The demonstrations in Hong Kong against the proposed introduction of mandatory Chinese patriotism classes in the education system, which protesters say are tantamount to brainwashing, have rapidly heated up.
As Hong Kongers continue to demonstrate with rallies and hunger strikes, their protests have accumulated an astonishing force. Hong Kong’s liberal media, which fully support the protests, are reporting how the public’s anger is boiling over and being directed at the government for violating the people’s wishes in order to carry out Beijing’s instructions and force the implementation of the pro-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) classes in primary and secondary schools.
Opposition to being brainwashed lies at the core of this series of protests. Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary says that the English word “brainwashing” is a loanword from the Chinese term xi nao (洗腦), which literally means “to wash the brain.”
History does not lack examples of acts of brainwashing, either domestically or internationally, but the word has entered the world stage, spreading to many different languages through the English translation of the original Chinese word. That means that the Chinese language has not only contributed to the English language in this instance, but that the term has also been accepted by many other languages through the spreading of the English language, a fact which is highly ironic.
Taking the investigation deeper, the person generally credited with translating xi nao into “brainwash” is US journalist and intelligence agent Edward Hunter, who is said to have done so during the Korean War. After the war broke out in June 1950, Hunter first mentioned the term “brainwashing” in relation to the CCP in an article published in The New Leader, a US liberal, anti-communist magazine about politics and culture.
In 1951, he published Brain-washing in Red China: The Calculated Destruction of Men’s Minds, a collection of intelligence information about the CCP that he had gathered. In the publication, he revealed to the world for the first time that when the CCP was established, Beijing had attempted to systematically change the minds of “imperialist reactionaries” across China, forcefully implanting communism into their brains through various means.
The point of this etymology lesson is that the CCP regime after 1949 could possibly be the originator of political brainwashing. Based on the aforementioned historical and political background, the Oxford English Dictionary has added a note to its comprehensive definition of the word “brainwashing,” noting that it is a method some totalitarian states utilize to oppress political dissidents.
Hong Kong has long been a city beyond the reach of Beijing, so how could it suddenly be willing to allow itself to be brainwashed and tamed, thereby losing its freedom and vitality?
As for the Chinese media, it does not mention the Hong Kong protests at all. However, despite the tight censorship on China’s largest microblogging site, Sina Weibo, over the issue, many enterprising Chinese have managed to find loopholes in the Internet controls to launch stringent attacks against the Chinese authorities in a show of support for Hong Kong. Some Chinese netizens have portrayed themselves as trapped in a dark and subjugated place, praising the freedoms of Hong Kong and Taiwan as a sharp contrast to their own country, as in those countries people are at least allowed to see a distant light of hope.
Hugo Tseng is an associate professor in the English Department at Soochow University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers