuania) and the Caucasus (Armenia and Azerbaijan). Then the rebels still fought fiercely, what should we do? Gorbachev hesitated. Should violence be suppressed below?
Before he could choose, the country disintegrated. However, the main reason is not the resistance of ethnic minorities, but the independence of Russia, the largest republic. This is the second point, the independence of Russia was a particularly important factor in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, not the separatist movements of ethnic minorities.
Why? Because, from Lenin to Gorbachev in the Soviet era, the suppression of Great Russianism and Russian nationalism has been throughout. People always say that the Soviet Union is "Russia", but in fact, any leader of the Soviet Union suppressed the independent consciousness of the Russian nation, and tried every means to weaken the right to speak of the largest nation and the largest republic. The socialist republic, hereinafter referred to as the member state of Russia) has been seriously virtualized (in some respects, this is like the situation in which the administrative unit of the "Taiwan Province" of the Republic of China was virtualized in the 1990s). Not only is the system virtualized, but literary works and social trends that reflect Russian nationalism, especially the tendency of Great Russia, have been suppressed, making Russians proud of the Soviet Union instead of Russia. When the two conflict, of course, they want to elevate the "Soviet Union" and denigrate "Russia". The Russian nation has also been virtualized, and they are more often required to identify with the "Soviet nation" (although after the outbreak of the Soviet-German War/Great Patriotic War, the main reason for calling Soviet citizens was ethnic rather than class).
In addition, in terms of various policy measures, Russia, a member country, is allowed to transfer interests to the relatively poor and weak of the other 14 member republics. From financial revenue to education and medical care, Russia's member countries have given many important benefits to the brother member countries that cannot be exchanged for real money and real money. In 1954, to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the annexation of Russia and Ukraine, Khrushchev also assigned Crimea to Ukraine (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) from a member state of Russia. After Gorbachev took office, some representative positions were almost evenly distributed to the 15 republics in an attempt to unite the Soviet Union, that is, the weight of the Russian republics was to some extent the same as that of Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and other countries.
Do you feel very familiar when you see these? That's right, "this moment is just like that moment". There are some that are not the same, but is it the same in the final analysis?
Under such circumstances, the Russian nationalist Yeltsin rose. Yeltsin was widely supported by Russians, not because he supported freedom and democracy, but because he advocated Russian nationalism and emphasized nostalgia for Russia in the era of imperial Russia. Then, calls for Russia's secession from the Soviet Union grew louder. Although in the referendum on whether the Soviet Union should remain, a majority (73%) of Russians who voted yes (although many also boycotted the vote). But when the Soviet Union really disintegrated, few Russians talked about "defending the Soviet Union" and "I am a member of the Soviet Union". On the contrary, Yeltsin, after defeating the "August 19 coup" by the conservatives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, announced joint but separate independence from the Soviet Union with the other two larger alliance countries, Belarus and Ukraine. Behind this independence is the approval and acquiescence of public opinion. Then, the Soviet Union collapsed with a bang.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, NATO not only gave up the promise of "dissolving the Warsaw Pact and NATO", but also further expanded eastward, establishing close military and political ties with the three Baltic countries such as Poland and Lithuania, and installing the anti-missile system that broke the balance of power deterrence in Russia. at the door of the house". Except for Belarus, which is relatively pro-Russian, the other 13 independent former republics are either anti-Russian or close to Russia.
So do Russians regret the disintegration of the Soviet Union? Various polls show that most people answer "no". Apart from the totalitarian tyranny of the Soviet Union, how many other factors are there? Anyway, the current Russians can no longer have taboos to sing the heroes and outstanding figures of their own nation, and can be proud of the Russians. Similarly, Lithuania and other countries that are gnashing their teeth at Russia can also openly talk about the history of national liberation against Russia. Of course, Russians still respect the expression of Lithuania and other countries. As long as they don’t criticize Russia in a particularly insulting way, Russians can understand Lithuanians quite well. Because they themselves have also obtained a certain kind of relief in terms of ethnicity (rather than the struggle between democracy and autocracy). Russians are also very concerned about Russians in other countries. Lithuania and other countries respect the citizenship rights of Russians in their own countries. I am afraid that it is not only the influence of universal values, but also Russia's attention. The various conflicts between Russia and Ukraine are not only due to the factors of democracy and autocracy, but also related to the fact that many Russians, including Putin, really care about their compatriots. (Actually let alone Russia, like some similar Serbia and the Czech Republic, you can ask their nationals, whether it is better to be the "boss" of an alliance country that "begs for perfection" as it was back then, or leave the bigger country in the past like this , comfortable going out on your own? Even if you lose a lot)
I mentioned earlier the importance of national unity and territorial integrity. But we can look at the situation in the Soviet Union, Russia, Lithuania and other countries, and then look at our own country and various ethnic groups and regions. How do we want to maintain national unity after democracy? For Xinjiang and Tibet, should we learn from India's democracy or violent suppression? Less violent repression like Spain did in Catalonia? Can it be done?
More importantly, how do the Han people and the 18 provinces in the Han region deal with problems similar to those of the Russians in the Soviet Union? And there is another huge difference, that is, the Russian race has been virtualized, but at least there are no other races dominating the pier, while China is now not even allowed to use the word "Manchu" in formal academic research, and a few are not allowed. Without mentioning the research on the oppression and massacre of the Manchu nationality, we can only change the general terms in various ways. Yue Fei, Wen Tianxiang, and Shi Kefa cannot be officially recognized as national heroes, and all kinds of avoidance have been weakened. Revolutionary martyrs such as Xu Xilin, Zou Rong, and Chen Tianhua cannot be included in textbooks (at least in elementary and middle school general education textbooks that almost everyone learns about these people and their deeds, university history textbooks mention them but only affect a few people , and this kind of mention is also discounted), talking about modern revolutionary history can actually delete the anti-Manchurian issue to the point where it is almost impossible to find it. Certain forces monopolized the historical discourse power and suppressed other historical expressions. The beautification of the executioners of the Manchu and Qing Dynasties became the mainstream of public opinion, and the Qing Dynasty was praised as a very positive dynasty. Of course, there are also various policies involving practical interests since the founding of the People's Republic of China. Let's see who has benefited the most from various direct policies? Then who has benefited but feels that they are now at a loss?
There is nothing to avoid, it is the Northeast. Also, are the values and behaviors of most Northeast people the same as those in the eighteen provinces of Han? Is it true that a large proportion of them have always prided themselves on brutality (and they feel restrained now. Of course there is some truth to it)? Is there a big difference between the Han, Manchu, Mongolian and Hui dynasties in the Northeast, or is there a big difference between the Northeast people of various ethnic groups and the Han people in Guanzhong? Do at least some of them think about Puppet Manchuria (of course they don’t think it’s “Puppet” Manchuria, but “Manchukuo”), “Great Qing” and “Great Jin”? Is it concerned about the historical fate of the Kurds and implies some kind of "empathy"? Did some people from the Northeast openly say that the Southerners complained and dissatisfied because they didn't slaughter enough? Do you always scold the Donglin Party, saying that their activeness provoked the massacre? Of course, they also felt aggrieved by scolding them for not resisting and attacking the Manchus during the Anti-Japanese War. They thought they were being bullied, so they fought back against the South.
If it is true that most Northeast people think this way rather than a small number, then the separation of families may be good for both parties. Sun Yat-sen's "expulsion of the Tartars" was actually quite far-sighted. The more national territory, the better. It's all right now, and it's been a few decades of blood pressure. The wealth transferred from the customs is more than trillions, and the various policy dividends are endless wealth. This will continue in the future. They call themselves the "eldest sons of the Republic", but according to the role of the Northeast people in the CCP's seizure of power and their current status in China, they are actually the "fathers of the Republic". Then they also said that they were at a disadvantage (even if they really felt that they were at a disadvantage, even when they were full with rations, people in other places starved to death everywhere (it’s not that there was no food, it was just taken away. Where did it go? Of course It was eaten by those quota households). As for the subsequent layoffs, hehe, how much resettlement money was embezzled by your own people. Some people became sex workers? Look at how many people in other places had to sell their bodies for their families? The number is still The proportions are much higher. Of course, this is the talk of ridicule in reverse). (Of course, I also know that to a certain extent, the most and most frequent direct victims of the various ugliness of some Northeast people are also Northeast people, especially women. You can look at the Masanjia incident. The people in Northeast China have also been hurt by bureaucracy and the law of the jungle )
Of course, there are also some Northeast people who sincerely love the motherland and also love the compatriots in the Guan, with a warm heart, a sense of justice, and a sense of self-discipline. These people are of course good people, but are they willing to stand up and tell the real facts clearly? Are you willing to give up all kinds of vested interests?
In addition, Beijing can actually vote in a referendum in the future, thinking that it is better to live with the Northeast or with the eighteen provinces of Han. A stronghold of China's imperial autocracy and the center of northern conservative ideology, culture, words and deeds, it doesn't matter.
If the Northeast and Beijing really want to continue as one country with the eighteen provinces of Han, are they willing to give up the household registration privilege and all other unreasonable policy dividends? If you want to unite but are unwilling to give up your interests, let's see if people in other places are still willing to give up such blood transfusions.
Of course, the combination of the eighteen provinces in the Han region should also be voluntary. A twisted melon isn't sweet, is it?
As for Northeast China, Xinjiang, and Tibet after they really became independent from China (the merger of Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia), they were deployed by countries such as the United States, Japan, Russia, and even India to deploy troops, missiles, and even developed nuclear weapons and even possible genetic weapons in the future. The Han Chinese in the Han region have the ability to deter and even completely eliminate the latter. Even if there is such an extreme possibility, is it necessary to make compromises and continue to live together? When domestic ethnic conflicts are greater than conflicts with other countries and ethnic groups, and become the norm, how meaningful is the maintenance of the system (just like the conflict between the Han nationality and the Qing Dynasty, it is far greater than the contradiction between the Qing Dynasty and the Eight-Power Allied Forces, "Three People's Principles" His "nationalism" is of course not anti-imperialist but anti-Manchu)?
Not only Sun Yat-sen, Zhang Taiyan, Chen Tianhua, Wang Jingwei, Huang Xing and other Han nationalists before and after the 1911 Revolution generally advocated the unity, independence and freedom of the eighteen provinces of Han (perhaps including areas inhabited by Han people outside the eighteen provinces), And give up the claim to the territorial sovereignty of other ethnic groups. In fact, seeing the history of the Han nationality being virtualized and suppressed since 1911, I have to say that their views are far-sighted, and they are truly beneficial to the interests and dignity of the Han nationality.
The above are just assumptions. Of course, I still hope for national unity and national unity. But I don't know how willing so many billion Chinese people are to be unilaterally patient and give up all kinds of huge interests. As for the willingness of all parties to tolerate it, if it is really possible to take the overall situation into consideration, then it is not a bad idea. But most of the people in the country today are deceived. They don't know the truth about the distribution of benefits or have only a half-knowledge, and they have no power to influence the distribution of benefits.
However, the Han people in China, especially the people in the Central Plains and Jiangnan, should seriously think about the future of themselves and the nation, and prepare for a future that is not perfect but at least free and safe. Even after the democratization of China, the Xinjiang and Tibet issues may not be properly resolved. On the contrary, ethnic riots and massacres are likely to occur in the frontier areas during the collapse of the CCP and the transition to democracy. If the Uighurs and Tibetans are rejected for independence, and there is no high-pressure attack and strict management like the CCP, it will almost inevitably lead to large-scale bloody conflicts.
As for the Huairou policy, it has been done since the time of Hu Yaobang, and even then it was a kind of reverse discrimination against the Han people. Although the "two minorities and one leniency" criticized by the Han people has long been abolished (even now the enforcement of crimes against some lost ethnic minorities is stricter), it was indeed a talisman for ethnic minorities during the crackdown in the 1980s. At that time, the CCP also opened up exchanges and cooperation between Uyghurs and foreign fellows, including indulging in some behaviors that now appear to be attempts to split the country. At that time, Wu Jinghua, secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region of the Communist Party of China, personally wore national costumes to participate in religious ceremonies, which strengthened the prestige of Tibetan nationalists and religious forces. Hu Yaobang also promoted the policy of leaving Tibet for Han cadres to reduce the control and influence of the Han over Tibet. These measures have indeed won the hearts of ethnic minorities in the short term, but in the long run they have encouraged the revival of Uyghur (especially Tibetan) nationalism and religious thought, laying the groundwork for future chaos. In the past few years, when Zhang Chunxian was in charge of Xinjiang, he also carried out a series of soft measures and promoted various policies to benefit the people. Xinjiang's economy has developed rapidly and people's livelihood has also greatly improved. But the terrorist attacks have not stopped, and independent thoughts are still surging around. Even if 90% of the Uighurs are willing to accept Huairou, the remaining 10% can create considerable turmoil. If 1% of them commit terrorist attacks, that would be many "7th Five-Year Plans". Moreover, although the majority of Uyghurs do not approve of terrorism, they will use various methods to shelter those who have extreme tendencies and even create violent and terrorist incidents out of emotional and other factors. And if the Han people retaliate, more Uighurs will join the ranks of violent terrorists. In this way, anti-terrorism will inevitably fall into a "security war", causing more conflicts and hatred.
Many Han people have a strong concept of great unification and are very persistent in territorial integrity, which is completely understandable. But we also need to understand that "a twisted melon is not sweet". Every nation, especially some nations that have gone through hardships, has a desire for independence, and they all hope to have a country that truly belongs to them (or at least live with people of the same similar ethnicity/belief). This cannot be changed by "benefit". For example, Afghanistan is far poorer than Xinjiang, China, but if the Uyghurs in Xinjiang were to choose one of the two, except for a few minority elites and the second generation who have entered the top ranks of the CCP, most of them would rather live with the Taliban who share the same beliefs than stay with the Taliban. China under the rule of the Communist Party of China with the Han nationality as the main body. The domestic Mongolians are close to the poor Outer Mongolia, and the Kazakhs are close to the not-so-rich Kazakhstan. This is also the same reason.
Back to reality: Is there a solution to the issue of "re-education camps" in Xinjiang?
Regardless of the above, but the most realistic things that have happened need to be resolved most.
As I said before, concentration camps cannot be set up for mass arrest and detention just because of terrorist attacks. However, there is a real possibility of terrorist attacks not doing so. So, is there an alternative?
I think at least there are unrealistic but achievable improvement measures. That is, strengthening judicial trials, shrinking "re-education camps", allowing foreign independent observers to monitor the human rights conditions of detainees, and extensive monitoring discussions by the international community. Those who may have extremist thoughts, words and deeds can still be sent to "re-education camps" on the one hand, and receive education and labor under the eyes of observers on the other hand. All places where surveillance video can be set up are all open and allow observers to view. Some human rights disputes are involved, and observers are allowed to participate in the resolution.
Similarly, except for military and security facilities and other confidential facilities, as well as government residences, the rest of Xinjiang is open to observers to inspect and monitor.
In addition, it is also possible to open the work of any non-violent or non-secret-related organizations to volunteers from various countries, allowing them to come to Xinjiang to engage in economic construction, poverty alleviation, education, medical care and other livelihood work, as well as face the threat of terrorism.
In addition, the human rights violations committed by these people before they entered Xinjiang should not be blamed. But complaints and investigations should be allowed.
These observers and volunteers can come from European and American countries, or from countries in the Muslim world. But not religious extremists, nor anti-science conservative Muslims or Christian Jews. They do not have law enforcement powers or any extraterritorial powers, but they can watch and supervise the entire "re-education" process, as well as observe and supervise throughout Xinjiang, participate in civil rights and people's livelihood work, and deal with various difficult issues. In addition, all living expenses and derivative expenses shall be borne by the sending country, international organizations or individuals, and China shall not bear any employment expenses. If China can agree to do so, then the remaining thing is whether these countries are willing to show their "love" and send people to China.
This is actually not difficult to achieve, if all parties are sincere. And if it is done well, it will be a model for realizing peace and reconciliation in China and the world.
However, even if this kind of design is actually beneficial and fully considers the interests of all parties, it will still not be done. The Chinese government/CCP regime is unwilling to expose everything to others, even if it promises to forget the past. Otherwise, the rule will be endangered. The West and those Muslim countries keep saying that they care about human rights in Xinjiang, but if they are allowed to defend human rights at their own expense, face up to all kinds of complex ethnic and religious conflicts, spend a lot of effort to take root in life for a long time, and make greater sacrifices, it is impossible for too many people to really be able to do so. do it. There are still a lot of things in their own country.
Of course, there is an easier way, that is, China will abolish the nationality and send gifts out of the country for all those who think they may engage in violent terrorism or are not conducive to China's national interests but have not committed crimes. If the crime is not so serious that it needs the death penalty or life imprisonment, it can also be deported after serving the sentence. Those countries that want them can come and pick them up. Similarly, those Western developed countries and Muslim countries that care about human rights in Xinjiang need to take responsibility first. Of course, this will definitely harm the interests of these deportees, because it is the land where they live. But at least it is free from human rights persecution, and it is not good enough to save your life without being tortured? However, such a design will probably not be accepted by all parties. That is more than 10 million refugees, much more than the Syrian civil war crisis. Even Turkey, which holds high the banner of pan-Turkism, will probably not take all these people away. Just look at the situation of the Rohingya.
So, the world probably won't be good. No real price will be paid by all parties. Even if the price is reduced to a much lower level than before, no consensus will be reached, let alone put into practice.
Of course, in the assumptions I mentioned, Western countries and other Muslim countries are involved in moral kidnapping. I am just an idea, and it refers to an ideal choice, an almost fantasy suggestion. There is nothing wrong with them not picking up Uyghur Muslims, after all, these are not their citizens. They may not be so good to their own citizens, let alone other countries. It is not impossible to refuse to accept refugees while caring about the human rights of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, China. Moreover, it is "the most realistic" to do so now. It is the CCP regime that should be most condemned, not other related parties.
As a last resort, a high degree of autonomy and even independence in Xinjiang, where the Uighurs are the majority
I used to be very supportive of national unity and territorial integrity, but after observing and understanding ethnic issues for several years, I feel more and more that this is not realistic. Yang Du, a modern Chinese thinker, commented on ethnic issues: "Where the language is the same, the history is the same, and the customs and habits are the same, the people have the power to unite and cannot be separated. On the contrary, the language is different, the history is different, and the customs are different. , even though they are sometimes combined with others, they will eventually have a day of independence." I didn't fully agree with this point of view before, but now I deeply agree with it.
In fact, for the Han people, we are also oppressed in the "big prison for people of all ethnic groups". We should choose to liberate others, but also to liberate ourselves. And as mentioned earlier, Han nationalists in history, including Sun Yat-sen, only wanted to control the eighteen provinces of Han land, and they were not obsessed with controlling the frontiers where ethnic minorities gathered.
The pioneer of 1911 and the famous Han nationalist revolutionary Zhang Taiyan once said something, which is very reasonable. He said, "If the Manchurian government knows that it is not upright, and retreats to the old seal, in order to restore the traces of the gold source, whoever is Han, should have any complaints with Manchuria? Take Aobo in Shenzhou, the towns and cities, Yin Fan is here, and it is beneficial. The three eastern provinces are becoming more and more unreasonable. If the Han people rule the Han, the Manchus rule the Manchus, and the land will be slightly reduced, but the politics will be more refined and strict.” The Manchus have ruled China under high pressure for three hundred years, and the damage done to the Han people is beyond description. But Zhang Taiyan did not want to annex the place where the Manchus lived, but hoped that the Hanmans would separate. He also saw very farsightedly that only by abandoning the minority areas can the Han people be more united and prosperous, and the country can be governed better. This is the motto of Han nationalists who are truly insightful and compassionate. There is also the Great Russianist Solzhenitsyn, who on the one hand has deep feelings for the Russian nation, but on the other hand sympathizes with the Ukrainian independence movement. "'s "Bangeralists (anti-Soviet, anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists)" defense. This also embodies the humanitarian feelings of "human rights above sovereignty" and the sympathy and empathy of "heart to heart". The real role models of Han nationalists should not be Hitler, Zuo Zongtang, and Wang Zhen, but Zhang Taiyan and Solzhenitsyn.
Uighurs and Tibetans also have their history, culture, ideals and dignity. Comparing your heart with your heart, are the Han people willing to live tremblingly under the bayonet of a foreign race? We have experienced many times in history, the Mongolian Yuan, the Manchu Qing, and the Japanese invaders. Every time a foreign race invaded, we stood up and resisted, and finally defeated the brutal foreign race and restored the Han family.
