#466 – Jeffrey Wasserstrom: China, Xi Jinping, Trade War, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mao

0:00:03 The following is a conversation with Jeffrey Wasserstrom,
0:00:05 a historian of modern China.
0:00:09 And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0:00:10 Check them out in the description.
0:00:12 It’s the best way to support this podcast.
0:00:15 We got Oracle for cloud computing,
0:00:18 Tax Network USA for taxes,
0:00:21 Shopify for selling stuff online,
0:00:23 Element for electrolytes,
0:00:26 and AG1 for a daily multivitamin.
0:00:27 Choose wisely, my friends.
0:00:31 Let me make the public service announcement
0:00:34 that I’ve done a few times about these ad reads.
0:00:35 I do them on RSS.
0:00:38 I do them on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify.
0:00:42 Based on the feedback I’ve gotten in the survey,
0:00:44 lexfriedman.com slash survey.
0:00:46 Many enjoy it.
0:00:51 A quick, random, non-sequitur insights
0:00:55 into whatever is going on in this particular mind.
0:00:57 I don’t do the ad reads in a normal way.
0:01:00 Half the time, I don’t really even talk about the sponsor.
0:01:02 I’m just talking about stuff that I’m thinking about.
0:01:06 Except maybe for a bit of a shout-out to the sponsor
0:01:07 for being awesome
0:01:09 and a quick description of what they do.
0:01:12 Sometimes the sponsor itself, the topic,
0:01:15 inspires me to think about certain kinds of topics.
0:01:16 Anyway, that’s the point,
0:01:19 to continuously be innovating,
0:01:20 how to do this podcast thing.
0:01:23 What is this?
0:01:24 Who am I?
0:01:26 And who are you?
0:01:30 And why is it the connection between the two of us
0:01:33 is so real?
0:01:36 Me as a podcast fan,
0:01:37 I listen to a lot of podcasts,
0:01:41 and I legitimately feel like I am friends
0:01:44 with the person I’m listening to.
0:01:48 I think there’s a real way in which that is fundamentally true.
0:01:50 I think people mock that.
0:01:54 I think people say that that’s not a real connection.
0:01:55 I think it’s a real connection.
0:01:56 I don’t know.
0:01:59 My life is fundamentally better for these friendships.
0:02:02 Real or not real.
0:02:07 Who’s to say I can’t have some great imaginary friends?
0:02:11 Anyway, hopefully these ad reads are interesting.
0:02:14 If you skip them, please still check out the sponsors.
0:02:17 Sign up, get whatever they’re selling.
0:02:18 I enjoy their stuff.
0:02:19 Maybe you will too.
0:02:23 Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason,
0:02:25 go to lexfreeman.com slash contact.
0:02:27 And now, on to the full ad reads.
0:02:28 Let’s go.
0:02:31 This episode is brought to you by Oracle,
0:02:35 a company providing a fully integrated stack
0:02:37 of cloud applications and cloud platform services.
0:02:40 These guys do infrastructure well.
0:02:43 Single platform for the infrastructure,
0:02:44 for the database, application development,
0:02:48 and obviously injecting AI into everything,
0:02:49 including the pitches.
0:02:54 These guys do compute infrastructure well
0:02:56 and have been doing it for many, many years.
0:02:59 Obviously, this episode about China,
0:03:04 Taiwan, Hong Kong, trade,
0:03:06 is very relevant to this topic.
0:03:10 Boy, I sit back and think about the future of compute
0:03:16 and how it is inextricably connected to the geopolitics,
0:03:21 to the bullshit, to the madness of the online world
0:03:22 where they’re talking shit to each other.
0:03:27 The individual humans of the individual nations
0:03:29 and the leaders of those humans
0:03:32 and the leaders of those nations.
0:03:34 Anyway, cut your bill in half
0:03:36 when you switch to OCI,
0:03:37 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure.
0:03:40 Offer is for new U.S. customers
0:03:42 with a minimum financial commitment
0:03:45 to see if you qualify at oracle.com slash lex.
0:03:47 That’s oracle.com slash lex.
0:03:53 This episode is also brought to you by Tax Network, USA,
0:03:57 a full-service tax firm focused on solving tax problems
0:04:00 for individuals and small businesses.
0:04:03 Whenever I see those three letters, USA,
0:04:05 my heart fills with pride.
0:04:06 I don’t know.
0:04:09 I see stuff online where people are talking shit
0:04:10 about this country,
0:04:15 where there’s experts and historians
0:04:17 and scholars and trolls
0:04:21 talking about the collapsing empire
0:04:23 that is the United States.
0:04:26 There may be elements that signal that.
0:04:28 There may be reasons for concern.
0:04:30 But let’s not forget
0:04:32 how incredibly brilliant
0:04:35 the humans that make up this country are,
0:04:37 how resourceful they are,
0:04:40 how vibrant their creativity
0:04:43 there really is a consequence
0:04:44 to the freedoms,
0:04:46 the individual freedoms we experience
0:04:47 as humans here.
0:04:50 But anyway, USA, I love this country.
0:04:53 And yeah, a lot of it does run on taxes.
0:04:57 The reality is the tax law is complicated.
0:04:59 And so you have to figure out this mess
0:05:01 and Tax Network, USA, helps you with the mess.
0:05:04 If you missed the April 15th deadline,
0:05:06 yes, I’m talking to you.
0:05:07 I see you.
0:05:09 We’re in this together, my friend.
0:05:11 I’m not very good with deadlines.
0:05:14 Perhaps you’re not very good at deadlines.
0:05:16 I’m giving you a virtual hug.
0:05:18 Let’s get our shit together
0:05:21 and claw our way out of the whatever bullshit
0:05:23 we’ve got ourselves into.
0:05:26 Talk with one of their strategists for free today.
0:05:34 Call 1-800-958-1000 or go to TNUSA.com slash Lex.
0:05:37 This episode is also brought to you by Shopify,
0:05:41 a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere
0:05:42 with a great looking online store.
0:05:45 I don’t know why I said the beginning of that sentence fast.
0:05:47 Sometimes I speak quickly, sometimes slowly.
0:05:52 My mind is just not made for speaking.
0:05:55 I think very fast and speak very slowly.
0:06:02 And it creates for some really interesting nonlinear dynamics
0:06:06 of interacting between a brain that’s way ahead of the mouth.
0:06:08 and the mouth struggles.
0:06:14 The struggle creates a third-person kind of anxiety
0:06:17 that the brain has to also deal with
0:06:19 while it’s thinking about the next thing,
0:06:22 also coming up with different trajectories of thought.
0:06:25 And so I’m generating a mess,
0:06:27 but I’m enjoying it.
0:06:29 I think I’m supposed to talk about Shopify.
0:06:32 I’m not doing so well at that right now.
0:06:36 It’s a website, a platform, where you can sell stuff.
0:06:39 By the way, a lot of really fascinating discussions
0:06:43 about the way China thinks about its economy,
0:06:46 about its politics,
0:06:50 about the interplay between the government and the entrepreneur.
0:06:53 I’ll probably do a lot more episodes on that topic.
0:06:57 Shopify is a really interesting case study.
0:07:00 China is a really interesting case study.
0:07:04 So sign up for a $1 per month trial period
0:07:06 at shopify.com slash lex.
0:07:07 That’s all lowercase.
0:07:08 Go to shopify.com slash lex
0:07:10 and take your business to the next level today.
0:07:14 This episode is brought to you by Element,
0:07:18 my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
0:07:21 I often think about the biochemistry of thirst.
0:07:25 And no, not the Urban Dictionary definition of thirst,
0:07:27 although I think about that as well.
0:07:28 But in this particular topic,
0:07:30 I’m thinking about the biochemistry
0:07:36 of your body communicating with you,
0:07:40 the neurobiology of awareness
0:07:45 of the malnourishment of the rest of the body
0:07:48 and how all of that evolved.
0:07:51 Started as a bacteria, fish, mammal.
0:07:55 Now we get thirsty, need the salt,
0:07:57 need the electrolytes, need the water.
0:07:58 I’m getting that in the brain.
0:08:01 Sometimes the brain doesn’t tell you that directly.
0:08:03 Sometimes it tells you that through a headache
0:08:05 and you feel like shit.
0:08:07 You wonder what’s going on.
0:08:11 Well, a lot of that, a lot, a lot of life’s problems
0:08:14 could be solved with a nap, with a shower,
0:08:16 and with a drink of water,
0:08:20 with magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
0:08:22 It’s fucking ridiculous, really.
0:08:27 We are just meat vehicles that need to chill out.
0:08:31 Anyway, I am doing a bunch of interesting conversations
0:08:33 about Darwinian evolution.
0:08:35 Darwin, fascinating guy.
0:08:37 Evolution, fascinating topic.
0:08:38 I can’t wait.
0:08:41 Get a sample pack for free with any purchase.
0:08:43 Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
0:08:46 This episode is also brought to you by
0:08:50 AG1, an all-in-one daily drink
0:08:52 to support better health and peak performance.
0:08:55 I recently got a chance to hang out with my family
0:08:58 and they’re all fans of AG1.
0:09:01 And we talked about it and it’s great.
0:09:03 It’s great how you’re talking to each of them.
0:09:06 There’s just a different approach to health,
0:09:09 but they’re all fighting the battle of being healthy
0:09:10 and winning, honestly.
0:09:14 I do see health as a kind of individual
0:09:16 end-of-one puzzle that we all solve.
0:09:20 We gather a lot of information as best we can.
0:09:22 We understand the latest state-of-the-art science,
0:09:24 but really at the end of the day,
0:09:27 it’s a personal puzzle that has to be solved.
0:09:31 How does a healthy lifestyle fit into all the rest
0:09:33 of the anxieties, the psychology,
0:09:36 the crazy schedule, the motivations,
0:09:39 the ambitions, the insecurities, all of that?
0:09:41 How do you figure out that puzzle?
0:09:44 And do that in a way where it’s stable
0:09:48 across weeks and months and becomes a ritual.
0:09:50 And then, of course, the psychology of ritual
0:09:51 comes into play.
0:09:52 All that is really fascinating.
0:09:53 All right.
0:09:57 AG1 will give you one month’s supply of fish oil
0:10:01 when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
0:10:04 This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0:10:06 To support it, please check out our sponsors
0:10:07 in the description.
0:10:09 And now, dear friends,
0:10:12 here’s Jeffrey Wasserstrom.
0:10:31 You’ve compared Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong in the past.
0:10:34 What are the parallels between the two leaders?
0:10:36 And where do they differ?
0:10:39 Xi Jinping, of course, is the current leader of China
0:10:40 for the past 12 years.
0:10:43 And Mao Zedong was the communist leader of China
0:10:45 from 1949 to 1976.
0:10:48 So what are the commonalities?
0:10:49 What are the differences?
0:10:52 So the biggest commonality of them
0:10:56 is that they’re both the subject of personality cults
0:10:58 and that Mao was the center
0:11:00 of a very intensely felt one
0:11:02 from 1949 to 1976.
0:11:03 And when he died, you know,
0:11:06 there was tremendous outpouring of grief,
0:11:09 even among people who had objectively suffered enormously
0:11:11 because of his policies.
0:11:15 Xi Jinping is the first leader in China since him
0:11:19 who has had a sustained personality cult
0:11:22 of the kind where if you walk into a bookstore in China,
0:11:25 the first thing you see are books by him,
0:11:26 collections of speeches.
0:11:29 And when Mao was alive,
0:11:31 you might have thought that’s sort of what happened
0:11:32 with Communist Party leaders in China.
0:11:34 But after Mao’s death,
0:11:35 there was such an effort
0:11:37 to not have that kind of personality cult
0:11:39 that there was a tendency
0:11:41 to not publish the speeches of a leader
0:11:44 until they were done being in power.
0:11:46 I was first in China in 1986,
0:11:49 and you could go for days
0:11:51 without being intensely aware
0:11:53 of who was in charge of the party.
0:11:56 But his face wasn’t everywhere.
0:11:59 The newspaper wasn’t dominated
0:12:00 with stories about him
0:12:03 and quotations from his words
0:12:04 and things like that.
0:12:05 So with Xi Jinping,
0:12:07 you’ve had a throwback to that period
0:12:08 in Communist Party rule,
0:12:10 which seemed as though it might be
0:12:12 a part of the past.
0:12:14 So that’s a key commonality.
0:12:16 And a key difference
0:12:19 is that Mao really reveled in chaos,
0:12:22 in turning things upside down
0:12:23 in a sense that,
0:12:26 you know, he talked about class struggle,
0:12:27 which came out of Marxism,
0:12:29 but he also really,
0:12:32 his favorite work of Chinese popular fiction
0:12:33 was the Monkey King
0:12:35 about this legendary figure
0:12:37 who was this Monkey King
0:12:40 who could turn the heavens upside down.
0:12:41 So he reveled in disorder
0:12:44 and thought disorder was a way
0:12:45 to improve things.
0:12:46 Xi Jinping is very orderly,
0:12:48 is very concerned
0:12:49 with kind of stability
0:12:50 and predictability.
0:12:52 So you can see them
0:12:54 as very, very different that way.
0:12:56 And Mao also liked to stir things up,
0:12:57 liked to have people on the streets
0:12:59 clamoring.
0:13:00 So Xi Jinping,
0:13:01 even though he has a personality cult,
0:13:03 it’s not manifesting itself.
0:13:05 He doesn’t like the idea
0:13:06 of people on the streets
0:13:09 in anything that can’t be controlled.
0:13:11 So you can, you know,
0:13:12 there are a lot of ways
0:13:13 that they’re similar,
0:13:14 a lot of ways they’re different.
0:13:15 They’re also different,
0:13:17 and this fits with this orderliness
0:13:20 that Xi Jinping talks positively
0:13:21 about Confucius
0:13:24 and Confucian traditions in China.
0:13:27 And Confucian traditions
0:13:29 are based on kind of stable hierarchies
0:13:30 for the most part
0:13:33 and sort of clear categories
0:13:34 of superior and inferior,
0:13:36 whereas Mao liked things
0:13:37 to be turned upside down.
0:13:38 He thought of Confucianism
0:13:40 as a futile way of thought
0:13:42 that it held China back.
0:13:43 So you can come up with things
0:13:45 that they’re similar,
0:13:46 and you can come up with things
0:13:47 where they’re really opposites.
0:13:48 But they both clearly
0:13:50 did want to see China
0:13:52 under rule by the Communist Party.
0:13:54 And that’s been a continuity,
0:13:55 and that connects them
0:13:56 to the leaders
0:13:57 in between them too as well.
0:13:58 So there’s some degree,
0:13:59 as you said,
0:14:00 that Xi Jinping espouses
0:14:01 the ideas of communism
0:14:04 and the ideas of Confucianism.
0:14:07 So let’s go all the way back.
0:14:08 You wrote that in order
0:14:10 to understand the China of today,
0:14:12 we have to study its past.
0:14:15 So the China of today
0:14:17 celebrates ideas of Confucius,
0:14:18 a Chinese philosopher
0:14:20 who lived 2,500 years ago.
0:14:21 Can you tell me
0:14:23 about the ideas of Confucius?
0:14:24 First of all,
0:14:25 we don’t know that much
0:14:27 about the historic Confucius.
0:14:29 He’s around the same time
0:14:31 as figures like Socrates.
0:14:34 And like with Socrates,
0:14:35 we get a lot of
0:14:36 what we know about him
0:14:37 or think we know about him
0:14:39 from what his followers said
0:14:40 and things that were
0:14:42 attributed to him
0:14:43 and dialogues
0:14:44 that were written afterwards.
0:14:45 So, you know,
0:14:47 you can have a lot of fun
0:14:48 with these sort of
0:14:50 axial age thinkers
0:14:51 and what they had in common.
0:14:52 Another thing
0:14:53 that connects
0:14:54 these axial age thinkers
0:14:56 is they were trying
0:14:58 to kind of make a case
0:15:00 for why they should be able
0:15:00 to educate
0:15:02 the next generation,
0:15:02 the elite,
0:15:04 and sort of had a way
0:15:05 of promising
0:15:06 saying that they had
0:15:07 philosophical ideas
0:15:09 that helped keep,
0:15:10 decide how you should
0:15:11 run a polity.
0:15:13 Confucius lived in a time
0:15:13 when there were
0:15:15 these warring kingdoms
0:15:16 in a territory
0:15:19 that later became China.
0:15:20 But what he said
0:15:21 was that there had been
0:15:22 this period of great order
0:15:23 in the past
0:15:25 that the lines
0:15:25 between inferior
0:15:27 and superior were clear
0:15:28 and there was a kind
0:15:29 of synergy
0:15:30 between superior
0:15:31 and inferior
0:15:32 that kept everything
0:15:32 ticking along
0:15:33 really nicely.
0:15:34 he thought that
0:15:36 hierarchical relationships
0:15:37 were a good thing
0:15:38 and that the trick
0:15:40 was that both sides
0:15:42 in a hierarchical relationship
0:15:43 owed something
0:15:43 to the other.
0:15:45 So the father
0:15:48 and son relationship
0:15:49 was a key one.
0:15:49 The father
0:15:51 deserved respect
0:15:52 from the son
0:15:54 but owed the son
0:15:55 care
0:15:55 and benevolence
0:15:57 and things would be fine
0:15:59 as long as both sides
0:16:00 in a relationship
0:16:01 held up their end.
0:16:02 and he had a whole series
0:16:04 of these relationships.
0:16:05 The husband
0:16:05 to the wife
0:16:06 was again
0:16:07 an unequal one
0:16:09 of the husband
0:16:10 being superior
0:16:11 to the wife
0:16:12 but him
0:16:13 owing the wife
0:16:14 care
0:16:14 and her
0:16:15 owing him
0:16:16 deference.
0:16:17 And he had
0:16:17 the same notion
0:16:18 that then
0:16:19 the emperor
0:16:20 to the ministers
0:16:20 were,
0:16:21 these were all parallels
0:16:23 and there were
0:16:24 no egalitarian
0:16:25 relationships
0:16:26 in Confucianism.
0:16:27 Even something
0:16:29 that in the West
0:16:30 we often think of
0:16:31 as a kind of
0:16:33 quintessentially
0:16:34 egalitarian relationship
0:16:35 between brothers.
0:16:38 In the Chinese tradition
0:16:39 of Confucianism
0:16:40 there was only
0:16:41 older brother
0:16:42 and younger brother.
0:16:43 There was no,
0:16:44 brotherhood was not
0:16:46 an egalitarian relationship.
0:16:47 It was one
0:16:48 where the older brother
0:16:49 took care of the younger brother
0:16:50 and the younger brother
0:16:51 showed respect
0:16:52 for the older brother.
0:16:53 So stable hierarchy
0:16:55 was at the core
0:16:56 of everything in society.
0:16:57 It permeated everything
0:16:58 including politics.
0:16:58 Yeah,
0:17:00 and there was even
0:17:01 a sense that it
0:17:03 connected the natural world
0:17:04 to the supernatural world.
0:17:06 So the emperor
0:17:07 was to heaven
0:17:08 this kind of
0:17:10 non-personified
0:17:12 deity
0:17:13 like the emperor
0:17:15 was to the ministers.
0:17:16 So all of this
0:17:17 had these relationships.
0:17:18 So the emperor
0:17:19 was the son of heaven.
0:17:20 And
0:17:21 you know
0:17:22 for Confucius
0:17:23 he said
0:17:24 so we should study
0:17:25 the text.
0:17:26 We should study
0:17:27 how the sages of old
0:17:29 behaved
0:17:30 that
0:17:32 society was becoming
0:17:32 corrupted
0:17:33 and was going away
0:17:35 from that sort of purity
0:17:36 of the sages
0:17:37 when
0:17:38 the relationships
0:17:39 were all in order.
0:17:40 So Confucianism
0:17:42 was a kind of
0:17:42 conservative
0:17:43 or even
0:17:45 backward looking
0:17:45 thing.
0:17:46 It wasn’t trying to
0:17:47 it wasn’t arguing
0:17:48 for progress.
0:17:48 It was arguing
0:17:49 for
0:17:50 reclaiming
0:17:50 a pure
0:17:51 golden age
0:17:52 in the past.
0:17:53 So it was also
0:17:53 a kind of
0:17:54 conservative.
0:17:55 So in all kinds
0:17:55 of ways
0:17:57 it’s irreconcilable
0:17:58 to many things
0:17:59 about Marxism
0:17:59 and communism
0:18:01 which is all about
0:18:01 struggle
0:18:02 and all about
0:18:03 actually
0:18:05 a progressive view
0:18:05 of history
0:18:05 moving from
0:18:06 one stage
0:18:07 to the next.
0:18:07 So that’s the
0:18:08 interesting thing
0:18:09 about Xi Jinping
0:18:09 and the China
0:18:10 of today
0:18:11 is there is
0:18:11 that tension
0:18:12 of Confucianism
0:18:13 and communism
0:18:14 where
0:18:15 communism
0:18:15 Marxism
0:18:16 is supposed to
0:18:17 let go of history
0:18:19 and Confucianism
0:18:19 there’s a real
0:18:20 veneration
0:18:21 of history
0:18:22 that’s happening
0:18:23 in China
0:18:23 of today.
0:18:24 So they’re able
0:18:25 to wear both
0:18:26 hats
0:18:27 and balance it.
0:18:29 Yeah, you could say
0:18:31 that in many points
0:18:33 in the 20th century
0:18:34 there was a kind of
0:18:36 a kind of struggle
0:18:37 between different
0:18:39 competing political groups
0:18:40 over which part
0:18:41 of the Chinese past
0:18:43 to connect with.
0:18:43 Was it to the
0:18:45 Confucian tradition
0:18:46 or to the kind of
0:18:46 rebellious
0:18:48 monkey king tradition
0:18:48 which was what
0:18:50 Mao connected to?
0:18:51 Xi Jinping
0:18:52 and before him
0:18:53 to some extent
0:18:54 you know
0:18:55 Hu Jintao
0:18:56 we saw this a little bit
0:18:56 at the Olympics
0:18:57 there was more
0:18:57 this kind of
0:18:59 mix-it-all-together view
0:19:00 anything that suggested
0:19:02 greatness in the past
0:19:03 could be something
0:19:04 that could be
0:19:05 fused together.
0:19:06 So Xi Jinping
0:19:08 says that
0:19:08 you know
0:19:10 Mao is one of his
0:19:11 heroes
0:19:11 or one of the people
0:19:12 he looks to as a model
0:19:14 but so is Confucius
0:19:15 and
0:19:16 there’s really
0:19:17 you know
0:19:18 they had so little
0:19:19 in common
0:19:19 but
0:19:21 they both
0:19:21 in his mind
0:19:22 and the minds of others
0:19:23 suggest a kind of
0:19:25 power and greatness
0:19:26 of the Chinese past.
0:19:27 yeah so this
0:19:29 platonic notion
0:19:29 of greatness
0:19:31 and that
0:19:32 you could say
0:19:32 connects
0:19:34 that’s a thread
0:19:34 that connects
0:19:35 for Xi Jinping
0:19:37 the great
0:19:38 history
0:19:40 multi-thousand year
0:19:41 history of China.
0:19:43 yeah and it involves
0:19:44 smoothing out
0:19:45 all kinds of
0:19:46 internal contradictions
0:19:47 you had
0:19:48 you know
0:19:48 the first emperor
0:19:49 of China
0:19:51 jumping forward a bit
0:19:51 you know
0:19:52 in 221 BC
0:19:52 he
0:19:55 is anti-scholars
0:19:56 he burns books
0:19:57 and he
0:19:58 doesn’t
0:19:59 venerate
0:20:00 these kind of
0:20:00 rituals
0:20:01 and things
0:20:03 so he’s very much
0:20:04 against the things
0:20:05 that Confucius
0:20:06 stood for
0:20:07 but
0:20:08 and Mao
0:20:08 in a sense
0:20:09 of having to choose
0:20:10 between Confucius
0:20:11 and the first emperor
0:20:12 he said
0:20:12 well
0:20:13 maybe the first emperor
0:20:14 had the right idea
0:20:15 you know
0:20:16 scholars can be
0:20:16 can be
0:20:17 a pain
0:20:17 so
0:20:19 he said like
0:20:20 if you have to choose
0:20:21 between Confucianism
0:20:21 and that
0:20:22 but Xi Jinping
0:20:23 I think continually
0:20:25 is kind of
0:20:25 not choosing
0:20:26 and if he wants
0:20:26 to say
0:20:27 well look at
0:20:28 the great wall
0:20:29 look at this
0:20:29 wonderful
0:20:30 in fact
0:20:31 that was a symbol
0:20:31 of kind of
0:20:32 strength
0:20:33 and domination
0:20:33 related to
0:20:34 the first emperor
0:20:36 who by the way
0:20:36 didn’t build
0:20:37 anything like
0:20:38 the great wall
0:20:39 you see today
0:20:40 he built walls
0:20:41 and they were fine
0:20:41 you know
0:20:42 they were good
0:20:43 but the great wall
0:20:44 itself didn’t come
0:20:45 into being
0:20:46 until many centuries
0:20:47 later
0:20:48 but still this idea
0:20:49 of anything
0:20:49 that suggests
0:20:50 a kind of
0:20:51 greatness
0:20:52 is something
0:20:53 that as a
0:20:54 in many ways
0:20:55 a nationalist
0:20:56 above all else
0:20:56 Xi Jinping
0:20:57 is a
0:20:59 supporter of the party
0:21:01 and single party rule
0:21:01 that’s something
0:21:02 he clearly believes in
0:21:04 and he’s
0:21:06 a nationalist
0:21:06 he wants
0:21:08 to see China
0:21:08 be great
0:21:10 and acknowledge
0:21:10 this great
0:21:11 on the world stage
0:21:12 boy
0:21:14 so many contradictions
0:21:14 always
0:21:15 with Stalin
0:21:16 he was a communist
0:21:18 but also a nationalist
0:21:19 right
0:21:20 that contradiction
0:21:20 is
0:21:21 is
0:21:22 is
0:21:24 also permeates
0:21:24 through
0:21:24 through Mao
0:21:25 and all the way
0:21:26 to Xi Jinping
0:21:26 but if you can
0:21:27 linger on
0:21:29 Confucius for a little bit
0:21:30 you write that
0:21:30 one of the most
0:21:31 famous statements
0:21:32 of Confucianism
0:21:33 is the belief
0:21:34 that quote
0:21:35 people are pretty much
0:21:35 alike at birth
0:21:36 but become
0:21:37 differentiated
0:21:38 via learning
0:21:39 so this
0:21:40 sets the tradition
0:21:41 that China
0:21:42 places a high value
0:21:42 on education
0:21:43 and on meritocracy
0:21:45 can you speak
0:21:46 to this
0:21:49 Confucius’s
0:21:49 idea
0:21:50 of education
0:21:52 and how much
0:21:53 does it
0:21:54 permeate
0:21:54 to the China
0:21:55 of today
0:21:56 sure
0:21:57 so
0:21:58 there’s an optimism
0:21:59 to this
0:22:00 there’s an optimism
0:22:00 in the sense
0:22:01 of a
0:22:02 ability
0:22:03 that people
0:22:04 can be good
0:22:04 and
0:22:06 when exposed
0:22:06 to
0:22:08 exemplary
0:22:08 figures
0:22:09 from the past
0:22:10 they’ll want to be
0:22:11 like those
0:22:12 exemplary figures
0:22:12 so it’s a form
0:22:13 of education
0:22:14 through kind
0:22:15 of emulation
0:22:16 of models
0:22:18 and study
0:22:19 of past
0:22:19 figures
0:22:20 and past
0:22:20 texts
0:22:21 that were
0:22:22 exemplary
0:22:22 and it
0:22:24 did have
0:22:25 this idea
0:22:27 a relatively
0:22:28 positive view
0:22:28 of human
0:22:28 nature
0:22:29 and the
0:22:29 sort of
0:22:31 changeability
0:22:31 of humans
0:22:32 through
0:22:33 education
0:22:34 and I think
0:22:35 that shows
0:22:35 through in
0:22:36 all kinds
0:22:37 of things
0:22:38 even the fact
0:22:39 that while
0:22:39 there were
0:22:39 lots of
0:22:40 killings
0:22:40 by the
0:22:40 Chinese
0:22:41 Communist
0:22:41 Party
0:22:42 and other
0:22:42 groups
0:22:43 there was
0:22:43 often
0:22:44 an idea
0:22:45 that
0:22:46 people
0:22:47 could be
0:22:48 could be
0:22:49 remolded
0:22:50 potentially
0:22:51 and China
0:22:51 was one
0:22:51 of the few
0:22:52 places
0:22:52 where
0:22:53 they didn’t
0:22:54 kill
0:22:54 the
0:22:55 last
0:22:56 emperor
0:22:57 you know
0:22:57 the last
0:22:57 emperor
0:22:58 the idea
0:22:59 was that
0:22:59 he could
0:23:00 become
0:23:00 anybody
0:23:01 could be
0:23:02 kind of
0:23:03 turned into
0:23:04 a citizen
0:23:05 of this
0:23:06 or a subject
0:23:07 of this
0:23:08 a good
0:23:09 a good
0:23:10 member
0:23:10 of this
0:23:11 polity
0:23:12 through
0:23:12 the
0:23:12 kind
0:23:13 of
0:23:14 education
0:23:14 often
0:23:14 it
0:23:14 was
0:23:14 a very
0:23:15 kind
0:23:15 of
0:23:15 forceful
0:23:15 form
0:23:16 of
0:23:16 education
0:23:17 but I think
0:23:18 that’s a
0:23:18 carryover
0:23:19 from the
0:23:20 Confucian
0:23:20 times
0:23:22 and
0:23:24 over time
0:23:26 this Confucian
0:23:26 idea led
0:23:27 to the
0:23:28 creation of
0:23:28 one of the
0:23:29 early great
0:23:30 civil service
0:23:31 exams
0:23:31 an idea
0:23:31 that
0:23:32 bureaucracy
0:23:33 should be
0:23:33 run
0:23:34 not by
0:23:34 people
0:23:35 who were
0:23:35 born
0:23:36 into
0:23:36 the
0:23:36 right
0:23:36 families
0:23:37 but
0:23:37 ones
0:23:37 who
0:23:37 had
0:23:38 shown
0:23:39 their
0:23:39 ability
0:23:39 to
0:23:40 master
0:23:40 these
0:23:40 really
0:23:41 intensive
0:23:42 kind
0:23:42 of
0:23:43 exams
0:23:43 and
0:23:43 the
0:23:44 exams
0:23:44 were
0:23:44 things
0:23:44 that
0:23:44 could
0:23:45 make
0:23:45 or
0:23:45 break
0:23:45 your
0:23:46 career
0:23:47 a bit
0:23:47 like
0:23:47 at
0:23:47 some
0:23:48 points
0:23:48 in the
0:23:48 American
0:23:49 past
0:23:50 passing
0:23:50 a
0:23:50 bar
0:23:50 exam
0:23:51 a
0:23:51 really
0:23:51 intensive
0:23:52 thing
0:23:52 could
0:23:53 set
0:23:53 you
0:23:53 on
0:23:53 the
0:23:54 road
0:23:54 to
0:23:54 a
0:23:55 good
0:23:55 career
0:23:55 in
0:23:56 China
0:23:56 you
0:23:56 had
0:23:56 the
0:23:57 civil
0:23:57 service
0:23:58 exam
0:23:58 tradition
0:23:59 so I
0:23:59 think
0:23:59 this
0:24:00 kind
0:24:00 of
0:24:00 emphasis
0:24:01 on
0:24:02 education
0:24:03 and
0:24:03 on
0:24:05 valuing
0:24:05 of
0:24:06 scholarly
0:24:06 pursuits
0:24:08 but
0:24:09 then
0:24:09 Chinese
0:24:10 leaders
0:24:10 throughout
0:24:11 history
0:24:12 including
0:24:12 up to
0:24:12 Mao
0:24:13 and
0:24:13 Xi Jinping
0:24:13 have
0:24:14 also
0:24:14 found
0:24:15 scholars
0:24:16 to be
0:24:17 tremendously
0:24:18 difficult
0:24:18 to
0:24:18 control
0:24:19 so there’s
0:24:20 an ambivalence
0:24:20 to it
0:24:21 or contradiction
0:24:21 again
0:24:22 there
0:24:23 but
0:24:24 to
0:24:24 which
0:24:24 degree
0:24:24 this
0:24:25 idea
0:24:25 of
0:24:25 meritocracy
0:24:26 that’s
0:24:27 inherent
0:24:27 to
0:24:28 the
0:24:29 notion
0:24:29 that
0:24:29 we’re
0:24:30 all
0:24:30 start
0:24:30 at
0:24:30 the
0:24:31 same
0:24:31 line
0:24:33 there’s
0:24:34 a
0:24:34 meritocratic
0:24:35 view
0:24:36 of
0:24:36 human
0:24:37 nature
0:24:37 there
0:24:38 or
0:24:38 if
0:24:38 you
0:24:38 work
0:24:39 hard
0:24:39 and
0:24:39 you
0:24:41 learn
0:24:41 things
0:24:42 you
0:24:42 will
0:24:43 succeed
0:24:43 and
0:24:43 so
0:24:44 the
0:24:44 reverse
0:24:44 if
0:24:44 you
0:24:45 haven’t
0:24:45 succeeded
0:24:45 that
0:24:46 means
0:24:46 you
0:24:46 didn’t
0:24:46 work
0:24:46 hard
0:24:47 and
0:24:47 afford
0:24:47 to
0:24:47 do
0:24:48 not
0:24:48 deserve
0:24:48 the
0:24:49 spoils
0:24:49 of
0:24:49 the
0:24:50 success
0:24:52 does
0:24:52 that
0:24:53 carry
0:24:53 over
0:24:53 to
0:24:53 the
0:24:53 China
0:24:54 of
0:24:54 today
0:24:55 there’s
0:24:55 such
0:24:55 a
0:24:55 challenge
0:24:56 in
0:24:56 all
0:24:56 these
0:24:56 forms
0:24:56 of
0:24:57 meritocracy
0:24:57 because
0:24:57 you
0:24:57 know
0:24:58 you
0:24:58 had
0:24:58 the
0:24:58 civil
0:24:59 serving
0:24:59 exams
0:25:00 but
0:25:00 the
0:25:01 question
0:25:01 was
0:25:01 who
0:25:02 if
0:25:02 you
0:25:03 had
0:25:03 a
0:25:03 really
0:25:03 good
0:25:03 tutor
0:25:04 if
0:25:04 you
0:25:04 could
0:25:04 afford
0:25:04 a
0:25:04 really
0:25:05 good
0:25:05 tutor
0:25:05 you
0:25:05 had
0:25:05 a
0:25:05 better
0:25:06 chance
0:25:06 of
0:25:06 passing
0:25:06 the
0:25:07 exams
0:25:09 one
0:25:09 thing
0:25:09 that
0:25:09 happened
0:25:09 there
0:25:10 was
0:25:10 families
0:25:11 would
0:25:11 would
0:25:12 pool
0:25:12 together
0:25:13 resources
0:25:13 to
0:25:14 try
0:25:14 to
0:25:15 help
0:25:15 the
0:25:16 brightest
0:25:17 in
0:25:17 their
0:25:17 group
0:25:18 to
0:25:18 be
0:25:19 able
0:25:19 to
0:25:19 become
0:25:20 part
0:25:20 of
0:25:20 the
0:25:21 officialdom
0:25:21 and
0:25:22 this
0:25:23 kind
0:25:23 of
0:25:23 pooling
0:25:23 together
0:25:24 resources
0:25:24 to
0:25:25 help
0:25:25 as
0:25:25 a
0:25:26 family
0:25:26 was
0:25:27 an
0:25:27 important
0:25:27 part
0:25:27 of
0:25:28 that
0:25:28 structure
0:25:29 but
0:25:29 there
0:25:29 also
0:25:30 was
0:25:30 a
0:25:33 tension
0:25:34 of
0:25:34 that
0:25:35 so
0:25:35 what
0:25:36 if
0:25:36 you
0:25:36 don’t
0:25:36 succeed
0:25:37 some
0:25:37 of
0:25:37 the
0:25:38 leaders
0:25:38 of
0:25:39 rebellions
0:25:39 against
0:25:41 emperors
0:25:41 were
0:25:42 failed
0:25:42 examination
0:25:43 candidates
0:25:46 you
0:25:48 had
0:25:48 this
0:25:48 issue
0:25:48 and
0:25:48 then
0:25:49 it
0:25:49 became
0:25:49 something
0:25:50 well
0:25:50 the
0:25:51 system
0:25:51 was
0:25:51 out
0:25:51 of
0:25:52 whack
0:25:52 and
0:25:52 it
0:25:52 needed
0:25:53 a
0:25:53 new
0:25:54 leader
0:25:55 and
0:25:56 also
0:25:56 there
0:25:56 was
0:25:57 something
0:25:58 built
0:25:58 in
0:25:58 that
0:25:59 was
0:25:59 not
0:25:59 so
0:25:59 much
0:26:00 Confucius
0:26:00 himself
0:26:00 but
0:26:01 one
0:26:01 of
0:26:01 his
0:26:02 main
0:26:04 interpreters
0:26:05 early
0:26:05 interpreters
0:26:06 Mencius
0:26:07 had
0:26:07 this
0:26:07 idea
0:26:08 which
0:26:08 can
0:26:08 be
0:26:08 seen
0:26:08 as
0:26:09 a
0:26:09 crude
0:26:11 justification
0:26:11 for
0:26:12 rebellion
0:26:12 or
0:26:12 for
0:26:13 a
0:26:13 kind
0:26:13 of
0:26:13 democracy
0:26:14 to
0:26:14 say
0:26:14 that
0:26:15 even
0:26:15 though
0:26:15 the
0:26:16 emperor
0:26:17 rules
0:26:18 at
0:26:18 the
0:26:19 will
0:26:19 of
0:26:19 heaven
0:26:20 if
0:26:22 he
0:26:23 doesn’t
0:26:23 act
0:26:24 like
0:26:24 a
0:26:24 true
0:26:24 emperor
0:26:24 if
0:26:24 he’s
0:26:25 not
0:26:25 morally
0:26:26 upstanding
0:26:27 then
0:26:27 heaven
0:26:27 will
0:26:28 remove
0:26:30 its
0:26:31 mandate
0:26:32 to
0:26:32 him
0:26:32 and
0:26:33 then
0:26:34 there’s
0:26:34 no
0:26:35 obligation
0:26:35 to
0:26:35 show
0:26:36 deference
0:26:36 for a
0:26:37 ruler
0:26:37 who’s
0:26:37 not
0:26:38 behaving
0:26:38 like
0:26:38 a
0:26:38 true
0:26:39 ruler
0:26:39 and
0:26:39 there
0:26:40 it
0:26:40 sort
0:26:40 of
0:26:40 justifies
0:26:41 rebellion
0:26:42 and
0:26:42 the idea
0:26:43 is that
0:26:44 if
0:26:45 the
0:26:45 rebellion
0:26:45 isn’t
0:26:46 justified
0:26:47 then
0:26:47 heaven
0:26:47 will
0:26:48 stop
0:26:49 the
0:26:49 ruler
0:26:49 from
0:26:50 being
0:26:50 killed
0:26:50 but
0:26:51 if
0:26:51 heaven
0:26:52 has
0:26:52 removed
0:26:53 his
0:26:53 support
0:26:54 then
0:26:54 the
0:26:54 rebellion
0:26:55 will
0:26:55 succeed
0:26:55 and
0:26:56 then
0:26:56 a
0:26:56 new
0:26:58 ruler
0:26:58 will
0:26:58 be
0:26:58 justified
0:26:59 in
0:26:59 taking
0:27:00 power
0:27:00 so
0:27:01 it’s
0:27:01 an
0:27:02 interesting
0:27:02 sense
0:27:02 that
0:27:03 the
0:27:03 universe
0:27:04 in
0:27:04 this
0:27:05 Confucian
0:27:05 view
0:27:06 has
0:27:06 a
0:27:06 kind
0:27:06 of
0:27:07 moral
0:27:08 dimension
0:27:08 to
0:27:09 it
0:27:09 but
0:27:10 it
0:27:10 also
0:27:12 it’s
0:27:12 when
0:27:12 things
0:27:12 actually
0:27:13 happen
0:27:13 that
0:27:13 you
0:27:14 see
0:27:14 where
0:27:14 the
0:27:14 side
0:27:15 of
0:27:15 morality
0:27:15 is
0:27:16 okay
0:27:16 so
0:27:16 it’s
0:27:17 meritocracy
0:27:17 with
0:27:17 an
0:27:18 asterix
0:27:19 it
0:27:19 does
0:27:19 seem
0:27:19 to
0:27:19 be
0:27:20 the
0:27:20 case
0:27:20 maybe
0:27:20 you
0:27:20 can
0:27:21 speak
0:27:21 to
0:27:21 that
0:27:21 in
0:27:21 the
0:27:22 Chinese
0:27:22 education
0:27:23 system
0:27:23 there
0:27:23 seems
0:27:23 to
0:27:23 be
0:27:23 a
0:27:24 high
0:27:24 value
0:27:24 for
0:27:25 excellence
0:27:26 hopefully
0:27:26 I’m
0:27:27 not
0:27:27 generalizing
0:27:27 too
0:27:27 much
0:27:28 but
0:27:28 from
0:27:29 the
0:27:29 things
0:27:30 I’ve
0:27:30 seen
0:27:30 there
0:27:31 are
0:27:31 certain
0:27:31 cultures
0:27:32 certain
0:27:32 peoples
0:27:33 that
0:27:34 you
0:27:34 know
0:27:35 it’s
0:27:35 just
0:27:36 part
0:27:36 of
0:27:36 the
0:27:36 value
0:27:37 system
0:27:37 of
0:27:37 the
0:27:38 culture
0:27:39 that
0:27:39 you
0:27:39 need
0:27:39 to
0:27:40 be
0:27:40 a
0:27:40 really
0:27:40 good
0:27:41 student
0:27:42 is
0:27:42 that
0:27:42 the
0:27:42 case
0:27:42 with
0:27:43 the
0:27:43 China
0:27:43 of
0:27:43 today
0:27:44 there’s
0:27:44 been
0:27:45 a lot
0:27:45 of
0:27:45 emphasis
0:27:46 on
0:27:47 education
0:27:48 and
0:27:48 sort
0:27:48 of
0:27:48 working
0:27:49 really
0:27:49 hard
0:27:49 and
0:27:50 excelling
0:27:50 at
0:27:51 some
0:27:52 subjects
0:27:52 and
0:27:52 having
0:27:54 you know
0:27:55 there isn’t
0:27:55 the
0:27:55 civil
0:27:55 service
0:27:56 exam
0:27:56 but
0:27:56 there
0:27:57 is
0:27:58 the
0:27:59 gaokao
0:27:59 exam
0:27:59 that
0:28:00 really
0:28:00 can
0:28:00 determine
0:28:01 where
0:28:01 you
0:28:02 get
0:28:02 what
0:28:02 kind
0:28:03 of
0:28:04 institution
0:28:04 you
0:28:04 get
0:28:05 into
0:28:06 and
0:28:06 I
0:28:07 think
0:28:08 you
0:28:08 know
0:28:09 getting
0:28:09 back
0:28:09 to
0:28:09 this
0:28:10 idea
0:28:10 of
0:28:11 meritocracy
0:28:11 which
0:28:13 is
0:28:13 strong
0:28:14 in a lot
0:28:14 of
0:28:16 tradition
0:28:17 it also
0:28:18 a kind
0:28:18 of
0:28:19 what it
0:28:19 opens
0:28:19 you up
0:28:20 to
0:28:20 is
0:28:20 when
0:28:20 there
0:28:21 is
0:28:21 a
0:28:22 sense
0:28:23 of
0:28:23 unfairness
0:28:24 and
0:28:24 who’s
0:28:24 getting
0:28:24 ahead
0:28:25 and
0:28:25 how
0:28:25 the
0:28:25 spoils
0:28:25 are
0:28:26 being
0:28:26 divided
0:28:27 this
0:28:28 leads
0:28:28 to
0:28:28 a
0:28:28 kind
0:28:28 of
0:28:29 outrage
0:28:30 and
0:28:30 some
0:28:30 of
0:28:31 the
0:28:31 biggest
0:28:31 protests
0:28:32 in
0:28:32 China
0:28:33 have
0:28:33 been
0:28:33 about
0:28:33 this
0:28:34 sense
0:28:34 of
0:28:35 nepotism
0:28:37 which
0:28:37 really
0:28:38 seems
0:28:38 to
0:28:38 subvert
0:28:39 this
0:28:39 whole
0:28:42 idea
0:28:42 of
0:28:43 meritocracy
0:28:44 and
0:28:44 the
0:28:45 1989
0:28:46 protests
0:28:46 at
0:28:47 Tiananmen
0:28:47 even
0:28:47 though
0:28:48 in the
0:28:48 Western
0:28:49 press
0:28:49 in
0:28:50 particular
0:28:50 was
0:28:51 discussed
0:28:52 as a
0:28:52 movement
0:28:52 for
0:28:53 democracy
0:28:53 but
0:28:53 a lot
0:28:53 of
0:28:54 the
0:28:54 first
0:28:54 posters
0:28:55 that
0:28:55 went
0:28:55 up
0:28:55 that
0:28:55 got
0:28:56 students
0:28:56 really
0:28:56 angry
0:28:57 were
0:28:57 criticisms
0:28:58 of
0:28:58 corruption
0:28:58 within
0:28:59 the
0:28:59 communist
0:28:59 party
0:29:00 and
0:29:00 nepotism
0:29:01 and
0:29:01 the
0:29:02 sense
0:29:02 that
0:29:02 people
0:29:04 despite
0:29:04 all
0:29:04 the
0:29:05 talk
0:29:05 I
0:29:05 mean
0:29:05 despite
0:29:05 the
0:29:06 fact
0:29:06 that
0:29:07 most
0:29:07 people
0:29:07 seem
0:29:07 to be
0:29:07 having
0:29:08 to
0:29:08 study
0:29:08 really
0:29:09 hard
0:29:09 to pass
0:29:09 these
0:29:10 exams
0:29:10 to get
0:29:11 good
0:29:12 positions
0:29:12 in
0:29:12 universities
0:29:12 that
0:29:13 some
0:29:13 of
0:29:13 them
0:29:13 were
0:29:13 being
0:29:14 handed
0:29:14 out
0:29:14 via
0:29:14 the
0:29:15 back
0:29:15 door
0:29:16 and
0:29:16 that
0:29:16 led
0:29:16 to
0:29:17 a
0:29:17 kind
0:29:17 of
0:29:17 outrage
0:29:18 that
0:29:18 that
0:29:18 that
0:29:18 is
0:29:19 true
0:29:19 in
0:29:20 many
0:29:21 places
0:29:21 but
0:29:21 I
0:29:21 think
0:29:21 it
0:29:21 gives
0:29:22 a
0:29:22 special
0:29:24 anger
0:29:25 against
0:29:25 nepotism
0:29:26 because
0:29:26 of
0:29:26 that
0:29:28 the
0:29:28 way
0:29:28 in
0:29:28 which
0:29:28 so
0:29:29 much
0:29:29 emphasis
0:29:29 is
0:29:30 put
0:29:30 on
0:29:30 the
0:29:31 standard
0:29:31 exam
0:29:32 way
0:29:32 of
0:29:32 getting
0:29:33 ahead
0:29:33 I
0:29:34 hope
0:29:34 it’s
0:29:34 okay
0:29:34 if
0:29:34 we
0:29:35 jump
0:29:35 around
0:29:36 through
0:29:36 history
0:29:36 a
0:29:36 bit
0:29:37 and
0:29:37 find
0:29:38 the
0:29:38 threads
0:29:38 that
0:29:38 connect
0:29:39 everything
0:29:39 since
0:29:39 you
0:29:39 mentioned
0:29:40 Tiananmen
0:29:40 Square
0:29:42 you
0:29:42 have
0:29:42 studied
0:29:43 a lot
0:29:43 of
0:29:43 student
0:29:44 protests
0:29:44 throughout
0:29:44 Chinese
0:29:45 history
0:29:45 throughout
0:29:46 history
0:29:46 in
0:29:46 general
0:29:48 what
0:29:48 happened
0:29:48 in
0:29:48 Tiananmen
0:29:49 Square
0:29:50 so
0:29:51 in
0:29:51 1989
0:29:52 this
0:29:52 massive
0:29:53 movement
0:29:53 took
0:29:54 place
0:29:54 the
0:29:54 story
0:29:55 of
0:29:55 it
0:29:55 largely
0:29:56 suppressed
0:29:57 within
0:29:57 China
0:29:57 and
0:29:58 largely
0:29:58 misunderstood
0:29:59 in
0:30:00 other
0:30:00 places
0:30:01 in part
0:30:01 because
0:30:01 it
0:30:01 happened
0:30:02 around
0:30:02 the
0:30:02 same
0:30:03 time
0:30:04 that
0:30:04 communism
0:30:05 was
0:30:05 unraveling
0:30:06 and
0:30:06 ending
0:30:06 in
0:30:07 the
0:30:07 former
0:30:07 Soviet
0:30:08 bloc
0:30:08 so
0:30:08 I
0:30:08 think
0:30:08 it’s
0:30:09 often
0:30:10 conflated
0:30:10 with
0:30:11 what
0:30:11 was
0:30:11 going
0:30:11 on
0:30:11 there
0:30:13 and
0:30:13 so
0:30:14 I
0:30:14 think
0:30:14 one
0:30:14 of
0:30:14 the
0:30:14 key
0:30:15 things
0:30:15 to
0:30:15 know
0:30:16 about
0:30:16 the
0:30:16 protests
0:30:17 in
0:30:17 1989
0:30:17 was
0:30:18 that
0:30:18 they
0:30:18 were
0:30:19 an
0:30:19 effort
0:30:20 to
0:30:20 get
0:30:20 the
0:30:21 communist
0:30:21 party
0:30:22 in
0:30:22 China
0:30:22 to
0:30:23 do
0:30:23 a
0:30:23 better
0:30:23 job
0:30:24 of
0:30:24 living
0:30:24 up
0:30:24 to
0:30:24 its
0:30:25 own
0:30:25 stated
0:30:26 ideals
0:30:27 and
0:30:27 to
0:30:28 try
0:30:28 to
0:30:29 support
0:30:30 the
0:30:30 trend
0:30:31 within
0:30:31 the
0:30:31 party
0:30:32 toward
0:30:32 a
0:30:32 kind
0:30:32 of
0:30:34 liberalizing
0:30:36 and
0:30:37 opening
0:30:37 up
0:30:38 form
0:30:39 that
0:30:40 had
0:30:40 taken
0:30:41 shape
0:30:41 after
0:30:42 Mao’s
0:30:42 death
0:30:43 and
0:30:43 in
0:30:44 a
0:30:44 sense
0:30:45 the
0:30:45 student
0:30:46 generation
0:30:47 of
0:30:47 89
0:30:48 and
0:30:48 I
0:30:48 was
0:30:48 there
0:30:48 in
0:30:49 86
0:30:49 when
0:30:49 there
0:30:49 were
0:30:49 some
0:30:49 sort
0:30:50 of
0:30:50 warm-up
0:30:51 protests
0:30:51 there
0:30:51 was
0:30:52 a
0:30:52 kind
0:30:52 of
0:30:52 frustration
0:30:53 with
0:30:53 what
0:30:53 they
0:30:53 felt
0:30:54 was
0:30:55 a
0:30:56 half-assed
0:30:56 version
0:30:57 of what
0:30:58 they
0:30:58 were
0:30:58 talking
0:30:59 about
0:30:59 that
0:30:59 the
0:31:00 government
0:31:00 was
0:31:01 saying
0:31:01 the
0:31:01 party
0:31:01 was
0:31:02 saying
0:31:02 we
0:31:03 believe
0:31:03 in
0:31:04 reforming
0:31:04 and
0:31:04 opening
0:31:05 up
0:31:05 we
0:31:05 need
0:31:05 to
0:31:06 liberalize
0:31:07 we need
0:31:07 to give
0:31:07 people
0:31:08 more
0:31:09 more
0:31:10 control
0:31:10 of
0:31:10 their
0:31:11 fate
0:31:11 and
0:31:11 the
0:31:12 students
0:31:12 felt
0:31:13 that
0:31:14 this
0:31:14 was
0:31:14 being
0:31:14 done
0:31:16 more
0:31:16 effectively
0:31:17 in the
0:31:17 economic
0:31:17 realm
0:31:18 than
0:31:18 in
0:31:18 the
0:31:18 political
0:31:19 realm
0:31:20 and
0:31:20 that
0:31:20 there
0:31:20 were
0:31:21 a lot
0:31:21 of
0:31:21 sort
0:31:21 of
0:31:22 partial
0:31:22 gestures
0:31:23 that
0:31:24 suggested
0:31:26 the
0:31:26 party
0:31:26 needed to
0:31:26 be
0:31:27 pressed
0:31:27 to
0:31:27 really
0:31:28 move
0:31:28 in
0:31:29 that
0:31:29 direction
0:31:29 and
0:31:29 it
0:31:30 will
0:31:30 seem
0:31:30 like
0:31:30 a
0:31:31 very
0:31:31 trivial
0:31:31 thing
0:31:32 but
0:31:32 I
0:31:33 found
0:31:33 it
0:31:33 fascinating
0:31:34 in
0:31:34 86
0:31:34 when
0:31:34 I
0:31:35 was
0:31:35 there
0:31:36 in
0:31:36 Shanghai
0:31:36 in
0:31:37 late
0:31:37 86
0:31:39 and
0:31:39 students
0:31:40 protested
0:31:40 and
0:31:40 this
0:31:40 was
0:31:40 the
0:31:40 first
0:31:41 time
0:31:42 that
0:31:42 students
0:31:43 had been
0:31:43 really
0:31:44 on the
0:31:44 streets
0:31:44 in
0:31:45 significant
0:31:45 numbers
0:31:46 since
0:31:46 the
0:31:46 culture
0:31:47 revolution
0:31:47 or at
0:31:48 least
0:31:48 since
0:31:48 76
0:31:49 and
0:31:50 the
0:31:50 students
0:31:50 were
0:31:51 inspired
0:31:51 by
0:31:52 calls
0:31:52 for
0:31:53 democracy
0:31:53 and
0:31:53 discussions
0:31:54 of
0:31:54 democracy
0:31:54 by
0:31:55 this
0:31:57 physicist
0:31:57 Fang
0:31:57 Li
0:31:58 Juer
0:31:58 who
0:31:59 was
0:31:59 a
0:31:59 kind
0:31:59 of
0:32:01 Chinese
0:32:02 Sakharov
0:32:03 he
0:32:03 was a
0:32:04 liberalizing
0:32:04 intellectual
0:32:05 but
0:32:06 one
0:32:06 of
0:32:06 the
0:32:06 things
0:32:06 that
0:32:07 students
0:32:07 in
0:32:07 Shanghai
0:32:08 which
0:32:08 were
0:32:09 some
0:32:09 of
0:32:09 the
0:32:10 most
0:32:10 intense
0:32:11 protests
0:32:11 of
0:32:11 that
0:32:11 year
0:32:11 took
0:32:12 place
0:32:12 were
0:32:13 frustrated
0:32:13 about
0:32:13 was
0:32:13 a
0:32:14 rock
0:32:14 concert
0:32:14 of
0:32:15 all
0:32:15 things
0:32:16 that
0:32:16 Jan
0:32:17 and
0:32:17 Dean
0:32:18 the
0:32:18 American
0:32:19 surf
0:32:19 rock
0:32:20 band
0:32:20 which
0:32:20 was
0:32:20 kind
0:32:20 of
0:32:21 like
0:32:21 the
0:32:21 beach
0:32:21 boys
0:32:21 only
0:32:22 not
0:32:22 as
0:32:22 big
0:32:22 and
0:32:23 they
0:32:23 were
0:32:24 touring
0:32:24 China
0:32:24 it
0:32:25 was
0:32:25 the
0:32:25 first
0:32:25 time
0:32:26 in
0:32:26 Shanghai
0:32:27 that
0:32:27 there
0:32:27 had
0:32:27 been
0:32:27 a
0:32:27 rock
0:32:28 concert
0:32:28 and
0:32:28 the
0:32:28 students
0:32:28 were
0:32:29 really
0:32:29 excited
0:32:29 about
0:32:30 this
0:32:30 because
0:32:30 this
0:32:30 fit
0:32:30 in
0:32:31 with
0:32:32 what
0:32:32 they
0:32:32 thought
0:32:33 the
0:32:33 communist
0:32:33 party
0:32:33 was
0:32:34 moving
0:32:34 toward
0:32:34 was
0:32:35 letting
0:32:35 them
0:32:36 be
0:32:36 more
0:32:36 part
0:32:36 of
0:32:36 the
0:32:37 world
0:32:37 and
0:32:37 for
0:32:38 them
0:32:38 that
0:32:38 meant
0:32:38 being
0:32:39 more
0:32:39 in
0:32:39 step
0:32:39 with
0:32:40 pop
0:32:40 culture
0:32:40 around
0:32:41 the
0:32:41 world
0:32:42 and
0:32:42 at
0:32:42 the
0:32:43 concert
0:32:43 some
0:32:43 students
0:32:44 got
0:32:44 up
0:32:44 to
0:32:44 dance
0:32:45 because
0:32:45 that’s
0:32:54 a
0:32:55 feint
0:32:55 toward
0:32:56 openness
0:32:56 that
0:32:56 really
0:32:57 didn’t
0:32:57 have
0:32:57 follow
0:32:57 through
0:32:58 we’re
0:32:58 going
0:32:58 to
0:32:58 give
0:32:58 you
0:32:59 rock
0:32:59 concerts
0:32:59 but
0:32:59 not
0:33:00 let
0:33:00 you
0:33:00 dance
0:33:01 and
0:33:02 so
0:33:02 the
0:33:02 protests
0:33:03 went
0:33:03 on
0:33:03 for
0:33:03 a
0:33:03 little
0:33:04 while
0:33:04 in
0:33:04 86
0:33:05 and
0:33:06 posters
0:33:06 went
0:33:07 up
0:33:08 the
0:33:08 officials
0:33:09 at
0:33:10 universities
0:33:11 said
0:33:11 no
0:33:11 this
0:33:11 is
0:33:12 out
0:33:12 of
0:33:12 hand
0:33:12 we
0:33:13 had
0:33:13 chaos
0:33:14 on
0:33:14 the
0:33:14 streets
0:33:14 during
0:33:14 the
0:33:15 culture
0:33:15 revolution
0:33:15 we
0:33:15 can’t
0:33:16 go
0:33:16 back
0:33:16 to
0:33:16 that
0:33:17 and
0:33:17 nobody
0:33:18 wanted
0:33:18 to
0:33:18 go
0:33:18 back
0:33:18 to
0:33:24 and
0:33:24 the
0:33:25 students
0:33:25 didn’t
0:33:25 want
0:33:25 to
0:33:25 be
0:33:25 associated
0:33:26 with
0:33:26 that
0:33:26 so
0:33:27 it
0:33:27 wound
0:33:27 down
0:33:28 pretty
0:33:28 quickly
0:33:29 and
0:33:30 they
0:33:30 thought
0:33:32 we’re
0:33:32 not
0:33:32 like
0:33:32 the
0:33:32 Red
0:33:33 Guards
0:33:33 we
0:33:33 don’t
0:33:33 want
0:33:33 to
0:33:33 make
0:33:34 chaos
0:33:34 we
0:33:34 also
0:33:34 are
0:33:35 not
0:33:35 fervent
0:33:36 loyalists
0:33:37 of
0:33:37 anybody
0:33:37 in
0:33:37 power
0:33:37 the
0:33:38 Red
0:33:38 Guards
0:33:38 had
0:33:38 been
0:33:39 passionate
0:33:39 about
0:33:40 Mao
0:33:40 the
0:33:42 analogy
0:33:42 partly
0:33:43 sort
0:33:43 of
0:33:43 scared
0:33:43 them
0:33:44 and
0:33:44 also
0:33:44 it
0:33:45 meant
0:33:45 that
0:33:45 the
0:33:45 government
0:33:45 was
0:33:45 really
0:33:46 serious
0:33:46 about
0:33:47 dealing
0:33:47 with
0:33:47 them
0:33:48 so
0:33:48 then
0:33:48 in
0:33:49 1989
0:33:50 this
0:33:50 protest
0:33:51 restart
0:33:53 and
0:33:53 there
0:33:53 are
0:33:53 a
0:33:53 variety
0:33:54 of
0:33:54 reasons
0:33:54 why
0:33:55 they
0:33:55 can
0:33:56 restart
0:33:57 they
0:33:58 the
0:33:58 space
0:33:58 for
0:33:58 them
0:33:59 students
0:33:59 are
0:34:00 thinking
0:34:00 about
0:34:00 doing
0:34:01 something
0:34:01 in
0:34:01 1989
0:34:02 it’s
0:34:02 a
0:34:02 very
0:34:02 resonant
0:34:03 year
0:34:04 200th
0:34:04 anniversary
0:34:05 of the
0:34:05 French
0:34:06 revolution
0:34:07 people
0:34:07 are
0:34:07 thinking
0:34:07 about
0:34:08 that
0:34:08 but
0:34:08 more
0:34:09 importantly
0:34:09 it’s
0:34:09 the
0:34:10 70th
0:34:10 anniversary
0:34:10 of the
0:34:11 biggest
0:34:11 student
0:34:11 movement
0:34:12 in
0:34:12 Chinese
0:34:12 history
0:34:13 the
0:34:13 May
0:34:14 4th
0:34:14 movement
0:34:14 of
0:34:15 1919
0:34:16 and
0:34:17 the
0:34:17 May
0:34:17 4th
0:34:17 movement
0:34:18 had
0:34:18 helped
0:34:18 lay
0:34:18 the
0:34:19 groundwork
0:34:19 for
0:34:19 the
0:34:19 Chinese
0:34:20 communist
0:34:20 party
0:34:21 some
0:34:21 member
0:34:22 leading
0:34:22 founders
0:34:22 of
0:34:23 it
0:34:23 had
0:34:23 been
0:34:24 student
0:34:24 activists
0:34:25 then
0:34:25 it was
0:34:25 an
0:34:26 anti-imperialist
0:34:27 movement
0:34:27 but it
0:34:27 was also
0:34:29 a
0:34:29 movement
0:34:30 against
0:34:30 bad
0:34:30 government
0:34:32 and so
0:34:32 the
0:34:32 students
0:34:33 thought
0:34:34 the
0:34:34 anniversary
0:34:35 of that
0:34:36 movement
0:34:36 was always
0:34:37 marked
0:34:38 commemorated
0:34:38 in China
0:34:39 and people
0:34:39 took the
0:34:40 history
0:34:41 seriously
0:34:42 people
0:34:42 were reminded
0:34:43 of what
0:34:43 students
0:34:44 did
0:34:44 in the
0:34:45 past
0:34:45 and so
0:34:46 there
0:34:46 were sort
0:34:47 of
0:34:47 there were
0:34:47 a lot
0:34:47 of
0:34:48 reasons
0:34:48 why
0:34:48 people
0:34:49 were
0:34:49 itching
0:34:50 to do
0:34:50 something
0:34:51 and then
0:34:53 a leader
0:34:54 who
0:34:56 was
0:34:56 associated
0:34:57 with the
0:34:57 more
0:34:58 kind of
0:34:59 reformist
0:34:59 more
0:35:00 liberalizing
0:35:02 group
0:35:02 within the
0:35:02 Chinese
0:35:03 Communist Party
0:35:04 he had
0:35:04 been
0:35:05 stripped of
0:35:05 a very
0:35:06 high office
0:35:07 demoted
0:35:08 after
0:35:08 taking
0:35:09 partly
0:35:10 taking a
0:35:11 fairly light
0:35:11 stance
0:35:12 toward the
0:35:13 86-87
0:35:13 protests
0:35:14 and so
0:35:14 he was
0:35:15 still
0:35:15 a member
0:35:15 of the
0:35:16 government
0:35:17 but he
0:35:17 was not
0:35:17 as high
0:35:18 up
0:35:18 in power
0:35:19 he had
0:35:19 been
0:35:19 very high
0:35:19 up
0:35:19 he had
0:35:20 been
0:35:20 sort of
0:35:21 Deng Xiaoping’s
0:35:21 potential
0:35:22 successor
0:35:23 and he
0:35:24 dies
0:35:25 unexpectedly
0:35:26 and there
0:35:26 has to be
0:35:27 a funeral
0:35:27 for him
0:35:28 because he
0:35:28 dies
0:35:28 still as
0:35:29 an
0:35:29 official
0:35:30 and the
0:35:31 students
0:35:31 take
0:35:32 advantage
0:35:32 of the
0:35:33 opening
0:35:33 of their
0:35:33 having to
0:35:34 be
0:35:37 commemorations
0:35:37 of his
0:35:37 death
0:35:38 and they
0:35:39 put up
0:35:39 posters
0:35:39 that
0:35:40 basically
0:35:40 say
0:35:40 the
0:35:40 wrong
0:35:41 people
0:35:41 are
0:35:41 dying
0:35:42 who
0:35:42 Yabong
0:35:42 was
0:35:43 younger
0:35:44 than some
0:35:44 of the
0:35:44 more
0:35:45 conservative
0:35:45 members
0:35:46 they said
0:35:46 so
0:35:47 some
0:35:47 people
0:35:47 are
0:35:47 dying
0:35:48 too
0:35:48 young
0:35:48 some
0:35:48 people
0:35:50 don’t
0:35:50 seem
0:35:50 like
0:35:50 they’re
0:35:51 ever
0:35:51 going
0:35:51 to
0:35:51 die
0:35:52 and
0:35:52 they
0:35:53 so
0:35:53 they
0:35:54 begin
0:35:54 these
0:35:54 sorts
0:35:54 of
0:35:55 protests
0:35:55 this
0:35:55 is
0:35:55 in
0:35:55 April
0:35:56 of
0:35:56 89
0:35:57 and
0:35:57 the
0:35:58 government
0:35:58 tries
0:35:59 to
0:35:59 sort
0:35:59 of
0:35:59 get
0:35:59 the
0:36:00 protest
0:36:00 to
0:36:00 stop
0:36:01 quickly
0:36:01 and
0:36:01 they
0:36:02 use
0:36:02 the
0:36:02 same
0:36:03 technique
0:36:03 of
0:36:04 they
0:36:09 which
0:36:10 is
0:36:10 a
0:36:10 code
0:36:10 term
0:36:10 for
0:36:11 taking
0:36:11 us
0:36:11 back
0:36:11 to
0:36:11 the
0:36:11 cultural
0:36:12 revolution
0:36:13 and
0:36:13 this
0:36:13 time
0:36:13 the
0:36:13 students
0:36:14 say
0:36:14 no
0:36:14 we’re
0:36:15 just
0:36:15 trying
0:36:15 to
0:36:15 show
0:36:15 our
0:36:16 patriotism
0:36:17 we
0:36:17 believe
0:36:18 that
0:36:19 there’s
0:36:19 too
0:36:19 much
0:36:20 corruption
0:36:20 and
0:36:21 nepotism
0:36:22 there’s
0:36:22 not
0:36:23 enough
0:36:23 support
0:36:24 for
0:36:24 the
0:36:24 more
0:36:25 liberalizing
0:36:27 wing
0:36:27 within
0:36:27 the
0:36:27 party
0:36:28 and
0:36:28 so
0:36:28 they
0:36:29 keep
0:36:29 up
0:36:29 the
0:36:30 protests
0:36:31 and
0:36:31 there’s
0:36:31 a lot
0:36:31 of
0:36:32 frustration
0:36:32 at
0:36:32 this
0:36:32 point
0:36:32 there
0:36:32 are
0:36:33 also
0:36:33 economic
0:36:34 frustrations
0:36:34 at
0:36:34 this
0:36:39 but
0:36:40 it
0:36:40 seems
0:36:40 that
0:36:40 people
0:36:41 with
0:36:41 good
0:36:42 government
0:36:42 connections
0:36:43 are
0:36:43 getting
0:36:44 rich
0:36:45 too
0:36:45 easily
0:36:46 and
0:36:46 so
0:36:46 there’s
0:36:47 sort
0:36:47 of
0:36:47 a
0:36:47 sense
0:36:47 of
0:36:48 unfairness
0:36:49 the
0:36:49 students
0:36:49 are
0:36:49 also
0:36:50 really
0:36:50 frustrated
0:36:51 by
0:36:51 the
0:36:51 kind
0:36:51 of
0:36:51 macro
0:36:52 managing
0:36:52 of
0:36:52 their
0:36:53 private
0:36:53 lives
0:36:53 on
0:36:54 campuses
0:36:54 so
0:36:55 the
0:36:56 protests
0:36:56 at
0:36:56 Tiananmen
0:36:57 Square
0:36:57 and
0:36:57 in
0:36:58 plazas
0:36:58 all
0:36:59 around
0:36:59 the
0:36:59 country
0:37:00 and
0:37:00 other
0:37:00 cities
0:37:00 as
0:37:01 well
0:37:02 become
0:37:02 this
0:37:02 mix
0:37:02 of
0:37:03 things
0:37:03 it’s
0:37:03 an
0:37:03 anti
0:37:04 corruption
0:37:04 movement
0:37:05 it’s
0:37:05 a
0:37:05 call
0:37:05 for
0:37:06 more
0:37:06 democracy
0:37:06 movement
0:37:07 it’s
0:37:07 a
0:37:07 call
0:37:07 for
0:37:07 more
0:37:07 freedom
0:37:08 of
0:37:08 speech
0:37:08 movement
0:37:09 but
0:37:09 it’s
0:37:09 also
0:37:09 a
0:37:10 kind
0:37:11 of
0:37:11 has
0:37:12 some
0:37:12 counterculture
0:37:13 elements
0:37:13 that
0:37:13 are
0:37:14 like
0:37:14 there
0:37:14 are
0:37:15 rock
0:37:15 concerts
0:37:15 on
0:37:15 the
0:37:16 square
0:37:17 the
0:37:17 most
0:37:17 popular
0:37:18 rock
0:37:19 musician
0:37:20 comes
0:37:20 to
0:37:20 the
0:37:21 square
0:37:21 and
0:37:21 is
0:37:23 celebrated
0:37:23 when
0:37:23 he’s
0:37:23 there
0:37:23 there
0:37:24 there’s
0:37:24 a
0:37:24 sense
0:37:24 of
0:37:25 kind
0:37:25 of
0:37:25 a
0:37:26 variety
0:37:26 of
0:37:26 things
0:37:27 rolled
0:37:27 into
0:37:27 one
0:37:29 and
0:37:30 I
0:37:30 brought
0:37:30 up
0:37:30 how
0:37:31 it
0:37:31 sort
0:37:31 of
0:37:31 gets
0:37:32 conflated
0:37:32 with
0:37:32 the
0:37:33 movements
0:37:33 to
0:37:33 overthrow
0:37:34 communism
0:37:34 and
0:37:34 the
0:37:35 Eastern
0:37:35 Bloc
0:37:36 it
0:37:36 was
0:37:36 actually
0:37:36 in
0:37:37 many
0:37:37 ways
0:37:37 I
0:37:37 think
0:37:38 more
0:37:38 like
0:37:38 something
0:37:38 that
0:37:39 happened
0:37:39 in
0:37:39 the
0:37:39 Eastern
0:37:39 Bloc
0:37:40 20
0:37:41 years
0:37:41 earlier
0:37:41 it
0:37:41 was
0:37:42 more
0:37:42 like
0:37:42 Prague
0:37:43 Spring
0:37:43 and
0:37:44 other
0:37:44 1968
0:37:45 protests
0:37:45 in
0:37:46 the
0:37:46 Communist
0:37:46 Bloc
0:37:46 which
0:37:47 was
0:37:47 about
0:37:48 moving
0:37:49 toward
0:37:50 socialism
0:37:50 with
0:37:50 a
0:37:51 human
0:37:51 face
0:37:51 more
0:37:52 like
0:37:52 trying
0:37:52 to
0:37:53 get
0:37:54 the
0:37:54 parties
0:37:54 to
0:37:55 empower
0:37:55 to
0:37:56 reform
0:37:56 rather
0:37:56 than
0:37:57 necessarily
0:37:58 doing
0:38:21 the
0:38:22 Communist
0:38:22 Party
0:38:22 leadership
0:38:23 and
0:38:23 clearly
0:38:24 the
0:38:25 people
0:38:25 who
0:38:25 are
0:38:25 more
0:38:26 political
0:38:26 conservatives
0:38:28 even
0:38:28 if
0:38:28 they
0:38:28 believe
0:38:28 in
0:38:29 economic
0:38:29 reform
0:38:30 are
0:38:31 clearly
0:38:31 getting
0:38:31 the
0:38:31 upper
0:38:32 hand
0:38:32 and
0:38:33 this
0:38:33 is
0:38:33 not
0:38:33 going
0:38:33 to
0:38:33 be
0:38:34 tolerated
0:38:35 and
0:38:35 the
0:38:36 students
0:38:36 stay
0:38:36 on
0:38:37 the
0:38:37 square
0:38:37 when
0:38:38 signals
0:38:39 are
0:38:39 given
0:38:39 to
0:38:39 try
0:38:40 to
0:38:40 get
0:38:40 them
0:38:41 out
0:38:41 students
0:38:41 from
0:38:42 around
0:38:42 the
0:38:42 country
0:38:42 are
0:38:42 pouring
0:38:43 into
0:38:44 Beijing
0:38:44 to
0:38:44 join
0:38:45 this
0:38:45 movement
0:38:46 they
0:38:46 don’t
0:38:46 want
0:38:46 to
0:38:47 end
0:38:47 the
0:38:47 movement
0:38:47 when
0:38:47 they’ve
0:38:48 just
0:38:48 arrived
0:38:48 so
0:38:49 it’s
0:38:49 actually
0:38:49 one
0:38:49 thing
0:38:49 that
0:38:50 keeps
0:38:50 it
0:38:50 going
0:38:50 is
0:38:51 new
0:38:53 participants
0:38:53 are
0:38:53 coming
0:38:53 from
0:38:53 the
0:38:54 provinces
0:38:54 and
0:38:55 even
0:39:01 start
0:39:01 joining
0:39:02 in
0:39:02 the
0:39:02 movement
0:39:02 as
0:39:03 well
0:39:03 and
0:39:03 form
0:39:04 an
0:39:04 independent
0:39:05 labor
0:39:05 union
0:39:06 and
0:39:06 that
0:39:07 really
0:39:08 the
0:39:09 Chinese
0:39:09 Communist
0:39:09 Party
0:39:10 to a
0:39:10 certain
0:39:10 extent
0:39:11 they might
0:39:11 put up
0:39:12 with
0:39:12 student
0:39:13 protesters
0:39:13 but
0:39:13 they
0:39:14 know
0:39:14 from
0:39:14 past
0:39:15 experience
0:39:16 that
0:39:16 sometimes
0:39:16 student
0:39:17 protests
0:39:17 lead
0:39:18 to
0:39:19 members
0:39:19 of
0:39:19 other
0:39:19 social
0:39:20 classes
0:39:21 joining
0:39:21 them
0:39:21 because
0:39:21 they
0:39:21 look
0:39:22 up
0:39:22 to
0:39:22 students
0:39:23 as
0:39:24 potential
0:39:25 intellectual
0:39:25 leaders
0:39:26 of the
0:39:26 country
0:39:26 and
0:39:27 admiration
0:39:27 for
0:39:28 scholars
0:39:28 is
0:39:29 part
0:39:29 of
0:39:29 this
0:39:29 that
0:39:30 people
0:39:31 turn
0:39:31 out
0:39:31 when
0:39:31 students
0:39:32 protest
0:39:32 something
0:39:33 very
0:39:33 different
0:39:33 from
0:39:34 the
0:39:34 American
0:39:34 case
0:39:34 where
0:39:35 there’s
0:39:35 a
0:39:35 kind
0:39:35 of
0:39:36 often
0:39:37 suspicion
0:39:37 of
0:39:38 student
0:39:39 activists
0:39:40 being
0:39:41 necessarily
0:39:41 on the
0:39:41 same
0:39:41 side
0:39:42 as
0:39:43 everybody
0:39:43 else
0:39:44 but
0:39:44 in
0:39:44 China
0:39:45 there
0:39:45 had
0:39:45 been
0:39:46 from
0:39:46 the
0:39:46 history
0:39:46 of
0:39:47 the
0:39:47 20th
0:39:47 century
0:39:48 a
0:39:48 sense
0:39:48 of
0:39:50 students
0:39:50 as
0:39:50 potentially
0:39:50 a
0:39:51 vanguard
0:39:52 so
0:39:52 once
0:39:53 there
0:39:53 are
0:39:54 labor
0:39:54 activists
0:39:55 joining
0:39:55 the
0:39:55 movement
0:39:55 then
0:39:56 troops
0:39:56 are
0:39:56 called
0:39:57 in
0:39:57 and
0:39:57 there’s
0:39:58 a
0:39:58 massacre
0:39:59 near
0:39:59 Tiananmen
0:39:59 Square
0:40:02 on the
0:40:03 middle
0:40:03 of the
0:40:03 night
0:40:04 June
0:40:04 3rd
0:40:04 and
0:40:05 early
0:40:06 June
0:40:06 4th
0:40:07 and
0:40:08 the
0:40:09 army
0:40:09 just
0:40:09 moves
0:40:10 in
0:40:11 and
0:40:12 begins
0:40:12 behaving
0:40:13 very much
0:40:13 like
0:40:13 an
0:40:14 army
0:40:14 of
0:40:14 occupation
0:40:15 which
0:40:15 is
0:40:15 something
0:40:16 the
0:40:16 people’s
0:40:16 civilization
0:40:17 army
0:40:17 is
0:40:18 supposed
0:40:18 to be
0:40:18 the one
0:40:19 that saves
0:40:20 China
0:40:20 from foreign
0:40:21 aggression
0:40:21 and they’re
0:40:22 acting like
0:40:23 an invading
0:40:24 force
0:40:24 so
0:40:24 so
0:40:24 so
0:40:24 so
0:40:24 this
0:40:24 is
0:40:24 where
0:40:25 famously
0:40:25 the
0:40:25 tanks
0:40:26 rolling
0:40:26 the
0:40:27 tanks
0:40:27 roll
0:40:27 in
0:40:27 and I
0:40:28 think
0:40:28 also
0:40:29 you have
0:40:30 that
0:40:30 famous
0:40:30 image
0:40:31 of the
0:40:31 man
0:40:31 standing
0:40:32 in front
0:40:32 of the
0:40:32 tank
0:40:33 that’s
0:40:33 a
0:40:33 band
0:40:34 image
0:40:34 within
0:40:34 China
0:40:34 and I
0:40:35 really
0:40:35 think
0:40:36 the
0:40:37 reason
0:40:37 why
0:40:37 it’s
0:40:37 so
0:40:38 considered
0:40:38 so
0:40:39 toxic
0:40:39 by
0:40:39 the
0:40:40 regime
0:40:40 is
0:40:41 because
0:40:41 it
0:40:41 just
0:40:42 shows
0:40:42 the
0:40:42 people’s
0:40:43 liberation
0:40:43 army
0:40:44 looking
0:40:44 like
0:40:44 an
0:40:45 invading
0:40:45 force
0:40:46 not
0:40:46 like
0:40:47 a
0:40:48 stabilizing
0:40:48 force
0:40:49 can we
0:40:49 talk
0:40:49 about
0:40:50 that
0:40:50 who’s
0:40:50 now
0:40:51 called
0:40:51 the
0:40:51 tank
0:40:52 man
0:40:52 the
0:40:52 man
0:40:53 that
0:40:53 stood
0:40:54 in
0:40:54 front
0:40:54 of
0:40:54 the
0:40:54 row
0:40:54 of
0:40:55 tanks
0:40:55 this
0:40:55 was
0:40:56 on
0:40:56 June
0:40:57 5th
0:40:57 in
0:40:57 Tiananmen
0:40:58 Square
0:40:59 what do
0:40:59 we know
0:41:00 about him
0:41:00 what do
0:41:00 you think
0:41:01 about him
0:41:02 the
0:41:02 symbolism
0:41:03 it’s
0:41:03 an
0:41:04 amazing
0:41:05 symbol
0:41:05 you know
0:41:06 he’s
0:41:06 on this
0:41:07 boulevard
0:41:07 near
0:41:07 the
0:41:08 square
0:41:08 with
0:41:08 this
0:41:09 long
0:41:09 line
0:41:09 of
0:41:10 tanks
0:41:10 and
0:41:11 it’s
0:41:11 unquestionably
0:41:12 this act
0:41:12 of
0:41:13 incredible
0:41:13 bravery
0:41:14 and
0:41:15 there’s
0:41:15 some
0:41:15 interesting
0:41:16 things
0:41:16 about
0:41:16 it
0:41:16 some
0:41:16 that
0:41:16 are
0:41:17 forgotten
0:41:17 one
0:41:17 is
0:41:17 that
0:41:18 in
0:41:18 the
0:41:19 end
0:41:19 he
0:41:19 climbs
0:41:19 up
0:41:20 on
0:41:20 the
0:41:20 tank
0:41:21 and
0:41:22 the
0:41:22 tank
0:41:22 swerves
0:41:23 you know
0:41:23 it doesn’t
0:41:23 run
0:41:23 him
0:41:24 over
0:41:25 and
0:41:25 the
0:41:25 Chinese
0:41:25 Communist
0:41:26 Party
0:41:26 initially
0:41:27 showed
0:41:27 video
0:41:27 of
0:41:28 this
0:41:28 and
0:41:28 said
0:41:29 look
0:41:29 the
0:41:29 Western
0:41:30 press
0:41:30 is
0:41:30 talking
0:41:30 about
0:41:31 how
0:41:31 vicious
0:41:31 we
0:41:31 were
0:41:31 but
0:41:32 look
0:41:32 at
0:41:32 the
0:41:32 restraint
0:41:33 look
0:41:33 at
0:41:34 this
0:41:34 he
0:41:34 wasn’t
0:41:35 mowed
0:41:35 down
0:41:36 and
0:41:36 they
0:41:36 tried
0:41:37 this
0:41:37 whole
0:41:37 story
0:41:37 with
0:41:38 Tiananmen
0:41:38 initially
0:41:38 of
0:41:38 saying
0:41:39 look
0:41:40 the
0:41:40 students
0:41:40 were
0:41:40 out
0:41:40 of
0:41:41 control
0:41:41 this
0:41:42 everybody
0:41:42 should
0:41:42 remember
0:41:43 what
0:41:43 happened
0:41:43 during
0:41:43 the
0:41:43 Cultural
0:41:44 Revolution
0:41:44 and
0:41:45 the
0:41:46 army
0:41:47 showed
0:41:47 restraint
0:41:48 and
0:41:48 there
0:41:48 were
0:41:48 a
0:41:50 small
0:41:50 number
0:41:50 of
0:41:50 soldiers
0:41:51 who
0:41:51 were
0:41:51 actually
0:41:51 burned
0:41:52 alive
0:41:52 in
0:41:52 their
0:41:53 tanks
0:41:53 during
0:41:55 once
0:41:55 the
0:41:55 massacre
0:41:56 began
0:41:57 people
0:41:57 got
0:41:58 outraged
0:41:58 and
0:41:58 they
0:41:59 attacked
0:41:59 the
0:42:00 soldiers
0:42:00 but
0:42:01 by
0:42:01 selective
0:42:02 use
0:42:02 of
0:42:03 footage
0:42:04 the
0:42:04 Communist
0:42:05 Party
0:42:05 could
0:42:05 say
0:42:05 look
0:42:06 actually
0:42:06 look at
0:42:07 this
0:42:07 that
0:42:07 the
0:42:08 heroes
0:42:08 the
0:42:08 martyrs
0:42:08 were
0:42:09 these
0:42:09 soldiers
0:42:11 and
0:42:11 they
0:42:11 try
0:42:12 for
0:42:12 the
0:42:12 first
0:42:13 months
0:42:14 after
0:42:14 it
0:42:14 to
0:42:15 try
0:42:15 to
0:42:15 get
0:42:15 this
0:42:16 narrative
0:42:16 to
0:42:16 stick
0:42:17 they
0:42:17 talk
0:42:17 about
0:42:17 Tiananmen
0:42:18 a lot
0:42:18 they
0:42:18 talk
0:42:19 about
0:42:19 these
0:42:19 things
0:42:19 they
0:42:19 show
0:42:20 images
0:42:20 of
0:42:20 the
0:42:20 tank
0:42:20 man
0:42:21 the
0:42:22 problem
0:42:22 with
0:42:22 it
0:42:22 is
0:42:22 that
0:42:23 lots
0:42:23 and
0:42:23 lots
0:42:23 of
0:42:23 people
0:42:24 around
0:42:24 Beijing
0:42:24 had
0:42:25 seen
0:42:25 what
0:42:26 happened
0:42:26 and
0:42:26 knew
0:42:27 that
0:42:27 in
0:42:27 fact
0:42:27 there
0:42:28 first
0:42:28 been
0:42:28 the
0:42:29 firing
0:42:29 on
0:42:29 unarmed
0:42:30 civilians
0:42:30 with
0:42:31 automatic
0:42:31 weapons
0:42:32 and
0:42:33 there
0:42:34 had
0:42:34 been
0:42:34 many
0:42:34 many
0:42:35 people
0:42:36 some
0:42:37 students
0:42:37 but a lot
0:42:37 of
0:42:38 ordinary
0:42:38 Beijing
0:42:39 residents
0:42:40 and workers
0:42:41 who were
0:42:41 just
0:42:41 mowing
0:42:41 down
0:42:42 so
0:42:42 lots
0:42:42 of
0:42:42 people
0:42:43 knew
0:42:43 somebody
0:42:44 who
0:42:44 had
0:42:44 been
0:42:44 killed
0:42:45 so
0:42:45 that
0:42:45 story
0:42:45 just
0:42:46 didn’t
0:42:46 work
0:42:47 and
0:42:47 then
0:42:48 I
0:42:48 think
0:42:50 the
0:42:51 claim
0:42:51 had to
0:42:52 be
0:42:52 made
0:42:52 to
0:42:52 try
0:42:53 to
0:42:54 suppress
0:42:55 discussion
0:42:55 of
0:42:55 the
0:42:55 event
0:42:56 and
0:42:57 particularly
0:42:57 to
0:42:59 repress
0:42:59 that
0:42:59 visual
0:43:00 imagery
0:43:01 that
0:43:01 was
0:43:02 that
0:43:02 image
0:43:02 of
0:43:02 the
0:43:02 man
0:43:02 in
0:43:03 front
0:43:03 of
0:43:03 the
0:43:03 line
0:43:03 of
0:43:04 tanks
0:43:04 whatever
0:43:05 the
0:43:05 tanks
0:43:05 did
0:43:05 do
0:43:05 him
0:43:06 or
0:43:06 not
0:43:07 the
0:43:07 main
0:43:08 takeaway
0:43:08 from
0:43:09 it
0:43:09 would
0:43:10 be
0:43:10 this
0:43:10 idea
0:43:11 that
0:43:11 there
0:43:11 were
0:43:11 lines
0:43:12 of
0:43:12 tanks
0:43:12 in
0:43:13 a
0:43:13 city
0:43:14 that
0:43:15 the
0:43:17 image
0:43:17 was
0:43:17 of
0:43:17 the
0:43:17 government
0:43:18 as
0:43:18 having
0:43:19 lost
0:43:19 the
0:43:19 mandate
0:43:20 to
0:43:20 rule
0:43:21 and
0:43:21 they
0:43:21 really
0:43:22 didn’t
0:43:22 want
0:43:22 to
0:43:22 have
0:43:22 that
0:43:23 image
0:43:24 out
0:43:24 there
0:43:24 in
0:43:24 the
0:43:25 world
0:43:27 yeah
0:43:27 we’re
0:43:27 watching
0:43:27 the
0:43:28 video
0:43:28 now
0:43:30 he’s
0:43:30 got
0:43:30 what
0:43:31 like
0:43:32 grocery
0:43:32 bags
0:43:32 in his
0:43:33 hands
0:43:33 it’s
0:43:34 such
0:43:34 a
0:43:35 symbolic
0:43:36 I’ve
0:43:36 had
0:43:36 enough
0:43:38 like
0:43:39 that
0:43:39 kind
0:43:39 of
0:43:39 statement
0:43:40 yeah
0:43:40 and he’s
0:43:41 probably
0:43:41 not a
0:43:41 student
0:43:42 you know
0:43:42 it’s
0:43:42 often
0:43:42 described
0:43:43 as a
0:43:43 student
0:43:43 but he
0:43:44 probably
0:43:44 was
0:43:46 a
0:43:46 worker
0:43:46 and
0:43:46 it
0:43:47 is
0:43:47 it
0:43:47 is
0:43:47 a
0:43:48 powerful
0:43:48 image
0:43:49 of
0:43:49 bravery
0:43:51 and
0:43:51 you know
0:43:52 I brought
0:43:52 up the
0:43:53 1968
0:43:54 parallel
0:43:54 for
0:43:55 eastern
0:43:55 and central
0:43:55 Europe
0:43:56 there was
0:43:56 actually
0:43:56 a very
0:43:57 powerful
0:43:57 photograph
0:43:58 of a
0:43:59 man
0:43:59 bearing
0:43:59 his
0:44:00 chest
0:44:00 in front
0:44:01 of a
0:44:01 tank
0:44:02 in
0:44:02 Bratislava
0:44:03 during
0:44:04 what we think
0:44:05 of as
0:44:05 Prague
0:44:05 spring
0:44:06 that was
0:44:06 a
0:44:07 famous
0:44:07 image
0:44:08 of
0:44:09 bravery
0:44:09 against
0:44:10 tanks
0:44:10 and
0:44:11 in
0:44:12 1968
0:44:13 in
0:44:14 Czechoslovakia
0:44:15 then still
0:44:16 Czechoslovakia
0:44:17 the tanks
0:44:17 that rolled
0:44:17 in were
0:44:18 Soviet
0:44:19 tanks
0:44:19 sent
0:44:19 down
0:44:20 there
0:44:21 and so
0:44:22 not that
0:44:23 people
0:44:23 would
0:44:23 know
0:44:24 but that
0:44:24 was an
0:44:25 image
0:44:25 you know
0:44:26 what was
0:44:26 so
0:44:27 powerful
0:44:27 and that
0:44:28 was saying
0:44:28 we’re not
0:44:28 going to
0:44:29 put up
0:44:29 with this
0:44:29 invasion
0:44:30 again I
0:44:31 think you
0:44:31 have the
0:44:31 people’s
0:44:32 liberation
0:44:32 army
0:44:34 looking
0:44:34 like an
0:44:35 invading
0:44:35 force
0:44:36 and that’s
0:44:36 what
0:44:38 the Chinese
0:44:39 Communist Party
0:44:39 in a sense
0:44:40 can’t
0:44:42 deal with
0:44:42 now
0:44:43 even though
0:44:44 sometimes
0:44:44 they could
0:44:45 tell a
0:44:45 story about
0:44:46 1989
0:44:48 and they do
0:44:48 tell a
0:44:48 version of
0:44:49 this
0:44:49 and some
0:44:50 people
0:44:50 believe this
0:44:51 I think
0:44:52 is that
0:44:53 in 1989
0:44:54 China
0:44:55 went one
0:44:55 route
0:44:56 of not
0:44:58 having the
0:44:58 Communist Party
0:45:00 dramatically
0:45:00 change or
0:45:01 relinquish
0:45:01 control
0:45:03 and the
0:45:03 Soviet
0:45:03 Union
0:45:04 and the
0:45:04 former
0:45:04 Soviet
0:45:04 States
0:45:05 went
0:45:05 another
0:45:06 and you
0:45:06 could
0:45:06 say
0:45:07 well look
0:45:08 and after
0:45:09 1989
0:45:09 the Chinese
0:45:10 economy
0:45:10 boomed
0:45:11 life got
0:45:12 better for
0:45:12 people in
0:45:12 China
0:45:13 life got
0:45:13 really
0:45:14 terrible
0:45:14 for a lot
0:45:15 of people
0:45:15 in the
0:45:16 former
0:45:16 Soviet
0:45:16 blocs
0:45:17 maybe we
0:45:18 actually
0:45:19 maybe this
0:45:19 was the
0:45:20 right way
0:45:20 to go
0:45:21 and you
0:45:21 can make
0:45:22 that kind
0:45:22 of argument
0:45:23 but if
0:45:23 you show
0:45:24 the tanks
0:45:25 and the
0:45:25 man in
0:45:25 front of
0:45:26 the tanks
0:45:27 you just
0:45:27 have a
0:45:27 different
0:45:27 kind of
0:45:28 image
0:45:28 of
0:45:28 heroism
0:45:29 it’s
0:45:30 one of
0:45:30 my
0:45:30 favorite
0:45:31 photographs
0:45:31 or
0:45:32 snapshots
0:45:33 ever taken
0:45:34 videos
0:45:34 ever taken
0:45:35 so I
0:45:36 apologize
0:45:36 if we
0:45:37 linger on
0:45:37 it
0:45:38 sometimes
0:45:39 you don’t
0:45:39 understand
0:45:40 the
0:45:41 symbolic
0:45:41 power
0:45:41 of an
0:45:42 image
0:45:44 until
0:45:45 afterwards
0:45:46 and perhaps
0:45:46 that’s what
0:45:47 the Chinese
0:45:47 government
0:45:48 didn’t quite
0:45:48 understand
0:45:49 they lost
0:45:49 information
0:45:50 more
0:45:50 than
0:45:50 me
0:45:51 more
0:45:52 so I
0:45:52 have to
0:45:52 ask
0:45:53 what do
0:45:53 you think
0:45:53 was going
0:45:54 through that
0:45:54 man’s
0:45:54 head
0:45:56 was it
0:45:57 a heroic
0:45:57 statement
0:45:58 was it
0:45:59 a purely
0:46:00 primal
0:46:01 guttural
0:46:01 like I’ve
0:46:02 had enough
0:46:03 it’s so
0:46:03 interesting
0:46:04 to just
0:46:04 speculate
0:46:04 and we
0:46:05 just don’t
0:46:05 know
0:46:06 because you
0:46:06 know he
0:46:06 was never
0:46:07 able to be
0:46:07 interviewed
0:46:07 afterwards
0:46:08 but I
0:46:08 think
0:46:09 your emphasis
0:46:10 on patriotism
0:46:10 is really
0:46:11 important
0:46:11 because one
0:46:11 of the
0:46:12 students
0:46:12 main
0:46:13 demands
0:46:13 was
0:46:15 then I
0:46:15 think it
0:46:15 might have
0:46:16 been the
0:46:16 thing that
0:46:16 would have
0:46:17 gotten them
0:46:17 to leave
0:46:18 the square
0:46:18 would have
0:46:19 been to
0:46:19 say we
0:46:20 want this
0:46:20 to be
0:46:21 acknowledged
0:46:21 as a
0:46:22 patriotic
0:46:22 that our
0:46:23 goals are
0:46:24 patriotic
0:46:25 we’re not
0:46:25 here to
0:46:26 take China
0:46:26 back into
0:46:27 the cultural
0:46:27 revolution
0:46:28 we’re here
0:46:30 to express
0:46:31 our love
0:46:31 for the
0:46:32 country
0:46:32 if it
0:46:33 goes in
0:46:34 the right
0:46:34 way
0:46:35 so will
0:46:35 you admit
0:46:35 that
0:46:36 and you
0:46:36 mentioned
0:46:37 about the
0:46:37 power of
0:46:38 the image
0:46:39 and I do
0:46:39 think the
0:46:40 Chinese Communist
0:46:40 Party
0:46:40 learned
0:46:41 something
0:46:42 to have
0:46:43 taken to
0:46:43 heart
0:46:44 the power
0:46:44 of the
0:46:44 image
0:46:45 after that
0:46:46 because we
0:46:46 saw this
0:46:47 in
0:46:48 but when
0:46:49 there were
0:46:49 protests in
0:46:50 Hong Kong
0:46:51 the government
0:46:52 on the
0:46:53 mainland
0:46:53 really wanted
0:46:54 to tell a
0:46:55 story there
0:46:56 of you know
0:46:56 crowds out
0:46:57 of control
0:46:58 and initially
0:46:58 there were
0:46:59 in 2014
0:47:00 and again
0:47:01 initially in
0:47:01 2019
0:47:02 there were
0:47:03 very orderly
0:47:03 crowds
0:47:04 and it
0:47:06 had trouble
0:47:06 with that
0:47:07 story
0:47:07 so they
0:47:08 tried
0:47:09 very hard
0:47:09 to ban
0:47:09 images
0:47:10 of peaceful
0:47:11 protests
0:47:12 until there
0:47:12 were some
0:47:13 incidents
0:47:14 as there
0:47:14 almost always
0:47:15 are
0:47:16 of
0:47:17 violence
0:47:17 by crowds
0:47:18 and then
0:47:19 they would
0:47:19 show those
0:47:20 images over
0:47:20 and over
0:47:21 again
0:47:22 they also
0:47:22 worked
0:47:23 very hard
0:47:23 when
0:47:24 Hong Kong
0:47:25 protests
0:47:25 began in
0:47:26 the 2010s
0:47:27 to try
0:47:28 very hard
0:47:29 to avoid
0:47:29 any use
0:47:30 of soldiers
0:47:31 to repress
0:47:31 them
0:47:31 it was
0:47:31 all the
0:47:32 police
0:47:33 and they
0:47:33 tried
0:47:34 very hard
0:47:36 and managed
0:47:36 to success
0:47:37 because the
0:47:38 western press
0:47:39 was often
0:47:39 saying will
0:47:40 this be
0:47:40 another
0:47:40 Tiananmen
0:47:41 will there
0:47:41 be a
0:47:42 massacre
0:47:42 will there
0:47:42 be soldiers
0:47:43 on the
0:47:43 streets
0:47:45 the movements
0:47:46 in Hong
0:47:46 Kong
0:47:47 were suppressed
0:47:47 without
0:47:49 the use
0:47:50 of
0:47:51 shooting
0:47:52 to kill
0:47:52 on the
0:47:52 streets
0:47:53 there were
0:47:53 shooting
0:47:54 to wound
0:47:56 there was
0:47:56 beanbag
0:47:57 shot
0:47:57 there were
0:47:58 rubber
0:47:58 bullets
0:47:58 there was
0:47:59 enormous
0:47:59 amounts
0:48:00 of tear
0:48:00 gas
0:48:01 there was
0:48:01 even tear
0:48:01 gas
0:48:02 left
0:48:02 let
0:48:04 fly
0:48:04 inside
0:48:05 subway
0:48:05 stations
0:48:05 in
0:48:06 2019
0:48:07 and all
0:48:07 these
0:48:07 things
0:48:07 are
0:48:08 really
0:48:09 brutalizing
0:48:10 but they
0:48:10 don’t make
0:48:11 the kind
0:48:11 of images
0:48:13 that sear
0:48:14 in the
0:48:14 mind
0:48:15 the way
0:48:15 something
0:48:16 like
0:48:17 the Tiananmen
0:48:18 tank man
0:48:18 image
0:48:19 or the
0:48:19 image
0:48:20 of
0:48:20 a
0:48:21 Vietnamese
0:48:22 woman
0:48:22 being
0:48:23 burned
0:48:23 by
0:48:23 napalm
0:48:24 young
0:48:24 woman
0:48:24 that
0:48:25 became
0:48:25 another
0:48:25 of the
0:48:26 iconic
0:48:26 images
0:48:27 during
0:48:28 Vietnam
0:48:28 War
0:48:28 those
0:48:29 images
0:48:29 really
0:48:30 can
0:48:31 have
0:48:31 an
0:48:32 extraordinary
0:48:32 power
0:48:33 and I
0:48:33 think
0:48:33 the
0:48:34 Chinese
0:48:34 Communist Party
0:48:34 is now
0:48:35 aware of
0:48:35 that
0:48:36 there are
0:48:36 no
0:48:37 really
0:48:38 gripping
0:48:39 there are
0:48:39 very few
0:48:40 photographs
0:48:40 allowed
0:48:42 of the
0:48:42 Xinjiang
0:48:44 extra legal
0:48:45 detention
0:48:45 camps
0:48:45 there are
0:48:46 very little
0:48:48 very little
0:48:49 there is an
0:48:50 awareness of
0:48:50 how much
0:48:51 power
0:48:52 a photograph
0:48:53 of a certain
0:48:53 type can
0:48:54 have
0:48:55 so nobody
0:48:56 knows what
0:48:56 happened to
0:48:57 the tank
0:48:57 man
0:48:59 what do
0:48:59 you think
0:48:59 happened to
0:49:00 the tank
0:49:00 man
0:49:01 I assume
0:49:01 he was
0:49:01 killed
0:49:03 I assume
0:49:03 he was
0:49:04 just
0:49:05 disappeared
0:49:05 it’s
0:49:06 interesting
0:49:06 because
0:49:07 very often
0:49:09 figures are
0:49:09 made an
0:49:10 example of
0:49:10 in one
0:49:10 way or
0:49:11 another
0:49:11 I mean
0:49:11 Leo
0:49:12 Xiaobo
0:49:12 was
0:49:15 imprisoned
0:49:16 and not
0:49:17 allowed to
0:49:18 get enough
0:49:19 medical care
0:49:19 so you can
0:49:19 talk about
0:49:20 him having
0:49:21 died earlier
0:49:22 than he
0:49:22 should have
0:49:23 but there
0:49:25 there’s been
0:49:26 relatively few
0:49:28 of like for
0:49:29 political crimes
0:49:30 recently sentencing
0:49:31 to death and
0:49:31 things like that
0:49:32 it’s much
0:49:33 more just
0:49:34 remove them
0:49:34 imprison them
0:49:36 but the
0:49:36 tank man
0:49:37 there was
0:49:38 never a
0:49:38 trial
0:49:39 there was
0:49:39 never
0:49:40 even a
0:49:41 trial that
0:49:42 was a
0:49:44 was one
0:49:44 that you
0:49:44 knew what
0:49:45 the result
0:49:45 would be
0:49:46 which there
0:49:46 was for
0:49:47 Leo Xiaobo
0:49:48 and others
0:49:49 not even a
0:49:49 hidden trial
0:49:51 but simply
0:49:52 simply
0:49:52 disappeared
0:49:53 and there’s
0:49:53 been
0:49:53 somebody
0:49:54 who’s
0:49:55 like
0:49:55 another
0:49:56 figure
0:49:56 like
0:49:56 this
0:49:57 who’s
0:49:57 disappeared
0:49:59 a couple
0:49:59 of years
0:49:59 ago
0:50:00 in Beijing
0:50:01 there was
0:50:02 a lone
0:50:02 man
0:50:02 who put
0:50:02 up a
0:50:03 banner
0:50:03 on a
0:50:04 bridge
0:50:05 Sittong
0:50:05 bridge
0:50:05 in Beijing
0:50:08 and it
0:50:08 was
0:50:08 extraordinary
0:50:09 it was
0:50:09 it had
0:50:10 denunciations
0:50:11 of the
0:50:11 direction
0:50:11 Xi Jinping
0:50:12 was taking
0:50:12 the country
0:50:13 it was
0:50:14 denunciation
0:50:14 of
0:50:15 COVID
0:50:15 policies
0:50:16 but also
0:50:17 a
0:50:17 dictatorial
0:50:18 rule
0:50:18 and
0:50:19 the banner
0:50:20 somehow
0:50:21 he managed
0:50:21 to have
0:50:21 it up
0:50:22 and get
0:50:23 long
0:50:23 enough
0:50:24 to be
0:50:24 filmed
0:50:25 and to
0:50:25 draw
0:50:26 attention
0:50:26 and the
0:50:26 film
0:50:27 to
0:50:27 circulate
0:50:27 again
0:50:28 another
0:50:28 image
0:50:28 of
0:50:28 the
0:50:29 power
0:50:29 of
0:50:30 images
0:50:31 and he’s
0:50:32 disappeared
0:50:33 and there
0:50:33 hasn’t been a
0:50:34 show trial
0:50:35 or even a
0:50:35 secret trial
0:50:37 and again
0:50:37 you know
0:50:38 we don’t know
0:50:38 if he’s still
0:50:39 alive
0:50:40 but these
0:50:40 are cases
0:50:41 where I think
0:50:41 the Chinese
0:50:42 Communist Party
0:50:43 really doesn’t
0:50:44 want a
0:50:44 competing story
0:50:45 out there
0:50:46 they don’t
0:50:47 want somebody
0:50:47 to be able
0:50:47 to answer
0:50:48 what he
0:50:48 was
0:50:48 thinking
0:50:50 how much
0:50:50 censorship
0:50:51 is there
0:50:51 in modern
0:50:52 day China
0:50:53 by the
0:50:53 Chinese
0:50:54 government
0:50:55 so
0:50:55 you know
0:50:56 there’s a lot
0:50:56 of censorship
0:50:57 my favorite
0:50:58 book about
0:50:58 one of my
0:50:59 favorite books
0:50:59 about Chinese
0:51:00 censorship
0:51:01 Margaret Roberts
0:51:01 where she
0:51:02 talks about
0:51:03 there are
0:51:03 three different
0:51:05 ways that
0:51:05 the government
0:51:06 can control
0:51:08 the stories
0:51:09 and she says
0:51:09 there’s fear
0:51:10 which is this
0:51:11 kind of direct
0:51:11 censorship
0:51:12 thing
0:51:13 like banning
0:51:14 things
0:51:14 but there’s
0:51:15 also friction
0:51:16 which she
0:51:16 says
0:51:16 she has
0:51:17 three apps
0:51:17 fear
0:51:18 friction
0:51:19 and flooding
0:51:20 and she
0:51:20 says they’re
0:51:21 all important
0:51:21 and I think
0:51:22 this is true
0:51:22 not just
0:51:23 of China
0:51:23 but in
0:51:23 other
0:51:23 settings
0:51:24 too
0:51:25 so what
0:51:26 friction
0:51:26 means
0:51:27 is
0:51:28 you just
0:51:28 make it
0:51:28 harder
0:51:29 for people
0:51:29 to get
0:51:30 answers
0:51:30 or get
0:51:31 information
0:51:31 that you
0:51:31 don’t
0:51:32 want them
0:51:32 to get
0:51:33 even though
0:51:34 you know
0:51:34 that
0:51:35 some people
0:51:36 will get
0:51:36 it
0:51:36 you just
0:51:36 make it
0:51:37 that the
0:51:37 easiest
0:51:38 way
0:51:38 the first
0:51:39 answer
0:51:39 you’ll
0:51:39 get
0:51:39 through a
0:51:40 search
0:51:41 so
0:51:42 a lot
0:51:42 of
0:51:43 you know
0:51:44 tech savvy
0:51:45 or globally
0:51:45 minded
0:51:48 tapped in
0:51:48 Chinese
0:51:49 will use
0:51:50 people
0:51:50 will use
0:51:51 a VPN
0:51:52 to jump
0:51:52 over the
0:51:52 firewall
0:51:53 but it’s
0:51:54 work
0:51:55 the internet
0:51:55 moves slower
0:51:56 you have
0:51:57 to keep
0:51:57 updating
0:51:58 your VPN
0:51:59 so you
0:51:59 just create
0:52:00 friction
0:52:01 so that
0:52:01 okay
0:52:02 some people
0:52:02 will find
0:52:03 this out
0:52:03 and then
0:52:04 flooding
0:52:04 you just
0:52:05 fill the
0:52:06 airwaves
0:52:06 and the
0:52:06 media
0:52:07 with
0:52:08 versions
0:52:08 of the
0:52:08 stories
0:52:09 that you
0:52:09 want the
0:52:10 people
0:52:10 to believe
0:52:11 so all
0:52:11 those
0:52:12 kind of
0:52:12 exist
0:52:13 and
0:52:13 in
0:52:14 operation
0:52:14 and I
0:52:14 think
0:52:15 the
0:52:16 fear
0:52:16 is the
0:52:17 easiest
0:52:17 side
0:52:18 to say
0:52:18 of what’s
0:52:18 blocked
0:52:19 so I’m
0:52:19 always interested
0:52:20 in things
0:52:20 that
0:52:23 things that
0:52:23 you would
0:52:23 expect to
0:52:24 be censored
0:52:24 that aren’t
0:52:25 censored
0:52:27 you can
0:52:27 read all
0:52:28 sorts of
0:52:29 things in
0:52:29 China
0:52:31 about
0:52:32 totalitarian
0:52:33 you can read
0:52:34 Hannah Arendt’s
0:52:35 book on
0:52:36 totalitarianism
0:52:37 which would be
0:52:37 the kind
0:52:37 of thing
0:52:37 you just
0:52:38 you know
0:52:38 you’re not
0:52:38 supposed to be
0:52:39 able to read
0:52:39 that in
0:52:41 a somewhat
0:52:42 totalitarian
0:52:43 state or a
0:52:44 dictatorial state
0:52:44 if anything
0:52:46 but it’s not
0:52:46 specifically about
0:52:47 China
0:52:49 and so
0:52:51 censorship is
0:52:51 most
0:52:53 most restrictive
0:52:54 when it’s things
0:52:54 that are actually
0:52:55 about China
0:52:56 things about
0:52:57 leaders of the
0:52:58 Chinese Communist
0:52:58 Party there’s
0:52:59 intense kind of
0:53:00 censorship of
0:53:00 that
0:53:02 and certain
0:53:03 events in that
0:53:04 way but
0:53:05 a sort
0:53:05 of like
0:53:07 something
0:53:07 through
0:53:08 allegory
0:53:08 something
0:53:09 through
0:53:11 imagining
0:53:12 a place
0:53:13 that looks
0:53:13 a lot
0:53:14 like
0:53:14 a
0:53:14 Communist
0:53:15 Party
0:53:15 ruled
0:53:16 state
0:53:16 so that
0:53:16 people
0:53:16 are
0:53:17 going
0:53:17 to
0:53:17 read
0:53:17 it
0:53:18 there
0:53:18 were
0:53:18 things
0:53:18 that
0:53:18 were
0:53:19 banned
0:53:20 throughout
0:53:21 up until
0:53:21 like the
0:53:22 very last
0:53:23 period of
0:53:23 Gorbachev’s
0:53:23 rule
0:53:24 things banned
0:53:24 in the
0:53:25 Soviet
0:53:25 Union
0:53:26 that are
0:53:26 available
0:53:27 in
0:53:27 Chinese
0:53:27 bookstores
0:53:28 you can
0:53:28 buy
0:53:28 1984
0:53:29 in a
0:53:29 Chinese
0:53:30 bookstore
0:53:30 you’ve
0:53:30 been able
0:53:31 to
0:53:31 since
0:53:32 1985
0:53:34 you can
0:53:35 buy
0:53:35 again
0:53:35 it’s
0:53:35 not
0:53:36 about
0:53:36 China
0:53:37 and
0:53:37 actually
0:53:37 for
0:53:38 some
0:53:38 people
0:53:38 within
0:53:39 China
0:53:40 in the
0:53:41 mid-1980s
0:53:42 where they
0:53:42 focused on
0:53:43 the part
0:53:43 of 1984
0:53:44 that’s
0:53:44 like the
0:53:44 two minutes
0:53:45 of hate
0:53:45 these rituals
0:53:46 of denunciation
0:53:47 of people
0:53:48 for some
0:53:48 people in
0:53:48 China
0:53:49 it seemed
0:53:49 like it
0:53:50 was about
0:53:50 their past
0:53:51 not about
0:53:52 their present
0:53:53 and then
0:53:53 by the
0:53:54 90s
0:53:54 1984
0:53:55 is a
0:53:55 very bleak
0:53:57 culture
0:53:57 of scarcity
0:53:58 a place
0:53:58 where people
0:53:59 just aren’t
0:53:59 having fun
0:54:01 and people
0:54:02 said like
0:54:03 some people
0:54:03 would read
0:54:04 1984
0:54:04 and say
0:54:04 look
0:54:05 this is
0:54:05 the world
0:54:06 we’re living
0:54:06 in
0:54:06 it’s a
0:54:07 big brother
0:54:07 state
0:54:08 but others
0:54:08 said
0:54:09 well
0:54:09 that has
0:54:10 some
0:54:10 similarities
0:54:10 to us
0:54:11 but
0:54:12 you know
0:54:13 he wasn’t
0:54:13 talking about
0:54:14 a country
0:54:14 like ours
0:54:14 look
0:54:15 we’ve got
0:54:16 supermarkets
0:54:17 we’ve got
0:54:18 McDonald’s
0:54:18 I mean
0:54:18 this is not
0:54:19 you know
0:54:19 we’ve got
0:54:20 fast trains
0:54:21 we’ve got
0:54:22 things
0:54:22 we’re living
0:54:23 so much
0:54:23 better
0:54:23 in some
0:54:24 ways
0:54:24 than our
0:54:25 grandparents
0:54:25 did
0:54:25 and
0:54:26 this isn’t
0:54:27 like that
0:54:28 bleak world
0:54:28 he was
0:54:28 imagining
0:54:30 yeah
0:54:30 you’ve
0:54:30 actually
0:54:31 spoken about
0:54:31 and described
0:54:32 China’s more
0:54:32 akin to
0:54:33 the dystopian
0:54:33 world
0:54:34 the brave
0:54:35 new world
0:54:36 than 1984
0:54:38 which is really
0:54:39 interesting to
0:54:39 think about
0:54:40 I think about
0:54:40 that a lot
0:54:41 I’ve recently
0:54:42 reread
0:54:43 over the past
0:54:43 couple of years
0:54:44 reread
0:54:44 brave new world
0:54:45 a couple of times
0:54:46 and also 1984
0:54:48 it does seem
0:54:48 it does seem
0:54:50 that the 21st
0:54:50 century
0:54:52 might be
0:54:53 more defined
0:54:54 to the degree
0:54:55 it is dystopian
0:54:56 any of the
0:54:57 nations are
0:54:58 by brave new
0:54:58 world
0:54:59 than by
0:55:00 1984
0:55:01 there are
0:55:01 mixed elements
0:55:02 I think
0:55:02 there are
0:55:03 moments
0:55:03 when it
0:55:04 can seem
0:55:04 more
0:55:06 one than
0:55:06 the other
0:55:07 and there
0:55:07 can be
0:55:07 parts of
0:55:08 the same
0:55:08 country
0:55:09 that seem
0:55:09 more
0:55:10 one than
0:55:11 the other
0:55:13 and if we
0:55:14 just think
0:55:14 about
0:55:15 control
0:55:16 through
0:55:16 distraction
0:55:18 and
0:55:20 playing to
0:55:20 your
0:55:21 sense of
0:55:21 pleasure
0:55:22 one thing
0:55:22 that people
0:55:23 forget
0:55:23 sometimes
0:55:24 or don’t
0:55:24 know
0:55:25 is that
0:55:26 Aldous Huxley
0:55:26 who wrote
0:55:26 brave new
0:55:27 world
0:55:27 taught
0:55:28 Eric Blair
0:55:29 who became
0:55:30 George Orwell
0:55:30 when he was
0:55:31 a student
0:55:31 at Eden
0:55:32 and they
0:55:33 were sort
0:55:33 of rivals
0:55:34 and in
0:55:34 fact in
0:55:35 1949
0:55:37 Orwell
0:55:38 sent his
0:55:38 former teacher
0:55:39 a copy
0:55:40 of 1984
0:55:41 and said
0:55:41 you know
0:55:42 look
0:55:42 I’ve
0:55:42 written
0:55:43 this
0:55:43 basically
0:55:44 it’s
0:55:44 kind of
0:55:45 almost
0:55:45 a little
0:55:45 Oedipal
0:55:46 like
0:55:46 I’ve
0:55:46 written
0:55:46 this
0:55:47 book
0:55:47 that
0:55:48 displaces
0:55:48 yours
0:55:49 he didn’t
0:55:49 say that
0:55:50 he just
0:55:50 said I
0:55:50 wanted you
0:55:51 to have
0:55:51 this
0:55:51 but he
0:55:52 criticized
0:55:52 brave new
0:55:52 world
0:55:53 and
0:55:54 reviews
0:55:55 as like
0:55:57 not having
0:55:58 having imagined
0:55:59 a world
0:56:00 of capitalism
0:56:00 run wild
0:56:01 like before
0:56:02 realizing
0:56:03 the kind
0:56:03 of
0:56:03 totalitarian
0:56:04 threats
0:56:04 of the
0:56:05 middle
0:56:05 of the
0:56:05 20th
0:56:05 century
0:56:06 but
0:56:06 Huxley
0:56:07 wrote
0:56:07 Orwell
0:56:08 a letter
0:56:08 in October
0:56:09 of 1949
0:56:10 same month
0:56:10 the communist
0:56:11 party
0:56:12 took control
0:56:12 in China
0:56:13 not that he
0:56:14 mentions China
0:56:15 and he just
0:56:15 said you know
0:56:16 it’s a great
0:56:16 book and
0:56:16 everything
0:56:17 but I think
0:56:18 the dictators
0:56:19 of the future
0:56:20 will find
0:56:21 less arduous
0:56:22 ways to keep
0:56:23 control over
0:56:23 the population
0:56:25 basically saying
0:56:25 more like
0:56:26 what was in
0:56:27 my book
0:56:27 than in
0:56:27 yours
0:56:29 I have to
0:56:30 say I
0:56:30 think Huxley
0:56:32 might be
0:56:33 really onto
0:56:33 something there
0:56:34 truly a
0:56:35 visionary
0:56:36 although to
0:56:37 give points
0:56:37 to Orwell
0:56:38 I do
0:56:39 think as
0:56:39 far as
0:56:41 just a
0:56:42 philosophical
0:56:43 work of
0:56:44 fiction
0:56:46 1984 is a
0:56:46 better book
0:56:48 because Brave
0:56:49 New World does
0:56:49 not quite
0:56:50 construct the
0:56:51 philosophical
0:56:51 message
0:56:52 thoroughly
0:56:54 because 1984
0:56:55 contains many
0:56:56 very clearly
0:56:57 very poetically
0:56:59 defined elements
0:57:00 of a
0:57:00 totalitarian
0:57:01 regime
0:57:02 oh and the
0:57:03 dissection of
0:57:04 language is just
0:57:04 so amazing
0:57:05 no I think
0:57:05 you’ve got a
0:57:06 point there
0:57:06 and I went
0:57:06 back and
0:57:07 reread
0:57:08 Brave New
0:57:08 World and
0:57:09 it’s it’s
0:57:10 fascinating but
0:57:11 it’s very
0:57:12 it’s very
0:57:12 messy
0:57:13 yeah I
0:57:13 think there’s
0:57:14 a clarity
0:57:15 to to
0:57:16 Orwell’s
0:57:16 1984
0:57:17 there’s a
0:57:18 clarity to
0:57:19 Margaret Atwood’s
0:57:20 Handmaid’s Tale
0:57:21 similarly the
0:57:22 the construction
0:57:23 of the
0:57:24 elements and
0:57:24 she was a
0:57:25 big fan of
0:57:28 both 1984
0:57:28 and Brave
0:57:29 New World so
0:57:30 there’s a way
0:57:31 they they go
0:57:32 forward but
0:57:33 you know there
0:57:33 was a kind
0:57:34 of it’s not
0:57:35 exactly a sequel
0:57:36 but Huxley
0:57:37 did write
0:57:37 something called
0:57:38 Brave New
0:57:39 World Revisited
0:57:39 yes he did
0:57:40 in the 50s
0:57:41 and he kind
0:57:41 of said
0:57:42 actually
0:57:43 it seems
0:57:43 and he
0:57:43 mentions
0:57:44 China there
0:57:45 he says
0:57:46 that in
0:57:46 Mao’s
0:57:46 China
0:57:47 they’re
0:57:47 kind of
0:57:48 combining
0:57:49 the two
0:57:49 things of
0:57:50 this and
0:57:52 I’m really
0:57:52 fascinated by
0:57:53 that because
0:57:54 they published
0:57:55 in China
0:57:57 on the
0:57:57 Chinese mainland
0:57:58 it was
0:57:59 published in
0:58:00 Taiwan and
0:58:00 Hong Kong
0:58:01 too it’s
0:58:01 called the
0:58:02 Dystopian
0:58:03 Trilogy and
0:58:04 it’s a
0:58:05 box set
0:58:05 where you
0:58:06 have
0:58:07 Zemiatan
0:58:07 Zui
0:58:08 who inspired
0:58:09 both Orwell
0:58:10 and Huxley
0:58:11 to some extent
0:58:12 that’s one
0:58:13 book
0:58:13 and then
0:58:13 there’s
0:58:14 Animal Farm
0:58:15 in 1984
0:58:16 is the
0:58:16 second book
0:58:17 and then
0:58:18 the third
0:58:19 volume is
0:58:20 Huxley’s
0:58:20 Brave New
0:58:21 World and
0:58:21 Brave New
0:58:22 World Revisited
0:58:23 and it was
0:58:24 published in
0:58:25 complex characters
0:58:27 you could buy it
0:58:28 in Hong Kong
0:58:29 but I compared it
0:58:30 to the book
0:58:31 you can buy
0:58:31 on the mainland
0:58:33 and it’s all
0:58:33 the same
0:58:35 except the
0:58:36 parts in
0:58:37 Brave New
0:58:37 World Revisited
0:58:38 that refer to
0:58:39 China are
0:58:39 scalpeled out
0:58:41 and this I
0:58:41 think shows
0:58:42 the subtlety
0:58:43 of the
0:58:44 censorship
0:58:44 system
0:58:45 you can
0:58:46 buy these
0:58:46 books and
0:58:47 you can
0:58:47 read about
0:58:48 them but
0:58:48 the parts
0:58:50 that really
0:58:50 show you
0:58:51 how to
0:58:51 connect the
0:58:51 dots
0:58:53 that gets
0:58:54 taken out
0:58:55 and I do
0:58:55 think the
0:58:56 Brave New
0:58:57 World side
0:58:57 of things
0:58:58 I think
0:58:59 with China
0:59:00 I was feeling
0:59:00 it was
0:59:00 definitely
0:59:01 moving
0:59:02 more toward
0:59:03 Brave New
0:59:03 World
0:59:04 except
0:59:05 Tibet and
0:59:05 Xinjiang
0:59:06 being
0:59:07 more
0:59:08 the
0:59:08 crude
0:59:08 boot
0:59:09 on the
0:59:09 face
0:59:10 1984
0:59:10 style
0:59:11 of
0:59:11 control
0:59:12 but
0:59:12 then
0:59:12 during
0:59:13 the
0:59:13 COVID
0:59:14 lockdowns
0:59:14 when
0:59:14 people
0:59:14 were
0:59:15 being
0:59:15 so
0:59:16 intensely
0:59:16 monitored
0:59:16 and
0:59:17 controlled
0:59:18 even
0:59:18 places
0:59:19 like
0:59:19 Shanghai
0:59:19 that it
0:59:20 seemed
0:59:20 much
0:59:20 more
0:59:20 the
0:59:21 Brave
0:59:21 New
0:59:21 World
0:59:21 kind
0:59:22 of
0:59:36 what
0:59:36 it
0:59:36 could
0:59:36 give
0:59:36 a
0:59:37 sense
0:59:38 after
0:59:38 you
0:59:39 thoroughly
0:59:40 internalize
0:59:41 the fear
0:59:42 that you
0:59:42 have
0:59:42 complete
0:59:43 freedom
0:59:43 of
0:59:43 speech
0:59:44 just
0:59:45 don’t
0:59:45 mention
0:59:45 the
0:59:46 government
0:59:47 so you
0:59:47 could
0:59:47 talk
0:59:47 about
0:59:48 totalitarianism
0:59:48 you could
0:59:49 talk
0:59:49 about
0:59:50 the
0:59:50 darkest
0:59:50 aspects
0:59:51 of
0:59:51 human
0:59:51 nature
0:59:52 just
0:59:53 don’t
0:59:54 you can
0:59:54 even
0:59:54 talk
0:59:55 about
0:59:55 the
0:59:55 government
0:59:56 in a
0:59:56 sort
0:59:56 of
0:59:57 metaphorical
0:59:58 like
0:59:58 poetic
1:00:01 way
1:00:02 that’s
1:00:02 not
1:00:02 directly
1:00:03 linkable
1:00:04 but the
1:00:05 moment you
1:00:05 mention the
1:00:05 government
1:00:05 it’s
1:00:06 like
1:00:06 a
1:00:06 dumb
1:00:06 keyword
1:00:07 search
1:00:08 it’s
1:00:08 yeah
1:00:08 it’s
1:00:09 and
1:00:09 and
1:00:09 I
1:00:09 think
1:00:09 it’s
1:00:10 like
1:00:10 one
1:00:10 of
1:00:10 these
1:00:11 really
1:00:11 good
1:00:12 examples
1:00:12 of
1:00:12 how
1:00:13 you
1:00:13 know
1:00:14 China’s
1:00:14 distinctive
1:00:15 but it’s
1:00:15 it’s
1:00:16 not
1:00:16 unique
1:00:17 you have
1:00:17 other
1:00:17 settings
1:00:18 where you
1:00:18 have
1:00:18 these
1:00:19 like
1:00:19 no-go
1:00:20 zones
1:00:20 that
1:00:20 you
1:00:20 learn
1:00:20 and
1:00:21 one
1:00:22 example
1:00:22 is
1:00:22 in
1:00:22 Singapore
1:00:23 you
1:00:23 know
1:00:23 there
1:00:24 was
1:00:24 this
1:00:25 so
1:00:26 National
1:00:26 University
1:00:26 of
1:00:27 Singapore
1:00:27 has
1:00:27 a
1:00:28 world-class
1:00:28 history
1:00:28 department
1:00:30 but
1:00:30 no
1:00:30 Singapore
1:00:31 historian
1:00:32 in it
1:00:32 nobody
1:00:32 who
1:00:33 focuses
1:00:33 on
1:00:33 the
1:00:33 history
1:00:33 of
1:00:34 Singapore
1:00:35 because
1:00:35 you know
1:00:35 it’s
1:00:36 incredibly
1:00:37 wide-ranging
1:00:37 what you
1:00:37 can
1:00:38 what you
1:00:38 can
1:00:39 do
1:00:40 analyze
1:00:40 but
1:00:41 when
1:00:41 you’re
1:00:42 actually
1:00:42 talking
1:00:42 about
1:00:43 the
1:00:43 family
1:00:43 that’s
1:00:44 been
1:00:44 most
1:00:44 powerful
1:00:45 in
1:00:45 Singapore
1:00:45 then
1:00:46 it
1:00:46 gets
1:00:47 to be
1:00:47 touchy
1:00:48 in
1:00:49 Thailand
1:00:50 which
1:00:50 I’ve
1:00:50 been
1:00:51 working
1:00:51 on
1:00:52 recently
1:00:52 you
1:00:53 have
1:00:53 this
1:00:54 laws
1:00:57 that
1:00:57 make
1:00:57 it
1:00:57 very
1:01:00 dangerous
1:01:01 to say
1:01:01 certain
1:01:01 kinds
1:01:01 of
1:01:01 things
1:01:02 about
1:01:02 the
1:01:02 king
1:01:03 and
1:01:03 so
1:01:04 in
1:01:04 all
1:01:04 of
1:01:04 these
1:01:04 settings
1:01:05 you
1:01:05 have
1:01:05 to
1:01:05 figure
1:01:05 out
1:01:06 ways
1:01:06 to
1:01:06 work
1:01:07 around
1:01:07 and
1:01:07 there’s
1:01:07 a
1:01:10 way
1:01:10 in
1:01:10 which
1:01:11 you
1:01:11 can
1:01:12 say
1:01:12 at
1:01:12 the
1:01:13 foreign
1:01:14 correspondence
1:01:14 clubs
1:01:15 in
1:01:15 different
1:01:15 parts
1:01:15 of
1:01:16 Asia
1:01:17 you
1:01:17 can
1:01:17 have
1:01:17 an
1:01:18 event
1:01:18 that’s
1:01:19 about
1:01:19 the
1:01:20 country
1:01:20 won
1:01:21 over
1:01:22 that
1:01:22 you
1:01:22 can
1:01:22 say
1:01:22 basically
1:01:23 anything
1:01:23 you
1:01:23 want
1:01:23 but
1:01:24 when
1:01:24 it
1:01:24 gets
1:01:24 to
1:01:24 the
1:01:24 things
1:01:25 in
1:01:25 the
1:01:25 place
1:01:25 where
1:01:25 you
1:01:26 are
1:01:28 you’re
1:01:29 I should
1:01:29 give
1:01:30 credit
1:01:30 for
1:01:30 that
1:01:31 insight
1:01:32 Shibani
1:01:32 Matani
1:01:33 who’s
1:01:33 written
1:01:35 co-wrote
1:01:35 a very
1:01:35 good
1:01:35 book
1:01:35 on
1:01:36 Hong
1:01:36 Kong
1:01:36 Among
1:01:36 the
1:01:37 Braves
1:01:38 she
1:01:38 was
1:01:38 talking
1:01:39 about
1:01:39 that
1:01:39 in
1:01:40 Singapore
1:01:41 at
1:01:41 the
1:01:41 foreign
1:01:42 correspondents
1:01:42 club
1:01:42 you
1:01:42 could
1:01:42 have
1:01:42 an
1:01:43 event
1:01:43 on
1:01:43 Hong
1:01:48 correspondents
1:01:48 club
1:01:49 but
1:01:49 at
1:01:49 the
1:01:49 same
1:01:49 time
1:01:49 when
1:01:50 I
1:01:50 saw
1:01:50 her
1:01:50 in
1:01:50 Singapore
1:01:51 she
1:01:51 said
1:01:52 there
1:01:52 was
1:01:52 a
1:01:52 Singapore
1:01:53 refugee
1:01:55 in
1:01:56 Hong
1:01:56 Kong
1:01:56 who
1:01:56 was
1:01:56 giving
1:01:56 a
1:01:57 talk
1:01:57 at
1:01:57 the
1:01:57 Hong
1:01:57 Kong
1:01:58 foreign
1:01:58 foreign
1:01:58 foreign
1:01:59 correspondents
1:01:59 club
1:02:00 saying
1:02:00 things
1:02:01 that
1:02:01 he
1:02:01 couldn’t
1:02:01 say
1:02:01 in
1:02:02 Singapore
1:02:03 and
1:02:03 in
1:02:04 Thailand
1:02:04 I
1:02:04 gave
1:02:04 a
1:02:05 talk
1:02:05 at
1:02:05 the
1:02:05 foreign
1:02:06 correspondents
1:02:06 club
1:02:07 and
1:02:07 then
1:02:07 I
1:02:07 went
1:02:07 to
1:02:08 hear
1:02:08 a
1:02:08 talk
1:02:08 there
1:02:09 because
1:02:09 I
1:02:09 was
1:02:09 curious
1:02:10 about
1:02:11 what
1:02:11 the
1:02:11 culture
1:02:12 in
1:02:12 this
1:02:13 foreign
1:02:13 correspondents
1:02:13 club
1:02:14 and
1:02:14 there
1:02:14 was
1:02:14 somebody
1:02:15 talking
1:02:15 about
1:02:16 human
1:02:16 rights
1:02:16 abuses
1:02:17 in
1:02:17 different
1:02:17 parts
1:02:17 of
1:02:18 Southeast
1:02:18 Asia
1:02:19 saying
1:02:19 things
1:02:20 very
1:02:20 directly
1:02:20 and
1:02:21 said
1:02:22 and
1:02:22 there
1:02:22 are
1:02:22 things
1:02:29 self
1:02:29 censorship
1:02:29 can
1:02:29 be
1:02:30 a
1:02:30 very
1:02:30 powerful
1:02:31 thing
1:02:31 one
1:02:32 of
1:02:32 the
1:02:32 things
1:02:32 I
1:02:34 learned
1:02:34 about
1:02:34 all
1:02:34 of
1:02:35 this
1:02:35 which
1:02:35 is
1:02:35 interesting
1:02:37 I
1:02:37 want
1:02:37 to
1:02:37 learn
1:02:38 more
1:02:38 is
1:02:38 about
1:02:39 the
1:02:39 human
1:02:39 psychology
1:02:40 the
1:02:40 ability
1:02:40 of
1:02:40 the
1:02:41 individual
1:02:41 mind
1:02:41 to
1:02:43 compartmentalize
1:02:43 things
1:02:44 it
1:02:44 does
1:02:45 seem
1:02:45 like
1:02:45 you
1:02:45 could
1:02:46 not
1:02:46 live
1:02:46 in
1:02:46 a
1:02:46 state
1:02:47 of
1:02:47 fear
1:02:48 as
1:02:48 long
1:02:48 as
1:02:48 you
1:02:48 don’t
1:02:48 mention
1:02:49 a
1:02:49 particular
1:02:50 topic
1:02:51 my
1:02:51 intuition
1:02:51 would
1:02:52 be
1:02:52 about
1:02:52 the
1:02:52 human
1:02:53 mind
1:02:53 if
1:02:53 there’s
1:02:58 fear
1:02:58 will
1:02:58 permeate
1:02:58 through
1:02:58 everything
1:02:59 else
1:03:00 you
1:03:00 would
1:03:00 not
1:03:00 be
1:03:00 able
1:03:00 to
1:03:01 do
1:03:01 great
1:03:01 science
1:03:02 great
1:03:02 exploration
1:03:02 great
1:03:03 technology
1:03:04 and that
1:03:05 that idea
1:03:05 I think
1:03:06 underpins
1:03:06 the whole
1:03:06 idea of
1:03:06 freedom
1:03:07 of speech
1:03:08 why you
1:03:08 don’t
1:03:09 want
1:03:09 in the
1:03:09 United
1:03:10 States
1:03:11 you
1:03:11 don’t
1:03:11 want
1:03:11 to
1:03:11 censor
1:03:12 any
1:03:12 even
1:03:13 dangerous
1:03:13 speech
1:03:14 because
1:03:15 that
1:03:15 will
1:03:16 permeate
1:03:16 everything
1:03:16 else
1:03:17 you
1:03:17 won’t
1:03:17 be
1:03:17 able
1:03:17 to
1:03:17 have
1:03:18 great
1:03:18 scientists
1:03:18 you
1:03:18 won’t
1:03:18 be
1:03:19 able
1:03:19 to
1:03:19 have
1:03:19 great
1:03:19 journalists
1:03:20 you
1:03:20 won’t
1:03:20 be
1:03:20 able
1:03:20 to
1:03:20 have
1:03:21 I
1:03:21 don’t
1:03:21 know
1:03:22 I’m
1:03:22 obviously
1:03:23 biased
1:03:23 towards
1:03:24 America
1:03:24 and I
1:03:24 think
1:03:24 you
1:03:25 do
1:03:25 need
1:03:25 to
1:03:25 have
1:03:25 that
1:03:26 full
1:03:26 on
1:03:26 freedom
1:03:26 of
1:03:27 speech
1:03:27 but this
1:03:28 is an
1:03:28 interesting
1:03:28 case
1:03:29 study
1:03:30 and that’s
1:03:30 actually
1:03:30 something
1:03:31 that you
1:03:31 speak
1:03:31 about
1:03:31 that
1:03:32 Mao
1:03:33 if he
1:03:33 were
1:03:34 alive
1:03:34 today
1:03:34 and
1:03:34 visited
1:03:35 China
1:03:36 would
1:03:36 be
1:03:36 quite
1:03:37 surprised
1:03:39 and you
1:03:39 give
1:03:39 the
1:03:40 Nanjing
1:03:41 bookstores
1:03:41 an example
1:03:41 can you
1:03:42 just
1:03:42 speak
1:03:42 to
1:03:42 this
1:03:43 if
1:03:43 Mao
1:03:43 visited
1:03:44 China
1:03:44 let’s
1:03:45 go with
1:03:45 that
1:03:45 thought
1:03:46 experiment
1:03:47 what
1:03:47 would
1:03:47 he
1:03:48 recognize
1:03:49 what
1:03:49 would
1:03:49 he
1:03:49 be
1:03:49 surprised
1:03:50 by
1:03:51 so
1:03:51 I
1:03:52 wrote
1:03:52 about
1:03:53 imagining
1:03:53 a
1:03:54 revivified
1:03:55 Mao
1:03:56 going
1:03:56 to
1:03:56 this
1:03:57 really
1:03:58 cool
1:03:59 Nanjing
1:03:59 bookstore
1:04:00 in the
1:04:00 early
1:04:01 2000s
1:04:01 and
1:04:02 just
1:04:02 being
1:04:03 amazed
1:04:03 at
1:04:04 what
1:04:04 you
1:04:04 could
1:04:05 read
1:04:05 there
1:04:05 and
1:04:06 what
1:04:06 books
1:04:06 were
1:04:07 for
1:04:07 sale
1:04:07 and
1:04:07 I
1:04:08 thought
1:04:08 about
1:04:08 how
1:04:09 he’d
1:04:10 be
1:04:10 like
1:04:11 what’s
1:04:11 going
1:04:11 on
1:04:11 you
1:04:11 know
1:04:12 is
1:04:12 the
1:04:12 Communist
1:04:12 Party
1:04:12 not
1:04:13 in
1:04:14 control
1:04:14 I
1:04:14 mean
1:04:15 he
1:04:15 talked
1:04:16 about
1:04:16 how
1:04:16 art
1:04:16 and
1:04:18 politics
1:04:18 needed
1:04:18 to
1:04:18 in
1:04:18 some
1:04:19 ways
1:04:19 go
1:04:19 together
1:04:19 and
1:04:19 you’ve
1:04:20 got
1:04:20 all
1:04:20 these
1:04:20 kind
1:04:20 of
1:04:21 things
1:04:21 he’d
1:04:21 also
1:04:21 be
1:04:22 he
1:04:22 also
1:04:22 would
1:04:23 have
1:04:23 been
1:04:23 shocked
1:04:23 by
1:04:23 all
1:04:23 these
1:04:24 books
1:04:25 about
1:04:25 how
1:04:25 to
1:04:25 start
1:04:26 your
1:04:26 own
1:04:26 cafe
1:04:27 and
1:04:27 bar
1:04:28 and
1:04:29 celebrating
1:04:29 entrepreneurship
1:04:30 how to
1:04:30 get
1:04:30 into
1:04:30 Harvard
1:04:32 all of
1:04:32 these
1:04:32 things
1:04:33 wouldn’t
1:04:33 compute
1:04:34 from
1:04:34 his
1:04:34 time
1:04:35 although
1:04:35 I
1:04:36 said
1:04:36 it
1:04:36 would
1:04:36 actually
1:04:37 maybe
1:04:37 make
1:04:37 him
1:04:37 nostalgia
1:04:38 for
1:04:38 the
1:04:38 time
1:04:38 of
1:04:38 his
1:04:39 youth
1:04:39 in
1:04:39 the
1:04:39 19
1:04:40 10s
1:04:40 he
1:04:41 was
1:04:41 a
1:04:41 participant
1:04:41 in
1:04:41 the
1:04:42 May
1:04:42 4th
1:04:42 movement
1:04:42 which
1:04:43 was
1:04:43 a
1:04:43 time
1:04:44 of
1:04:44 reading
1:04:44 all
1:04:45 over
1:04:45 the
1:04:45 world
1:04:45 looking
1:04:46 for
1:04:46 the
1:04:46 best
1:04:47 ideas
1:04:48 circulating
1:04:48 so
1:04:49 he
1:04:49 might
1:04:49 say
1:04:50 well
1:04:50 the
1:04:50 teenage
1:04:51 me
1:04:51 would
1:04:51 have
1:04:51 really
1:04:53 loved
1:04:53 this
1:04:54 so
1:04:55 some
1:04:55 of
1:04:55 the
1:04:55 coolest
1:04:56 bookstores
1:04:57 the
1:04:57 things
1:04:57 that
1:04:57 I
1:04:58 just
1:04:58 was
1:04:58 amazed
1:04:59 could
1:04:59 exist
1:04:59 in
1:04:59 the
1:04:59 early
1:05:00 2000s
1:05:01 so
1:05:01 you
1:05:01 can
1:05:02 still
1:05:02 read
1:05:02 you
1:05:02 can
1:05:02 still
1:05:03 buy
1:05:03 copies
1:05:03 in
1:05:04 1984
1:05:04 and
1:05:04 you
1:05:04 can
1:05:04 still
1:05:05 get
1:05:06 some
1:05:06 of
1:05:06 these
1:05:06 other
1:05:07 things
1:05:07 but
1:05:07 that
1:05:08 was
1:05:08 a
1:05:08 time
1:05:08 when
1:05:09 more
1:05:09 and
1:05:09 more
1:05:09 of
1:05:09 those
1:05:09 things
1:05:09 were
1:05:10 being
1:05:10 translated
1:05:11 fresh
1:05:11 I’m
1:05:11 not
1:05:11 sure
1:05:11 you
1:05:11 get
1:05:13 permission
1:05:13 to
1:05:13 translate
1:05:14 some
1:05:14 of
1:05:14 those
1:05:14 things
1:05:15 now
1:05:16 there’s
1:05:16 more
1:05:16 of
1:05:16 a
1:05:16 sense
1:05:17 of
1:05:17 caution
1:05:19 and
1:05:20 when
1:05:20 some
1:05:20 of
1:05:21 those
1:05:21 bookstores
1:05:21 would
1:05:22 also
1:05:22 then
1:05:22 hold
1:05:23 events
1:05:23 that
1:05:23 would
1:05:23 talk
1:05:24 about
1:05:25 the
1:05:25 kinds
1:05:26 of
1:05:26 ideas
1:05:27 that
1:05:27 then
1:05:27 take
1:05:27 them
1:05:27 to
1:05:27 the
1:05:28 next
1:05:28 level
1:05:28 and
1:05:28 talk
1:05:29 about
1:05:29 the
1:05:30 applicability
1:05:31 to
1:05:32 the
1:05:32 situation
1:05:32 in
1:05:33 China
1:05:34 some
1:05:34 of
1:05:34 those
1:05:34 bookstores
1:05:35 have
1:05:35 closed
1:05:36 or
1:05:36 have
1:05:36 had
1:05:36 to
1:05:37 become
1:05:37 kind
1:05:37 of
1:05:38 really
1:05:39 shadows
1:05:39 of
1:05:39 what
1:05:39 they
1:05:40 were
1:05:40 and
1:05:41 one
1:05:41 of
1:05:41 the
1:05:41 best
1:05:42 ones
1:05:42 not
1:05:42 the
1:05:42 one
1:05:51 I
1:05:52 wrote
1:05:53 freewheeling
1:05:53 discussions
1:05:54 of
1:05:54 liberal
1:05:55 ideas
1:05:55 in
1:05:55 the
1:05:55 early
1:05:56 2000s
1:05:56 and
1:05:57 early
1:05:58 2010s
1:05:58 but
1:05:58 then
1:05:59 it
1:05:59 just
1:05:59 got
1:05:59 less
1:05:59 and
1:06:00 less
1:06:00 space
1:06:00 to
1:06:01 operate
1:06:01 under
1:06:02 Xi
1:06:02 Jinping
1:06:03 when
1:06:03 things
1:06:04 started
1:06:04 narrowing
1:06:06 and
1:06:06 it
1:06:06 then
1:06:06 had
1:06:06 to
1:06:07 close
1:06:07 in
1:06:07 Shanghai
1:06:08 and
1:06:08 it’s
1:06:08 just
1:06:08 been
1:06:09 reopened
1:06:10 in
1:06:11 DC
1:06:12 as
1:06:12 J.F.
