Recently the internet has been filled with cries for killing and slaughter, with rancor spilling everywhere; it’s heartbreaking to watch, and I can’t help but state my own position as well.
First, I have always clearly leaned toward the “traitor to the nation” camp. I do not think that so-called “sovereignty” is anything particularly important, especially “territory.” Unless it is a place like Qufu, which is indeed a cultural or religious shrine, territory is nothing “sacred” at all. The foundation of a country is its people; land without people is at most just some property, and in diplomacy it is a bargaining chip in a game of strategy, nothing more.
Mencius said: “He who by force feigns benevolence becomes a hegemon; a hegemon must have a great state. He who by virtue practices benevolence becomes a king; a king need not wait for greatness. Tang had seventy li, and King Wen had a hundred li.” What does this mean? It means that only a country without virtue needs to seize land by force, whereas a virtuous country does not care about the size of its territory. A place roughly as big as Zhongguancun would probably be enough to “rule all under Heaven.” Mencius was not opposed to military campaigns either; on the contrary, if the people’s hearts are won over and an army of benevolence and righteousness rises up, Mencius naively believed that it would surely be able to sweep everything before it and be invincible under Heaven.
The reason I bring up Mencius again is simply to say that in traditional Chinese thought there has never been any belief in the supremacy of sovereignty or in the sacred inviolability of territory. These are the habits of those so-called hegemonic Western countries.
As for saying that Diaoyu Island is ours, on what grounds? On the grounds that we discovered it long ago, that we named it long ago? Of course none of that is a reason. This logic is still the expansionist habit of Western hegemonism—the first one to rush onto a piece of land, plant a flag, and draw a circle gets to count as having occupied it. But the problem is that back then we didn’t even plant a flag; it was the Japanese who in fact exercised control. Even by Western logic, we may not be able to speak with full confidence and assurance.
Of course, I am not trying to say “Diaoyu Island is theirs” either. This is something open to dispute and negotiation. Some matters are equal exchanges, some are unequal extortions, but none of this involves anything sacred; ceding territory is, in itself, the same as paying indemnities—both are questions of interest. Only if the land involved has many residents, and the fate of those residents may be betrayed, does ceding territory become a major issue that must not be infringed. Take Vladivostok, for example: after it was seized, the local Chinese were expelled and even killed. In such a case we should not simply stand by and do nothing. But Diaoyu Island and the South China Sea basically do not have this problem, so this is merely a plain and simple question of interest bargaining. If force is invoked, then it is purely a matter of hegemonism versus hegemonism; if there are no people hoping to be rescued, then there can be no “army of benevolence and righteousness.”
If other countries use hegemonic force against us, should we not also use force to strike back? Are we supposed to obediently endure the humiliation? Indeed, yes. Especially since when they occupied Diaoyu Island they did not harm our residents, whereas when we strike back we would have to ravage their civilians, smash their property (and even more of our own people’s property), and there are even those who shout for the use of inhuman nuclear weapons. Is this not far more than merely replacing violence with violence?
It cannot be denied that the Japanese did not win by benevolence and righteousness; they made the first provocative move. But are we then supposed to submit meekly? Yes. In Mencius’s words: “If you feel ashamed of this, it would be best to emulate King Wen.” If we devote ourselves to practicing benevolent government, even if we cannot quite achieve the effectiveness of “invincible under Heaven,” we can at least earn the admiration of our neighbors and will certainly no longer lose our dignity over such a petty provocation. In fact, although the Japanese have wolfish ambitions, they are also extremely ready to admire other countries. When China was strong, they learned from China without reservation; when the West was strong, they focused wholeheartedly on learning from the West. But now the Japanese will no longer look at us from the position of students. This is not because our power is insufficiently strong, but because culturally, on the level of “royal way” politics, we really have nothing that deserves to be looked up to.
I am not rejecting concepts like national pride; on the contrary, I place great importance on cultural honor. Perhaps the Japanese provoked us, but what truly makes us feel inferior and humiliated is not what the Japanese did, but what Chinese people did afterward—where is there even a trace of the bearing of a great cultural nation?
Among all forms of protest, I support boycotting Japanese goods, though of course I myself could not possibly take part in it. This is the most peaceful way to declare one’s feelings and stance. It is just like how we can also boycott Mengniu, or even boycott domestic milk powder. Demonstrations and marches are of course feasible too, because we ought to have such freedom. We can demonstrate against our own government, and we can also demonstrate against foreign governments. These gestures and demonstrations are declarations of feeling, not rational strategy. I do not wish to see those Fifty-Cent Party types, who when speaking of the people’s dissatisfaction and resentment toward their own government keep saying all day that one must be rational and calm, but when facing foreign governments, turn around and support the people’s irrational outbursts. To my mind, whether the target is one’s own government or someone else’s, the only things by which to judge public behavior are whether it resorts to violence and whether it infringes on other people’s freedom—not whether it is sufficiently “rational.” So long as one does not obviously violate others’ freedom, everyone has the right to express his or her views and emotions peacefully.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply