中左翼社会民主主义者；希望为没有话语权的边缘人群发声者；致力于改善民权民生，做些实事
Critical Discourse on "Cultural Pluralism" and "De-Westcentrism"/"De-Han-centrism"(upper part)
Critical Discourse on "Cultural Pluralism" and "De-Westcentrism"/"De-Han-centrism" 1
With regard to the "cultural pluralism/cultural relativism" and "de-centralization" prevalent in the West, while they appear to be more inclusive, pluralistic and liberal, they are not as good as they seem from the point of view of human rights and progress. In many cases, this has even had a very negative effect, violating more fundamental universal human rights standards and hindering the progress of human civilization.
Its core fallacy is to force all cultures/values/civilizations to be seen as civilizations with no distinction between good and bad, good and evil, good and evil contributions. This may appear to be equal and non-discriminatory, but it ignores the significant differences in the degree of human rights protection and social progress under different civilizations, as well as the benefits and harms to the whole of humankind and the course of history.
China, Russia, and the Arab countries' "anti-Westernism", "independence", and "multi-polarity": they appear to be pursuing equality of civilizations and equality of nations/communities, but in fact they reject universal values. and modern civilization
China, Russia, the Arab/Islamic world, and many countries and ethnic groups in South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America nowadays have adopted the principles of "opposing hegemony", "opposing the monopoly of discourse by the West", and "removing the remnants of colonialism". They also advocate "multipolarization of the world", which seems to defend the plurality of the world, but in fact is a means of resisting universal values and rejecting modern civilization.
If, according to the "cultural pluralism" viewpoint of some left-wing/progressives in the West, the social customs and values formed in these countries by religious brainwashing, violent oppression and authoritarian clampdown are treated with the same respect as the mainstream Western values (even deliberately belittling and suppressing the West's own civilization to express self-reflection, anti-hegemony, humility and modesty), and "make amends" for the disadvantaged, then it would be better to "make amends" for the disadvantaged, as well as "make amends" for the disadvantaged. The fact that the Western civilization is not the same as the mainstream Western values (and even deliberately belittles and suppresses the Western civilization to show introspection, anti-hegemony, humility and humility, and to "make amends" for the disadvantaged) is not conducive to the improvement of human rights in these countries and communities.
（Of course, the legitimate rights and dignity of these countries and communities should be respected and supported. On the one hand, we should not ignore their internal human rights oppression because of pluralism, and on the other hand, we should not treat them as inferior countries and ethnic groups and insult them with overall discrimination because of their human rights deficiencies, not to mention whitewashing their brutal behavior during the colonial rule. On the contrary, the nationals of these countries, especially the lower classes, are the victims of tyrannical systems and cruel societies, and deserve the sympathy and help of all countries in the world, not to mention discrimination and degradation. The national dignity and defense of sovereignty of these oppressed countries should be respected and supported.)
Reflections on anti-white supremacy and affirmative action in Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: with the differences in the level of civilization and contributions of different ethnic groups, would there be today's affirmative action policies, objective historical accounts, and pluralism if inter-ethnic interrelationships and positions of comparative advantage were reversed?
Countries like Europe, America and even Canada, Australia and New Zealand also emphasize respect for Indians, Maori and other aboriginal people and ideas and cultures (among these countries, Australia, where whiteness and discrimination against aboriginal people are still more serious so far, also has affirmative action). This is certainly true if, in terms of protecting the rights and dignity of vulnerable nationals, there should be respect, understanding, and, where necessary, protection for Aboriginal and various vulnerable peoples and their cultures.
But are these communities as civilized and contributing to humanity as the relevant communities dominated by European cultures (e.g. Anglo-French)? Including other disadvantaged ethnic groups such as Latinos, African-Americans, and Arabs, who on the one hand opposed racial and cultural discrimination and white/European cultural hegemony, but after immigrating to the United States, did they go to live in predominantly white cities such as New York, or did they go to Indian reservations to live out their lives?
For nearly three hundred years, the European-origin cultural communities have dominated and dominated politically, economically, militarily, and in various other ways, and have also killed and oppressed other communities, and then gradually woke up to the guilt of colonialism and expansionism, and in the last few decades (mainly after the 1960s) have introduced a series of concepts of values, social movements, and affirmative action policies respecting minority groups. This is indeed praiseworthy and recognizable and a great advancement for humanity.
But hypothetically, if the ethnic historical relations were reversed, and it was the Indians, Afro-descendants, Asians (like Japan in WWII) who defeated the Whites/Europeans and Europeans militarily, while the cultural patterns were still old-fashioned and barbaric, would they have apologized and equalized rights for the Whites/Europeans? Will they respect the plurality of ethnic groups and cultures, or will they monopolize the discourse and extinguish the plurality (or create a violent plurality where the ethnic groups are pitted against each other) in a way that savagery dominates civilization? Partial conclusions can be drawn by looking at what the Mongols and Jurchen did to the Han Chinese, the Turks to the Armenians and Greeks, and the Russians to the Poles and Lithuanians.
Also, some of the former western colonized countries and regions, which now seem more secular and progressive (or at least not too bad), were to some extent influenced by advanced western thought and culture. For example, the former British colonies of India and Hong Kong, France's Algeria, Mali, and French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) have had many beneficial influences on their political institutions, rule of law systems, economic models, national literacy, and social mores from their sovereigns. While colonialism is of course full of evils and should be criticized, the promotion of relatively backward regions by relatively civilized countries should not be overlooked.
Moreover, if, in contrast, civilization and development remained the same, it was the Indians/Malays/Egyptians who colonized Britain, Mali/Algeria who colonized France (as well as "French Guiana", which is still a French-ruled territory, which reversed its status and became a suzerain state; and metropolitan France instead became "French Guiana"), what would Britain and France look like today? Would the French Revolution and the British Charter Movement still have happened? Would liberty, equality and fraternity still be the national motto of France? Even for the Malians, Algerians and Guyanese, who were the ruling people and colonizers, would their civilization be on par with that of the Malians/Algerians (who were colonized by France before, and then liberated, but still maintain close relations with France) and the Guyanese, who are still French citizens? Would most of these former French colonies have a relatively well-developed framework of democracy and the rule of law, and a relatively strong belief in liberty, equality and fraternity, as they do now?
And would the overall level of civilization, such as the degree of democracy, the level of rule of law, the degree of freedom of the masses, the level of social welfare, and the prosperity/degradation of thought and culture in such a world be better or worse than it is now? The same can be said about what the Mongols, the Manchus/Manchus, and the Goths did after colonizing the more advanced civilized peoples, and the effects of their conquests and domination on themselves, on the dominated peoples, and on the civilization of the world as a whole.
There is also, for example, all sorts of serious racial discrimination in the United States, and to some extent in Europe, with blacks being particularly victimized. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, is almost exclusively a black-dominated country, and because it is all black, there is certainly no racial discrimination against blacks. But blacks in Africa still travel to the United States through various channels, preferring to put up with racial discrimination in the United States and Europe rather than live in a black country where there is no racial discrimination against them.
Why is this? Not only because the United States and Europe are rich, but also because the United States and Europe have a high degree of democracy, the rule of law and civilization, and the loss of material and mental harm suffered by blacks as a result of being discriminated against is lower than the other material and immaterial respect, protection, and benefits they receive. In the mother country is not racial discrimination, but all kinds of barbarism, violence, conspiracy, tyranny, even if the spiritual level, the harm is far greater than in the United States and Europe suffered racial discrimination. This is a good example of how the level of civilization affects the rights, dignity and interests of individuals more than the equality of ethnic groups.
In addition, the fields of history, political science, culture and education in Europe and the United States nowadays all emphasize ethnic equality, objective commentary on history, and even put special emphasis on the historical evils of the white man himself. The academic fields of Europe and the United States have, on the whole, achieved a considerable degree of objectivity and fairness, as well as self-examination and repentance. Is this an inevitable result of historical development and progress in the humanities, or is it something that can only be achieved by a relatively enlightened and progressive civilization such as modern Western civilization? Can today's objective, honest, and inclusive view of history and scholarship be achieved without the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the political revolutions in Europe, the series of innovations after World War II, and the form of modern Western civilization based on them? If non-Europeans had dominated Europe and the United States and even the world, would they have been objective and fair in writing history books, discussing politics, and the content and form of culture and education? Would they be so strongly self-critical and reflective? Would there still be respect for diversity?
