- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
He was responding to a question about the cancellation of his exhibition by the Lisson Gallery in London in November following comments on social media referencing the Israel-Hamas conflict.
His post, which was subsequently deleted, suggested the “sense of guilt around the persecution of the Jewish people” had been transferred and used against the Arab world.
Referring to his own family’s exile when he was one year old, the activist said: "I grew up within this heavy political censorship.
“I realise now, today in the West, you are doing exactly the same.”
He drew parallels with the disastrous purge under Mao, which took China to the brink of anarchy.
Criticising the suspension of two New York University professors for comments related to Gaza, Ai said: "This is really like a cultural revolution, which is really trying to destroy anybody who have different attitudes, not even a clear opinion.
Ai’s art often addresses political issues in China and he has frequently criticised Beijing’s record on human rights and democracy.
Please tell me the “subversive activities” that Wu Han was involved in. Did he commit any violent acts? Who did he kill or physically harm? Or was he a spy? Did he sell secrets to the U.S.? What?
Because I’m pretty sure the “subversive activities” were criticizing the government.
Feel free to enlighten me. But be sure to provide evidence. So far, you’ve told me about articles in a constitution ratified in 1982, after Mao died and this is specifically about Mao’s China.
I brought up articles from the Pre 1982 constitution, or are you conveniently ignoring that I provided the evidence you requested, interesting that when I provide requested evidence you ignore it.
Second you have now ignored my request for information about asange. Strange, who id assagne kill or phisicaly harm, did he sell secrets? last I checked he merly did a journalism… or are we going to also ignore this and make it so only I do the responding here. It is a wonderful retorical trick to make it seem like I am always on the back foot, so to an outside observer it apears as though your winning, dispite the fact you have contributed nothing to the conversation, well besides throwing new accusiation, not responding to my counters and moving the goal posts.
Third you have to understand the material conditions of China at the time, those being coming right out of s civil war* with a US and other capitalist funded side the ROC who flead but where not fully defeated going over to tiwan. For a state in this postion to sucseed, Especialy in the earlie years they have to be hyper vigilent, if not the US usualy will be the one to come in and cut them where they stand, just look at Most of latin america, the exception proving the rule is cuba with their over 600 attempts. or the attempts the US made to destroy the USSR. If you read the works of Wu Han, during this period, he was a class colaberationist (read facists) his play, that agian was not the reason he was arrested but was likely used as point to prove the class colaberation. If you do not think the US does not do similar you are fooling yourself, the seddition act is still on the books in the United States so “Seddicious Speach” will land you in jail too.
Haha. “You have to consider how China was at the time, therefore imprisoning people for criticizing the government was okay.”
Got it.
Assange is not relevant to the claim, because Ai Wewei was talking about himself. Also, Assange is not in a “re-education” camp where he will be worked to death. Has he been treated well? No. Was he treated like Wu Han? No.
The fact that you are able to say all of this and have not been imprisoned might show that you’ve been taken in by Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid journalism, much like OP who posted it in the first place.
You know, Rupert Murdoch. The notorious Marxist.
I also like how you are simultaneously claiming that the statement that “censorship in the West is exactly the same as Mao’s China” while insisting that there was freedom of speech in Mao’s China and Mao’s China was not a totalitarian oppressive regime.
Ether the claim “censorship in the West is exactly the same as Mao’s China” is false or, by your own claims, there is just as little censorship in the West as there was during Mao’s China, which, according to you, did not censor people. Either way, I’m not sure why you’re complaining about it.
no it was not for critisizing the government it was for being a class colaberationist, there is a massive MASSIVE diffrence. you know… they where just fighting Facism … he was a facists… or atleast acting for a long period of time like a facist…
Second he is being treated worse, Assange’s treatment is classified as torture, the PRC by all reputable sources I have found in the time we have been talking did not resort to torcher
I can go to China and Critisize China too… Agian it is not a right exclusive to the west, the point I was making BACK AT YOUR ORIGIONAL POINT, before you moved the goal posts multiple times.
Murdoch is a stanch Capitalist, arguably a facists, we are not the same
I am not claiming those 2 statements, I am saying 1) Mao’s PRC was not totalitarian, it was a free society that we can expect given they just emerged from a civil war. 2) the PRC is while not perfect and free of all censor ship significantly better than atleast the United States if not the west, 3) There is significant censorship in the west"
I never made the claim that the west and maos china are the same this is a claim you have ascribed to me and that I have not made, my origional clame, and the one I am still making is that The PRC has freedom of speech and that said right is not exclusive to the west, and is arguable better upheld by the PRC.
Last I have still heard nothing about your false claim that I did not provide the Mao Era constitution text when I in my reply 2 ago did do so, and you blatantly ignored it, because it was inconvenent to your argument.
Again- either Censorship in the west is the same as Mao’s China- the claim in the headline and the article, in which case, according to you, there is no censorship -or- that claim is false. I’m starting to think you didn’t even read the headline, let alone the article.
It’s very simple. It’s also the only thing I have been discussing this entire time.
Also, I have no idea what text you provided because you didn’t link to it. I have no reason to just trust you presented it accurately. You could have just as easily made it up.
I think you are under the false notion that my issue with your comment was that you where saying that the headline was false, That was not my issue, I too take issue with the headline but in the inverse way and we have not at all been discussing that, for any reason and I am sorry you got that impression.
That being said that is not what we have been discussing this entire time, as I have stated MULTIPLE TIMES, my argument is that freedom of speech is not exlusive to the west as you heavily implied in your first comment, and that is what I have been taking issue with.
And I can one tell you it is from the Mao Era Constitution, and I could have made it up, but I have integrrety, unlike you when you just without warrent or evidence said Feedom of speech is an exclusivly western thing. or in such that I only provided you the post 1982 constituiton immedatly after I provided, and cited the Mao era constitution.
That may not have been what you were discussing, but it is the only topic I have been discussing this entire time, which is why I have brought it up over and over again.
And, again, I have no idea if you cited that constitution because you didn’t link to it. Again, you might have made it up. I’m sure you want me to “just trust me, bro,” but I don’t.
You are free to look it up for yourself, I do not expect yoy tp trust me on absolutely anything, but I am not going to be uploading an entire PDF into a comment
Also if we want to refraim, I will happy argue the PRC is better than The USA, if that is what you would rather be arguing?
All you have to do is post a link. Just copy and paste a URL. That you refuse to do so certainly makes me think you were being dishonest.
And no, yet again, my argument is that the claim that “censorship in the West is exactly the same as Mao’s China” is false. That is all my argument has ever been from the start, which is why I have brought it up in almost every response to you. If only you would read it. Or the article. Or the article’s headline.
I really don’t care about your opinions about China.