Classic Communist Party Street Art

Photo by Chris Harry

 

 

经典党街道艺术

The quote reads:

 

“Education should look to modernisation, to the world, to the future.”

 

—— Deng Xiaoping

 

A photo I took in Yuyuan Village, Zhejiang province on April 16th, 2012.

 

My first deleted microblog on Sina Weibo!

My first deleted microblog on Sina Weibo!

I uploaded it once again on my weibo account, just to see if and when the net censors might take notice. I'll provide an update to this little experiment should there be any new developments. Here's a picture of my deleted microblog entry:

Although previously deleted, the re-posted blog is still on my weibo account as of April 1st, 2013.

解放农民，别靠剥削下层群体带动内需！

解放农民，别靠剥削下层群体带动内需！

李克强提出以“新型城镇化”解放农民来带动内需。其实只要保证农民基本医疗、教育和财产权利，取消户口制度和市民享有的各种优越待遇即可。简而言之，全方位地确保农民在法律和福利上的平等待遇，维护农民的尊严就会发动新一轮经济革命。应该真正让农民翻身而不是依靠剥削农民和弱势群体创造经济增长。

Foreigners Clash with Police in Guangzhou: A Sign of the Times

Note: This commentary was originally written several months ago and therefore not particularly current, yet I still feel it is relevant as it touches on China's most serious issue, that of social unrest arising from a lack of accountability of the authorities and their insensitivity to the concerns of the masses. I also find the particular nature of this incident worth sharing with those who may not have already heard or read about this clash between foreigners and Chinese police taking place in broad daylight on the streets of Guangzhou. 

 

Foreigners Clash with Police in Guangzhou: A Sign of the Times

This past summer, a mass incident occurred between several hundred African ex-pats and Chinese riot police in Guangzhou. Apparently, an African man had had a conflict with a local Chinese taxi driver over the fare, only to end up fainting and dying after being detained in a local police station for several hours. Many fellow African ex-pats working in the area demanded to see the man's body and held up signs and protested in public. Shortly afterward, a physical conflict ensued between these foreigners and the police.

While the simple fact that upwards of several hundred to a thousand foreigners ended up clashing with police on the street in China is surprising in itself, equally striking is the similarity of this incident with those between protesting Chinese crowds and local police forces.

The reaction by the foreigners of banding together to demand justice, coupled with the distrust and anger directed to the police, and their request for the body of a deceased individual who died in suspicious circumstances while being detained by police, is a theme that is repeated time and time again as innumerable incidents across China end in violent clashes with the police and often deaths of citizens who frequently ‘go missing’ or are cremated before relatives or friends have an opportunity to investigate the manner in which they died.
    In one sense, this incident is unprecedented in that it involved foreigners in their hundreds, proactively demonstrating and becoming embroiled in clashes with local police. On a more basic level, it is perhaps the most common symbol of impending socio-political change. The fact that someone ended up dying over something as seemingly insignificant as a dispute over the cost of a taxi fare that directly led to a large-scale conflict of civilians with police also hints at the failure of the regime’s roughshod approach to dealing with social unrest. Rather, it tends to amplify it.

If Xi Jinping, new occupant to the throne of ultimate party authority, fails to seize the opportunity to bring decisive progress to China's political culture and make significant steps toward establishing the rule of law during his reign, something which the Communists have reneged on since seizing power in 1949, then demonstrations and mass incidents leading to an increasing number of violent conflicts between aggrieved commoners and various forces of the regime’s expensive and colossal, multi-tiered police state apparatus will lead to rising social instability. If left unchecked, a rising crescendo of violent conflict between the masses and the police will build into a tsunami of political destruction for the party. The next ten years of policy direction led by emperor Xi will be critical to securing viable stability, at least in the short term, for the party cum empire.

反日等于反共？－ 崇华恨外与犯法破坏

反日等于反共？－ 崇华恨外与犯法破坏

藐视国家法律和同胞私人财产的反日流氓是民粹主义变态怪物几十年精心培养出来的恶果与后遗症。不过，这帮野人也又可能会狠狠地咬住奴主的手。“科学发展观”和“北京精神”怎么导致了这样的结局呢？名副其实的“玩火自焚”。我宁愿相信这群人只是爪牙演戏，但掀翻警车跟崇华恨外又有啥关系？发人深思！

Mao Zedong, Genghis Khan, and the Power of Propaganda:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mao Zedong, Genghis Khan, and the Power of Propaganda:

