Shoe, Prostitute and Dictator

The incident that happened at Cambridge University on February 2nd, 2009 caught world-wide attention. A déjà vu of shoe hurling on a former American President several months ago as a farewell kiss occurred during the speech of the Chinese Premier for “How can this University prostitute itself with this dictator?”

The Chinese government officially called it a “despicable” action, but did not mention what the shoe thrower said. Here is a jamais vu again for the Chinese government – it trickily ignored the part of information to hype the people’s patriotism up. Under this flag of patriotism, many Chinese people are furious with this shoe thrower, whereas they were jubilant with the first shoe thrower before. I don’t know if the Chinese people would calm down a little bit if they got the full information. By an old and obsolete custom of throwing stones at a prostitute, not a prostitute-customer, this shoe should be aimed at Cambridge University, for the shoe thrower believed this University acted like a “prostitute”; so far this University has not admitted to having such a “prostitute” conduct with the “dictator”, but claimed where it is a place for “debate”. Prostitution is a conduct without love but for money. I wonder if this University will clarify her chastity whether this engaged “debate” was based on love, or money, or whatsoever. I doubt the Chinese people will still be so angry if this shoe was not hurled to the “dictator”.

Many Chinese people are caught by off guard on this incident for they are living in the Allegory of the Cave. The state of mind that they regard their rulers as the symbol of state is just the same as the Chinese rulers regard themselves: “L'état, c'est moi” (“I am the state” in English). The Chinese rulers have usurped the power from the Chinese people for a long history, and they never return it back to the people. Is there any covenant between the rulers and the people for the rulers to represent the people? Is there a free election for a constituent to choose a representative on behalf of him or her? We saw this Premier of China talked about “democracy” and “election” with his intact supremacy of the Chinese Communist Party during his trip to Britain. It appears to me that he was not on the same page with the right side of history; my understanding (derived from Charles de Montesquieu, 1689 – 1755) is that in democracies, such a party supremacy, like slavery and race supremacy, is contrary to the spirit of the constitution. We saw those Chinese students who came to the West and attended that event at the auditorium of Cambridge University show little interest in learning the essence of the Western democracy, but have a great passion to enchant the supremacist. We saw some Chinese falsely claimed he or she represented all of the Chinese people to kick someone’s butt or to sue someone in the other incidents. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that such kinds of persons usually don’t know what they talk about. In the movie Forrest Gump, Forrest said “Shit happens.” When a discord is so intensified, “shoe happens”, and it will not be under your control; the world just witnessed the third shoe hurled out. Francesco Petrarch (1304 – 1374), the father of Renaissance, once on the ignorance of the Medieval Ages and said that “You see that I cannot speak of these matters without the greatest irritation and indignation.” When the Chinese people could not understand the indignation of those shoe throwers, but only pity for their own anger, they will never know who John Brown (1800 – 1859) was. I don’t agree this kind of shoe hurling from the very beginning, with the first shoe, not because of the first shoe was for an American President. If this second shoe was indeed hurled at the “dictator”, or the “prostitute”-customer, it would be a surprising custom change; and I doubt this shoe would break though the Bamboo Curtain.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527), the founder of modern political science, said in his The Prince – known as a mainstay of the western college bookstores, “that there are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second.” I exhort the Chinese government to initiate its political reform. The sooner, the better for it is a common sense: the darker it is getting, the more beasts will come out. When the Chinese government is disaccording with the right side of history and especially lack of the checks and balances in its laws for “men”, the world won’t be surprised that the “beasts” will fight along with “men” against injustice in China. Is it a presque vu? No one knows.