I didn't want to say anything more about Jiang Fangzhou, but since Reuters named me in a report that Jiang Fangzhou collected money to do propaganda for Japan, let's respond to this so-called cultural exchange.
Reuters is very rhythmic, and the title of the article directly defines the voice criticizing Jiang Fangzhou on the Internet as nationalist anger. The Reuters commentary set up criticism of Chiang's voice and support for the values of normal cultural exchanges as two camps of contradictions and conflicts, and quoted the relevant response of the Foreign Ministry.
This review article by Reuters has some writing skills. For English readers abroad who do not understand the causes and consequences of the incident, and do not understand that the Chinese cultural circles and public opinion circles more than a decade ago are full of such expositions as the infinite worship of Japan and the infinite depreciation of China, it is obvious that the Chinese netizens who criticize Jiang Fangzhou are radical fanatics and irrational nationalists. Because the Reuters article mentioned: "Even the Chinese Foreign Ministry affirms and defends the value of Sino-Japanese cultural exchanges."
However, the reason why Chinese netizens criticize Jiang Fangzhou is to deny normal cultural exchanges between countries? Not. The point of anger among Chinese netizens is that many Chinese intellectuals who accept Japanese funding promote Japanese culture and Japanese society while also demeaning China.
Reuters named me, saying that I accused Chinese intellectuals of currying favor with Japan for economic gain. I don't deny that. Jiang Fangzhou and some others did accept Japanese funding and received economic benefits, which they themselves admitted, and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs also had relevant audit materials. So are they currying favor with Japan?
Let me show you a passage from Jiang Fangzhou's "A Year in Tokyo". This paragraph was found by netizens, and everyone generally felt very uncomfortable.
p. 175: "I remember a passage from my friend E, who had read in the United States before: "Never before has I wanted to retreat completely to the winter sun, the wise conversation, the busy reading, the sweet love words like this moment." For a moment there was an illusion that the walls were like screens, and as long as you didn't stare at them, everything that happened inside had nothing to do with real life. "But can I live like a free society person?" Can I integrate into my life abroad? No, at best, it's a "landscape of exiles." Although I entered a different society, in this different free society, as an "exile", my only wealth was the distortion caused by life inside the walls. The curiosity of free societies about me is like the exhibition of barbarian tribes in the era of imperialism. People in a free society, such as the Japanese media people and professors I came into contact with, could never understand our pain and hurt, but merely reciprocated with polite sympathy and curiosity, sympathy for the fascinating and terrifying exotic landSchooling in which I had grown up. ”
How do you understand and evaluate this passage?
If you understand this passage with a tolerant heart, it is nothing more than a very traditional literati who has fallen ill again when writing. This kind of problem is to moan without illness, pretend to be excessive, and pretend to have a deep understanding and thinking about their own country and society. But in fact, this whole paragraph is meaningless, because the discussion does not talk about specific events to support the author's judgment, but only blindly defines and expresses emotions.
But what if you look at this passage with a more genuine heart?
Jiang Fangzhou worked as an executive in the media in the system, accepted japanese funding, arranged housing, paid living expenses, and participated in various activities arranged by the Japanese government, but she also expressed doubts in the soft text written for Japan, wondering if she could live like a free society. Does Jiang Fangzhou feel that working and living in China is very unfree, or does he allude to the fact that China is not a free society? Jiang Fangzhou believes that the Japanese media and professors she came into contact with were polite sympathy and curiosity about her origin in China, and Jiang Fangzhou believed that the Japanese she came into contact with thought that China was a fascinating and terrifying exotic land.
If this paragraph is really viewed with a very sincere heart, of course, Jiang Fangzhou will curry favor with Japan, and even at the expense of self-depreciation, and even at the same time, he will not hesitate to demean China.
We Chinese netizens commented on the Jiang Fangzhou incident, many people commented, cultural exchange activities, got the other side's financial support to say some good things about each other, which is actually nothing. But why do you have to demean yourself at the same time? Why do we have to belittle China at the same time?
But these Reuters will not report. Because the head is cut off, only the content that wants to be reported is intercepted, and the information in a certain direction is the daily life of foreign media reporting and is the consistent means of public opinion propaganda in western media.
When did we Chinese netizens oppose normal cultural exchanges? We Chinese netizens criticize and accuse Jiang Fangzhou of collecting money for Japanese propaganda, and we oppose this phenomenon of dwarfing ourselves and dwarfing China in order to elevate Japan. In the case of Japan sponsoring Chinese intellectuals to do cultural exchanges, many people are like this, and many of their remarks are excessively excessive than those of Jiang Fangzhou. Compared with them, Jiang Fangzhou was even a white lotus. If the Jiang Fangzhou phenomenon is just a case, it will not trigger the anger of Chinese netizens, but this is a common phenomenon, is this still a normal cultural exchange?
I would like to ask Reuters if, in the Anglo-French cultural exchange project, French-funded British cultural celebrities write articles that vigorously belittle the Queen of England, the British Royal Family, and the Constitutional Monarchy, and at the same time praise the French N-republic, praising France for "creating" freedom and democracy. How does Reuters Society report it? How will the British people react?
In fact, there was a follow-up to the Jiang Fangzhou incident, which was an interview and dialogue with Jiang Fangzhou by Japanese television during the epidemic, and many of Jiang Fangzhou's words triggered the anger of Chinese public opinion. This anger far outweighs her self-deprecation by collecting money to write "A Year in Tokyo" about saying good things about Japan.
Jiang Fangzhou's response to this matter was that Japanese television station reprocessed her words. Let's believe jiang fangzhou's self-defense, then please ask Jiang Fangzhou, you said that the japanese television station broadcast the picture of your interview was maliciously edited, do you think that Japan's operation is still within the normal scope of Sino-Japanese cultural exchanges?
Once again, I would like to reiterate my views on the Jiang Ark incident.
First, the emergence of the Chiang Kai-shek incident is a portrayal of the problems that have arisen in Sino-Japanese relations.
Normal cultural exchange projects are actually a means to promote relations between the two countries, especially the promotion of non-governmental relations between the two countries. Give each other some financial support to each other's cultural celebrities, say some good things to each other, and increase the good feelings of the two peoples for each other. Normal cultural exchange programs are certainly good things. However, the reality is that in the Sino-Japanese cultural exchange project, many Chinese intellectuals who receive Japanese funding have behaved abnormally.
Second, the role of traditional cultural exchange programs in today's Internet age and information explosion era will be rapidly reduced.
Ordinary people in various countries no longer have to spend a lot of time and cost to travel, and do not have to listen to cultural celebrities and media to relay information. Just turn on your phone. In this era, the authority, professionalism and credibility of media and cultural celebrities are also rapidly disappearing. In turn, the people around the world have more and more questions about the objectivity and impartiality of the media and cultural celebrities.
Third, we Chinese netizens resent abnormal cultural exchanges.
Jiang Fangzhou they collected money to say something nice about Japan, in fact, Chinese netizens can understand, this is like collecting money to advertise. But even if advertising, the advertising laws of various countries stipulate that while saying good things about advertisers, they cannot belittle others, and cultural exchanges can be an exception.
Jiang Fangzhou's "One Year in Tokyo" is essentially an account of her participation in Sino-Japanese cultural exchange projects funded by Japan, and it is a soft text. When Jiang Fangzhou published a book, should we explain the reasons for the publication of "Tokyo One Year" and explain that this is an advertising ad soft text to promote Japan? What's more, this advertorial for Promoting Japan, some of the chapters in it also demean China by the way. This makes us Chinese netizens very uncomfortable.
Fourth, don't hesitate to talk about the masses of the people and intellectuals as two opposing groups.
Many cultural celebrities, that is, bachelor's degrees. The academic qualifications of our Chinese netizens and Ordinary Chinese people are not lower than those of cultural celebrities. Any city, standing on the road, looking at it, there are many undergraduates, masters and doctors everywhere, who is not an intellectual? Cultural celebrities want to persuade Chinese netizens to explain that their observations and thinking about society are more profound than those of us ordinary people, and they need to show more sincerity and dry goods.
The knowledge mastered by cultural celebrities is also mastered by us ordinary people. What cultural celebrities do not master, we ordinary people also grasp. In the words of our netizens: "What is an intellectual?" It is now working hard to breed in the farmland, it is to work hard to draw in front of roads and bridges, it is to fight on the operating table, it is to carefully collect the situation in the townships, and it is to carefully study the countermeasures against foreign strategies. In short, it is not the group that stays in the motherland and opposes the motherland and blows abroad."
A little less X and no disease moaning, a little more human behavior. What exactly is going on in Japanese society is not discussed by these so-called intellectuals who take money to say good things about Japan. We ordinary netizens also know the good aspects of Japan, and the bad aspects of Japanese social science practitioners have said countless times. The positive and negative evaluations of Japan have been read by ordinary Chinese netizens.
We Chinese the thinking and observation of the masses of the people than the so-called intellectuals and cultural celebrities.
Finally, a little advice for Reuters, who named me.
News reports should not be reprocessed and taken out of context. I suggest that if Reuters names me again, I hope to be able to report my views in its entirety. Reuters said I think Jiang Fangzhou is collecting money to do propaganda for Japan, which is correct. It's a fact that she's collecting Japanese money, and she's doing propaganda for Japan. But that's not the whole picture of the whole thing.
Of course, I know that Reuters will not ignore me, because I am not an ordinary netizen like me, nor am I my own person as the Western media thinks. Reuters defended Jiang Fangzhou, believing that she was merely involved in normal cultural exchanges, and perhaps Reuters thought that Jiang Fangzhou was their own person.