1:06:12 books
1:06:13 and
1:06:13 it’s
1:06:14 becoming
1:06:14 this
1:06:15 really
1:06:15 interesting
1:06:16 cultural
1:06:16 hub
1:06:16 and
1:06:17 I’m
1:06:17 really
1:06:17 delighted
1:06:18 it’s
1:06:18 where
1:06:18 I’m
1:06:18 going
1:06:19 to
1:06:19 hold
1:06:20 the
1:06:20 launch
1:06:20 for
1:06:20 my
1:06:21 next
1:06:21 book
1:06:22 when
1:06:22 it
1:06:22 comes
1:06:22 out
1:06:22 in
1:06:23 June
1:06:23 this
1:06:24 book
1:06:24 on
1:06:24 the
1:06:24 milk
1:06:24 tea
1:06:25 alliance
1:06:26 about
1:06:27 struggles
1:06:27 for
1:06:28 change
1:06:28 across
1:06:29 East
1:06:29 and
1:06:29 Southeast
1:06:30 Asia
1:06:30 including
1:06:31 in
1:06:32 places
1:06:32 that
1:06:32 are
1:06:33 worried
1:06:33 about
1:06:33 the
1:06:33 kind
1:06:33 of
1:06:34 rising
1:06:34 influence
1:06:34 of
1:06:35 Beijing
1:06:35 and
1:06:35 it
1:06:35 seems
1:06:35 just
1:06:36 perfect
1:06:37 to
1:06:37 be
1:06:38 to
1:06:38 be
1:06:39 holding
1:06:39 it
1:06:43 places
1:06:43 like
1:06:44 that
1:06:44 they
1:06:45 stop
1:06:45 being
1:06:45 able
1:06:45 to
1:06:45 exist
1:06:45 on
1:06:46 the
1:06:46 mainland
1:06:46 then
1:06:46 they
1:06:46 could
1:06:47 still
1:06:47 exist
1:06:47 in
1:06:47 Hong
1:06:48 Kong
1:06:49 but
1:06:49 now
1:06:49 in
1:06:49 Hong
1:06:50 Kong
1:06:51 one
1:06:51 of
1:06:51 the
1:06:51 coolest
1:06:52 bookstores
1:06:52 has had
1:06:52 to
1:06:53 close
1:06:53 up
1:06:54 it
1:06:54 just
1:06:54 didn’t
1:06:54 feel
1:06:55 like
1:06:55 it
1:06:55 could
1:06:55 continue
1:06:56 operating
1:06:56 and
1:06:56 tightening
1:06:57 control
1:06:57 there
1:06:57 and
1:06:57 it’s
1:06:58 reopened
1:06:58 in
1:06:58 upstate
1:06:58 New
1:06:59 York
1:07:00 so
1:07:00 you
1:07:00 have
1:07:00 this
1:07:01 phenomenon
1:07:02 of
1:07:03 bookstores
1:07:03 there’s
1:07:03 also
1:07:04 a few
1:07:04 bookstores
1:07:05 called
1:07:05 the
1:07:06 Nowhere
1:07:06 bookstores
1:07:07 that
1:07:07 opened
1:07:07 in
1:07:08 Chiang Mai
1:07:09 and
1:07:09 Taipei
1:07:10 and
1:07:11 The Hague
1:07:11 and I
1:07:11 heard
1:07:12 one
1:07:12 is
1:07:13 going
1:07:13 to
1:07:13 open
1:07:13 in
1:07:15 Japan
1:07:15 too
1:07:16 my
1:07:17 sometime
1:07:18 collaborator
1:07:18 Amy Hawkins
1:07:19 who
1:07:20 covers
1:07:20 China for
1:07:21 The Guardian
1:07:22 wrote a
1:07:22 great piece
1:07:23 late last
1:07:23 year
1:07:23 about
1:07:24 this
1:07:25 overseas
1:07:25 bookstore
1:07:26 phenomenon
1:07:26 sort of
1:07:28 carrying on
1:07:28 the
1:07:28 conversations
1:07:29 that
1:07:29 people
1:07:30 thought
1:07:31 they
1:07:31 might
1:07:31 be
1:07:31 able
1:07:31 to
1:07:31 have
1:07:32 in
1:07:32 China
1:07:32 and
1:07:32 then
1:07:33 couldn’t
1:07:34 and
1:07:34 imagine
1:07:35 someday
1:07:35 being able
1:07:36 to hold
1:07:36 in
1:07:36 China
1:07:36 but
1:07:37 maybe
1:07:38 can’t
1:07:38 so
1:07:38 first
1:07:39 of all
1:07:40 boy
1:07:40 do I
1:07:40 love
1:07:41 America
1:07:42 and
1:07:43 second
1:07:43 of all
1:07:43 it makes
1:07:43 me
1:07:44 really sad
1:07:45 because
1:07:45 there’s
1:07:45 a very
1:07:46 large
1:07:46 number
1:07:46 of
1:07:47 incredible
1:07:47 people
1:07:47 in
1:07:47 China
1:07:49 incredible
1:07:49 minds
1:07:50 and
1:07:52 maybe
1:07:52 I’m
1:07:52 romantic
1:07:53 about
1:07:53 this
1:07:53 but
1:07:53 books
1:07:55 is
1:07:55 a
1:07:55 catalyst
1:07:56 for
1:07:57 brilliant
1:07:57 minds
1:07:57 to
1:07:57 flourish
1:07:58 and
1:07:58 without
1:07:59 that
1:08:00 so
1:08:00 I
1:08:00 guess
1:08:00 maybe
1:08:01 this
1:08:01 is
1:08:01 a
1:08:01 good
1:08:01 time
1:08:01 to
1:08:02 mention
1:08:02 something
1:08:02 that
1:08:03 I
1:08:03 do
1:08:04 think
1:08:04 about
1:08:04 and
1:08:05 sometimes
1:08:05 people
1:08:06 will
1:08:06 think
1:08:06 because
1:08:06 of
1:08:07 censorship
1:08:07 and
1:08:07 that
1:08:08 there’s
1:08:08 an idea
1:08:09 of
1:08:10 brainwashing
1:08:10 within
1:08:10 China
1:08:11 population
1:08:12 control
1:08:12 and
1:08:13 I
1:08:14 periodically
1:08:14 will
1:08:14 get
1:08:15 students
1:08:16 from
1:08:16 the
1:08:17 mainland
1:08:18 and
1:08:18 I
1:08:19 have
1:08:19 a lot
1:08:19 of
1:08:19 students
1:08:19 from
1:08:20 the
1:08:20 mainland
1:08:20 in
1:08:20 my
1:08:20 classes
1:08:21 I
1:08:21 teach
1:08:21 Chinese
1:08:21 history
1:08:22 and
1:08:22 I
1:08:22 feel
1:08:22 like
1:08:22 okay
1:08:23 now
1:08:23 now
1:08:23 I
1:08:23 now
1:08:24 I’m
1:08:24 contradicting
1:08:25 the
1:08:25 version
1:08:25 of
1:08:26 the
1:08:26 past
1:08:26 that
1:08:26 they
1:08:27 that’s
1:08:27 been
1:08:27 drumbeat
1:08:28 into
1:08:28 them
1:08:29 but
1:08:29 I’ll
1:08:29 still
1:08:30 get
1:08:30 students
1:08:31 who
1:08:31 are
1:08:32 incredible
1:08:32 free
1:08:32 thinkers
1:08:33 who
1:08:33 have
1:08:33 come
1:08:33 through
1:08:34 that
1:08:34 system
1:08:34 and
1:08:34 it
1:08:35 just
1:08:36 doesn’t
1:08:36 hold
1:08:37 or
1:08:37 there
1:08:37 are
1:08:37 limits
1:08:37 to
1:08:38 it
1:08:39 and
1:08:40 this
1:08:40 is
1:08:41 kind
1:08:41 of
1:08:41 I
1:08:42 mean
1:08:43 some
1:08:43 of
1:08:43 them
1:08:43 are
1:08:43 people
1:08:43 who
1:08:44 just
1:08:44 got
1:08:44 curious
1:08:45 by
1:08:45 something
1:08:45 and
1:08:46 it
1:08:46 is
1:08:46 a
1:08:47 porous
1:08:47 system
1:08:48 even
1:08:49 it’s
1:08:50 more
1:08:50 porous
1:08:50 than
1:08:51 North
1:08:51 Korea
1:08:52 things
1:08:52 like
1:08:52 that
1:08:53 so
1:08:53 there
1:08:53 are
1:08:54 even
1:08:54 if
1:08:54 there’s
1:08:54 that
1:08:55 fear
1:08:56 friction
1:08:56 and
1:08:56 flooding
1:08:57 which
1:08:59 Roberts
1:08:59 talks
1:08:59 about
1:09:00 that
1:09:00 ends
1:09:00 up
1:09:01 keeping
1:09:02 lots
1:09:02 of
1:09:02 people
1:09:03 on
1:09:03 the
1:09:03 same
1:09:03 page
1:09:03 as
1:09:04 the
1:09:04 government
1:09:05 there’s
1:09:05 still
1:09:05 people
1:09:06 who
1:09:06 take
1:09:07 the
1:09:07 time
1:09:07 to
1:09:07 go
1:09:07 over
1:09:07 the
1:09:08 firewall
1:09:08 or
1:09:08 get
1:09:09 intrigued
1:09:09 or
1:09:09 they
1:09:10 see
1:09:11 an
1:09:12 image
1:09:14 sent
1:09:14 by
1:09:14 a
1:09:14 friend
1:09:14 of
1:09:15 theirs
1:09:15 on
1:09:16 social
1:09:16 media
1:09:17 will
1:09:17 share
1:09:18 them
1:09:19 something
1:09:20 on
1:09:23 WeChat
1:09:24 that
1:09:25 it
1:09:26 doesn’t
1:09:26 get
1:09:27 picked
1:09:27 up
1:09:27 by
1:09:27 the
1:09:28 censors
1:09:28 but
1:09:29 they
1:09:29 look
1:09:29 at
1:09:30 it
1:09:30 carefully
1:09:30 and
1:09:30 they
1:09:31 say
1:09:31 oh
1:09:31 well
1:09:31 wait
1:09:31 a
1:09:32 minute
1:09:32 that
1:09:33 contradicts
1:09:33 what
1:09:34 the
1:09:34 government
1:09:35 official
1:09:35 line
1:09:36 is
1:09:36 so
1:09:36 there
1:09:37 is
1:09:38 there’s
1:09:38 still
1:09:38 ways
1:09:38 in
1:09:39 which
1:09:39 that
1:09:40 creativity
1:09:41 and
1:09:41 freedom
1:09:41 of
1:09:41 thinking
1:09:42 persists
1:09:43 I
1:09:43 mean
1:09:44 that’s
1:09:44 that’s
1:09:45 really
1:09:45 beautiful
1:09:45 to
1:09:45 hear
1:09:46 I
1:09:46 mean
1:09:47 fundamentally
1:09:47 the
1:09:48 human
1:09:48 spirit
1:09:50 is
1:09:50 curious
1:09:51 and
1:09:51 wants
1:09:51 to
1:09:52 understand
1:09:52 and
1:09:52 in
1:09:53 some
1:09:53 especially
1:09:53 the
1:09:54 young
1:09:54 people
1:09:54 as
1:09:54 we
1:09:55 mentioned
1:09:56 are
1:09:57 suspicious
1:09:57 of
1:09:57 authority
1:09:58 in
1:09:58 the
1:09:58 best
1:09:58 kind
1:09:58 of
1:09:59 way
1:09:59 and
1:09:59 so
1:09:59 they’re
1:09:59 always
1:10:00 asking
1:10:00 kinds
1:10:00 of
1:10:00 questions
1:10:01 but
1:10:01 we
1:10:01 always
1:10:01 have
1:10:01 the
1:10:02 child
1:10:02 the
1:10:02 young
1:10:02 person
1:10:03 inside
1:10:03 us
1:10:03 always
1:10:04 asking
1:10:04 like
1:10:06 that
1:10:07 maybe
1:10:08 I’m
1:10:08 being
1:10:08 lied
1:10:08 to
1:10:08 in
1:10:09 all
1:10:09 these
1:10:09 kinds
1:10:09 of
1:10:09 ways
1:10:10 but
1:10:10 still
1:10:11 it’s
1:10:11 sad
1:10:11 because
1:10:12 there
1:10:12 is
1:10:14 if
1:10:14 you’re
1:10:14 not
1:10:14 deliberately
1:10:15 doing
1:10:15 that
1:10:15 or
1:10:15 if
1:10:15 there’s
1:10:16 not
1:10:16 a
1:10:16 spark
1:10:17 of
1:10:18 possibility
1:10:18 that
1:10:18 comes
1:10:19 before
1:10:19 you
1:10:19 as
1:10:19 just
1:10:19 a
1:10:20 regular
1:10:20 citizen
1:10:20 of
1:10:21 China
1:10:21 you
1:10:21 might
1:10:21 never
1:10:22 really
1:10:23 ask
1:10:23 maybe
1:10:23 a whole
1:10:24 different
1:10:25 perspective
1:10:25 on
1:10:26 world
1:10:27 history
1:10:28 to
1:10:28 to
1:10:28 be
1:10:28 fair
1:10:29 I
1:10:29 think
1:10:29 United
1:10:30 States
1:10:30 is
1:10:31 is
1:10:31 often
1:10:32 guilty
1:10:32 of
1:10:32 this
1:10:33 very
1:10:33 United
1:10:34 States
1:10:34 centric
1:10:35 view
1:10:35 of
1:10:35 history
1:10:36 I mean
1:10:36 similar
1:10:36 with
1:10:37 Europe
1:10:37 Europe
1:10:37 has a
1:10:38 very
1:10:38 Europe
1:10:39 sense
1:10:39 of
1:10:40 history
1:10:40 I
1:10:41 often
1:10:41 enjoy
1:10:42 talking
1:10:43 to
1:10:43 people
1:10:43 from
1:10:43 different
1:10:44 backgrounds
1:10:44 from
1:10:44 different
1:10:45 parts
1:10:45 of
1:10:45 the
1:10:45 world
1:10:45 talking
1:10:46 to
1:10:46 them
1:10:46 about
1:10:46 World
1:10:46 War
1:10:47 II
1:10:48 because
1:10:48 it’s
1:10:48 like
1:10:49 it’s
1:10:50 clear
1:10:50 that
1:10:50 the
1:10:51 emphasis
1:10:52 you’ve
1:10:52 read
1:10:53 certain
1:10:53 chapters
1:10:53 of
1:10:54 the
1:10:54 story
1:10:55 a lot
1:10:55 of
1:10:57 chapters
1:10:57 of
1:10:57 the
1:10:58 story
1:10:59 the
1:10:59 Western
1:10:59 Front
1:11:00 in
1:11:00 Europe
1:11:00 and
1:11:00 the
1:11:00 Eastern
1:11:01 Front
1:11:01 in
1:11:01 Europe
1:11:01 and
1:11:02 Japan
1:11:03 and
1:11:03 China’s
1:11:04 role
1:11:04 in
1:11:04 World
1:11:05 War
1:11:05 II
1:11:05 and
1:11:05 the
1:11:06 history
1:11:06 around
1:11:07 that
1:11:07 before
1:11:07 and
1:11:07 after
1:11:08 World
1:11:08 War
1:11:08 II
1:11:09 of
1:11:09 China
1:11:10 is
1:11:10 not
1:11:10 often
1:11:10 talked
1:11:10 about
1:11:11 in
1:11:11 the
1:11:11 United
1:11:11 States
1:11:12 and
1:11:12 I’m
1:11:13 sure
1:11:13 if I
1:11:13 could
1:11:14 venture
1:11:14 a
1:11:14 guess
1:11:14 that
1:11:15 the
1:11:15 opposite
1:11:15 is
1:11:16 true
1:11:16 in
1:11:16 China
1:11:17 I
1:11:17 certainly
1:11:17 know
1:11:17 the
1:11:18 opposite
1:11:18 was
1:11:18 true
1:11:18 in
1:11:18 the
1:11:18 Soviet
1:11:19 Union
1:11:19 and
1:11:20 even
1:11:20 in
1:11:20 Europe
1:11:20 that
1:11:21 directly
1:11:22 experienced
1:11:23 France
1:11:24 Great
1:11:24 Britain
1:11:25 Germany
1:11:26 Italy
1:11:26 they
1:11:27 all
1:11:27 have
1:11:27 very
1:11:28 different
1:11:29 ways
1:11:29 of
1:11:30 speaking
1:11:30 and
1:11:30 thinking
1:11:31 and
1:11:31 reading
1:11:31 about
1:11:32 World
1:11:32 War
1:11:32 II
1:11:33 and
1:11:33 the
1:11:33 same
1:11:33 goes
1:11:35 across
1:11:35 all
1:11:35 of
1:11:35 history
1:11:35 and
1:11:36 all
1:11:36 of
1:11:36 culture
1:11:36 so
1:11:38 yes
1:11:38 it’s
1:11:38 always
1:11:39 good
1:11:39 to
1:11:39 question
1:11:40 the
1:11:40 mainstream
1:11:41 narrative
1:11:41 in
1:11:41 your
1:11:41 country
1:11:42 and
1:11:42 looking
1:11:43 outside
1:11:43 it’s
1:11:43 just
1:11:44 harder
1:11:44 to
1:11:44 do
1:11:44 in
1:11:44 China
1:11:45 based
1:11:45 on
1:11:46 technological
1:11:47 based
1:11:47 on
1:11:47 all
1:11:47 the
1:11:48 reasons
1:11:48 you
1:11:48 mentioned
1:11:49 and
1:11:49 if
1:11:49 I
1:11:49 can
1:11:49 I
1:11:49 just
1:11:50 want
1:11:50 to
1:11:50 give
1:11:50 a
1:11:50 shout
1:11:50 out
1:11:51 thank
1:11:51 you
1:11:51 I’ll
1:11:51 look
1:11:51 at
1:11:52 her
1:11:52 work
1:11:52 Margaret
1:11:53 Roberts
1:11:54 the
1:11:54 fear
1:11:55 the
1:11:55 friction
1:11:55 and the
1:11:56 flooding
1:12:03 involving
1:12:03 overt
1:12:04 threats
1:12:04 and
1:12:05 punishments
1:12:05 for
1:12:06 accessing
1:12:06 and sharing
1:12:07 sensitive
1:12:08 information
1:12:09 however
1:12:10 Roberts
1:12:11 finds
1:12:11 that
1:12:11 fear
1:12:11 based
1:12:12 censorship
1:12:12 is
1:12:12 used
1:12:13 selectively
1:12:14 mainly
1:12:14 targeting
1:12:14 high
1:12:15 profile
1:12:15 individuals
1:12:16 such as
1:12:16 journalists
1:12:16 or
1:12:17 activists
1:12:17 for
1:12:17 the
1:12:18 average
1:12:18 citizen
1:12:19 the
1:12:19 risk
1:12:19 of
1:12:19 punishment
1:12:20 is
1:12:20 relatively
1:12:21 low
1:12:21 and
1:12:21 fear
1:12:22 alone
1:12:22 is
1:12:22 not
1:12:22 the
1:12:22 main
1:12:23 deterrent
1:12:24 she
1:12:24 goes
1:12:24 on
1:12:24 to
1:12:24 describe
1:12:25 the
1:12:26 friction
1:12:26 and
1:12:26 the
1:12:27 flooding
1:12:28 the
1:12:28 friction
1:12:28 is
1:12:29 attacks
1:12:29 on
1:12:30 information
1:12:31 access
1:12:32 and
1:12:32 flooding
1:12:34 is
1:12:34 less
1:12:34 visible
1:12:35 than
1:12:35 fear
1:12:35 or
1:12:35 friction
1:12:36 but
1:12:36 is
1:12:36 a
1:12:36 powerful
1:12:37 tool
1:12:37 for
1:12:37 shaping
1:12:37 the
1:12:38 information
1:12:38 environment
1:12:40 flooding
1:12:40 one
1:12:40 scares
1:12:41 me
1:12:42 more
1:12:42 and
1:12:42 more
1:12:42 flooding
1:12:43 one
1:12:43 is
1:12:43 the
1:12:43 brave
1:12:43 new
1:12:44 world
1:12:44 yeah
1:12:45 it is
1:12:45 and
1:12:45 I
1:12:45 think
1:12:46 it’s
1:12:46 a whole
1:12:47 kind
1:12:47 of
1:12:49 the
1:12:49 world
1:12:49 of
1:12:50 short
1:12:50 attention
1:12:50 spans
1:12:51 and
1:12:51 social
1:12:51 media
1:12:52 and
1:12:52 how
1:12:52 this
1:12:52 all
1:12:53 works
1:12:53 and
1:12:54 Chinese
1:12:54 Communist
1:12:55 Party
1:12:55 leaders
1:12:56 I
1:12:56 brought
1:12:56 up
1:12:56 Singapore
1:12:57 and
1:12:58 Deng Xiaoping
1:12:58 and some
1:12:59 other leaders
1:12:59 were like
1:13:00 looking at
1:13:00 that
1:13:00 and
1:13:00 they’re
1:13:01 looking
1:13:01 at
1:13:01 you know
1:13:01 there are
1:13:02 all kinds
1:13:02 of
1:13:02 things
1:13:03 that
1:13:04 it
1:13:04 both
1:13:06 going to
1:13:07 Singapore
1:13:09 can
1:13:09 sometimes
1:13:10 make you
1:13:10 feel like
1:13:11 you’re
1:13:12 in this
1:13:12 futuristic
1:13:13 setting
1:13:13 in terms
1:13:14 of a lot
1:13:14 of things
1:13:14 that
1:13:15 eventually
1:13:16 came
1:13:17 to other
1:13:17 parts of
1:13:18 the world
1:13:18 would be
1:13:19 tried out
1:13:19 there
1:13:19 and
1:13:19 and
1:13:20 and
1:13:20 I
1:13:20 think
1:13:21 the
1:13:21 seductiveness
1:13:21 is
1:13:21 that
1:13:22 some
1:13:22 of
1:13:22 these
1:13:22 things
1:13:22 are
1:13:23 are
1:13:24 really
1:13:25 they
1:13:25 both
1:13:25 add to
1:13:26 convenience
1:13:27 at the
1:13:27 same
1:13:27 time
1:13:28 they
1:13:28 strip
1:13:28 away
1:13:29 they’re
1:13:30 collecting
1:13:31 information
1:13:32 about
1:13:32 you
1:13:33 which
1:13:33 can
1:13:33 be
1:13:34 also
1:13:35 something
1:13:35 that
1:13:36 can
1:13:36 make
1:13:36 your
1:13:37 life
1:13:37 easier
1:13:38 at the
1:13:38 same
1:13:39 times
1:13:39 it’s
1:13:39 stripping
1:13:39 you
1:13:40 away
1:13:40 of
1:13:40 I
1:13:41 mean
1:13:41 we
1:13:41 talk
1:13:41 about
1:13:41 the
1:13:42 siloing
1:13:42 of
1:13:43 information
1:13:43 and
1:13:44 targeting
1:13:44 of
1:13:45 ads
1:13:45 and
1:13:45 targeting
1:13:46 of
1:13:46 news
1:13:47 and
1:13:48 so
1:13:48 two
1:13:48 things
1:13:49 come
1:13:49 to
1:13:49 mind
1:13:49 to
1:13:50 mention
1:13:50 one
1:13:50 is
1:13:52 Christina
1:13:53 Larson
1:13:53 a very
1:13:54 bright
1:13:54 journalist
1:13:55 a friend
1:13:55 of mine
1:13:56 who’s
1:13:56 now
1:13:57 working
1:13:57 on
1:13:57 other
1:13:57 things
1:13:57 but
1:13:57 was
1:13:58 working
1:13:58 in
1:13:58 China
1:13:58 and
1:13:58 she
1:13:59 wrote
1:13:59 about
1:13:59 this
1:13:59 in
1:14:00 MIT
1:14:01 technology
1:14:01 review
1:14:02 she said
1:14:02 you need
1:14:03 to think
1:14:03 about
1:14:03 China
1:14:03 as having
1:14:04 the
1:14:04 best
1:14:04 as well
1:14:05 as
1:14:05 the
1:14:05 worst
1:14:05 internet
1:14:06 experience
1:14:06 in the
1:14:06 world
1:14:08 and
1:14:08 you know
1:14:08 you think
1:14:08 about
1:14:09 it
1:14:09 with
1:14:10 you
1:14:10 think
1:14:10 of
1:14:10 the
1:14:11 worst
1:14:11 is
1:14:11 easy
1:14:12 you know
1:14:12 the
1:14:12 great
1:14:13 firewall
1:14:13 you
1:14:13 try to
1:14:14 search
1:14:14 for
1:14:14 what
1:14:15 happened
1:14:15 you
1:14:16 search
1:14:16 for
1:14:16 the
1:14:16 tank
1:14:17 man
1:14:17 you
1:14:17 won’t
1:14:17 get
1:14:17 it
1:14:18 you
1:14:18 search
1:14:18 for
1:14:19 information
1:14:19 about
1:14:20 Dalai
1:14:20 Lama
1:14:20 and you
1:14:21 get
1:14:21 all these
1:14:21 lies
1:14:22 about
1:14:22 him
1:14:22 search
1:14:23 for
1:14:23 things
1:14:23 about
1:14:24 Xinjiang
1:14:24 and it
1:14:25 makes
1:14:25 seem like
1:14:26 it’s a place
1:14:26 where people
1:14:26 are happy
1:14:27 rather than
1:14:27 massive
1:14:29 extra legal
1:14:30 detention
1:14:31 camps
1:14:31 and where
1:14:31 your life
1:14:31 can be
1:14:32 ruined
1:14:32 by
1:14:34 things
1:14:34 you have
1:14:35 no control
1:14:35 over
1:14:35 but
1:14:36 she
1:14:36 said
1:14:36 on
1:14:37 other
1:14:37 ways
1:14:37 when
1:14:37 it
1:14:37 comes
1:14:38 to
1:14:39 consumer
1:14:40 playing
1:14:40 to
1:14:40 your
1:14:42 pleasures
1:14:42 and
1:14:43 things
1:14:43 it
1:14:43 was
1:14:44 really
1:14:44 advanced
1:14:44 a lot
1:14:44 of
1:14:45 things
1:14:45 that
1:14:45 then
1:14:46 come
1:14:46 out
1:14:46 there
1:14:48 and in
1:14:48 massive
1:14:49 numbers
1:14:49 and I
1:14:49 remember
1:14:51 around the
1:14:51 time that
1:14:51 I had
1:14:52 read
1:14:52 that
1:14:52 I
1:14:52 was
1:14:52 in
1:14:53 Shanghai
1:14:53 and
1:14:54 somebody
1:14:54 was
1:14:54 explaining
1:14:55 it
1:14:55 to
1:14:55 me
1:14:55 they
1:14:55 were
1:14:55 talking
1:14:56 about
1:14:56 going
1:14:56 out
1:14:56 to
1:14:57 eat
1:14:57 like
1:14:57 I
1:14:57 said
1:14:58 oh
1:14:58 we’ve
1:14:58 got
1:14:59 such
1:14:59 and
1:14:59 such
1:14:59 and
1:14:59 I
1:14:59 said
1:14:59 oh
1:15:08 we’ve
1:15:08 got
1:15:08 one
1:15:08 that
1:15:09 can
1:15:09 tell
1:15:09 you
1:15:10 which
1:15:10 part
1:15:10 of
1:15:10 the
1:15:11 restaurant
1:15:11 you
1:15:11 want
1:15:11 to
1:15:11 sit
1:15:12 in
1:15:12 because
1:15:12 there’s
1:15:12 a
1:15:13 waiter
1:15:13 that’s
1:15:13 in
1:15:13 a
1:15:13 really
1:15:14 bad
1:15:14 mood
1:15:14 and
1:15:14 people
1:15:15 have
1:15:15 posted
1:15:15 enough
1:15:16 information
1:15:17 to
1:15:17 do
1:15:17 this
1:15:18 or
1:15:18 what
1:15:18 the
1:15:19 best
1:15:19 dish
1:15:19 there
1:15:20 is
1:15:20 in
1:15:21 the
1:15:21 last
1:15:21 week
1:15:22 forget
1:15:22 about
1:15:22 these
1:15:23 slow
1:15:24 things
1:15:24 that
1:15:27 were
1:15:27 like
1:15:27 okay
1:15:28 smart
1:15:29 city
1:15:29 and
1:15:30 controlled
1:15:30 you
1:15:30 can
1:15:31 learn
1:15:31 things
1:15:32 about
1:15:32 ease
1:15:32 of
1:15:33 movement
1:15:33 and
1:15:33 Singapore
1:15:34 had
1:15:34 some
1:15:34 of
1:15:34 these
1:15:35 things
1:15:35 tested
1:15:36 too
1:15:36 you
1:15:36 had
1:15:36 way
1:15:37 before
1:15:38 you
1:15:38 move
1:15:38 you
1:15:39 go
1:15:39 into
1:15:39 an
1:15:39 underground
1:15:41 parking
1:15:42 lot
1:15:42 now
1:15:42 in
1:15:42 the
1:15:43 US
1:15:43 and
1:15:43 you
1:15:43 find
1:15:44 out
1:15:44 whether
1:15:44 there
1:15:44 are
1:15:44 any
1:15:44 empty
1:15:45 spaces
1:15:45 on
1:15:47 a
1:15:48 floor
1:15:48 that
1:15:48 was
1:15:49 something
1:15:49 that
1:15:49 was
1:15:49 years
1:15:50 before
1:15:51 in
1:15:51 Singapore
1:15:52 and
1:15:53 you
1:15:53 don’t
1:15:54 use
1:15:54 you
1:15:54 use
1:15:55 money
1:15:55 less
1:15:55 often
1:15:56 there
1:15:56 because
1:15:56 you
1:15:56 had
1:15:56 a
1:15:56 kind
1:15:57 of
1:15:57 transponder
1:15:57 that
1:15:58 would
1:15:58 automatically
1:15:59 pay
1:15:59 for
1:15:59 your
1:16:00 parking
1:16:00 and
1:16:00 things
1:16:01 and
1:16:01 it
1:16:01 it
1:16:02 was
1:16:02 something
1:16:02 that
1:16:02 can
1:16:02 be
1:16:03 very
1:16:03 seductive
1:16:04 so
1:16:04 the
1:16:04 other
1:16:04 line
1:16:05 besides
1:16:05 best
1:16:05 and
1:16:05 worst
1:16:06 internet
1:16:06 I
1:16:06 always
1:16:07 like
1:16:07 is
1:16:08 William
1:16:08 Gibson
1:16:08 who
1:16:09 wrote
1:16:09 one
1:16:09 one
1:16:09 of
1:16:10 the
1:16:10 other
1:16:10 important
1:16:11 dystopian
1:16:12 novels
1:16:12 of the
1:16:12 present
1:16:13 neuromancer
1:16:14 he wrote
1:16:15 a rare
1:16:15 non
1:16:15 for him
1:16:16 non
1:16:16 fiction
1:16:17 piece
1:16:17 about
1:16:17 Singapore
1:16:18 where
1:16:18 he
1:16:18 referred
1:16:18 to
1:16:18 it
1:16:18 as
1:16:19 Disneyland
1:16:19 with
1:16:19 the
1:16:19 death
1:16:20 penalty
1:16:22 and
1:16:22 you
1:16:22 know
1:16:22 there
1:16:23 are
1:16:23 times
1:16:24 when
1:16:24 I
1:16:25 shouldn’t
1:16:25 laugh
1:16:25 there
1:16:26 but
1:16:27 it is
1:16:27 it’s
1:16:27 a
1:16:27 powerful
1:16:28 yeah
1:16:29 he’s
1:16:29 not
1:16:30 welcomed
1:16:30 in
1:16:30 Singapore
1:16:31 let’s
1:16:31 just
1:16:31 say
1:16:32 but
1:16:32 he
1:16:33 talked
1:16:33 about
1:16:33 how
1:16:34 when
1:16:34 he
1:16:34 wanted
1:16:34 to
1:16:34 try
1:16:35 to
1:16:36 he
1:16:36 went
1:16:41 got
1:16:41 a
1:16:42 sense
1:16:42 of
1:16:42 what
1:16:42 the
1:16:43 future
1:16:43 might
1:16:44 hold
1:16:44 so
1:16:45 the
1:16:45 dark
1:16:45 side
1:16:46 of
1:16:46 this
1:16:47 the
1:16:47 surveillance
1:16:48 state
1:16:48 at
1:16:48 its
1:16:49 worst
1:16:49 which
1:16:49 we
1:16:50 see
1:16:50 in
1:16:51 Xinjiang
1:16:51 and
1:16:51 places
1:16:52 and
1:16:52 there
1:16:53 again
1:16:54 it may
1:16:54 seem
1:16:54 like
1:16:54 I’m
1:16:54 just
1:16:55 obsessed
1:16:55 with
1:16:56 science
1:16:57 fiction
1:16:57 and
1:16:57 there
1:16:58 it
1:16:58 really
1:16:58 is
1:16:59 minority
1:16:59 report
1:16:59 it’s
1:17:00 this
1:17:00 kind
1:17:00 of
1:17:00 like
1:17:02 you
1:17:02 do
1:17:02 certain
1:17:02 kinds
1:17:02 of
1:17:03 behaviors
1:17:03 and
1:17:03 we’re
1:17:03 seeing
1:17:04 this
1:17:04 other
1:17:04 places
1:17:05 too
1:17:06 we’re
1:17:06 seeing
1:17:06 versions
1:17:07 of it
1:17:07 in
1:17:07 the
1:17:14 so
1:17:15 in
1:17:15 Xinjiang
1:17:16 they
1:17:16 were
1:17:17 when
1:17:17 they
1:17:17 were
1:17:17 starting
1:17:18 to
1:17:18 round
1:17:18 people
1:17:19 up
1:17:19 there’s
1:17:19 this
1:17:20 great
1:17:20 book
1:17:21 by
1:17:21 a
1:17:22 Uyghur
1:17:22 poet
1:17:23 he
1:17:23 talks
1:17:23 about
1:17:24 how
1:17:25 people
1:17:25 were
1:17:25 just
1:17:25 starting
1:17:25 to
1:17:26 disappear
1:17:26 off
1:17:26 the
1:17:26 streets
1:17:27 and
1:17:27 they
1:17:27 were
1:17:27 being
1:17:28 accused
1:17:28 of
1:17:28 being
1:17:30 radicalized
1:17:30 and
1:17:30 being
1:17:31 potential
1:17:32 terrorists
1:17:32 and
1:17:33 the
1:17:34 cues
1:17:34 could
1:17:34 be
1:17:35 something
1:17:35 like
1:17:37 somebody
1:17:37 giving
1:17:37 up
1:17:38 smoking
1:17:39 or
1:17:39 not
1:17:39 drinking
1:17:40 alcohol
1:17:40 because
1:17:41 that
1:17:41 was
1:17:41 seen
1:17:42 as
1:17:42 something
1:17:42 that
1:17:43 sometimes
1:17:43 went
1:17:43 along
1:17:44 with
1:17:44 becoming
1:17:45 more
1:17:47 devoted
1:17:48 to
1:17:48 Islam
1:17:48 and
1:17:49 more
1:17:49 devoted
1:17:49 to
1:17:49 something
1:17:50 a
1:17:50 particular
1:17:50 version
1:17:51 of
1:17:51 it
1:17:51 so
1:17:51 he
1:17:52 talked
1:17:52 about
1:17:52 how
1:17:52 a
1:17:52 group
1:17:53 of
1:17:53 the
1:17:53 poets
1:17:53 when
1:17:53 they
1:17:53 would
1:17:54 get
1:17:55 together
1:17:55 they
1:17:56 would
1:17:57 whether
1:17:57 or
1:17:57 not
1:17:57 any
1:17:57 of
1:17:57 them
1:17:58 drank
1:17:58 they
1:17:58 would
1:17:58 make
1:17:58 sure
1:17:58 there
1:17:59 was
1:17:59 a
1:17:59 bottle
1:17:59 of
1:17:59 alcohol
1:18:00 on
1:18:00 their
1:18:00 table
1:18:01 because
1:18:01 it
1:18:01 was
1:18:01 simply
1:18:01 a
1:18:02 way
1:18:03 of
1:18:03 trying
1:18:03 to
1:18:04 stay
1:18:04 ahead
1:18:04 of
1:18:04 this
1:18:05 system
1:18:05 of
1:18:06 looking
1:18:06 for
1:18:07 these
1:18:07 kind
1:18:07 of
1:18:08 clues
1:18:08 so
1:18:08 you
1:18:08 really
1:18:08 have
1:18:09 this
1:18:09 dark
1:18:09 side
1:18:10 of
1:18:11 Xinjiang
1:18:11 is
1:18:12 this
1:18:12 example
1:18:12 and
1:18:13 Tibet
1:18:14 also
1:18:14 with
1:18:15 incredible
1:18:15 tight
1:18:16 control
1:18:17 and
1:18:17 there’s
1:18:18 more
1:18:18 of
1:18:18 that
1:18:19 kind
1:18:19 of
1:18:20 push
1:18:20 on
1:18:21 personal
1:18:21 life
1:18:22 in
1:18:22 other
1:18:22 parts
1:18:22 of
1:18:23 China
1:18:23 as
1:18:23 well
1:18:26 but
1:18:26 I
1:18:26 think
1:18:26 the
1:18:27 question
1:18:27 of
1:18:28 whether
1:18:28 we
1:18:28 give
1:18:29 up
1:18:29 too
1:18:29 much
1:18:29 and
1:18:30 who
1:18:30 can
1:18:30 abuse
1:18:31 what
1:18:31 we
1:18:32 do
1:18:32 give
1:18:32 up
1:18:32 is
1:18:32 something
1:18:33 that
1:18:33 is
1:18:33 being
1:18:33 asked
1:18:33 in
1:18:33 the
1:18:34 United
1:18:34 States
1:18:34 now
1:18:35 about
1:18:35 big
1:18:35 tech
1:18:36 companies
1:18:36 as
1:18:36 well
1:18:36 as
1:18:37 it’s
1:18:37 asked
1:18:37 about
1:18:38 governments
1:18:38 but
1:18:38 it’s
1:18:38 also
1:18:38 asked
1:18:39 about
1:18:40 big
1:18:41 tech
1:18:41 and
1:18:41 what
1:18:41 you
1:18:41 have
1:18:42 as
1:18:42 a
1:18:42 trade-off
1:18:42 but
1:18:42 I
1:18:42 hadn’t
1:18:43 thought
1:18:43 about
1:18:43 it
1:18:43 until
1:18:44 this
1:18:44 conversation
1:18:45 which
1:18:45 I
1:18:46 can
1:18:46 tell
1:18:46 is
1:18:46 why
1:18:47 people
1:18:47 find
1:18:47 it
1:18:48 stimulating
1:18:49 to
1:18:49 have
1:18:50 these
1:18:51 extended
1:18:51 conversations
1:18:52 because
1:18:53 you
1:18:54 have
1:18:54 set
1:18:55 lines
1:18:55 but
1:18:57 the
1:18:58 conversation
1:18:58 goes
1:18:58 and
1:18:58 you
1:18:58 think
1:18:58 in
1:18:59 a
1:18:59 different
1:18:59 way
1:18:59 so
1:18:59 what
1:18:59 I
1:18:59 used
1:19:00 to
1:19:00 always
1:19:00 say
1:19:01 about
1:19:02 China
1:19:02 after
1:19:03 1989
1:19:05 was
1:19:05 the
1:19:05 Chinese
1:19:06 Communist Party
1:19:06 wanted to
1:19:07 stay in
1:19:07 power
1:19:08 and
1:19:09 they
1:19:09 realized
1:19:09 that
1:19:09 the
1:19:09 Soviet
1:19:10 Union
1:19:10 Soviet
1:19:11 Bloc
1:19:11 was
1:19:12 falling
1:19:12 apart
1:19:14 they
1:19:14 knew
1:19:14 that
1:19:14 one
1:19:15 reason
1:19:15 why
1:19:15 people
1:19:16 and
1:19:16 this
1:19:16 is
1:19:17 the
1:19:17 simple
1:19:18 way
1:19:18 of
1:19:19 one
1:19:19 way
1:19:19 I
1:19:20 think
1:19:20 you
1:19:20 have
1:19:20 to
1:19:20 understand
1:19:21 why
1:19:22 communism
1:19:22 fell
1:19:22 in
1:19:22 Eastern
1:19:23 Europe
1:19:23 was
1:19:24 partly
1:19:24 about
1:19:25 ideals
1:19:26 and
1:19:26 thirst
1:19:27 for
1:19:27 freedom
1:19:27 and
1:19:27 that
1:19:28 but
1:19:28 also
1:19:28 people
1:19:28 knew
1:19:29 that
1:19:29 people
1:19:30 East
1:19:30 Germans
1:19:30 knew
1:19:30 that
1:19:31 West
1:19:31 Germans
1:19:32 were
1:19:32 having
1:19:32 more
1:19:33 fun
1:19:33 and
1:19:33 getting
1:19:34 better
1:19:34 stuff
1:19:35 and
1:19:36 when
1:19:36 some
1:19:38 over
1:19:38 the
1:19:38 wall
1:19:39 one
1:19:39 of
1:19:39 the
1:19:39 first
1:19:39 places
1:19:39 they
1:19:40 went
1:19:40 to
1:19:40 was
1:19:40 this
1:19:40 department
1:19:41 store
1:19:41 to
1:19:41 see
1:19:41 if
1:19:42 the
1:19:43 images
1:19:43 of
1:19:43 better
1:19:44 food
1:19:44 and
1:19:44 more
1:19:45 choices
1:19:45 were
1:19:46 available
1:19:46 there
1:19:46 and
1:19:47 it
1:19:47 was
1:19:47 true
1:19:48 and
1:19:48 I
1:19:48 think
1:19:48 this
1:19:48 is
1:19:48 a
1:19:49 human
1:19:49 as
1:19:50 the
1:19:50 desire
1:19:50 for
1:19:50 more
1:19:51 freedom
1:19:52 so
1:19:52 one
1:19:52 of
1:19:52 the
1:19:52 things
1:19:52 that
1:19:53 the
1:19:53 Chinese
1:19:53 Communist Party
1:19:53 they
1:19:54 never
1:19:54 articulated
1:19:55 this
1:19:55 way
1:19:55 but
1:19:55 how
1:19:56 can
1:19:56 we
1:19:57 try
1:19:57 to
1:19:57 get
1:19:58 to
1:19:58 a
1:19:58 stage
1:19:58 where
1:19:58 we
1:19:59 don’t
1:19:59 have
1:19:59 things
1:19:59 like
1:20:00 Tiananmen
1:20:00 again
1:20:00 well
1:20:00 what
1:20:00 if
1:20:01 we
1:20:01 tried
1:20:01 to
1:20:01 make
1:20:01 a
1:20:02 deal
1:20:02 with
1:20:02 people
1:20:02 we’ll
1:20:02 give
1:20:02 them
1:20:03 more
1:20:03 choices
1:20:05 in
1:20:05 their
1:20:05 daily
1:20:06 life
1:20:07 we’ll
1:20:07 give
1:20:07 them
1:20:07 better
1:20:08 stuff
1:20:08 we’ll
1:20:08 give
1:20:08 them
1:20:08 more
1:20:09 choices
1:20:09 at
1:20:09 the
1:20:10 store
1:20:10 we’ll
1:20:10 give
1:20:10 them
1:20:10 more
1:20:11 choices
1:20:11 about
1:20:11 what
1:20:11 to
1:20:12 read
1:20:13 too
1:20:13 because
1:20:14 we’ll
1:20:14 give
1:20:14 them
1:20:14 more
1:20:15 choices
1:20:15 in
1:20:15 consumer
1:20:15 goods
1:20:16 and
1:20:17 intellectuals
1:20:17 consumer
1:20:18 goods
1:20:18 they
1:20:18 want
1:20:18 are
1:20:19 to
1:20:19 watch
1:20:19 the
1:20:19 movies
1:20:20 and
1:20:20 read
1:20:20 the
1:20:20 books
1:20:20 that
1:20:21 other
1:20:21 people
1:20:22 like
1:20:22 them
1:20:22 around
1:20:22 the
1:20:22 world
1:20:22 are
1:20:23 reading
1:20:23 so
1:20:23 we’ll
1:20:23 give
1:20:24 them
1:20:24 more
1:20:24 choices
1:20:25 we won’t
1:20:25 open
1:20:25 the
1:20:25 floodgates
1:20:26 completely
1:20:26 but
1:20:26 we’ll
1:20:26 give
1:20:26 them
1:20:27 more
1:20:27 choices
1:20:28 but
1:20:28 not
1:20:28 give
1:20:29 them
1:20:29 more
1:20:29 choices
1:20:29 at
1:20:30 the
1:20:30 ballot
1:20:42 generation
1:20:43 in
1:20:43 terms
1:20:43 of
1:20:44 choices
1:20:44 and
1:20:45 in
1:20:45 terms
1:20:46 of
1:20:47 material
1:20:47 goods
1:20:49 now
1:20:50 one
1:20:50 of the
1:20:50 things
1:20:51 that’s
1:20:51 happening
1:20:51 now
1:20:52 is
1:20:52 the
1:20:52 Chinese
1:20:53 Communist
1:20:53 Party
1:20:54 the
1:20:54 economy
1:20:55 isn’t
1:20:55 booming
1:20:56 the way
1:20:56 it was
1:20:57 before
1:20:57 the
1:20:58 sort
1:20:58 of
1:20:58 sense
1:20:59 of
1:21:00 clearly
1:21:00 we’re
1:21:00 living
1:21:01 better
1:21:01 materially
1:21:02 than
1:21:02 the
1:21:03 generation
1:21:03 before
1:21:04 it’s
1:21:05 not as
1:21:05 easy
1:21:05 an
1:21:05 argument
1:21:06 to
1:21:06 make
1:21:06 when
1:21:06 you
1:21:07 have
1:21:07 slower
1:21:07 growth
1:21:08 rates
1:21:08 and
1:21:08 things
1:21:08 like
1:21:09 that
1:21:10 but
1:21:11 the
1:21:11 Communist
1:21:11 Party
1:21:11 makes
1:21:12 different
1:21:12 kinds
1:21:12 of
1:21:13 arguments
1:21:13 now
1:21:13 about
1:21:14 the
1:21:14 rest
1:21:14 of
1:21:14 the
1:21:14 world
1:21:15 is
1:21:15 in
1:21:15 chaos
1:21:15 and
1:21:16 we’re
1:21:16 more
1:21:17 stable
1:21:17 but
1:21:17 the
1:21:18 thing
1:21:18 that
1:21:18 I
1:21:20 now
1:21:20 am
1:21:20 going
1:21:20 to
1:21:20 think
1:21:21 about
1:21:21 differently
1:21:22 is
1:21:22 the
1:21:23 argument
1:21:23 was
1:21:23 we’ll
1:21:24 give
1:21:24 you
1:21:24 more
1:21:24 choices
1:21:25 and
1:21:25 you’ll
1:21:25 have
1:21:26 more
1:21:26 sort
1:21:26 of
1:21:26 more
1:21:27 of
1:21:27 a
1:21:27 private
1:21:27 life
1:21:28 more
1:21:28 of
1:21:28 this
1:21:29 but
1:21:30 now
1:21:30 in
1:21:30 the
1:21:30 period
1:21:30 we
1:21:31 are
1:21:32 globally
1:21:34 now
1:21:34 there’s
1:21:34 a new
1:21:35 kind
1:21:35 of
1:21:35 suspicion
1:21:36 about
1:21:37 the
1:21:37 degree
1:21:37 of
1:21:38 any
1:21:38 kind
1:21:38 of
1:21:39 private
1:21:39 choices
1:21:39 I
1:21:39 mean
1:21:40 there
1:21:40 was
1:21:40 an
1:21:40 idea
1:21:41 that
1:21:41 the
1:21:42 post
1:21:42 Tiananmen
1:21:43 generation
1:21:44 was
1:21:44 promised
1:21:45 to have
1:21:45 a little
1:21:45 bit
1:21:46 more
1:21:46 space
1:21:47 away
1:21:47 from
1:21:48 the
1:21:48 prying
1:21:48 eyes
1:21:49 of the
1:21:49 state
1:21:51 and
1:21:51 now
1:21:52 globally
1:21:52 we
1:21:52 worry
1:21:53 about
1:21:53 the
1:21:53 prying
1:21:54 eyes
1:21:54 of
1:21:54 whether
1:21:54 it’s
1:21:55 the
1:21:55 state
1:21:55 or
1:21:55 whether
1:21:56 it’s
1:21:56 tech
1:21:57 companies
1:21:57 it’s
1:21:58 it’s
1:21:58 a
1:21:58 different
1:21:59 moment
1:21:59 what does
1:21:59 it mean
1:22:00 to say
1:22:00 you have
1:22:00 more
1:22:01 choices
1:22:01 it’s
1:22:01 almost
1:22:02 like
1:22:02 you have
1:22:02 two
1:22:02 knobs
1:22:03 one is
1:22:03 1984
1:22:04 one is
1:22:04 brave
1:22:04 new
1:22:04 world
1:22:05 at first
1:22:05 they turned
1:22:06 up the
1:22:06 brave
1:22:06 new
1:22:06 world
1:22:07 more
1:22:07 choices
1:22:08 and
1:22:08 now
1:22:09 they’re
1:22:10 turning
1:22:10 up
1:22:10 the
1:22:10 1984
1:22:11 keeping
1:22:11 the
1:22:12 choices
1:22:12 but
1:22:12 turning
1:22:13 up
1:22:13 the
1:22:13 1984
1:22:14 with
1:22:14 more
1:22:14 surveillance
1:22:15 so
1:22:15 the
1:22:15 choices
1:22:16 you
1:22:16 make
1:22:17 have
1:22:17 to
1:22:17 be
1:22:17 more
1:22:18 public
1:22:19 do
1:22:19 you
1:22:19 have
1:22:19 a
1:22:19 sense
1:22:20 that
1:22:21 the
1:22:21 thing
1:22:22 we’ve
1:22:22 been
1:22:22 talking
1:22:23 about
1:22:23 the
1:22:24 increase
1:22:24 in
1:22:24 censorship
1:22:25 does
1:22:26 that
1:22:26 predate
1:22:27 Xi Jinping
1:22:28 is
1:22:29 Xi Jinping
1:22:29 a part
1:22:30 of that
1:22:30 increase
1:22:30 in
1:22:31 censorship
1:22:31 like
1:22:32 what
1:22:32 is
1:22:32 that
1:22:32 dynamic
1:22:33 what
1:22:33 role
1:22:33 does
1:22:33 Xi
1:22:34 Jinping
1:22:34 play
1:22:35 in
1:22:36 what
1:22:36 China
1:22:37 has
1:22:37 gone
1:22:37 through
1:22:37 over
1:22:37 the
1:22:38 past
1:22:38 let’s
1:22:39 say
1:22:39 a
1:22:39 decade
1:22:39 and a
1:22:40 half
1:22:40 that’s
1:22:40 a
1:22:41 really
1:22:41 great
1:22:41 question
1:22:41 I
1:22:42 was
1:22:42 actually
1:22:42 just
1:22:43 writing
1:22:43 a
1:22:44 review
1:22:44 of
1:22:44 two
1:22:45 books
1:22:45 one
1:22:45 is
1:22:46 called
1:22:46 the
1:22:47 Xi
1:22:47 Jinping
1:22:47 effect
1:22:48 which
1:22:48 was
1:22:48 just
1:22:48 a
1:22:48 bunch
1:22:48 of
1:22:49 scholars
1:22:50 and
1:22:51 academic
1:22:51 volumes
1:22:51 sort
1:22:51 of
1:22:52 looking
1:22:52 at
1:22:53 take
1:22:53 this
1:22:54 topic
1:22:54 and
1:22:54 that
1:22:55 topic
1:22:55 how
1:22:55 much
1:22:55 is
1:22:55 Xi
1:22:56 Jinping
1:22:56 as
1:22:56 a
1:22:56 person
1:22:57 really
1:22:58 affected
1:22:58 it
1:22:59 and
1:22:59 it
1:22:59 they
1:23:00 come
1:23:00 up
1:23:00 with
1:23:00 all
1:23:00 kinds
1:23:00 of
1:23:00 answers
1:23:01 but
1:23:02 there’s
1:23:02 a
1:23:02 book
1:23:02 I
1:23:03 really
1:23:03 like
1:23:04 Emily
1:23:04 Fang
1:23:05 of
1:23:05 NPR
1:23:05 has
1:23:05 a
1:23:06 new
1:23:06 book
1:23:06 out
1:23:07 called
1:23:08 let
1:23:08 only
1:23:09 red
1:23:09 flowers
1:23:10 bloom
1:23:11 and
1:23:12 what
1:23:12 she
1:23:12 talks
1:23:13 about
1:23:13 the
1:23:14 changes
1:23:14 in
1:23:14 China
1:23:14 as
1:23:14 she
1:23:15 was
1:23:15 covering
1:23:15 it
1:23:15 from
1:23:15 the
1:23:16 mid
1:23:17 2010s
1:23:17 on
1:23:18 was
1:23:18 and
1:23:18 I
1:23:19 think
1:23:19 this
1:23:20 really
1:23:21 is
1:23:21 Xi
1:23:22 Jinping’s
1:23:22 one
1:23:23 of his
1:23:23 imprimators
1:23:24 on the
1:23:24 country
1:23:25 is
1:23:25 there’s
1:23:25 a
1:23:26 narrowing
1:23:26 of
1:23:27 spaces
1:23:28 available
1:23:28 for
1:23:29 variations
1:23:30 of
1:23:30 ways
1:23:30 of
1:23:31 being
1:23:32 Chinese
1:23:32 within
1:23:32 the
1:23:32 country
1:23:34 and
1:23:35 this
1:23:35 goes
1:23:35 against
1:23:36 the
1:23:36 grain
1:23:36 of
1:23:36 a
1:23:37 pattern
1:23:38 in
1:23:38 the
1:23:38 sort
1:23:38 of
1:23:39 post
1:23:39 Tiananmen
1:23:40 period
1:23:41 of
1:23:41 allowing
1:23:42 more
1:23:42 space
1:23:42 for
1:23:42 sort
1:23:43 of
1:23:43 civil
1:23:43 society
1:23:44 but
1:23:44 also
1:23:45 allowing
1:23:45 sort
1:23:46 of
1:23:47 way
1:23:47 Muslims
1:23:48 felt
1:23:48 that
1:23:48 they
1:23:48 didn’t
1:23:49 have
1:23:49 to
1:23:49 choose
1:23:50 between
1:23:50 being
1:23:51 their
1:23:51 Muslim
1:23:52 identity
1:23:52 and
1:23:52 their
1:23:53 Chinese
1:23:53 identity
1:23:53 but
1:23:53 there’s
1:23:54 more
1:23:54 and
1:23:54 more
1:23:54 of
1:23:54 a
1:23:54 kind
1:23:55 of
1:23:56 we
1:23:57 see
1:23:57 this
1:23:57 in
1:23:57 Xi
1:23:58 Jinping
1:23:58 becoming
1:23:59 impatient
1:23:59 with
1:24:00 Hong
1:24:00 Kong
1:24:01 where
1:24:01 there
1:24:01 was
1:24:01 a
1:24:01 way
1:24:02 of
1:24:02 which
1:24:02 okay
1:24:02 this
1:24:02 is
1:24:03 a
1:24:03 city
1:24:03 that’s
1:24:03 part
1:24:04 of
1:24:04 the
1:24:04 PRC
1:24:05 but
1:24:05 it
1:24:05 really
1:24:06 operates
1:24:06 very
1:24:06 differently
1:24:07 he
1:24:07 seems
1:24:07 to
1:24:08 be
1:24:10 uncomfortable
1:24:10 with
1:24:10 difference
1:24:11 I guess
1:24:12 he’s not
1:24:12 alone
1:24:12 in
1:24:13 strong
1:24:13 men
1:24:13 this
1:24:14 way
1:24:14 of
1:24:14 sort
1:24:14 of
1:24:15 wanting
1:24:16 to
1:24:17 impose
1:24:17 a
1:24:18 kind
1:24:18 of
1:24:18 singular
1:24:19 vision
1:24:19 of
1:24:19 what
1:24:20 Chinese
1:24:20 identity
1:24:21 means
1:24:21 what
1:24:22 loyalty
1:24:23 to
1:24:23 the
1:24:24 status
1:24:24 quo
1:24:24 means
1:24:25 and
1:24:26 so
1:24:26 there’s
1:24:26 been
1:24:26 a
1:24:26 kind
1:24:27 of
1:24:28 tightening
1:24:28 of
1:24:28 controls
1:24:29 over
1:24:29 all
1:24:29 the
1:24:30 borders
1:24:31 and
1:24:32 even
1:24:32 things
1:24:32 one
1:24:33 thing
1:24:33 she
1:24:33 reported
1:24:34 on
1:24:34 was
1:24:34 Mongolia
1:24:35 and
1:24:35 inner
1:24:36 Mongolia
1:24:37 it’s
1:24:37 been
1:24:37 seen
1:24:38 as
1:24:38 an
1:24:38 unproblematic
1:24:39 kind
1:24:39 of
1:24:39 frontier
1:24:40 area
1:24:40 and
1:24:41 who
1:24:41 cares
1:24:41 if
1:24:41 there
1:24:41 was
1:24:42 some
1:24:43 revival
1:24:43 of
1:24:44 Mongolian
1:24:44 language
1:24:44 but
1:24:45 under
1:24:45 Xi
1:24:45 there’s
1:24:45 been
1:24:46 a
1:24:47 less
1:24:48 patience
1:24:48 with
1:24:49 those
1:24:49 kinds
1:24:50 of
1:24:50 difference
1:24:50 he’s
1:24:51 been
1:24:53 there’s
1:24:53 been
1:24:53 more
1:24:54 of a
1:24:54 resurgence
1:24:55 of
1:24:55 patriarchy
1:24:56 all
1:24:56 kinds
1:24:56 of
1:24:56 things
1:24:56 have
1:24:57 happened
1:24:57 under
1:24:57 him
1:24:58 but
1:25:00 how
1:25:00 much
1:25:00 is
1:25:00 it
1:25:00 just
1:25:01 him
1:25:01 or
1:25:01 how
1:25:01 much
1:25:01 is
1:25:02 it
1:25:02 also
1:25:04 a
1:25:04 kind
1:25:04 of
1:25:05 mood
1:25:05 or
1:25:05 group
1:25:06 within
1:25:06 the
1:25:06 party
1:25:07 some
1:25:07 of
1:25:07 these
1:25:08 trends
1:25:08 I
1:25:08 think
1:25:09 began
1:25:09 before
1:25:10 he
1:25:10 took
1:25:10 power
1:25:11 in
1:25:11 late
1:25:11 2012
1:25:12 I
1:25:13 think
1:25:13 really
1:25:14 my
1:25:14 own
1:25:15 feeling
1:25:15 going
1:25:15 to
1:25:16 China
1:25:17 fairly
1:25:17 often
1:25:18 from
1:25:18 the
1:25:19 mid
1:25:20 1990s
1:25:20 till
1:25:20 about
1:25:21 2018
1:25:23 was
1:25:23 that
1:25:23 until
1:25:25 2008
1:25:26 the year
1:25:26 of the
1:25:26 Olympics
1:25:27 year
1:25:28 each
1:25:29 trip
1:25:29 it would
1:25:29 feel
1:25:29 like
1:25:30 oh
1:25:30 there’s
1:25:30 just
1:25:31 more
1:25:31 space
1:25:32 there’s
1:25:32 more
1:25:32 breathing
1:25:33 room
1:25:33 for
1:25:34 you know
1:25:34 it’s
1:25:35 not
1:25:35 becoming
1:25:35 a
1:25:35 liberal
1:25:36 democracy
1:25:37 but
1:25:38 I
1:25:38 would
1:25:38 notice
1:25:39 things
1:25:39 that
1:25:39 felt
1:25:39 like
1:25:39 I’m
1:25:40 surprised
1:25:40 that
1:25:40 that
1:25:41 happens
1:25:42 that
1:25:42 people
1:25:44 felt
1:25:44 less
1:25:45 worried
1:25:45 about
1:25:45 what
1:25:45 they
1:25:45 were
1:25:46 saying
1:25:46 and
1:25:46 what
1:25:46 they
1:25:46 were
1:25:47 doing
1:25:49 that
1:25:49 kind
1:25:49 of
1:25:49 trend
1:25:50 line
1:25:50 up
1:25:50 until
1:25:50 about
1:25:51 2008
1:25:52 but
1:25:52 from
1:25:53 the
1:25:54 Olympics
1:25:55 and
1:25:55 then
1:25:56 the
1:25:57 financial
1:25:58 crisis
1:25:58 after
1:25:59 that
1:26:00 the
1:26:00 Chinese
1:26:01 Communist
1:26:01 Party
1:26:01 felt
1:26:02 I
1:26:02 guess
1:26:02 more
1:26:03 it’s
1:26:03 still
1:26:03 insecure
1:26:03 but
1:26:03 it
1:26:04 felt
1:26:04 cockier
1:26:04 in
1:26:05 some
1:26:05 ways
1:26:05 and
1:26:05 you
1:26:06 had
1:26:07 like
1:26:07 okay
1:26:08 maybe
1:26:09 we
1:26:09 can
1:26:10 start
1:26:11 asserting
1:26:11 more
1:26:11 control
1:26:11 over
1:26:12 things
1:26:12 so
1:26:13 I
1:26:13 think
1:26:13 that’s
1:26:13 been
1:26:14 stronger
1:26:14 under
1:26:15 Xi
1:26:15 Jinping’s
1:26:15 time
1:26:15 and
1:26:16 power
1:26:16 and
1:26:16 he
1:26:16 was
1:26:17 already
1:26:17 the
1:26:17 designated
1:26:18 successor
1:26:19 by
1:26:20 2008
1:26:20 he
1:26:20 was
1:26:21 in
1:26:21 charge
1:26:22 of
1:26:25 security
1:26:25 for the
1:26:26 Olympics
1:26:26 and
1:26:27 the
1:26:27 Olympics
1:26:27 was
1:26:27 supposed
1:26:28 to be
1:26:28 a
1:26:28 moment
1:26:30 possibly
1:26:30 of
1:26:30 more
1:26:31 opening
1:26:31 up
1:26:32 because
1:26:32 when
1:26:33 Seoul
1:26:33 hosted
1:26:33 the
1:26:34 Olympics
1:26:34 South
1:26:35 Korea
1:26:35 became
1:26:35 a
1:26:36 less
1:26:36 tightly
1:26:37 controlled
1:26:37 right
1:26:37 wing
1:26:39 dictatorship
1:26:39 and
1:26:40 moved
1:26:40 toward
1:26:40 democracy
1:26:41 and
1:26:41 some
1:26:41 people
1:26:41 were
1:26:41 hoping
1:26:42 the
1:26:42 Olympics
1:26:43 might
1:26:43 move
1:26:43 China
1:26:44 that way
1:26:44 and it
1:26:44 went
1:26:44 quite
1:26:45 the
1:26:45 opposite
1:26:46 you
1:26:46 mentioned
1:26:46 that
1:26:47 we
1:26:47 don’t
1:26:47 know
1:26:48 the
1:26:48 degree
1:26:49 to
1:26:50 which
1:26:50 this
1:26:51 change
1:26:51 has to
1:26:51 do
1:26:51 with
1:26:51 Xi
1:26:52 Jinping
1:26:52 or
1:26:52 the
1:26:53 party
1:26:53 apparatus
1:26:54 and
1:26:54 that
1:26:56 question
1:26:57 going
1:26:57 back to
1:26:58 Confucius
1:26:58 of hierarchy
1:26:59 and how
1:26:59 does
1:26:59 the
1:27:00 power
1:27:01 within
1:27:01 this
1:27:02 very
1:27:02 strict
1:27:03 one
1:27:03 party
1:27:03 state
1:27:04 work
1:27:05 what
1:27:06 can we
1:27:06 say
1:27:06 what do
1:27:06 we know
1:27:07 about the
1:27:07 structure
1:27:09 of this
1:27:09 communist
1:27:09 party
1:27:10 apparatus
1:27:11 how much
1:27:12 internal
1:27:12 power
1:27:13 struggle
1:27:13 is there
1:27:13 how much
1:27:14 power
1:27:14 does
1:27:14 Xi Jinping
1:27:15 actually
1:27:15 have
1:27:16 is there
1:27:17 any
1:27:17 insight
1:27:18 we have
1:27:18 into
1:27:18 the
1:27:19 system
1:27:20 so
1:27:20 james
1:27:20 james
1:27:21 paulmer
1:27:21 who
1:27:21 worked
1:27:22 in
1:27:22 beijing
1:27:23 as a
1:27:23 journalist
1:27:23 and
1:27:24 now
1:27:24 is an
1:27:25 editor
1:27:25 at
1:27:25 foreign
1:27:26 policy
1:27:26 wrote
1:27:26 an
1:27:26 important
1:27:27 piece
1:27:28 a few
1:27:28 years
1:27:28 ago
1:27:28 about
1:27:29 just
1:27:29 we
1:27:29 should
1:27:30 really
1:27:30 be
1:27:30 straight
1:27:31 about
1:27:31 what a
1:27:31 black
1:27:32 box
1:27:33 the
1:27:33 Chinese
1:27:34 elite
1:27:35 politics
1:27:35 are
1:27:35 and
1:27:36 really
1:27:37 not
1:27:37 try to
1:27:38 pretend
1:27:38 we know
1:27:38 more
1:27:38 than
1:27:38 we
1:27:39 do
1:27:40 we
1:27:40 did
1:27:41 used
1:27:42 to
1:27:42 have
1:27:42 more
1:27:42 of
1:27:42 a
1:27:42 sense
1:27:42 of
1:27:43 these
1:27:43 kind
1:27:43 of
1:27:44 ideological
1:27:44 factions
1:27:45 but
1:27:46 also
1:27:46 partly
1:27:46 about
1:27:47 different
1:27:47 views
1:27:48 of
1:27:48 how
1:27:48 much
1:27:49 tinkering
1:27:49 there
1:27:49 should
1:27:50 be
1:27:50 with
1:27:50 the
1:27:50 economy
1:27:51 and
1:27:51 things
1:27:51 like
1:27:52 that
1:27:52 and
1:27:52 they
1:27:53 were
1:27:53 also
1:27:53 basic
1:27:54 partly
1:27:54 based
1:27:55 on
1:27:56 personalities
1:27:56 and
1:27:57 personal
1:27:57 ties
1:27:58 but we
1:27:58 did
1:27:58 have
1:27:59 a
1:27:59 sense
1:27:59 you
1:27:59 could
1:27:59 sort
1:28:00 of
1:28:00 map
1:28:00 out
1:28:01 these
1:28:01 kinds
1:28:01 of
1:28:02 rival
1:28:03 power
1:28:04 bases
1:28:04 and
1:28:05 things
1:28:05 and
1:28:06 we
1:28:06 just
1:28:06 have
1:28:06 much
1:28:06 less
1:28:06 of
1:28:07 a
1:28:07 sense
1:28:07 of
1:28:07 that
1:28:07 under
1:28:08 Xi
1:28:08 Jinping
1:28:08 it’s
1:28:08 very
1:28:09 hard
1:28:09 to
1:28:09 know
1:28:09 other
1:28:10 than
1:28:10 the
1:28:11 small
1:28:11 group
1:28:12 around
1:28:12 him
1:28:13 how
1:28:13 it
1:28:13 works
1:28:13 we
1:28:14 don’t
1:28:14 have
1:28:14 a
1:28:15 major
1:28:15 defector
1:28:16 who
1:28:16 says
1:28:16 yeah
1:28:17 this
1:28:17 is
1:28:17 how
1:28:18 this
1:28:18 is
1:28:18 how
1:28:18 Xi
1:28:19 Jinping
1:28:19 we
1:28:19 have
1:28:19 Xi
1:28:20 Jinping
1:28:20 self
1:28:21 presentation
1:28:22 and
1:28:22 a lot
1:28:23 of
1:28:23 things
1:28:23 that
1:28:23 are
1:28:25 said
1:28:25 about
1:28:25 him
1:28:26 there
1:28:26 were
1:28:26 some
1:28:26 false
1:28:27 expectations
1:28:27 about
1:28:28 him
1:28:28 that
1:28:28 some
1:28:28 people
1:28:28 thought
1:28:29 oh
1:28:29 he’s
1:28:29 going
1:28:29 to
1:28:29 be
1:28:30 reformer
1:28:30 because
1:28:31 his
1:28:32 father
1:28:32 was a
1:28:33 liberalizing
1:28:33 figure
1:28:34 and
1:28:34 you know
1:28:34 that
1:28:35 doesn’t
1:28:35 work
1:28:35 that
1:28:35 way
1:28:36 and
1:28:36 he
1:28:36 does
1:28:36 seem
1:28:37 to
1:28:37 care
1:28:37 about
1:28:38 orderliness
1:28:38 he does
1:28:38 seem
1:28:39 to care
1:28:39 about
1:28:40 certain
1:28:40 things
1:28:40 he wants
1:28:41 to present
1:28:41 himself
1:28:42 as a
1:28:42 kind
1:28:43 of
1:28:43 scholarly
1:28:44 figure
1:28:44 in touch
1:28:44 with
1:28:45 China’s
1:28:45 deep
1:28:45 past
1:28:47 we
1:28:47 know
1:28:47 he’s
1:28:47 a
1:28:48 strong
1:28:48 nationalist
1:28:49 and
1:28:49 a
1:28:49 kind
1:28:49 of
1:28:50 cultural
1:28:50 nationalist
1:28:50 as
1:28:51 well
1:28:51 as
1:28:53 political
1:28:53 nationalist
1:28:53 but
1:28:54 beyond
1:28:54 that
1:28:54 we
1:28:55 don’t
1:28:55 have
1:28:55 that
1:28:55 much
1:28:56 of a
1:28:56 sense
1:28:56 of
1:28:56 what
1:28:57 makes
1:28:57 him
1:28:58 tick
1:28:59 we
1:28:59 get
1:28:59 little
1:29:00 hints
1:29:01 you know
1:29:01 there was
1:29:02 a
1:29:02 secret
1:29:02 speech
1:29:03 where
1:29:03 he
1:29:03 talked
1:29:03 about
1:29:04 that
1:29:04 leaked
1:29:04 out
1:29:04 that
1:29:04 he
1:29:06 talked
1:29:06 about
1:29:06 how
1:29:07 the
1:29:07 Soviet
1:29:07 Union
1:29:08 had
1:29:08 collapsed
1:29:09 because
1:29:09 people
1:29:09 didn’t
1:29:10 the
1:29:10 leadership
1:29:11 didn’t
1:29:11 pay
1:29:11 enough
1:29:11 attention
1:29:12 to
1:29:12 ideology
1:29:13 and
1:29:13 he
1:29:16 manly
1:29:16 enough
1:29:17 to
1:29:17 keep
1:29:17 control
1:29:18 so
1:29:19 he
1:29:20 I
1:29:21 imagine
1:29:21 if
1:29:21 he
1:29:21 and
1:29:22 Putin
1:29:22 ever
1:29:22 have
1:29:22 a
1:29:23 kind
1:29:23 of
1:29:24 heart
1:29:24 to
1:29:24 heart
1:29:25 conversation
1:29:25 it’s
1:29:26 one
1:29:26 thing
1:29:26 they’d
1:29:27 find
1:29:27 to
1:29:27 agree
1:29:27 on
1:29:27 is
1:29:28 this
1:29:28 sort
1:29:28 of
1:29:28 distaste
1:29:29 for
1:29:29 Gorbachev
1:29:30 this
1:29:30 feeling
1:29:31 that
1:29:31 Gorbachev
1:29:31 was
1:29:32 that
1:29:32 was
1:29:32 the
1:29:32 wrong
1:29:32 way
1:29:32 to
1:29:33 do
1:29:33 things
1:29:33 not
1:29:34 manly
1:29:34 enough
1:29:35 yeah
1:29:35 to
1:29:36 not
1:29:37 strong
1:29:37 enough
1:29:37 about
1:29:38 you know
1:29:38 really
1:29:39 keeping
1:29:39 control
1:29:39 and
1:29:40 you know
1:29:40 for
1:29:40 Putin
1:29:40 it
1:29:40 would
1:29:46 there
1:29:46 is a
1:29:47 bit
1:29:47 of
1:29:47 being
1:29:47 haunted
1:29:48 by
1:29:48 what
1:29:48 happened
1:29:49 to
1:29:49 the
1:29:49 Soviet
1:29:49 Union
1:29:50 and
1:29:51 we’re
1:29:51 not
1:29:51 I’m
1:29:52 not
1:29:52 going
1:29:52 to
1:29:52 be
1:29:52 the
1:29:52 leader
1:29:53 who
1:29:54 sees
1:29:55 the
1:29:56 diminishment
1:29:57 of
1:29:58 this
1:30:00 landmass
1:30:00 that was
1:30:00 in a
1:30:00 sense
1:30:01 rebuilt
1:30:02 over
1:30:02 time
1:30:03 for
1:30:04 Mao
1:30:04 and
1:30:04 then
1:30:05 Deng Xiaoping
1:30:06 you know
1:30:06 you have
1:30:07 the
1:30:08 story
1:30:08 a very
1:30:09 powerful
1:30:09 story
1:30:09 about
1:30:09 the
1:30:10 Chinese
1:30:10 past
1:30:10 that
1:30:10 the
1:30:11 Chinese
1:30:11 Communist
1:30:11 Party
1:30:11 makes
1:30:12 a lot
1:30:12 out
1:30:12 of
1:30:14 but
1:30:14 the
1:30:14 Chiang
1:30:14 Kai
1:30:15 Shack
1:30:15 the
1:30:16 Nationalist
1:30:16 Party
1:30:16 who was
1:30:17 Mao’s
1:30:17 great
1:30:17 rival
1:30:18 also
1:30:18 made
1:30:18 a lot
1:30:18 out
1:30:19 of
1:30:19 and
1:30:19 it
1:30:20 has
1:30:20 a
1:30:20 partial
1:30:21 basis
1:30:21 in
1:30:21 fact
1:30:21 was
1:30:22 that
1:30:22 from
1:30:22 the
1:30:22 middle
1:30:23 of
1:30:23 the
1:30:23 19th
1:30:23 century
1:30:23 to
1:30:24 the
1:30:24 middle
1:30:24 of
1:30:24 the
1:30:24 20th
1:30:25 century
1:30:27 China
1:30:27 which
1:30:27 had
1:30:27 been
1:30:27 the
1:30:28 strong
1:30:28 force
1:30:28 in
1:30:28 the
1:30:29 world
1:30:29 got
1:30:29 bullied
1:30:30 and
1:30:30 nibbled
1:30:31 away
1:30:31 at
1:30:31 by
1:30:31 foreign
1:30:32 powers
1:30:33 and
1:30:34 it’s
1:30:34 important
1:30:34 to
1:30:34 realize
1:30:35 there
1:30:35 are
1:30:35 elements
1:30:42 and
1:30:43 the
1:30:43 reason
1:30:43 why
1:30:44 my
1:30:44 party
1:30:44 deserves
1:30:45 to
1:30:45 rule
1:30:45 is
1:30:45 because
1:30:45 it
1:30:46 can
1:30:46 reassert
1:30:47 China’s
1:30:48 place
1:30:48 in the
1:30:49 world
1:30:49 and both
1:30:49 the
1:30:50 Nationalist
1:30:50 Party
1:30:51 and the
1:30:51 Communist
1:30:52 Party
1:30:54 predicated
1:30:54 themselves
1:30:55 on this
1:30:55 kind of
1:30:56 nationalistic
1:30:56 story
1:30:57 of
1:30:58 being
1:30:59 in a
1:30:59 position
1:30:59 to
1:30:59 prevent
1:31:00 that
1:31:00 from
1:31:00 happening
1:31:00 again
1:31:01 this
1:31:01 is
1:31:01 a
1:31:02 bit
1:31:02 of
1:31:02 a
1:31:02 tricky
1:31:03 question
1:31:03 but
1:31:04 is
1:31:04 it
1:31:05 safe
1:31:06 for
1:31:07 journalists
1:31:09 for
1:31:09 folks
1:31:09 who
1:31:09 write
1:31:10 excellent
1:31:10 books
1:31:11 about
1:31:11 the
1:31:12 topic
1:31:12 to
1:31:13 travel
1:31:13 to
1:31:14 China
1:31:14 I
1:31:15 think
1:31:15 there
1:31:15 are
1:31:15 all
1:31:15 kinds
1:31:15 of
1:31:16 different
1:31:16 things
1:31:16 about
1:31:17 safety
1:31:17 or
1:31:17 not
1:31:17 I
1:31:18 think
1:31:18 until
1:31:19 recently
1:31:19 at
1:31:19 least
1:31:20 the
1:31:21 people
1:31:21 who
1:31:21 were
1:31:22 most
1:31:22 vulnerable
1:31:23 were
1:31:24 people
1:31:24 of
1:31:25 Chinese
1:31:25 descent
1:31:27 people
1:31:27 originally
1:31:27 from
1:31:28 China
1:31:28 who
1:31:28 had
1:31:28 gone
1:31:29 abroad
1:31:29 or
1:31:30 even
1:31:30 people
1:31:31 who
1:31:31 were
1:31:33 Chinese
1:31:33 Americans
1:31:33 who
1:31:34 went
1:31:34 there
1:31:34 there
1:31:34 was
1:31:35 a
1:31:36 higher
1:31:37 expectation
1:31:38 that
1:31:38 they
1:31:38 should
1:31:39 be
1:31:39 on
1:31:40 board
1:31:40 so
1:31:40 you
1:31:40 had
1:31:41 early
1:31:42 cases
1:31:42 my
1:31:42 friend
1:31:43 Melissa
1:31:43 Chan
1:31:43 was
1:31:43 an
1:31:44 early
1:31:44 person
1:31:45 kicked
1:31:45 out
1:31:45 when
1:31:46 she
1:31:46 was
1:31:46 working
1:31:46 for
1:31:47 Al Jazeera
1:31:48 and
1:31:48 reporting
1:31:48 on
1:31:49 Xinjiang
1:31:50 so
1:31:50 that’s
1:31:50 one
1:31:50 kind
1:31:50 of
1:31:51 person
1:31:51 who
1:31:51 was
1:31:51 vulnerable
1:31:52 because
1:31:52 of
1:31:52 this
1:31:54 expectation
1:31:54 that
1:31:54 they
1:31:55 should
1:31:55 be
1:31:55 somehow
1:31:56 more
1:31:56 loyal
1:31:57 another
1:31:57 kind
1:31:58 of
1:31:58 person
1:31:58 who
1:31:58 was
1:31:59 vulnerable
1:31:59 or
1:31:59 this
1:32:00 case
1:32:00 more
1:32:01 likely
1:32:01 to be
1:32:01 blocked
1:32:01 from
1:32:02 China
1:32:03 they
1:32:04 there’s
1:32:04 a
1:32:05 the
1:32:05 communist
1:32:05 party
1:32:06 is
1:32:07 particularly
1:32:07 concerned
1:32:08 about
1:32:08 people
1:32:09 from
1:32:09 outside
1:32:09 of
1:32:10 China
1:32:10 who
1:32:10 are
1:32:11 amplifying
1:32:11 the
1:32:11 voices
1:32:12 of
1:32:13 people
1:32:13 within
1:32:14 China
1:32:14 or
1:32:14 exiles
1:32:15 from
1:32:15 China
1:32:16 who
1:32:16 the
1:32:16 government
1:32:16 would
1:32:16 like
1:32:17 to
1:32:17 silence
1:32:19 so
1:32:19 the
1:32:19 Dalai
1:32:20 Lama
1:32:20 you
1:32:20 had
1:32:21 scholars
1:32:21 who
1:32:21 worked
1:32:21 on
1:32:21 Tibet
1:32:22 and
1:32:22 had
1:32:23 connections
1:32:23 to
1:32:23 Dalai
1:32:23 Lama
1:32:23 where
1:32:25 early
1:32:25 people
1:32:25 to have
1:32:25 trouble
1:32:26 going
1:32:26 to
1:32:26 the
1:32:27 PRC
1:32:27 then
1:32:28 scholars
1:32:29 who
1:32:29 worked
1:32:29 on
1:32:30 Xinjiang
1:32:30 and
1:32:31 were
1:32:31 connected
1:32:32 to
1:32:32 Uyghurs
1:32:33 but
1:32:33 there
1:32:33 also
1:32:34 were
1:32:34 people
1:32:34 who
1:32:35 were
1:32:36 personally
1:32:36 connected
1:32:37 to
1:32:38 dissidents
1:32:38 or
1:32:38 exiles
1:32:39 who
1:32:39 would
1:32:41 amplify
1:32:42 their
1:32:42 voices
1:32:42 or
1:32:43 translate
1:32:43 their
1:32:43 work
1:32:44 would
1:32:44 promote
1:32:45 them
1:32:45 that
1:32:47 then
1:32:47 it
1:32:47 wasn’t
1:32:48 about
1:32:49 danger
1:32:49 if
1:32:49 you
1:32:49 got
1:32:50 in
1:32:50 China
1:32:50 but
1:32:50 you
1:32:50 were
1:32:50 more
1:32:50 likely
1:32:51 to
1:32:51 be
1:32:51 denied
1:32:51 a
1:32:51 visa
1:32:52 if
1:32:52 you
1:32:52 were
1:32:53 the
1:32:53 kind
1:32:54 of
1:32:54 person
1:32:54 who
1:32:54 was
1:32:54 doing
1:32:55 that
1:32:56 so
1:32:56 I
1:32:57 wrote
1:32:57 critical
1:32:59 op-eds
1:32:59 about
1:32:59 the
1:32:59 Chinese
1:33:00 Communist
1:33:00 Party
1:33:01 I
1:33:01 published
1:33:02 them
1:33:02 in
1:33:02 some
1:33:02 high
1:33:03 profile
1:33:03 places
1:33:04 I
1:33:04 read
1:33:05 a lot
1:33:05 about
1:33:05 Tiananmen
1:33:06 I
1:33:06 read
1:33:06 about
1:33:06 human
1:33:07 rights
1:33:07 issues
1:33:07 all
1:33:08 that
1:33:08 and
1:33:08 I
1:33:08 kept
1:33:09 getting
1:33:09 visas
1:33:09 to
1:33:09 go
1:33:09 to
1:33:10 China
1:33:11 I
1:33:11 testified
1:33:12 to
1:33:12 a
1:33:12 congressional
1:33:13 executive
1:33:13 joint
1:33:14 committee
1:33:14 on
1:33:14 China
1:33:14 about
1:33:15 the
1:33:15 Tiananmen
1:33:16 protests
1:33:17 on the
1:33:17 25th
1:33:18 anniversary
1:33:18 of it
1:33:18 and
1:33:19 some
1:33:19 people
1:33:19 said
1:33:19 that’s
1:33:19 the
1:33:20 kind
1:33:20 of
1:33:20 thing
1:33:20 that
1:33:21 would
1:33:21 lead
1:33:21 to
1:33:21 you
1:33:21 not
1:33:22 getting
1:33:22 a
1:33:22 visa
1:33:22 I
1:33:22 got
1:33:23 a
1:33:23 visa
1:33:23 right
1:33:23 after
1:33:24 that
1:33:25 now
1:33:25 I
1:33:25 think
1:33:25 it
1:33:25 might
1:33:26 be
1:33:26 different
1:33:26 now
1:33:27 some
1:33:27 of
1:33:27 these
1:33:28 expectations
1:33:29 have been
1:33:29 changed
1:33:29 there
1:33:30 have
1:33:30 been
1:33:30 people
1:33:30 who’ve
1:33:31 been
1:33:32 very
1:33:33 surprisingly
1:33:33 gotten
1:33:34 in
1:33:34 trouble
1:33:35 these
1:33:35 two
1:33:36 Canadians
1:33:36 who
1:33:36 were
1:33:37 clearly
1:33:37 it was a
1:33:38 tit
1:33:38 for
1:33:39 tat
1:33:39 partly
1:33:39 because
1:33:40 of
1:33:40 tech
1:33:41 mavens
1:33:42 relative
1:33:42 being
1:33:43 held
1:33:43 in
1:33:43 Canada
1:33:43 so
1:33:44 it
1:33:44 was
1:33:44 there
1:33:44 it
1:33:44 was
1:33:45 also
1:33:45 not
1:33:45 picking
1:33:45 a
1:33:46 fight
1:33:46 with
1:33:47 Americans
1:33:47 but
1:33:47 there
1:33:48 were
1:33:48 certain
1:33:48 kinds
1:33:48 of
1:33:49 things
1:33:49 that
1:33:49 you
1:33:49 could
1:33:50 map
1:33:50 out
1:33:51 what
1:33:51 was
1:33:51 the
1:33:52 riskiest
1:33:52 thing
1:33:52 to
1:33:52 do
1:33:53 and
1:33:53 so
1:33:53 I
1:33:53 went
1:33:54 in
1:33:54 the
1:33:54 2010s
1:33:55 having
1:33:55 written
1:33:57 forcefully
1:33:57 about
1:33:58 Tiananmen
1:33:59 and I
1:33:59 didn’t
1:33:59 feel
1:34:00 dangerous
1:34:00 I
1:34:01 felt
1:34:01 there
1:34:02 was
1:34:02 an
1:34:02 awareness
1:34:02 in
1:34:03 some
1:34:03 cases
1:34:03 of
1:34:03 what
1:34:04 if
1:34:04 I
1:34:04 was
1:34:04 giving
1:34:04 a
1:34:05 public
1:34:05 talk
1:34:05 there
1:34:05 was
1:34:06 awareness
1:34:06 of
1:34:06 what
1:34:06 it
1:34:07 was
1:34:07 there
1:34:07 was
1:34:08 sometimes
1:34:09 you
1:34:09 didn’t
1:34:10 want
1:34:10 to
1:34:10 get
1:34:10 your
1:34:11 host
1:34:12 who
1:34:13 had
1:34:13 brought
1:34:13 you
1:34:13 to
1:34:13 a
1:34:14 university
1:34:14 in
1:34:14 trouble
1:34:15 by
1:34:15 saying
1:34:16 something
1:34:16 that
1:34:16 would
1:34:16 get
1:34:16 them
1:34:16 in
1:34:17 trouble
1:34:17 I
1:34:18 think
1:34:18 it
1:34:18 was
1:34:18 often
1:34:18 that
1:34:20 you
1:34:20 were
1:34:20 more
1:34:20 vulnerable
1:34:21 if
1:34:21 you
1:34:21 were
1:34:21 within
1:34:21 China
1:34:22 or
1:34:22 you
1:34:22 were
1:34:23 connected
1:34:23 to
1:34:23 China
1:34:23 in
1:34:23 different
1:34:24 ways
1:34:25 for
1:34:25 me
1:34:26 it’s
1:34:26 been
1:34:26 confusing
1:34:27 these
1:34:27 last
1:34:27 few
1:34:28 years
1:34:28 I
1:34:28 wrote
1:34:28 one
1:34:28 piece
1:34:29 about
1:34:29 this
1:34:29 about
1:34:29 I’m
1:34:30 not
1:34:30 going
1:34:31 to
1:34:31 any
1:34:31 part
1:34:31 of
1:34:31 the
1:34:32 PRC
1:34:32 for
1:34:33 the
1:34:33 time
1:34:33 being
1:34:34 but
1:34:34 I
1:34:34 always
1:34:34 thought
1:34:35 that
1:34:35 Hong
1:34:35 Kong
1:34:35 was
1:34:35 a
1:34:36 place
1:34:36 that
1:34:36 I’d
1:34:36 be
1:34:37 free
1:34:37 to
1:34:37 go
1:34:37 even
1:34:38 if
1:34:38 things
1:34:38 got
1:34:39 difficult
1:34:39 I
1:34:39 didn’t
1:34:39 get
1:34:39 a
1:34:39 visa
1:34:40 for
1:34:40 the
1:34:40 mainland
1:34:40 you
1:34:40 didn’t
1:34:40 need
1:34:41 a
1:34:41 visa
1:34:41 for
1:34:41 Hong
1:34:41 Kong
1:34:43 but
1:34:44 with
1:34:45 Hong
1:34:45 Kong
1:34:47 with
1:34:47 the
1:34:47 mainland
1:34:47 I
1:34:48 had
1:34:48 kept
1:34:48 a
1:34:49 distance
1:34:49 from
1:34:49 the
1:34:50 dissidents
1:34:50 that
1:34:50 I
1:34:51 was
1:34:51 writing
1:34:51 about
1:34:52 with
1:34:52 Hong
1:34:52 Kong
1:34:52 I
1:34:53 felt
1:34:53 that
1:34:54 these
1:34:54 rules
1:34:55 didn’t
1:34:55 apply
1:34:56 and
1:34:56 I
1:34:56 was
1:34:57 more
1:34:57 connected
1:34:57 to
1:34:58 them
1:34:59 more
1:35:00 friends
1:35:00 with
1:35:00 some
1:35:00 of
1:35:01 them
1:35:02 and
1:35:03 then
1:35:03 with
1:35:04 this
1:35:04 crackdown
1:35:05 that’s
1:35:05 come
1:35:05 on
1:35:05 Hong
1:35:05 Kong
1:35:06 and
1:35:06 their
1:35:07 exiles
1:35:07 from
1:35:08 Hong
1:35:08 Kong
1:35:08 who
1:35:08 have
1:35:09 bounties
1:35:09 on
1:35:09 their
1:35:09 heads
1:35:10 and
1:35:11 so
1:35:11 now
1:35:11 I
1:35:11 feel
1:35:12 that
1:35:12 it’s
1:35:13 not
1:35:13 necessarily
1:35:13 that
1:35:13 anything
1:35:13 would
1:35:14 happen
1:35:14 to
1:35:14 me
1:35:14 if
1:35:14 I
1:35:14 went
1:35:14 to
1:35:15 Hong
1:35:15 but
1:35:15 I
1:35:15 feel
1:35:15 I
1:35:15 would
1:35:15 be
1:35:15 very
1:35:16 closely
1:35:16 watched
1:35:17 and
1:35:17 so
1:35:18 I
1:35:18 wouldn’t
1:35:18 want
1:35:18 to
1:35:18 meet
1:35:18 with
1:35:18 some
1:35:19 of
1:35:19 my
1:35:20 friends
1:35:20 there
1:35:20 who
1:35:21 aren’t
1:35:22 this
1:35:22 high
1:35:22 profile
1:35:23 so
1:35:23 I
1:35:23 don’t
1:35:23 want
1:35:23 to
1:35:24 go
1:35:24 to
1:35:24 a
1:35:24 place
1:35:25 where
1:35:26 I
1:35:26 would
1:35:27 feel
1:35:27 that
1:35:27 I
1:35:27 was
1:35:28 toxic
1:35:28 in
1:35:28 some
1:35:28 way
1:35:29 right
1:35:30 one
1:35:30 you’re
1:35:30 walking
1:35:31 on
1:35:31 eggshells
1:35:31 and
1:35:32 two
1:35:32 you
1:35:32 can
1:35:32 get
1:35:32 others
1:35:32 in
1:35:33 trouble
1:35:34 that
1:35:34 kind
1:35:35 of
1:35:35 dynamic
1:35:35 is
1:35:36 complicated
1:35:36 so
1:35:36 it’s
1:35:36 fascinating
1:35:37 that
1:35:37 Hong
1:35:37 Kong
1:35:37 is
1:35:38 now
1:35:38 part
1:35:38 of
1:35:38 that
1:35:39 calculus
1:35:40 so
1:35:40 I’ve
1:35:40 gotten
1:35:40 the
1:35:41 chance
1:35:41 to
1:35:42 speak
1:35:42 to
1:35:42 a
1:35:42 bunch
1:35:42 of
1:35:42 world
1:35:43 leaders
1:35:43 do you
1:35:44 think
1:35:44 it’s
1:35:44 possible
1:35:44 that
1:35:44 I
1:35:45 would
1:35:45 be
1:35:45 able
1:35:45 to
1:35:46 do
1:35:46 an
1:35:46 interview
1:35:46 with
1:35:46 Xi
1:35:47 Jinping
1:35:49 if
1:35:49 you
1:35:49 do
1:35:49 I
1:35:50 would
1:35:50 I
1:35:50 would
1:35:51 be
1:35:51 very
1:35:52 pleased
1:35:52 because
1:35:52 I
1:35:52 could
1:35:53 watch
1:35:53 that
1:35:53 interview
1:35:54 and
1:35:54 get
1:35:55 some
1:35:55 insights
1:35:56 about
1:35:57 Xi
1:35:57 which
1:35:57 have
1:35:57 been
1:35:58 very
1:35:58 hard
1:35:58 to
1:35:58 get
1:35:58 I
1:35:58 mean
1:35:59 they’re
1:36:00 really
1:36:01 difficult
1:36:02 there
1:36:02 have
1:36:02 been
1:36:02 very
1:36:03 few
1:36:06 discussions
1:36:07 he
1:36:07 doesn’t
1:36:07 give
1:36:08 press
1:36:08 conferences
1:36:09 there’s
1:36:09 variety
1:36:09 of
1:36:10 things
1:36:10 and
1:36:10 this
1:36:10 is
1:36:11 different
1:36:11 from
1:36:12 some
1:36:12 of
1:36:12 his
1:36:12 predecessors
1:36:14 Jiang
1:36:14 Zemin
1:36:16 famously
1:36:17 was
1:36:17 interviewed
1:36:18 by
1:36:18 Barbara
1:36:18 Walters
1:36:19 and
1:36:20 asked
1:36:20 about
1:36:20 Tiananmen
1:36:21 and
1:36:21 he
1:36:21 tried
1:36:21 to
1:36:22 make
1:36:22 out
1:36:22 that
1:36:22 it
1:36:22 wasn’t
1:36:22 a
1:36:23 big
1:36:23 deal
1:36:23 you
1:36:23 know
1:36:24 there
1:36:24 were
1:36:24 a
1:36:24 variety
1:36:24 of
1:36:24 things
1:36:25 but
1:36:25 he
1:36:26 had
1:36:27 relatively
1:36:27 spontaneous
1:36:29 conversations
1:36:29 I was
1:36:29 going to
1:36:29 say
1:36:30 he’s
1:36:30 the only
1:36:31 Chinese
1:36:31 leader
1:36:31 I’ve
1:36:32 met
1:36:33 but
1:36:33 I
1:36:33 met
1:36:33 him
1:36:33 before
1:36:34 he
1:36:34 was
1:36:34 a
1:36:34 major
1:36:35 leader
1:36:35 he
1:36:35 was
1:36:36 the
1:36:37 party
1:36:38 secretary
1:36:38 or
1:36:38 mayor
1:36:39 of
1:36:39 Shanghai
1:36:40 it
1:36:40 matters
1:36:40 because
1:36:40 the
1:36:40 party
1:36:41 secretary
1:36:41 is
1:36:41 more
1:36:41 important
1:36:42 role
1:36:43 but
1:36:43 anyway
1:36:43 he
1:36:43 just
1:36:43 met
1:36:44 with
1:36:44 a
1:36:44 group
1:36:45 of
1:36:46 foreign
1:36:47 scholars
1:36:47 who
1:36:47 were
1:36:47 going
1:36:47 over
1:36:48 to
1:36:48 Shanghai
1:36:48 in
1:36:48 88
1:36:49 for
1:36:49 a
1:36:49 conference
1:36:49 on
1:36:50 Shanghai
1:36:50 history
1:36:51 and
1:36:51 just
1:36:52 to
1:36:52 show
1:36:52 you
1:36:52 the
1:36:53 limits
1:36:53 of
1:36:53 anybody
1:36:53 who
1:36:54 thinks
1:36:54 they
1:36:54 can
1:36:54 predict
1:36:54 what’s
1:36:55 going
1:36:55 on
1:36:55 in
1:36:56 Chinese
1:36:56 politics
1:36:57 or
1:36:57 I
1:36:57 mean
1:36:58 predictability
1:36:58 is
1:36:58 just
1:36:58 very
1:36:59 hard
1:36:59 in
1:36:59 general
1:37:00 in
1:37:00 the
1:37:00 world
1:37:01 but
1:37:01 I
1:37:01 think
1:37:01 the
1:37:02 consensus
1:37:02 among
1:37:03 us
1:37:03 and
1:37:04 these
1:37:04 were
1:37:04 some
1:37:04 of
1:37:04 the
1:37:04 most
1:37:05 knowledgeable
1:37:06 foreign
1:37:06 scholars
1:37:06 on
1:37:07 China
1:37:08 was
1:37:08 this
1:37:08 was
1:37:08 somebody
1:37:08 who
1:37:09 really
1:37:09 had
1:37:10 probably
1:37:10 topped
1:37:11 out
1:37:11 because
1:37:12 he
1:37:12 was
1:37:12 meeting
1:37:12 with
1:37:12 us
1:37:13 you
1:37:13 know
1:37:13 he
1:37:13 must
1:37:14 not
1:37:14 be
1:37:15 heading
1:37:16 anywhere
1:37:16 up
1:37:16 and
1:37:16 then
1:37:17 after
1:37:17 Tiananmen
1:37:17 he
1:37:18 becomes
1:37:19 the
1:37:19 top
1:37:19 leader
1:37:20 in
1:37:20 China
1:37:20 but
1:37:20 he
1:37:21 had
1:37:22 a
1:37:22 kind
1:37:22 of
1:37:23 you
1:37:23 could
1:37:23 pick
1:37:23 things
1:37:24 out
1:37:24 from
1:37:24 being
1:37:24 in
1:37:24 a
1:37:24 room
1:37:25 he
1:37:25 liked
1:37:26 to
1:37:26 kind
1:37:26 of
1:37:26 show
1:37:27 off
1:37:28 his
1:37:28 kind
1:37:28 of
1:37:30 cosmopolitanism
1:37:31 Xi Jinping
1:37:31 talks
1:37:31 gives
1:37:32 these
1:37:32 speeches
1:37:32 about
1:37:33 all
1:37:33 the
1:37:33 foreign
1:37:34 authors
1:37:34 he
1:37:34 likes
1:37:34 and
1:37:34 has
1:37:35 read
1:37:35 but
1:37:35 it’s
1:37:35 all
1:37:36 very
1:37:37 kind
1:37:37 of
1:37:39 scripted
1:37:39 at least
1:37:39 in his
1:37:40 own
1:37:40 head
1:37:40 too
1:37:43 present
1:37:44 a
1:37:44 certain
1:37:44 image
1:37:44 of
1:37:45 himself
1:37:45 and
1:37:45 we
1:37:45 really
1:37:46 don’t
1:37:46 get
1:37:47 many
1:37:48 senses
1:37:48 of
1:37:48 what
1:37:49 he’s
1:37:49 like
1:37:49 in
1:37:50 unguarded
1:37:50 moments
1:37:51 or has
1:37:51 them
1:37:51 and
1:37:53 sometimes
1:37:53 we get
1:37:53 the
1:37:54 illusion
1:37:54 of
1:37:54 them
1:37:54 like
1:37:54 there
1:37:55 was
1:37:55 an
1:37:55 image
1:37:55 of
1:37:56 him
1:37:57 and
1:37:58 Obama
1:37:58 in
1:37:59 their
1:37:59 shirt
1:37:59 sleeves
1:38:00 at
1:38:00 the
1:38:01 Sunnylands
1:38:01 meeting
1:38:02 and the
1:38:02 photo
1:38:03 would
1:38:03 show
1:38:03 them
1:38:05 walking
1:38:05 and
1:38:06 talking
1:38:06 but
1:38:07 there’s
1:38:07 no
1:38:08 translator
1:38:08 in
1:38:08 the
1:38:09 image
1:38:09 and
1:38:09 so
1:38:09 you’re
1:38:09 like
1:38:09 how
1:38:10 are
1:38:10 they
1:38:10 talking
1:38:11 what
1:38:16 of
1:38:17 course
1:38:17 there
1:38:17 are
1:38:17 exchanges
1:38:18 with
1:38:18 top
1:38:18 leaders
1:38:19 and
1:38:19 Trump
1:38:20 will
1:38:20 say
1:38:20 they’re
1:38:21 friends
1:38:21 or
1:38:22 these
1:38:22 kinds
1:38:22 of
1:38:22 things
1:38:22 or
1:38:23 there’s
1:38:23 a
1:38:23 language
1:38:23 of
1:38:25 Xi Jinping
1:38:25 can
1:38:25 talk
1:38:25 about
1:38:26 somebody
1:38:26 or
1:38:27 some
1:38:27 country
1:38:27 being
1:38:28 friend
1:38:28 but
1:38:28 we
1:38:29 don’t
1:38:29 have
1:38:29 a
1:38:29 sense
1:38:30 of
1:38:31 what
1:38:32 makes
1:38:32 him
1:38:32 tick
1:38:32 as
1:38:32 a
1:38:33 person
1:38:33 so
1:38:34 maybe
1:38:34 you
1:38:34 should
1:38:34 ask
1:38:35 him
1:38:35 about
1:38:35 Ernest
1:38:36 Hemingway
1:38:36 and
1:38:37 see
1:38:37 if
1:38:37 he
1:38:37 really
1:38:38 gets
1:38:39 excited
1:38:39 about
1:38:39 him
1:38:39 because
1:38:40 in
1:38:41 the
1:38:41 kind
1:38:41 of
1:38:50 you
1:38:50 goes
1:38:50 off
1:38:51 these
1:38:51 set
1:38:51 things
1:38:52 but
1:38:53 Hemingway
1:38:54 there’s
1:38:54 some
1:38:55 sense
1:38:55 that
1:38:56 he
1:38:56 had
1:38:57 some
1:38:57 special
1:38:57 feeling
1:38:57 which
1:38:58 fits
1:38:58 in
1:38:58 with
1:38:59 some
1:38:59 of
1:38:59 the
1:38:59 macho
1:39:00 side
1:39:01 that
1:39:01 would
1:39:01 be
1:39:02 interestingly
1:39:02 he
1:39:03 doesn’t
1:39:03 mention
1:39:03 Orwell
1:39:04 as one
1:39:04 of his
1:39:04 favorite
1:39:05 British
1:39:06 authors
1:39:06 as much
1:39:07 he
1:39:07 says
1:39:07 he
1:39:07 likes
1:39:08 Victor
1:39:08 Hugo
1:39:08 a lot
1:39:09 and
1:39:09 that
1:39:10 became
1:39:10 a little
1:39:10 tricky
1:39:11 because
1:39:12 do
1:39:12 you
1:39:12 hear
1:39:12 the
1:39:13 people
1:39:13 sing
1:39:13 from
1:39:13 Les
1:39:14 Miserables
1:39:14 became
1:39:15 one
1:39:15 of
1:39:15 the
1:39:16 protest
1:39:17 songs
1:39:17 in
1:39:18 Hong
1:39:18 Kong
1:39:18 and
1:39:19 how
1:39:19 do
1:39:19 you
1:39:19 get
1:39:19 in
1:39:19 this
1:39:20 position
1:39:21 where
1:39:21 you
1:39:21 you
1:39:21 know
1:39:22 you
1:39:22 and
1:39:23 actually
1:39:24 Victor
1:39:24 Hugo
1:39:26 is
1:39:27 a
1:39:28 rare
1:39:29 Western
1:39:29 author
1:39:30 who’s
1:39:30 had a
1:39:30 pretty
1:39:31 steadily
1:39:31 positive
1:39:33 image
1:39:33 in
1:39:34 China
1:39:34 even
1:39:35 under
1:39:35 periods
1:39:36 of
1:39:37 criticism
1:39:37 of
1:39:37 like
1:39:38 all
1:39:38 Western
1:39:39 authors
1:39:39 problematic
1:39:41 because
1:39:41 Victor
1:39:41 Hugo
1:39:42 famously
1:39:43 wrote
1:39:44 a
1:39:44 statement
1:39:45 denouncing
1:39:46 the
1:39:46 European
1:39:48 destruction
1:39:49 of the
1:39:49 old
1:39:49 summer
1:39:49 palace
1:39:50 in
1:39:50 Beijing
1:39:51 in
1:39:51 1860
1:39:52 the
1:39:52 end
1:39:52 of
1:39:52 the
1:39:53 second
1:39:53 opium
1:39:54 war
1:39:54 he
1:39:55 said
1:39:55 how
1:39:55 can
1:39:55 we
1:39:55 claim
1:39:55 to
1:39:56 be
1:39:56 civilized
1:39:57 when
1:39:57 we’ve
1:39:58 destroyed
1:39:58 one
1:39:58 of
1:39:58 the
1:39:58 great
1:39:59 creations
1:39:59 of
1:40:00 civilization
1:40:01 so
1:40:01 that
1:40:01 kind
1:40:01 of
1:40:02 made
1:40:02 him
1:40:02 a
1:40:02 kind
1:40:02 of
1:40:03 long
1:40:03 term
1:40:04 friend
1:40:04 to
1:40:04 the
1:40:04 Chinese
1:40:05 nation
1:40:06 Mark
1:40:06 Twain
1:40:07 has
1:40:07 had a
1:40:07 pretty
1:40:07 good
1:40:08 reputation
1:40:08 because
1:40:08 he was
1:40:08 a
1:40:08 critic
1:40:09 of
1:40:09 American
1:40:10 imperialism
1:40:11 so
1:40:12 but
1:40:12 anyway
1:40:12 I think
1:40:13 if you
1:40:14 do get
1:40:14 to talk
1:40:15 to
1:40:15 Xi Jinping
1:40:16 talk to him
1:40:16 about
1:40:17 Ernest
1:40:17 Hemingway
1:40:18 and
1:40:20 Victor Hugo
1:40:20 and I’ll be
1:40:21 curious to
1:40:21 see if
1:40:21 those were
1:40:22 the ones
1:40:22 who really
1:40:23 resonated
1:40:24 one
1:40:24 one
1:40:24 one of
1:40:24 one of
1:40:24 the things
1:40:25 and
1:40:25 it’s
1:40:25 a
1:40:25 strange
1:40:26 thing
1:40:26 that
1:40:26 I’ve
1:40:26 become
1:40:26 aware
1:40:27 of
1:40:28 having
1:40:28 spoken
1:40:28 with
1:40:29 world
1:40:29 leaders
1:40:30 I’m
1:40:30 distinctly
1:40:31 aware
1:40:31 that
1:40:31 there’s
1:40:32 a
1:40:32 real
1:40:32 possibility
1:40:34 that
1:40:34 the
1:40:34 black
1:40:35 box
1:40:35 we
1:40:36 mentioned
1:40:38 that
1:40:38 the
1:40:38 communist
1:40:38 party
1:40:39 of
1:40:39 China
1:40:40 will
1:40:42 listen
1:40:42 to the
1:40:42 words
1:40:42 I’m
1:40:43 saying
1:40:43 now
1:40:44 and
1:40:44 so
1:40:44 I
1:40:44 have
1:40:44 to
1:40:45 wonder
1:40:46 how
1:40:46 much
1:40:46 that
1:40:47 affects
1:40:50 my
1:40:50 possible
1:40:51 tourist
1:40:52 like
1:40:52 trip
1:40:53 to
1:40:53 China
1:40:54 because
1:40:54 there’s
1:40:54 a
1:40:55 difference
1:40:55 between
1:40:55 sort
1:40:55 of
1:40:55 an
1:40:56 influencer
1:40:56 that
1:40:57 does
1:40:57 fun
1:40:57 things
1:40:57 plays
1:40:58 video
1:40:58 games
1:40:59 and
1:40:59 goes
1:40:59 over
1:40:59 to
1:40:59 China
1:41:00 and
1:41:00 somebody
1:41:00 that
1:41:01 actually
1:41:01 covers
1:41:02 China
1:41:02 to some
1:41:03 degree
1:41:04 whether
1:41:04 critical
1:41:05 or
1:41:05 supportive
1:41:05 or
1:41:06 nuanced
1:41:06 or
1:41:07 any
1:41:07 kind
1:41:07 of
1:41:07 way
1:41:08 in
1:41:08 the
1:41:08 full
1:41:09 spectrum
1:41:09 of
1:41:09 ideas
1:41:09 you
1:41:09 can
1:41:10 have
1:41:10 about
1:41:10 China
1:41:10 including
1:41:11 Chinese
1:41:11 history
1:41:12 whether
1:41:13 that’s
1:41:13 going
1:41:14 to be
1:41:14 seen
1:41:18 carefully
1:41:18 analyzed
1:41:19 carefully
1:41:20 and
1:41:21 have
1:41:22 repercussions
1:41:23 when you
1:41:23 travel
1:41:24 and
1:41:25 because
1:41:25 of the
1:41:26 black box
