Nobody will give a shit if China massacres chinese people. They could kill millions and nobody would do anything about it.
Xi Jinping warns efforts to divide China will end in 'crushed bodies and shattered bones'
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
Also, interventionism doesn't have the best hostorical track record.
Ah, that's the misunderstanding here.
I wasn't saying the idiomatic meaning doesn't matter at all, that may have been someone else. What I was saying is that the literal was also strongly implied to the immediate audience and in general to those in China who support a unified China under a different government of the people.
It doesn't bother me at all if we continue this discussion.
But I think I understand where you're coming from. For you, delving into the semantics does not matter. I see a few other posters who say the same. That's fine. I just think for others, it was worth noting.
As for myself, I always appreciate to learn something new about another language... especially for newsworthy events like this.
There is no evidence that he's mad, and everyone has known for decades that China are about as nice to their people as Saudi Arabia is to yemenis. With equal indifference. If he goes too far something might happen, yes, but aint no one getting shit done on account of uighurs. Aint nothing got really done after tiananmen either but hey, Maybe This Time, now that chinas even richer and more powerful than ever, Itll Be Different.
The idiom he used, 粉身碎骨, is usually used figuratively. But I do think it is meant to be a serious warning, especially after the bombing on Sunday.
It reminds me of the idiom used by the Chinese government to describe the tiananmen square protestors, 螳臂当车.
I'm worried that this is going to escalate into something no one wants to see.
Delving into the semantics only matters for me when it provides meaningful context to what I'm reading and adjusts my understanding of the situation. If the intent of the words changed through the understanding and the knowledge, I'd be having a blast right now. However, placed here, it feels like a mere distraction. That's also separate from the manner in which the information was conveyed, which was it's own issue. If someone had just said "Fun fact! This is an idiom!" (But less glibly) it'd be a different discussion right now.
I'd come up with a practical example in other situations where it's be okay, or examples where it'd give the same reaction, but i'm way too tired for that right now. It's a mess to explain correctly, as evidenced by my participation in this thread.
I think this comes from a place where "well actually" comes from a place of bad faith arguementing. Happens a lot on this site. But I don't agree with throwing away the baby with the bathwater in this case as a principle that knowing more can only make your argument against the opposition stronger. As long as it's factual of course.
Edit: missed kitsunelaine's reply before posting. I think that's a fair position.
When I say I'm going to stick my boot up your ass, it means one thing. If the President of the USA says it, it means another.
OP
OP
Way too much to unpack here because now we are venturing into your mistrust of the media.
I think the rational thinking is that if there is a story someone will report on it. If this is being misreported or there is nuance we will see it reported on and maybe even a debated between Chinese that see it one way and Chinese that see it another way. Media is wrought with opinion pieces, if it's there I think we'll see it.
I believe, but I may be wrong, that Chinese is written almost exclusively in idioms. That's the difference.
Yeah I didn't want to go there and I don't mistrust the media. But I don't idealize them and the system is not perfect. I work in communications, I have friends that are prolific journalists in big media and they're the ones saying this. (Radio-Canada, Quebecor, etc.)
A lot of pieces are shut down if there's no hook. I just don't think the difference here is bug enough that anyone would be paid to say well actually this translates slightly differently.
Pulled from Reuters:
中国国家主席习近平周日表示，任何人企图在中国任何地区搞分裂，结果只能是粉身碎骨；任何支持分裂中国的外部势力只能被中国人民视为痴心妄想。
My Chinese is super weak, and anyone more fluent is more than welcome to correct me but I *think* a more literal translation would be, "If anyone attempts from China to divide off any area; the result can only be devastation [crushed bodies and shattered bones]. Any external forces supporting the division of China can only be considered by the Chinese people as wishful thinking."
So the intention I think, is less an overt threat, and more of an attribution of any disruption of societal stability to the instigators domestic and abroad (mostly abroad); moreover, that the goal they seek would not be considered by large to be realistic or wanted by the Chinese people at large. It's designed specifically to stoke national unity in the Chinese people by playing to the fears of societal unrest and the specter of "external forces".
中国国家主席习近平周日表示，任何人企图在中国任何地区搞分裂，结果只能是粉身碎骨；任何支持分裂中国的外部势力只能被中国人民视为痴心妄想。
My Chinese is super weak, and anyone more fluent is more than welcome to correct me but I *think* a more literal translation would be, "If anyone attempts from China to divide off any area; the result can only be devastation [crushed bodies and shattered bones]. Any external forces supporting the division of China can only be considered by the Chinese people as wishful thinking."
