
China’s memory manipulators - sergeant3
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/chinas-memory-manipulators
======
lzlarryli
In fact changing historical records and emphasizing advantageous parts of
history are not communist inventions. In China, this has been a very old
tradition. Since Qin dynasty, history books and records were heavily regulated
by the government. Almost at every change of the dynasties, the historical
records were changed/destroyed to justify the new situation. The communists
are just continuing that, in fact, in a rather blatant way. I remember, in
high school, we would learn that history is a useful tool for propaganda
(which is a good word in China) and that is one of the reason why the history
we learned implies that "only communism can save China". I would chuckle
whenever I wrote that very sentence in exams (which was the basis of the
correct answer to most questions). In the end, people understand conceptually
that history and facts are different things. I guess in the west, the
distinction between history as passed on in religious texts and traditions and
history as archaeological findings is similar (of course, here there are
people who confuse the two as well).

In the end, history, being in the past, denies direct access or verification.
In some sense it is just what we choose to remember, which is a very fluid
thing. I guess culturally the Chinese are just more flexible about it. It is
not necessarily bad, as it is a less fanatic ideology.

~~~
saiya-jin
Maybe that's my own perspective only, but I prefer my own memories to be
exactly as I felt while experiencing them (which is far from easy!). Then, and
and only then, true long-term lessons can be learned from one's past (well,
that's my attitude, feel free to disagree here).

If we keep painting past as rosy garden with only few carefully selected facts
and rest is bent/invented as needed, we will keep repeating same mistakes and
not reach our potential, be it on personal or society level.. which is the
land of say not-so-clever people. sure we can aim higher than that

~~~
Aelinsaar
I agree with you, but if you really practice what you preach, then you know
how difficult what you're suggesting can be on the individual level, never
mind the group level. It's painful to sit with unvarnished reality and analyze
it, analyze yourself, and try to think from new perspectives. Most people
probably could do it if they tried for long enough, but it's too difficult and
sometimes painful to maintain under times of great stress.

In the national case, you also have to have each subsequent generation share
your conviction, and any break in that will taint the record.

~~~
saiya-jin
sure, it's a limit we will probably never achieve, but we should at least try
to do so, not because it's easy, but because it's right thing to do (damn, now
i sound like some sort of preacher)

~~~
Aelinsaar
Actually you make a lot of sense, and don't seem preachy at all. Passionate,
but not preachy.

------
tmptmp
The humanist intellectuals all over the world (especially in the USA) should
do their best to bring out the viciousness of the corrupt ideology called
communism and the corrupt/cruel actions carried out by their leaders. e.g.
Mao, Stalin, Castro

But we see a chilling silence on the issue of human rights violations carried
out by the followers of communism [1],[2] by most of the intellectuals (mostly
humanities professors) in USA who are very keen on criticizing USA for
whatever perceived/projected censorship and violation of human rights in USA.

We must not forget that the USA has served the world by taking a stance
against this vicious ideology called communism and its equally vicious
followers. We must raise this issue every time USA and capitalist free and
open market based democracy gets criticized in favor of communism/socialism by
the communists/socialists or what they call _the useful idiots_ [3].

I do not say USA has not done anything bad. But in comparison to the
communists it's much, much better. No doubt, USA can be improved (e.g. wealth
inequality) but not by communist/socialist manner. I don't live USA but I
thank USA for getting my country off the vicious hooks of the communism and
guide us to a more humane path.

[1] [https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record-
ha...](https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record-has-been-
suppressed/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

~~~
mikeash
I see plenty of criticism of the human rights abuses carried out by China and
others. And on the other hand, I don't understand the supposed link between
authoritarian regimes like China's, and socialist policies like single-payer
health care.

A significant chunk of the US's voter base seems to think that single-payer
health care leads to dictators rewriting history. I don't get it.

~~~
asd888787
Popular support in the US for single-payer health tends to be in the realm of
70%.

