Hacker News Reader

Comment by ideal0227 | Hacker News Reader

> 三百年殖民地。香港一百年殖民地变成今天这样，中国那么大，当然需要三百年殖民地，才会变成今天香港这样，三百年够不够，我还有怀疑。

I am a decently educated Chinese native speaker. The quoted Chinese sentence from Liu is not acceptable to me. I do not think it is a direct comparison against HongKong.

I am fine with him arguing about changing the political situation of China or whatsoever. And, actually, the discussion on that should be more open. However, I cannot agree on his view about changing China through colonial no matter what he tries to justify. And I believe no rational Chinese people will agree him on this.

View on HN

Well, I am from China too. Unlike some of my fellow countrymen, I don't find it offensive at all because I know the speaker is a true patriot who cares about basic human rights for every Chinese and fights for the cause until his very end. This statement is more about the weakness of Chinese citizen than an actual call for China to be colonized. It is brought up during an interview[1], and for some reason Liu may be speaking with a hot head and a big mouth. Let's stop attacking Liu's character with just one careless sentence.

May him rest in peace.

[1]: The interviewer's clarification of context (in Chinese) http://www.open.com.hk/content.php?id=44#.WWoeRjcRWrw

That appears to be just the same quote in Chinese. I'm not sure if it contains more nuance to bring clarity to the situation - perhaps you can assist there?

What would also help is more context for the quote. Is it a part of a bigger piece of writing?

I'm not asking you to do all the research for me, feel free not to reply - my interest is only really in passing. Though if you do reply feel free to use as much original Chinese text as you like to lend clarity. [1]真是我会度看可是我写中文写得不好。

[1] For those of you playing at home I can read, but my written Chinese is a bloody disaster.

讀＊

The interviewer's clarification of context (in Chinese) http://www.open.com.hk/content.php?id=44#.WWoeRjcRWrw

The interviewer says “colonial” is an expression and sarcasm. It’s Liu’s writing style. It’s said to him as he’s Liu’s editor and long time friend, so he understood what Liu meant. Liu did explain what he meant in an article sent to him in 2007.

Some excerpts:

  1. “由此可見，劉曉波的意思是要在中國實行英國在香港推行的資本主義政策，起碼需要三百年，才會變得和香港一樣好。他並不是
      要中國再去當誰的殖民地”
      Liu meant China can benefit from westernisation like HK, he didn’t meant for it to be really
      colonised.

  2. “為甚麼搞「一國兩制，港人治港」？皆出於此：香港人認為殖民地好過共產專制...”
      How to view colonisation is a debated issue in HK, Liu pick it up as he just arrived there.

  3. “曉波從北京發來一篇〈我與開放雜誌結緣十九年〉稿子。文中主動談起八八年那次訪問，寫道... 他說，一句「三百年殖民地」
     的即興回答，成為中共迫害他的「典型證據」，但他不會為自己辯解，「特別是民族主義佔據話語制高點的今日中國，
     我更不想收回這句話。」... 他用一句話來解釋那犯眾怒的「三百年殖民地」之說。即「中國的現代化需要經過長期的西化過
     程方能實現。」”
      He sent me an article mentioned the 88’ interview. He said the prompt answer has been used as 
      an accusation against him. Yet as China’s nationalism is now the highest moral, he will not
      take it back. In the article he explained “300 years’ colonisation”, as “China’s modernisation 
      needs a long process as westernisation.”

  4. “劉曉波被稱為「黑馬」，那放言無忌、一針見血的表達方式，已成為他的標誌… ”
      Liu is an abrupt literature critic. Sarcasm is his writing style.

As a native Chinese, I think Mr. Liu is a rare hero in China. I didn’t think or hear much people was still fighting for democracy in Mainland, since the 89’ Tiananmen crackdown. For it’s risking your job, freedom and putting your family in danger. Not until I heard of Mr. Liu and his persistent work. It’s so sad most of my countrymen don’t even have an access to know who he was and what he really did. Due to the censorship in Mainland, you can’t find any concrete facts about what he did on the internet. Most people searched to know him from “baike”［1］，Chinese equivalent of wikipedia. It only mentions his “colonial” comment, offers no facts about his pro-democracy work. I’ve heard college professor who doesn’t know how to use VPN to visit internet outside China asks “Who is Liu Xiaobo? What did he do except making the ‘colonial’ comment?” No wonder some of the hatred towards him. Yet his relentless effort kindled a fire in those who still wish for democracy in China. Just hope his work will be known to ordinary Chinese other than the ‘colonial’ comment in the future. He will be judged fairly and get the respect he deserves from fellow countrymen.

[1] http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=JKnyWvjwNqi81otv8InKVm28EZGa... (in Chinese）

I can read Chinese as well and I don't see anything opinionated in that quote. There is nothing that says anything positive or negative about Hong Kong. It just says that he suspects that China would have to be colonized for 300 years to reach the same state as Hong Kong, due to its large size.

He does not say whether it would be a good or bad thing. I don't even notice an undertone.

> I can read Chinese as well

I am a native Chinese, which also implies I understand more of the language context. Also it implies I probably can share more of the sentiment as other Chinese people do. So, yes, there is a difference between how people view the exact same content. And I was trying to clarify that.

> China would have to be colonized for 300 years to reach the same state as Hong Kong

Why China needs to reach the same state as Hongkong through Colonial? Does he feel HongKong was at a worse state compared to China at that point? Or HongKong was at a better state?

And, yes, no matter what state Hongkong was at due to the Colonial, China SHOULD NEVER go that path. That is where I cannot agree with Liu.

Any one can justify his words. But I will still hold my opinion on this specific issue after I read quite a lot about Liu, about what he said, about what he wrote, in both Chinese and English articles and documentary.

Neither I nor the quote said that China has to reach the same state as Hong Kong. Nor did I or the quote say that Hong Kong's state was better than China's.

Now maybe it is Liu Xiaobo's belief that China should be like Hong Kong, but that is not necessarily implied by the quote.

Do you also believe that "brain in a jar" thought experiments imply that someone wants to cut your brain out and put it in a jar?

He doesn't need to say if it's good or bad. Google "china africa neo colonialism" to decide for your self if colonization is a good thing for the colonized countries in the eyes of the Western people, unless you think the Chinese merchants and the government behind them are meaning well toward the African poor?

If colonization is a good thing, why in the first place the colonies all sought independence as soon as they had a chance?

Why should China be colonized if colonization is not a good thing (for the Chinese people)?

Do you agree with his jail sentence and permanent house arrest?

What are you trying to say? Is this a question related to my last view or trying to question me?! I cannot figure your point really.

I'm honestly curious to know if you feel that his treatment by the Chinese authorities was just (i.e. in proportion to the perceived crime).

There are a lot of problems with Chinese authorities. There are a lot of things I cannot agree on with them, and I am one of the Chinese people that are trying hard to fix them by doing real work.

Moreover, China != Chinese government. I, personally, hate the opinion that Chinese people who has a "traditional" view is inferior. Yes, they might be "washed" by todays "Chinese system" or education, and you disagree with them. But, it is not their fault.

And most of Liu's view is going towards the direction I really hate. Another example is his calling Chinese people "slaves transformed by the education system".

Again, I am not saying the authorities did the right or best thing. But just Liu is not the person that I would respect.

In other words, if I understand you, imprisoning someone for advocating white supremacy, say, is wrong. On the other hand, advocating white supremacy is not good even if it would be wrong to imprison someone for it.

It's a very simple question, you know.

Love it when topics on China or India pop up. You get all the same subservient pundits posting, but anecdotally the Chinese bots have spelling on their side.

how about just focus on the core issue here? the core issue here is how come someone with such an extremist style view got awarded a nobel prize.

or you may want to explain to me how this whole "China needs to be colonized by the west for 300 years" crap is not extremist style.

That is not even close to the core issue.

The core issue is that the Chinese government locked someone up for stating an opinion. An opinion not much different in substance than then ones you are stating in this thread.

Would you consider it just for you to be imprisoned for your views alone? I would not, and I think that is also true for other people.

he is not jailed for stating that view. the reason for this lock up can be easily searched online.

Why don't you provide a credible source? "Just google for it" is generally what people say to support arguments based on conspiracy theories.

Since that is a well known issue about him. No one thinks it is conspiracy theory. If you want to discuss about Liu, I assume you should do some homework first?

There are two core issues:

1. Liu is not acceptable by a lot of Chinese people due to his aggressive words on colonial and slavers.

2. Liu was sentenced by the gov due to "subversion".

So to judge Liu, we have to look from at least two different angles, not just "he was sentenced".

Few people thinks 2 is right. I, personally, do not agree on 2 too.

And I am now thinking why most people outside China only know about 2 when they try to judge about Liu?

Freedom of speech isn't such a hard concept to understand. Even if you disagree with someone, you don't put them in prison.

Hmm, if Trump speaks for the Russian, persuading the Americans that the US should be colonized by the Russians for 300 years, would you think he should be free doing his presidential business? Especially after he (for example's sake) got awarded some Russian prizes?

If he only expresses some views of his, it's probably OK if he's not influential. If he got awarded some prize that's important worldwide and sometimes awarded to POTUS, well, it's totally a different thing.

Would I think it was good? No.

Would that alone be enough that I would ask him to be imprisoned? Never.

You're confusing a dislike of his opinions for justification for jailing him, yet again.

This has been repeatedly explained: he was not jailed for what he said. His very offensive comments should not get him jailed but with those words in mind, do you think he deserve the nobel peace prize?

If you are interested in how he was jailed, search google, there are tons of articles there.

Hello, I did google it and all I got was he was jailed for 11 years after being convicted of a mysterious charge called "Inciting subversion of state power (煽动颠覆国家政权罪)".

It's not a charge that means a lot to those educated in the west, who would probably view it as a thought crime charge.

Can you explain its use and value better?

Why are you avoiding explaining what he was jailed for?

>Would you consider it just for you to be imprisoned for your views alone?

In most western democracies, you can be imprisoned for a multitude of "thought crimes" - denying the holocaust, inciting racial or religious hatred, encouraging acts of terrorism etc.

The US has uniquely strong protections for free speech, but even there I expect that many people would support a ban on certain kinds of speech. How many Fox News viewers believe that jihadi preachers should be locked up? How many New York Times readers believe that white supremacists should be locked up?

Would you consider it just for Snowden to be exiled out of the country?

Would you consider it just for Assange to be under house arrest in an Embassy?

Would you consider it just for Liu Xiaobo to be under house arrest at his own home?

Well, IMHO, all 3 incidents are unjust. However, they all happened.

Interestingly, Liu Xiaobo earned a Nobel price, but Snowden didn't. Not sure what would happen if the Chinese government awarded Snowden or Assange some special prizes.

I agree with you on all those fronts. All three should be free, without harassment.

The difference is this: Assange and Snowden exposed state secrets. If Liu had done that, he would have been executed a long time ago.

I don't agree with Snowden's treatment either, but it's important not to confuse freedom of speech with dissemination of confidential information.

Remember Assange is wanted for sexual assault and probably should face the sexual assault charges. But it's not realistic that he could do without facing charges related to wikileaks.

Holy cow, how is him getting a prize the core issue, compared to him and his wife being imprisoned for years for stating political views?

Did you actually read the "I Have No Enemies" speech (the linked article)? It is as far from extremism as you can get.

In the speech, Liu spends considerable time praising the Communist Party's progress on human rights:

'The weakening of the enemy mentality has paved the way for the regime to gradually accept the universality of human rights. In [1997 and] 1998 the Chinese government made a commitment to sign two major United Nations international human rights covenants, signaling China's acceptance of universal human rights standards. In 2004, the National People's Congress (NPC) amended the Constitution, writing into the Constitution for the first time that "the state respects and guarantees human rights," signaling that human rights have already become one of the fundamental principles of China's rule of law. At the same time, the current regime puts forth the ideas of “putting people first" and "Creating a harmonious society," signaling progress in the CPC's concept of rule.'

After that, he even praises the progress he saw in jail conditions during the decades he's been in and out of the prison system, and offers thanks to a corrections officer who treated him well!

Ok, here is another quote from Xiaobo in 1990 which shows that he did not hold extremist views as you falsely claim:

My tendency to idealize Western civilization arises from my nationalistic desire to use the West in order to reform China. But this has led me to overlook the flaws in Western culture — or, even if I see them, to set them aside intentionally. I have not, therefore, been able to stand apart from Western culture, take a critical view of it and perhaps get a better view of human frailty more generally. I have been obsequious toward Western civilization, exaggerating its merits, and at the same time exaggerating my own merits. I have viewed the West as if it were not only the salvation of China but also the natural and ultimate destination of all humanity.

I'd imagine that's not a 'safe' question for a Chinese national to answer publicly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com