Blog | 16 Jul 2017
Liu Xiaobo’s views were neo-con, colonialist and semi-racist against China – which is not a reason to welcome his death
The treatment of Liu Xiaobo, who has just died, by the mainstream Western media is a classic example of its hypocrisy and real anti-China motives. Liu Xiaobo was presented by them as a ‘hero of human rights’. The reality is his views would have placed him in the West as a neo-con with a twist of racism thrown in.
An excellent analysis of this is given in Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong’s article ‘Do supporters of Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo really know what he stands for?’ Readers are strongly recommended to look at the whole article but the following excerpts will give the taste of Li Xiaobo’s views:
‘in his article Lessons from the Cold War, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.”
’During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu warmly praised George Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US’s wars:
[T]he outstanding achievement made by Bush in anti-terrorism absolutely cannot be erased by Kerry’s slandering … However much risk must be endured in striking down Saddam Hussein, know that no action would lead to a greater risk. This has been proven by the second world war and September 11! No matter what, the war against Saddam Hussein is just! The decision by President Bush is right!
The unpleasant semi-racist or xenophobic twist was Liu’s denigration of China. According to him the Chinese were ‘wimpy, spineless, and fucked up’:
‘Liu has also advocated the total westernisation of China. In a 1988 interview he stated that “to choose westernisation is to choose to be human“. He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticising Chinese culture and not advocating westernisation enthusiastically enough: “If I were to make this I would show just how wimpy, spineless and fucked-up [weisuo, ruanruo, caodan] the Chinese really are”. Liu considered it most unfortunate that his monolingualism bound him in a dialogue with something “very benighted [yumei] and philistine [yongsu],” the Chinese cultural sphere. Harvard researcher Lin Tongqi noted that an early 1990s book by Liu contains “pungent attacks on the Chinese national character”.
In line with his Liu Xiaobo thought colonisation could play a good role for China:
‘It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough.’
What would be the reaction in the US to someone who said ‘Americans are wimpy, spineless and fucked-up’ and supported George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq? They would be regarded as a progressive figure? Please tell another a joke.
Liu Xiaobo was supported by forces in the West, and ridiculously given the Nobel Peace Prize, because he was a useful person to spread anti-China propaganda. That is the truth as his views show.
There are few people whose death is to be welcomed (Hitler excluded) and Liu Xiaobo did not come in that category. But that should not hide the truth about his real views or prevent demolition of the ridiculous attempt to present those views as representing ‘human rights’.
An excellent analysis of this is given in Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong’s article ‘Do supporters of Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo really know what he stands for?’ Readers are strongly recommended to look at the whole article but the following excerpts will give the taste of Li Xiaobo’s views:
‘in his article Lessons from the Cold War, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.”
’During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu warmly praised George Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US’s wars:
[T]he outstanding achievement made by Bush in anti-terrorism absolutely cannot be erased by Kerry’s slandering … However much risk must be endured in striking down Saddam Hussein, know that no action would lead to a greater risk. This has been proven by the second world war and September 11! No matter what, the war against Saddam Hussein is just! The decision by President Bush is right!
The unpleasant semi-racist or xenophobic twist was Liu’s denigration of China. According to him the Chinese were ‘wimpy, spineless, and fucked up’:
‘Liu has also advocated the total westernisation of China. In a 1988 interview he stated that “to choose westernisation is to choose to be human“. He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticising Chinese culture and not advocating westernisation enthusiastically enough: “If I were to make this I would show just how wimpy, spineless and fucked-up [weisuo, ruanruo, caodan] the Chinese really are”. Liu considered it most unfortunate that his monolingualism bound him in a dialogue with something “very benighted [yumei] and philistine [yongsu],” the Chinese cultural sphere. Harvard researcher Lin Tongqi noted that an early 1990s book by Liu contains “pungent attacks on the Chinese national character”.
In line with his Liu Xiaobo thought colonisation could play a good role for China:
‘It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough.’
What would be the reaction in the US to someone who said ‘Americans are wimpy, spineless and fucked-up’ and supported George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq? They would be regarded as a progressive figure? Please tell another a joke.
Liu Xiaobo was supported by forces in the West, and ridiculously given the Nobel Peace Prize, because he was a useful person to spread anti-China propaganda. That is the truth as his views show.
There are few people whose death is to be welcomed (Hitler excluded) and Liu Xiaobo did not come in that category. But that should not hide the truth about his real views or prevent demolition of the ridiculous attempt to present those views as representing ‘human rights’.