Full text of Xi Jinping's speech on the CCP's 100th anniversary
asia.nikkei.com
asia.nikkei.com
I don’t see what the issue is.
I'm sure it would be possible to write a super interesting analysis of a document like this - for example, how it differs from speeches in previous periods, how it fits into the history of political propaganda, one could go on - but a large, anonymous internet forum is unfortunately not the medium for that. Any interesting and original commentary will be quickly be drowned out by flames, and indeed get set on fire in its own right by the numerous population who are interested only in loudly repeating what they already think and feel. To get a curious conversation about something like this would require barriers to entry that, for better or worse, HN doesn't have.
That's a very reductive and oriented political statement.
This happens to be a speech by the leader of one of the major powers on this planet. It is also full of historical and cultural references.
At the very least an attempt to understand his and China's point of view should be intellectually interesting and may lead to a better understanding among people of different cultures.
I agree with your point that any attempt to discuss this would lead to flame wars and drown any interesting comments. This is unfortunately the state of things on HN. Nonetheless, I feel that dismissing the submission on the basis that it is from a "communist party leader" lacks intellectual curiosity and is, as said, a political and preconceived opinion.
Speeches by leaders of major powers are generally off topic on HN. They all make them all the time. It takes a subtle and experienced eye to read anything interesting in them. More importantly, this is not a geopolitics site.
A 100th anniversary speech is arguably a little less garden-variety, but then again, arguably not - there's always some historical event at hand to tie the latest speech to, and the latest speech is always about the geopolitics of the present.
I don't see how this is in any way a controversial call. Biden speeches and Putin speeches aren't on topic here either, barring something super unusual.
Then don't make a specific point of it, because your previous statement makes it sound like you do care. "Speeches by leaders of major powers are generally off topic on HN" would have done the job.
Which would be a much better thing than the text itself for HN.
Though, given past experience with the topic, still likely to devolve into nationalistic flamewar.
The first one: ...we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us. Anyone who would attempt to do so will __find themselves on a collision course__ with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.
The second one (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Xi-vows-to-crush-meddling-f...): the Chinese people will never allow any outside forces to bully, oppress or enslave us. Anyone who tries to do so will __be crushed to death before__ the Great Wall of steel built with the flesh and blood of over 1.4 billion Chinese people.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%A0%AD%E7%A0%B4%E8%A1%80%E...
[1] https://www.sohu.com/a/427753259_119038
[2] https://peoplesdaily.pdnews.cn/opinions/us-interferes-in-oth...
The full quote is:
"We Chinese are a people who uphold justice and are not intimidated by threats of force. As a nation, we have a strong sense of pride and confidence. We have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will. By the same token, we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us. Anyone who would attempt to do so will find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people."
With the context added, it is a bit more boring.
1. "男子网吧摔伤头破血流坚持打游戏直到晕厥" - A man fell in a Internet cafe, 头破血流(literal meaning), kept playing games until he fainted.
2. "为音乐版权打得头破血流值不值" - Is it worth (for music industry) to fight over copyrights that all parties 头破血流 ? It is used in a figurative way, meaning "to lose very badly".
Isn't bullying one of their prefered tactics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurting_the_feelings_of_the_Ch...
I mean, China does use bullying, especially on racially Chinese people who live in other nations. But I don't think this counts. It's still an abuse of peoples' good faith and good nature, but it's not bullying.
At best, "hurting the feelings of the Chinese people" assumes that everyone else has a "face" culture similar to China's, and therefore will respect the complaint. At worst, it makes China sound like an emo teenager, which is almost certainly not the image that they want to project...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/01/china/ccp-100-beijing-chi...
"Anyone who dares to try, will find their heads bashed bloody against a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people," added Xi, in comments that later appeared to be softened in the government's own English language translation.
At a minimum, Tibet. But I suppose if you take over a place, then you define it as part of your country, and so now you're not subjugating the people of another country...
And what bugs me is that, by the same logic, they aren't doing so with the Uighurs. And they weren't when they broke the terms of the deal with Hong Kong. And they wouldn't be doing so if/when they overrun Taiwan. It's all China, right?
Cambodia? Vietnam (in retaliation for Vietnam’s contribution to the Cambodia thing not working out)?
I know it gets overlooked because it was in the shadow and aftermath of the US interventions in the same places, but they happened, and can’t even be swept up in the “But that's not another country” thing as easily.
By calling him a President, the western government and media is legitimizing a dictator.
Some point out that the CCP wants him to be called as President in English, but the simple fact is that President = 总统 in Chinese, and Chairman = 主席. There is zero ambiguity here. It's just a CCP word game. If the CCP really really really want to call him as a President, try call him as 总统 in Chinese first.
> He is NOT a President.
The English of version gov.cn, names him as president rather than chairman. http://english1.english.gov.cn/2013-03/14/content_2353971.ht...
He is also Chairman of the Central Military Commission, though my understanding is that these go hand in hand.
He is also General Secretary of the Communist Party, so in the the context of the speech I suppose that this may be the most fitting title.
Edit: In response to temp8964 (reply to this comment):
What's the difference between Chairman and President in your translation of that title?
I understand that 主席 often (always?) refers to committees, etc, which may be translated as 'chairman' because of that. But really the difference between 'president' and 'chairman' is etymology and usage rather than strict definition, like is often the case in English: 2 words meaning the same thing with one of Latin/French origin and 'posher' and one of Anglo-Saxon origin.
A chairman presides. A president presides.
The usage seems to be that a chairman presides a committee and that a president presides a government.
Does he want to be be called president? Or was it decided that this was a better contextual translation?
This is arguing over nothing, really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People's_Repu...
Add: another thing you forgot, historically, the PRC head is always called chairman. Have you heard of Chairman Mao? Changing chairman to president is CCP's intentional effort in the word game.
What difference does it make? Turns out those who cry out against propaganda are just peddling their own version of propaganda.
I hope there can be an completely objective outlet that simply does not allow any opinion. Just the facts, no more and no less, but by the looks of it that's going to get much subscription if at all. If anything Facebook sort of showed us what this new age of news are going to be, and it's not in the direction of objectivity.
The best that can be done is a clear and well defined ideological and interest bias and good knowledge of these ideologies combined with variety of sources.
Since his power does not go beyond what a nation's president does towards other nations.
Of course he is far more domestic power than some countries' president (and far less than even more).
But is he a dictator? At least not based on any common sense. I mean, Joe Biden called Puttin a killer. If Xi is a dictator, I bet Joe Biden would at least mention that.
"We Chinese are a people who uphold justice and are not intimidated by threats of force. As a nation, we have a strong sense of pride and confidence. We have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will. By the same token, we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us. Anyone who would attempt to do so will find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people."
Eg. at:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/01/china/ccp-100-beijing-chi...
Foreign countries that 'bully' China will meet a 'great wall of steel,' says Xi during Communist Party centenary
China has indeed been bullied, oppressed, and subjugated by foreign forces in the recent past. That's has been key in Chinese politics over the last century. He is sending the message that this is not to happen again and that China is now strong enough to defend itself and to assert its own interests.
This is neither an aggressive nor controversial statement, really. I don't know any country that's happy to be bullied or oppressed.
Except the "Xinjiang forced labor", are there other claims of forced labor in the poverty elimination campaign?
I am just curious about the media report landscape, since I have not seen anything other than Xinjiang reports.
It was also occasionally reported in the media [1][2][3].
[0] https://chinalaborwatch.org/silent-victims-of-labor-traffick...
[1] https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/arti...
[2] https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/life-chinese...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-labo...
That was in 2012. Maybe Xi is OK, but this just makes me think that if one person ever gets hold of that system in a totalitarian way, he'll have 1/6 of the world to control. It could happen any time.
I doubt anyone will be able to unilaterally control the CCP. For Xi to get where he was and to stay where he is, a gigantic faction in the CCP had to support his platform, and he largely relies on them to confirm him every four years.
For example, the survival of Xi Jinping was arguably crucially because of the non-reformist factions retaining sufficient control over the universities to preserve, with much compromise, Marxist ideology. Had the curriculum swung harder in the liberal direction, Xi probably wouldn't have been able to gain power.
I’m not deeply familiar with the inner workings and organization of the CCP. Any leads on how best to learn more?
"That I love peace appears perhaps most clearly from my work: in that lies the difference between me and these war-mongers....And how many of these works will need ten or twenty years before they are completed! I have then good reason enough to wish for peace. But these agitators have no use for peace; since they create nothing for peace, they are not working for peace." - Adolf Hitler May 1, 1939
I'd ask a Uyghur but they're in Lake Laogai
2/3 of people in Taiwan identify as Taiwanese exclusively: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7800&id=6961
>people in ... Taiwan overwhelmingly consider themselves to be ... part of China
For those not familiar with the situation, Taiwan is the "Republic of China" as opposed to the "People's Republic of China". "China" in English is ambiguous as it could mean 中國, 中華民國, or 中華人民共和國 (usually meaning the last one nowadays). Both the ROC (中華民國) and PRC (中華人民共和國) claim to represent "China" (中國) according to their constitutions, but the PRC is the representative of "China" (中國) at the United Nations since 1971.
The ROC government still claims all of China after all, just like the PRC.
Majority of Hong Kong people [1] or Taiwan people [2] do not consider themselves to be Chinese.
[1]: https://www.pori.hk/pop-poll/ethnic-identity-en/q001.html?la...
[2]: https://ipdefenseforum.com/2021/02/taiwan-poll-finds-citizen...
It's a punishment on Vietnam's foreign invasion into Cambodia and Thailand.
You can call it a bully. But usually such behavior is more neutrally assessed.
>It was even referred to as an embarrassment internally
The theory was Deng, new in power intentionally wanted to embarrass powerful PLA brass to consolidate power. He was successful in that regard. It embarrassed the right people, by design.
>and directly led to modernization of the PRC military.
PLA modernization was in response to US stomping Iraq in Gulf War later. Anemic PLA was sufficient for Vietnam if they chose to press on with campaign. Poverty navy was enough for SCS against Vietnam (the other Sino-Vietnam war). Vietnam had very little influence on PLA modernization.
>because they lost
Categorical success in retrospect. PRC set back Vietnam development by 10+ years, forced CPV to dump resources into defense spending while wrecking enough of the country that Vietnam missed out on FDI that went straight to modernizing PRC. Current boom in Vietnam could have happened decade+ earlier during a period with greater potential to capitalize on offshoring before automation.
Common thread in these events is that PRC focused on / won political victories, i.e. war is merely the continuation of politics with other means. That said politics as alternative to war still realistically involves bullying.
"If one day China should change her colour and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it." -- Deng Xiaoping, 10 April, 1974.