"New Qing history", "Inner Asian view of history", exaltation of relatively barbaric groups: bloody killings by Manchu/Mongolians (including their massacres and extermination of other nomadic/fishermen/barbarbarians), brutal rule, hierarchical system; "anti-great unification"; "only anti-Han "great unification" and praising barbarian "great unification"; limitations of Vizhinese and Tibetan civilization; glory of ancient Rome and Greece, invasion of Western barbarians "anti-great unification" only against Han "great unification" and praising barbarian "great unification"; limitations of Vizhinese civilization; the glory of ancient Rome and Greece, the invasion of Western barbarians and the darkness of the Middle Ages; the impact of Russian Tatarization on Russian history and reality; the rise of the Hungarian Orban The impact of Tatarization in Russia on the history and reality of the Russians; the rise of Orbán in Hungary and his state policy, national values, words and deeds, reflecting the cold intolerance of the barbarians
In recent years, the "New Qing History" and "Inner Asian Historiography" of the West have emerged and become more and more enthusiastic, and they are very keen on praising the female genitalia, Mongolia, Xiongnu, and other nomadic peoples, and belittling the Han Chinese and their dynasties, that is, the "de-Han-centrist" view of history. This is the "de-Han-centrism" view of history. In addition, out of the anti-"Western-centeredness" and "de-Western-centeredness", they disparaged the modern West and touted the Qing Dynasty (so the Manchu Qing Dynasty was greatly elevated).
In this regard, the famous Chinese scholar Qin Hui is quite unimpressed and has criticized it in some interviews. Prof. Qin said, "After the 1990s, the study of Qing history in China has been greatly influenced by the West. It is because the entire Western sinology community was influenced by the concepts of "pluralism is beauty" and "de-centrism" after the 1960s. Out of the "de-Western centrism", the Western sinology community has been holding the Qing Dynasty in high regard. Later, they further "de-centered" the Qing dynasty, so that the Western sinology community is very prominent in the Qing dynasty's internal Asian factors or non-Han factors....... The acceptance of the Western new Qing history by the domestic historiography community is very pragmatic. When Western scholars held up the Qing, the domestic historiography community responded positively based on their rejection of Western centrism and spoke highly of the Qing. However, when the new Qing history talked about the Manchus and other Inner Asian factors, many domestic scholars felt that this constituted a strong conflict with the Great Unification. There was a strong backlash against the new Qing history."
But there are many other Chinese and foreign scholars who, for a variety of reasons, are quite appreciative of this type of historical outlook and position.
They feel that this subverts the hegemony of the traditional Western/Han discourse, is innovative and progressive in historiography, and is even conducive to the pluralism of human civilization. However, they have overlooked the brutal destruction of a relatively developed and humane civilization in the course of the conquest of agrarian/industrial/commercial/maritime civilization by the nomadic/fishery-hunting peoples of Inner Asia, the ethnic oppression, brutal captivity, the killing and maiming of human rights by hierarchical systems under their domination, the undermining of progress, the trampling on the disadvantaged groups, and the further deepening of exploitation and injustice in comparison with the Confucian-Buddhist-Doctrinal values-dominated dynasties ruled by their own kind of emperors and bureaucrats. The exploitation, injustice, and violence in the social environment and in human relations have been greatly exacerbated by the dynasties dominated by Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist values.
Moreover, in contrast to the Han-led dynasties, which took the "rule of literature" as their main line, and made the governance of the country, the flourishing of culture, and the development of people's livelihoods the main criteria for evaluating the merits of the dynasties and emperors, the barbarian regimes, such as the Mongols and Manchus, took violent conquests, expansions, and repressions as their "main business" and "main business" as their "main business" and "main business" as their "main business". The barbarian regimes, such as the Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing, used violent conquest, expansion and suppression as the "main business" of the regimes, and "martial arts" as the main criterion for evaluating the size of the achievements. These non-Han forces took pride in their capacity for violence and regarded the killing of others as an achievement, which served as the basis for the regime's survival and self-evaluation.
All of this has been ignored, not mentioned, and avoided by researchers of "New Qing History" and "Inner Asian History". It is even more ironic that while the "New Qing History" boasts the "Inner Asian Historical Perspective" and touts the Manchurian nation, it avoids the issue of the massacre of the Mongolian Jungians by the Manchus, which also belongs to the "Inner Asia", and some have even moved this issue to a different context. Some people have even transferred this issue to the Han Chinese and believe that it was the Han Chinese who did it. The Mongols also massacred other "Inner Asian" ethnic groups such as the Xixia/Danghang (and almost completely destroyed their material and non-material culture, their language and writing, and all kinds of heritage sites) and the Huarazimo in an almost genocidal manner. Other Inner Asian groups have also been in a constant state of killing and being killed, and the level of violence in the relations between the Inner Asian groups is much higher than that of the conflicts between the different regimes and settlements in the Han area. Scholars of "Inner Asian history" have been equally evasive and silent on these issues, and when they do mention them, they do so in a light-hearted manner. (On the contrary, the Han did not engage in such brutal and frequent genocide, and even when they did annex races, they did so in a civilized and assimilative manner.)
The Uyghurs/Turks and Tibetans, on the other hand, don't have such deep grudges against the Han, or don't feel much injustice from the Han side. But do comment here on their values, identity, and contributions.
The degree of civilization of the Wei-Tibetan nation is also quite debatable. Both peoples have historically been martial and violent, quite similar to the nomadic/fishing/hunting peoples of the north, only relatively less violent and less destructive. Another important characteristic of their ethnicity is that their ethnicity is tightly bound to their religious affiliation, and the religiously dominated ethnic values, words and deeds, with strong materialistic elements and exclusivity, hinder the development of productive forces and are not conducive to social progress. The situation of vulnerable groups such as women, the LGBT community, the elderly and the disabled in their nation is also inferior to the level of protection and support that the relevant groups should receive, as advocated in the values of the Han civilization.
And due to the geographical constraints, barren land and sparse population in which the Uyghur and Tibetan ethnic groups are located, the civilizations of the two ethnic groups are also far less profound than that of the Han, but rather more impoverished and narrow. Whether in ancient times or modern times and even contemporary times, the Uyghur-Tibetan people are more violent and closed. For the Tibetans, it is fortunate that Tibetan civilization has been revolutionized by an enlightened and enterprising person like His Holiness the Dalai Lama. But on the whole, its contribution to the protection and expansion of the rights of its members, especially the disadvantaged, and to human civilization as a whole, remains limited and far inferior to that of Chinese civilization.
In the West, the "barbarian invasion" during the fall of the Roman Empire is also a testament to the impact of historical barbarian rule on civilization. Compared with the civilization of the Roman Empire, especially in culture, science and technology, the legal system and other achievements, "barbarians" brought the dark Middle Ages, is the political dictatorship of the repression, religious confinement of the harsh, all kinds of destruction of human nature. Although the Roman expansion and conquest also killed and oppressed, but the medieval "barbarians" of the evil clearly outweighed the era of earlier Rome. Not only was their internal rule tyrannical and dark, but their external expansion was also more cruel and intolerant than Rome's, as exemplified by the Crusades. Moreover, it was the negative transformation and utilization of religion by the barbarian rule that made Christianity less enlightened and tolerant and more stubborn and conservative. (This is quite similar to the transformation of Confucianism by the Manchus. Even when the barbarians entered a period of stable rule, they would still transform and utilize various systems and cultures to make them violent, hierarchical, and dogmatic, so as to fit their rule based on the undertones of violence.)
The "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" that ended the Middle Ages was under the banner of restoring the civilization of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. Although this was largely a borrowing from the past, and the main content was not the restoration of the civilization of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, it was a reflection of the people's concern for the Although this was largely borrowed from ancient times, the main content was not the restoration of ancient Roman and Greek civilization, but it could reflect the yearning of the people at that time for the broad, moderate and enlightened secular civilization of the old days, as well as their dislike for the dark and brutal society under the dictatorship of the medieval clerical and royal powers brought about by the barbarians' rule over Europe.
Russia, which was considered to be barbaric and martial and loved aggression and expansion, was ruled by the Mongols/Tatars in the 13th-15th centuries. The brutal rule of the Mongols had a huge effect on the barbarization of the Rus peoples. A Western proverb that says, "Peel back a Russian, and inside is a Tatar," also reflects this reality to some extent. Many people think that after the barbaric conquest of civilization, civilization will assimilate barbarism, but in fact, civilization will also be influenced by barbarism, and the temperament and behavior of the community will become relatively cruel from relatively mild. Because of this, it is possible to adapt (including the real environment and psychological adaptation), survival, self-preservation, and superiority under the rule of barbarism. Although Russia later got rid of the "Tatar yoke" politically and overthrew the Mongol rule, its spirit was "Tatarized" for a long time, which became an important historical factor and spiritual reason for its expansion and invasion in recent centuries.
Many people, especially Westerners and nationals, often ridicule the Russians as barbaric and backward, and this is true to some extent. However, first of all, as mentioned above, Russia's barbarism is to a large extent brought about by the "Tatar yoke"; secondly, although it is true that Russia is barbaric and backward compared to Western Europe and even part of Central and Eastern Europe, compared to the nomadic/fishery hunter groups in Central and Northern Asia, the conservative Islamist forces in Caucasus, and the mixed agrarian dictatorships and savage regimes and inhabitants of steppes and grasslands in Northern China, Russia has become a very important historical factor and spiritual reason for its expansion and invasion in recent centuries. However, compared with the nomadic/fishing communities in Central and North Asia, the conservative Islamic forces in the Caucasus, and the mixture of agrarian despotism and steppe barbarians in northern China, Russia is relatively civilized and enlightened. In terms of business, culture and religion, economy and livelihood, science and technology, and institutions and laws, Russia is superior to its neighbors (except for Europe, especially Western Europe, to the west).
If Russia in the last hundred years had been ruled by Mongols, Kazakhs, Chechens/Caucasians, Tungusians/Manchus, and Chinese Thistle Liao, Russia today would be even more barbaric and backward. And while the Putin regime in Russia today is authoritarian and brutal, I am afraid it would be worse than the Putin regime if various more conservative, barbaric and backward ethnic groups and forces in Russia came to power. It is certainly reasonable and necessary that we sympathize with those vulnerable communities in Russia on the basis of humanity and equality, based on their vulnerability, lack of state dominance, and bullying by authoritarianism and Great Russianism. But at the same time it is important to understand that if they are powerful beyond the ethnic Russians and Putin's regime, they are bound to be even more tyrannical and shameless in what they do. Again, this can be referenced to the history of Manchu/Jurchen and Mongol rule in China. And the decades of violence and corruption in Chechnya under the "autonomy" of the conservative Islamist forces of the native ethnic groups, and the oppression of vulnerable groups such as women, are also a reflection of the cultural underpinnings of these groups, which are relatively weak in terms of ethnic relations, but even more brutal and uncivilized towards their own members.
As a country of nomadic descendants, Hungary can be said to be the country of the western migration of the Huns (at least according to some historians) and the remnants of the "God's whip", its national culture, national values, and the Orbán regime, which was elected by at least half of the Hungarian people, such as strong national populist stance and behavior, and the suppression of women's rights and the rights of the LGBT community, can also be reflected, The strong national populist stance and behavior, the suppression of women's rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the exclusion of other ethnic minorities, the contemptuous attitude towards vulnerable groups, and the rejection of the European culture of peace, democracy, and tolerance can also reflect the nature of the civilizational patterns and ethnic value orientation of these communities, which are quite "non-Western" and "Inner Asian" in nature. It also reflects the nature of the civilization and value orientation of these communities, which are quite "non-Western" and "Inner Asian" in nature. It also always boasts of its independence and "justice" by opposing the "hegemony of the European Union" such as France and Germany, which is quite similar to the logic of the Chinese Communist Party in opposing the West. European countries and Western European civilization respect it, but it does not respect the disadvantaged groups and does not really integrate into Europe. Instead, it takes advantage of the tolerance of Europe, where nationalities are guaranteed independence and freedom, to oppress other weaklings. Is such "cultural pluralism" and "Inner Asian values" good? (In Central and West Asia, countries of nomadic descent, such as the Hungarians, have similar positions and attitudes on women's rights, LGBT rights and the rights of the elderly, the weak, the sick and the handicapped, and the human rights situation of disadvantaged groups is often even worse because of their remoteness from the civilized areas of Europe.)
In this respect, the Manchu Qing Dynasty and Communist China are again quite similar to Hungary. The Manchurian Qing Dynasty rejected the British, French, and German powers, nationals, and cultures, and Manchu/Mongolian aristocrats such as Gangyi, Uiren, and Yuxian were very hostile to the West and emphasized the "Chinese-Mongolian distinction". The CCP's attitude towards the West over the years has been the same: closed-door, anti-American, anti-European (Western powers), anti-Western culture, in the same vein as the Manchus. They, as nomadic/barbaric/non-Han-based regimes, on the one hand, under the pretext of opposing Han-based and stretching out a pluralistic stance, are instead even more closed and conservative than the Han and more hostile to the West, even going so far as to close their doors to the West, blockade ideas, and ban science. Both during the Manchu period and nowadays, there are many Manchus and Manchurianized Han Chinese (mainly concentrated in Beijing and Northeast China) who refer to Westerners as "foreign devils", reflecting their contemptuous and insulting attitude towards foreigners. In the Boxer Rebellion, the Manchurian aristocrats also utilized the Boxer Rebellion to kill foreign missionaries in a bloody manner. After they "changed summer with barbarians", they became more hostile to the external ethnic groups that were also non-Han and non-Chinese, and their values, words and deeds became more narrow and exclusive, which was not true "pluralism", but only selective utilization of "pluralism" to benefit themselves. Instead of genuine "pluralism", it was merely the selective use of "pluralism" to facilitate its domination and internal colonization.
Similarly to Hungary, opposition to affirmative action policies for disadvantaged groups in various regions and ethnic groups in China today often comes from northern, northeastern, and northwestern China, which are deeply influenced by Manchu values. When it comes to women's rights, the rights of the LGBT community, animal protection, etc., the populations in these regions are generally resistant, even hateful and even violent towards vulnerable targets. In contrast, central and southern China, which are dominated by Han Chinese and Han culture, are not so strongly anti-affirmative action and protection of the vulnerable. Even if they are against it, they are more likely to treat it with indifference, but not particularly hateful and violent towards the weak. There is even some openness and tolerance. For example, in Guangzhou, where Han Chinese are in the majority and Han nationalism is relatively strong, there are a large number of blacks living there, and the locals are generally quite tolerant of them. (Although China does not have professional, authoritative and systematic statistics like those of the Pew Research Institute, the previous conclusions can be verified through the official policies of different regions, as well as the attitudes of the public, especially through the articles, comments and messages written by people from different regions under the relevant topics after the IP address was made public).
Also, the "new Qing/Inner Asian/barbarbarian history" and these barbarians and their descendants, while opposing "Western/Han centrism", also tend to oppose "great unification", emphasizing and praising the fact that At the same time, they tend to oppose "great unification" and emphasize and praise the plurality of the Western/Han peoples in the geographic area alongside them (rather than the relationship between orthodoxy and division/parochialism/rebellion), thus endorsing their own independence. Again, this is a rather "fashionable" view and position of history.
But in fact, these nomadic/fishing/hunting peoples were merely opposed to the "great unification" by the West/Han/other relatively advanced civilizations, and praised and worshipped those who achieved "great unification" within themselves (e.g., Bolden, Genghis Khan, Nurhachu, Songtsen Gampo), to a far greater extent than the Han Chinese did. The degree of admiration and worship is far greater than that of the Han Chinese for their own great unifying monarchs, and also greater than that of the West for the Roman emperors, and is even more pronounced in the present day. Even if their "great unification" process is equally or even more brutal, the annexation of vulnerable communities, such as Genghis Khan conquered the Tatar tribe, the Naiwan tribe, Nurhachu's Jianzhou women's annexation of the Haixi women's, the savage women's, are full of massacres and unfairness. The Tibetans/Tubo have also long been divided into regional groups such as Weizang, Amdo, and Kham, but Weizang is the strongest and dominates the Tibetans in other regions, which is also a kind of "Weizang-centrism".
Moreover, if these peoples had the opportunity to dominate the "great unification" (e.g., the Mongol Empire, the Qing Empire, the Tubo Empire, the Hun Empire) of which they were the ruling people, they never rejected this "great unification," and the history of their descendants, which was written by them (and not directly written by them, but influenced by their sentiments), has been a "centrism" in the sense that it is a "centrism. They never rejected this "great unification", and their descendants, in their writings (and in history books not directly written by them, but influenced by their sentiments), would make a great deal of praise of it, and regarded the unification of the country and the expansion of its territory as a great achievement to be highly praised (and their communities were even more highly praised for the related emperors and kings, such as Kublai, Kang Xi, and Qianlong).
This, in turn, reflects the incompatible logic, double standards, and selective use of Western/modern pluralistic and inclusive historical perspectives, ideologies, and research methods of these communities and their influencers (including the "New Qing History" scholars). In addition to the above examples, there are many other similar logical inconsistencies and double standards in the historical circle. For reasons of space, it is impossible to list them all, but they are sufficient to illustrate the confusion of logic, the fallacy of viewpoints, the ugliness of ideas, and the low morality of similar historical concepts and their researchers/possessors/advocates.
In addition, ethnic groups that are minorities under big empires/regimes always use the fact that they are "minorities" as an excuse that they think they deserve more respect and protection, and that they want to be equal to the "big nations". But in fact, even if they are really vulnerable and not in the ruling class, in their areas of settlement/influence, they are the "big nation" vis-à-vis the smaller and weaker communities, and they have the same policy of oppressing and assimilating the weaker and weaker communities in their areas of vulnerability.
The Kurds, for example, have been oppressed, killed and bullied by the Turkish nation, but the Kurds have also oppressed and assimilated the more vulnerable and less populous Armenian and Assyrian communities in their areas of residence, and have committed brutal massacres and cultural genocide against these communities. The Chinese Việt Minh, in turn, opposes the Han Chinese and, by virtue of its population, influence, and voice, dominates the Kazakhs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and others. In Tibet, although Tibetans practicing Tibetan Buddhism were a minority relative to the Han Chinese under the Chinese Empire and the Chinese Communist Party, the Tibetans also achieved control and monopoly over the Tibetan land through a long period of suppression, suppression, and assimilation of followers of other religions such as Benjaminism, Chinese Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, as well as of the Gurkhas, Bhutanese, Kashmiris, and Sikkimese, among others.
These reflect the complexity and relativity of their "minority" status. This does not negate the fact that they suffered greater oppression, but their "double oppression" of the weaker ethnic groups should also be emphasized. This also reflects a certain hypocrisy and double standard in their opposition to "big nation" and "big unity", and in their advocacy of "plurality" and "respect for minorities". It also reflects a certain hypocrisy and double standard in their opposition to "big nation" and "big unity" and their advocacy of "pluralism" and "respect for minorities". Compared with the Kurds and Tibetans, the Manchus and Mongols, who have long been dominant in history, even massacred and oppressed ethnic groups with larger populations, obviously cannot be regarded as "disadvantaged" on the basis of their small populations. (The oppression of majorities by minorities, whether by the caste system in India or by modern colonialism, is a powerful and widespread example.)
It is also worth reminding that today's "New Qing History" and "Inner Asian Historical Perspective" schools of thought glorify the "boldness" and "simplicity" of the steppe/nomadic/fishing/hunting communities, as do Japanese fascist militarists such as Hunan Naito and Ichidin Miyazaki in the first half of the twentieth century, who advocated "simplicity" in Mongolia and Manchuria as the basis for Japan's invasion. The celebration of the "boldness" and "simplicity" of the steppe/nomadic/fishing communities by today's "New Qing History" and "Inner Asian Historical Perspective" schools is quite similar to the promotion of "simplicity" in Mongolia and Manchuria by Japanese fascist militarists such as Hunan Naito and Ichidin Miyazaki in the first half of the twentieth century in their attempts to find theoretical support for Japan's invasion of China, its subjugation of the Han Chinese, and destruction of Han civilization. They were quite similar, and in fact did have a certain inheritance relationship. They used the so-called "simplicity" to cover up the massacres, looting and all kinds of violence committed by the barbarians, and they also belittled the Han civilization and the farming civilization, confusing and even reversing right and wrong. This kind of thinking was prevalent during Japan's invasion of China, and now it is making use of "cultural pluralism" and "decentralization" to return to Japan. It is all the more necessary to be vigilant and critical, so as to prevent the recurrence of fascist aggression, expansion and colonial oppression. (In addition, some Japanese people, while advocating the "simplicity" of the nomadic people, take pride in the fact that they have not been conquered by barbarians such as the Mongols and have preserved the "purity" of their nation, and consider the successful defeat of the Mongolian army that attacked Japan in Tsushima Island and other places as the glory of the anti-invasion campaign. They also regarded the successful defeat of the Mongolian army at Tsushima Island and other places where they attacked Japan as an honor for countering aggression. (This is another reflection of the double standards and logical contradictions of these advocates of "Inner Asianism" and "simplicity").
(The above criticisms of Chinese and foreign non-Western/non-Han ethnic minorities' civilization are all about facts and the overall degree of civilization, and the emphasis is on culture and values rather than race and bloodline, not that they are inferior ethnic groups, and that the formation of their ethnic values is a result of history, geography, social changes, interaction with other ethnic groups, their own choices, and their own initiative to evolve, rather than a genetic decision. Their various lootings, invasions and massacres are also quite related to the difficult geographic environment and cruel humanistic environment in which they live, and even their ethnic groups are sometimes worthy of sympathy. But these do not rationalize and justify their atrocities. Specific members of each ethnic group should also be measured and treated according to their specific circumstances and in accordance with universal values, without discrimination.)
The Western Left promotes "pluralism" and respect for vulnerable communities, while ignoring the backwardness of non-Western civilizations and their internal cruelty and hierarchies, as exemplified by Chomsky's defense of the Khmer Rouge
Most of the Western progressives/leftists who advocate "cultural pluralism" and "de-Westernization" have good intentions and personal qualities, and some of them are even kind and sincere, and are good at reflecting on the darkness and injustice in the West's own civilization. However, they do not understand the more complicated and darker things within the non-Western civilization system in the "pluralism" of world civilization, and they do not consider that those foreign civilizations, which are wonderful and mysterious from afar and worthy of respect and admiration, are much more ugly in their distant history and the reality of their homeland, and that the harm they have caused has far exceeded the evils of Western colonialism, expansion and hegemony. expansion and hegemony.
Chomsky's defense of the Khmer Rouge is a classic example. Chomsky believed that the United States bullied Cambodia, that imperialism and colonialism were too bad, and that Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were Cambodia's national liberators and a force for good. But he underestimated Pol Pot's brutality and unintentionally (and even at one point willfully ignored) the concrete fact that the Khmer Rouge were even more brutal to Cambodians. It is true that Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge were weak before the United States, but the Khmer Rouge was not the same as Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge were instead strong before the Cambodian people, oppressors and butchers a hundred times more brutal than the U.S., Vietnam, or the right-wing Lon Nol military regime in Cambodia.
During the period when the U.S. and its fostered Lon Nol regime were in control of Cambodia, there were also New York Times journalists who exposed the atrocities of the U.S. and Lon Nol troops, so that the evil U.S. and Lon Nol troops would be restrained. The Lon Nol regime (the "Khmer Republic" regime), as a quasi-nationalist regime (both nationalist in stance and behavior, but manipulated by the US), also treated its citizens as compatriots to be protected, and although it cracked down on the Khmer Rouge, it also took care of the rights and lives of some Cambodian nationals, especially the elites. Pol Pot, on the other hand, treated all Cambodians as communist experiments, and was even more bloody to the urban middle class and elite. Vietnam, Cambodia's sworn enemy and regional hegemon, was also much more humane than the Khmer Rouge, and when Vietnamese troops occupied Cambodia and retreated, they were welcomed and hailed by many Cambodians as liberators.
Chomsky focuses on the evils of the U.S. empire and international inequality and injustice, but ignores Cambodia's internal inequality and injustice, emphasizing Cambodia as a whole and ignoring the human rights of specific Cambodian nationals. This coincides with the Chinese Communist Party's claim that "sovereignty is higher than human rights". Many Western leftists have fallen into a similar trap and have fallen prey to these brutal rulers from the East.
(I am not opposed to criticizing US imperialism for its external hegemony and internal persecution of the disadvantaged. On the contrary, I am very much in favor of relevant critiques. However, when criticizing, we should not ignore the atrocities of other countries in the world, especially the less developed countries and ethnic groups, which are even more contemptuous of human rights than the U.S., and which brutalize their own people as well as the people of other countries. Nor should we use the criticism of the United States to cover up or minimize the atrocities committed by dictators in Asia, Africa and Latin America against people at home and abroad.)
喜欢我的文章吗？
别忘了给点支持与赞赏，让我知道创作的路上有你陪伴。
发布评论…