So the intention I think, is less an overt threat, and more of an attribution of any disruption of societal stability to the instigators domestic and abroad (mostly abroad); moreover, that the goal they seek would not be considered by large to be realistic or wanted by the Chinese people at large. It's designed specifically to stoke national unity in the Chinese people by playing to the fears of societal unrest and the specter of "external forces".
Last edited:
Chilling stuff.
My guess is that Xi Jinping will grow increasingly radical.
Not sure what could be done outside of a global boycott which won't happen so as long as China is connected to seemingly every supply chain imaginable.
My guess is that Xi Jinping will grow increasingly radical.
Not sure what could be done outside of a global boycott which won't happen so as long as China is connected to seemingly every supply chain imaginable.
I get it.
I think for Western speakers, the semantics may not matter at all. But as shown above, he's using very specific language. It's almost coded... it could be a sign things will get worse. Ultimately, as an American, I can't help but to think of the massacre, like you. Did he not think of that when making this statement? Does he care? Maybe the statement had a double meaning and he meant it literally and the idiom?
I'd like to hear more from Chinese folk to see what they think.
We absolutely have the new Nazis in China. What's gonna happen now? The world is far more reliant on China than anyone ever was of Germany back in the 30s. Clearly no one wants a boycott like with South Africa because most of the big western companies would collapse overnight, and frankly the Chinese government doesn't really care about poor Chinese losing jobs if there was a concerted effort to hurt China from the west. They have total control, truly dystopian style, and it's hard to see what happens next. It's up to the citizens of China to make the move. You cannot stop a huge nation, if that nations people want to do something about it. Push will come to shove one day, we hope.
I mean, I won't die on that hill because I agree as much too. And this falls into off topic.
And not all media are equivalent in terms of readership hungry.
I'm just still processing all the shit my friend went through because of his job for the biggest newspaper in Quebec. Long story short, he was an inch off dying from kidney failure trying to keep up making a living. (Some dumb decision on his part there though).
Not everyone that tells you something you didn't know is arguing in bad faith.
And you assume a whole lot about people who just pointed out something that is both true and kinda important. You assume any person that correct you on anything is disagreeing with you about everything, but it's really not true.
Nobody is saying that it is not a threat but there's a difference between saying "it is futile and you will fail", and "I literally want to crush your bones and bodies". No one is questioning the atrocities that Xi and the CCP is willing to do but it is also important to look at how he is saying it and what he is saying.
Interesting. So not literally going to go out and crush your bones but more like a "Crush my rivals!" idiom. It's still a threat, but the Tiananmen square imagery was perhaps an unintended side effect in the translation. Still scary af, because we all know what happens to Chinese dissidents. "Reducation" camps, kidnapping, threats to your family, and organ harvesting are all very real consequences for speaking out against the party. So fuck Xi Jiping and the Chinese government.
Accusing me of feeling like my core political beliefs are being attacked is definitely bad faith though. (Which is what you did here and why I responded with what I responded with). You're reacting to me stating things over and over again to different people, but that's only because I've been having the same argument with newcomers at different stages of engagement due to dogpiling. I can understand why you'd read this as a deep investment or some personal offence, but it's mostly just annoying. You're projecting a lot onto me.
This took me less than a minute to investigate.
If you're going to attempt to call someone out, it might help to know the facts first.
If Xi did use these words or close to them, the Chinese people will know what they mean.
It's a threat.
The crushing doesn't even have to be done by the opponent. It means that the goal is so hard that by going through it, you will be stripped down, lose everything during the whole process, and maybe not reach the goal at the end. It has nothing to do with Tiananmen. Not everything is related to that tragic day.
It's just that in this case we know that if people keep resisting they could lose everything because of the things that CCP does. And they've been shown to be willing to do it to anyone, from billionaires, to actresses and book store owners.
It's like, if the police made a statement "if there continue to be unauthorized protests in the area, people will get hurt". Who the "people" are is left vague, it could it could by bystanding citizenry, it could be police officers, or it could be the protestors themselves. Could it be read as a threat? Almost certainly, but the main idea is to get the general public on their side by invoking the disruption of their day-to-day lives.