1:41:26 nature
1:41:27 and
1:41:27 because
1:41:27 it’s
1:41:28 for me
1:41:28 personally
1:41:29 just a
1:41:29 culture
1:41:29 that’s
1:41:29 very
1:41:30 different
1:41:30 than
1:41:30 anything
1:41:31 I’m
1:41:31 familiar
1:41:31 with
1:41:32 it
1:41:34 makes
1:41:34 me a
1:41:34 bit
1:41:35 nervous
1:41:36 it’s
1:41:36 certainly
1:41:37 gotten
1:41:38 harder
1:41:38 for
1:41:38 journalists
1:41:39 to
1:41:40 operate
1:41:40 in
1:41:40 China
1:41:41 that
1:41:42 there
1:41:42 was
1:41:43 a
1:41:43 way
1:41:43 in
1:41:43 which
1:41:44 now
1:41:46 journalists
1:41:46 will
1:41:46 look
1:41:46 back
1:41:47 to
1:41:47 the
1:41:47 early
1:41:48 2000s
1:41:48 and
1:41:48 it
1:41:49 was
1:41:49 really
1:41:50 quite
1:41:50 extraordinary
1:41:51 what
1:41:51 they
1:41:51 could
1:41:52 do
1:41:53 well
1:41:53 you
1:41:54 have
1:41:54 a lot
1:41:54 of
1:41:54 you
1:41:54 have
1:41:55 a lot
1:41:55 of
1:41:55 listeners
1:41:55 I
1:41:55 mean
1:41:56 I
1:41:56 think
1:41:56 there
1:41:57 isn’t
1:41:57 that
1:41:58 tight
1:41:58 a
1:41:59 watching
1:41:59 of
1:42:00 what
1:42:01 an
1:42:01 academic
1:42:02 writes
1:42:02 about
1:42:03 the
1:42:03 Chinese
1:42:04 Communist
1:42:04 Party
1:42:04 but
1:42:04 there
1:42:04 are
1:42:04 certain
1:42:05 things
1:42:05 that
1:42:06 clearly
1:42:07 are
1:42:08 kind
1:42:08 of
1:42:08 tightly
1:42:09 policed
1:42:09 and
1:42:10 one
1:42:10 is
1:42:11 discussions
1:42:11 of the
1:42:11 private
1:42:12 life
1:42:13 Chinese
1:42:14 leaders
1:42:14 and
1:42:14 their
1:42:15 families
1:42:16 and
1:42:17 issues
1:42:17 of
1:42:18 kind
1:42:18 of
1:42:18 really
1:42:20 following
1:42:20 money
1:42:20 trails
1:42:21 for
1:42:21 corruption
1:42:21 and
1:42:22 things
1:42:22 like
1:42:22 that
1:42:23 so
1:42:24 there
1:42:24 was
1:42:24 the
1:42:24 case
1:42:25 of
1:42:25 the
1:42:26 Hong Kong
1:42:26 booksellers
1:42:27 who were
1:42:28 kidnapped
1:42:28 and one
1:42:28 of them
1:42:29 is still
1:42:29 in a
1:42:29 Chinese
1:42:30 prison
1:42:30 he would
1:42:31 be a
1:42:31 good
1:42:31 example
1:42:31 of this
1:42:32 Gui Minhai
1:42:32 the kind
1:42:33 of person
1:42:33 who was
1:42:34 vulnerable
1:42:35 he was
1:42:36 born in
1:42:36 China
1:42:36 he was
1:42:37 actually
1:42:37 a Swedish
1:42:38 he is
1:42:38 a Swedish
1:42:39 citizen
1:42:40 and he
1:42:40 was spirited
1:42:41 out of
1:42:41 Thailand
1:42:42 into
1:42:42 the
1:42:43 mainland
1:42:44 and the
1:42:44 reason why
1:42:45 he was
1:42:46 on the
1:42:47 on the
1:42:47 radar
1:42:48 of the
1:42:49 Communist Party
1:42:49 was because
1:42:51 the publishing
1:42:51 house in Hong Kong
1:42:52 that he was
1:42:52 connected to
1:42:53 was publishing
1:42:55 works about
1:42:56 the top tier
1:42:57 of the
1:42:58 Chinese Communist
1:42:58 Party
1:43:00 and contradicting
1:43:01 the kind
1:43:01 of vision
1:43:02 of them
1:43:02 as a certain
1:43:03 kind of
1:43:03 moral
1:43:04 exemplars
1:43:05 and that’s
1:43:06 different from
1:43:07 writing
1:43:08 things about
1:43:09 China has a
1:43:09 bad human
1:43:10 rights
1:43:10 record
1:43:11 or something
1:43:11 like that
1:43:13 in ways
1:43:13 like I
1:43:13 did
1:43:14 these were
1:43:15 books that
1:43:15 were
1:43:16 exposés
1:43:17 or sort
1:43:18 of some
1:43:18 some of
1:43:19 them kind
1:43:19 of gossipy
1:43:20 and lightly
1:43:20 sourced
1:43:21 some of
1:43:21 them much
1:43:22 more serious
1:43:23 but they
1:43:24 were about
1:43:25 something that
1:43:26 the Communist
1:43:26 Party leadership
1:43:27 wants to
1:43:27 make a no-go
1:43:28 zone
1:43:29 and I’ve
1:43:29 thought
1:43:29 sometimes
1:43:30 that Xi
1:43:30 Jinping
1:43:31 seems to
1:43:31 have
1:43:32 lais-majeste
1:43:33 envy
1:43:34 I don’t
1:43:34 think it’s
1:43:35 kind of
1:43:36 general
1:43:36 criticisms
1:43:38 of the
1:43:39 Chinese
1:43:39 Communist
1:43:39 Party
1:43:40 as a
1:43:41 authoritarian
1:43:45 structure
1:43:46 or place
1:43:47 that doesn’t
1:43:47 deserve to
1:43:48 rule in
1:43:48 kind of
1:43:49 very general
1:43:49 terms
1:43:49 I don’t
1:43:50 think that’s
1:43:51 something that
1:43:52 they then
1:43:53 pick you up
1:43:53 at the border
1:43:54 and say
1:43:55 no we can’t
1:43:55 let that
1:43:56 person in
1:43:57 because people
1:43:57 are let
1:43:57 in
1:43:59 and it’s
1:44:00 not rational
1:44:01 it’s not
1:44:01 a rational
1:44:02 process
1:44:02 there are
1:44:02 people who’ve
1:44:03 been denied
1:44:04 visas
1:44:05 it seems
1:44:05 pretty
1:44:06 inexplicable
1:44:07 there are
1:44:07 things that
1:44:08 now I think
1:44:09 the rules
1:44:10 are changing
1:44:11 very quickly
1:44:12 all over
1:44:12 the world
1:44:14 for kinds
1:44:14 of
1:44:15 what’s
1:44:16 what’s safe
1:44:17 to say
1:44:17 and do
1:44:18 well either
1:44:19 way I do
1:44:20 know that the
1:44:20 Communist Party
1:44:21 and likely
1:44:22 Xi Jinping
1:44:23 himself watched
1:44:25 my conversation
1:44:26 with Prime
1:44:27 Minister Modi
1:44:28 they responded
1:44:28 to it
1:44:30 and I do
1:44:30 hope
1:44:31 and I will
1:44:32 definitely
1:44:33 go to China
1:44:35 and I hope
1:44:35 to talk to
1:44:36 Xi Jinping
1:44:36 it’s a
1:44:37 fascinating
1:44:38 historic
1:44:38 ancient
1:44:39 culture
1:44:41 and is
1:44:42 the major
1:44:42 player on the
1:44:43 world stage
1:44:44 in the 21st
1:44:44 century
1:44:46 and it would
1:44:47 be fascinating
1:44:48 to understand
1:44:48 the mind
1:44:50 of the
1:44:51 leader
1:44:52 of that
1:44:52 great
1:44:53 superpower
1:44:54 speaking of
1:44:55 leaders
1:44:56 what do we
1:44:57 understand
1:44:57 about the
1:44:58 relationship
1:44:58 between
1:44:59 Xi Jinping
1:44:59 and our
1:45:00 current
1:45:00 president
1:45:01 of the
1:45:01 United
1:45:01 States
1:45:02 Donald
1:45:02 Trump
1:45:03 is there
1:45:03 really a
1:45:03 human
1:45:04 connection
1:45:05 something
1:45:05 approximating
1:45:05 a
1:45:06 friendship
1:45:07 as they
1:45:07 spoken
1:45:07 about
1:45:08 or is it
1:45:08 just
1:45:09 purely
1:45:11 realpolitik
1:45:12 maneuvering
1:45:14 world leaders
1:45:15 playing a game
1:45:16 of chess
1:45:17 or is it a bit
1:45:17 of both
1:45:18 there’s a
1:45:19 degree to
1:45:19 which I
1:45:19 think there’s
1:45:19 some
1:45:20 confusion
1:45:20 about a
1:45:20 couple
1:45:21 things
1:45:21 I mean
1:45:22 one is
1:45:22 when
1:45:24 there’s a
1:45:25 sense
1:45:25 that
1:45:28 Trump
1:45:28 is
1:45:29 sort of
1:45:29 uniquely
1:45:30 tough
1:45:31 on the
1:45:31 Chinese
1:45:32 Communist
1:45:32 Party
1:45:33 he has
1:45:34 periodically
1:45:34 said
1:45:35 things
1:45:35 about
1:45:36 praising
1:45:36 Xi Jinping
1:45:38 as a
1:45:38 leader
1:45:38 even
1:45:39 sort of
1:45:39 having
1:45:40 praising
1:45:41 Xi Jinping’s
1:45:41 strength
1:45:42 things
1:45:42 so I
1:45:42 think
1:45:43 for
1:45:43 some
1:45:43 ways
1:45:44 for
1:45:44 the
1:45:45 personality
1:45:45 cult
1:45:45 of
1:45:46 Xi
1:45:46 Jinping
1:45:47 some
1:45:47 of
1:45:47 this
1:45:48 is
1:45:48 kind
1:45:48 of
1:45:48 useful
1:45:50 because
1:45:52 the
1:45:53 story
1:45:54 that the
1:45:54 Chinese
1:45:54 Communist
1:45:54 Party
1:45:55 they need
1:45:56 to tell
1:45:56 a story
1:45:56 about why
1:45:57 they deserve
1:45:57 to keep
1:45:58 ruling
1:45:58 and one
1:45:58 of their
1:45:59 stories
1:45:59 is that
1:46:00 because
1:46:00 the world
1:46:01 is a
1:46:01 dangerous
1:46:01 place
1:46:02 and there’s
1:46:02 not a lot
1:46:03 of
1:46:03 respect
1:46:04 enough
1:46:04 respect
1:46:04 for
1:46:04 China
1:46:06 so when
1:46:06 there’s
1:46:06 very tough
1:46:07 talk
1:46:08 about
1:46:08 China
1:46:09 coming out
1:46:09 of the
1:46:09 White
1:46:10 House
1:46:11 that’s
1:46:11 useful
1:46:12 and then
1:46:12 the other
1:46:13 part is
1:46:13 about
1:46:13 Xi
1:46:14 Jinping
1:46:14 being
1:46:15 just
1:46:15 the
1:46:16 right
1:46:16 person
1:46:16 to have
1:46:17 at the
1:46:17 helm
1:46:18 and when
1:46:19 there are
1:46:19 discussions
1:46:20 when there’s
1:46:20 praise for
1:46:21 him
1:46:21 and
1:46:21 his
1:46:22 showing
1:46:23 toughness
1:46:23 that
1:46:24 also
1:46:25 works
1:46:25 well
1:46:26 so I
1:46:26 think
1:46:28 the
1:46:29 argument
1:46:29 among
1:46:30 at least
1:46:30 some
1:46:31 China
1:46:31 specialists
1:46:32 is to
1:46:32 say
1:46:32 the
1:46:33 Chinese
1:46:33 Communist
1:46:33 Party
1:46:34 likes
1:46:35 predictability
1:46:36 and Xi
1:46:36 Jinping
1:46:37 seems to
1:46:37 like
1:46:37 predictability
1:46:38 in
1:46:38 particular
1:46:39 and
1:46:41 Donald
1:46:42 Trump
1:46:42 clearly
1:46:42 isn’t
1:46:42 a
1:46:43 predictable
1:46:44 figure
1:46:45 so
1:46:45 there
1:46:45 might
1:46:45 be
1:46:46 a
1:46:46 way
1:46:46 in
1:46:46 which
1:46:47 this
1:46:47 is
1:46:48 unsettling
1:46:49 but I
1:46:49 think
1:46:50 the other
1:46:50 part
1:46:50 of it
1:46:51 is
1:46:51 the
1:46:51 Chinese
1:46:51 Communist
1:46:52 Party
1:46:53 wants
1:46:54 under
1:46:54 Xi
1:46:54 Jinping
1:46:56 wants
1:46:56 to
1:46:58 gain
1:46:58 more
1:46:59 allies
1:46:59 around
1:46:59 the
1:46:59 world
1:47:00 to
1:47:00 be
1:47:01 seen
1:47:01 with
1:47:02 more
1:47:02 respect
1:47:02 around
1:47:02 the
1:47:03 world
1:47:03 and
1:47:04 at
1:47:04 the
1:47:04 moment
1:47:05 is
1:47:05 in
1:47:05 a
1:47:06 position
1:47:06 where
1:47:08 he
1:47:08 can
1:47:08 say
1:47:09 he
1:47:09 can
1:47:10 present
1:47:10 himself
1:47:11 as
1:47:11 an
1:47:12 orderly
1:47:13 thoughtful
1:47:14 gradualist
1:47:14 figure
1:47:15 in
1:47:16 some
1:47:16 ways
1:47:16 I
1:47:16 think
1:47:18 as
1:47:19 much
1:47:19 as
1:47:20 there’s
1:47:20 tension
1:47:21 between
1:47:22 the two
1:47:23 capitals
1:47:23 there’s
1:47:23 a
1:47:23 way
1:47:24 that
1:47:25 things
1:47:25 are
1:47:25 going
1:47:26 in
1:47:26 a
1:47:26 way
1:47:26 that
1:47:27 benefits
1:47:28 Xi
1:47:28 Jinping
1:47:29 and
1:47:29 can
1:47:30 see
1:47:30 but
1:47:30 that
1:47:30 doesn’t
1:47:31 explain
1:47:31 what
1:47:31 their
1:47:32 personal
1:47:32 relationship
1:47:33 is
1:47:33 and
1:47:34 how
1:47:34 they
1:47:34 actually
1:47:35 see
1:47:35 each
1:47:36 other
1:47:36 when
1:47:36 they’re
1:47:36 in
1:47:36 the
1:47:36 room
1:47:37 together
1:47:37 and
1:47:37 whether
1:47:37 that
1:47:38 matters
1:47:38 or
1:47:38 is
1:47:39 part
1:47:39 of
1:47:39 the
1:47:39 calculus
1:47:40 at
1:47:40 all
1:47:40 because
1:47:41 after
1:47:41 all
1:47:41 they
1:47:41 are
1:47:42 leaders
1:47:42 of
1:47:43 superpowers
1:47:43 I
1:47:43 think
1:47:44 for
1:47:44 Trump
1:47:45 it
1:47:46 matters
1:47:47 personal
1:47:47 relationships
1:47:48 matter
1:47:48 but
1:47:49 of course
1:47:49 we
1:47:50 see
1:47:50 a
1:47:50 lot
1:47:51 we
1:47:51 know
1:47:52 a lot
1:47:52 about
1:47:52 Donald
1:47:52 Trump
1:47:53 we
1:47:53 know
1:47:53 a lot
1:47:53 about
1:47:54 the
1:47:54 White
1:47:54 House
1:47:56 and
1:47:56 for
1:47:57 actually
1:47:57 let me
1:47:57 just
1:47:57 say
1:47:58 as a
1:47:58 tangent
1:47:59 for
1:47:59 whatever
1:47:59 you
1:47:59 think
1:48:00 about
1:48:00 this
1:48:00 particular
1:48:00 White
1:48:01 House
1:48:02 one
1:48:03 of
1:48:03 the
1:48:03 things
1:48:03 I
1:48:03 really
1:48:04 like
1:48:05 is
1:48:06 that
1:48:06 every
1:48:07 single
1:48:07 member
1:48:07 of
1:48:07 the
1:48:08 cabinet
1:48:08 is
1:48:09 willing
1:48:09 to
1:48:09 talk
1:48:09 for
1:48:10 many
1:48:10 hours
1:48:12 every
1:48:13 single
1:48:13 week
1:48:14 talk
1:48:14 about
1:48:15 what
1:48:15 they
1:48:15 think
1:48:15 how
1:48:16 they
1:48:16 see
1:48:16 the
1:48:16 world
1:48:19 explained
1:48:19 Donald
1:48:20 Trump’s
1:48:21 approach
1:48:22 you know
1:48:22 it
1:48:23 doesn’t
1:48:23 matter
1:48:23 if
1:48:23 you
1:48:24 disagree
1:48:24 with
1:48:24 what
1:48:24 they’re
1:48:25 saying
1:48:25 maybe
1:48:25 you
1:48:25 say
1:48:25 they’re
1:48:26 dishonest
1:48:26 maybe
1:48:26 you’re
1:48:27 misrepresenting
1:48:27 but
1:48:28 there’s
1:48:28 a lot
1:48:28 of
1:48:29 information
1:48:30 that’s
1:48:30 something
1:48:30 we
1:48:30 don’t
1:48:31 have
1:48:31 with
1:48:31 China
1:48:32 and
1:48:32 as a
1:48:33 fan
1:48:33 of
1:48:33 history
1:48:34 for
1:48:34 me
1:48:35 and
1:48:35 as
1:48:35 a
1:48:35 fan
1:48:36 of
1:48:36 sort
1:48:36 of
1:48:37 deep
1:48:39 political
1:48:39 analysis
1:48:40 of
1:48:40 the
1:48:40 world
1:48:42 it makes
1:48:42 me sad
1:48:43 because
1:48:43 it’s a
1:48:43 very
1:48:44 asymmetrical
1:48:45 amount
1:48:45 of
1:48:46 information
1:48:47 but
1:48:47 anyway
1:48:48 let me
1:48:48 if I
1:48:49 can
1:48:50 lay out
1:48:51 this
1:48:51 particular
1:48:53 complexity
1:48:53 we’re in
1:48:54 now
1:48:54 this trade
1:48:54 war
1:48:55 between
1:48:55 US
1:48:55 and
1:48:56 China
1:48:56 now
1:48:57 you’re
1:48:57 not
1:48:57 an
1:48:58 economist
1:48:59 in
1:48:59 fact
1:49:00 so
1:49:01 you
1:49:01 think
1:49:01 deeply
1:49:02 about
1:49:02 history
1:49:03 of
1:49:03 peoples
1:49:03 and
1:49:04 history
1:49:04 of
1:49:04 China
1:49:05 you
1:49:05 think
1:49:05 about
1:49:05 culture
1:49:06 you think
1:49:06 about
1:49:06 protests
1:49:07 and the
1:49:07 movements
1:49:08 and so on
1:49:09 and there’s
1:49:09 some
1:49:10 degree
1:49:11 to which
1:49:12 this trade
1:49:12 war
1:49:14 is less
1:49:14 about the
1:49:15 economics
1:49:15 now that
1:49:16 layer is also
1:49:17 very important
1:49:17 and we could
1:49:18 discuss it
1:49:19 but there’s
1:49:20 also
1:49:22 a deeply
1:49:24 cultural
1:49:25 standoff
1:49:26 almost
1:49:27 happening
1:49:27 happening
1:49:27 happening
1:49:27 here
1:49:28 which
1:49:28 would
1:49:28 be
1:49:28 interesting
1:49:29 so
1:49:30 in
1:49:31 April
1:49:31 as people
1:49:32 know
1:49:32 Trump
1:49:32 escalated
1:49:33 a trade
1:49:33 war
1:49:33 with
1:49:33 China
1:49:34 using
1:49:34 tariffs
1:49:35 raising
1:49:35 them
1:49:36 on
1:49:36 Chinese
1:49:37 imports
1:49:37 to
1:49:39 145%
1:49:40 Xi Jinping
1:49:41 then responded
1:49:42 by raising
1:49:42 tariffs on
1:49:43 US goods
1:49:44 to
1:49:46 125%
1:49:47 and suspending
1:49:48 exports on
1:49:48 certain rare
1:49:49 earth minerals
1:49:50 and magnets
1:49:50 to the
1:49:51 US
1:49:52 the
1:49:53 Chinese
1:49:53 government
1:49:53 also
1:49:54 indicated
1:49:54 it would
1:49:54 limit
1:49:54 the
1:49:55 import
1:49:55 of
1:49:55 Hollywood
1:49:56 films
1:49:56 and
1:49:56 restricted
1:49:57 certain
1:49:57 American
1:49:57 companies
1:49:58 from
1:49:58 operating
1:49:58 in
1:49:59 China
1:50:00 now
1:50:01 after
1:50:01 that
1:50:01 Xi Jinping
1:50:02 broke
1:50:03 silence
1:50:03 on
1:50:04 April
1:50:04 11th
1:50:05 and again
1:50:05 on April
1:50:06 14th
1:50:07 and since
1:50:08 basically
1:50:08 saying that
1:50:09 China is
1:50:09 not backing
1:50:10 down
1:50:11 and
1:50:11 positioned
1:50:12 himself
1:50:12 in
1:50:13 China
1:50:13 as the
1:50:14 quote
1:50:14 responsible
1:50:15 superpower
1:50:16 that
1:50:17 promotes
1:50:17 as you
1:50:17 were saying
1:50:19 that promotes
1:50:19 sort of the
1:50:20 reasonable
1:50:20 multilateral
1:50:21 global
1:50:21 trading
1:50:22 framework
1:50:22 and a
1:50:22 stable
1:50:23 global
1:50:23 supply
1:50:23 chain
1:50:25 he said
1:50:26 quote
1:50:26 for over
1:50:27 70 years
1:50:28 China’s
1:50:29 progress
1:50:29 has been
1:50:29 built on
1:50:30 self-reliance
1:50:31 and hard
1:50:31 work
1:50:32 never on
1:50:33 handoffs
1:50:33 from others
1:50:34 and it
1:50:34 remains
1:50:35 unafraid
1:50:36 of any
1:50:36 unjust
1:50:37 oppression
1:50:39 also he
1:50:39 said
1:50:40 there are
1:50:40 no winners
1:50:41 in a
1:50:41 trade war
1:50:42 and going
1:50:42 against
1:50:43 the world
1:50:43 will only
1:50:44 lead to
1:50:45 self-isolation
1:50:46 this was
1:50:47 all said
1:50:47 as part
1:50:47 of a
1:50:48 tour
1:50:48 of
1:50:48 Southeast
1:50:49 Asia
1:50:50 and he
1:50:50 was
1:50:51 calling
1:50:51 on
1:50:51 China
1:50:52 and the
1:50:52 European
1:50:53 Union
1:50:53 to
1:50:53 defend
1:50:54 international
1:50:54 rules
1:50:55 opposing
1:50:56 unilateral
1:50:57 bullying
1:50:59 at the
1:51:00 same
1:51:00 time
1:51:00 I
1:51:00 saw
1:51:00 that
1:51:01 China
1:51:01 is
1:51:01 escalating
1:51:02 internal
1:51:02 propaganda
1:51:03 including
1:51:04 interestingly
1:51:20 it
1:51:21 So I
1:51:21 think
1:51:22 one
1:51:22 persistent
1:51:24 there’s
1:51:24 a lot
1:51:25 to unpack
1:51:25 there for
1:51:27 a historian
1:51:27 too
1:51:28 I
1:51:28 mean
1:51:28 I
1:51:28 think
1:51:29 that
1:51:30 the
1:51:32 reference
1:51:32 to
1:51:34 being
1:51:34 bullied
1:51:35 by a
1:51:35 foreign
1:51:35 power
1:51:36 is
1:51:36 something
1:51:36 that
1:51:36 comes
1:51:37 up
1:51:38 periodically
1:51:38 and
1:51:39 plays
1:51:39 to
1:51:40 this
1:51:40 kind
1:51:40 of
1:51:41 notion
1:51:42 of
1:51:42 the
1:51:42 hundred
1:51:42 years
1:51:43 of
1:51:43 national
1:51:44 humiliation
1:51:44 that’s
1:51:44 been
1:51:45 talked
1:51:45 about
1:51:45 by
1:51:46 generations
1:51:46 now
1:51:47 of
1:51:47 Chinese
1:51:47 leaders
1:51:48 to talk
1:51:48 about
1:51:49 that
1:51:49 period
1:51:49 from
1:51:50 the
1:51:50 1840s
1:51:50 to the
1:51:51 1940s
1:51:52 there
1:51:52 were
1:51:52 a
1:51:52 group
1:51:53 of
1:51:53 foreign
1:51:53 powers
1:51:54 who
1:51:55 were
1:51:55 involved
1:51:55 in
1:51:56 bullying
1:51:56 China
1:51:57 in one
1:51:57 way
1:51:57 or
1:51:57 another
1:51:57 and you
1:51:57 can
1:51:58 selectively
1:51:58 pick
1:51:59 one
1:51:59 or
1:51:59 another
1:52:00 so
1:52:00 there
1:52:01 is
1:52:01 a
1:52:01 way
1:52:01 in
1:52:01 which
1:52:02 this
1:52:02 can
1:52:03 be
1:52:03 and
1:52:03 if
1:52:04 Xi Jinping
1:52:04 gives
1:52:04 that
1:52:05 kind
1:52:05 of
1:52:05 speech
1:52:05 in
1:52:07 Southeast
1:52:07 Asia
1:52:08 he’s
1:52:09 speaking
1:52:09 to
1:52:10 a
1:52:10 place
1:52:10 where
1:52:11 there
1:52:11 is
1:52:12 knowledge
1:52:12 of
1:52:13 times
1:52:13 of
1:52:13 the
1:52:13 past
1:52:14 when
1:52:14 the
1:52:14 United
1:52:15 States
1:52:15 was
1:52:16 aggressive
1:52:17 force
1:52:17 there
1:52:18 it’s
1:52:18 also
1:52:19 a
1:52:19 part
1:52:19 of
1:52:19 the
1:52:19 world
1:52:20 where
1:52:20 there
1:52:20 have
1:52:20 been
1:52:21 times
1:52:21 when
1:52:21 China
1:52:21 has
1:52:22 been
1:52:23 that
1:52:24 so
1:52:24 it’s
1:52:24 there
1:52:25 is
1:52:25 a
1:52:25 way
1:52:25 of
1:52:26 positioning
1:52:27 vis-a-vis
1:52:28 other parts
1:52:28 of the
1:52:29 world
1:52:29 that is
1:52:29 crucial
1:52:30 part
1:52:30 of
1:52:30 this
1:52:30 that
1:52:30 I
1:52:31 think
1:52:31 I
1:52:32 guess
1:52:32 it’s
1:52:33 circling
1:52:33 around
1:52:33 it
1:52:34 but
1:52:34 there’s
1:52:34 a
1:52:35 tendency
1:52:35 in
1:52:36 discussions
1:52:36 of
1:52:36 US
1:52:36 China
1:52:37 relations
1:52:38 to
1:52:39 think
1:52:39 about
1:52:39 it
1:52:40 in
1:52:40 terms
1:52:40 of
1:52:40 a
1:52:41 bilateral
1:52:42 discussion
1:52:43 or
1:52:43 dispute
1:52:44 even
1:52:45 though
1:52:45 time
1:52:45 and
1:52:46 again
1:52:47 we
1:52:48 realize
1:52:49 that
1:52:50 places
1:52:50 other
1:52:50 than
1:52:51 the
1:52:51 United
1:52:51 States
1:52:51 are
1:52:51 key
1:52:52 variables
1:52:53 in
1:52:53 these
1:52:54 things
1:52:54 so
1:52:55 the
1:52:56 US
1:52:56 and
1:52:56 China
1:52:57 being
1:52:57 at
1:52:57 odds
1:52:58 under
1:52:59 in
1:52:59 the
1:52:59 Mao
1:53:00 era
1:53:02 what
1:53:03 changed
1:53:03 things
1:53:04 dramatically
1:53:04 for
1:53:05 that
1:53:05 wasn’t
1:53:06 so
1:53:06 much
1:53:06 even
1:53:07 a
1:53:07 change
1:53:07 in
1:53:08 I
1:53:09 mean
1:53:09 yes
1:53:09 Nixon
1:53:10 was
1:53:10 the
1:53:10 one
1:53:10 who
1:53:10 went
1:53:10 to
1:53:11 China
1:53:11 but
1:53:12 what
1:53:12 made
1:53:12 it
1:53:12 possible
1:53:13 for
1:53:13 Nixon
1:53:13 to
1:53:13 go
1:53:13 to
1:53:14 China
1:53:14 was
1:53:14 that
1:53:14 the
1:53:15 Sino-Soviet
1:53:16 split
1:53:16 happened
1:53:17 that
1:53:17 actually
1:53:17 it
1:53:17 was
1:53:18 tensions
1:53:18 between
1:53:19 China
1:53:19 and
1:53:19 the
1:53:20 Soviet
1:53:20 Union
1:53:21 that
1:53:22 altered
1:53:22 equations
1:53:23 for
1:53:23 the
1:53:23 United
1:53:23 States
1:53:24 and
1:53:24 China
1:53:25 and
1:53:26 another
1:53:26 I
1:53:27 happened
1:53:27 to be
1:53:27 in
1:53:27 China
1:53:28 in
1:53:28 1999
1:53:29 when
1:53:30 NATO
1:53:30 bombs
1:53:31 hit
1:53:31 the
1:53:31 Chinese
1:53:32 embassy
1:53:32 in
1:53:32 Belgrade
1:53:33 and
1:53:33 three
1:53:33 Chinese
1:53:34 citizens
1:53:34 died
1:53:34 and
1:53:35 there
1:53:35 was
1:53:36 tremendous
1:53:37 discontent
1:53:37 about that
1:53:38 anger
1:53:38 about that
1:53:38 within
1:53:39 China
1:53:40 and
1:53:40 there
1:53:40 were
1:53:41 some
1:53:41 rare
1:53:42 protests
1:53:42 that
1:53:43 the
1:53:43 government
1:53:43 allowed
1:53:43 to
1:53:44 happen
1:53:44 but
1:53:45 students
1:53:45 were
1:53:45 worked
1:53:45 up
1:53:46 about
1:53:46 it
1:53:46 and
1:53:47 there
1:53:47 were
1:53:47 protests
1:53:47 outside
1:53:48 the
1:53:48 American
1:53:48 embassy
1:53:49 and
1:53:49 the
1:53:49 British
1:53:49 embassy
1:53:51 and
1:53:52 that
1:53:52 happened
1:53:53 and
1:53:53 then in
1:53:53 2001
1:53:54 there
1:53:54 was
1:53:54 a
1:53:55 spy
1:53:55 plane
1:53:55 incident
1:53:56 that
1:53:56 happened
1:53:56 and
1:53:57 so
1:53:57 there
1:53:57 was
1:53:57 a lot
1:53:57 of
1:53:58 discussion
1:53:58 that
1:54:00 the
1:54:00 next
1:54:00 decade
1:54:00 was
1:54:01 going
1:54:01 to
1:54:01 see
1:54:02 U.S.-China
1:54:02 tensions
1:54:04 being
1:54:04 the
1:54:04 major
1:54:05 force
1:54:05 in
1:54:05 the
1:54:05 world
1:54:07 9-11
1:54:08 happened
1:54:09 it was
1:54:09 a dramatic
1:54:10 reset
1:54:11 for
1:54:12 the
1:54:12 trajectory
1:54:12 that
1:54:12 the
1:54:13 U.S.
1:54:13 and
1:54:13 China
1:54:13 were
1:54:14 on
1:54:14 which
1:54:14 is
1:54:15 these
1:54:15 are
1:54:15 two
1:54:15 totally
1:54:16 different
1:54:16 things
1:54:16 the
1:54:17 Sino-Soviet
1:54:17 split
1:54:18 and 9-11
1:54:18 but in
1:54:19 both
1:54:19 cases
1:54:20 no matter
1:54:21 how
1:54:21 careful
1:54:22 you were
1:54:22 at
1:54:22 parsing
1:54:23 what
1:54:24 was
1:54:24 likely
1:54:25 to be
1:54:26 the
1:54:26 next
1:54:26 five
1:54:27 years
1:54:27 for
1:54:28 U.S.-China
1:54:28 relations
1:54:29 get
1:54:29 dramatically
1:54:30 changed
1:54:31 by something
1:54:32 that happened
1:54:32 that wasn’t
1:54:33 the U.S.
1:54:34 and China
1:54:35 and
1:54:35 during
1:54:35 in
1:54:36 the
1:54:36 current
1:54:36 situation
1:54:37 the
1:54:37 trade
1:54:37 war
1:54:38 I
1:54:38 know
1:54:39 that
1:54:39 it
1:54:39 will
1:54:39 be
1:54:39 very
1:54:40 important
1:54:41 that
1:54:42 China
1:54:42 can
1:54:43 increase
1:54:43 try to
1:54:44 increase
1:54:44 sales
1:54:44 of
1:54:45 consumer
1:54:45 products
1:54:45 to
1:54:46 Europe
1:54:47 this
1:54:47 is
1:54:47 something
1:54:47 and
1:54:48 that
1:54:50 Europe’s
1:54:50 view
1:54:50 about
1:54:51 the
1:54:51 United
1:54:51 States
1:54:51 is
1:54:52 changing
1:54:52 right
1:54:53 now
1:54:53 these
1:54:53 are
1:54:53 all
1:54:53 kinds
1:54:53 of
1:54:54 variables
1:54:54 that
1:54:54 are
1:54:55 outside
1:54:56 of
1:54:56 simply
1:54:57 Washington
1:54:57 and
1:54:58 Beijing
1:54:58 as
1:54:58 being
1:54:58 the
1:54:59 two
1:54:59 actors
1:54:59 and
1:55:00 sometimes
1:55:01 Beijing
1:55:01 can’t
1:55:01 control
1:55:02 what’s
1:55:02 happening
1:55:03 outside
1:55:03 and
1:55:03 sometimes
1:55:04 Washington
1:55:05 can’t
1:55:06 and
1:55:06 so
1:55:07 I
1:55:07 guess
1:55:08 this
1:55:08 is
1:55:08 simply
1:55:09 saying
1:55:09 that
1:55:09 when
1:55:09 you’re
1:55:10 watching
1:55:10 and
1:55:11 you’re
1:55:11 trying
1:55:11 to
1:55:11 keep
1:55:11 the
1:55:11 eye
1:55:12 on
1:55:12 the
1:55:12 ball
1:55:12 it
1:55:13 matters
1:55:13 a lot
1:55:14 what
1:55:15 India’s
1:55:16 relationship
1:55:17 to
1:55:18 China
1:55:18 and the
1:55:19 United
1:55:19 States
1:55:19 is
1:55:20 so
1:55:20 all
1:55:20 of
1:55:20 these
1:55:20 are
1:55:20 happening
1:55:21 there
1:55:22 so
1:55:22 I
1:55:22 think
1:55:22 that’s
1:55:22 it
1:55:23 that
1:55:23 it’s
1:55:24 it’s
1:55:24 both
1:55:24 tremendously
1:55:25 important
1:55:27 what’s
1:55:27 going
1:55:27 on
1:55:27 between
1:55:28 China
1:55:28 and
1:55:28 the
1:55:28 United
1:55:28 States
1:55:29 but
1:55:30 it’s
1:55:30 important
1:55:30 to
1:55:31 remember
1:55:31 that
1:55:31 they’re
1:55:31 not
1:55:31 the
1:55:32 only
1:55:32 players
1:55:32 in
1:55:33 this
1:55:35 dynamic
1:55:36 also
1:55:36 on top
1:55:36 of
1:55:36 this
1:55:38 how
1:55:39 much
1:55:39 cultural
1:55:40 will
1:55:40 is
1:55:40 there
1:55:40 to
1:55:42 not
1:55:42 surrender
1:55:42 to
1:55:43 bullying
1:55:45 how much
1:55:45 of that
1:55:46 is there
1:55:47 like you
1:55:47 said
1:55:47 the
1:55:48 century
1:55:48 of
1:55:49 humiliation
1:55:50 both
1:55:50 for
1:55:50 Xi
1:55:51 Jinping
1:55:51 and
1:55:51 the
1:55:52 Chinese
1:55:52 populace
1:55:53 like
1:55:53 willingness
1:55:54 to go
1:55:54 through
1:55:54 some
1:55:55 short-term
1:55:55 pain
1:55:56 to
1:55:57 not
1:55:57 be
1:55:58 humiliated
1:55:58 the
1:55:59 story
1:55:59 that’s
1:55:59 been
1:56:00 intensively
1:56:00 told
1:56:00 about
1:56:01 the
1:56:01 past
1:56:02 is
1:56:03 something
1:56:03 that
1:56:04 that
1:56:05 provides
1:56:05 the
1:56:06 possibility
1:56:06 for
1:56:06 this
1:56:07 for
1:56:07 this
1:56:08 to
1:56:08 matter
1:56:08 a
1:56:08 lot
1:56:09 that
1:56:09 is
1:56:10 something
1:56:10 that’s
1:56:10 just
1:56:11 so
1:56:13 it’s
1:56:13 so much
1:56:14 a part
1:56:14 of
1:56:14 the
1:56:15 legitimating
1:56:16 story
1:56:17 of
1:56:17 the
1:56:18 Chinese
1:56:18 Communist
1:56:19 Party
1:56:20 and
1:56:20 then
1:56:20 you
1:56:20 have
1:56:20 to
1:56:20 look
1:56:20 at
1:56:21 are
1:56:21 there
1:56:21 things
1:56:21 that
1:56:21 are
1:56:22 happening
1:56:23 that
1:56:24 aid
1:56:24 the
1:56:24 Chinese
1:56:25 Communist
1:56:25 Party
1:56:26 story
1:56:27 so
1:56:28 the
1:56:29 rise
1:56:30 of
1:56:32 what
1:56:33 can
1:56:33 seem
1:56:34 like
1:56:34 or is
1:56:35 anti-Chinese
1:56:35 sentiment
1:56:36 within the
1:56:36 United
1:56:36 States
1:56:37 can
1:56:38 feed
1:56:38 that
1:56:39 propaganda
1:56:40 story
1:56:40 and
1:56:41 so
1:56:41 certainly
1:56:42 you know
1:56:42 during
1:56:43 COVID
1:56:44 there was
1:56:45 a way
1:56:45 that
1:56:48 if
1:56:48 you’re
1:56:49 the
1:56:49 Chinese
1:56:50 Communist
1:56:50 Party
1:56:50 and
1:56:50 you’re
1:56:51 saying
1:56:51 we
1:56:51 get
1:56:51 a
1:56:52 disproportionate
1:56:52 amount
1:56:53 of
1:56:53 blame
1:56:53 for
1:56:53 whatever
1:56:54 happens
1:56:54 in the
1:56:54 world
1:56:55 then
1:56:55 if
1:56:55 there
1:56:56 were
1:56:56 things
1:56:56 you
1:56:56 could
1:56:56 point
1:56:57 to
1:56:58 in
1:56:58 the
1:56:58 foreign
1:56:59 media
1:56:59 or
1:56:59 from
1:57:00 foreign
1:57:00 governments
1:57:00 then
1:57:01 that
1:57:01 helps
1:57:01 you
1:57:03 so
1:57:03 I
1:57:03 think
1:57:04 there
1:57:04 is
1:57:04 a
1:57:04 setup
1:57:05 here
1:57:05 where
1:57:06 certainly
1:57:06 for
1:57:07 Xi
1:57:07 Jinping
1:57:07 I
1:57:07 think
1:57:08 the
1:57:09 desire
1:57:09 to
1:57:10 not
1:57:10 be
1:57:10 seen
1:57:11 weak
1:57:12 is
1:57:13 crucial
1:57:13 sometimes
1:57:14 I
1:57:14 wonder
1:57:14 how much
1:57:14 these
1:57:15 leaders
1:57:15 operate
1:57:16 on
1:57:16 pure
1:57:17 ego
1:57:17 because
1:57:18 politically
1:57:19 and on
1:57:20 the human
1:57:20 level
1:57:20 they don’t
1:57:21 want to
1:57:21 come off
1:57:22 as losers
1:57:24 in a
1:57:24 standoff
1:57:26 versus
1:57:28 coming to
1:57:29 a
1:57:29 economic
1:57:30 win-win
1:57:31 for both
1:57:31 nations
1:57:39 and I
1:57:39 worry
1:57:40 that
1:57:41 there
1:57:41 is
1:57:41 a
1:57:41 real
1:57:42 pride
1:57:42 here
1:57:42 that
1:57:43 the
1:57:43 center
1:57:43 of
1:57:43 humiliation
1:57:44 has
1:57:45 deeply
1:57:46 saturated
1:57:47 the
1:57:48 populace
1:57:48 the
1:57:49 communist
1:57:49 party
1:57:50 this
1:57:50 idea
1:57:52 where
1:57:52 they’re
1:57:53 not
1:57:53 they’re
1:57:53 just
1:57:53 not
1:57:53 going
1:57:54 to
1:57:54 back
1:57:54 down
1:57:55 and
1:57:56 that
1:57:56 I
1:57:56 think
1:57:57 will
1:57:58 cause
1:57:59 tremendous
1:57:59 pain
1:57:59 in the
1:58:00 short
1:58:00 term
1:58:01 for
1:58:01 United
1:58:02 States
1:58:03 I
1:58:03 think
1:58:03 for
1:58:04 China
1:58:04 and
1:58:05 the
1:58:05 world
1:58:06 because
1:58:06 it
1:58:07 completely
1:58:09 transforms
1:58:09 the supply
1:58:09 chain
1:58:10 of
1:58:10 everything
1:58:10 we
1:58:10 just
1:58:11 there
1:58:11 is
1:58:11 a
1:58:12 global
1:58:12 nature
1:58:12 there
1:58:12 is
1:58:13 a
1:58:14 multilateral
1:58:14 nature
1:58:14 of
1:58:15 all
1:58:15 the
1:58:15 economic
1:58:16 partnerships
1:58:16 that
1:58:16 are
1:58:17 formed
1:58:17 throughout
1:58:18 the
1:58:18 21st
1:58:18 century
1:58:18 and
1:58:19 this
1:58:20 kind
1:58:20 of
1:58:21 protectionist
1:58:22 nationalistic
1:58:23 kind
1:58:23 of
1:58:24 ideology
1:58:25 goes
1:58:25 in the
1:58:25 face
1:58:26 of
1:58:26 all
1:58:26 of
1:58:26 that
1:58:27 and
1:58:27 it’s
1:58:27 going
1:58:28 to
1:58:28 create
1:58:28 a
1:58:28 huge
1:58:28 amount
1:58:29 of
1:58:30 pain
1:58:30 like
1:58:30 for
1:58:31 regular
1:58:32 Americans
1:58:33 but
1:58:34 also
1:58:34 I
1:58:34 worry
1:58:35 that
1:58:35 this
1:58:36 increases
1:58:36 not
1:58:37 decreases
1:58:37 the
1:58:38 chance
1:58:38 of
1:58:38 a
1:58:38 global
1:58:39 war
1:58:39 or
1:58:40 conflict
1:58:40 of
1:58:41 different
1:58:41 kinds
1:58:43 do you
1:58:43 see a
1:58:44 hopeful
1:58:45 possibility
1:58:45 for
1:58:46 resolution
1:58:46 for
1:58:47 de-escalation
1:58:48 here
1:58:49 it’s
1:58:49 it’s
1:58:49 it’s
1:58:50 it’s
1:58:50 it’s
1:58:50 a
1:58:51 it’s
1:58:51 a
1:58:51 hard
1:58:52 time
1:58:52 to
1:58:53 figure
1:58:53 out
1:58:53 what
1:58:54 what
1:58:54 you
1:58:54 can
1:58:55 to
1:58:56 sort
1:58:56 of
1:58:57 hopeful
1:58:58 angles
1:58:58 I mean
1:58:58 I guess
1:59:01 what’s
1:59:01 hard to
1:59:02 even
1:59:02 balance
1:59:03 these
1:59:03 things
1:59:03 out
1:59:03 so
1:59:04 one
1:59:04 of
1:59:04 the
1:59:04 things
1:59:04 that
1:59:04 I’ve
1:59:04 thought
1:59:05 about
1:59:05 when
1:59:05 you
1:59:05 talk
1:59:06 about
1:59:06 rising
1:59:07 chances
1:59:07 of
1:59:07 war
1:59:08 that
1:59:09 often
1:59:09 Taiwan
1:59:10 comes
1:59:10 to
1:59:11 mind
1:59:11 with
1:59:12 China
1:59:12 and
1:59:12 one
1:59:12 of
1:59:12 the
1:59:12 things
1:59:12 that
1:59:13 I’ve
1:59:13 thought
1:59:13 of
1:59:13 is
1:59:13 that
1:59:14 for
1:59:17 Xi
1:59:17 Jinping
1:59:18 that
1:59:19 military
1:59:20 action
1:59:20 against
1:59:20 Taiwan
1:59:22 would
1:59:22 be
1:59:22 increased
1:59:23 by
1:59:25 a
1:59:25 sense
1:59:25 of
1:59:26 desperation
1:59:27 a sense
1:59:27 of
1:59:27 losing
1:59:28 popularity
1:59:28 or a
1:59:29 sense
1:59:29 of
1:59:31 not
1:59:31 having
1:59:31 a good
1:59:32 story
1:59:32 to tell
1:59:33 about
1:59:34 why
1:59:34 he
1:59:35 and
1:59:35 the
1:59:35 party
1:59:35 deserves
1:59:36 to
1:59:36 lead
1:59:36 so
1:59:37 then
1:59:37 there’s
1:59:37 a
1:59:37 kind
1:59:37 of
1:59:38 way
1:59:38 of
1:59:38 playing
1:59:39 to
1:59:40 the
1:59:40 national
1:59:40 sentiments
1:59:41 of
1:59:41 some
1:59:41 part
1:59:42 of
1:59:42 the
1:59:42 population
1:59:43 so
1:59:45 then
1:59:45 in a
1:59:45 sense
1:59:46 it’s
1:59:46 hopeful
1:59:46 that
1:59:46 I
1:59:46 think
1:59:47 in
1:59:47 some
1:59:47 ways
1:59:47 right
1:59:48 now
1:59:48 Xi
1:59:48 Jinping
1:59:50 is
1:59:50 not
1:59:51 looking
1:59:52 desperate
1:59:53 in the
1:59:53 eyes
1:59:53 of
1:59:53 the
1:59:53 world
1:59:53 you know
1:59:54 he
1:59:54 can
1:59:55 if he
1:59:55 can
1:59:55 focus
1:59:56 on
1:59:57 potentially
1:59:59 being
2:00:00 seen
2:00:00 more
2:00:01 positively
2:00:02 in
2:00:02 other
2:00:02 parts
2:00:02 of
2:00:03 the
2:00:03 world
2:00:03 by
2:00:04 seeming
2:00:04 like
2:00:04 a
2:00:05 kind
2:00:05 of
2:00:06 force
2:00:06 for
2:00:06 stability
2:00:07 seen
2:00:07 as
2:00:08 somebody
2:00:08 who’s
2:00:09 supporting
2:00:10 rather
2:00:10 than
2:00:11 challenging
2:00:11 some
2:00:12 elements
2:00:12 of the
2:00:12 global
2:00:13 order
2:00:14 that
2:00:16 might
2:00:17 lessen
2:00:18 the chances
2:00:19 of a
2:00:19 rash
2:00:20 action
2:00:21 toward Taiwan
2:00:21 that would
2:00:21 be a
2:00:22 kind of
2:00:22 desperation
2:00:23 move
2:00:23 the
2:00:24 complicated
2:00:24 thing
2:00:25 here is
2:00:27 that
2:00:27 if he
2:00:28 gives
2:00:28 in
2:00:30 he can
2:00:31 come off
2:00:31 as the
2:00:32 responsible
2:00:32 person who
2:00:33 cares about
2:00:33 the world
2:00:35 or he
2:00:35 can come
2:00:36 off
2:00:36 weak
2:00:38 if he
2:00:38 doesn’t
2:00:38 give in
2:00:39 and even
2:00:40 escalates
2:00:40 the
2:00:40 tariffs
2:00:40 although
2:00:41 I think
2:00:41 he said
2:00:42 no more
2:00:42 escalation
2:00:42 on the
2:00:43 China
2:00:43 front
2:00:46 then he
2:00:46 comes off
2:00:47 strong
2:00:48 but also
2:00:48 the
2:00:49 equally
2:00:50 unreasonable
2:00:51 person
2:00:52 who doesn’t
2:00:52 care about
2:00:52 the world
2:00:53 who only
2:00:54 cares about
2:00:56 his own
2:00:57 ego
2:00:58 and maybe
2:00:58 some
2:00:59 aspect of
2:00:59 the
2:01:00 communist
2:01:00 party
2:01:01 maintaining
2:01:01 power
2:01:02 because
2:01:03 just like
2:01:03 with Tiananmen
2:01:03 Square
2:01:04 and the
2:01:04 tank man
2:01:05 you don’t
2:01:05 know
2:01:06 once
2:01:07 you make
2:01:08 the decision
2:01:09 how the
2:01:09 world
2:01:10 will read
2:01:11 that decision
2:01:12 what kind
2:01:13 of things
2:01:13 will become
2:01:14 viral memes
2:01:16 about the
2:01:16 telling of
2:01:17 that story
2:01:18 and of
2:01:19 course in
2:01:19 part
2:01:20 I think
2:01:21 Donald Trump’s
2:01:22 reach is
2:01:22 much wider
2:01:23 because he’s
2:01:24 constantly out
2:01:24 there
2:01:25 and I think
2:01:26 there’s a
2:01:27 more reserved
2:01:28 less messaging
2:01:28 out of
2:01:29 Beijing
2:01:30 so it’s
2:01:31 a really
2:01:31 chaotic
2:01:32 environment
2:01:32 in which
2:01:33 to make
2:01:33 strong
2:01:34 decisions
2:01:36 but since
2:01:36 you brought
2:01:37 it up
2:01:38 we’ll talk
2:01:38 about
2:01:38 Hong Kong
2:01:39 but let’s
2:01:40 talk about
2:01:41 Taiwan
2:01:42 and maybe
2:01:42 there’s some
2:01:43 parallels there
2:01:45 given
2:01:46 Xi Jinping’s
2:01:46 emphasis on
2:01:47 the great
2:01:47 rejuvenation
2:01:47 of the
2:01:48 Chinese
2:01:48 nation
2:01:49 and the
2:01:49 unification
2:01:50 with Taiwan
2:01:53 being a
2:01:54 crucial part
2:01:54 of his
2:01:55 vision for
2:01:55 China
2:01:57 what do
2:01:58 you think
2:01:58 are the
2:01:58 chances
2:02:00 and how
2:02:00 willing is
2:02:01 he to
2:02:01 use force
2:02:02 to
2:02:03 annex
2:02:04 to
2:02:04 forcibly
2:02:04 gain
2:02:05 control
2:02:05 over
2:02:05 Taiwan
2:02:06 in the
2:02:06 coming
2:02:07 years
2:02:07 I’ll
2:02:08 frame it
2:02:08 in a way
2:02:09 that I
2:02:09 think does
2:02:10 lead into
2:02:11 talking about
2:02:11 Hong Kong
2:02:12 because I
2:02:12 think these
2:02:13 are connected
2:02:13 issues
2:02:14 in 1984
2:02:15 when the
2:02:16 year
2:02:16 not the
2:02:17 book this
2:02:17 time
2:02:19 that’s when
2:02:20 a deal
2:02:20 was struck
2:02:21 basically
2:02:21 between
2:02:22 London
2:02:23 and Beijing
2:02:24 over what
2:02:24 would happen
2:02:24 to Hong
2:02:25 Kong
2:02:25 so Hong
2:02:26 Kong
2:02:29 Island
2:02:30 became a
2:02:31 British
2:02:31 colony
2:02:32 at the
2:02:32 end of
2:02:32 the
2:02:32 first
2:02:33 opium
2:02:33 war
2:02:34 the
