熱血時報 | Argumentum ad baculum and a fraudulent historical perspective

Argumentum ad baculum and a fraudulent historical perspective



Argumentum ad baculum and a fraudulent historical perspective


Since a time unknown, the Chinese historical perspective in Hong Kong education had become a single-thread river channel, in which there is but one nation in this entire universe at any given point time, whether it is from the age of myth to recorded history, or from the time of the Yellow Emperor to the Chinese communist regime. This nation is said to possess territories so vast that it seems to be without boundaries. Everything committed by this nation which occupied the Central Plains, from acts such as attacking its neighbours, invading the lands of others, eradicating other ethnicities or races and plundering the wealth and women of foreign states, are all deemed as “wugong” in the Chinese historical perspective. With “wu”, it refers to the use of military force in deploying troops and initiating wars; and “gong” means accomplishments, social ethics and virtue. Combing the two words into one, the meaning becomes “if it wasn’t for us making war against you, eliminate our nation and turning your people into our slaves, you lot wouldn’t have made it into our annals of history.


Chinese communist party: the historical negationist

Even more peculiar is that this argumentum ad baculum (“appeal to force”) perspective of history has been taught as inviolable dogma almost without question; and even if there were, the challenge would be cast aside as simply heresy. In contrast with the Western historical perspective, the Chinese one appears to be absurd and unreasonable. For example, no Polish would ever say they were Russian since time immemorial even though they were once under the dominion of the Soviet Union; the United States and Australia would never announce that it belongs to Britain since time immemorial despite having once been part of the British Empire, and neither would the West’s historical perspective agree with the idea that American or Australian nationals are British first and foremost. However, phrases such as “so and so belongs to China since time immemorial” and “you are Chinese first and foremost” would constantly present itself in our neighbouring country’s official media, from their government officials and even Hong Kong’s local academics.

Aside from an “appeal to force” historical perspective is their fraudulent one, the most notable of which has to be that the Chinese communist regime is seen as the successor to the Republic of China (RoC). Recently, the Chinese communist party would hold a ceremony each year commemorating victory over the Japanese, whereby, instead of the communist party pulling the rug from under the RoC government, it has been twisted to “only the communist party fought against imperial Japan”; from having once thanked Japan for invading China, it has become the forerunner of anti-Japan sentiments. Within this perspective, it is taught in Hong Kong’s history class that it was the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that overthrew the Manchurian Qing Empire, a shameless attempt to deny official history.

Just think, how could the PRC have won against Japan and the Second World War in 1945, when it was founded in 1949, let alone being victorious in overthrowing the Qing Empire during the Xinhai Revolution in 1912? Upon its founding, the PRC immediately refused to recognise the international treaties the Qing Empire once signed with their foreign counterparts due to defeat in the various wars, yet at the same time it had usurped the shortened form of the Republic of China’s full title (Zhonghua Minguo) and masquerade itself as China by self-proclaiming itself as “Zhongguo”. Moreover, with the title it stole from the official historic successor of the Qing Empire, PRC the pauper then threatened to the world to deny the rightful heir for nearly 70 years. During which, the PRC continues to fool the world by employing the shortened form “Zhong’guo”, and thus Hong Kong fell into their hands for more than 20 years through no fault of our own and continues to this day.

In addition, since the PRC refused to recognise the treaties the Qing Empire signed with the Western powers, could the regions conquered by the Qing Empire – such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan and even former territories of the Ming Empire – not also deny the sovereignty of the Qing Empire? By the same token, isn’t it a load of bullshit for the PRC to talk of Tibetan, Xinjiang, Taiwan and Hong Kong independence, if one can deny the Qing Empire its sovereignty over those lands?  For if those lands never belonged to the Qing Empire, then naturally neither do they belong to the PRC, so what’s this bloody business about independence, since they were never yours to begin with!

One who forcibly takes someone else’s land and home is a bandit and one who usurps another person’s identity to acquire the properties of the victim is an impostor. Saying something belongs to you when asked by other people even though you know it doesn’t is shameless. Declaring oneself to be the predecessor’s heir while refusing to recognise the treaties signed by the predecessor, yet all the while forbidding someone else to refuse recognition for a “consensus” they never signed with oneself, is the work of a scoundrel.

The minds of the HKSAR regime and other pro-China people are filled with the shameless historical perspective of this thief, con-artist and scoundrel, thus they keep telling others to have a “better understanding” of the history of the PRC. Since their minds are full of crap, how can the minds of their citizenry not be the same? For when their citizens have lost their ability to think for themselves, all due to having been instilled with this historical perspective, naturally they would become “young trash”, “old trash” and slaves. Has your mind been indoctrinated yet? For if yes, then bloody congratulations!

(Editor’s note: this article has been published in the 67th printed edition of Passion Times. The subscription link for the printed version is: http://www.passiontimes.hk/4.0/regform.php)


作者
讀者回應