Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

This is the classic "what breaks you only make you stronger" but in a very aggressive way. Throughout history those who were oppressed and then made it to the top would usually end up wanting to seize full control and more oppressive than their oppressors. Xi looks friendly to the people, but there is a Chinese saying: 笑裡藏刀 (xiào lǐ cáng dāo)or "smile in hiding knife.” He is the alpha male of the entire Party.

On one hand I like Xi's effort to clean up the corrupted senior officials. It was about time, but now he has the absolute power (military, justice, and executive) under the chair of the Party's control is alarming. I know a lot of Chinese natives (for what it is worth, I was born and raised in HK until I was 12) who refuse to believe in all the bad things happening in China, and refuse to recognize tragedy such as Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. They also become very emotional when it comes to Taiwan's relationship with China. But China isn't the only country in the world censoring and rewriting history. Japan tried to cover up its war crime during WW2. Other Western countries tried too. [1]

I hate the fact today we still have governments and citizens who refuse to recognize the wrongdoings in their country's history, and fail to work toward a peaceful resolution once and for all. All the fights for territories and borders, all the ethic group fighting over historical hates and war crimes (e.g. Myanmar vs Rohingya). Time to wake THE FUCK UP...

If we let go of our pasts, and our irrational prides, especially those we inherited from generations before us, then this world would finally have peace. Of course, the sad reality is we won't and will never be able to. Money prints off blood, and power is measured by the number of coffins and the fall of oppositions. Make no mistake, we can't compromise human values in exchange for stability. But this is how Xi and every leader in the world thinks of governance. Forgive, and be more compassionate. What is more important than saving lives and make people feel they are humans again, and not a war machine?

[1]: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p--9_Bennett.html

You're not wrong about some mainland Chinese refusing to believe (or never learning in the first place) anything about 6/4. My wife is among them, or used to be at least. Then again if you ask the average US freshman if the US military shot and killed a bunch of student protestors, you'd find a number who wouldn't believe you. Difference is in the US a trivial we search answers that question for you, while in China all record of 6/4 is scrubbed, and even acronyms that you use to mention it get scrubbed, etc.

For everyone else who doesn't know what "6/4" refers to, it refers to the date of the Tiananmen Square protests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1...

To be exact, it refers to the massacre. The protests lasted for a long time before the crackdown.

A Day To Remember. A short video where they ask Chinese University students, "what day is today." Filmed in 2005...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCPkkGArVy4

I watch this clip a lot around the 6/4 anniversary. This is not the original copy, that's somewhere on Vimeo I think.

Wow, the discomfort is intense. How much is that from being video recorded w/o consent?

That's in 2005.

CCP's online control only got worst these years.

Today if you ask average young people on the street in China about 4 Jun, some (If not many) of them may even don't understand what you're talking about.

It isn't 6/4, but May 35th (5/35). It isn't completely scrubbed, many know it happened, they just don't talk about it because (a) they don't care and (b) they aren't allowed to (in that order). Historical reflection is where the Chinese gov really clamps down, and even the cultural revolution is taboo even if everyone knows just about what happened.

Kent state happened so long ago that most American students just don't know, or anything much that happened during Vietnam, which our history classes don't seem to have time to cover. In china, its a bit worse, as they have the siege of Changchun (the communists basically starved out a few hundred thousand civilians), or the 1938 yellow river flood, where the nationalists killed millions of civilians to thwart the Japanese. In those contexts, Tiananmen is just a blip.

AFAIK as a Chinese, the 1938 incident is known to many since it was said to be Jiang's decision. As of Changchun, I saw that topic a few times in some forums 10+ years ago.

The things people want to know change over time as well. Now, China is feeling its power and strength like a growing teenager (not very accurate, but you get what I mean), so the glory of the past, now and future is what people want to know. Zhanlang 2 (War Wolf 2)'s phenomenal financial success (close to 1bn usd box office maybe?) is a recent strong signal.

Chest beating is a thing in the USA also, some of our block buster movies can be like that.

> "growing teenager"

This is an incrediable naive and patronizing phrase to describe China's accumulation of power.

As a matter of fact, China's ascending is the most peaceful and constrained among all past super powers in the world history.

Peaceful and constrained to whom?

I guess a better question, so that I can understand, is when are you considering their ascension to have begun?

Also, the person you responded to is Chinese. I suppose they can be patronizing if they want? In fact, I can't think of a person more able to be justifiably patronizing. I find criticism from within to be better than criticism from abroad, generally speaking.

But, mostly I just am curious about what point in time you're using as the start of China's ascension. If it is 1990, I'm inclined to agree. If it is 1945, I am skeptical.

I specifically mentioned that analogy was not accurate. I have to add that it's the kind of feeling that directly reflects teenager's physical growth, taller, quicker, faster, stronger, etc. Perhaps my original analogy led you to relate to the emotional side more. Especially in western societies, that can turn to more physical impact. Teenagers in China actually have that kind of things as well, but there is simply less room for them.