2:02:35 1840s
2:02:35 and then
2:02:36 Kowloon
2:02:36 peninsula
2:02:37 near there
2:02:38 became a
2:02:38 British
2:02:38 colony
2:02:40 1860
2:02:41 after the
2:02:41 second
2:02:42 opium
2:02:42 war
2:02:43 but then
2:02:43 there was
2:02:43 a large
2:02:44 amount
2:02:44 of territory
2:02:45 of what
2:02:45 we now
2:02:45 think of
2:02:45 as
2:02:46 Hong
2:02:46 Kong
2:02:47 called
2:02:47 the
2:02:47 new
2:02:47 territories
2:02:48 that
2:02:48 became
2:02:48 under
2:02:49 British
2:02:49 control
2:02:49 in
2:02:51 1898
2:02:52 but was
2:02:53 not
2:02:54 a
2:02:54 colony
2:02:55 it was
2:02:55 a
2:02:55 99
2:02:56 year
2:02:56 lease
2:02:57 so
2:02:57 1997
2:02:58 was
2:02:58 this
2:02:59 kind
2:02:59 of
2:02:59 expiration
2:03:00 date
2:03:00 for
2:03:00 the
2:03:01 lease
2:03:01 of
2:03:01 this
2:03:02 large
2:03:02 amount
2:03:02 of
2:03:03 territory
2:03:03 of what
2:03:03 we now
2:03:03 think of
2:03:04 as
2:03:04 Hong
2:03:04 Kong
2:03:05 it’s
2:03:05 a
2:03:05 large
2:03:06 amount
2:03:06 of
2:03:06 territory
2:03:07 that
2:03:07 the
2:03:08 rest
2:03:08 of
2:03:08 Hong
2:03:08 Kong
2:03:08 the
2:03:08 Hong
2:03:09 Kong
2:03:09 Island
2:03:09 and
2:03:10 Kowloon
2:03:10 depend
2:03:11 on
2:03:11 for
2:03:11 energy
2:03:12 water
2:03:12 and
2:03:13 food
2:03:13 so
2:03:13 it
2:03:14 would
2:03:14 have
2:03:14 been
2:03:14 very
2:03:14 hard
2:03:15 to
2:03:16 just
2:03:16 give
2:03:17 back
2:03:17 give
2:03:17 those
2:03:18 parts
2:03:18 transfer
2:03:18 those
2:03:19 parts
2:03:19 to
2:03:19 the
2:03:19 People’s
2:03:20 Republic
2:03:20 of
2:03:20 China
2:03:21 so
2:03:21 a
2:03:21 deal
2:03:22 needed
2:03:22 to
2:03:22 be
2:03:22 struck
2:03:22 of
2:03:22 what
2:03:22 would
2:03:23 happen
2:03:23 in
2:03:24 1997
2:03:25 and
2:03:28 the
2:03:28 deal
2:03:28 was
2:03:28 about
2:03:29 transferring
2:03:29 sovereignty
2:03:30 of
2:03:30 all
2:03:30 of
2:03:30 Hong
2:03:31 Kong
2:03:32 all
2:03:32 these
2:03:32 parts
2:03:33 to
2:03:33 the
2:03:33 People’s
2:03:33 Republic
2:03:34 of
2:03:34 China
2:03:35 and
2:03:35 I
2:03:36 carefully
2:03:36 say
2:03:36 transfer
2:03:37 sovereignty
2:03:37 not
2:03:37 give
2:03:38 it
2:03:38 back
2:03:38 to
2:03:38 the
2:03:39 People’s
2:03:39 Republic
2:03:39 of
2:03:39 China
2:03:39 because
2:03:39 it
2:03:40 never
2:03:40 belonged
2:03:40 to
2:03:40 the
2:03:40 People’s
2:03:41 Republic
2:03:41 of
2:03:41 China
2:03:42 it
2:03:42 was
2:03:42 part
2:03:42 of
2:03:43 the
2:03:43 Qing
2:03:43 Empire
2:03:44 which
2:03:44 was
2:03:45 a
2:03:45 different
2:03:46 country
2:03:46 a
2:03:46 different
2:03:47 state
2:03:47 that
2:03:47 then
2:03:48 anyway
2:03:49 but
2:03:50 this
2:03:50 needed
2:03:50 to be
2:03:51 transferred
2:03:52 and
2:03:52 the
2:03:56 London
2:03:56 side
2:03:57 wanted
2:03:57 to
2:03:58 do
2:03:58 something
2:03:59 to
2:03:59 protect
2:03:59 what
2:03:59 was
2:04:00 going
2:04:00 to
2:04:00 happen
2:04:00 to
2:04:01 the
2:04:01 people
2:04:01 there
2:04:01 and
2:04:02 remember
2:04:02 this
2:04:03 is
2:04:03 not
2:04:03 what
2:04:04 usually
2:04:04 happens
2:04:04 to
2:04:05 colonies
2:04:06 usually
2:04:07 go
2:04:07 from
2:04:07 being
2:04:07 part
2:04:08 of
2:04:08 an
2:04:08 empire
2:04:08 to
2:04:09 being
2:04:09 some
2:04:10 degree
2:04:10 of
2:04:10 self
2:04:10 governed
2:04:12 and
2:04:12 because
2:04:12 of
2:04:12 that
2:04:13 the
2:04:13 Chinese
2:04:14 representative
2:04:14 of
2:04:14 the
2:04:14 UN
2:04:15 insisted
2:04:15 that
2:04:15 Hong
2:04:15 Kong
2:04:16 was
2:04:16 not
2:04:16 a
2:04:16 colony
2:04:17 and
2:04:17 Macau
2:04:17 was
2:04:17 not
2:04:17 a
2:04:18 colony
2:04:18 because
2:04:19 then
2:04:19 they
2:04:19 would
2:04:19 have
2:04:19 to
2:04:19 be
2:04:24 an
2:04:24 understanding
2:04:25 that
2:04:25 something
2:04:25 would
2:04:25 have
2:04:25 to
2:04:26 happen
2:04:26 in
2:04:26 1997
2:04:27 and
2:04:27 London
2:04:28 wanted
2:04:28 some
2:04:29 protection
2:04:29 for
2:04:29 the
2:04:29 people
2:04:31 in
2:04:31 Hong
2:04:32 Kong
2:04:32 who
2:04:32 they
2:04:33 knew
2:04:33 were
2:04:35 living
2:04:35 in a
2:04:36 very
2:04:36 different
2:04:36 way
2:04:37 than
2:04:37 people
2:04:37 lived
2:04:37 under
2:04:38 Communist
2:04:38 Party
2:04:38 rule
2:04:39 there
2:04:39 was
2:04:39 a
2:04:39 different
2:04:39 kind
2:04:40 of
2:04:40 rule
2:04:40 of
2:04:40 law
2:04:42 there
2:04:42 wasn’t
2:04:43 democracy
2:04:44 but
2:04:44 there
2:04:44 was
2:04:44 some
2:04:45 degree
2:04:45 of
2:04:45 input
2:04:46 in
2:04:47 governance
2:04:48 the
2:04:49 colonial
2:04:50 authority
2:04:50 and
2:04:50 the
2:04:51 most
2:04:51 powerful
2:04:52 person
2:04:52 in
2:04:52 Hong
2:04:52 Kong
2:04:52 was
2:04:52 appointed
2:04:53 by
2:04:53 London
2:04:55 after
2:04:55 1997
2:04:56 the
2:04:57 most
2:04:57 powerful
2:04:58 person
2:04:58 would
2:04:59 probably
2:04:59 have
2:04:59 to
2:05:00 be
2:05:00 somebody
2:05:00 who
2:05:00 could
2:05:01 work
2:05:01 with
2:05:01 Beijing
2:05:02 but
2:05:03 in
2:05:03 this
2:05:04 negotiation
2:05:04 something
2:05:05 was
2:05:05 come
2:05:05 up
2:05:05 with
2:05:05 called
2:05:06 one
2:05:06 country
2:05:06 two
2:05:07 systems
2:05:08 and
2:05:08 Hong
2:05:09 Kong
2:05:09 would
2:05:09 become
2:05:09 part
2:05:09 of
2:05:09 the
2:05:10 people’s
2:05:10 Republic
2:05:10 of
2:05:10 China
2:05:11 in
2:05:11 diplomatic
2:05:12 terms
2:05:13 it
2:05:13 wouldn’t
2:05:13 have
2:05:13 its
2:05:13 own
2:05:14 military
2:05:15 but
2:05:15 it
2:05:15 would
2:05:15 have
2:05:15 its
2:05:16 own
2:05:16 system
2:05:17 for
2:05:17 50
2:05:17 years
2:05:17 was
2:05:18 the
2:05:18 idea
2:05:18 from
2:05:19 1997
2:05:20 until
2:05:21 2047
2:05:23 there
2:05:23 was
2:05:23 a
2:05:24 tension
2:05:24 from
2:05:24 the
2:05:25 beginning
2:05:25 over
2:05:25 what
2:05:26 that
2:05:26 other
2:05:27 system
2:05:27 what
2:05:28 was
2:05:28 going
2:05:28 to
2:05:28 be
2:05:28 the
2:05:29 part
2:05:29 that
2:05:29 was
2:05:29 going
2:05:29 to
2:05:29 be
2:05:29 separate
2:05:30 and
2:05:31 clearly
2:05:31 everybody
2:05:31 agreed
2:05:31 it would
2:05:32 need
2:05:32 to have
2:05:32 a
2:05:32 different
2:05:33 economic
2:05:33 system
2:05:34 it
2:05:34 had
2:05:34 capitalism
2:05:36 so
2:05:36 people
2:05:36 agreed
2:05:37 on
2:05:37 that
2:05:37 but
2:05:38 there
2:05:38 was
2:05:38 tension
2:05:38 from
2:05:39 the
2:05:39 start
2:05:39 of
2:05:40 well
2:05:40 what
2:05:40 about
2:05:40 legal
2:05:41 what
2:05:41 about
2:05:42 cultural
2:05:42 and
2:05:42 other
2:05:43 things
2:05:43 and
2:05:44 things
2:05:44 were
2:05:44 written
2:05:44 into
2:05:44 this
2:05:45 deal
2:05:45 which
2:05:45 would
2:05:45 be
2:05:46 over
2:05:46 time
2:05:47 Hong
2:05:47 Kong
2:05:47 people
2:05:47 would
2:05:48 govern
2:05:48 Hong
2:05:48 Kong
2:05:49 but
2:05:50 Beijing
2:05:50 thought
2:05:51 they
2:05:51 would
2:05:51 govern
2:05:52 Hong
2:05:52 Kong
2:05:52 but
2:05:52 it
2:05:53 would
2:05:53 be
2:05:53 a
2:05:53 Hong
2:05:53 Kong
2:05:54 person
2:05:54 who
2:05:54 who
2:05:55 Beijing
2:05:56 played
2:05:56 a
2:05:57 role
2:05:57 in
2:05:57 choosing
2:05:58 but
2:05:58 the
2:05:59 reason
2:05:59 why
2:05:59 Taiwan
2:06:00 is
2:06:00 relevant
2:06:00 to
2:06:00 all
2:06:01 this
2:06:01 is
2:06:01 in
2:06:02 1984
2:06:03 as
2:06:03 they
2:06:03 were
2:06:04 discussing
2:06:04 this
2:06:05 the
2:06:05 Chinese
2:06:06 Communist Party
2:06:06 said
2:06:06 and
2:06:07 we’ll
2:06:07 come up
2:06:07 with
2:06:07 this
2:06:08 arrangement
2:06:08 and
2:06:08 people
2:06:09 in
2:06:09 Taiwan
2:06:09 should
2:06:09 pay
2:06:10 attention
2:06:10 to
2:06:10 it
2:06:11 because
2:06:11 it
2:06:11 could
2:06:12 provide
2:06:12 a
2:06:12 model
2:06:12 for
2:06:13 what
2:06:13 could
2:06:13 happen
2:06:14 with
2:06:14 them
2:06:15 being
2:06:16 absorbed
2:06:16 into
2:06:16 the
2:06:16 People’s
2:06:17 Republic
2:06:17 of
2:06:17 China
2:06:18 so
2:06:19 the
2:06:19 idea
2:06:20 was
2:06:20 Beijing
2:06:21 said
2:06:21 hey
2:06:25 after 1997
2:06:25 and
2:06:26 think
2:06:26 about
2:06:26 it
2:06:26 as
2:06:26 a
2:06:27 model
2:06:27 for
2:06:28 what
2:06:28 could
2:06:28 happen
2:06:28 with
2:06:29 you
2:06:29 saying
2:06:29 like
2:06:30 watch
2:06:30 how
2:06:31 smoothly
2:06:31 it
2:06:31 will
2:06:31 go
2:06:34 over
2:06:34 time
2:06:35 people
2:06:35 in
2:06:35 Hong
2:06:35 Kong
2:06:38 started
2:06:38 saying
2:06:38 well
2:06:38 wait
2:06:39 Beijing
2:06:39 keeps
2:06:40 nibbling
2:06:40 away
2:06:41 at
2:06:41 chipping
2:06:41 away
2:06:42 at
2:06:42 these
2:06:42 things
2:06:42 that
2:06:42 make
2:06:43 us
2:06:43 separate
2:06:44 and
2:06:44 especially
2:06:44 after
2:06:45 2008
2:06:47 especially
2:06:47 I mean
2:06:47 there were
2:06:48 reasons
2:06:48 why
2:06:49 Beijing
2:06:49 went
2:06:50 especially
2:06:50 light
2:06:51 on
2:06:51 Hong
2:06:51 Kong
2:06:52 early
2:06:53 after
2:06:53 1997
2:06:55 they
2:06:55 wanted
2:06:55 to
2:06:56 join
2:06:56 Beijing
2:06:56 wanted
2:06:57 to
2:06:57 join
2:06:57 WTO
2:06:58 they
2:06:58 wanted
2:06:58 to
2:06:58 host
2:06:58 the
2:06:59 Olympics
2:06:59 a big
2:06:59 move
2:07:00 against
2:07:00 Hong
2:07:00 Kong
2:07:01 then
2:07:02 could
2:07:02 have
2:07:03 endangered
2:07:03 those
2:07:04 things
2:07:05 also
2:07:05 at
2:07:05 that
2:07:05 point
2:07:05 the
2:07:06 PRC
2:07:06 was
2:07:07 dependent
2:07:07 heavily
2:07:08 dependent
2:07:08 on
2:07:09 economics
2:07:09 in
2:07:10 Hong
2:07:10 Kong
2:07:10 the
2:07:11 Hong
2:07:11 Kong
2:07:11 economy
2:07:12 also
2:07:12 just
2:07:13 something
2:07:13 because
2:07:13 I’m
2:07:13 a
2:07:14 university
2:07:15 person
2:07:16 in
2:07:16 1997
2:07:16 when
2:07:17 Hong
2:07:17 Kong
2:07:17 became
2:07:17 part
2:07:17 of
2:07:18 the
2:07:18 People’s
2:07:18 Republic
2:07:18 of
2:07:19 China
2:07:20 Hong
2:07:20 Kong
2:07:20 then
2:07:21 Hong
2:07:21 Kong
2:07:22 universities
2:07:22 were the
2:07:22 only
2:07:23 universities
2:07:23 in the
2:07:24 PRC
2:07:24 that were
2:07:24 considered
2:07:25 totally
2:07:26 world-class
2:07:27 Hong Kong
2:07:27 University
2:07:28 and Chinese
2:07:28 University
2:07:28 of Hong
2:07:29 Kong
2:07:29 were
2:07:29 highly
2:07:30 rated
2:07:30 institutions
2:07:31 and at
2:07:32 that
2:07:32 point
2:07:32 Peking
2:07:33 University
2:07:34 Beijing
2:07:34 Beida
2:07:35 and
2:07:35 Tsinghua
2:07:36 were not
2:07:36 yet
2:07:37 considered
2:07:38 world-class
2:07:38 institutions
2:07:39 because they
2:07:39 didn’t have
2:07:39 the kind
2:07:39 of
2:07:40 academic
2:07:40 freedom
2:07:42 and
2:07:42 humanities
2:07:43 that was
2:07:44 at that
2:07:44 point
2:07:44 needed
2:07:45 to be
2:07:45 higher
2:07:46 ratings
2:07:47 over
2:07:47 time
2:07:49 that
2:07:49 difference
2:07:49 started
2:07:50 to go
2:07:50 away
2:07:51 because
2:07:51 global
2:07:51 ratings
2:07:52 of
2:07:52 universities
2:07:53 stopped
2:07:53 caring
2:07:53 as much
2:07:54 about
2:07:55 academic
2:07:56 freedom
2:07:56 and things
2:07:57 like that
2:07:57 and Beijing
2:07:58 universities
2:07:59 surpassed
2:07:59 Hong Kong
2:07:59 once
2:08:00 so by
2:08:01 the 2010s
2:08:02 when you
2:08:03 started to
2:08:03 have these
2:08:03 protests
2:08:04 in Hong
2:08:04 Kong
2:08:05 pushing
2:08:05 back
2:08:06 against
2:08:06 what was
2:08:06 called
2:08:08 mainlandization
2:08:08 and sort
2:08:08 of clamping
2:08:09 down
2:08:11 Hong Kong
2:08:11 protesters
2:08:12 in 2014
2:08:13 put up
2:08:14 a banner
2:08:15 at the time
2:08:16 when Beijing
2:08:16 was holding
2:08:17 the line
2:08:17 against
2:08:18 Hong Kong
2:08:19 people wanted
2:08:19 to have
2:08:20 real elections
2:08:22 to choose
2:08:23 the chief
2:08:23 executive
2:08:24 rather than
2:08:24 a kind
2:08:25 of one
2:08:25 where there
2:08:26 were elections
2:08:27 but only
2:08:27 people who
2:08:28 Beijing
2:08:29 approved of
2:08:29 basically
2:08:30 could run
2:08:32 Hong Kong
2:08:32 activists
2:08:33 put up
2:08:33 a banner
2:08:33 saying
2:08:33 hey
2:08:34 Taiwan
2:08:35 look at
2:08:35 Hong Kong
2:08:36 Taiwan
2:08:36 beware
2:08:38 Hong Kong’s
2:08:38 today
2:08:39 could be
2:08:39 Taiwan’s
2:08:40 tomorrow
2:08:41 so basically
2:08:42 spinning the
2:08:43 one country
2:08:43 two systems
2:08:44 argument
2:08:44 and saying
2:08:45 yeah
2:08:45 Taiwan
2:08:46 you should
2:08:47 watch
2:08:47 what happens
2:08:48 here
2:08:49 so
2:08:51 one way
2:08:51 to think
2:08:52 of
2:08:53 Chinese
2:08:53 leaders
2:08:53 since
2:08:54 Mao
2:08:54 is
2:08:55 that Mao
2:08:56 and
2:08:56 those
2:08:57 after him
2:08:57 wanted
2:08:57 to
2:08:59 make
2:08:59 China
2:08:59 bigger
2:09:00 territorially
2:09:01 than it
2:09:01 had been
2:09:01 to try
2:09:02 to reclaim
2:09:02 land
2:09:04 under
2:09:04 Mao
2:09:06 Tibet
2:09:07 which had
2:09:07 been
2:09:08 not
2:09:09 part
2:09:09 of
2:09:10 China
2:09:11 became
2:09:11 part
2:09:11 of the
2:09:12 People’s
2:09:12 Republic
2:09:12 of China
2:09:14 Mao
2:09:14 offered
2:09:14 something
2:09:15 a little
2:09:15 bit like
2:09:15 one country
2:09:16 two systems
2:09:17 to it
2:09:19 Isabel
2:09:19 Hilton
2:09:20 who writes
2:09:20 wonderfully
2:09:20 about
2:09:21 Tibet
2:09:21 has talked
2:09:21 about
2:09:22 the
2:09:22 parallels
2:09:22 with
2:09:23 the
2:09:23 Hong
2:09:23 Kong
2:09:23 system
2:09:24 and
2:09:24 some
2:09:24 Hong
2:09:24 Kong
2:09:25 activists
2:09:25 saw
2:09:26 parallels
2:09:26 as well
2:09:27 Tibet
2:09:28 was supposed
2:09:28 to go
2:09:29 its own
2:09:29 way
2:09:30 as part
2:09:30 of the
2:09:30 People’s
2:09:31 Republic
2:09:31 of China
2:09:32 in the
2:09:32 1950s
2:09:33 and then
2:09:33 by 1959
2:09:35 the center
2:09:37 got restless
2:09:37 tried to
2:09:38 interfere more
2:09:39 local people
2:09:40 pushed back
2:09:41 against it
2:09:42 and a workable
2:09:43 what seemed
2:09:44 like it might
2:09:45 work out
2:09:45 somehow
2:09:46 against all
2:09:46 odds
2:09:48 explodes
2:09:48 and the
2:09:49 Dalai Lama
2:09:50 goes into
2:09:50 exile
2:09:51 the Dalai Lama
2:09:51 who before
2:09:52 that had
2:09:52 thought maybe
2:09:52 he and
2:09:53 Mao could
2:09:53 work
2:09:54 together
2:09:55 that didn’t
2:09:56 work
2:09:57 Hong Kong
2:09:58 a new
2:09:58 version of
2:09:59 the experiment
2:10:00 happens
2:10:00 and it
2:10:01 becomes clear
2:10:01 in the
2:10:02 2010s
2:10:02 that it’s
2:10:03 not really
2:10:04 workable
2:10:04 that
2:10:05 the center
2:10:06 is less
2:10:06 patient
2:10:07 needs Hong
2:10:07 Kong
2:10:08 less
2:10:09 the Hong
2:10:09 Kong
2:10:10 people feel
2:10:10 it’s more
2:10:11 of a sort
2:10:11 of now
2:10:12 or never
2:10:13 period
2:10:13 to push
2:10:14 back
2:10:14 you could
2:10:15 say that
2:10:15 Deng Xiaoping
2:10:17 oversaw
2:10:17 the deal
2:10:18 that got
2:10:18 Hong Kong
2:10:19 and Macau
2:10:20 to become
2:10:20 part of the
2:10:21 People’s
2:10:21 Republic of
2:10:21 China
2:10:22 he could
2:10:23 point to
2:10:23 that
2:10:24 even though
2:10:25 he died
2:10:26 right before
2:10:27 during 1997
2:10:30 but he had
2:10:31 achieved that
2:10:32 kind of deal
2:10:34 Xi Jinping
2:10:35 could argue
2:10:36 you could argue
2:10:38 he finished
2:10:38 the deal
2:10:39 of making
2:10:39 Hong Kong
2:10:40 fully a part
2:10:40 of the
2:10:41 People’s
2:10:41 Republic of
2:10:41 China
2:10:42 doing away
2:10:43 with this
2:10:44 degree of
2:10:44 difference
2:10:46 and you
2:10:46 could say
2:10:47 that that
2:10:47 is a
2:10:48 stepping stone
2:10:48 toward Taiwan
2:10:50 or you
2:10:50 could say
2:10:51 that that
2:10:51 and the
2:10:52 South China
2:10:52 Sea
2:10:53 islands
2:10:54 build up
2:10:56 might be
2:10:56 enough for
2:10:57 him to put
2:10:57 his stamp
2:10:58 on having
2:10:59 been the
2:10:59 kind of
2:11:00 leader who
2:11:00 expanded
2:11:02 Beijing’s
2:11:02 reach
2:11:03 he probably
2:11:04 wants
2:11:04 but I mean
2:11:05 you know
2:11:05 he probably
2:11:06 to the extent
2:11:06 he would
2:11:07 like Taiwan
2:11:07 to become
2:11:09 part of the
2:11:09 People’s
2:11:10 Republic of
2:11:10 China
2:11:10 which
2:11:10 has never
2:11:11 been
2:11:13 but the
2:11:14 hope was
2:11:14 it could
2:11:15 happen
2:11:15 through a
2:11:15 kind of
2:11:16 more gradual
2:11:17 absorption
2:11:17 and people
2:11:19 in Taiwan
2:11:20 being willing
2:11:20 to think
2:11:21 of that
2:11:21 and yet
2:11:23 in part
2:11:23 because of
2:11:23 what’s
2:11:24 happened
2:11:24 to places
2:11:25 like Hong
2:11:25 Kong
2:11:25 there’s a
2:11:26 fiercer
2:11:27 a stronger
2:11:28 sense of
2:11:28 Taiwan
2:11:29 identity
2:11:30 now than
2:11:31 there was
2:11:31 at an
2:11:31 earlier point
2:11:32 and less
2:11:33 parties that
2:11:34 are more
2:11:35 willing to
2:11:36 try to
2:11:38 negotiate
2:11:38 some kind
2:11:39 of
2:11:40 tighter
2:11:40 connection
2:11:41 to the
2:11:41 PRC
2:11:42 are often
2:11:43 doing badly
2:11:44 and elections
2:11:44 there because
2:11:46 of this
2:11:46 of this
2:11:47 mood
2:11:50 2047 is
2:11:50 50 years
2:11:51 from the
2:11:52 1997
2:11:53 handover
2:11:53 that you
2:11:53 were talking
2:11:54 about with
2:11:54 Hong Kong
2:11:55 on top
2:11:55 of that
2:11:57 2049
2:11:58 is 100
2:11:59 years
2:11:59 from
2:12:00 outtaking
2:12:00 power
2:12:01 it feels
2:12:02 like at
2:12:02 that moment
2:12:03 China could
2:12:03 take Taiwan
2:12:04 because it
2:12:05 does seem
2:12:05 that there’s
2:12:06 a kind
2:12:07 of value
2:12:08 for history
2:12:08 in China
2:12:09 and they
2:12:10 take these
2:12:10 days very
2:12:11 seriously
2:12:12 on the
2:12:13 other hand
2:12:14 as you
2:12:14 have studied
2:12:15 there is
2:12:16 some tensions
2:12:17 and displeasure
2:12:18 and protests
2:12:19 some of the
2:12:20 biggest in human
2:12:21 history in
2:12:22 Hong Kong
2:12:23 and so like
2:12:23 put all that
2:12:24 together
2:12:26 and so
2:12:26 many possible
2:12:27 trajectories of
2:12:28 human history
2:12:28 could happen
2:12:29 here
2:12:29 yeah
2:12:30 I mean
2:12:30 I’m particularly
2:12:31 interested in
2:12:32 youth movements
2:12:32 and
2:12:34 one of the
2:12:35 things about
2:12:35 I think
2:12:36 generation
2:12:37 is such
2:12:37 an important
2:12:38 factor
2:12:38 and people
2:12:39 know that
2:12:40 generation is
2:12:40 important
2:12:41 but somehow
2:12:44 sometimes
2:12:45 people think
2:12:45 that if you
2:12:46 divide people
2:12:46 up into
2:12:47 economic groups
2:12:48 you divide
2:12:48 people up
2:12:49 into racial
2:12:49 or ethnic
2:12:49 class
2:12:50 that that
2:12:50 groups
2:12:51 that that
2:12:51 somehow
2:12:52 is more
2:12:52 tangible
2:12:53 but I think
2:12:54 with things
2:12:54 like the
2:12:54 Hong Kong
2:12:55 protests
2:12:55 that there
2:12:56 was a
2:12:56 process
2:12:57 of
2:13:00 what was
2:13:00 seen as
2:13:01 mainlandization
2:13:02 of Beijing
2:13:02 just
2:13:04 moving to
2:13:06 make the
2:13:06 things that
2:13:08 were really
2:13:08 distinctive about
2:13:09 Hong Kong
2:13:09 less distinctive
2:13:10 and minimizing
2:13:11 the differences
2:13:14 and this
2:13:14 process
2:13:16 sped up
2:13:16 dramatically
2:13:17 after the
2:13:17 2019
2:13:18 protests
2:13:18 and there
2:13:18 was just
2:13:19 partly with
2:13:20 the distraction
2:13:20 of COVID
2:13:22 and the
2:13:22 distraction
2:13:22 of the
2:13:23 world
2:13:23 there was
2:13:23 this
2:13:24 imposition
2:13:24 of this
2:13:24 national
2:13:25 security
2:13:25 law
2:13:25 that
2:13:26 basically
2:13:26 did away
2:13:27 with the
2:13:28 differences
2:13:28 and you
2:13:29 had some
2:13:29 people
2:13:30 in
2:13:32 the city
2:13:33 of an
2:13:33 older
2:13:34 generation
2:13:34 saying
2:13:35 why couldn’t
2:13:35 they have
2:13:36 just been
2:13:36 more patient
2:13:37 why did
2:13:38 these protests
2:13:39 force the
2:13:40 hand of
2:13:41 the people
2:13:42 in power
2:13:44 but I think
2:13:46 that age
2:13:46 has a lot
2:13:47 to do
2:13:47 with it
2:13:47 that if
2:13:48 there was
2:13:48 this kind
2:13:49 of gradual
2:13:49 erosion
2:13:50 or there
2:13:50 was going
2:13:50 to be
2:13:51 this process
2:13:52 of doing
2:13:52 away with
2:13:53 the things
2:13:53 that made
2:13:54 Hong Kong
2:13:55 really special
2:13:56 and that
2:13:56 people loved
2:13:57 passionately
2:13:57 about it
2:13:58 including
2:13:59 this sort
2:13:59 of freer
2:14:00 press
2:14:01 or just
2:14:01 freer
2:14:03 associational
2:14:03 life
2:14:03 and things
2:14:04 like that
2:14:05 if you
2:14:05 were
2:14:06 17
2:14:07 in
2:14:08 2019
2:14:09 and people
2:14:09 were saying
2:14:10 by
2:14:13 2047
2:14:13 it will
2:14:13 all be
2:14:14 gone
2:14:15 or maybe
2:14:15 it will
2:14:15 even
2:14:16 all be
2:14:16 gone
2:14:16 in 10
2:14:17 years
2:14:18 then you’re
2:14:18 talking about
2:14:19 living most
2:14:19 of your
2:14:19 life
2:14:20 in a
2:14:20 Hong Kong
2:14:21 that isn’t
2:14:22 the Hong Kong
2:14:22 you really
2:14:23 love
2:14:24 whereas if
2:14:24 you were
2:14:25 80
2:14:26 you were
2:14:26 like
2:14:27 why can’t
2:14:28 be patient
2:14:28 and people
2:14:29 in between
2:14:29 had all
2:14:30 kinds of
2:14:30 other things
2:14:31 this is one
2:14:31 thing that
2:14:32 leads to
2:14:33 often
2:14:34 kind of
2:14:34 logically
2:14:35 there’s a
2:14:36 rationality
2:14:37 toward younger
2:14:38 people being
2:14:39 more militant
2:14:39 about certain
2:14:40 kinds of
2:14:40 things
2:14:41 I think
2:14:41 we see
2:14:41 the same
2:14:42 thing
2:14:42 with
2:14:43 climate
2:14:43 change
2:14:43 with
2:14:44 climate
2:14:44 activism
2:14:45 you’re
2:14:45 talking
2:14:46 about
2:14:46 whatever
2:14:47 projection
2:14:47 is of
2:14:48 when
2:14:48 things
2:14:48 are
2:14:48 going
2:14:49 to get
2:14:49 worse
2:14:50 further
2:14:50 down
2:14:51 the
2:14:51 younger
2:14:51 you
2:14:51 are
2:14:52 the
2:14:52 more
2:14:52 of
2:14:52 your
2:14:53 life
2:14:53 is
2:14:53 going
2:14:53 to
2:14:53 live
2:14:53 in
2:14:54 that
2:14:55 scenario
2:14:55 and
2:14:55 there’s
2:14:55 a
2:14:56 logic
2:14:56 for
2:14:57 more
2:14:57 of
2:14:58 that
2:14:58 kind
2:14:58 of
2:15:00 impatience
2:15:00 there’s
2:15:01 also a
2:15:01 sense
2:15:01 of
2:15:02 frustration
2:15:03 with
2:15:04 an
2:15:04 older
2:15:04 generation
2:15:05 not
2:15:05 having
2:15:05 done
2:15:06 enough
2:15:06 to
2:15:06 resolve
2:15:07 issues
2:15:08 these
2:15:08 are
2:15:08 things
2:15:09 with
2:15:10 Hong Kong
2:15:10 with
2:15:10 climate
2:15:11 change
2:15:11 with
2:15:12 Thailand
2:15:13 the
2:15:13 place
2:15:14 that I’ve
2:15:14 been
2:15:14 working
2:15:14 on
2:15:15 lately
2:15:15 one
2:15:15 of
2:15:16 the
2:15:16 slogans
2:15:16 in
2:15:17 2020
2:15:17 when
2:15:17 there
2:15:17 was
2:15:17 a
2:15:18 push
2:15:18 for
2:15:19 democracy
2:15:19 was
2:15:20 let
2:15:20 it
2:15:20 end
2:15:20 with
2:15:21 this
2:15:21 generation
2:15:22 which
2:15:22 again
2:15:23 expressed
2:15:23 this
2:15:23 kind
2:15:23 of
2:15:24 sense
2:15:24 of
2:15:26 gradual
2:15:27 solutions
2:15:27 are
2:15:28 fine
2:15:28 but
2:15:30 we’re
2:15:30 carrying
2:15:30 more
2:15:31 of a
2:15:31 burden
2:15:31 of
2:15:31 what
2:15:32 we’re
2:15:32 going
2:15:32 to
2:15:32 live
2:15:32 with
2:15:32 that
2:15:34 so
2:15:34 in
2:15:35 2019
2:15:35 also
2:15:35 the
2:15:36 protests
2:15:36 I mean
2:15:37 some
2:15:37 of
2:15:37 the
2:15:37 things
2:15:37 that
2:15:37 were
2:15:38 being
2:15:39 chipped
2:15:39 away
2:15:40 at
2:15:40 by
2:15:40 Beijing
2:15:41 in
2:15:41 2012
2:15:42 there
2:15:42 was
2:15:54 an
2:15:55 protestors
2:15:55 that
2:15:56 year
2:15:56 young
2:15:56 people
2:15:57 stood
2:15:57 up
2:15:57 and
2:15:57 actually
2:15:57 got
2:15:58 the
2:15:58 government
2:15:58 to
2:15:58 blink
2:15:59 the
2:15:59 local
2:16:00 authorities
2:16:00 back
2:16:01 down
2:16:01 on
2:16:01 that
2:16:02 bringing
2:16:02 in
2:16:02 mainland
2:16:02 style
2:16:03 education
2:16:04 2014
2:16:04 the
2:16:05 protest
2:16:05 was
2:16:06 to
2:16:06 try
2:16:06 to
2:16:06 get
2:16:08 full
2:16:08 voting
2:16:08 rights
2:16:08 for
2:16:09 the
2:16:09 chief
2:16:10 executive
2:16:11 the
2:16:11 government
2:16:11 didn’t
2:16:12 blink
2:16:12 on
2:16:12 that
2:16:12 that
2:16:13 was
2:16:13 something
2:16:13 where
2:16:14 they
2:16:14 held
2:16:14 the
2:16:14 line
2:16:14 it
2:16:14 was
2:16:16 big
2:16:16 colorful
2:16:17 exciting
2:16:17 protest
2:16:18 but
2:16:18 in
2:16:18 the
2:16:19 end
2:16:19 it
2:16:19 hit
2:16:20 a
2:16:20 dead
2:16:20 end
2:16:22 2019
2:16:22 there
2:16:22 are
2:16:22 even
2:16:23 bigger
2:16:23 protests
2:16:23 and
2:16:24 at
2:16:24 first
2:16:24 it
2:16:25 seems
2:16:27 surprising
2:16:27 what
2:16:27 the
2:16:27 issue
2:16:28 was
2:16:28 the
2:16:28 issue
2:16:29 was
2:16:29 an
2:16:29 extradition
2:16:30 law
2:16:31 that
2:16:31 would
2:16:32 have
2:16:32 people
2:16:33 potentially
2:16:33 who
2:16:33 committed
2:16:34 crimes
2:16:34 in
2:16:34 Hong
2:16:35 Kong
2:16:36 being
2:16:36 tried
2:16:37 for
2:16:37 them
2:16:37 if
2:16:38 the
2:16:38 mainland
2:16:38 wanted
2:16:38 them
2:16:39 on
2:16:39 the
2:16:39 mainland
2:16:40 now
2:16:40 the
2:16:41 difference
2:16:41 they’re
2:16:41 really
2:16:42 different
2:16:42 court
2:16:43 systems
2:16:43 Hong
2:16:43 Kong
2:16:44 never
2:16:44 had
2:16:45 democracy
2:16:46 under
2:16:46 the
2:16:46 British
2:16:47 but
2:16:47 it
2:16:47 did
2:16:47 have
2:16:47 a
2:16:48 stronger
2:16:48 rule
2:16:48 of
2:16:49 law
2:16:49 and
2:16:49 more
2:16:50 independent
2:16:50 courts
2:16:51 courts
2:16:51 that
2:16:51 sometimes
2:16:52 decided
2:16:52 things
2:16:53 that
2:16:54 went
2:16:54 the
2:16:54 other
2:16:54 way
2:16:54 than
2:16:55 what
2:16:55 the
2:16:56 government
2:16:57 wanted
2:16:58 and
2:16:59 the
2:16:59 mainland
2:16:59 doesn’t
2:17:00 have
2:17:00 that
2:17:00 kind
2:17:00 of
2:17:00 court
2:17:01 system
2:17:02 98
2:17:02 99
2:17:03 percent
2:17:04 conviction
2:17:04 rate
2:17:05 in
2:17:05 Hong
2:17:05 Kong
2:17:05 if
2:17:06 you’re
2:17:07 arrested
2:17:07 even
2:17:07 for
2:17:09 before
2:17:09 2020
2:17:10 if
2:17:10 you were
2:17:11 arrested
2:17:11 even
2:17:11 under
2:17:11 a
2:17:12 kind
2:17:12 of
2:17:12 politically
2:17:13 related
2:17:13 charge
2:17:13 you
2:17:13 were
2:17:13 out
2:17:14 on
2:17:14 bail
2:17:14 and
2:17:14 giving
2:17:16 interviews
2:17:16 with
2:17:16 the
2:17:16 press
2:17:17 on
2:17:17 the
2:17:17 mainland
2:17:17 that
2:17:17 didn’t
2:17:18 happen
2:17:19 so
2:17:19 I
2:17:19 think
2:17:20 in
2:17:20 2019
2:17:21 having
2:17:21 even
2:17:22 having
2:17:22 lost
2:17:22 the
2:17:23 battle
2:17:23 over
2:17:24 voting
2:17:26 this
2:17:26 idea
2:17:26 that
2:17:27 okay
2:17:28 we’ve
2:17:28 really
2:17:28 got to
2:17:29 take a
2:17:29 last
2:17:29 stand
2:17:29 to
2:17:30 defend
2:17:30 the
2:17:30 rule
2:17:30 of
2:17:31 law
2:17:31 and
2:17:31 a
2:17:31 kind
2:17:31 of
2:17:32 degree
2:17:32 of
2:17:32 separation
2:17:32 of
2:17:33 powers
2:17:34 that
2:17:34 doesn’t
2:17:35 sound
2:17:35 like
2:17:35 a
2:17:36 clearly
2:17:37 obvious
2:17:37 thing
2:17:37 for
2:17:38 slogans
2:17:38 but
2:17:38 it
2:17:38 is
2:17:39 something
2:17:39 that
2:17:39 I
2:17:39 think
2:17:39 we’ve
2:17:40 realized
2:17:42 in
2:17:42 this
2:17:42 country
2:17:43 and
2:17:43 in
2:17:43 other
2:17:43 countries
2:17:44 as
2:17:44 well
2:17:44 is
2:17:44 something
2:17:45 that
2:17:45 can
2:17:46 really
2:17:46 be
2:17:46 definitive
2:17:47 about
2:17:47 where
2:17:48 things
2:17:48 are
2:17:48 going
2:17:49 politically
2:17:49 well
2:17:50 I
2:17:50 should
2:17:50 also
2:17:50 say
2:17:51 I
2:17:51 mean
2:17:51 this
2:17:52 it’s
2:17:52 more
2:17:53 dramatic
2:17:53 than
2:17:53 it
2:17:53 sounds
2:17:54 with
2:17:54 extradition
2:17:54 because
2:17:55 it
2:17:55 gives
2:17:56 power
2:17:58 to
2:17:58 mainland
2:17:59 China
2:18:00 to
2:18:02 imprison
2:18:02 sort of
2:18:02 political
2:18:03 activists
2:18:04 and then
2:18:05 try them
2:18:05 in a
2:18:05 very
2:18:05 different
2:18:06 way
2:18:06 so
2:18:06 it’s
2:18:06 not
2:18:06 just
2:18:06 even
2:18:07 a
2:18:07 different
2:18:07 system
2:18:08 it
2:18:08 gives
2:18:09 another
2:18:09 lever
2:18:10 and a
2:18:10 powerful
2:18:10 one
2:18:11 to
2:18:11 punish
2:18:12 people
2:18:12 that
2:18:12 speak
2:18:13 against
2:18:14 China
2:18:14 and
2:18:15 you know
2:18:15 I
2:18:16 mentioned
2:18:16 the
2:18:16 Hong
2:18:16 Kong
2:18:17 booksellers
2:18:18 who
2:18:18 were
2:18:18 spirited
2:18:19 over
2:18:19 the
2:18:19 border
2:18:19 and
2:18:20 one
2:18:20 of
2:18:20 them
2:18:20 was
2:18:20 still
2:18:20 in
2:18:21 prison
2:18:21 for
2:18:21 having
2:18:22 published
2:18:22 things
2:18:22 in
2:18:23 Hong
2:18:23 Kong
2:18:24 that
2:18:24 it
2:18:24 was
2:18:24 supposed
2:18:24 to be
2:18:25 okay
2:18:25 to
2:18:25 publish
2:18:25 in
2:18:25 Hong
2:18:26 Kong
2:18:26 but
2:18:26 not
2:18:26 on
2:18:26 the
2:18:27 mainland
2:18:27 and yet
2:18:28 they
2:18:28 ended up
2:18:29 being
2:18:29 charged
2:18:30 so
2:18:30 yeah
2:18:30 there
2:18:30 was
2:18:30 a
2:18:31 clear
2:18:31 sense
2:18:31 that
2:18:32 if
2:18:32 if
2:18:34 they
2:18:35 didn’t
2:18:35 protest
2:18:35 then
2:18:36 would
2:18:36 they
2:18:36 be
2:18:36 able
2:18:36 to
2:18:37 protest
2:18:37 later
2:18:38 so
2:18:38 this
2:18:38 was
2:18:39 one
2:18:39 of
2:18:40 maybe
2:18:40 the
2:18:41 biggest
2:18:41 protests
2:18:42 in
2:18:42 history
2:18:43 percentage
2:18:49 a million
2:18:50 to two
2:18:50 million
2:18:50 people
2:18:51 in the
2:18:51 biggest
2:18:52 protests
2:18:52 and this
2:18:52 is a
2:18:53 7.5
2:18:54 million
2:18:55 people
2:18:55 so if
2:18:56 you think
2:18:56 about what
2:18:57 that means
2:18:57 it’s
2:18:59 it’s just
2:18:59 enormous
2:19:00 I mean
2:19:00 yeah
2:19:00 there
2:19:00 were
2:19:01 some
2:19:01 very
2:19:01 daring
2:19:02 protests
2:19:03 around
2:19:04 that
2:19:04 period
2:19:04 the
2:19:04 Hong
2:19:05 Kong
2:19:05 ones
2:19:05 and
2:19:05 the
2:19:06 year
2:19:06 after
2:19:06 that
2:19:07 there
2:19:07 were
2:19:08 protests
2:19:08 in other
2:19:08 places
2:19:08 but
2:19:09 protests
2:19:09 in
2:19:09 Belarus
2:19:10 where
2:19:10 again
2:19:11 there
2:19:11 was
2:19:13 taking
2:19:13 big
2:19:14 risks
2:19:14 but
2:19:15 if
2:19:15 people
2:19:15 have
2:19:15 a
2:19:16 feeling
2:19:16 that
2:19:16 it’s
2:19:16 a
2:19:16 kind
2:19:17 of
2:19:18 last
2:19:19 moment
2:19:20 so
2:19:20 yeah
2:19:20 these
2:19:20 were
2:19:21 giant
2:19:21 and
2:19:22 the
2:19:22 protests
2:19:22 kept
2:19:23 growing
2:19:24 and
2:19:24 I
2:19:24 think
2:19:25 they
2:19:25 kept
2:19:26 growing
2:19:26 in
2:19:26 part
2:19:26 and
2:19:26 this
2:19:27 happens
2:19:27 why
2:19:28 protests
2:19:28 grow
2:19:30 it’s
2:19:30 always
2:19:30 hard
2:19:30 to
2:19:30 figure
2:19:31 out
2:19:31 but
2:19:31 in
2:19:32 the
2:19:32 case
2:19:32 of
2:19:34 Hong
2:19:34 Kong
2:19:36 2019
2:19:37 if
2:19:38 people
2:19:38 feel
2:19:39 that
2:19:39 the
2:19:39 sort
2:19:39 of
2:19:40 protesters
2:19:40 have
2:19:40 the
2:19:41 moral
2:19:41 high
2:19:42 ground
2:19:42 in
2:19:42 one
2:19:42 way
2:19:42 or
2:19:42 another
2:19:43 and
2:19:43 what
2:19:44 tipped
2:19:44 it
2:19:44 that
2:19:44 way
2:19:44 in
2:19:44 Hong
2:19:45 Kong
2:19:45 I
2:19:45 think
2:19:45 was
2:19:45 really
2:19:46 that
2:19:46 the
2:19:47 police
2:19:47 were
2:19:47 using
2:19:47 really
2:19:48 strong
2:19:48 armed
2:19:49 methods
2:19:49 and
2:19:50 the
2:19:50 government
2:19:50 was
2:19:51 never
2:19:52 apologizing
2:19:53 or
2:19:53 never
2:19:54 saying
2:19:54 we
2:19:54 need
2:19:54 to
2:19:55 investigate
2:19:55 that
2:19:56 and
2:19:56 I
2:19:56 think
2:19:56 what
2:19:57 really
2:19:57 kept
2:19:57 the
2:19:58 protests
2:19:58 going
2:19:58 was
2:19:58 they
2:19:59 became
2:20:00 a
2:20:01 referendum
2:20:02 on
2:20:02 the
2:20:02 right
2:20:02 to
2:20:03 protest
2:20:03 itself
2:20:05 and
2:20:05 the
2:20:07 what
2:20:07 I
2:20:07 think
2:20:07 the
2:20:07 government
2:20:08 hoped
2:20:08 and
2:20:08 what
2:20:09 Beijing
2:20:09 certainly
2:20:09 hoped
2:20:10 was
2:20:10 that
2:20:10 some
2:20:10 of
2:20:10 the
2:20:11 protesters
2:20:11 would
2:20:11 start
2:20:12 doing
2:20:14 militant
2:20:15 actions
2:20:15 violent
2:20:15 actions
2:20:16 that
2:20:16 would
2:20:16 alienate
2:20:17 the
2:20:17 populace
2:20:17 from
2:20:18 the
2:20:18 protests
2:20:20 and
2:20:20 the
2:20:20 protesters
2:20:21 did
2:20:21 do
2:20:21 some
2:20:22 of
2:20:22 those
2:20:22 things
2:20:22 but
2:20:22 they
2:20:23 tended
2:20:23 to
2:20:23 attack
2:20:24 the
2:20:25 violence
2:20:25 was
2:20:25 often
2:20:25 against
2:20:26 property
2:20:27 and
2:20:27 when
2:20:27 there
2:20:27 were
2:20:28 occasionally
2:20:28 violence
2:20:29 against
2:20:29 people
2:20:30 people
2:20:30 within
2:20:31 the
2:20:31 movement
2:20:31 would
2:20:32 apologize
2:20:32 or try
2:20:32 to
2:20:33 distance
2:20:33 themselves
2:20:33 from
2:20:33 that
2:20:34 meanwhile
2:20:35 the
2:20:35 government
2:20:35 was
2:20:36 never
2:20:37 apologizing
2:20:37 or
2:20:37 distancing
2:20:38 itself
2:20:38 from
2:20:38 the
2:20:39 police
2:20:40 and
2:20:40 that
2:20:41 created
2:20:41 a
2:20:42 dynamic
2:20:42 where
2:20:42 you
2:20:42 had
2:20:43 these
2:20:43 enormous
2:20:43 numbers
2:20:44 of
2:20:44 people
2:20:44 who
2:20:45 were
2:20:46 previously
2:20:46 on
2:20:46 the
2:20:46 fence
2:20:46 about
2:20:47 things
2:20:48 turning
2:20:48 up
2:20:48 for
2:20:49 these
2:20:49 protests
2:20:49 and
2:20:50 leading
2:20:50 to
2:20:51 them
2:20:51 being
2:20:51 giant
2:20:52 even
2:20:52 people
2:20:52 and
2:20:53 this
2:20:53 was
2:20:53 a
2:20:53 city
2:20:53 that
2:20:55 sometimes
2:20:55 had
2:20:55 the
2:20:56 reputation
2:20:56 misunderstood
2:20:57 reputation
2:20:58 as being
2:20:58 one that
2:20:59 where people
2:20:59 didn’t care
2:20:59 that much
2:20:59 that much
2:21:00 about
2:21:00 politics
2:21:00 they
2:21:01 just
2:21:01 focused
2:21:01 on
2:21:02 living
2:21:02 a
2:21:03 good
2:21:03 life
2:21:03 but
2:21:04 there
2:21:04 was
2:21:04 a
2:21:04 sense
2:21:04 that
2:21:05 they
2:21:05 wouldn’t
2:21:05 have
2:21:06 that
2:21:06 possibility
2:21:07 if
2:21:08 you
2:21:08 had
2:21:08 a
2:21:08 police
2:21:08 and
2:21:08 the
2:21:09 police
2:21:09 used
2:21:09 to
2:21:09 be
2:21:10 really
2:21:10 highly
2:21:10 respected
2:21:11 in
2:21:11 Hong Kong
2:21:11 but
2:21:11 it
2:21:12 lost
2:21:13 that
2:21:14 maybe
2:21:14 you
2:21:14 can
2:21:15 speak
2:21:16 to
2:21:16 some
2:21:16 of
2:21:16 the
2:21:16 dynamics
2:21:17 of
2:21:17 this
2:21:17 first
2:21:17 of
2:21:18 you
2:21:18 were
2:21:18 there
2:21:18 in
2:21:18 the
2:21:19 early
2:21:19 days
2:21:20 as I
2:21:20 understand
2:21:21 how
2:21:21 does
2:21:22 the
2:21:22 protest
2:21:22 of
2:21:23 this
2:21:23 scale
2:21:26 explode
2:21:27 as it
2:21:27 did
2:21:28 like
2:21:28 it
2:21:28 starts
2:21:29 with
2:21:29 small
2:21:30 groups
2:21:30 of
2:21:30 students
2:21:31 of
2:21:31 the
2:21:31 youth
2:21:32 like
2:21:32 maybe
2:21:32 you
2:21:33 can
2:21:33 speak
2:21:33 to
2:21:33 in
2:21:33 general
2:21:34 from
2:21:34 all
2:21:34 the
2:21:34 studying
2:21:34 of
2:21:35 youth
2:21:35 protests
2:21:36 how
2:21:37 does
2:21:38 maybe
2:21:40 anger
2:21:40 maybe
2:21:45 ideological
2:21:46 optimism
2:21:48 maybe
2:21:48 the
2:21:49 desire
2:21:49 for
2:21:49 revolution
2:21:50 for
2:21:50 better
2:21:51 times
2:21:52 amongst
2:21:52 the
2:21:52 small
2:21:52 group
2:21:53 of
2:21:53 students
2:21:53 how
2:21:53 does
2:21:54 that
2:21:54 become
2:21:54 a
2:21:55 movement
2:21:55 and
2:21:55 how
2:21:55 does
2:21:55 that
2:21:56 become
2:21:56 a
2:21:57 gigantic
2:21:58 protest
2:21:58 so
2:21:59 protests
2:21:59 were
2:22:00 one
