[ZT] Rethinking the Hanfu Movement

五月静

一年前﹐我開始我大四的最大規模計劃﹕寫一本關於漢服運動物質文化的書。
亦因為大學學生會網路政策改變﹐迫我轉去wordpress. 從此開始了我博客寫文的生涯。
08年9月﹐多倫多漢服會翻炒“韓國竊取端午”話題﹐為了糾正一些概念﹐就開始了每月寫一篇評論﹐並且與網友談論。最後集結成“重思 (rethinking)”篇三篇﹐“總聒 (review)”篇兩篇。由08年9月中開始﹐至09年2月尾結束﹐盡錄於現今多倫多古琴社博客上。

五月静

九月 - 論文化專利

Rethinking the Hanfu Movement, Sept.08September 21, 2008

In response to HanfuTor’s email thread “Koreans are attempting to steal Hanfu”.
Thinking back to Fu Lujiang’s proposal for Hanfu as official uniform of the XXIX Olympiad and the resulting Hundred Scholars’ petition, it was in reflection a reactive, unplanned move. Within two months the project was dismissed by the authorities. The actual result was a mix of god-knows-what, primarily from the opinion of the COC and corporate sponsors. While public opinion is always met upon “open ears” (much similar for any UNESCO applications and so forth), the actual results are still slim. Remember that Sun Jiazheng of the Chinese Cultural Department noted explicitly “to let things play out naturally” in response to this proposal just weeks after it being made, and by the next month it was rejected in favor of letting Heng Yuanxiang Corp.’s so-called Tangzhuang take its place. Worst of all, unlike the APEC conference in 2001, nobody will be wearing the ‘new fashions’ of the Olympic games as a new trend or fad or whatever it is, simply because they defy any rational taste for the real world.
News of Korean government and advocacy associations about them claiming important festivities and cultural icons – it is not the first day they have started doing so, nor is it the first time (by now) the Chinese have reacted negatively regarding their inventions ‘taken away’ in propriety. While the Chinese netizens’ response are often directed at false news, the fact that the Korean authorities are attempting to get UNESCO to recognize their traditional clothes and herbal medicine is very real, and the proposal details cultures that leans more toward the Chinese standard than ever (by referring to actual Chinese texts, and even media from our Hanfu Movement research), a factor of Korean culture we can see backed up by today’s mass entertainment.
The movable-type press as invented by Koreans (prior to Gutenburg) is already in most school textbooks; Duanwu/Tano’o (端午) is still somewhat ambiguous (the Koreans claim that although SIMILAR in name, the nature is different), while herbal lore, writing system, and traditional clothing are the current hot topics and up for grabs. The prize – propriety of the heritage in world history, and means of promoting cultural greatness in the clash of civilizations: a ‘copyright’ to a weapon in the war of culture. What more credit needs to be taken away before the Han Chinese get re-recognized?

Given its cultural, historical and geographical ties, as well the different paths of development since 1644, China’s path of return from the Manchurian mutilation of culture will undoubtedly face conflict with Japan, and eventually moreso with Korea. However, from historical accounts we can see that as we lost our tradition in cultural and military subjugation, a reverse-bullying situation evolved and eventually grew to today’s perceived “theft of heritage”. An example is in the 9th year of An’ei (1779, Qianlong 44) when a Chinese merchant ship beached in Chiba Prefecture, Japan, and the crew conflicted with the locals, to which the Japanese scholar Seki Reisyuu (関齢修) there took out a Song Dynasty standard scholar’s robe (Zhu Xi’s standard Shenyi) and Dongbo cap, and asked if China is still abiding tradition, to which the shamed captain can only say “This is the robe of a Ming literati. Since the Qing regime today has changed the standards, we dare not to keep something as such, and only can be seen on theatrical stages depicting previous times.” (Chinese source)
It is time to count the resources we have – a bunch of enthusiasts from in/outside the country, many of us not even Chinese citizens, and an apathetic governmental institution, ruled over by a group of bureaucrats dedicated to “equalization of representation of all 56 ethnicities”. When recognition can only be done with the governments’ approval (which in turn gets in line for approval at UNESCO), the Chinese of today can only be said to be at a disadvantage. The only path of getting the People’s Government to recognize is if the voice becomes a majority, and given the current situation of recognition for Hanfu, that’s hardly yet the case.
***
So what can we do?
The Hanfu Movement has already tried and tested several approaches to restoring the clothing and other traditions, with the most successful ones in promoting the clothing for important festivities and social rituals — much similar to its functions in Japan and Korea. While the restoration is far from complete, this route is the most popularly accepted. Hence, semi-formal to formal (Black and White Tie, as my friend Charlie Tsua put it) Hanfu are the most made and seen today. To this end, many Chinese mainstream media (many controlled by ethnic Manchu executives) attack Hanfu (“Han-Dynasty clothing”) as ‘cumbersome and inconvenient, unsuitable for the modern city life’. Some famous Chinese commentators even go as far as “What do people wear underneath Hanfu?” to demean it, while networks effectively censor our responses.
Hence, researchers and some makers went further by researching, producing, and selling two new types products – casual Hanfu and ‘modernized’ Hanfu. Both feature a simpler, sometimes streamlined look, with none of the cumbersome sleeves and brisk look – the only difference is one is based on previous existing design, while the latter experimented with imported fashion elements, such as lace, frills, and zippers. There are supporters and denouncers at both parties towards each other, but their hearts for promoting a living, continuing Han tradition is mutual.
However, in terms of product outreach and market share, we are still far from reaching the Manchu-Western suits we call Tangzhuang and Qipao. Even if the awareness is out, there is no use of it until the people put it in action and wear Hanfu in recognition of Chinese culture (instead of Tangzhuang). Given the Chinese official narrative (by decentralizing Han Chinese and eliminating cultural resources) and the witnessed strong opposition to Hanfu by Han Chinese themselves (refer to my post on UTSU Clubs Day ‘08 about a certain Chinese person debating with me on the subject), it will be quite a while before we see Hanfu worn commonly on the street — and NOT get chastized or the queer eye at it.

On the other hand, my experiences with Hanfu promotion with non-Chinese people has been much better, if they already have some knowledge about Chinese culture. Even in China, efforts have been made targetting beyond just the Chinese to have the proper Han Chinese culture awareness, which can be difficult given all the misconceptions about China, built up in the past century. As the concluding statements from different broadcast networks claim that during the Beijing Olympics “China has opened its doors and demystified itself to the world”, I believe that much work has to be done to demystify the Chinese to the Chinese themselves.

More will be written in response to criticisms of Hanfu and “Hanfu movement as a commercial fad” later on.

五月静

十月 - 論時代﹐時間的性質

Rethinking the Hanfu Movement, Oct. ‘08 (Pt.1: Temporality)October 6, 2008

Continuing onto some thoughts on conflicts and infighting of some issues in the Hanfu Restoration Movement as part of the Huaxia Renaissance movement, namely onto major ongoing criticisms and unresolved concept standpoints. The purpose of the Hanfu Movement is to ‘restore the impression of Han Chinese clothing (to the Chinese) to the Han Chinese tradition, in response to correcting the mis-impression of tight-formed Qipao and button-up tunics (which we call Tangzhuang today) as representation of all Chinese tradition, which should not be perceived as dead’. It may seem redundant or blindingly obvious to those who are aware , after 3 years of dedicated promotional work. However, the government still does not give any official response to the movement, nor have they responded positively by adopting Hanfu as the representational image of the Han Chinese people, but rather reinforce the Party policy of ethnic diversity, and support ‘traditional’ movements abiding by the Qing standard. While it may sound perfectly fine, the support from the Chinese government to ensure the cultural propriety of the Han Chinese is marginal at best.
I digress.
The year prior to the Olympic Games marked the golden era of actual results in Hanfu awareness promotion. Many shops were getting a significant foothold as sustainable enterprises, and the Hundred Scholars petition made headline news. However, if one look back on the ‘history’ then, as well as today, there are many voices of disagreement within the movement that remain largely unresolved and un-unified. While it will be impossible to list them all, I will try my best to list as many as possible..
***

Contemporary Hanfu Fashion
To modernize Hanfu with zippers, lace, and synthetic material, or not? As early back as in 2005, some members of Haanen.net proposed to modify Hanfu by shorten sleeves and skirt lengths, use 3D cutting design for a body-hugging fit, and other elements found in contemporary Western tailoring to ‘modernize’ the design, in reference to the Qipao of 1920’s Shanghai. It was to be quickly criticized by other members including some moderators and prominant researchers on grounds that it would be “…detrimental to the promotion aspect of the movement, since the understanding of traditional and proper Hanfu is not even well-promulgated among the masses”. In fact, modified Hanfu would only confuse the people more on what is really Han Chinese – this refers to both the promoter and the promoted target, as one would begin to question the temporality of every piece of Hanfu promoted, and every person would be at odds with the other on what is the standard of a ‘Chinese tradition’. This is why some criticism mocked that if one insist on going back further to find the most original Chinese dress, one might as well go back to the age of animal skin and leaves.
As a result of this debate, a significant proportion of former Haanen.net members who were in favour of the “Modernization” idea left to create Tianhan.com, and cooperates with the present-day Hanminzu.com, although maintaining their differences of opinion on various political and Hanfu policy issues.
Ming/Tang-Song/Zhou-Qin-Han debate
Around mid-2007, as researchers and makers alike gathered much on their information on traditional Chinese clothng style standards and ritual procedures, a new idea was proposed by several members of Hanminzu.com and supported by the Baidu Ming Dynasty talk bar – that the Ming Dynasty standards of ritual, music, and clothing, given the fact it was the last standing point of Han Chinese tradition with existing artefacts to research upon, should become the golden and absolute standard of Hanfu promotion and production. This also implies that designs of other dynasties were classified into natural obsolescence and period dresses, and ought to be avoided. This caused much ruckus and uproar, and the debate is still ongoing as of the time of this essay being written, as the Hanfu market highly favours the Quju (curved hem, or the tightly-wrapped spiral shenyi), as well as the Tang-style open collar for female dress. To have this theory as the generally accepted rule would limit variety of designs greatly, although (arguably) ensure authenticity of the design.
Some recent discoveries styles unique to the Ming period proved to be disturbing for many promoters: While the Ming court has occasionally retained elements from Yuan Mongolian design in their casual dress and have caused some debate whether to revive those or not, the recent discussion the standup collar found in many Ming portraits of women rekindled the question whether early Qing female apparel for Han Chinese, which were recognized then as clothing of traditional Han Chinese design that can be legally worn, can be classified as Hanfu at all.

Some argue that while both Ming and Qing dress employed the standup collar, the method of how they are employed, as well the overall feel of the clothing itself, are distinctly different (See image), namely in the difference of cord design, angle of the collars, and application on innerwear (Ming) as opposed to outerwear. Others argue that it was an important innovation to Hanfu design, given the period of global cooling during the 15th to 17th centuries. However generally accepted that the design was unique to the Ming period, different attitudes upon the concept of ‘reviving the Ming standard as continuation of the Tradition’ versus ‘Adopting the persisting common denominator through the ages’ continue to rage on, varying conclusions from general acceptance to avoidance in general promotion in fear of causing confusion of understanding to the general public.
***
In both instances of major conflicts that caused serious faults in understanding among the members of the Hanfu Restoration Movement mentioned here, the case of temporality was the common underlying theme. To my understanding, was it not that the original mandate of the movement first agreed upon by all members to recognize the Chinese clothing tradition as one congruous entity, unswayed in its basic philosophy and design, until the forceful assimilation by Manchurian policy in 1645-1675? This also means one must not observe Hanfu over the ages as period costumes, but as various designs as suggested, attempted, and became popular in its time, hence becoming period costumes. This may sound contradictory, perhaps it would be some clarification if I point to the direction of design elements (e.g. rounded collars, y-collars, Quju, big/narrow collars, etc.) as Han Chinese, instead of attaching the idea of ‘Han Chinese’ to a specific timeframe. To limit any thinking of culture to a static timeframe without respect and regard to its causes and (potential) effects is to effectively nail the culture (and for some, their own heritage and identity) into its glass coffin. More thoughts on other critique and observations on and for the future of the Movement in the next post. Comments and discussions are most welcome via response provided in the form below.

五月静

十一月 - 論組織及政治
註﹕這篇文章非常有趣。它見證了近代漢家復興運動再起以來最戲劇性的一個月﹐亦都一針見血地說出推廣的困難和宣傳者受人討厭的原因﹐亦以親身第一身的角度來向英語讀者們揭露出官方喉舌的單面化和限制性。最後﹐我把馬英九祭孔與黃海清掌閻事件寫成“前一天”﹐實則兩者皆是十月六號。

Rethinking the Hanfu Movement, Nov. 08 (Pt.2 Organization & Politics)November 7, 2008

In this post, I will attempt to explain in more detail over previous comments and questions made in this blog over the organization of the Restoration Movement. Since there were questions posed in previous comments, I will answer them in Q&A format first.
I will admit that as a lutenist (guqinist, if I may) I am definitely no professional critic of national policies or commentator of world politics. However, over the entire month (4 weeks) of preparing this article and its various revisions I am hopeful that other ethnic Chinese and fellow members of our global village understand that the baseline of understanding an ethnicity is its unseparable and untarnishable heritage, cultural or genetic.


Q: ”…I think is important now is to have a proper learned society dedicated to the research and promotion of Hanfu that can act as an authority …  there is no reason why such a society based on Hanfu not be created…” – Charlie Tsua
A: It is difficult enough to organize a movement online and have opinions stay together (refer to my post on the movement’s history), but to organize a proper society in the PRC (a government that does not officially support or deny the movement, but certain media censorate officials are desperately countering it) would be the same as creating a target for opponents to the rise of Han Culture in general to fire upon in the name of “Han Chauvinism”. The proof? Major Chinese television networks have been broadcasting dramas representing the Qing period almost exclusively since 2005, such as <Kangxi Weifu Shifangji 康熙微服私訪記>, a fictitious series depicting the Manchu ruler dressed as a commoner and the comedies of travelling south for vacation, has already finished its fifth season and is heading to a sixth while other series depicting Ming and ROC are partially censored or rejected; and the much debated CCTV <Lecture Room 百家講壇> has deliberately cut opportunity for Prof. Mao Peiqi 毛佩綺’s lectures of Ming history for continual runs and reruns of Yan Chongnian 閻崇年’s controversial lectures on Qing dynastic history. More about Yan will be discussed later in this post.
Given that even non-profit NGOs have to be registered as private corporations in this state, private tutelages and culture promotion groups have no choice but to privatize, which in turn greatly limits their scope and outreach to whatever their own capital resources can achieve. In short, it is simply not possible for a recognized ‘learned society’ be formed other than by the current resources found online, such as 漢網 Hanminzu.com or the Daming Yiguan Forums 大明衣冠論壇.
Q: Taken from Charlie’s Facebook rant:
“Take for example the Hanfu movement which is trying to revive the ancient form of dress so that it would be like what the kimono is to the Japanese in status (some would go even further and make it everyday wear). Now, the sole argument they keep coming up with is the Queue Order in which 400 or so years ago, the Ming dynasty collapsed after the Manchurians invaded and they made us wear their clothes and plait our hair in pigtails, etc. This is now latched onto like a hawk’s claw and it seems that all the proponents of the cause spout this ancient grudge to persuade the public to the cause. Now, you can see the flaw in this. The whole thing happend ages ago and it is devoid of any modernity or interest to the public at large. Over-emphasising on this long dead justification of wearing Hanfu is frankly ludicrious and the public is of course not having any of it. The point being that you cannot persude the public to wear Hanfu by dragging out old injustices that have no relevance in today’s society, you can only persude them on a cultural and modernic level. The crap some of the proponents spout out reminds me of the bloody BNP and it just pisses me off. It almost made me feel ashamed to wear Hanfu or associate myself with this movement which is no longer about preserving culture but now about flag waving slogan screaming ulterior motived ideological and fascist racial superiority delusional bullshit to the point of being motivated into burning my Hanfu and rejecting the whole movement’s fundamental cause (which now seems to be all about Han superiority over the Manchurians instead of revival of something potentially worthwhile) in protest. ”

A: Historians like to use historical roots to debate their points, and most people would fail to see the relation with the present due to its temporal distance from the present. Knowing Charlie as a well-read and intelligent young scholar, he is quite beyond this simple fact. His major concern is in the temporal disconnect with our current Chinese and world issues in the arguments presented by the Huaxia and Hanfu restoration movements. It is important to perhaps re-emphasize that we rationalize the Queue Order of 1645 to be the historical root of the loss of Han Chinese clothing tradition, as well as the attribution of taboo in wearing it by commoners. The restorationists aren’t just disgusted at the history, they are disgusted at the fact that in China today, Chinese clothing are somehow automatically redirected to something else when they see one – Daoist or Buddhist clergy, cosplay or dressing up for TV/stage shooting, or those “gosh-darned young ones who know no better than to blindly pursue the beauty of other cultures”, namely of Korea and Japan – anything but even the faint possibility of the clothing being their own. Alongside other cultural instances such as the “UNESCO Duanwu/Tano’o Incident”, the PRC’s “River Elegy 河殤” anti-tradition propaganda, and the much-woed birth control policy that limits all Han Chinese to one offspring (hence effectively lowering not just total population, but deliberately raise the balance of 50-some other minorities), the Han Chinese are feeling that not only the world and their government, but even their own children (eventually themselves) at odds with their own identity – what does it mean to be Han Chinese, when the only description that you are given is that you are the only ones without a history or appearance? If saying that one can empathasize with their anxiety and anger in others’ oppression of letting the Han Chinese find and maintain their own heritage is only superficial, then try to think of the Huaxia restoration movement as an alterative for the Chinese to find their own ground to stand, and suggest a new modernity that does not view Eastern tradition as a “soysauce vat of feudalistic malpractice” (Bo Yang). Unlike the Falun Gong, which points its spearhead at the PRC government as the source of all oppressions and loss of heritage, hence seeking its destruction to its bitterest end, the Huaxia Restoration Movement seeks to peacefully seek a new path for the Han Chinese for greater rights in cultural and human living rights.

During the process of writing this article, several events can describe the general stage of recognition of Chinese culture and opinion among the Chinese themselves.
On September 23, in a reception for the oncoming 2008 China Open, international tennis players presented themselves in costumes of the traditional Chinese (some cite Han dynasty), but the influence was not wide-spread.
Meanwhile on October 6, Ma Ying-Jeou (Ma Yingjiu) paid homage to Confucius using Zhou standards and 8-row of dancers (signifying respect to the Emperor or a leader of a nation), while dressed in a Magua. Aside from the political implications, some netizens (especially that of Hanminzu.com) noted how strange it was to have cross-collared clothing on the ritual members, but Mr. Ma walked in from the centre gate wearing a distinctly different kind of robe, buttoned at the front. To most Chinese, it may seem normal, as they treat the uniform on the ritual people as a period dress (namely, of some long-dead past).
And just one day previous, on October 6 in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, the CCTV-Lecture Room star lecturer Yan Chongnian was slapped in the face in a book-signing by Huang Haiqing 黃海清, or Dahanzhifeng (大漢之風, DH) mentioned in my previous article on Hanfu promotion in Shanghai. Although many expressed concern and some denounced Huang for using violence against a 73-year old scholar, more agreed with the fact that Lecture Room has become a breeding ground for “academic stars” than a place of question and mutual discourse, and Yan’s controversial views on Qing history has infuriated many readers and netizens on his flawed historiographical views. Huang’s actions were not particularly spontaneous, however: he claims that over the past year, he has questioned Yan over various public instances on his historiographical accuracy, and Yan has even claimed that “I would be happy to discuss this with you after the session for three hours” but never got actualized – out of frustration that civilian and netizen collaborative research have no channel of expressing their results, especially if it is to question or counter institutional research or Party policy: This study and discourse was beyond just textbooks, it is a matter of setting values of right and wrong, justice and turncoating, according to a response written by Huang after his release from detention.
It is also interesting to note that all attempts by Yan to promote his essays outside of China have been flatly rejected by Western scholarship. Yan himself has also denied to the accusations of publically stating various anti-humane statements, such as “the literary inquisition of Yongzheng was indeed not good, but it was necessary and has a positive effect on Qing rule” (Lanzhou Daily Inteveriew, published Oct.25 2005), and “[Manchurian culture as grazing-hunting society] have conflicts with the agrarian Han culture, and the Ten Days of Yangzhou was but a perfect representation of such cultures.” (Lecture at Changjiang Meilian Dajiangtan, day 12, argument 3)
I will skip the further detailing of Yan’s statements that are the target of the accusations, as one can find further reading below (but take some of these with a grain of salt, as they are somewhat partial to Yan’s age rather than the incident):
http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/proqing_dynasty_scholar_was_sl.php
http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2008/10/20/why_was_a_chinese_scholar_slapped/9700/
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=379446&type=Opinion&page=1
http://www.hanminzu.com/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardID=171&ID=235453&page=1 (ZH-CN, Huang engages in a net dialogue answering questions on the incident on Tianya BBS. Also note that several of the pro-Yan arguments by denying “false” accusations have also been verified as true)
In conclusion, the Huaxia Restoration Movement and its subsidiary Hanfu Movement are only fitting in our time as a counter-movement to the official Party-driven direction to whitewash dynastic history as pretense to a “Great Zhonghua Minzu coming together”, in that cultural identity and heritage are being eliminated and replaced with a shallow facade of modernity. Moreover, as the Han are the majority of the state, they are pressured to concede in various ways to other minorities in-country as well as the global stage, as if to appease the rights and political struggles left over from history with other nations and countries, hence fearing the repeat of the iconic split that is Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

五月静

節錄 - 論宣傳之困難與海外宣傳之利﹕評大漢之風於滬東瀛祭上失敗之因
Difficulties of Hanfu Promotion & the Overseas AdvantageSeptember 23, 2008

(中為 戊子年上海旅游节汉服展示活动报导（2008/9月21日）in Hanminzu.com譯本﹐略之)
***
Now a few cents from me.
This is just one of many examples of what kind of censorship a person can receive in China, when talking about even just history. From 400 years ago. We know that China has issues with freedom of speech, but to censor on historical fact? Well. Despite the fact that the world beyond the Chinese mainland (yes, that includes Hong Kong and Macau SARs), the “Chinese diaspora” who grew up in the 20th century are no less familiar with Chinese culture with the Hanfu image – It’s not like our documentaries of history and our artwork and martial arts fiction all got censored out by replacing what they wear with Qipao, is it now?
Yet, there is a disconnect, as well as a taboo – one that is causing not the people advocating for Manchurian race discourse, but Han Chinese themselves to be afraid of putting their traditional clothes back on. If we dare to put them back on and start finding out why we lost it…well, there’s our example right above.
But that is not our point.
Hanfu promotion is a movement that is synonymous worldwide – a search at Hanfu in Facebook alone generates 4 significant groups, with members from institutions worldwide – and they are not just comprised of Chinese people alone. While that may not mean much, but from my experiences and collection of past events one answer is clear: The point of promotion is to gather and mobilize similar-minded people into a cause, and the place where we can find them is in the West, where people study the Chinese past and present much more objectively than themselves.
Too often I have to mention in the promotions of Hanfu that the term refers to the clothing (fu, 服) of the “Han Chinese people (hanzu, 漢族)”, traditionally known as “the descendents of Huaxia (華夏子孫)”. However, whether it comes to newcomers unfamiliar with the term, ignorant people who insist on the Manchurian culture representing all of China, or even internally in the movement, a debate over temporality of the concept flares up, when it should not be.
In China (as well existant in the minds of overseas students who stay connected via the Internet), the debate persists as to ‘what standards should be taken for Hanfu’, with the pretext of this being that over the past 4,500 years of history the design of the clothing has much changed. It seems as if the degree of the change is so large that the clothing between the earliest fragments of our historical records are nothing like the scholar’s robes we find around 1644 – are the elements of cross y-shaped collar (jiaoling youren 交領右衽), loose sleeves and well-hemmed (shuangbian xiuju 鑲邊袖踞) but a fabrication but at the very end? As of this moment, netizens debate over what should and should not be revived, based on period classification, on grounds of convenience or their subjective renditions of historical truth and justice. What they could not escape, however, is the ontic level of logic that only one of the (x amount) can be allowed to exist in our world. Being raised in a society that respects tradition by tracing its geneology to the proper roots, allowing constructive criticism to innovations and renaissances, and accepting diversity is a prerequisite to not just exist peacefully, but simply to survive in our postmodern, capitalistic world.
Let the market demand decide for itself what style is to be taken, provided the basic context of Hanfu design is there. However, I maintain my opinion that now is not the time to design a new style – not when even the tradition is unrecognized by the Chinese people themselves. At this early stage, let the hundred flowers bloom, and styles from all of Chinese history come out, find the nominal denominator among that, and go on from there. Let the confusion and existance of diversity in our era be celebrated as a feature that marks our time!
But lest this era stay the same forever.
Due to this discussion on Chinese censorship and internal/external conflict, I will discuss more on the more constructive contributions and failed attempts at a later date.