BR
发帖数: 4151 | 1 他很骄傲自己是中国香港人，但有话对中国大陆学生说。值得一听。
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/10/10/wong-to-harvards-chinese-students/
To Harvard’s Chinese Students
By
Justin Y. C.
The first of October is the national day of China. This year, it was even
the 70th anniversary of the momentous day Mao Zedong proclaimed the
foundation of the People’s Republic of China at Tiananmen Square. Claiming
that “the Chinese people… have now stood up [against the] oppression and
exploitation by foreign imperialism and domestic reactionary governments,”
Mao announced on October 1, 1949 that “the era in which the Chinese people
were regarded as uncivilized is now ended.”
Alongside the symbolic anniversary, I have been reflecting about what it
means to be Chinese. And especially as protests in Hong Kong, a place where
I have grown up and lived in, continue for the fourth month, in no small
part due to the interference from the central Chinese government, I am
grappling with the significant identity crisis — whether to identify as a
Hong Konger, a Hong Konger in China, a Chinese person in Hong Kong, or
Chinese — that many of my fellow Hong Kongers are facing.
Many Hong Kongers recognize that we have lived under legal protections of
religion, expression, and assembly and are guaranteed free trials and human
rights, most of which are unavailable in mainland China. British
colonization, although morally wrong and historically indefensible, left us
with a robust rule of law and the promise that our fundamental human rights
would be preserved for at least a few decades.
As China justifies its actions during the Tiananmen Square massacre by
pointing towards the stability and economic boom that the country has
experienced in the past decade, we in Hong Kong cannot help but point
towards the atrocity that happened when the army was pitted against its
people, the Uyghurs who are forced into re-education camps, and the lawyers
who are persecuted for defending human rights. Conscience preclude us from
falling in line with the national story and identity that Beijing is
spinning.
In China, this view would be dismissed as a blind fondness for foreign
powers or a selfish attempt to pit the Chinese people’s government against
outside forces. And this is internally coherent with both Mao’s rhetoric at
the founding of China and the current government’s understanding of
Chinese history — that the modern Chinese state has overcome a “century of
humiliation” for the Chinese race. By solely emphasizing the solidarity
among Chinese people against foreign powers, the Chinese government has
carefully curtailed a narrative that frames democracy as a Western trap and
dismisses popular discontent and legitimate demands as foreign conspiracies
to divide Chinese unity. According to the Chinese government, one can either
buy into its narrative and its version of Chinese identity or betray their
Chinese identity.
Undeniably, there is a national interest in cultivating patriotism and
stemming the growth of independence or separatist movements, to the limits
of a government’s legitimacy. But to ignore the opinions that motivate
these tendencies and to deny the right to these opinions is autocratic and
delegitimizing. I believe that Hong Kong independence movements are
unrealistic, counterproductive and willfully neglectful of the shared
cultural and ethnical identities among Chinese people. However, the recent
rise of these sentiments is only a symptom of the very real fears of
crackdowns and violations by the Chinese government. In fact, Hong Kong
independence was never a supported movement even under British colonization.
But as the national narrative about identity seems to revolve around the
monolithic gratitude towards the revitalization of the Chinese race, Hong
Kongers have become more inclined to believe that the current protests are
“the last stand” and more have abandoned their Chinese identity.
As we deviate from this predetermined identity of what it means to be
Chinese, what are we left with? Can one be Chinese without loyally buying
into what it means — for the Chinese government — to be Chinese?
I believe so. Harvard, as former University President Charles W. Eliot’s,
Class of 1853, quote on Dexter gate says, encourages students to “Enter to
grow in wisdom” and “Depart to serve better thy country and thy kind.” I
believe that to fulfill this honorable patriotic duty is not to be blindly
nationalistic or to be an apologist about the darker parts of a country’s
history. One should love one’s country not because of indoctrination or
intimidation. Rather, one should rejoice in one’s national identity because
of a shared sense of pride in its history, culture, or fundamental beliefs.
Therefore, when facing the human rights violations of the autocratic
government, one's duty to their country and kind compels one to speak up and
criticise immorality.
I am proud to be a Chinese Hong Konger. My cultural heritage, from
gatherings over yum-cha to the actual tradition of brewing tea, has been
exported around the world, and my ethnicity is an unerasable component of
how I was raised, who I am, and how I see the world. But I regret that this
culture and ethnicity is now being championed by a government who
purportedly claims to protect its people, yet, at the same time, fails to
even respect their basic human rights, dignity, and value.
So for the 70th anniversary of the founding of the modern Chinese state, I
call on Chinese students at Harvard to love their country — not by
unthinkingly accepting the nationalistic narrative and identity, but by
loving and respecting their fellow citizens and being responsible citizens
and citizen-leaders who critically consider what is best for their country
and kind.
Justin Y.C. Wong ’22, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Dunster House. | t********s
发帖数: 4503 | |
|
