The prophecies of Xu Zhimo | Lee Yee
Carrie Lam took the initiative to cancel her US visa, and now she has taken another action to renounce her honorary fellowship from Wolfson College of the University of Cambridge. That Facebook post of hers indeed gave us a bit of joy in sorrows. Some proposed, “Please renounce the British citizenship of your husband and two sons as well, in order to demonstrate your loyalty to the country.” There, we could tell where public opinion lies and where the public’s heart is.
To conclude her post, she wrote, “Despite this unpleasant incident, Cambridge University is still a world-renowned university that many aspire to, and Cambridge, under the pen of Mr. Xu Zhimo, still leaves many beautiful memories for my family and me!” As she bids farewell to Cambridge, one can’t help but recall Xu Zhimo’s “Taking Leave of Cambridge Again”.
Xu Zhimo’s Cambridge era was in 1920-21, but I think the most noteworthy moment of his was his tenure as the editor-in-chief of the Morning Supplement from 1925 to 1926. During this period, he discovered great writers such as Shen Congwen, and predicted how the next century would unfold.
The predecessor of Morning News [Shen Bao] was Morning Bell Daily [Shen Zhong Bao], founded by Liang Qichao and Tang Hualong. Morning Bell Daily published novels, poems, essays, and academic speeches in the seventh edition, so Morning News Supplement was initially referred to as the “Seventh Edition of Morning Bell”. Many articles and works of the New Culture Movement, including Lu Xun’s episodic novella, “The True Story of Ah Q”, was published in here. It was one of the three major publications during the May Fourth Cultural Enlightenment Movement. The Chief of Morning News was Chen Bosheng, and the seventh edition was led by Sun Fuyuan, who gave it the name Morning Bell Daily. Until 1924, when Sun Fuyuan left, it was the “golden age” of the propagation of the new culture. During this period, there was the October Revolution of the Soviet Union, which led to the establishment of the first socialist country, and China’s May Fourth Movement, which developed from enlightenment that promoted liberal and democratic ideas to socialism and salvation that catered to the global trend. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was established, and the Kuomintang (KMT) was transformed into a Lenin-style party. Joining forces, the two parties set up the Republic of China Military Academy (ROCMA), to which the Soviet Union sent representatives to participate in preparation for the Northern Expedition to overthrow the most civilized Beiyang regime (aka the Republic of China) in the early days of the establishment of the Republic of China.
At the insistent invitation of Chen Bosheng, the editor-in-chief of the Morning News, Xu Zhimo agreed to serve as the editor-in-chief of the Morning Supplement in early 1925 after his Europe tour. He started to travel by train to Soviet Russia in March, and then off to Europe. At the time, he was carrying the yearning of most Chinese intellectuals, including Hu Shi, for the realization of the ideal of human equality in the Soviet Union, but he had sensitively noticed the gloomy expressions on the faces of Soviet Russians, the sense that they “had no idea what the smile of natural joy” was. He visited Tolstoy’s daughter in Moscow and learned that Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky’s books were no longer available. Xu Zhimo then wrote a sharp, honest, literary note, “They believe that Heaven is available and achievable, but between the secular world and Heaven there is a body of water, a sea of blood, and humans must survive crossing this sea before they could reach the other shore. They decided first to realize that sea of blood.”
That was the early years of the establishment of the Soviet Union, when the new regime was praised by intellectuals around the world, and inspired Chinese ideologies. The poet’s keen observation foresaw that this regime under the dictatorship of the proletariat would realize a sea of blood.
After returning to China and took over the Morning News Supplement on October 1, 1925, the first thing Xu Zhimo did was to start a series of discussions around the Soviet-Russian issue in the paper. More than 50 fiercely controversial articles on whether to introduce “friendship” or “hatred” towards Russia. At around 5 p.m. on November 29, the Morning News building in Beijing was set on fire by the protestors, which also burned the discussions to ashes.
Why did Xu Zhimo try so hard to discuss Soviet Russia? He said, “China’s problem with Soviet Russia…to date, it has always been a gangrene that has never been removed nor punctured. The pus inside has gathered to a point where it can no longer be silted, and the hidden chaos is so obvious that we can no longer simply ignore.” Therefore, “the problem this time,…to exaggerate a little, is a problem of China’s national fortune, including all possible perversions in the livelihoods of its countrymen.”
