> In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human".
> Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress.
Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense. I've removed the quote we are discussing for clarity of my reply I hope you understand.
My takeaway from everything I've read in the past few hours is that he was a bit of a cantankerous guy who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted and used to ruin him. He then refused to take it back either because he was unable to or too stubborn to do so.
I'm glad I pushed as hard as I did for clarification of the colonisation thing. In the end there were a few good interpretations (some conflicting!) and we are richer for having read them rather than taking the first presented as gospel.
The funny thing is I don't really give a shit about this dude, and actually don't think that he should have been given a nobel prize (nor Obama lol...) I think Nobel prizes for peace should go to those who actually promote or create peace... in whatever political framework that comes. Democracy isn't a panacea!
But I feel like a lot of the criticism of this guy has been super heavy handed and like many young western men I bristle at the idea of being told what is right/acceptable without good explanation. I hope you understand my perspective and why I kept questioning when I I did.
I was hoping for a more conciliatory ending to our conversation from you, but I suppose when you arouse someone's passions that isn't possible. Have a nice week.
Well, now we have this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780074
> In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human".
> Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress.
Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense. I've removed the quote we are discussing for clarity of my reply I hope you understand.
My takeaway from everything I've read in the past few hours is that he was a bit of a cantankerous guy who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted and used to ruin him. He then refused to take it back either because he was unable to or too stubborn to do so.
I'm glad I pushed as hard as I did for clarification of the colonisation thing. In the end there were a few good interpretations (some conflicting!) and we are richer for having read them rather than taking the first presented as gospel.
The funny thing is I don't really give a shit about this dude, and actually don't think that he should have been given a nobel prize (nor Obama lol...) I think Nobel prizes for peace should go to those who actually promote or create peace... in whatever political framework that comes. Democracy isn't a panacea!
But I feel like a lot of the criticism of this guy has been super heavy handed and like many young western men I bristle at the idea of being told what is right/acceptable without good explanation. I hope you understand my perspective and why I kept questioning when I I did.