Another thing is, in a world with several nuclear weapon equipped states, can two such nations simply confront with each other? Look around east Asia, you have to play very carefully.

So I guess there should have been more context to put in to have a better idea of what I was trying to deliver. If some big and vague words can explain, yeah, it's cultural difference, too.

China has 5000 years of ascending to superpower status, not all of it very peaceful. If you mean China hasn't invaded another country since 1979, well, sure, I'll give you that.

Yes, I think this post pretty much frame the discussion after the "open and reform" era.

So the era just before that when they were not doing very well and we're engaged in non peaceful activities doesn't count. Got it.

I am not sure what you want to say.

This post is about Xi, which took office in 2012. And the aspects initiates my post is about China's recent movement to more openly show off its power.

What's the point of "when they were not doing very well" in this context?

> we're engaged in non peaceful activities

What does this refer to?

I mean, you count China's rise as coinciding with the time just after they were being hostile to their neighbors. A rosy filter to be sure.

I said China's rise is the most peaceful among all super powers in history, I did not say that China's rise will be that it is nice to neighbors.

I also did not count any timing. I just said it's the most peaceful.

Realistically, a super power by definition means it wields more power than others, that definitely means unfriendly behavior to others, especially the neighbors. That's why China uses the word "the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation", that's both a correct and accurate slogan, and a non-aggressive way of rosy filtering what gonna happen.

> As a matter of fact, China's ascending is the most peaceful and constrained among all past super powers in the world history.

Alternative facts, maybe. Just look up the South China Sea, Doklam, constant agitation with India and Japan to see how peaceful China's rise is.

Well, China has solid legal ground to claim that she owns those areas. Peaceful rise does not translate to blindly avoiding conflicts.

China does not have solid legal founds for their claims, they do have a bunch of anecdotes though (e.g. The nationalists got a small USN boat to take them to visit them, so they think this means the USA must have approved of their claim).

>magically appearing artificial islands

>solid legal ground

one of those things has to be false.

> As a matter of fact, China's ascending is the most peaceful and constrained among all past super powers in the world history

The late forties granted the United States a global nuclear, and near industrial, monopoly. We didn’t exploit it.

Then again if you ask the average US freshman if the US military shot and killed a bunch of student protestors, you'd find a number who wouldn't believe you.

Saying "US military" is somewhat misleading.

The soldiers who shot and killed four students at Kent State University were part of what we call the "National Guard".[1] These are reserve military units.

National Guardsmen usually have full-time civilian jobs and are only called into service when needed. Sometimes these soldiers are called "weekend warriors". A National Guard unit is controlled by an individual state up until the time that the US government needs its services.

It would be more correct to call those soldiers "Ohio state military". At the time of the shootings, the National Guard unit involved was under the control of Governor Rhodes of the State of Ohio.[2]

There is a big distinction in the USA between "federal" (aka national US) and "state" government. This distinction isn't necessarily clear to foreigners. Granted, this distinction isn't necessarily clear to about 70% of US citizens either. But that's an entire other discussion.

Edit: the law has been updated since then, but something called the Posse Comitatus Act was in effect at the time.[3] It is against the law for the US military to act as a domestic police force:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Downvotes? Really? I've never complained about downvotes before, but this is rich!

Today's millennials aren't interested in understanding "federalism", which is one of the founding tenets of the USA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

> Other Western countries tried too. [1]

> [1]: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p--9_Bennett.html

I read 2/3 of that article with some interest and occasional surprise until I ran into the part where the holocaust is flat out denied and the bombing of German cities called the greatest war crime of WWII.

Judging by the fact that you share that link as if it's well-researched truth I wonder what your agenda is. Do you believe that, and I quote, "there was no plan to exterminate Jews in World War II"? If not, why do you quote that article as if it has merit?

The weird thing is that the article does not support your argument. Your argument is against nationalism, and I passionately agree with you there. The article you quote is all about, and I quote again, "the fallacious belief that multi-racial societies are viable".

A better translation for 笑裡藏刀 is "Hide a knife behind a smile". I'm not being critical, just making it easier to understand for others.

> This is the classic "what breaks you only make you stronger" but in a very aggressive way.

imo This is just continuing effects from the trauma of Cultural Revolution, with fear & self preservation being the primary motivation of the China's red nobility. I remember reading that one of Deng Xiaoping's major reasons to crush the Democracy rallies was because he feared an uprising and being under house arrest again. It makes you wonder what China will be like if you have leadership who didn't experience the bad end of the Cultural Revolution firsthand

If you are aware of the movements(运动) in the ruling party's history, the effort to cleanse is nothing new. But we did not see that for a while.

Today is tomorrow's history. Compared with yesterday, today is not that different from yesterday. But history does not simply repeat itself, either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com