China’s memory manipulators
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
In the end, history, being in the past, denies direct access or verification. In some sense it is just what we choose to remember, which is a very fluid thing. I guess culturally the Chinese are just more flexible about it. It is not necessarily bad, as it is a less fanatic ideology.
If we keep painting past as rosy garden with only few carefully selected facts and rest is bent/invented as needed, we will keep repeating same mistakes and not reach our potential, be it on personal or society level.. which is the land of say not-so-clever people. sure we can aim higher than that
That is the key point. We study the the past so we can make intelligent decisions going forward. When each new regime re-writes the past to promote support, it short-circuits this process.
An honest understanding of the past is especially important for China because of grave problems in its present political philosophy. It is said to be Confucianism, but it isn't. So for instance, education today does not focus on the traditional Chinese subjects, but modern Western ones. The present Chinese political political philosophy is a strange blend of marxism, traditional ideas, and modern liberal ones.
The problem is that Confucianism was designed for an agrarian society, but China has become a modern industrial one. So for instance filial piety, which is the foundation of Confucianism, made sense when you had large farming families that stayed in the same location for many generations, but not with the individual mobility and much smaller families typical in industrial society. In this and many other ways, Confucianism is simply out of step with modern realities.
Confucianism came about through extended discussion starting with basic realities and principles, and the same sort of process lead to modern Western political philosophy. Today the Chinese need to go through a similar process, but my impression this sort of thinking is suppressed by the government, and what we get is just what the latest president happens to think. I think that is going to lead to a lot of bad decisions.
In the national case, you also have to have each subsequent generation share your conviction, and any break in that will taint the record.
The author of this piece even quotes Xi's harping on "harmonious society" and still goes on about communism as if it's the dominant ideology at play.
Of course it would be biased as the next dynasty has reason to justify the demise of its predecessor, but that's a far cry from saying that every dynasty "changed/destroyed historical records" to justify their policies.
OT: Having read much Chinese history (though I'm by no means an expert), I've noticed the Communists recently have taken on many other characteristics of the old imperial dynasties that ruled China through 1911.
* The pretense of natural superiority to other nations, and of the others' natural submission. The Chinese nationalists publicly claim about their superiority, and you can read stories about Chinese diplomacy actively pushing this position behind the scenes. I read stories about it happening in SE Asia [1] and recently the press got hold of Queen Elizabeth's complaints about it during President Xi's visit to the UK.[2] She should have read (if she hasn't) Emporer Qianlong's famous letter to her predecessor, King George III, in the early 19th century, calling the UK inferior barbarians who had nothing of value to offer China.
* Territorial claims, including those outside of their current boundries very similar to the Qing dynasty (the last dynasty, 1644-1911). China's territory has varied greatly over the centuries.
* The attempt to adopt the economic and military power of the West, without adopting the political (democracy, individual rights, rule of law) and intellectual (intellectual freedom) necessary to them. This is what the 'Self-Strengthening Movements' in the late 19th century tried to different degrees. All failed: For example, it's hard to have an advanced economy without an educated population, and it's hard to have an educated population without intellectual freedom.
* The primacy of corruption and the fight against it. A well-known pattern of Chinese history is that, after a dynasty was established, corruption would grow and eventually bring it down.[3]
* The emphasis on the rule of one person, Xi Jinping, in some way similar to an emperor (though also similar to Mao's cult of personality).
----
[1] [An ASEAN foriegn minister] told me that the Chinese Ambassador to his country had forced him to shift an ASEAN leader attending a Summit out of a hotel ... so that then-Premier Wen Jiabao could stay there. The Ambassador insisted on this although the hotel allocated to Premier Wen was of equal quality. ... Every ASEAN diplomat who has dealt with China has a fund of such anecdotes. ... China does not merely want consideration of its interests. China expects deference to its interests to be internalised by ASEAN members as a mode of thought; as not just a correct calculation of ASEAN interests vis-a-vis China but "correct thinking" which leads to "correct behaviour". Foreign policy calculations are subject to continual revision; correct thinking is a permanent part of the sub-conscious. - Bilahari Kausikan, former Permanent Secretary of Sinapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.todayonline.com/world/bilahari-speech-us-china
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/europe/queen-uk-china-very-rud...
This is the extreme end of moral relativism that leads to dark places. There are things that should be remembered, no matter how uncomfortable they are or whether people would rather they be forgotten, because they have to be avoided. See the ongoing controversy between Turkey and Germany over the Armenian genocide and Turkey's attempt at erasing this history, while Germany legally opposes any attempts to erase its own crimes from its history. The holocaust is a fact, and attempts to deny it are not some kind of morally neutral "flexibility".
History is, as you say, not directly verifiable. But that just creates an obligation on us to be honest with the evidence we do have and recognise that plenty of things are well-verified enough to be called fact, even if the details are unclear.
Facts are often distorted decades later to suit political expediency (i.e. the myth that Reagan was a staunch conservative; he was a middle-of-the-road centrist Republican from one of the most liberal states in the US). In your example, Turkey's conservative government is using the Armenian genocide as a way to drive a wedge between Turkey and Europe -- because Erdogan and the AKP would much rather be allied with Russia and Iran (who have no qualms about his use of force to suppress dissent).
Do this often enough and you end up with a "history" that barely resembles contemporary thought on the matter. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex actually tackles this matter with the "Individual Eleven" storyline -- what would happen if someone created a virus that infected the historical record? You could create a fake "cause" with supporting digital documentation, and people would swear to have a memory of it happening, even if it never did (it's a well-documented phenomenon that eyewitness accounts taken long after the fact are unreliable and often based on secondary sources; and that's not even part of the science fiction aspect of SAC). Change a few minor facts in the altered historical record to link it to a marginalized group in society and watch the violence unfold on both sides; with the marginalized population latching on to the "cause" and the rest of the populace using the violence of a small few to justify their discrimination / hatred against the minority.
Rewriting history is the entire purpose of governments. It's already exceedingly difficult to find information on events that happened early in the digital age; if anything, digital records are easier to purge / falsify. Hell, just try to read a CD or backup tape created 20 years ago and see how far you get.
But we see a chilling silence on the issue of human rights violations carried out by the followers of communism [1],[2] by most of the intellectuals (mostly humanities professors) in USA who are very keen on criticizing USA for whatever perceived/projected censorship and violation of human rights in USA.
We must not forget that the USA has served the world by taking a stance against this vicious ideology called communism and its equally vicious followers. We must raise this issue every time USA and capitalist free and open market based democracy gets criticized in favor of communism/socialism by the communists/socialists or what they call the useful idiots [3].
I do not say USA has not done anything bad. But in comparison to the communists it's much, much better. No doubt, USA can be improved (e.g. wealth inequality) but not by communist/socialist manner. I don't live USA but I thank USA for getting my country off the vicious hooks of the communism and guide us to a more humane path.
[1] https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record-ha...
A significant chunk of the US's voter base seems to think that single-payer health care leads to dictators rewriting history. I don't get it.
Ironically, a product of propaganda.
That it isn't implemented is more about insurance & medical industry lobbying.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/r...
At the present, I'd expect essentially all Republican voters to oppose it, and plenty of Democrats and independents do too.
Because they are U.S. citizens, they live here, pay taxes here, etc. The Chinese government is not under their power, like the USA is by being citizens of it.
Where were these intellectuals (mostly humanities professors) when the USA was being attacked from within during the occupy movement? The occupy movement was hijacked by the corrupt and vicious communists/socialists beyond salvation. It's fortunate for the citizens of USA and for the entire world too that this movement failed.
But we did see that these intellectuals, were on the forefront to actually mislead the people to go behind the occupy.
Although, some points raised by the occupy movement were good, their overall direction got more aligned with vicious elements.
edit: typos
I love cities like Amsterdam, where you can look at painting from the 1600s and you recognize whole streets. The city isn't fundamentally different downtown. This sort of experience is becoming a rarity as countries modernize and tear down the downtowns of their old cities in the name of modernity.
The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others; we're not all equally accurate or reliable.
Other countries have independent, free press; they can print whatever they want, including whatever history they want. For example, the Chinese government blocks all mention of the Tienanmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in print or on the web. They censure criticism of Communist Party leaders. You wouldn't find censorship anything like that in the UK.
In fact in Western countries, academics are often criticized for being too critical of their nations - 'self-hating'. EDIT: See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862391
> I doubt in how much details UK's history books capture the horrific cruelties inflicted by the kingdom for hundreds of years as compared to the history taught in schools of the victim colonies.
Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?
I think you are referring to China making more mistakes then UK in the past. If anything, I think it's the opposite. For example, the whole world made a huge deal(rightfully so) about the tiananmen square protest in China. Have you heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre ? Hundreds of unarmed peaceful men, women and children were murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
> Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?
"Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes" https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed...
You can see the bullet marks preserved in Jallianwala Bagh. There is a well inside the premises where people jumped to hide from bullets. 120 bodies were recovered later from that well alone. http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/8-pictures-of-jallianwa...
EDIT: Here is one more, it isn't hard to find with few online searches
".. Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29 million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.."
"..In the Express we can read the historian Andrew Roberts arguing that for “the vast majority of its half millennium-long history, the British Empire was an exemplary force for good. … the British gave up their Empire largely without bloodshed, after having tried to educate their successor governments in the ways of democracy and representative institutions”(9)(presumably by locking up their future leaders). In the Sunday Telegraph, he insists that “the British empire delivered astonishing growth rates, at least in those places fortunate enough to be coloured pink on the globe.”(10) (Compare this to Mike Davis’s central finding, that “there was no increase in India’s per capita income from 1757 to 1947”, or to Prasannan Parthasarathi’s demonstration that “South Indian labourers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century and lived lives of greater financial security.”(11)) In the Daily Telegraph, John Keegan asserts that “the empire became in its last years highly benevolent and moralistic.” The Victorians “set out to bring civilisation and good government to their colonies and to leave when they were no longer welcome. In almost every country, once coloured red on the map, they stuck to their resolve.”(12).."
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-hol...
> I think you are referring to China making more mistakes then UK in the past.
I wasn't, though I can see how that might be confusing. I just was using that phrase as an example of the near-meaninglessness of a binary perspective that ignores great differences in degree: 'everybody does' or 'everybody doesn't'.
The question was whether censorship in the west is similar to that in China.
> Have you heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre ?
I read about the massacre in western history books. I saw a recreation of it in a western movie, "Gandhi" (IIRC). Two of your three citations are to western news publications.
> it isn't hard to find with few online searches
It's not hard to find stories of western atrocities in the west. But try finding stories of Communist Party atrocities in China.
I don't understand: Almost all the criticism of the UK you posted came from the UK, and the sources I cited came from the West if not the UK. One quote you posted was one UK publication criticizing another on the matter.
Doesn't that represent "variation in the stand of a nation"? Or do you mean some official stand by the UK government? Do they even have one? I'm pretty sure the U.S. government doesn't, or if it does it's completely unknown and ineffectual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor
Also, I would be curious to see accounts where Brits punished any of their officials for the crimes in colonies. Mr. Dyer was merely removed from his post after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
EDIT: one more:
"British maintain 379 were killed - lower than the 1000 stated by India"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283438/David-Camero...
History, and the culture, is written and shaped by the winner after all.
We do it in the US. And so do the brits, europeans, etc.
After "historians" were paid to write histories extolling someone and denigrate someone else.
From columbus to everything before and after, "history" depended on who was in charge and who paid to do the writing. History is propaganda.
> In some sense it is just what we choose to remember
No. It's like the thousand swords of aegon. It's a lie we agree to tell each other over and over again until we forget it is a lie.
History is propaganda. It is interpretration. There is no truth to it. Just perspective.
The point of history is not agreed upon lies. That's an unethical concession. The point of history is to tell what happened.
Not including other perspectives is exactly what it sounds like, a failure to properly retell history. Propagandized history is immoral. Even if your inner pragmatic, reductionist, contrarian instincts lead you to believe you should accept it just because that is what has happened in the past. There is no ethical reasoning behind it.
Agreed. But as long as you understand that history is ultimately propaganda. There isn't an objective truth buttressing it. Just arbitrary biased interpretation.
> The point of history is not agreed upon lies.
It's an agreed upon "interpretation" by a small group of people who get a larger group of people to accept it. Different nations have different histories of the same event. The vietnamese history of the vietnam war is markedly different than the US history of the vietnam war. Same event, different "interpretation/propaganda".
> That's an unethical concession.
It's an honest observation. National histories are biased propaganda. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself. Perhaps some take the propaganda/history to extreme degrees, but nevertheless, all history is propaganda.
> The point of history is to tell what happened.
No. That would be just a list of events. History is INTERPRETATION. Saying that the Civil War began in 1861 is just a fact. Interpreting that as a war over slavery or a war to save the union or the war for state rights or whatever is HISTORY/PROPAGANDA.
> Propagandized history is immoral.
Then all history should be banned and replaced with a list of events.
Think of it this way, history of the US from a white man's perspective is far different than history of the US from a native american's perspective. History of the holocaust would be much different had the germans won ww2 than what it is today. Same event, different history/interpretation.
It's quite amazing that I'm getting downvoted for stating that history is biased and all history is propaganda. But then again, most people are brainwashed. Ultimately, we may laugh at the north koreans or the chinese or the russians or whomever, but we are really deep down, no different.
I think we have to stop patting ourselves on the back. Yes, we claim to allow it, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We aren't as open to questioning or "heresy" as you'd like to think. If you've ever worked in academia, you would know this.
> and we have an ethic in academia to study them objectively and try to figure out which is correct.
This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like race, sex, religion, etc.
> So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea that the Jews needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was simply wrong.
Not if the germans had WON THE WAR. That's the point. Look at how differently "history/propaganda" works when it relates to US:natives and Germany:Jews.
Our history cast the natives as savage demons that needed to be wiped out for the advance of civilization and the creation of the US. We make allowances for the genocide of the natives by excusing it with "disease killed many of them" or that it allowed for the creation of the US. But for jews, we do not make such allowances.
If you think we are open to different perspectives, try to get a book published that questions many of the claims of the holocaust. If jared diamond had written about the holocaust ( excusing the deaths of the jews due to the disease and starvation as a result of germany's poor performance in the eastern front ), do you really think the NYTimes/media and academia would have supported it?
All history is propaganda. If the germans had won ww2, the holocaust would have been viewed differently. Hell the word "holocaust" wouldn't even exist. Holocaust was a term israeli jews invented in 1953 to "brand" the genocide. We don't have a branding for the native "holocaust". Or the armenian "holocaust". Or the rwandan "holocaust".
Pick anything in history. Look at the "history" of the israeli/palestine issue. Look at the history of russia/ukraine. Look at the history of US civil war. Different sides have different histories/propaganda. There is no truth, just subjective and selfish propaganda.
Or if you feel more generous, you can say that there are many truths and each side picks their own truths. But regardless, it's propaganda.
I find it laughable how people are so resistent to the simple truth that history is propaganda. But then I realize that it's because they are victims of propaganda.
What in heavens name are you talking about? There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and gays. On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in gay rights.
And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults, is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian regimes such as China.
Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re-writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better? And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia? But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.
I was fairly explicit and straightforward.
> There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and gays.
Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.
> On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in gay rights.
You mean the relentless hollywood/academic propaganda campaign helped in the revolution? Yes I know.
> And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults, is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian regimes such as China.
We have "freedom of speech" when the elite support the agenda. The elite supported gay marriage/etc. Hence why the media, academia, etc pushed for it while the population resisted. As I said, you couldn't publish anything that negatively portray gays.
> Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re-writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better?
No. I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone interprets it for their own political agenda. That's all I'm saying. For example, we view george washington as a great founder of the nation. Others view him as a genocidal maniac who went around exterminating natives and skinning them and making leggings out of them. Every nation has propaganda/history. That's what it is created for. History is fiction that unites us all. It is created by the people in power for a purpose.
> And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia?
They have their own history/propaganda as well.
> But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.
"Vastly"? No. Superficially, maybe. Some "history/propaganda" are more sophisticated and clever. Other's, like north korea's history, are silly and immature. Either way, it's all propaganda.
Be angry at china if you want. All I'm saying is that everyone pushes history/propaganda. The fact that you think your "history/propanda" is better just shows that you support that "history/propaganda". Has nothing to do with whether that history is accurate/truthful/etc.
You think your history is better because of your bias, self-interest, agenda, etc. You think your history is better because you grew up with it.
Lots gets published negative about those groups. Take the best-selling book <The Bell Curve> which argues that blacks have lower iq's. You say the elites push an agenda, but often that is because non-elites persuaded them to change their views. For instance, gays were pariah's until recently.
>I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone interprets it for their own political agenda.
That's simply not true. Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments. Lots of people are willing to change their political philosophy if they are presented with reasons. I know I have changed my views on a number of important issues over the years. It is a slow process, but it happens a lot in this country. Look at how the conservative movement rose from nothing over the course of decades, fighting the elites all the way. Just because you are not objective and open to persuasion doesn't mean everyone else in the world is like you.
You know, in some countries of the world the government is so oppressive that is impossible to work to make things better, but in other countries it is possible, at least some of the time, but to do that generally requires an accurate understanding of the past. What you are saying is it is impossible to get this, and the implication is that it is impossible to make the world better. Is that what you believe? Note when I say make the world better, I mean according to a set of universal values, not ones that favor your group or country over all others. Apparently you believe such values don't exist, have I got you right on that?
I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to look at history objectively. I can think of three possible reasons. One is that you just have a cynical personality. The second is you are just selfish and don't care. The third is that you are being paid by an authoritarian government like Russia or China to spread cynicism so people will give up trying to get at the truth and make the world better.
Lots? And you name one book that was marginalized more than 20 years ago.
> Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments.
No they are not. Especially on matters like "history/propaganda/etc" that are INTERPRETATION rather than factual.
> I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to look at history objectively.
Because it is propaganda. Because there is no "objectivity" in history/interpretation/etc.
Try this. Was the civil war about freeing the slaves or states' rights? Was the vietnam war about stopping communism ( vietnam war ) or neo-colonialism ( war of american aggression )? Was the holocaust about the jews? If so, why were most people killed in the holocaust non-jews/gentiles? If most of the people who died were non-jews, why has modern history/culture associated it with jews?
You think you know the answer and you think you are objective/right/etc because your answers fit your agenda/worldview/propaganda. History has always been about propaganda ( emperors/kings/etc would hire writers to write "histories" extolling their virtue and the virtue of their families/etc ). Now, rather than being propaganda for the king/monarchs/etc, history is the official propaganda of the state/nation.
Now, I'm not saying history/propaganda is unnecessary. I think it is needed to maintain the state/nation/society. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking history is the truth. It is not. Not here, not in China, not in Russia, not anywhere.
> One is that you just have a cynical personality.
Or I'm educated and intelligent and understand what history actually is. You are making the same ad hominem attacks religious or cult members make when they are confronted with someone who doesn't "believe". You can lash out at me and call me cynical, but the real cynic is you.
Anyways, I can see that there is no reasoning with you ( not that I'm surprised ) so this will be my last reply to you as you've resorted to ad hominems. I won't read your replies if you write them so please don't bother. Good day.