One thing I have noticed with the deluge of FREE HONG KONG posts is a tendency to miss that Hong Kong isn't actually protesting for independence, they are more or less wanting to keep their democratic way of life and are also wrestling with Hong Kong's own governing body on a slew of other issues - basically, they are fine staying under China's banner but want to keep their present governing system. The CCP wants to paint the protests as an independence movement. The protest movement has a mixed support since the media paints them as evil and the collateral damage has included shops and other property that basically have nothing to do with it. While this is obviously opportunistic people taking the chance to loot and vandalize under cover of a protest, given the information control it's easy to see how effective a slander campaign against the protests can be.
Personally yeah, this doesn't affect my verbal support for the HK protests and their aims, but it's good to note that outright clamoring for their independence is actually playing into the CCP's narrative, and when push comes to shove I don't think any outside nation is going to step in on Hong Kong's behalf if the CCP use direct military intervention with the excuse of putting down a secessionist rebellion.
Personally yeah, this doesn't affect my verbal support for the HK protests and their aims, but it's good to note that outright clamoring for their independence is actually playing into the CCP's narrative, and when push comes to shove I don't think any outside nation is going to step in on Hong Kong's behalf if the CCP use direct military intervention with the excuse of putting down a secessionist rebellion.
I don't think your core political beliefs are about the correct way to translate 粉身碎骨 to English, and I still don't understand why you treat commenting about it like a personal attack on you.
I mostly reacting to you accusing me of some pretty serious shit, and I am still unsure why your'e so hostile.
Can't source cause I'm in class atm but I read another article about this in the morning that said the bones and bodies line was edited out of CCTV broadcast, and was only shown on international broadcasts
That's weird, I don't feel personally attacked.
like what
I'm consistently critical of the CCP, but people ignorant of Chinese as a language coming in and making a ruckus and being outraged because he used an idiom that isn't meant to be taken literally are just embarrassing.
Yeah it's a pipe dream. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't protest for it if they feel strongly about it. They are between a rock and a hard place no matter how you slice it. It's just that it gets easier for the CCP to justify another Tiananmen if they have the excuse of the protests being for HK's independence when that isn't what they're protesting for.
Like, I think Xi Jinping is a fucking villain of the top order, but I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with the Tiananmen Square massacre.
I'll concede that point as me being a ginormous idiot and not exactly having a firm grasp on some history
No idea what you're trying to do with this post, but if you're trying to make fun of me for believing that facts and context matter, even when it comes to your opponents or people you think are horrible, then I don't know what to say, honestly...
The differing angles at which people see the same things never fails to astound me.
I know people who claim "the West" is behind the HK resistance. Here, it seems like you claim the opposite.
We both think facts and context matter. Picking your battles is important as well, though. If a facade is already shattered I'm not putting in the effort to rebuild it.
No... considering the big change in direction and consolidation of power since he took over, I think it's fair to say that he has a whole lot of say in how things are going.
Let me at least ask this: do you speak any other languages relatively fluently? I think this is important to understanding how languages can work and how translations can often lose the nuance present in the original language. This should be an easily understood concept for anyone who is bilingual or multilingual.
Oh of course they have to protest. The language used whether it's independence or just self governance it's all the same to those that want complete control. One type of language won't dissuade the violence or cause more violence. Resistance of any sort will eventually cause violence because the regime is violent and paranoid.
The CCP see a symbol and lose their minds thinking it will cause a revolution. If they think it will be easier to justify a massacre because some are saying the protest are for independence then they are idiots. There will be no justification for a massacre certainly not semantics.
Are there people claiming that? Not being sarcastic, I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the situation to make a statement about how the movement began. I just think a different slogan should be used in support of the protests rather than Free Hong Kong.
Sorry, I meant people I know offline (I don't agree with this view at all).
I've already mentioned this in an earlier post in this thread, so this is partially me re-explaining something I've already laid out, so forgive me if I come across as annoyed for having to post about this again. Having the same conversation multiple times is a massive, massive pain in the butt, so I hope you understand. It's not personal.
I don't speak any other languages, no, but I have an incredibly passing understanding of Japanese more or less relegated to sentence structure and grammar particles right now. I also hang around translators, both professional ones and fan ones, and read a lot about what they talk about. On top of this, I'm a professional in the Anime industry who has proofed subtitles before and I can sniff out a lot of times where lines 'feel' translated because a lot of the time it's the result of idioms or sentence structure impacting the way a line becomes written. I fully appreciate the deep and vital importance of nuance when it comes to translation between languages.
In this case, I simply think a threat of violence is a threat of violence. Xi is a known entity. The subtext is no longer subtext. That's what I mean when I say this facade has shattered and I don't think anybody should spend time rebuilding it. The quiet part is loud. The footnotes no longer matter. It's like trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
Last edited: