I asked several Tsinghua students what they thought about Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned Chinese dissident, winning the Nobel Peace Prize. There was a wide range of answers:
1. “It’s a sensitive subject,” said one student. And said no more.
2. “The Nobel Prize always seems to involve China,” said another student. Maybe she meant the Peace Prize in 1989 to the Dalai Lama and the more recent Literature prize to Gao Xingjian, but I’m not sure. Politely changing the subject.
3. “I don’t know much about what he stands for,” said another student (a freshman).
4. “Now is not the right time for his ideas. They would interfere with economic progress,” said a student who is a member of the Communist Party.
5. “Many people say because the European economy is bad, they gave the prize to someone who will never collect the money [because he’s imprisoned],” said another student. She added that receiving the prize will be bad for Liu. Because it was “a great shame for China” (meaning the government), they will increase his prison sentence.
If they want to stick to a centrally-planned authoritarian system they might try letting people discuss, critique and have some input into decision-making without introducing democratic elections. Most workplaces are dictatorships but the good ones have a light touch and consult staff at all levels. It dosen’t lead to disorder and revolution; it increases productivity and job-satisfaction. But people who are authoritarian, I guess, prefer to objectify and control others. It’s not necessarily rational or self-serving.
Thanks for posting this. I know, living in Israel, that the word on the street / local reality is often so different from what’s reported abroad / foreign perceptions as to be unrecognizable, and that people just don’t have a clear conception at all of what Israelis think about anything. So it’s pretty interesting to see a sampling/snapshot of Chinese opinions.
Seth, did you ask each of them privately for their opinions, or in front of a group?
“It’s not necessarily rational or self-serving. ”
It’s very rational if they value control more than wealth-from-productivity.
Less rational in that it looks fear-dominated to me. It’s not, “Wow, telling people what to do is fun! Dance, minions, dance!” It’s more, “Oh crap if they don’t do what I tell them WE”RE ALL GOING TO DIE.”
Or; the Chinese don’t come down hard on dissidents because they’re cruel jackasses. They come down hard on dissidents because they’re terrified of what will happen if they don’t. (Rightly or mistakenly.)
The holders of fear-dominated values tend to spend all their time warding off fearful situations, at the expense of looking for actual positive situations, and thus get stuck at suck no matter how skilled or powerful they are. But it’s still the rational decision if the holder doesn’t know any better.
To add to Alrenous’ post – instead of “anti war” one acts “pro peace” for example for positive outcome.
Even if it does not seem important at first sight, it makes a world of a difference, or better yet, a different world.
Rev. Terry Jones
https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
deserve the peace nobel prize more because he GAVE UP HIS RIGHT in order to maintain PEACE !
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/china-nobel-liu-xiaobo-tweet-arrest