Genghis Khan as Chinese Communist Hero

By Chris Harry

     A colossal fact of history regarding China’s defeat at the hands of what they considered lowly, uncivilised Mongolian invaders in the 13th century, whereby it’s people were raped, pillaged, and brutally subjugated, has undergone a stupefying revision in communist party history textbooks.
     According to party dogma, Genghis Khan was, in fact, Chinese, while the government misleadingly refers to the largest contiguous empire in world history, an empire which straddled Europe and Asia as simply the Yuan dynasty, thereby reducing it to just another Chinese dynasty ruled by a Chinese emperor. This, of course, contradicts the generally accepted version of history in the rest of the world; that China was but one territory in a much larger Mongolian empire, a colony, albeit a fairly large one.
     From a historical perspective, this gigantic distortion seems particularly odd given that during this period of history, Song China was a relatively weak entity in a region where other powers, apart from the Mongols, also threatened its existence as an independent state.
     Yet what is most astounding is that whenever this creative adaptation of history is cast in doubt, if it is suggested that Genghis Khan was actually Mongolian, and that China at the time was a conquered territory under Mongolian rule, many if not most Chinese, even the highly-educated, will become angry or express utter dismissal, disbelief, or shock at the very idea that Genghis Khan was not Chinese and that Mongolia was not always a part of China.
     According to party propaganda, Genghis Khan was born in what is now present-day Inner Mongolia, and therefore a part of China; ergo Genghis was Chinese. However, whether or not Genghis Khan was actually born in what is currently Inner Mongolia, a fact that is still in question, is irrelevant. Over seven centuries ago, Inner Mongolia was not under Song China rule, nor was it considered a part of China. The fact that Mongolia eventually came under the control of the Qing dynasty hundreds of years later also does not erase the fact that the Mongolians had first conquered China as an independent, non-Chinese entity commonly known as the Mongol empire. In stubborn defiance of reality, an astounding historical juggling act of Chinese communist propaganda which synthetically splices together two temporally non-contiguous empires in history of entirely different geographical scope, which is to say the annexation of the Mongols by the Qing dynasty noticeably later in history, becomes further proof that Genghis Khan and his fellow Mongolians were actually Chinese since time immemorial, even though the Mongols were actually independent of Chinese control for most of recorded history. In this way, segments of history before, during, and after the period of history commonly known in the rest of the world as the Mongolian empire are conveniently and readily remodelled, then artificially strung together, to construct a fanciful Chinese-made Mongolian empire, an empire wherein its conquerors miraculously and instantly abandoned their own ethnic identity and language in favour of becoming Chinese, and who referred to themselves as the Yuan dynasty.
     Nominally speaking there was a so-called Yuan dynasty, but it was a branch of a much larger Mongol empire under the control of Kublai Khan, the great grandson of Genghis Khan. In yet another anachronistic twist of historical acrobatics, most Chinese people mistakenly believe it was Genghis Khan himself that founded this fictional 'Chinese' dynasty. More accurately, this political entity which was referred to by its Mongolian rulers as Dai On Ulus, was one of four Khanates under a much larger Mongol empire.
     Such an erroneous communist revision of historical doctrine is put into even starker contrast by the simple fact that what we refer to as the territory generally known as China, a geographic area ruled by ethnic Chinese or Han people, had been either overrun or threatened by foreign invaders from Central Asia and Northeast Asia for many centuries in history, areas which were not part of the Chinese empire at the time; including the very last dynasty on Chinese soil which was ruled by the Manchurians – once again foreigner conquerors who invaded China from North of the Great Wall.
     In the end, it is a fanciful narrative that flies in the face of Chinese history, let alone widely accepted  historical interpretation on the period. A brief perusal of Chinese records at the time illustrates how many Chinese intellectuals and scholars woefully lamented the cruel reality that they had been subjugated by foreign conquerors and treated as second-class citizens, thus casting great shame on their own proud heritage. The Ming dynasty rulers who defeated the Mongols and restored Chinese rule also rejected the notion that the Yuan dynasty was even a legitimate Chinese dynasty and considered that period of history as one of foreign domination.
     Of course, every country has its own version of history which tends to be biased in its own favour and refashioned to suit the whims of the ruling class. Nevertheless, reducing the Mongol empire into a brief chapter of purely Chinese history far exceeds the bounds of reasonable historical debate. Song China was forcibly integrated and became a part of an international empire under Mongol dominance that stretched from Vietnam through China, India, Central Asia, Iran, Russia and even threatened to overrun parts of Central Europe. Clearly this chapter of history was much bigger in significance than the confines of Song China, a territory much smaller in size than even current-day China, much less most of Eurasia, an area twice the size of the Roman empire at its height.
     In practical terms, what is most significant about this historical prevarication is how such gross manipulation of historical fact has been so successfully stamped into the brains of generations of Chinese. They vigorously defend the Chinese identity of a brutal foreign invader without question.
     It is a frightful example of how common sense and logic can succumb to primitive brainwashing techniques, and it reveals a terrifying potential for harm, not to mention the negative effects of a propaganda-based society and education system.
     It is likely no accident that Genghis Khan is held up by the communists as a Chinese hero, a great warrior king, because Mao Zedong himself extolled the virtues of Genghis Khan in poetry and most probably saw himself as a modern-day version of this ruthless, invincible conqueror. Then again, Chairman Mao also once thanked the Japanese for invading China and allowing the communists to wrest power from the nationalists. From this perspective, it may even be argued that Mao considered taking power more important than the untold suffering and havoc unleashed on the people of China at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army.   
     Such rare candour from Communist China’s great kahn and founding emperor neatly sums up the motivation behind the regime’s unflagging and unabashed propaganda efforts even today: the preservation of power at all costs and at the expense of honesty and principles. Even today, ancient history is forced to bow down in service to the exalted and almighty Communist Party of China.

Graffiti-style activism or playful art?

草泥马戈壁－不跟你玩儿！

Graffiti-style activism or playful art?

Dedicated to artist Ai Weiwei and writer Bei Feng
Graffiti Stencil Art by BOBBBB
Photo: Chris Harry
Written by Chris Harry

     I discovered this small graffiti artwork stencilled on an alleyway wall next to Houhai in Beijing. I thought I'd put this up in honour of Ai Weiwei, Bei Feng and all of the other brave Chinese citizens and activists who openly challenge the Communist Party of China in their demands for artistic freedom, pluralism and the protection of human and legal rights. As I walked around Houhai, which is part of the core of the traditional city of Beijing, I started to notice an increase in the presence of street art. Though it may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does seem to hint at the effects of globalisation, a more defiant youth demographic and perhaps even the eventual rise of pluralism to the mainstream in Chinese society; so whether or not you may think that street artists deface or beautify the urban landscape, I personally feel that the spread of graffiti in Beijing foreshadows a political sea change in a positive, more vibrant cultural direction. For many westerners, graffiti might be viewed as a form of vandalism, a vestige of gang culture or simply something you take for granted or even appreciate. In China, graffiti was almost non-existent until very recently, so it’s growing presence seems to presage a more globally-connected, less parochial and insular socio-political environment taking root, one that begins to admire the ideals of civil disobedience, or at the very least, just plain disobedience for the fun of it. Of course, for many Chinese sprayers it’s probably just seen as hip western culture to be emulated, but I can’t help thinking it has broader ramifications.
     The first part of the Chinese title I chose to impose on this piece of Chinese street art refers to a verbal insult directed at the government/Internet censors and often used by the famous Chinese artist and outspoken critic of the government, Ai Weiwei. This expletive verbal phrase originally refers to words in English that begin with the letters F Y M and C. Let’s just say that it’s a pretty graphic phrase about someone's mother which I can't repeat here and used in Chinese as a rather biting insult. But the interesting thing is that, in order to get around the censors, Chinese Internet users changed all of the characters from the original swear words into other characters which still sounded the same, so the result (the same as the title here) is something like "Grass mud horse Gobi", which is a code phrase for the original verbal insult that could get past the censors and still carry the same impact and meaning - the effect of which is not unlike the refrain in Rage Against the Machine’s famous anti-establishment anthem, “F*** you I won’t do what you tell me”.
     The second part of the title literally means, "Not going to play with you!” in reference to a campaign started by blog writer, Bei Feng, who promoted an icon of a person sticking their tongue out (in protest). The writer suggested that everyone should place this icon on their Sina microblog sites (China's largest blog/twitter site) as a show of solidarity in support of the universal values of democracy and human rights. He then explained that this campaign would expose those who were working for the interests of the party, as they would be afraid to participate in this campaign and endanger the privileges and personal gains they enjoy as lackeys under the party's control (N.B. not his exact words, my paraphrasing).
     One of the great ironies of this is that many forms of direct political expression in the form of graffiti promoting, say, the boycotting of Japanese goods or any other such expressions of anti-Japanese sentiment spray-painted on public property by politically-inspired individuals in recent years almost always get painted over. At the same time, the government spares no expense to produce a seemingly endless stream of television serials depicting the evil-doings of the Japanese in China during the Pacific War and the invasion of China. It’s as though Chinese television was stuck in a permanent time warp of Japanese invasion! Nor does the government miss a single opportunity to criticize the Japanese whenever it arises. Yet, at the same time, the average citizen is not allowed to express his anger or hatred toward Japanese through graffiti, even though such nationalistic sentiments are in large part stoked and painstakingly nurtured by the government’s own perpetual and overtly anti-Japanese propaganda campaign which has been ongoing for the last 62 years.
     While I would agree that expressions of hatred toward other peoples or countries spray-painted on public property should be erased, this example shows the hypocrisy of the government. If the government were brutally honest about outlining a policy to this effect, it might read something like this: “Only officially-sanctioned communist hatred of Japanese is allowed! The Communist Party of China has sole rights on any form of political expression in any way, shape or form. All other forms of political expression or thought - explicit or implicit - are a direct and punishable infringement of the intellectual propaganda rights of the People’s Fascist (Oops, I meant Communist!) Republic of China!”
     Graffiti appears not to be officially banned, but in the past it always seemed to be painted over immediately. Perhaps the fact that there is more of it means it is harder to keep up with painting it over. It also may be an indication that the party has much bigger concerns, such as extinguishing the flames of protest across the country occurring at an increasing rate, year by year, as well as ensuring a smooth transition of power to the next group of leaders without further widening the open rifts between different factions in the party. Even my wife, who is proud of her country and culture, and who generally steers away from political discourse, last night questioned whether the Communist Party of China could even last for another ten years without at least the emergence of one or more real opposition parties. This is the kind of question even normally apolitical citizens are asking themselves more and more these days. I give it between twenty to thirty years myself.
     While no sensible person would want to see China slide into anarchy and chaos, something has to give. Hopefully, it can start from the top and take the shape of positive political reform. In the long term, there really is no other viable alternative.