That it isn't implemented is more about insurance & medical industry lobbying.

~~~
mikeash
I can't find any support for that:

[http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/r...](http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-
nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/)

At the present, I'd expect essentially all Republican voters to oppose it, and
plenty of Democrats and independents do too.

------
jernfrost
I keep thinking about these rapid changes in large countries like China, and
how my own part of the world, Europe at some point might become the only place
to actually experience history.

I love cities like Amsterdam, where you can look at painting from the 1600s
and you recognize whole streets. The city isn't fundamentally different
downtown. This sort of experience is becoming a rarity as countries modernize
and tear down the downtowns of their old cities in the name of modernity.

------
rainhacker
It's not just China. Every country has there own version of history. For
example, I doubt in how much details UK's history books capture the horrific
cruelties inflicted by the kingdom for hundreds of years as compared to the
history taught in schools of the victim colonies. Moreover, even within the
same country, it is not uncommon to see history books rewritten per the
ideologies of the incumbent government.

~~~
hackuser
> Every country has there own version of history

The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like
saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others;
we're not all equally accurate or reliable.

Other countries have independent, free press; they can print whatever they
want, including whatever history they want. For example, the Chinese
government blocks all mention of the Tienanmen Square massacre of June 4,
1989, in print or on the web. They censure criticism of Communist Party
leaders. You wouldn't find censorship anything like that in the UK.

In fact in Western countries, academics are often criticized for being too
critical of their nations - 'self-hating'. EDIT: See this comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862391)

> I doubt in how much details UK's history books capture the horrific
> cruelties inflicted by the kingdom for hundreds of years as compared to the
> history taught in schools of the victim colonies.

Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?

~~~
rainhacker
> The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like
> saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others;

I think you are referring to China making more mistakes then UK in the past.
If anything, I think it's the opposite. For example, the whole world made a
huge deal(rightfully so) about the tiananmen square protest in China. Have you
heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre ? Hundreds of unarmed peaceful men,
women and children were murdered.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre)

> Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?

"Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes"
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-
destroyed...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-
records-colonial-crimes?newsfeed=true)

You can see the bullet marks preserved in Jallianwala Bagh. There is a well
inside the premises where people jumped to hide from bullets. 120 bodies were
recovered later from that well alone.
[http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/8-pictures-of-
jallianwa...](http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/8-pictures-of-jallianwala-
bagh-that-will-leave-you-teary-eyed-231833.html)

EDIT: Here is one more, it isn't hard to find with few online searches

".. Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29
million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British
state policy.."

"..In the Express we can read the historian Andrew Roberts arguing that for
“the vast majority of its half millennium-long history, the British Empire was
an exemplary force for good. … the British gave up their Empire largely
without bloodshed, after having tried to educate their successor governments
in the ways of democracy and representative institutions”(9)(presumably by
locking up their future leaders). In the Sunday Telegraph, he insists that
“the British empire delivered astonishing growth rates, at least in those
places fortunate enough to be coloured pink on the globe.”(10) (Compare this
to Mike Davis’s central finding, that “there was no increase in India’s per
capita income from 1757 to 1947”, or to Prasannan Parthasarathi’s
demonstration that “South Indian labourers had higher earnings than their
British counterparts in the 18th century and lived lives of greater financial
security.”(11)) In the Daily Telegraph, John Keegan asserts that “the empire
became in its last years highly benevolent and moralistic.” The Victorians
“set out to bring civilisation and good government to their colonies and to
leave when they were no longer welcome. In almost every country, once coloured
red on the map, they stuck to their resolve.”(12).."

[http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-
hol...](http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/)

~~~
hackuser
>> The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like
saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others;

> I think you are referring to China making more mistakes then UK in the past.

I wasn't, though I can see how that might be confusing. I just was using that
phrase as an example of the near-meaninglessness of a binary perspective that
ignores great differences in degree: 'everybody does' or 'everybody doesn't'.

The question was whether censorship in the west is similar to that in China.

> Have you heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre ?

I read about the massacre in western history books. I saw a recreation of it
in a western movie, "Gandhi" (IIRC). Two of your three citations are to
western news publications.

> it isn't hard to find with few online searches

It's not hard to find stories of western atrocities in the west. But try
finding stories of Communist Party atrocities in China.

~~~
rainhacker
I think you are mixing freedom of press with variation in the stand of a
nation on historic events. My OP addressed the later.

~~~
hackuser
> I think you are mixing freedom of press with variation in the stand of a
> nation on historic events. My OP addressed the later.

I don't understand: Almost all the criticism of the UK you posted came from
the UK, and the sources I cited came from the West if not the UK. One quote
you posted was one UK publication criticizing another on the matter.

Doesn't that represent "variation in the stand of a nation"? Or do you mean
some official stand by the UK government? Do they even have one? I'm pretty
sure the U.S. government doesn't, or if it does it's completely unknown and
ineffectual.

~~~
rainhacker
"The government of India, believing the gem was rightfully theirs, first
demanded the return of the Koh-i-Noor as soon as independence was granted in
1947. A second request followed in 1953, the year of the coronation of Queen
Elizabeth II. Each time, the British government rejected the claims, saying
that ownership was non-negotiable."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-
i-Noor)

Also, I would be curious to see accounts where Brits punished any of their
officials for the crimes in colonies. Mr. Dyer was merely removed from his
post after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

EDIT: one more:

"British maintain 379 were killed - lower than the 1000 stated by India"

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283438/David-
Camero...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283438/David-Cameron-
right-apologise--monstrous-massacre-Amritsar-SAVED-thousands-lives-says-
Britains-historians.html)

------
sillyquiet
States have done this in one or another throughout history. Newly installed
Roman emperors would suddenly discover a close relationship to Julius Caesar,
for example. China seems to have taken it to a frighteningly efficient art
form, though.

~~~
jxy
It's about 2500 years of refinement that brings this art to the extreme. The
texts on the bamboo shows some extreme ideas, and apparently those pointy
edges got smoothed out over the years of imperial ruling.

History, and the culture, is written and shaped by the winner after all.

------
lallysingh
In Myanmar they call Orwell a prophet. Perhaps that will spread.

------
nxzero
Almost sounds like the plot to Twilight Zone episode.

------
Idontreddit
It's not even a chinese invention. It's a human invention.

We do it in the US. And so do the brits, europeans, etc.

After "historians" were paid to write histories extolling someone and
denigrate someone else.

From columbus to everything before and after, "history" depended on who was in
charge and who paid to do the writing. History is propaganda.

> In some sense it is just what we choose to remember

No. It's like the thousand swords of aegon. It's a lie we agree to tell each
other over and over again until we forget it is a lie.

History is propaganda. It is interpretration. There is no truth to it. Just
perspective.

~~~
jklinger410
While it is true that complete unbiased understanding of past events is
impossible, that does not therefore make it unimportant to try for.

The point of history is not agreed upon lies. That's an unethical concession.
The point of history is to tell _what happened._

Not including other perspectives is exactly what it sounds like, a failure to
properly retell history. Propagandized history _is_ immoral. Even if your
inner pragmatic, reductionist, contrarian instincts lead you to believe you
should accept it just because that is what has happened in the past. There is
no ethical reasoning behind it.

~~~
Idontreddit
> While it is true that complete unbiased understanding of past events is
> impossible, that does not therefore make it unimportant to try for.

Agreed. But as long as you understand that history is ultimately propaganda.
There isn't an objective truth buttressing it. Just arbitrary biased
interpretation.

> The point of history is not agreed upon lies.

It's an agreed upon "interpretation" by a small group of people who get a
larger group of people to accept it. Different nations have different
histories of the same event. The vietnamese history of the vietnam war is
markedly different than the US history of the vietnam war. Same event,
different "interpretation/propaganda".

> That's an unethical concession.

It's an honest observation. National histories are biased propaganda. To
believe otherwise is to delude oneself. Perhaps some take the
propaganda/history to extreme degrees, but nevertheless, all history is
propaganda.

> The point of history is to tell what happened.

No. That would be just a list of events. History is INTERPRETATION. Saying
that the Civil War began in 1861 is just a fact. Interpreting that as a war
over slavery or a war to save the union or the war for state rights or
whatever is HISTORY/PROPAGANDA.

> Propagandized history is immoral.

Then all history should be banned and replaced with a list of events.

Think of it this way, history of the US from a white man's perspective is far
different than history of the US from a native american's perspective. History
of the holocaust would be much different had the germans won ww2 than what it
is today. Same event, different history/interpretation.

It's quite amazing that I'm getting downvoted for stating that history is
biased and all history is propaganda. But then again, most people are
brainwashed. Ultimately, we may laugh at the north koreans or the chinese or
the russians or whomever, but we are really deep down, no different.

~~~
woodandsteel
Something that is unusual about modern West is we make it possible to publish
all the different perspectives, and we have an ethic in academia to study them
objectively and try to figure out which is correct. I think that is a very
good idea, and often it is possible to arrive at the truth, at least to some
significant degree. So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea
that the Jews needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was
simply wrong.

~~~
Idontreddit
> Something that is unusual about modern West is we make it possible to
> publish all the different perspectives

I think we have to stop patting ourselves on the back. Yes, we claim to allow
it, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We aren't as open to
questioning or "heresy" as you'd like to think. If you've ever worked in
academia, you would know this.

> and we have an ethic in academia to study them objectively and try to figure
> out which is correct.

This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like
race, sex, religion, etc.

> So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea that the Jews
> needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was simply wrong.

Not if the germans had WON THE WAR. That's the point. Look at how differently
"history/propaganda" works when it relates to US:natives and Germany:Jews.

Our history cast the natives as savage demons that needed to be wiped out for
the advance of civilization and the creation of the US. We make allowances for
the genocide of the natives by excusing it with "disease killed many of them"
or that it allowed for the creation of the US. But for jews, we do not make
such allowances.

If you think we are open to different perspectives, try to get a book
published that questions many of the claims of the holocaust. If jared diamond
had written about the holocaust ( excusing the deaths of the jews due to the
disease and starvation as a result of germany's poor performance in the
eastern front ), do you really think the NYTimes/media and academia would have
supported it?

All history is propaganda. If the germans had won ww2, the holocaust would
have been viewed differently. Hell the word "holocaust" wouldn't even exist.
Holocaust was a term israeli jews invented in 1953 to "brand" the genocide. We
don't have a branding for the native "holocaust". Or the armenian "holocaust".
Or the rwandan "holocaust".

Pick anything in history. Look at the "history" of the israeli/palestine
issue. Look at the history of russia/ukraine. Look at the history of US civil
war. Different sides have different histories/propaganda. There is no truth,
just subjective and selfish propaganda.

Or if you feel more generous, you can say that there are many truths and each
side picks their own truths. But regardless, it's propaganda.

I find it laughable how people are so resistent to the simple truth that
history is propaganda. But then I realize that it's because they are victims
of propaganda.

~~~
woodandsteel
>This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like
race, sex, religion, etc.

What in heavens name are you talking about? There are countless books and
articles published in this country, in and out of academia, describing and
condemning oppression of blacks, women, and gays. On the last group, this has
helped lead to a revolution in recent years in gay rights.

And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults,
is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian regimes
such as China.

Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re-
writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better? And
ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia? But you are simply wrong, some
countries are vastly better.

~~~
Idontreddit
> What in heavens name are you talking about?

I was fairly explicit and straightforward.

> There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out
> of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and
> gays.

Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.

> On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in
> gay rights.

You mean the relentless hollywood/academic propaganda campaign helped in the
revolution? Yes I know.

> And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults,
> is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian
> regimes such as China.

We have "freedom of speech" when the elite support the agenda. The elite
supported gay marriage/etc. Hence why the media, academia, etc pushed for it
while the population resisted. As I said, you couldn't publish anything that
negatively portray gays.

> Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re-
> writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better?

No. I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone
interprets it for their own political agenda. That's all I'm saying. For
example, we view george washington as a great founder of the nation. Others
view him as a genocidal maniac who went around exterminating natives and
skinning them and making leggings out of them. Every nation has
propaganda/history. That's what it is created for. History is fiction that
unites us all. It is created by the people in power for a purpose.

> And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia?

They have their own history/propaganda as well.

> But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.

"Vastly"? No. Superficially, maybe. Some "history/propaganda" are more
sophisticated and clever. Other's, like north korea's history, are silly and
immature. Either way, it's all propaganda.

Be angry at china if you want. All I'm saying is that everyone pushes
history/propaganda. The fact that you think your "history/propanda" is better
just shows that you support that "history/propaganda". Has nothing to do with
whether that history is accurate/truthful/etc.

You think your history is better because of your bias, self-interest, agenda,
etc. You think your history is better because you grew up with it.

~~~
woodandsteel
>Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.

Lots gets published negative about those groups. Take the best-selling book
<The Bell Curve> which argues that blacks have lower iq's. You say the elites
push an agenda, but often that is because non-elites persuaded them to change
their views. For instance, gays were pariah's until recently.

>I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone
interprets it for their own political agenda.

That's simply not true. Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be
persuaded by arguments. Lots of people are willing to change their political
philosophy if they are presented with reasons. I know I have changed my views
on a number of important issues over the years. It is a slow process, but it
happens a lot in this country. Look at how the conservative movement rose from
nothing over the course of decades, fighting the elites all the way. Just
because you are not objective and open to persuasion doesn't mean everyone
else in the world is like you.

You know, in some countries of the world the government is so oppressive that
is impossible to work to make things better, but in other countries it is
possible, at least some of the time, but to do that generally requires an
accurate understanding of the past. What you are saying is it is impossible to
get this, and the implication is that it is impossible to make the world
better. Is that what you believe? Note when I say make the world better, I
mean according to a set of universal values, not ones that favor your group or
country over all others. Apparently you believe such values don't exist, have
I got you right on that?

I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to
look at history objectively. I can think of three possible reasons. One is
that you just have a cynical personality. The second is you are just selfish
and don't care. The third is that you are being paid by an authoritarian
government like Russia or China to spread cynicism so people will give up
trying to get at the truth and make the world better.

~~~
Idontreddit
> Lots gets published negative about those groups.

Lots? And you name one book that was marginalized more than 20 years ago.

> Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments.

No they are not. Especially on matters like "history/propaganda/etc" that are
INTERPRETATION rather than factual.

> I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to
> look at history objectively.

Because it is propaganda. Because there is no "objectivity" in
history/interpretation/etc.

Try this. Was the civil war about freeing the slaves or states' rights? Was
the vietnam war about stopping communism ( vietnam war ) or neo-colonialism (
war of american aggression )? Was the holocaust about the jews? If so, why
were most people killed in the holocaust non-jews/gentiles? If most of the
people who died were non-jews, why has modern history/culture associated it
with jews?

You think you know the answer and you think you are objective/right/etc
because your answers fit your agenda/worldview/propaganda. History has always
been about propaganda ( emperors/kings/etc would hire writers to write
"histories" extolling their virtue and the virtue of their families/etc ).
Now, rather than being propaganda for the king/monarchs/etc, history is the
official propaganda of the state/nation.

Now, I'm not saying history/propaganda is unnecessary. I think it is needed to
maintain the state/nation/society. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking
history is the truth. It is not. Not here, not in China, not in Russia, not
anywhere.

> One is that you just have a cynical personality.

Or I'm educated and intelligent and understand what history actually is. You
are making the same ad hominem attacks religious or cult members make when
they are confronted with someone who doesn't "believe". You can lash out at me
and call me cynical, but the real cynic is you.

Anyways, I can see that there is no reasoning with you ( not that I'm
surprised ) so this will be my last reply to you as you've resorted to ad
hominems. I won't read your replies if you write them so please don't bother.
Good day.

