No Forbidden Zones in Reading (Lee Yee)
German philosopher Hegel said, “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
In April 1979, the post-Cultural Revolution era of China, the first article of the first issue of Beijing-based literary magazine, Dushu [meaning “Reading” in Chinese]," shook up the Chinese literary world. The article, titled “No Forbidden Zones in Reading”, was penned by Li Honglin. At the time, the CCP had not yet emerged from the darkness of the Cultural Revolution. What was it like in the Cultural Revolution? Except for masterpieces by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and a small fraction of practical books, all books were banned, and all libraries were closed. The Cultural Revolution ended in 1976, and 2 years later in 1978, the National Publishing Bureau decided to allow 35 books to be “unbanned”. An interlude: When the ban was first lifted, there was no paper on which to print the books because the person with authority over paper was Wang Dongxing, a long-term personal security of Mao’s, who would only give authorization to print Mao. The access to use paper to print books other than Mao was a procedural issue. The Cultural Revolution was already on its way to be overturned. The door to printing these books was opened only after several hang-ups.
“No Forbidden Zones in Reading” in the first issue of Dushu raised a question of common sense: Do citizens have the freedom to read? “We have not enacted laws that restrict people’s freedom of reading. Instead, our Constitution stipulates that people have the freedom of speech and publication, as well as the freedom to engage in cultural activities. Reading ought to be a cultural activity,” argued Li. It was not even about the freedom of speech, but simply reading. Yet this common sense would appear as a subversion of the paralyzing rigid ideas formulated during the Cultural Revolution, like a tossed stone that raises a thousand ripples. Dushu’s editorial department received a large number of objections: first, that there would be no gatekeeper and mentally immature minors would be influenced by trashy literature; second, that with the opening of the Pandora box, feudalism, capitalism and revisionism would now occupy our cultural stage. The article also aroused waves of debates within the CCP. Hu Yaobang, then Minister of Central Propaganda, transferred and appointed Li Honglin as the Deputy Director of the Theory Bureau in his department. A colleague asked him directly, “Can primary school students read Jin Pin Mei [also known in English as The Plum in the Golden Vase, a Chinese novel of manners composed in late Ming dynasty with explicit depiction of sexuality]?”
“All Four Doors of the Library Should be Open” was published in the second issue of Dushu, as an extension to “No Forbidden Zones in Reading”. The author was Fan Yuming, but was really Zeng Yansiu, president of the People’s Publishing House.
In the old days, there was a shorthand for the three Chinese characters for “library”: “book” within a “mouth”. The four sides of the book are all wide open, meaning that all the shackles of the banned books are released. “No Forbidden Zones in Reading” explains this on a theoretical level: the people have the freedom to read; “All Four Doors of the Library Should be Open” states that other than special collection books, all other books should be available for the public to loan.
The controversy caused by “No Forbidden Zones in Reading” lasted 2 years, and in April 1981, at the second anniversary of Dushu, Director of the Publishing Bureau, Chen Hanbo, penned an article that reiterated that there are “No Forbidden Zones in Reading”, and that was targeting an “unprecedented ban on books that did happen”.
Books are records of human wisdom, including strange, boring, vulgar thoughts, which are all valuable as long as they remain. After Emperor Qin Shihuang burned the books, he buried the scholars. In history, the ban on books and literary crimes have never ceased.
Engraved on the entrance to Dachau concentration camp in Germany, a famous poem cautions: When a regime begins to burn books, if it is not stopped, they will turn to burn people; when a regime begins to silent words, if it is not stopped, they will turn to silent the person. At the exit, a famous admonishment: When the world forgets these things, they will continue to happen.
Heine, a German poet of the 19th century, came up with “burning books and burning people”. There was a line before this: This is just foreplay.
Yes, all burning and banning of books are just foreplay. Next comes the literary crimes, and then “burning people”.
I started working at a publishing house with a high school degree at 18, and lived my entire life in a pile of books. 42 years ago, when I read “No Forbidden Zones in Reading” in Dushu, I thought that banned books were a thing of the past. Half a century since and here we are, encountering the exact same thing in the freest zone for reading in the past century in the place which enlightened Sun Yat-sen and the rest of modern intellectuals, a place called Hong Kong.
Oh, Hegel’s words are the most genuine.
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「subversion meaning」的推薦目錄:
- 關於subversion meaning 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於subversion meaning 在 唐家婕 - Jane Tang Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於subversion meaning 在 方志恒 Brian Fong Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於subversion meaning 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於subversion meaning 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於subversion meaning 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於subversion meaning 在 Subversion Meaning - YouTube 的評價
- 關於subversion meaning 在 What does the Subversion status symbol "~" mean? - Stack ... 的評價
subversion meaning 在 唐家婕 - Jane Tang Facebook 的最佳解答
「#時代革命、#光復香港」 八字違法。
7/22 22:26 - 香港特區政府公告
—
每天都在刷新認知。
Under the new national security law, the protest slogan, “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time” is now illegal.
HK government has declared the slogan has a “separatist meaning” or “implication of subversion”.
https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202007/02/P2020070200822.htm
subversion meaning 在 方志恒 Brian Fong Facebook 的精選貼文
守護言論自由,和平表達任何政治觀點是我們的權利
Defending freedom of expression, it is our right to peacefully express any political standpoints
▋高教公民聲明:
守護言論自由 捍衛和平表達任何政治觀點的權利
▋Statement by Progressive Scholars Group:
Defending freedom of expression, upholding the right to peaceful expression of any political standpoints
就近日有關戴耀廷教授言論的風波,「高教公民」有以下回應:
In response to the recent controversies surrounding Prof. Benny Tai’s remarks, the “Progressive Scholars Group” has the following responses:
1/ 《基本法》第二十七條保障「香港居民享有言論自由」、《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第十九條則保障「人人有自由發表意見之權利」(按《基本法》第三十九條在主權移交後繼續有效)。和平表達任何政治觀點,實乃每一個香港人的基本權利。
Basic Law Article 27 stated that ❝Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech❞, while International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19 also stipulated that ❝Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression❞(which shall remain in force after handover under Article 39 of the Basic Law). Peaceful expression of any political standpoints is therefore a fundamental right of every Hongkonger.
2/ 2002年9月,董建華政府在《實施基本法第二十三條諮詢文件》中表明,「純粹發表意見,或純粹報道或評論其他人的意見或行為,不會成為刑事罪行,除非有關的意見、報道或評論煽動他人以發動戰爭、使用武力、威脅使用武力,或其他嚴重非法手段以達至危害國家的目的,或煽動嚴重危害國家或香港特區穩定的暴力或公眾騷亂」(諮詢文件第4.14段);2003年1月,董建華政府聲稱實施基本法第二十三條的建議與《約翰內斯堡原則》相符,即純粹發表意見,不會構成分裂國家罪和顛覆罪的元素。我們憂慮,在現時林鄭月娥政府治下,香港人可能面對比2002年董建華政府更惡劣的二十三條立法草案。
In September 2002, Tung Chee-hwa administration clearly stated in the Consultation Document on Proposals to Implement Article 23 of the Basic Law that ❝mere expression of views, or mere reports or commentaries on views or acts of others, will not be criminalized, unless such expression, report or commentary incites others to achieve a purpose of endangering the state through levying war, force, threat of force or serious unlawful means, or incites violence or public disorder which seriously endangers the stability of the state or the HKSAR❞(Paragraph 4.14 of the consultation document); In January 2003, Tung Chee-hwa administration claimed that Basic Law Article 23 Proposal was broadly consistent with ❝Johannesburg Principles❞, meaning that offences of secession and subversion could not be the result of mere words. We are worried that currently under Carrie Lam administration Hongkongers may face a Basic Law Article 23 Proposal which is much worse than Tung Chee-hwa administration’s Proposal in 2002.
3. 我們呼籲,所有香港人團結起來守護言論自由,共同捍衛和平表達任何政治觀點的權利。
We call on all Hongkongers to join hands in defending freedom of expression, upholding the right to peaceful expression of any political standpoints.
▋延伸閱讀 Furthering reading
《基本法》第二十七條
Basic Law Article 27
https://goo.gl/fDKsFN
《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第十九條
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19
https://goo.gl/Y4hRSU
《實施基本法第二十三條諮詢文件》
Consultation Document on Proposals to Implement Article 23 of the Basic Law
https://goo.gl/VH2XZh
董建華政府就《約翰內斯堡原則》的聲明
Tung Chee-hwa administration’s statement on Johannesburg Principles
https://goo.gl/oJQLpQ
法夢 | 從批鬥戴耀廷看到比2003年草案更惡的23條立法可能
https://goo.gl/QAK7pL
#高教公民 #學術自主 #公民自強 #港獨 #戴耀廷 #學術自由 #言論自由
-----------------------------------
學術自主,公民自強。即LIKE高教公民Facebook。
🔎 認識「高教公民」:https://goo.gl/9xdVQ4
🙋 成為「附屬成員」:https://goo.gl/B70zam
🙌 成為「正式成員」:hkprogressivescholars@gmail.com
subversion meaning 在 Subversion Meaning - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>