The prophecies of the creation of a sea of blood by the Soviet Union, as well as the Chinese people living in perversions, have all came true. Today, we are not only commemorating Cambridge under the pen of this renowned poet, but we should also remember how the Chinese ignored this prophet’s words, and brought about a disaster that is still continuing a hundred years later.
She bid farewell to Cambridge. But Cambridge would never have tolerated the smearing of these hands, which created a sea of blood anyway.
「socialist communist party」的推薦目錄:
socialist communist party 在 無待堂 Facebook 八卦
New York Times 第三擊
【China’s Hong Kong Policy Is Perverse. It Always Has Been.】
By Lewis Lau Yiu-man
HONG KONG — Beijing says it wants to safeguard “one country, two systems,” the principle that supposedly guarantees Hong Kong’s semiautonomy from the mainland. In reality it is weaponizing the policy to crush the city’s freedoms.
On Thursday, the Chinese government announced a plan to pass national security laws for Hong Kong. It has long been after something like this, though previously it expected the local authorities to do the job. Not this time. This law would be ratified in Beijing — at worst, as soon as next week.
This sinister move caps several weeks of mounting acts of repression in Hong Kong, in almost all spheres of public life — politics, law, education, the media.
Last week, students sitting for a university-entrance history exam were asked if they agreed with this statement: “Japan did more good than harm to China in the period of 1900-45.” The Hong Kong Education Bureau promptly complained that the question was “leading” and asked that it be stricken from the exam, even though some students had already answered it.
The Education Bureau also claimed that the question “seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of the Chinese people who suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion of China.” For many traditional Chinese patriots there is simply no way the Japanese could have brought any benefit whatsoever to China; to merely ask that question is to somehow prettify the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.
Never mind that the exam referred to the years between 1900 and 1945, rather than solely to the war. And never mind that there is ample historical evidence showing that Japan’s vast influence on China during that period also served China well in some ways. Sun Yat-sen, the most famous early leader of post-imperial modern China; major actors in China’s socialist movement; even Lu Xun, arguably the greatest writer in modern Chinese literature, were all inspired or shaped to a certain extent by contact with Japan.
More than anything, questions such as this one have been a fixture of history exams in Hong Kong. I studied history at university, and I remember this exam question from 2006: “Some people think Emperor Wen of Sui (541-604) did more harm than good. Do you agree with that?”
Then this week pro-Beijing lawmakers hijacked the election for chairperson of a committee of Hong Kong’s legislative council, calling in security guards to control the scene, and placed at the committee’s head a pro-establishment legislator accused of abuse of power.
“Headliner,” a satirical show of the public broadcaster RTHK, was canceled after Hong Kong authorities complained that it denigrated the Hong Kong police.
And the government, even as it is relaxing various social-distancing rules to fend off Covid-19, just extended restrictions on group gatherings to June 4 — the anniversary of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. The commemorative protest vigil that has been held that day every year may not take place for the first time in three decades. (It occurred even during the SARS outbreak of 2002-03.)
Next week, Hong Kongers face another blatant effort by Beijing to instill in them patriotism for China and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party: The local Legislature will consider a bill that would criminalize the misuse of China’s national anthem or insults toward it. And, of course, there is the national security legislation.
The Chinese Communist Party is ambitious, and it is impatient. It doesn’t just want to control Hong Kong; it wants to remodel the minds and souls of the Hong Kong people.
Chinese state media said of the history exam controversy that it was an occasion for Hong Kong to “surgically detoxify” its education system so as to make it “compatible” with “one country, two systems.” What they really were calling for is a radical change of the status quo.
“One country, two systems” is designed, in theory, to safeguard the fundamental rights of Hong Kong’s people. In fact, our rights are gradually being taken away in the name of safeguarding “one country, two systems” — Beijing’s version of it. The policy isn’t dead so much as it is perverse. Which it always has been.
“One country, two systems” was a ploy from the outset, a tactic for China to buy time, the better to absorb Hong Kong sooner or later. Preferably sooner, it seems.
socialist communist party 在 盧斯達 Facebook 八卦
New York Times 第三擊
【China’s Hong Kong Policy Is Perverse. It Always Has Been.】
By Lewis Lau Yiu-man
HONG KONG — Beijing says it wants to safeguard “one country, two systems,” the principle that supposedly guarantees Hong Kong’s semiautonomy from the mainland. In reality it is weaponizing the policy to crush the city’s freedoms.
On Thursday, the Chinese government announced a plan to pass national security laws for Hong Kong. It has long been after something like this, though previously it expected the local authorities to do the job. Not this time. This law would be ratified in Beijing — at worst, as soon as next week.
This sinister move caps several weeks of mounting acts of repression in Hong Kong, in almost all spheres of public life — politics, law, education, the media.
Last week, students sitting for a university-entrance history exam were asked if they agreed with this statement: “Japan did more good than harm to China in the period of 1900-45.” The Hong Kong Education Bureau promptly complained that the question was “leading” and asked that it be stricken from the exam, even though some students had already answered it.
The Education Bureau also claimed that the question “seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of the Chinese people who suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion of China.” For many traditional Chinese patriots there is simply no way the Japanese could have brought any benefit whatsoever to China; to merely ask that question is to somehow prettify the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.
Never mind that the exam referred to the years between 1900 and 1945, rather than solely to the war. And never mind that there is ample historical evidence showing that Japan’s vast influence on China during that period also served China well in some ways. Sun Yat-sen, the most famous early leader of post-imperial modern China; major actors in China’s socialist movement; even Lu Xun, arguably the greatest writer in modern Chinese literature, were all inspired or shaped to a certain extent by contact with Japan.
More than anything, questions such as this one have been a fixture of history exams in Hong Kong. I studied history at university, and I remember this exam question from 2006: “Some people think Emperor Wen of Sui (541-604) did more harm than good. Do you agree with that?”
Then this week pro-Beijing lawmakers hijacked the election for chairperson of a committee of Hong Kong’s legislative council, calling in security guards to control the scene, and placed at the committee’s head a pro-establishment legislator accused of abuse of power.
“Headliner,” a satirical show of the public broadcaster RTHK, was canceled after Hong Kong authorities complained that it denigrated the Hong Kong police.
And the government, even as it is relaxing various social-distancing rules to fend off Covid-19, just extended restrictions on group gatherings to June 4 — the anniversary of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. The commemorative protest vigil that has been held that day every year may not take place for the first time in three decades. (It occurred even during the SARS outbreak of 2002-03.)
Next week, Hong Kongers face another blatant effort by Beijing to instill in them patriotism for China and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party: The local Legislature will consider a bill that would criminalize the misuse of China’s national anthem or insults toward it. And, of course, there is the national security legislation.
The Chinese Communist Party is ambitious, and it is impatient. It doesn’t just want to control Hong Kong; it wants to remodel the minds and souls of the Hong Kong people.
Chinese state media said of the history exam controversy that it was an occasion for Hong Kong to “surgically detoxify” its education system so as to make it “compatible” with “one country, two systems.” What they really were calling for is a radical change of the status quo.
“One country, two systems” is designed, in theory, to safeguard the fundamental rights of Hong Kong’s people. In fact, our rights are gradually being taken away in the name of safeguarding “one country, two systems” — Beijing’s version of it. The policy isn’t dead so much as it is perverse. Which it always has been.
“One country, two systems” was a ploy from the outset, a tactic for China to buy time, the better to absorb Hong Kong sooner or later. Preferably sooner, it seems.
socialist communist party 在 Socialist-Communist Union - Wikipedia 的相關結果
The Socialist-Communist Union later renamed the Socialist-Communist Party (French: Parti socialiste-communiste), was a socialist political party in France ... ... <看更多>
socialist communist party 在 Communist Party - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics 的相關結果
1955: The Chinese Communist Party Central Committee (CCPCC) issues “some ... as the ruling party, the people's democracy, and the socialist rule of law are ... ... <看更多>
socialist communist party 在 What Is the Difference Between Communism and Socialism? 的相關結果
Both communism and socialism advocate public control of the means of production, although socialism allows for the continued existence of capitalism in some ... ... <看更多>