"Don't do to others what you don't want yourself to do to yourself" is an excellent moral character that the Han people should have. If we insist on the ethnic minorities staying in the unified China, it will bind and harm both sides. If the Han people are willing to continue to pay high transfer payments to Xinjiang in the future, as well as various policy preferences and the transfer of rights and interests, as well as endure frequent terrorist attacks, and give them more autonomy, then maybe the Uighurs can reluctantly agree Be consistent. But this is not a long-term solution. Various frictions and rifts between the Uighurs and the Han will continue to occur, and the Uyghurs will still try their best to strive for complete independence. What's the point of such reluctance?
As for the threat to Han democratic China after Uighur independence, that is another matter. Of course, we must be prepared to fight in battle. All sons and daughters of the Han nationality should become soldiers and reserve combatants to defend their hometown and compatriots. But that kind of military confrontation is better than the imprisonment and abuse of ethnic minorities in "re-education camps" today. The Han people should be upright, instead of creating such a humanitarian disaster in the 21st century. What's more, can the "re-education camps" continue to operate for a thousand years?
Mr. Lu Xun once said: "Chinese people have always had two names for foreigners: one is a beast, and the other is a saint. They have never called him a friend, saying that he is the same as us", sharply criticizing the Chinese/Han people. On the one hand, they bowed their heads to the rule of the Manchus and Mongols, and on the other hand, they oppressed the ugly behavior of weak and small ethnic groups. We want to change this kind of bullying and fearing the hard, worshiping the high and stepping down, and we should resistoppression, without oppressing others.
"Twisted melons are not sweet." In order to avoid the continuation of various conflicts and tragedies, including ethnic vendettas, Xinjiang can be divided into two as a last resort and under appropriate conditions. While Xinjiang Uyghurs have the right to withdraw from China, they must also fulfill a corresponding obligation, that is, to accept the same form of referendum in areas inhabited by Han or other ethnic groups in the federal body, to separate from it or merge into China (this "China" can be the future Democratic China, or other regimes with the Han population as the main body that controls the interior of China), that is, "re-self-determination/second-order self-determination". This is the most suitable choice both emotionally and logically.
Resolving the Xinjiang issue should also respect the interests of the Han nationality; China's ethnic policies with other countries, and the relationship between the main ethnic group and the ethnic minoritiescontrast
It is very important to point out that when the international community pays attention to the Xinjiang issue, it should not unconditionally support the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in a preconceived way. human interests and concerns. Both Han and Uighurs are permanent ethnic groups in Xinjiang, and both have the right to defend their own interests. The ethnic conflicts in the history of Xinjiang are also Han, Uyghur and Hui killing each other, and the racism, sectarianism and xenophobic tendencies of the Uyghur side are stronger, rather than the Han oppressing the Uyghurs. Today's terrorism and religious extremism pose a real threat to the Han people and cannot be overshadowed by the issue of "re-education camps". When discussing the Xinjiang issue and putting forward various criticisms and suggestions, the interests of the Han people should be fully considered, and the issue of Islamic terrorism should be faced squarely and seriously. The Han people are also victims of the CCP's dictatorship, and they also need sympathy and support. Moreover, don't simply nest China's ethnic issues with the ethnic oppression in other countries. As I have mentioned many times in this article, the Han nationality is not the ruling nation in China, but has been one of the victims of ethnic oppression for a long time in history, and the current CCP regime is also doing everything possible to suppress Han nationalism. Therefore, it is a huge fallacy that the international community believes that China's ethnic issues are "the oppression of ethnic minorities by the Han nationality."
Moreover, compared with other countries, the relative status of China's main ethnic groups and ethnic minorities is precisely relatively equal. In many multi-ethnic countries in the world, especially developing countries, the oppression of the dominant ethnic group on the disadvantaged ethnic group is very obvious and serious.
In India, since Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power, he has vigorously promoted Hindu nationalism, promoted the concept of Hindu supremacy, suppressed and bullied Muslims in every possible way, and restricted the autonomy of Muslim-inhabited areas such as Kashmir;
In Malaysia, "Malays first" and "Islam as the state religion" are written into the constitution, and Chinese and Indians are second-class citizens;
In countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, Islamic Sunnis are dominant, and they suppress the Shia minority in every possible way. Allowing the latter to carry out political activities and suppressing their resistance in every possible way (including killing leaders);
In Israel, too, Jews are clearly dominant (in 2018, the Israeli government led by Netanyahu amended the constitution to explicitly refer to Israel as the "Jewish State"), and Arab Israelis are subordinate (not to mention those who live in Palestinians without citizenship in Israel, Palestinian citizens trapped in the Gaza Strip);
In Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia and other countries, the dominant ethnic groups suppress and assimilate ethnic minorities, and often carry out violent cleansing of ethnic minorities;
In Ethiopia, Nigeria, Sudan and other countries, dominant ethnic groups also persecute disadvantaged groups through wars, massacres, and political suppression;
Even in developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom, there is systematic discrimination and oppression against ethnic minorities (such as blacks, Ainu, and Catholics in Northern Ireland) (although the degree of oppression is reduced today, there are still serious conflicts or disputes ).
On the contrary, the Chinese Constitution not only states that "all ethnic groups are equal", but also specifically emphasizes "opposition to Han chauvinism" in the preamble of the Constitution. In actual implementation, although people do not have all the rights and freedoms in the constitution, all ethnic groups are equally oppressed by the CCP. The Han nationality is no less persecuted by the CCP than the ethnic minorities. This is also a special kind of "equality." Moreover, some preferential treatment received by ethnic minorities in China is also true. Although it cannot make up for the damage caused by authoritarian oppression, they do get more benefits per capita and enjoy some privileges and priorities compared with the Han people.
For example, Wang Lixiong, a writer and scholar on ethnic issues in mainland China, believes that: "Ethnic oppression is contrary to the ideology of the Communist Party. As a political party with the supremacy of ideology, the CCP often gives special treatment to ethnic minorities that is superior to Han people. China has for many years The preferential policies implemented for ethnic minorities in various aspects such as education, career advancement, and childbirth can still attract those who have only one-half or even one-fourth of the ethnic minority blood, and report their ethnicity as a minority instead of a minority. The Han nationality. Ordinary people of the Han nationality have no higher social status than ethnic minorities, but their persecution has not been reduced at all because of their status as the main ethnic group. The CCP’s persecution is aimed at people, not at ethnic groups. In this regard, it absolutely treats all people equally. Therefore, it can only be said that the CCP regime, not the Han people, persecuted China's ethnic minorities, including the Tibetan people."
Therefore, although the human rights conditions of many ethnic minorities including the Uighurs in China are poor, it is not ethnic oppression but regime oppression. The Han people are also victims of the CCP’s dictatorship, not the oppressors of ethnic minorities.
Therefore, the international communityshould understandOnly by respecting the reasonable and legal interests and concerns of the Han nationality and putting forward criticisms and suggestions on the Xinjiang issue and concerns about the human rights of ethnic minorities such as Uyghurs, Huis, and Kazakhs can we get The understanding and echo of the Chinese people, especially the Han people. If the international community ignores the interests of the more than one billion Han people who account for 90% of China's population (and 40% of Xinjiang's population), but need to suppress their own national sentiments and endure ethnic concessions, then the Xinjiang issue cannot be properly resolved. The international community blindly sympathizes with the Uyghurs and blames the Han people, so the Han peopleit mightSide with the CCP regime and support the "re-education camps" and other brutal policies in Xinjiang. The international community and China's political opponents must be reasonable, keep a bowl of water, and understand the complex truth behind seemingly simple issues, so that there is hope for the resolution of the Xinjiang issue。(The same is true for disputes involving ethnic groups such as Hui, Tibet, and Mongolia)
Conclusion: Facing history squarely, exposing the truth, and realizing justice, China and the world have a future
In any case, the human rights violations caused by the "re-education camp" incident in Xinjiang, including those crimes that may be relatively small but very cruel, must be faced up to, exposed and criticized, and justice must be realized now and in the future. Criticism and exposure will inevitably involve dripping blood; the means to achieve justice, of course, include a certain degree of punishment.
In doing so, of course, there will be those who lose their interests, and it is very likely that some will lose their lives, as well as other related consequences. It is foolishness to expect that criticism and exposure will not stimulate a trace of hatred and cause no social disturbances.
However, even so, we still need to face up to the blood, expose criticism and achieve justice. Because if we don't do this, there will only be bigger and worse consequences waiting for us. "We" include everyone in this world, and of course people of all ethnic groups in China.
Concealment and suppression, of course, can bring peace for a while, but they are actually accumulating conflicts, intensifying hatred, and making similar incidents happen again and again, and things that are more terrible than the previous things happen again. In addition to the evil nature of human nature and various ideological and practical motives, the occurrence of crimes is very important and even crucial because they are not watched, criticized, and punished.
Just like all kinds of class oppression, ethnic oppression, gender oppression, and those extremely prominent evil results such as murder, rape, and mass murder, the reason why they can exist for a long time is that human beings ignore human rights, conceal cruelty, and conceal victims. Or the obvious blame and relative leniency to the perpetrators, as well as failure to achieve justice due to various practical reasons and concerns.
Before modern times, human beings were accustomed to class oppression, ethnic killings, and religious vendettas. This largely lies in the praise of power violence, the contempt for vulnerable victims, and the suppression of the voices of all kinds of insulted and damaged people. These repressions did not actually make the hatred disappear and the suffering lessen, on the contrary, the actual evil was happening day, month, year, and year. We see how ugly the modern world is, in fact, it was even uglier before modern times, but we are accustomed to those ugliness, and those ugliness were indeed inevitable under the limitations of that era. This kind of habit and people's various obedience to the old order also make it difficult for history to progress, and the ugliness continues to happen.
The progress of modern times, to a large extent, lies in the negation of the old order and the rebellion against traditionally established ideas and behaviors. The rise of humanistic rationalism, the exposure, reflection and criticism of the ugliness that harms people's interests and dignity, the gradual replacement of the "knife" by the "pen" as the dominant factor in the world, and the replacement of the rule of man by the rule of law are all shining the brilliance of human nature. The ideological emancipation of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the European political revolution represented by the French Revolution, and the dramatic changes in human social structure and values under industrialization all contain rebellion against history and the pursuit of human rights and justice. The concepts of democracy, rule of law, equality, fraternity, humanity, and peace have gradually taken root in the hearts of the people, and only then did today's world, which is completely different from the ancient world, come into being.
Civilization needs to be constructed, and progressive historical changes must be striven for artificially. Even if the method and content of this construction and struggle are quite controversial, the result is not so perfect (on the contrary, there are many problems).
Take the antecedent and follow-up of the Nazi massacre of Jews as an example, because this is too epoch-making. In the past, anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism were customary. Even many outstanding figures such as Shakespeare had anti-Semitic tendencies. It is not a problem to say that he was an anti-Semite. Jews have always been the object of insult and damage in the world. Moreover, according to the point of view of "blaming the victim", then the Jews do have some inferiority, and there are "sufficient" reasons to exclude them. Bullying and killing Jews is regarded as a quite reasonable behavior.
The Nazi massacre of Jews was the pinnacle of anti-Semitism. Between 4 million and 6 million Jews were killed, and the process was brutal. After the victory of World War II, the Jews liquidated the Nazi atrocities with the support of various countries, and pursued many Nazi war criminals, some were executed and some were sentenced. Germany also punishes "Holocaust denial" as a criminal offense. And the works recalling various cruel histories including Auschwitz can be said to be surprisingly numerous and influential. In this process, there are many difficult and cruel excavations and reflections.
Since then, the Jews have truly stood up in the world. Their situation is completely different from the old days. No politician dared to publicly praise Hitler and Nazism. Even if there was a "defense", it was based on the premise of denying its "correctness". The Jews got justice, and also got the happiness after justice was realized.
But if we look at the process of realizing justice, it is actually not so civilized, elegant, legitimate and just. The process of the successful restoration of the Jewish people is actually full of dirty political games. What marked the entry of Zionism into practice was the publication of the Balfour Declaration. And this declaration was made by the British government to maintain colonialism and geopolitical interests in the Middle East, and the interests of the Arab nation were relatively sacrificed. The United States' support for the Zionism and later the Israeli regime was also based on the consideration of driving a "nail" in the Arab world. This strategy has also proved to be quite successful. As a result, the Arab countries were suppressed and divided, and it was difficult to form a unified Arab nation. The Palestinian people are living in great pain. The "big prison" in Gaza traps hundreds of thousands of lives that are not much better than real prisoners.
Also, is the "stab in the back legend" that promotes the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany really an outright lie? Of course, we cannot agree with the Holocaust, but we cannot deny that the Jews and other Germans who were mainly Germans did not have the same heart. Also, as described in the book "Neighbors", the Poles vendetta killed the Jews who used to be neighbors. The reason for fear was that the Jews might attract the Soviet army. So will the Jews recruit the Soviet army? Although the Soviet Union also had anti-Semitic tendencies, it was even more of an enemy with the Poles. There are many Jews in the top ranks of the Soviet Union (the proportion can be said to be extremely high), which is why the degree of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union is not so high. Compared with old Russia and Poland, the Soviet Union treated Jews relatively well. Therefore, it is not surprising that Polish Jews have a pro-Soviet complex.
So, even if the Jewish pursuit of justice is not glorious, they have various "problems" in history, and they are doing things that "damage other people's teeth and eyes" today, is it to deny the justice of their pursuit of justice? of course not. On the contrary, the persistent pursuit of justice by the Jews makes justice manifest. Since then, at least until now, no one has dared to overturn the case against the Nazis, and no one in any mainstream public literature has dared to deny the Holocaust. Even if someone humiliates the Jews with the massacre, or blatantly denies the existence of the massacre, the Jews can still be justified, because the sinners have been punished, and those attacks are not very lethal. (More importantly, it has set a precedent and benchmark for the world, that is, ethnic massacres should not be tolerated, and human life is precious. In addition, many good precedents have been set, so I won’t list them here up)
So what if justice is not pursued? Just look at China and Japan. Tens of millions of Chinese died during the Japanese invasion of China, and many of the victims suffered great pain. They often killed prisoners of war and civilians, and carried out all kinds of cruel "mopping up" and "clearing the countryside". In addition, the Japanese army has the worst military discipline among the armies of World War II in terms of rape, and is good at abusing women openly and secretly in various perverted ways, and humiliating their families at the same time. Most of the participants escaped the trial of history, and only a handful of people such as Matsui Iwane were executed (ironically, he did not order the Nanjing Massacre (in essence, it was the royal family Asaka Miyato Hatohiko, who rejected the Chinese The request of the army to surrender (if the Chinese army surrendered through negotiation, it would have allowed Nanjing to be peacefully occupied like Paris in World War II), and ordered to "kill all Chinese prisoners"), did not personally participate in the killing and rape, but tried to prevent Tragedy), and became the scapegoat for the real heinous Emperor Hirohito and the specific participants of the middle and lower ranks of the Japanese army and soldiers. Almost all Japanese soldiers in China were repatriated. Not only the large-scale repatriation after the surrender in 1945, after the founding of the People's Republic of China, it treated the remaining war criminals in a very favorable way under the conditions at that time (you can go to the Fushun War Criminals Management Office), including the puppet Manchukuo war criminals and The remaining Japanese troops in Shanxi. Most of the remaining Japanese soldiers in Shanxi were related to the systematic massacre of civilians and large-scale sexual abuse of women in the anti-Japanese base areas in China. However, they were still sentenced to light sentences and released after their crimes were tried and confirmed. Both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party or the two regimes have given up pursuing accountability and compensation for Japan.
Of course, these actions are nice to say, just like Chiang Kai-shek’s claim to “repay grievances with virtue” (Mao Zedong directly said “thanks to the Japanese imperial army for invading China”). In fact, it is nothing more than hoping to sacrifice the interests of victims in exchange for Japan regime support. What seems to be an idealistic move actually has very pragmatic considerations. The life of the people is nothing to them, or a bargaining chip that can be exchanged for benefits. Of course, this also exchanged a lot of benefits in real money. For example, Japan’s aid to China promoted China’s economic development, and also nourished many CCP cadres and elites who were not the direct and main victims of the Japanese invasion of China. This is the real "eating human blood steamed buns". (Of course, some people say that the U.S. military also appeased Unit 731. It is the U.S. that gave up on holding the Japanese emperor accountable. Of course, this also needs to be condemned. But the U.S. has gradually given up on holding Japan accountable for the war (this has a process, rather than giving up on holding responsibility at the beginning), Is it because they were happy at the beginning, or because both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party in China, the country that suffered the most from Japan’s war crimes, both voluntarily gave up on pursuing it, so the United States chose to “forget it”? For example, Roosevelt repeatedly mentioned to Chiang Kai-shek that he would give Okinawa to China or promote Okinawa is independent, but Chiang Kai-shek has repeatedly rejected it. As for the CCP, it is directly criticizing the United States and protecting Japan. Kindness will be repaid with hatred, and hatred will be repaid with kindness, nothing more.)
Of course, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong did this not only for practical benefits. Chiang Kai-shek is a leader in the style of a traditional scholar, and Mao Zedong's value orientation is also quite old-fashioned. Both of them like to show their broad personal charm and broad mind. Therefore, they treated Japan and Japanese war criminals tolerantly, and through this kind of generosity, they won the praise of public opinion, in exchange for a reputation for tolerance and broadness, and a sense of pride and accomplishment that was admired and admired by the "barbarians". And they did gain such admiration and fame later on. However, those victims during the Anti-Japanese War, especially the women who were greatly humiliated and damaged during the Japanese invasion of China, will not be rehabilitated and justice, but will be stabbed in the cruel history record book with hatred.
This lack of emphasis on justice, using the victims of the Chinese people as disposable and exchangeable chips, as a tool to gain a reputation for generosity and benevolence, is beneficial in the short term or from a certain utilitarian or even moral point of view, but in the long run, this bad example It just makes the country and people care less about right and wrong and justice, and no longer cherish human rights, especially the human rights of their own people. The country, nation and people have become numb and violent. In the relationship between the state and the nation, it has also become a psychologically weak party. That's right, at least in today's era, this kind of scar will not be mentioned publicly and blatantly (although it does happen occasionally), and even the perpetrator often feels guilty and sympathetic to the victim. But history does not stagnate at a certain end of the war, ending moment and no longer develop and change. In the ever-changing domestic and international situation, the injured party will always have various conflicts and entanglements with the infringing party and other third parties (it is impossible to have no conflicts and entanglements, unless one party disappears completely), and there is no shortage of cruel conflicts of interest. These national wounds will be mentioned and implied in various forms by both parties or even multiple parties. Not even a mention, is a mention. Whether it is a nation or a country and the individuals who make up a nation or a country, they all have dignity and emotions, and it is impossible to be completely indifferent to external reactions. Brutal trauma can have a huge and lasting impact on the status, situation, rights, and interests of all parties. Therefore, those historical scars will become tools, chips, and weapons for both the victim and the offender. In this process, although it is not always the relatively weak party, the former victim is victimized again, but on important issues and in most cases, it is often the victim's side that is more painful, especially in those extremely tragic events. After a brutal experience. This not only affects psychology, but of course also affects real interests. Victims are often never able to be really proud and confident to fight for various interests and voices like other parties, and they will suffer unbearably painful losses. This labor pain will last almost forever, and at some point it will be extremely destructive.
Here is an excerpt from Yan Geling's "Nanjing Miscellaneous Feelings - Written in the 60th Anniversary of the "Nanjing Massacre"", which can explain some problems and express some words I want to express:
On the eighth day after my mother passed away, I was already in the conference hall of Zhuangyuanlou Hotel in Nanjing Confucius Temple. This is the venue of the "International Symposium on the History of the Nanjing Massacre". I seem to be eager to get out of the sorrow that makes me breathless, or to say, I want to channel my individual sorrow through collective sacrifice. My mother is from Nanjing. When the massacre happened at the end of 1937, she was only four years old and didn't remember anything. Therefore, I never heard her tell me even a very unreliable impression. For example, when grandma was alive, she often chanted "running against the devil" or "running against the devil", presumably referring to escaping this catastrophe.
I have heard about this conference a long time ago, and I also heard that some Japanese will also come to participate. I just remember the date of the meeting very well, and I don't know the venue. On August 12th, two reporters from Nanjing Daily came to do a special interview for me, and they talked about my writing in recent years. It suddenly occurred to me that a major international conference must be a hot topic for journalists. So I asked them if they knew where the meeting place was, and they looked at each other and replied, "I didn't know there was such a meeting." I said, "Such a big event—especially for Nanjing people, how could you not know about it? My My friend came back from the United States to participate!" Seeing my incredible expression, they explained with a little shame that because the newspaper office has various divisions of labor, maybe this does not belong to their division of labor. I said "oh", expressing that I agree with the rationality of their explanation. But the confusion on my face couldn't go away for a while. The two reporters are very young, and their behavior, speech and dress are still full of campus spirit. For them, there are too many more appropriate topics in life. No matter how important the things that have been done in history, it is difficult to arouse their passion. A few days ago, I entrusted some relatives to inquire about the venue. The most fruitful news is that there is a memorial hall in Jiangdongmen, and I may find the venue of this international conference there.
I have read about Jiangdongmen more than once in various documents about the Nanjing Massacre. It was one of the sites of mass killings at the time. I asked my relatives if they knew how to get to the memorial hall. They all said they hadn't been there. There are so many places in Nanjing for them to spend their weekends, such as Xuanwu Lake, Mochou Lake, Yanziji, Confucius Temple... They, like the people in the whole country, are taking off from poverty where everyone is equal, and are busy building their families. Such as decorating their very limited living space. As for visiting a massacre that took place sixty years ago, they don't have or need to be in the mood. The catastrophe that shocked all nations in the world has become distant and abstract to them; its existence is only a historical symbol. If I hadn't gone abroad, maybe I wouldn't be too different from them, and I would take good care of the opportunities and rights I just got, and seize the time to create and improve my real life. Think about it, for five thousand years, how many peaceful moments have we had that allowed us to indulge in the happiness of a well-off life? In fact, the dream of our ancestors for generations is not any far-fetched doctrine, but "two acres of land, a cow, a wife and children on a kang" as solid as soil. Only this point has been talked about by our ancestors for generations, but it is rarely realized. If I were still living in a corner of the motherland today, it would not be my turn to lament people's indifference to history.
I finally got the venue of the conference. My friend Shi Yong made a special trip from Chicago to Nanjing and called me on the morning of the meeting. In recent years, Shi Yong has often traveled between Nanjing and Chicago to add materials to his large-scale photo album "Nanjing Massacre". When I picked up this large volume, its weight and quality made me think of his twelve-hour days of labor in recent years, and I couldn't help thinking that his conscience and passion were contagious.
It was past nine o'clock when we arrived at the venue, and the meeting had already started. The hall is very grand and spacious. There is a banner above the rostrum that says the name of the conference. There are two wooden plaques on the left and right, which are couplets and belong to the original decoration of the hall. Listening to the speeches of Chinese and Japanese scholars, I unconsciously studied and analyzed these two lines of couplets carved in seal script on wooden plaques. The first couplet: a piece of piano and half a pot of wine, the second couplet: a sword with a foot of ten thousand volumes of books. The handwriting is dark green, and the seal is carved on the dark ocher wood, which looks quite quaint. Of course, it is different from the "International Symposium on the History of the Nanjing Massacre". So, what does this pair of pairs say, or imply? It is nothing more than a state, a chic, simple, and beautiful life taste, a still life picture that symbolizes peace and harmony, elegance and indifference, and a yearning for a pure and quiet life.
That sword is for you to dance, not for you to fight. It has no same meaning as the one in the hands of Japanese soldiers sixty years ago that decapitated our compatriots. The twelve characters in the couplet tell people: That's all; that's all I want. Just like my cousin and other relatives in Nanjing, they built their ideals and warmth on top of the ruins with mud and grass, can I stretch out my index finger of blame and say: "It's time to wake up-you too People from Nanjing!" They only want that, although it is not as elegant as the couplet suggests, but they also only want the gap between the ruins, allowing them to plow a field of only two acres, allowing them to harvest for a few seasons, allowing them a moment of abundance. I am also one of them, and I have the same collective subconscious that runs through the generations, that is: take advantage of the good weather, get as much as you can, who knows what will happen tomorrow. We have to learn to be short-sighted and enjoy ourselves in a timely manner. We have to be so forgetful and infinitely tolerant. We have to seize the time to live a few days of good life, because the collective subconscious hints to us: these good days are earned; Iron hooves, earned from cannibalism.
How could I take a tone of blame to the two reporters?
During the meeting, I walked out of the Zhuangyuan Building Hotel and stepped into the bustling Confucius Temple Market. There are so many people, it's like the theater has just finished playing all day long. The Confucius Temple was also burned to ruins at the end of 1937, and there was also a deserted scene where corpses lay everywhere. The current houses, streets and noisy people are rebuilt from the ruins and desolation. It is said that during the "Cultural Revolution", it experienced another destruction, and now everything is a catastrophe after another catastrophe. I should feel lucky to be able to walk on such a lively and safe street.
Looking at the oncoming faces, countless faces, I couldn't help but guess, who among them is the survivor or the descendant of the survivor? Do they know what kind of meeting is going on in a luxury hotel? Did you know that some people came from thousands of miles for a huge blood debt that was almost written off, and they were the creditors of the blood debt? What do they think about the sloppy and mottled memorial to the victims of Caoxie Gorge? ...
After the three-day meeting ended, a group of Japanese high school students came. They will spend a summer camp with high school students in Nanjing to commemorate the victims of the Nanjing Massacre. I saw how the youth of these two peoples were so integrated, and how they contrasted with the denial of the Holocaust in Japan and the insensitivity of compatriots in China. It's a comforting and poignant counterpoint. The reconciliation deep in the heart will eventually be reached between the two peoples, but it will no longer be a vague reconciliation. As I was thinking this way, a Taxi I was riding was suddenly stopped at the intersection on the side of the Zhuangyuan Building. The car was stopped by two young men in white shirts and ties. Their stern faces told me that they were performing official duties, and I asked where they could not go and where they could pass. They said that no taxis were allowed to approach the Zhuangyuan Building because a group of Japanese middle school students lived here.
"Do you know what these Japanese middle school students are here for?" I asked, feeling both funny and disgusting.
The two said that they didn't know clearly, and they were just following the orders of their superiors.
I said, "They are here to mourn the 350,000 Chinese victims of the Nanjing Massacre."
They didn't figure out what this news had to do with their official duties.
I really wanted to ask them again: "Do you know who killed those 350,000 Nanjing people?" But I controlled my sharpness. In the end, they didn’t let my taxi go there, so I had to walk to the hotel entrance in the heat with my heavy luggage. There were large and small cars parked there, which were used by the conference to send delegates to the airport.
This last episode made me think a lot. In the world, our nation is probably one of the most disaster-stricken nations. After experiencing so many disasters, it can still maintain such a high population base. It seems that every disaster-ridden nation has a higher population base than other nations. It seems that the more devastated, the more prosperous the population; the more war, famine, and poverty, the more reproductive reproduction is out of control. So there is such a rhetoric as "Chinese people can't kill them all!", and there are romantic acceptance of cruelty such as "beheading is only a wind blowing a hat" and "killing is nothing but a nod to the ground". These have all become part of our kindness and tolerance. Some people say that the Germans sincerely repented for killing the Jews, why did the Japanese not even admit their mistakes? The confession of the Germans is inseparable from the serious and responsible attitude of the Jews towards history. That is to say, in order to settle a debt, both the creditor and the debtor must be serious, responsible, and must cooperate. And romantic language such as "beheading is only when the wind blows the hat"; it is impossible not to affect our nation's attitude towards the value of life, and then affect the attitude towards the right to life (human rights). If we don't value our own lives so much, or are overly generous, where can we ask for human rights?
In the past 20 to 30 years of the Nanjing Massacre and other atrocities committed by the Japanese army, China has experienced three catastrophes, the anti-rebellion, the man-made famine, and the Cultural Revolution (of course, the situations of these three are relatively different). There is no direct relationship between the two, but how many scary similarities and connections are there? Not to mention that it was the Japanese invasion of China that played a key role in the CCP's victory over the Kuomintang regime and its successful governance, and that it had the opportunity to commit these crimes. Back then, human rights were not cherished, so many victims were not really valued, and justice was not realized, which made the later people have no scruples and indifference in creating violence and watching violence. There are also many Chinese people who experienced the ravages of the Japanese army back then. How did that history affect them? When they slaughtered unarmed and innocent people without much guilt (even some made great contributions to the people), what kind of spiritual connection did they have with the Japanese invaders back then? How much of these people’s lack of appreciation for human rights and life, their ignorance of what justice is, and that kind of violence are innate animal nature, how much is affected by the current situation of the system, and how much is similar to the cruelty they experienced when the Japanese invaded China. related? Human habits are either inherited by nature or inherited by the day after tomorrow. Acquired inheritance often comes from osmosis and convention. Then look at the Japanese invaders and the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution. Is there any connection? .
It needs to be added that during the Great Famine in 1960, China forcibly repaid the debts for the sake of face even though the Soviet Union did not press for debts, which obviously exacerbated the Great Famine. During the Great Famine, China was still exporting grain and aiding Albania with hundreds of thousands of tons of grain. This is another tragedy of generosity to foreigners and cruelty to Chinese people. From ancient times to the present, apart from the Qing Dynasty, it seems that there has never been a ruler in China or abroad who sacrificed his own people to please foreign countries.
Also, this kind of forgiveness also gave rise to tragedy in the areas ruled by the Nationalist government. The 228 incident in Taiwan after Japan surrendered, the bloody killing of Taiwan natives by the national army and the receiving personnel from the mainland is probably also related to the venting and revenge psychology that Taiwanese people are more pro-Japanese and the Japanese style of the people is more obvious, right? Chiang Kai-shek and the national government forgave those Japanese war criminals and Japanese nationals, but the officers and soldiers of the national army could not really let go, so they took revenge on the weaker Taiwanese. In addition, if the Nationalist government gave up claiming compensation from Japan, it would only give the powerful and suffering government officials more reason to be corrupt, and to compensate for their own losses, they turned to plundering their own people, especially Taiwanese who were a former Japanese colony. This is the consequence of forgiveness.
Of course, this kind of forgiveness hurts the Chinese people under the CCP the most. Over the past 70 years since the founding of the People's Republic of China, there were so many straightforward barbarisms in the first 30 years, and so many insidious cruelties in the last 40 years. Looking back, what aspects and history did they come from?
Quoting a passage from Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" is very illustrative:
"Okay, what do you think farmers are? Do you think they are Bodhisattvas? It's just a joke. Farmers are the most cunning. They don't give rice when they ask for rice, and they say no when they ask for wheat. In fact, they have everything, and they lift the floor. Look, you will definitely find a lot of things in the storage room if not in the underground... Go to the deep valleys in the mountains to see, there are hidden rice fields, the peasants are stingy and cunning, honest on the surface but the best liar, As soon as there is a war, kill the disabled soldiers and grab the weapons. Listen, the so-called peasants are the most stingy, cunning, cowardly, bad-hearted, imbecile, and murderers, but... who made them become like this? It is you! It is you warriors! For the war And burning villages, ravaging rice fields, wanton labor, humiliating women, killing rebels, what do you call farmers? What to do!"
The historical scars of Japan's invasion of China are deeply embedded in the body and memory of the Chinese nation, especially the Han people in North China and Jiangnan. For various reasons, we want to resolve problems and erase scars through unilateral forbearance and tolerance, but the result is that these injuries are transferred to the weaker through different forms, and other tragedies are brought about.
Instead of reflecting on history and pursuing justice, but trying to simply tolerate and downplay, the sequelae will also cause cruel outbreaks in the future. Not only Japan’s denial of the Nanjing Massacre or the normality of downplaying sophistry affects various tangible and intangible interests and values, but overturning the case for the Cultural Revolution has become a common practice after only 40 years. Even though so much bloody history is there, many people, including the outstanding figures of the CCP regime whom these people agree with, suffered or even died tragically during the Cultural Revolution, they still hope to return to that era. Moreover, although today's China has not completely returned to that cruel era, there are already many similar signs, which have already caused bad effects. You can look at the mutual indifference, hostility, and confrontation among the people in China during the recent COVID-19 and flood disasters, as well as the almost complete helplessness of the vulnerable groups.
And the tragedy of the "re-education camps" in Xinjiang and the oppression of ethnic minorities created by the CCP regime in Xinjiang and Tibet, have they inherited the racial oppression of the Han people by the Manchus and the tyranny of Japan against China in the Nanjing Massacre? Because the old political, economic, cultural and social structure has not been fundamentally reflected and changed, has not had a deep and thorough understanding of the evil and paid a price to make up for it, and has not formed a value and love for life, it will form a bad demonstration effect and psychological hints. "Since others can oppress me, and they pass it without thinking about it, then I will oppress others too", which seems to be a logic that seems "reasonable". What's more, from the perspective of interests, there must be the behavior of "recovering from the weak after the loss of the strong". This kind of behavior exists widely in human society and even in the biological world. The so-called "kicking the cat effect" is that. This is wrong of course, but humans are everywhere in reality. It is this plausible logic that led to the tragedy of the "re-education camps" in Xinjiang and the suppression in Tibet (though not to the same extent as the Manchu oppression of the Han nationality and the Japanese invasion of China).
Not only that, in fact, the blood feud between Xinjiang, Tibet, and even the Hui and Han people today was also forged during the Manchu Qing period. It was the result of the Manchu Qing's intentional "divide and rule". There are human rights issues in Xinjiang, Tibet and even Inner Mongolia. Compared with the relatively enlightened, gentle, and reasonable ethnic policies of the Ming Dynasty and the Republic of China, China during the Manchu Qing period can be described as a "big prison for all ethnic groups." It was also Manchu's oppression of the Han and other ethnic groups, as well as their personal and ideological confinement, that constructed and solidified the unequal ethnic relations in China, which has been a disaster to this day. If the ethnic oppression and ethnic massacre of the Manchu Qing Dynasty were liquidated, future generations would understand the necessity of not creating oppression and massacres; if the unequal ethnic relations in China during the Manchu Qing period were fully reviewed, it would not happen again today. ethnic antagonism and conflicts and various tragedies. In reality, the behavior of lenient Manchu people formed a psychological implication that ethnic oppression and ethnic killings would not be held accountable. The lack of reflection on the ethnic rule of the Manchus and Qing Dynasty led to the continuation of abnormal ethnic relations and contributed to the tragedy of the "re-education camps" in Xinjiang today. . (With regard to the issue of Manchu rule, I have another article "Discussion with Mr. Zhang Boshu-Also on the Influence of the Manchu Dynasty on China" for narrative analysis, so I won't repeat it here.)
This is not to defend the human rights disaster of "re-education camps", but to say that only by digging layer by layer like "peeling an onion" can the responsibilities of all parties be clarified, and their respective crimes and responsibilities fixed, according to the intensity of the crime and the background of the times, etc. Comprehensive comparison, successive condemnation and common negation, forming a consensus against all human rights violations, and disintegrating the political, economic and cultural factors that have caused these tragedies, can bring order out of chaos and open up a future of peace, democracy, equality and fraternity. Of course, what is happening now is what needs to be stopped most. Reflecting on the past is precisely to stop the present and prevent future human rights disasters. During this process, whoever repents the most is the most sincere, pays more compensation, is more willing to let go of his narrow honor and consider the feelings of others, and cares more about human rights, justice and the future of mankind, and people should support him relatively more (and vice versa. relative confrontation and boycott). Instead of supporting who is strong, who is barbaric, who is dishonest and shirks responsibility.
These disasters that China has experienced in modern times are the result of never facing up to history, not sincerely facing the cruel truth, and not actively realizing justice. Blurring the past may provide a moment of peace, but it creates an even more frightening undercurrent. This kind of undercurrent will definitely backfire (unless everything is completely "cut to the root" and permanently suppressed (with the blessing of modern technology such as informatization, this is really possible), but wouldn't such a result be more terrifying to the victim? It will also make mankind bear heavier sins and face greater consequences).
Then, will human beings, especially among various ethnic groups, religions and various groups, really repay grievances forever and endlessly? Of course we can't completely eliminate everything, but it is possible to get some relief. The previous example of the Jews liquidating the Nazis is still a valid example here. When the perpetrators generally sincerely repent and pay a sufficient price, many problems can at least be greatly alleviated, or they can be completely solved in a certain period of time. Do the Israelis still have the desire to take revenge on the Germans now? Most of the Nazis back then (especially those most critical participants) were punished and permanently nailed to the pillar of historical shame. The vast majority of people in Germany also recognized the Holocaust and fundamentally denied Hitler and others. Germany also paid a heavy price during and after World War II. In this way, the two countries and the two ethnic groups not only lost their great hatred, but instead had a relationship that is relatively friendly to ordinary countries. Moreover, under such a major premise, the history of Hitler and the Nazis can be discussed relatively peacefully, and even if there is praise, it will not affect the essence of the problem in most cases.
This is already a great victory for humanity and mankind. In addition, South Africa and Rwanda have also achieved an amazing miracle of human reconciliation (even if there is no problem, on the contrary, the problem is very big). Great achievements have also been made among various ethnic groups in the Balkan countries, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Iraq, Nigeria, and Indonesia, and at least they are still in a relatively acceptable situation. Cambodia's full liquidation and reflection on the Khmer Rouge also shows that historical issues can also be settled, and it is almost impossible to completely reverse the case? This shows that human beings are not limited to repaying grievances or repeating crimes. At least for a certain period of time and to a large extent, human nature and human beings can still be saved.
But what happened in Syria, Libya, Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia, the Caucasus (Russian Federation and Chechnya, Armenia and Azerbaijan), etc., let us know that the evil is not far away, but continues to happen. make them stop? Of course, stopping must reveal the truth, reflect, and achieve justice. Otherwise, "stop" will only have a bigger "can't stop". Just look at Russia and India.
Fortunately, there are still some countries in this world that have historical sins but are still doing well. They are important participants in the international community and are willing to pay part of the price and sacrifice to make the world a better and more hopeful place. . Northwest Europe and the United States can be regarded as representatives. Although there are different forces and different ideas within these countries. The rise of Trump and the power of his representatives is a blow to this relatively good situation (and his rise to power may not be unreasonable, and at least their direct performance is better than those countries under cruel conditions many, even if the impact of what they do is actually huge indirect destructive harm).
Therefore, searching for the truth, facing history squarely, looking back at the past, and realizing justice may not have 100% good results, but they are always relatively good.
"Relatively good" is a standard for what we should do and how we should do it. There is probably nothing perfect in this world. It is impossible for any drastic change and turning the tide without all kinds of undesired things happening and not one victim. We can only choose, and not choosing is also a choice, and the consequences may be even worse. Between the decadent national government and the later brutal CCP, we should choose the Kuomintang regime. Of course we may have a third choice, but there is no time to choose only one. Although at certain times, it may be "best" to choose the Communist Party according to the same standard. These assumptions of mine are of course an afterthought, but they are also a valuable metaphor.
To be more cruel, to choose between the Cultural Revolution and Japan’s invasion of China (not only to choose two things, but also to choose all the evils in it) must happen, then I would rather choose the Cultural Revolution to happen. Conquest by a foreign race of the utmost malice and tyranny does more harm than a similar degree of conquest at home, and the former is more distinct than the latter. This does not in the slightest exonerate the Cultural Revolution, see what I said earlier). This kind of choice is cruel and anti-human, even more cruel than the track problem, but sometimes you have to choose this way, if you don't have the courage to choose, it is to let the more evil people choose.
There are also some options, such as individual crimes and collective crimes, as well as different environmental conditions and backgrounds for crimes, so we have to choose support or opposition based on various situations. Just like someone accusing the anti-Japanese general Sun Yuanliang of attempting to rape a female student, this is of course only a suspicion (and the suspicion is also a suspicion of attempt), but even if it is 100% true and the circumstances are bad, then he is still worthy of praise for fighting the Japanese invaders, and still deserves more credit than his demerits. He is to protect more people from rape and torture. However, this should not take victim victimization for granted either. Similarly, the Progressive Democratic Party in South Korea has exposed a series of power-seeking, sexual assault, and corruption scandals. If I were a Korean citizen, I would definitely continue to vote for them. Because the opposite conservative camp is even more hateful, voting for them will only lead to more power-seeking, sexual assault, corruption, and other injustices in South Korea.
Only by choosing in this way can we have a brighter future for mankind. Of course, we can also treat everything with complete love without borders, complete peace and love instead of choosing, then there will be no good results. At least when it comes to major issues in today's human society and matters concerning the fate of hundreds of millions of people, there is no such option.
Of course, in reality, we can work hard to minimize the evil, and it is not necessary to choose a completely fixed option without any remedy. We just want to choose one of the least bad ones under the combination of various variables of material, spiritual, and realistic transcendence. Specifically, there are too many variables in current interests and long-term interests, partial interests and overall interests. The priority is also difficult to simply say clearly. Fairness and justice, which fairness and justice is the priority, and how to maximize fairness and justice are also difficult. But we have to choose, we must choose. And although these are cruel, our era, on the whole, is still more selective and flexible than any previous era (although the future may not be in the near future).
Also, revealing the truth is of course bloody, but that doesn't mean it has to be completely bloody. Just like proving the crime of sexual assault, it is not necessary to record the entire process and put it on the Internet to achieve the greatest shock. But we can't evade too much, otherwise we will just bow to the evil, which will lead to the continuation of evil and the emergence of greater evil. Of course, if relevant manifestations do occur, we should face it bravely. We can also work to change the way people perceive and treat many truths. We can compromise on many things. We're doing pretty well now.
The current era, in any case, is the best era for mankind in general. But locally, there are still huge and widespread evils. Without revealing the truth, reflecting on history, and realizing justice, human beings will only sink in ups and downs, and more lives will be lost.
But such a great era may not last long. The climate change crisis is humanity's latest shocking challenge. It is not only a natural disaster, but also a great man-made disaster. Don’t think that in natural disasters, only people are fighting for their lives in the flood, groaning under the bricks and gravel after the earthquake, and all kinds of killings, rapes, plundering, oppression, bullying, abandonment, insults and damages triggered by this, as well as rising to the national and national level. And even similar mass brutality among human beings. Hundreds to thousands of years ago, climate change made war horses and scimitars rampant and violent in Eurasia. In the future, it is likely to be the roar of tanks, missiles and nuclear bombs. When the survival crisis is directed at reality, most of the human nature and contracts of human beings are probably useless or distorted. Seawater engulfs large densely populated areas, high-intensity floods, droughts become normal in more areas, and various diseases occur on a larger scale... These have all begun, but they will increase exponentially or even geometrically in the future.
Under such circumstances, the contradictions among class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and other various groups and value forms will be highly intensified, and it is not difficult to imagine what will happen. All of this will happen within no more than 1,000 years, and some serious cases will happen within no more than 50 years.
Human beings are fortunate to temporarily experience the tests of nuclear crisis, biological and chemical weapon crisis and other crises that exterminate human beings, and turn the crisis into motivation to make the world more prosperous and progress. However, all this is just luck rather than necessity. Look at the history of human evolution. From drinking blood to farming and farming to industrial prosperity, from master-slave relationship to employment relationship, from animal ignorance to enlightenment, it seems that everything is progressing and improving, but there are many hardships and twists and turns in the process. Don't regard happiness as normal and inevitable. It is the crystallization of how many people with lofty ideals have gone on and on, bloody and sacrificed.
Moreover, when most human beings experienced unprecedented civilization, some human beings also experienced injuries and pains that had never been seen before. In a civilized society, pain is sometimes more painful, and tragedy often more tragic. Tragedy is the destruction of beauty, and the more beautiful and civilized, the more heart-wrenching and terrifying the destruction. As Lu Xun said, "Facing the dripping blood", he was referring to the cruel history before his death. Assuming that Lu Xun lived until after the Nanjing Massacre and the Cultural Revolution, I don’t know if he had the courage to face it and how to face it. I am afraid that Lu Xun never imagined that China after his death would experience such almost completely unacceptable historical pain. Liu Hezhen died, and he was heartbroken. But decades later in Beijing, there will be even worse tragedies and worse consequences. He is even more unacceptable that his various righteous and profound words have been selectively used as a tool of public opinion to create extreme disasters including the Cultural Revolution. So far, his words have been used by vicious youngsters to harm his dear compatriots according to the opposite interpretation of his original words. Will he reflect on how to speak in order to truly enlighten the people of the country and the world in the right direction, instead of being led in the opposite direction. Or, knowing this, he stopped talking.
Having said that, I may also understand why Chinese people don’t pay so much attention and reflect on it. Apart from the oppression of the authoritarian regime and the relative ignorance of the people, this history is too painful and unacceptable. Always find a way to escape the heavy shackles. . If everyone is immersed in it, maybe the whole nation will be deeply depressed and even more terrible. How can we fully reflect on history and avoid repeating the same mistakes without being immersed in hatred, despair and numbness? Apart from revanchism, in what way can this pain and shame be fully resolved? I don't know how many years this issue will trouble the people of the country.
We cannot live forever without knowing what the future holds when we are gone. Perhaps human beings will eventually love each other like a beautiful family, enjoying the superiority and civilization that human beings can't imagine today (just as the ancients exhausted their thinking, it was impossible to think of cars, the Internet, and smart phones, nor did they think that, relatively speaking, democracy At least in developed countries, the rule of law will be so prosperous, ideology and culture will have unimaginable prosperity, and people will be able to live in such a peaceful, stable and prosperous life, life and dignity will be given unprecedented attention), and there will be no more wars, killings, tyranny, persecution (or negligible, extremely sporadic)? It is also impossible to know or fully know what kind of values human beings will have at that time and how to evaluate us today. Are fairness and justice, patriotism, and humanism still the values that human beings admired in that era? Maybe human civilization regressed to the brutal situation like World War II and the Cultural Revolution, and it happened not locally but on a wider scale, becoming the norm rather than the abnormal?
Of course, there may be more dire situations. Just like before the 20th century, no one had tasted the great pain of biological and chemical weapons, but the two world wars, especially World War II, biological and chemical weapons were used in large quantities, and China was the biggest victim. A total of more than 100,000 Chinese died in bacterial warfare and chemical warfare experiment with humans. Of course, the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki also made mankind truly see the horror of nuclear weapons. If there were no such precedents, people might not take the power of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons seriously. Likewise, could there be something scarier in the future? is entirely possible. The rapid development of science and technology has given people great advantages in life, but it has also made people extremely capable of destructing others and the world. In ancient times, no matter how powerful a person was in martial arts, he could only kill very few other people in a single charge. But now one person manipulating a certain technological object can cause hundreds of thousands or even more deaths. With the development of science and technology, in the future, this kind of destructive ability will only become larger instead of smaller, and the destruction will only become easier rather than harder. Even if no new technological objects appear, the power of old nuclear and biological weapons will increase infinitely. In the 1950s, the power of a single nuclear bomb of the United States and the Soviet Union was tens to a hundred times that of 1945. As for biological and chemical weapons, look at how much damage has been caused by viruses that occur naturally, such as SARS and the new crown. Man-made must be far more terrifying than this. Today's human civilization is walking on a tightrope (maintained by the sensibility and rationality of human nature), rather than on a flat road.
Or, the human race will be completely extinct in the not-too-distant future. All history is turned to ashes.
However, even if such an outcome happens, it does not mean that our current efforts and struggles are useless and meaningless. One generation should do the work of one generation, and of course we should do things that will make the progress of the times as fast as possible, and do things that will reduce the suffering of contemporary and future human beings. We do our best with a clear conscience. Even though there is probably still guilt, at least let the guilt be less.
November 3, 2021
230 Years of the Republican Calendar Bruma Water Caltrop Day (first draft)
February 24, 2023
Fengyue Asari Day in 231 of the Republican Calendar (revised)
Attachment: Some relevant words outside the main text
I admit that some of the things I said were overly aggressive and seemed like incitement to hatred. But if you say that, then all acts of revealing the truth are incitement to hatred. Then we choose to let the evil repeat itself again and again? My writing also emphasizes a kind of catharsis, and intense catharsis is just a substitute for real violence. This is like the violence in literature and film and television works. It is not intended to lead to violence in reality, but to let people know the horror of violence, and to serve as a psychological catharsis and a substitute for actual violence. Also, I don't have any real rights, just comments and comments. We must check and balance power, be tolerant of speech, reflect on the painful history, and at the same time remind people that we need to use various methods such as system construction, citizen participation, and public opinion supervision to check, balance, and restrain those who can really perpetrate violence, and to fear and prevent real violence. Isn't this the meaning of modern freedom of speech and supervision by public opinion? It is true that radical speech can be used, but do you stop speaking out of fear of being used? What's more, I have repeatedly emphasized the value of peace and reconciliation in the article, and I believe that truth and reconciliation are the best way out
In my article, I analyzed that the persecution of Uyghurs in the "re-education camps" was excessive, exceeding the limit and proportion, and emphasized the importance of reciprocity. But according to the reality, once hatred and conflicts arise, especially bloodshed and death, the rationality of "reciprocity" is simply no match for the desire to maximize revenge and suppress the other party's sensibility. Moreover, the "re-education camps" and various high-handed control policies in Xinjiang, including the violent suppression and disciplinary actions, create a depressive and fearful atmosphere (the so-called "deterrence force"), and they are indeed preventing violence and ethnic hatred. It is the most "efficient" to turn into actual violence. If it is relaxed, even a little bit, it may lead to a violent backlash, and the repressed and persecuted people will almost certainly take risks and create bloody crimes. I have to admit that violence and high pressure are indeed effective in preventing violence and terror, especially in today's highly informationized society. Absolute suppression can indeed bring absolute peace (even if the suppressed is angry). This reality made me feel even more hopeless.
Some people may ask, I have mentioned so many options and solutions in this article, are I willing to bear the price? Of course I am willing to pay a certain price. But if you say that I am willing to be directly bombed to death by terrorists as a victim of solving Xinjiang's "re-education camps", to be honest, I will not. I talked about what should be better, but I didn't want to directly let myself be the victim. I talk about whose interests are to be harmed, and how to be tolerant. So, am I willing to be the "damage" party? Are you willing to forgive others? If some of the things I say happen to me, I really cannot bear the relatively extreme damage, and I am not willing to condone the almost unforgivable evil. Of course, this is indeed a kind of hypocrisy, it is also my limitation, and it is a manifestation of cowardice in human nature. But does that mean I shouldn't, can't say these things? Just looking at everything that has happened, is happening, and may happen in the future, is it right to be silent?
Some people accused me of having a strong tendency towards nationalism and nationalism in my article. I admit that is the case, but this is based on objective reality and has to be chosen this way. Developed countries such as Europe and the United States are indeed more benevolent and friendly, but they are not the countries to which Chinese citizens belong after all. Except for a small number of people who can immigrate and exile to these countries, and get a better living environment than China, the vast majority of people still live in China ruled by the CCP, and all rights and livelihoods still depend on China’s current ruling machine (let’s call it “China Government" as it is called). Of course, these rights and interests are what the people should have, not bestowed by the Chinese government. But it is also undeniable that the Chinese government and the people still have a contractual relationship and are a community. After all, foreign countries are foreign countries. No matter how kind and friendly they are, they cannot provide various rights and livelihood guarantees beyond what the Chinese government "provides" to the people. At most, there are some foreign friends who come to contribute, provide some assistance, and urge China to improve human rights. However, neither the breadth nor the amount of benefits can be compared with what the Chinese government provides. The education, medical care, elderly care, public security and other important rights and needs of the people's livelihood for more than one billion people are obviously still borne by the Chinese government rather than European and American countries.
This is of course understandable, but it also proves that nations and countries are still crucial communities, and they are the criteria for distinguishing groups and demarcating interests. Those who have arrived overseas, including me, cannot ignore the other billions of people who are still in the country and let them give up nationalism and nationalism just because they no longer fully enjoy the rights and livelihood management services of the Chinese government. Unless, Europe and the United States can open their national borders and integrate all people, and all Chinese and Europeans and Americans enjoy the same or similar basic rights and people's livelihood protection, then we can talk about the abolition of nationalism and nationalism. This is of course impossible in the short term, and not likely in the long term.
We must understand that even though China is now a totalitarian tyranny, it is both a shackle and a shelter. Especially in today's relatively stable and peaceful (compared to the period of war) and the widespread establishment of a ruling order, it must be both a shackle and a shelter, and even more of a shelter. Just like domestic political dissidents who scolded the government, including the police, were robbed and injured. They must call the Chinese police instead of letting foreign police handle the problem. Even in individual matters, foreign countries play a greater direct role than the Chinese government, but this is only the tip of the iceberg rather than the whole and general. Just like for most families, there is domestic violence, but there is often mutual support. Others can mediate domestic violence, provide some help and shelter, give some food and clothing and accommodation, but it is impossible for the victim to enjoy the same treatment as other people's family for a long time (unless you join another family). It is even more intense, like a woman who is always raped within marriage, but if she is raped by an outsider, she will probably ask her husband to provide protection. You deny the meaning of their husband-wife relationship because of their marital rape. It seems very honest, but where does the victim go to receive protection for a long time? Can you take care of her for the rest of her life?
While emphasizing that families and countries should not be oppressed and harmed, we must also understand that it is also a form of protection. Even if a very small number of people leave their original families and countries due to great pain and dissatisfaction, you cannot deny the rationality of other family members and nationals accepting family and country protection and services. Unless you really give all these people better shelter and service than their original family and country (and it is long-term or even permanent). This is of course not currently possible.
Some important questions about the content of this article
Just as the article said that human rights were not cherished and unilateral tolerance caused greater disasters, there is still a lot to think about. After the Revolution of 1911, the Beiyang government and the national government were relatively lenient towards the Manchu ruling group. Did this kind of repaying grievances with kindness really exchanged for kindness with kindness?
Does Puyi's two restorations mean that this kind of leniency cannot actually achieve worse results than repaying grievances under conflicts of interest?
The remnants and successor forces of the Manchu ruling group (including the Manchus, but also the pro-Manchu Han people who agree with the Manchus and "Manchurian values" in terms of interests and values, such as many Jiliao Han people and Northeast Han people. Even the latter is the most important), and what kind of huge but hidden role did it play in the process of Japan’s invasion of China and the CCP’s victory over the Nationalist government? What role did the CCP play during the decades of ruling the Chinese mainland (especially the position, situation, and performance during the "suppression of counter-revolutionaries" and the "Cultural Revolution")?
How much influence do the descendants of the Manchu Qing ruling group and those with close values have in China today? What kind of behavior and influence does it have in various fields such as politics, economy, culture, and diplomacy, and at the macro and micro levels of Chinese society?
How did the various concepts/values, systems, culture, and ways of governing the country of the Manchu Qing rule China affect (or simply be the successors to) the current CCP’s rule, China’s historical progress in the past few decades, and China’s social conditions? How many people's lives, rights and dignity have been destroyed or trampled on due to these impacts?
I'm not saying that these were all caused by the Manchu Qing Dynasty and its inherited forces, but how much did it play a role in it?
Should these relatively largely ignored issues be ignored?
In the same way, the two regimes of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party are lenient towards Japan. What kind of values does this reflect, and what consequences have they caused? How much damage has it caused to China's national interests, the interests of the people, and the interests of the victims of the War of Resistance? "Repaying grievances with virtue" has contributed to the realization of friendly Sino-Japanese relations on both sides of the strait, but what kind of disaster will it plant for future Sino-Japanese relations?
How can we not fall into extreme revenge and liquidation, and eternal grievances, but also effectively solve the problems left over from history, and eliminate those brutal, injustice, and things that are worse than other rulers in the previous rule?
How many people will be harmed and how long will the social darkness last if we don't cut the mess quickly?
The national government with "less" democracy lost to the CCP with "no" democracy. Is it precisely because the national government still has some democracy and room for resistance, so it lost to the CCP with a high degree of internal unity and no dissent (a bit like the recent The Taliban defeated the Afghan government and took control of Kabul)?
"Despicableness is the passport of the humble, nobleness is the epitaph of the noble", can it be changed?
For the sake of the good name of benevolence and righteousness, tolerating those wicked people is to achieve reconciliation and progress, or to plant the root of disaster?
But if you really do that kind of "cutting the mess with a sharp knife" and use cruel means to revenge and liquidate, will it become another evil and sycophantic regime like or better than the Manchu Qing, and become more powerful than the Japanese invaders? The tyrannical beast army, the national subject who is more disgusting than the Japanese right wing, which accounts for the majority of the Japanese population, has become a worse dragon slayer? Is that still worth supporting?
In the comparison between morality and practicality, short-term and long-term interests, what should we do? Is it possible to really have both? How can one stare into the abyss without being swallowed by the abyss?
Is it possible in the future that no life is directly or indirectly harmed, and that the pain and legacy of history can be perfectly resolved, so that no disaster is left to future generations, and that it is not passed on to the weak and the "honest people" who do not speak up ("weak" and "honest people")? " not only referring to individuals but also to groups)?
How should each of us make choices in the major issues and social changes we are involved in or involved in?
In fact, Mr. Lu Xun has analyzed and answered similar questions for a hundred years. For example, Lu Xun's article "On whether "Fairplay" should be postponed" can partially answer the above questions:
"It is said that a brave boxer will never fight an opponent who is already on the ground again. This has made us look up as an example. But I think there must be one more thing, that is, the opponent must also be a brave fighter. After a defeat, or Of course, it is all right to feel ashamed and never come again, or to retaliate in a grand manner. As for the dog, you can't use this as an example to stand with an equal opponent, because no matter how wild it growls, in fact I don't understand "morality"; besides, a dog can float, so it must still climb to the shore. If you don't pay attention, it will shake it first, sprinkle water on people's bodies and faces, and then run away with its tail between its legs. But then the temperament is still the same. Honest people regard its falling into the water as baptism, thinking that it must have repented, and it will bite people if it does not come out again. The bad guys rely on the iceberg and act recklessly, once they stumble, they suddenly beg for mercy, and the honest people who have seen or been bitten by them, they suddenly treat them as "dogs in the water", not only do not beat them, but even feel sorry for them. It means that I think justice has been done, and chivalry is here with me at this time. I don’t know why it really fell into the water. The nest has already been built, the food has been stored long ago, and it is all in the concession. Although sometimes it seems to be injured , actually not, at most he was pretending to be lame, in order to arouse people’s sympathy, so that he could hide away calmly. Day after day, he still bit the honest man first, "throwing stones into the well"⒅, doing everything to find the reason Come on, part of it is because honest people don’t “beat dogs in the water.” Therefore, to put it harshly, that is, digging holes and burying them at home, blaming everyone and everyone, is all wrong.
The famous sayings of gentlemen who are full of "law" and "justice" are ignored for the time being. Even the axioms shouted by sincere people can't help good people in today's China, and even protect bad people. Because when bad people get their way and abuse good people, even if someone shouts for justice, he will never listen, and the shouting will stop at shouting, and the good people will still suffer. However, once in a while, a good person may fall a little bit, and the bad person should have fallen into the water. However, the sincere justice advocates "don't retaliate", "forgiveness", "don't resist evil with evil"... stand up. This time it actually worked, and it wasn't empty talk: the good people took it for granted, and the bad people were saved. But after he was saved, he just thought he had taken advantage of it, so he repented; moreover, because he had already conquered the three caves and was good at scheming, he was still powerful and powerful, and his evil behavior was the same as before. At this time, the axiomatician will naturally yell again, but this time he won't listen to you. "
Tolstoy and Gandhi were both great and influential pacifists who dedicated their lives to peace and reconciliation among mankind. But they couldn't really prevent the tragedy from happening. Behind them, the Russian Civil War and the Gulag, India-Pakistan religious vendettas killed at least millions of people, and the legacy still exists today. So what's the point of being a pacifist? Even at their level, it still doesn't help reality. Instead, the United States and the Soviet Union fought the Nazis and Japan, stopped even worse atrocities (and lost many innocent lives, of course), and established a new modern society. Later, the United States resisted the expansion of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, allowing the free world to survive. Of course, I am not advocating revanchism or radicalism, but in the face of injustice, injustice, and old scores, how much practical significance does it have to blindly advocate love and peace? Or it's just that the weak choose to suffer and endure, and the strong make more progress. Especially for those large-scale massacres and rapes, is it true that unilateral forgiveness can solve all problems?
Or as Lu Xun said better, "None of them will be forgiven."