Mao Zedong's Words Banned, US "Freedom of Speech" Fails

The website for the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Education, recently got into some trouble. On March 22 this website’s “quote of the day” featured Mao Zedong’s famous saying: “Our attitude towards ourselves should be ‘to be satiable in learning’ and towards others ‘to be tireless in teaching.’” The National Center for Education Statistics consequently met with violent criticism. An American senator came forward and said the Department of Education must explain why it quoted the words of a “communist.” The center’s website was forced to delete Mao Zedong’s words, exchanging them for one of Lincoln’s aphorisms. The U.S. Department of Education’s deputy press secretary also publicly stated that the use of this quote was “very bad,” as if to apologize.*

For a country with such an emphasis on “freedom of speech,” the U.S. cannot even tolerate a saying by Mao Zedong. This shows the stinginess of the American political system in the face of multiculturalism. It seems that those people who are constantly exposing the U.S.’ “freedom of speech” as a fraud have reason.

Any American president or celebrity’s words — even if they are the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was once at war with the Chinese army — could appear today in the Chinese media and probably run into no obstacles. But for Mao Zedong’s words to be posted on an American website raises a great disturbance. We do not intend to use this simple comparison to lead to an absolute conclusion, but this kind of comparison is indeed very interesting. We believe that for the unbiased, it may be very eye-opening.

Freedom of speech has its boundaries in every nation. We can understand the U.S. having its own boundaries. But this case of “quotation crisis,” lets us see that the U.S. is determined to maintain its deep social consistency against the backdrop of multiculturalism. American elites are not only highly vigilant about social division, but they will also quickly defend the “American consensus.”

Most news industry insiders know that U.S. media ownership is independent of the government, but the media’s relationship with the government is not antagonistic. Different news media belong to different financial groups; in the U.S., it can be said that capital and power are inextricably intertwined. In short, communication between the U.S. government and media is extremely solid, though frequently unknown to the public.

The clout of the U.S. forces its reality to be taken as the standard, creating a global definition for freedom of speech. That is also to say: The U.S. regime is best at accepting those views that represent absolute “freedom,” but when there are views that it requires to be watered down, that is also seen as reasonable. The U.S. has just cause to set certain boundaries for freedom of speech, but if other countries set the same boundaries, it is a traitorous, monstrous crime.

As we write this article, we do not wish to defend the domains and issues where Chinese expression of opinion is still not sufficiently open. We believe China still has a great deal of work to do in pushing the authorities to be publicly transparent. Regardless of whether or not the outside world applauds, China’s reforms on free expression of opinion should continue to advance.

However, the Mao Zedong quotation crisis reminds us that the U.S. may provide a reference for China’s reforms, but by no means should the U.S. be emulated as a role model in all respects, even to the extent of worship. The U.S. is not a pillar of freedom of speech in particular. In fact, the country’s high level of development hides its “hundred uglinesses” from view. As a rapidly reviving world civilization, China should not resemble those small nations that grovel at the U.S.’ feet. We need to have the courage and ability to look directly at the U.S., to see its victories clearly and also to discover its inadequacies.

The complexity of China’s society of 1.3 billion is not something covered in American experience. U.S. newspapers may ridicule the president with a few phrases, and it is believed to be “the end of history” — that the whole world should tear down and rebuild according to America’s political blueprint.** Perhaps one reason for this kind of arrogance is that the U.S.’ history is too short and has gone so smoothly, lacking the national political vision of repeated tempering and expansion.

Mao Zedong was a pioneer of the new global geopolitics; he was also the instigator of crucial reforms for the Chinese nation. Americans must eventually jump out of their present narrow-mindedness and learn anew of this Eastern political giant. But this kind of learning will probably belong to the next generation of Americans who, reflecting upon changes in the world, will thus have a wider field of vision.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.

**Editor’s Note: The author appears to be referring to an essay of the same name by Francis Fukuyama.