2:22:00 of
2:22:00 the
2:22:00 things
2:22:00 that
2:22:03 some
2:22:03 of
2:22:04 the
2:22:04 most
2:22:05 impressive
2:22:05 books
2:22:05 I’ve
2:22:05 been
2:22:06 reading
2:22:06 and
2:22:07 about
2:22:07 other
2:22:07 places
2:22:07 have
2:22:08 been
2:22:08 emphasizing
2:22:10 is
2:22:10 that
2:22:12 protests
2:22:12 are
2:22:13 often
2:22:13 preceded
2:22:13 by
2:22:14 other
2:22:14 protests
2:22:15 that
2:22:16 may
2:22:16 seem
2:22:16 like
2:22:16 dead
2:22:17 ends
2:22:17 but
2:22:17 actually
2:22:18 provide
2:22:19 people
2:22:19 with
2:22:19 the
2:22:19 kind
2:22:20 of
2:22:20 skills
2:22:20 and
2:22:21 scripts
2:22:21 and
2:22:22 repertoires
2:22:22 to
2:22:23 then
2:22:24 carry
2:22:24 out
2:22:25 things
2:22:25 on a
2:22:25 larger
2:22:26 scale
2:22:26 after
2:22:26 that
2:22:27 so
2:22:27 you
2:22:27 often
2:22:28 get
2:22:30 captivated
2:22:30 by a
2:22:31 moment
2:22:31 that
2:22:31 seems to
2:22:32 come out
2:22:32 of
2:22:32 nowhere
2:22:32 but
2:22:32 it
2:22:33 often
2:22:33 doesn’t
2:22:34 it
2:22:35 the ground
2:22:35 has
2:22:36 laid
2:22:36 by
2:22:37 it
2:22:37 can
2:22:37 be
2:22:38 by
2:22:38 an
2:22:38 earlier
2:22:39 generation
2:22:39 that
2:22:39 passes
2:22:39 on
2:22:39 the
2:22:40 stories
2:22:40 about
2:22:40 it
2:22:41 or
2:22:41 it
2:22:41 can
2:22:41 be
2:22:41 just
2:22:42 a
2:22:42 few
2:22:42 years
2:22:43 before
2:22:43 and
2:22:44 sometimes
2:22:44 a
2:22:45 new
2:22:45 generation
2:22:45 will
2:22:46 say
2:22:47 look
2:22:47 at
2:22:47 what
2:22:47 they
2:22:47 did
2:22:48 that
2:22:48 was
2:22:48 exciting
2:22:48 but
2:22:48 we
2:22:49 want
2:22:49 to
2:22:49 put
2:22:49 our
2:22:49 mark
2:22:50 on
2:22:50 things
2:22:51 by
2:22:51 this
2:22:51 generation
2:22:52 so
2:22:53 in
2:22:53 there
2:22:53 were
2:22:54 these
2:22:54 1986
2:22:55 protests
2:22:55 that
2:22:55 sort
2:22:55 of
2:22:56 fizzled
2:22:56 out
2:22:57 that
2:22:57 helped
2:22:57 lay
2:22:57 the
2:22:57 groundwork
2:23:04 2014
2:23:05 ones
2:23:06 that
2:23:06 laid
2:23:06 the
2:23:07 groundwork
2:23:07 for
2:23:07 2019
2:23:08 some
2:23:08 of
2:23:08 the
2:23:08 times
2:23:08 it
2:23:08 was
2:23:09 the
2:23:09 same
2:23:10 activists
2:23:10 out
2:23:10 on
2:23:10 the
2:23:10 streets
2:23:11 again
2:23:11 but
2:23:12 sometimes
2:23:12 it
2:23:12 was
2:23:12 a
2:23:12 younger
2:23:13 generation
2:23:13 said
2:23:13 yeah
2:23:14 okay
2:23:14 but
2:23:14 that
2:23:15 failed
2:23:15 so
2:23:15 what
2:23:15 can
2:23:15 we
2:23:16 do
2:23:17 differently
2:23:18 and
2:23:18 we
2:23:18 see
2:23:19 this
2:23:19 in
2:23:20 cases
2:23:20 in
2:23:20 the
2:23:20 US
2:23:20 and
2:23:21 we
2:23:21 see
2:23:21 it
2:23:21 around
2:23:21 the
2:23:21 world
2:23:22 of
2:23:22 this
2:23:22 kind
2:23:23 of
2:23:23 the
2:23:25 percolating
2:23:25 of
2:23:25 things
2:23:25 that
2:23:26 happen
2:23:26 sometimes
2:23:26 in
2:23:27 conversations
2:23:27 that
2:23:28 continue
2:23:28 that
2:23:28 happen
2:23:30 and
2:23:31 sometimes
2:23:32 you know
2:23:34 failures
2:23:35 can seem
2:23:35 like
2:23:35 dead
2:23:36 ends
2:23:36 but
2:23:36 over
2:23:36 a
2:23:36 long
2:23:37 period
2:23:37 of
2:23:37 time
2:23:38 we
2:23:38 see
2:23:38 them
2:23:39 as
2:23:42 succeeding
2:23:42 and
2:23:44 it
2:23:44 can
2:23:44 seem
2:23:45 irrational
2:23:47 to try
2:23:47 to do
2:23:47 something
2:23:48 after
2:23:49 the
2:23:49 last
2:23:49 three
2:23:49 times
2:23:50 people
2:23:50 have
2:23:50 tried
2:23:50 to
2:23:50 do
2:23:50 it
2:23:51 have
2:23:51 failed
2:23:52 but
2:23:53 then
2:23:53 occasionally
2:23:54 history
2:23:55 shows
2:23:55 that
2:23:55 the
2:23:56 third
2:23:57 time
2:23:57 or
2:23:57 the
2:23:57 fifth
2:23:57 time
2:23:58 or
2:23:58 the
2:23:58 20th
2:23:58 time
2:24:00 actually
2:24:00 does
2:24:00 succeed
2:24:01 there’s
2:24:01 enough
2:24:02 countervailing
2:24:03 you know
2:24:04 in
2:24:04 Eastern
2:24:04 Europe
2:24:05 you would
2:24:05 say
2:24:05 like
2:24:05 in
2:24:06 1956
2:24:06 there
2:24:06 was
2:24:07 a
2:24:07 rising
2:24:07 it
2:24:07 was
2:24:08 crushed
2:24:08 in
2:24:08 1968
2:24:08 there
2:24:08 were
2:24:09 rising
2:24:09 it
2:24:09 was
2:24:09 crushed
2:24:11 Poland
2:24:12 1981
2:24:13 it’s
2:24:13 martial
2:24:13 law
2:24:14 imposed
2:24:14 in
2:24:15 1989
2:24:16 what
2:24:16 were
2:24:17 East
2:24:17 German
2:24:17 protesters
2:24:18 thinking
2:24:18 when
2:24:18 they
2:24:18 poured
2:24:19 out
2:24:19 onto
2:24:19 the
2:24:19 streets
2:24:21 and
2:24:21 then
2:24:21 it
2:24:21 happened
2:24:22 and
2:24:22 then
2:24:23 but
2:24:23 this
2:24:23 time
2:24:23 it
2:24:24 wasn’t
2:24:24 so
2:24:25 I
2:24:25 think
2:24:26 there’s
2:24:26 a way
2:24:26 in
2:24:27 which
2:24:29 social
2:24:30 movements
2:24:30 are
2:24:30 fundamentally
2:24:31 unpredictable
2:24:32 and
2:24:32 there
2:24:33 are
2:24:33 just
2:24:33 times
2:24:33 when
2:24:34 against
2:24:34 all
2:24:35 seeming
2:24:35 odds
2:24:35 something
2:24:36 that
2:24:36 seemed
2:24:36 like
2:24:36 it
2:24:37 would
2:24:38 be
2:24:38 there
2:24:38 forever
2:24:39 just
2:24:39 no
2:24:39 longer
2:24:40 is
2:24:40 and
2:24:40 and
2:24:40 that
2:24:41 case
2:24:41 you
2:24:41 make
2:24:41 for
2:24:42 when
2:24:43 the
2:24:43 odds
2:24:44 seem
2:24:45 impossible
2:24:47 it’s
2:24:47 still
2:24:48 worthwhile
2:24:49 you
2:24:50 know
2:24:50 it
2:24:51 doesn’t
2:24:52 mean
2:24:52 that
2:24:52 it
2:24:52 will
2:24:53 work
2:24:54 it
2:24:54 doesn’t
2:24:54 mean
2:24:54 it
2:24:54 will
2:24:55 work
2:24:55 but
2:24:55 I
2:24:55 think
2:24:56 history
2:24:56 has
2:24:56 enough
2:24:57 examples
2:24:58 of
2:24:58 things
2:24:58 that
2:24:59 you
2:24:59 thought
2:25:00 I
2:25:00 mean
2:25:00 this
2:25:00 is
2:25:01 you
2:25:01 know
2:25:01 it
2:25:03 explains
2:25:03 why
2:25:03 certain
2:25:04 figures
2:25:05 are
2:25:05 so
2:25:06 inspirational
2:25:07 for
2:25:07 generations
2:25:08 of
2:25:08 activists
2:25:08 that
2:25:09 you
2:25:09 know
2:25:09 people
2:25:09 read
2:25:10 there’s
2:25:10 a
2:25:10 reason
2:25:11 why
2:25:11 people
2:25:11 talk
2:25:11 about
2:25:12 Vaclav
2:25:12 Havel
2:25:13 whereas
2:25:14 if
2:25:14 Vaclav
2:25:14 Havel
2:25:14 had
2:25:15 died
2:25:15 in
2:25:16 1988
2:25:18 people
2:25:18 would
2:25:18 have
2:25:18 said
2:25:19 oh
2:25:20 maybe
2:25:20 he
2:25:20 was
2:25:20 maybe
2:25:20 he
2:25:21 was
2:25:21 a
2:25:21 great
2:25:21 writer
2:25:22 but
2:25:22 his
2:25:23 political
2:25:24 project
2:25:24 he
2:25:24 didn’t
2:25:25 live
2:25:25 to
2:25:25 see
2:25:27 come
2:25:27 but
2:25:27 then
2:25:27 he
2:25:27 lives
2:25:28 to
2:25:28 89
2:25:28 and
2:25:29 becomes
2:25:29 you
2:25:29 know
2:25:30 against
2:25:31 all
2:25:31 expectations
2:25:32 so
2:25:33 Rebecca
2:25:34 Solnit
2:25:34 he’s
2:25:34 got a
2:25:34 new
2:25:34 book
2:25:35 No
2:25:35 Straight
2:25:36 Road
2:25:36 Takes
2:25:36 You
2:25:36 There
2:25:37 Essays
2:25:37 for
2:25:38 Uneven
2:25:38 Terrain
2:25:40 and
2:25:40 she’s
2:25:41 talking
2:25:41 about
2:25:42 taking
2:25:42 a
2:25:43 longer
2:25:43 view
2:25:44 of
2:25:44 some
2:25:44 struggles
2:25:45 that
2:25:45 seem
2:25:47 that
2:25:49 achieve
2:25:50 things
2:25:50 after
2:25:51 the
2:25:51 point
2:25:51 when
2:25:51 people
2:25:52 might
2:25:52 have
2:25:52 imagined
2:25:52 that
2:25:53 they
2:25:53 had
2:25:53 run
2:25:53 into
2:25:53 dead
2:25:54 ends
2:25:55 and
2:25:55 she’s
2:25:56 talking
2:25:56 about
2:25:57 keeping
2:25:57 your
2:25:57 eye
2:25:57 on
2:25:57 the
2:25:58 gains
2:25:58 that
2:25:58 happen
2:25:59 even
2:26:01 incrementally
2:26:02 and the
2:26:02 ways in
2:26:03 which
2:26:04 the need
2:26:04 to take
2:26:05 a longer
2:26:05 term
2:26:06 perspective
2:26:06 on some
2:26:07 of these
2:26:07 things
2:26:07 and I
2:26:07 think
2:26:09 it’s
2:26:10 a strange
2:26:11 thing
2:26:11 because
2:26:11 there’s
2:26:11 also
2:26:12 often
2:26:12 an
2:26:12 impatience
2:26:13 in
2:26:13 movements
2:26:13 of
2:26:14 people
2:26:14 wanting
2:26:15 immediate
2:26:16 results
2:26:16 but
2:26:16 as a
2:26:17 historian
2:26:17 looking
2:26:18 at
2:26:20 situations
2:26:20 I’ve
2:26:21 mentioned
2:26:21 Eastern
2:26:22 Europe
2:26:22 and
2:26:22 Central
2:26:23 Europe
2:26:25 Taiwan
2:26:26 was a
2:26:27 right-wing
2:26:28 dictatorship
2:26:28 under
2:26:29 sort of
2:26:30 a version
2:26:30 of martial
2:26:30 law
2:26:31 for decades
2:26:32 and at
2:26:33 each
2:26:34 stage
2:26:34 it would
2:26:34 seem
2:26:35 that
2:26:35 people
2:26:36 struggling
2:26:36 to
2:26:37 change
2:26:37 it
2:26:39 were
2:26:40 on a
2:26:40 quixotic
2:26:41 impossible
2:26:42 kind of
2:26:43 mission
2:26:43 or South
2:26:44 Korea
2:26:44 was in
2:26:44 a similar
2:26:45 situation
2:26:46 and then
2:26:47 in the
2:26:47 late
2:26:48 1980s
2:26:48 you start
2:26:48 to have
2:26:49 those
2:26:49 things
2:26:49 unravel
2:26:50 and it’s
2:26:51 partly
2:26:51 because
2:26:52 of a
2:26:52 kind
2:26:52 of
2:26:54 steady
2:26:55 resistance
2:26:55 it’s
2:26:55 partly
2:26:56 because
2:26:56 something
2:26:56 in the
2:26:56 world
2:26:57 changes
2:26:58 but
2:26:58 there’s
2:26:58 often
2:26:58 a
2:26:59 combination
2:27:00 of
2:27:01 those
2:27:01 things
2:27:01 so
2:27:02 I’m
2:27:02 interested
2:27:02 in
2:27:03 that
2:27:03 whole
2:27:04 you know
2:27:04 we
2:27:05 know
2:27:05 that
2:27:05 what
2:27:06 happened
2:27:07 in
2:27:07 Hong
2:27:08 Kong
2:27:09 in the
2:27:09 short
2:27:09 run
2:27:10 didn’t
2:27:11 work
2:27:11 and I
2:27:11 don’t
2:27:12 see a
2:27:12 way
2:27:12 in which
2:27:12 the
2:27:12 national
2:27:13 security
2:27:13 law
2:27:13 is
2:27:14 reversed
2:27:14 or anything
2:27:14 like
2:27:15 that
2:27:16 but
2:27:17 that
2:27:18 doesn’t
2:27:18 mean
2:27:18 that
2:27:20 it
2:27:20 was
2:27:22 a
2:27:22 completely
2:27:23 impossible
2:27:24 effort
2:27:24 even
2:27:25 though
2:27:25 we
2:27:25 know
2:27:26 the
2:27:26 result
2:27:26 in
2:27:26 that
2:27:27 case
2:27:27 was
2:27:29 to
2:27:29 have
2:27:29 this
2:27:30 failure
2:27:30 so
2:27:31 the
2:27:31 protests
2:27:31 are
2:27:32 generally
2:27:33 worthwhile
2:27:34 I mean
2:27:34 they
2:27:34 do
2:27:35 give
2:27:37 as
2:27:37 I
2:27:37 look
2:27:37 at
2:27:38 the
2:27:38 description
2:27:38 of
2:27:38 the
2:27:39 migratory
2:27:39 routes
2:27:40 ideas
2:27:40 take
2:27:42 they
2:27:42 do
2:27:43 seed
2:27:43 ideas
2:27:43 in
2:27:43 the
2:27:44 minds
2:27:44 of
2:27:45 people
2:27:46 and
2:27:46 then
2:27:46 they
2:27:46 live
2:27:47 with
2:27:47 those
2:27:47 ideas
2:27:47 and
2:27:48 they
2:27:48 share
2:27:48 those
2:27:49 ideas
2:27:49 they
2:27:49 deliberate
2:27:50 through
2:27:50 those
2:27:50 ideas
2:27:51 they
2:27:52 might
2:27:52 travel
2:27:52 to
2:27:53 different
2:27:53 places
2:27:53 of
2:27:53 the
2:27:53 world
2:27:54 and
2:27:54 then
2:27:54 those
2:27:54 ideas
2:27:55 return
2:27:56 and
2:27:57 rise
2:27:57 up
2:27:57 again
2:27:57 and
2:27:57 again
2:27:58 and
2:27:58 again
2:27:59 there’s
2:28:00 two
2:28:00 parts
2:28:00 of
2:28:00 the
2:28:00 world
2:28:00 that
2:28:01 I
2:28:01 think
2:28:01 are
2:28:02 fascinating
2:28:04 and
2:28:05 unpredictable
2:28:06 so
2:28:06 one
2:28:06 is
2:28:07 Iran
2:28:08 which
2:28:09 the
2:28:09 trajectory
2:28:10 that
2:28:10 place
2:28:11 takes
2:28:13 might
2:28:13 have
2:28:13 a
2:28:13 complete
2:28:14 transformative
2:28:14 effect
2:28:15 on the
2:28:15 Middle
2:28:15 East
2:28:16 and
2:28:16 then
2:28:16 the
2:28:16 other
2:28:17 one
2:28:17 is
2:28:17 China
2:28:18 with
2:28:18 the
2:28:19 protests
2:28:19 whether
2:28:19 it’s
2:28:20 in
2:28:20 Taiwan
2:28:20 or
2:28:20 Hong
2:28:21 Kong
2:28:22 or
2:28:22 maybe
2:28:23 other
2:28:24 influential
2:28:25 parts
2:28:25 of
2:28:26 China
2:28:27 those
2:28:28 ideas
2:28:28 percolating
2:28:28 up
2:28:29 and
2:28:29 up
2:28:30 again
2:28:31 might
2:28:31 have
2:28:31 a
2:28:31 completely
2:28:32 transformative
2:28:32 effect
2:28:33 on the
2:28:33 world
2:28:34 so
2:28:34 maybe
2:28:34 this
2:28:34 is
2:28:35 another
2:28:35 case
2:28:35 where
2:28:36 the
2:28:37 Chinese
2:28:38 Communist
2:28:38 Party
2:28:38 people
2:28:39 leaders
2:28:39 in the
2:28:40 Chinese
2:28:40 Communist
2:28:40 Party
2:28:41 they
2:28:41 do
2:28:41 know
2:28:41 about
2:28:41 history
2:28:42 and
2:28:42 they
2:28:42 care
2:28:42 about
2:28:43 history
2:28:43 and
2:28:44 one
2:28:44 history
2:28:44 they
2:28:45 know
2:28:45 is
2:28:45 the
2:28:45 Chinese
2:28:46 Communist
2:28:46 Party
2:28:46 was
2:28:46 almost
2:28:47 destroyed
2:28:48 in
2:28:49 1927
2:28:50 I
2:28:50 mean
2:28:50 it
2:28:50 was
2:28:51 if
2:28:51 you
2:28:51 were
2:28:52 taking
2:28:53 odds
2:28:53 on
2:28:53 what
2:28:53 are
2:28:53 the
2:28:54 chances
2:28:54 that
2:28:54 this
2:28:55 ragtag
2:28:55 sort
2:28:55 of
2:28:56 group
2:28:56 that’s
2:28:56 being
2:28:57 pursued
2:28:58 by
2:28:59 Chiang Kai
2:28:59 Shek
2:28:59 to try
2:28:59 to
2:29:00 determine
2:29:00 and
2:29:00 yet
2:29:02 over
2:29:03 time
2:29:03 they
2:29:03 somehow
2:29:04 manage
2:29:04 to
2:29:05 ride
2:29:05 it
2:29:05 out
2:29:05 and
2:29:06 eventually
2:29:07 come
2:29:07 to
2:29:07 power
2:29:08 there’s
2:29:08 there’s
2:29:08 an
2:29:09 awareness
2:29:09 of
2:29:10 the
2:29:11 ways
2:29:11 in
2:29:11 which
2:29:12 the
2:29:12 seemingly
2:29:13 impossible
2:29:13 can
2:29:14 happen
2:29:14 it
2:29:14 doesn’t
2:29:14 mean
2:29:14 it
2:29:15 will
2:29:15 I
2:29:15 mean
2:29:15 this
2:29:15 is
2:29:16 why
2:29:16 I
2:29:16 think
2:29:17 you
2:29:17 know
2:29:17 it’s
2:29:18 and
2:29:19 one
2:29:19 of
2:29:19 the
2:29:19 really
2:29:20 kind
2:29:20 of
2:29:21 tragic
2:29:21 or
2:29:21 heart
2:29:22 rending
2:29:22 things
2:29:22 is
2:29:22 you
2:29:23 can
2:29:23 have
2:29:24 situations
2:29:24 in
2:29:24 which
2:29:27 movements
2:29:28 that
2:29:29 seem
2:29:29 to be
2:29:29 pursuing
2:29:30 an
2:29:31 impossible
2:29:32 end
2:29:33 result
2:29:33 they
2:29:34 achieve
2:29:34 that
2:29:34 result
2:29:35 and
2:29:36 then
2:29:36 after
2:29:36 another
2:29:37 period
2:29:38 the
2:29:38 country
2:29:38 goes
2:29:39 into
2:29:39 another
2:29:40 really
2:29:41 difficult
2:29:41 period
2:29:42 or
2:29:42 it
2:29:43 seems
2:29:43 that
2:29:43 the
2:29:44 successes
2:29:45 are being
2:29:45 rolled
2:29:46 back
2:29:46 and
2:29:48 my
2:29:48 new
2:29:48 milk
2:29:48 tea
2:29:49 alliance
2:29:49 book
2:29:49 that
2:29:50 I’ve
2:29:50 just
2:29:50 written
2:29:51 dedicated
2:29:51 to
2:29:51 two
2:29:52 people
2:29:52 who’ve
2:29:52 lived
2:29:53 through
2:29:53 a
2:29:54 variety
2:29:54 of
2:29:54 these
2:29:55 things
2:29:55 one
2:29:56 is
2:29:56 a
2:29:56 Burmese
2:29:57 activist
2:29:57 who
2:29:57 was
2:29:58 involved
2:29:58 in
2:29:58 a
2:29:59 failed
2:29:59 uprising
2:29:59 in
2:30:00 1988
2:30:01 he
2:30:02 then
2:30:02 was
2:30:02 an
2:30:03 exile
2:30:03 who
2:30:03 didn’t
2:30:04 know
2:30:04 whether
2:30:04 he
2:30:04 could
2:30:05 ever
2:30:05 see
2:30:06 his
2:30:07 brothers
2:30:07 who
2:30:07 he
2:30:08 loves
2:30:08 back
2:30:08 in
2:30:09 Burma
2:30:09 and
2:30:10 then
2:30:10 something
2:30:10 magical
2:30:11 kind
2:30:11 of
2:30:11 changed
2:30:12 and
2:30:12 in
2:30:12 the
2:30:13 2010s
2:30:13 it
2:30:17 turned
2:30:17 out
2:30:17 to
2:30:17 be
2:30:17 a
2:30:17 false
2:30:17 dawn
2:30:18 he
2:30:18 was
2:30:18 able
2:30:18 to
2:30:18 go
2:30:19 back
2:30:20 and
2:30:20 then
2:30:21 and
2:30:21 now
2:30:21 he’s
2:30:22 again
2:30:22 when
2:30:22 there’s
2:30:22 been
2:30:23 a
2:30:23 coup
2:30:23 and
2:30:24 a
2:30:25 crackdown
2:30:25 he’s
2:30:25 now
2:30:25 again
2:30:26 cut
2:30:26 off
2:30:27 and
2:30:27 at
2:30:27 one
2:30:28 point
2:30:28 I
2:30:28 was
2:30:29 asking
2:30:29 him
2:30:29 about
2:30:30 his
2:30:30 you
2:30:30 know
2:30:30 how
2:30:30 he
2:30:31 feels
2:30:31 about
2:30:31 this
2:30:31 when
2:30:31 he’s
2:30:32 still
2:30:32 trying
2:30:32 to
2:30:33 sort
2:30:33 of
2:30:34 raise
2:30:34 awareness
2:30:35 globally
2:30:35 about
2:30:35 what’s
2:30:35 happening
2:30:36 in
2:30:36 me
2:30:36 Marnie
2:30:36 said
2:30:38 I
2:30:38 feel
2:30:39 helpless
2:30:39 but
2:30:39 not
2:30:40 hopeless
2:30:40 I
2:30:41 think
2:30:41 how
2:30:41 does
2:30:42 somebody
2:30:42 maintain
2:30:42 hope
2:30:42 in
2:30:43 that
2:30:43 and
2:30:43 the
2:30:44 other
2:30:44 person
2:30:44 I
2:30:45 dedicated
2:30:45 to
2:30:47 as
2:30:47 a
2:30:47 Hungarian
2:30:48 friend
2:30:48 of
2:30:48 mine
2:30:49 who
2:30:49 was
2:30:49 an
2:30:50 activist
2:30:50 before
2:30:51 89
2:30:52 and
2:30:52 saw
2:30:53 the
2:30:54 this
2:30:57 communist
2:30:57 party
2:30:58 rule
2:30:58 ending
2:30:59 he
2:30:59 was
2:30:59 part
2:31:00 of
2:31:00 the
2:31:00 process
2:31:00 that
2:31:01 came
2:31:01 and
2:31:01 he
2:31:01 was
2:31:02 friends
2:31:02 with
2:31:02 Havel
2:31:02 and
2:31:03 Havel
2:31:04 Poland’s
2:31:05 changing
2:31:05 and all
2:31:06 of this
2:31:06 exhilarating
2:31:07 moment
2:31:08 but ends
2:31:09 up being
2:31:09 a critic
2:31:10 of
2:31:10 Orban
2:31:11 and following
2:31:12 a tightening
2:31:13 of
2:31:13 control
2:31:13 of
2:31:14 rolling
2:31:15 back
2:31:15 of many
2:31:15 of the
2:31:16 things
2:31:17 that
2:31:17 were
2:31:18 victorious
2:31:18 then
2:31:18 but
2:31:19 this
2:31:19 kind
2:31:20 of
2:31:21 the
2:31:22 no
2:31:22 straight
2:31:23 road
2:31:23 you know
2:31:23 that
2:31:24 actually
2:31:25 there’s
2:31:26 something
2:31:26 about
2:31:28 it’s
2:31:28 it can
2:31:28 be
2:31:30 disquieting
2:31:30 when
2:31:30 these
2:31:32 unexpected
2:31:32 things
2:31:33 are
2:31:33 blows
2:31:34 to
2:31:34 what
2:31:34 you
2:31:34 where
2:31:35 you
2:31:35 thought
2:31:35 his
2:31:36 direction
2:31:36 history
2:31:36 was
2:31:37 going
2:31:37 but
2:31:38 history
2:31:38 shows
2:31:38 you
2:31:38 that
2:31:39 history
2:31:39 doesn’t
2:31:39 have
2:31:40 a
2:31:40 direction
2:31:41 that’s
2:31:41 not
2:31:42 there
2:31:42 isn’t
2:31:43 a
2:31:43 straight
2:31:43 road
2:31:44 yeah
2:31:44 and
2:31:44 there’s
2:31:45 you know
2:31:46 the
2:31:47 idealism
2:31:47 of
2:31:48 youth
2:31:48 can
2:31:48 lead
2:31:49 to
2:31:49 things
2:31:49 like
2:31:50 the
2:31:50 Russian
2:31:51 revolution
2:31:51 and
2:31:51 then
2:31:52 you
2:31:52 get
2:31:52 Stalin
2:31:53 with
2:31:53 Hall
2:31:53 more
2:31:53 and
2:31:53 the
2:31:54 purges
2:31:54 and
2:31:55 all
2:31:55 of that
2:31:56 entailed
2:31:57 so
2:31:57 a
2:31:58 successful
2:31:59 protest
2:31:59 and a
2:32:00 successful
2:32:01 revolution
2:32:02 might
2:32:04 have
2:32:04 unintended
2:32:05 consequences
2:32:06 that
2:32:07 far
2:32:07 overshadow
2:32:08 whatever
2:32:08 ideals
2:32:09 and dreams
2:32:09 you had
2:32:10 fighting for
2:32:10 the working
2:32:11 class
2:32:11 whatever it
2:32:12 was
2:32:12 in that
2:32:13 particular
2:32:13 case
2:32:14 that can
2:32:14 cause
2:32:15 immeasurable
2:32:15 suffering
2:32:17 so
2:32:18 there is
2:32:18 no
2:32:19 direction
2:32:19 to
2:32:19 history
2:32:20 there’s
2:32:20 just
2:32:20 some
2:32:21 lessons
2:32:21 we pick
2:32:21 up
2:32:22 along
2:32:22 the
2:32:22 way
2:32:22 we
2:32:22 try
2:32:23 to
2:32:24 hopefully
2:32:25 try
2:32:26 to
2:32:27 help
2:32:27 humanity
2:32:28 flourish
2:32:29 and we
2:32:29 barely know
2:32:30 what we’re
2:32:30 doing
2:32:30 and now
2:32:31 we have
2:32:31 nuclear
2:32:31 weapons
2:32:32 and some
2:32:33 of it
2:32:33 is also
2:32:34 though
2:32:34 people
2:32:35 sometimes
2:32:36 the people
2:32:36 who I
2:32:37 find
2:32:37 really
2:32:38 admirable
2:32:40 it’s not
2:32:40 about
2:32:41 trying to
2:32:41 create
2:32:42 totalistic
2:32:43 change
2:32:43 but they
2:32:44 focus on
2:32:44 trying to
2:32:45 do what
2:32:45 they can
2:32:47 for the
2:32:48 things they
2:32:48 believe in
2:32:48 within
2:32:49 constrained
2:32:51 circumstances
2:32:52 and in
2:32:53 Thailand
2:32:53 they’ve
2:32:53 sort of
2:32:54 hit a
2:32:55 roadblock
2:32:55 now
2:32:56 again
2:32:56 over
2:32:56 kind of
2:32:57 trying to
2:32:57 bring about
2:32:57 electoral
2:32:58 change
2:32:59 a party
2:33:00 that did
2:33:00 really
2:33:00 well
2:33:01 was then
2:33:01 disqualified
2:33:02 and
2:33:03 some of
2:33:03 the activists
2:33:04 I know
2:33:04 are focusing
2:33:05 on
2:33:07 local
2:33:07 efforts
2:33:08 to improve
2:33:08 a neighborhood
2:33:09 to keep
2:33:09 a neighborhood
2:33:10 from
2:33:10 suffering
2:33:11 from a
2:33:11 kind of
2:33:12 unthinking
2:33:12 gentrification
2:33:13 they’re thinking
2:33:14 small
2:33:15 they’re thinking
2:33:15 sometimes
2:33:16 about just
2:33:17 what can
2:33:17 we do
2:33:18 to improve
2:33:19 the life
2:33:20 of people
2:33:21 within
2:33:22 how can
2:33:22 we build
2:33:23 how can
2:33:24 we contribute
2:33:25 to the
2:33:26 kinds of
2:33:27 social groups
2:33:27 that
2:33:29 might
2:33:30 make some
2:33:30 kind of
2:33:31 incremental
2:33:32 improvement
2:33:33 to being
2:33:33 the kind
2:33:33 of
2:33:34 world
2:33:34 that we
2:33:35 want to
2:33:35 live in
2:33:36 people do
2:33:37 that on
2:33:37 in all
2:33:38 kinds of
2:33:39 all kinds
2:33:39 of ways
2:33:41 what kind
2:33:42 of parallels
2:33:42 can we draw
2:33:43 between Taiwan
2:33:43 and Hong
2:33:44 Kong
2:33:45 what do
2:33:45 you think
2:33:45 the people
2:33:46 of Taiwan
2:33:47 are thinking
2:33:49 looking at
2:33:49 Hong Kong
2:33:51 well I
2:33:51 think
2:33:52 I think
2:33:52 the way
2:33:53 that
2:33:54 things
2:33:54 developed
2:33:55 in Hong Kong
2:33:55 have
2:33:56 undermined
2:33:57 the kind
2:33:58 of trust
2:33:59 in any
2:33:59 kind of
2:34:00 story
2:34:00 coming out
2:34:00 of Beijing
2:34:01 that
2:34:03 that there’s
2:34:04 a place
2:34:05 within
2:34:06 sort of
2:34:06 Xi Jinping’s
2:34:07 version at least
2:34:07 of the People’s
2:34:08 Republic of China
2:34:09 for a place
2:34:11 where people
2:34:11 live very
2:34:12 different kinds
2:34:12 of lives
2:34:13 and I think
2:34:14 a lot of
2:34:14 people in
2:34:15 Taiwan
2:34:15 think of them
2:34:16 feel they’re
2:34:17 living a very
2:34:17 different kind
2:34:17 of life
2:34:19 than on the
2:34:19 mainland
2:34:19 so in
2:34:20 that way
2:34:21 I think
2:34:22 Hong Kong
2:34:22 was an
2:34:23 important
2:34:26 example
2:34:26 that way
2:34:27 and there
2:34:28 were connections
2:34:28 between
2:34:29 there was a
2:34:30 Taiwan protest
2:34:31 in 2014
2:34:33 before the
2:34:33 big protests
2:34:34 in Hong Kong
2:34:35 by people
2:34:36 who were
2:34:37 young people
2:34:37 who felt
2:34:38 the government
2:34:39 then was
2:34:40 moving toward
2:34:41 too much
2:34:42 toward working
2:34:43 together with
2:34:43 Beijing
2:34:44 so there
2:34:44 is
2:34:45 they’ve
2:34:45 been
2:34:45 interconnected
2:34:46 stories
2:34:47 and I
2:34:47 think we
2:34:48 sometimes
2:34:49 miss how
2:34:51 people within
2:34:51 a region
2:34:52 are looking
2:34:53 at what
2:34:54 other people
2:34:54 in the region
2:34:54 are doing
2:34:55 and are
2:34:55 taking
2:34:57 clues from
2:34:57 it
2:34:58 about
2:34:58 sort of
2:34:59 how to
2:35:01 how to
2:35:01 agitate
2:35:01 for the
2:35:02 things they
2:35:02 care about
2:35:03 what the
2:35:04 risks are
2:35:05 what the
2:35:05 dangers
2:35:05 are
2:35:07 autocrats
2:35:07 within
2:35:07 different
2:35:08 parts of
2:35:08 a region
2:35:08 are looking
2:35:09 at each
2:35:09 other too
2:35:10 as well
2:35:10 as globally
2:35:12 in part
2:35:12 because
2:35:12 there’s
2:35:12 a great
2:35:13 dependence
2:35:13 in the
2:35:13 United
2:35:14 States
2:35:15 on TSMC
2:35:16 and in
2:35:16 that way
2:35:17 on Taiwan
2:35:17 for different
2:35:18 supply chains
2:35:19 for electronics
2:35:20 for semiconductors
2:35:21 for a lot
2:35:22 of our
2:35:22 economy
2:35:24 there’s been
2:35:25 a lot of
2:35:25 nervousness
2:35:26 about Taiwan
2:35:28 what are
2:35:28 the chances
2:35:31 that there
2:35:31 is some
2:35:32 brewing
2:35:32 military
2:35:33 conflict
2:35:33 over this
2:35:33 question
2:35:34 of Taiwan
2:35:35 in the
2:35:36 coming decades
2:35:36 and how
2:35:37 can we
2:35:38 avoid it
2:35:40 it’s a
2:35:40 it’s one
2:35:40 of these
2:35:41 really
2:35:41 worrisome
2:35:43 issues
2:35:43 that there
2:35:44 isn’t a
2:35:44 there isn’t
2:35:45 an easy
2:35:46 I think
2:35:46 any
2:35:47 I think
2:35:47 experts
2:35:47 who
2:35:49 tell you
2:35:50 they know
2:35:50 what
2:35:51 X Y
2:35:52 and Z
2:35:52 about this
2:35:52 is
2:35:53 are
2:35:54 deluding
2:35:55 themselves
2:35:55 probably
2:35:56 there’s
2:35:56 so many
2:35:57 variables
2:35:57 maybe you
2:35:58 could just
2:35:59 elaborate
2:35:59 the possible
2:36:01 possible
2:36:01 clues
2:36:02 we have
2:36:03 so
2:36:04 with
2:36:04 talking
2:36:04 to people
2:36:06 in Taiwan
2:36:06 and from
2:36:07 Taiwan
2:36:08 there are
2:36:08 a couple
2:36:08 things
2:36:09 that are
2:36:11 clear
2:36:11 one is
2:36:12 that
2:36:13 daily
2:36:13 life
2:36:14 in
2:36:14 Taiwan
2:36:14 is
2:36:15 not
2:36:16 people
2:36:16 waking
2:36:16 up
2:36:16 each
2:36:17 morning
2:36:18 living
2:36:18 their
2:36:18 life
2:36:19 based
2:36:19 on
2:36:19 the
2:36:19 fact
2:36:20 that
2:36:20 there’s
2:36:20 in
2:36:21 such
2:36:21 a
2:36:21 perilous
2:36:23 kind
2:36:23 of
2:36:23 predicament
2:36:23 that
2:36:25 it’s
2:36:25 life
2:36:26 goes
2:36:26 on
2:36:26 and
2:36:26 a lot
2:36:26 of
2:36:27 people
2:36:30 feel
2:36:30 very
2:36:31 fortunate
2:36:32 to be
2:36:32 in
2:36:32 Taiwan
2:36:33 you
2:36:33 know
2:36:33 there
2:36:33 are
2:36:33 many
2:36:34 reasons
2:36:34 why
2:36:34 it
2:36:35 seems
2:36:35 like
2:36:36 a
2:36:36 great
2:36:37 place
2:36:38 to
2:36:38 live
2:36:39 in
2:36:39 many
2:36:39 ways
2:36:40 so
2:36:40 even
2:36:40 though
2:36:41 this
2:36:41 is
2:36:41 hanging
2:36:41 but
2:36:42 at the
2:36:42 same
2:36:43 time
2:36:44 there
2:36:44 is
2:36:44 an
2:36:45 awareness
2:36:46 of
2:36:47 things
2:36:47 that
2:36:48 increase
2:36:49 precariousness
2:36:51 and
2:36:51 there
2:36:51 was
2:36:52 a lot
2:36:52 of
2:36:53 concern
2:36:54 with
2:36:54 the
2:36:55 invasion
2:36:55 of
2:36:56 Ukraine
2:36:57 and
2:36:58 watching
2:36:58 how
2:37:01 the
2:37:01 response
2:37:01 to
2:37:02 that
2:37:02 was
2:37:22 and
2:37:23 a
2:37:24 western
2:37:25 NATO
2:37:26 including
2:37:26 the
2:37:26 United
2:37:27 States
2:37:27 response
2:37:28 and
2:37:29 then
2:37:29 there’s
2:37:29 a
2:37:30 concern
2:37:32 about
2:37:35 the
2:37:35 Trump
2:37:35 presidency
2:37:36 because
2:37:36 of
2:37:37 Ukraine
2:37:38 at
2:37:38 the
2:37:38 same
2:37:38 time
2:37:39 there
2:37:39 are
2:37:39 mixed
2:37:40 signals
2:37:40 so
2:37:40 people
2:37:41 are
2:37:41 there
2:37:42 I’m
2:37:42 sure
2:37:42 there
2:37:42 are
2:37:43 people
2:37:43 there
2:37:43 who
2:37:44 are
2:37:44 both
2:37:45 saying
2:37:47 Trump
2:37:47 is
2:37:47 going
2:37:48 to
2:37:48 be
2:37:48 tough
2:37:48 toward
2:37:48 the
2:37:49 Chinese
2:37:49 Communist
2:37:49 Party
2:37:49 and
2:37:50 others
2:37:50 are
2:37:50 going
2:37:50 to
2:37:50 say
2:37:50 but
2:37:52 if
2:37:52 he’s
2:37:52 not
2:37:53 as
2:37:54 supportive
2:37:54 of
2:37:55 Ukraine
2:37:55 what
2:37:55 does
2:37:55 that
2:37:56 say
2:37:57 for
2:37:58 the
2:37:59 defense
2:37:59 of
2:38:00 so
2:38:00 they’re
2:38:00 not
2:38:01 the
2:38:01 same
2:38:02 situations
2:38:02 but
2:38:04 all
2:38:04 people
2:38:04 have
2:38:05 in a
2:38:05 sense
2:38:06 sometimes
2:38:06 with
2:38:07 unknowable
2:38:07 situations
2:38:08 is to
2:38:08 look at
2:38:09 things
2:38:10 that have
2:38:10 any
2:38:10 degree
2:38:10 of
2:38:11 parallel
2:38:12 connections
2:38:13 in other
2:38:13 places
2:38:14 do you
2:38:14 think
2:38:14 Xi Jinping
2:38:15 knows
2:38:16 what
2:38:16 he’s
2:38:17 going
2:38:17 to
2:38:17 do
2:38:17 in
2:38:17 the
2:38:18 next
2:38:18 five
2:38:19 ten
2:38:19 years
2:38:20 with
2:38:21 Taiwan
2:38:21 or
2:38:22 is it
2:38:22 really
2:38:24 like
2:38:24 there’s
2:38:24 a
2:38:26 there’s
2:38:26 a
2:38:26 loose
2:38:27 historical
2:38:28 notion
2:38:28 that
2:38:29 Taiwan
2:38:29 should
2:38:29 be
2:38:30 part
2:38:30 of
2:38:30 China
2:38:32 with
2:38:33 Xi Jinping
2:38:33 and the
2:38:33 Communist
2:38:34 Party
2:38:34 believe
2:38:34 that
2:38:35 that
2:38:35 loose
2:38:36 idea
2:38:36 was
2:38:37 accepted
2:38:37 Chiang
2:38:37 Kai-shek
2:38:38 and
2:38:38 Mao
2:38:38 both
2:38:39 thought
2:38:40 that
2:38:40 these
2:38:40 two
2:38:40 places
2:38:41 were
2:38:42 part
2:38:42 of
2:38:43 somehow
2:38:43 destined
2:38:43 to be
2:38:44 the
2:38:44 same
2:38:44 was
2:38:44 just
2:38:45 under
2:38:45 that
2:38:46 period
2:38:46 Chiang
2:38:46 Kai-shek
2:38:47 thought
2:38:47 how
2:38:48 long
2:38:48 until
2:38:48 I
2:38:49 take
2:38:49 over
2:38:50 the
2:38:50 mainland
2:38:50 and
2:38:50 it
2:38:51 all
2:38:51 becomes
2:38:51 the
2:38:51 Republic
2:38:52 of
2:38:52 China
2:38:53 this
2:38:53 is
2:38:54 not
2:38:54 now
2:38:54 something
2:38:54 that
2:38:55 any
2:38:55 leader
2:38:56 in
2:38:56 Taiwan
2:38:56 is
2:38:57 believing
2:38:58 there
2:38:58 is a
2:38:58 degree
2:38:58 to
2:38:59 which
2:39:01 that
2:39:02 remains
2:39:02 a
2:39:02 kind
2:39:03 of
2:39:04 sense
2:39:04 within
2:39:05 the
2:39:05 Chinese
2:39:05 Communist
2:39:05 Party
2:39:06 leadership
2:39:06 as
2:39:07 an
2:39:08 eventuality
2:39:09 I
2:39:09 don’t
2:39:09 think
2:39:10 there’s
2:39:10 a set
2:39:13 plan
2:39:14 in
2:39:14 part
2:39:15 because
2:39:15 I
2:39:15 think
2:39:15 it
2:39:15 is
2:39:16 also
2:39:16 dependent
2:39:17 on
2:39:18 what
2:39:18 the
2:39:19 costs
2:39:20 in
2:39:22 various
2:39:22 realms
2:39:23 would be
2:39:23 of doing
2:39:23 that
2:39:24 I
2:39:25 think
2:39:25 it
2:39:25 still
2:39:26 does
2:39:31 one
2:39:32 scenario
2:39:33 would
2:39:33 be
2:39:34 possibly
2:39:35 a
2:39:35 sense
2:39:35 of
2:39:36 becoming
2:39:36 strong
2:39:37 enough
2:39:37 to
2:39:37 not
2:39:37 have
2:39:37 to
2:39:37 worry
2:39:38 about
2:39:38 consequences
2:39:39 I
2:39:39 think
2:39:41 another
2:39:41 I
2:39:41 still
2:39:41 think
2:39:42 to
2:39:42 some
2:39:42 extent
2:39:42 more
2:39:43 would
2:39:43 be
2:39:43 a
2:39:44 sense
2:39:44 of
2:39:44 weakness
2:39:44 or
2:39:45 precarity
2:39:46 of
2:39:47 maintaining
2:39:48 power
2:39:48 domestically
2:39:49 and
2:39:49 needing
2:39:49 to do
2:39:50 something
2:39:51 to
2:39:52 distract
2:39:53 and
2:39:54 another
2:39:54 complexity
2:39:55 about
2:39:55 this
2:39:55 is
2:39:56 it’s
2:39:56 not
2:39:56 always
2:39:57 so
2:39:57 clear
2:39:58 the
2:39:59 line
2:39:59 between
2:40:01 no
2:40:02 conflict
2:40:02 and
2:40:02 conflict
2:40:03 so
2:40:04 there’s
2:40:04 a lot
2:40:04 of
2:40:04 gray
2:40:05 zone
2:40:05 tactics
2:40:06 of
2:40:06 non
2:40:06 violent
2:40:07 pressure
2:40:07 that
2:40:08 China
2:40:08 could
2:40:08 exude
2:40:09 so
2:40:09 it
2:40:09 could
2:40:10 do
2:40:11 non
2:40:11 military
2:40:12 violence
2:40:14 it
2:40:14 could
2:40:14 then
2:40:15 escalate
2:40:15 that
2:40:16 to
2:40:16 non
2:40:17 violent
2:40:18 military
2:40:19 intimidation
2:40:20 and
2:40:21 all of
2:40:21 this
2:40:21 has
2:40:22 consequences
2:40:22 for
2:40:22 the
2:40:22 United
2:40:23 States
2:40:23 because
2:40:23 there’s
2:40:23 a
2:40:24 messaging
2:40:24 thing
2:40:24 going
2:40:25 on
2:40:25 here
2:40:26 and
2:40:26 then
2:40:26 of
2:40:26 course
2:40:26 that
2:40:27 could
2:40:27 then
2:40:27 go
2:40:28 to
2:40:28 a
2:40:29 do
2:40:29 as
2:40:29 you’re
2:40:30 told
2:40:30 actions
2:40:30 that
2:40:31 come
2:40:31 at
2:40:31 a
2:40:31 high
2:40:31 risk
2:40:31 of
2:40:31 a
2:40:32 hot
2:40:32 military
2:40:32 conflict
2:40:33 so
2:40:33 basically
2:40:34 just
2:40:35 don’t
2:40:35 do
2:40:36 military
2:40:37 violence
2:40:37 but
2:40:38 just
2:40:39 full
2:40:39 on
2:40:40 pressure
2:40:41 ordering
2:40:41 Taiwan
2:40:41 to
2:40:41 do
2:40:42 things
2:40:43 and
2:40:43 there
2:40:45 it’s
2:40:45 like
2:40:46 in
2:40:46 order
2:40:46 the
2:40:46 only
2:40:47 way
2:40:47 to
2:40:47 respond
2:40:47 is
2:40:47 with
2:40:48 violence
2:40:48 you’re
2:40:49 completely
2:40:49 trapped
2:40:50 you’re
2:40:50 saying
2:40:50 no
2:40:51 you have
2:40:51 to
2:40:52 say
2:40:52 no
2:40:52 with
2:40:53 a
2:40:54 military
2:40:54 force
2:40:54 behind
2:40:54 it
2:40:55 and
2:40:55 then
2:40:56 what
2:40:56 do
2:40:56 you
2:40:56 do
2:40:57 and
2:40:57 every
2:40:58 step
2:40:58 in
2:40:59 this
2:40:59 it’s
2:40:59 such
2:41:00 an
2:41:01 unstable
2:41:02 nonlinear
2:41:03 dynamical
2:41:04 system
2:41:04 where
2:41:04 anything
2:41:05 could
2:41:05 just
2:41:06 unintended
2:41:06 consequences
2:41:07 can
2:41:07 happen
2:41:08 and
2:41:08 it
2:41:08 could
2:41:08 just
2:41:09 escalate
2:41:09 in a
2:41:09 matter
2:41:09 of
2:41:09 days
2:41:10 if
2:41:10 not
2:41:11 hours
2:41:12 and
2:41:12 so
2:41:13 like
2:41:13 this
2:41:13 is
2:41:13 where
2:41:16 this
2:41:16 is
2:41:17 where
2:41:17 I
2:41:17 think
2:41:18 it’s
2:41:18 really
2:41:18 important
2:41:19 to
2:41:19 find
2:41:20 mechanisms
2:41:20 and
2:41:21 tactics
2:41:22 and
2:41:22 strategies
2:41:23 for
2:41:24 de-escalation
2:41:26 which is
2:41:27 why
2:41:27 this trade
2:41:28 war
2:41:28 that’s
2:41:28 happening
2:41:29 one
2:41:29 of
2:41:29 the
2:41:30 nice
2:41:30 things
2:41:30 of
2:41:31 being
2:41:31 so
2:41:32 connected
2:41:32 by
2:41:33 trade
2:41:33 is
2:41:34 it
2:41:34 creates
2:41:34 a
2:41:35 disincentive
2:41:36 for
2:41:37 any
2:41:37 of
2:41:37 this
2:41:37 kind
2:41:38 of
2:41:38 posturing
2:41:39 because
2:41:40 I do
2:41:40 agree
2:41:40 with
2:41:40 you
2:41:41 I
2:41:41 think
2:41:41 it
2:41:41 will
2:41:42 start
2:41:43 as
2:41:43 these
2:41:44 things
2:41:44 often
2:41:45 do
2:41:46 as
2:41:46 a
2:41:47 kind
2:41:47 of
2:41:49 military
2:41:50 sort
2:41:50 of
2:41:50 early
2:41:51 steps
2:41:52 posturing
2:41:53 in order
2:41:54 to maintain
2:41:54 power
2:41:55 internally
2:41:57 so
2:41:58 that’s
2:41:59 China
2:41:59 will
2:41:59 just
2:42:00 create
2:42:01 military
2:42:01 conflict
2:42:01 conflict
2:42:02 of
2:42:02 different
2:42:02 kinds
2:42:03 in
2:42:03 order
2:42:03 to
2:42:04 distract
2:42:05 but
2:42:05 then
2:42:05 how
2:42:05 does
2:42:06 that
2:42:06 escalate
2:42:07 as if
2:42:07 all that
2:42:08 wasn’t
2:42:08 complicated
2:42:09 enough
2:42:09 Taiwan
2:42:09 isn’t
2:42:09 just
2:42:10 one
2:42:10 place
2:42:10 or
2:42:11 one
2:42:11 island
2:42:11 there
2:42:12 are
2:42:12 also
2:42:12 there
2:42:12 are
2:42:13 islands
2:42:13 that
2:42:14 are
2:42:14 closer
2:42:15 to
2:42:16 mainland
2:42:16 Jinmen
2:42:16 and
2:42:17 their
2:42:17 degrees
2:42:17 of
2:42:18 integration
2:42:18 and
2:42:19 anyway
2:42:19 so
2:42:19 it’s
2:42:20 it’s
2:42:20 a
2:42:21 but
2:42:21 your
2:42:22 comment
2:42:22 about
2:42:25 integration
2:42:25 of
2:42:25 trade
2:42:27 and
2:42:27 sort
2:42:27 of
2:42:29 having
2:42:30 being
2:42:31 a check
2:42:31 on
2:42:32 kind
2:42:32 of
2:42:32 there’s
2:42:32 a
2:42:34 there’s
2:42:34 a
2:42:34 Chinese
2:42:35 writer
2:42:36 who
2:42:38 fascinating
2:42:38 guy
2:42:39 Han Han
2:42:39 who was
2:42:40 a race
2:42:40 car
2:42:41 driver
2:42:41 and
2:42:41 a
2:42:42 filmmaker
2:42:42 and
2:42:43 a
2:42:43 bad
2:42:44 boy
2:42:44 novelist
2:42:45 anyway
2:42:45 in his
2:42:46 heyday
2:42:47 he was
2:42:47 an
2:42:47 interesting
2:42:47 kind
2:42:48 of
2:42:48 blogger
2:42:48 who
2:42:48 was
2:42:49 testing
2:42:49 the
2:42:49 edges
2:42:50 of
2:42:50 things
2:42:50 and
2:42:50 he
2:42:50 had
2:42:51 this
2:42:52 blog
2:42:52 post
2:42:53 where
2:42:53 he
2:42:53 was
2:42:53 talking
2:42:54 about
2:42:54 this
2:42:55 was
2:42:56 in
2:42:56 the
2:42:56 early
2:42:57 2000s
2:42:58 he
2:42:58 was
2:42:58 talking
2:42:59 about
2:42:59 how
2:43:01 China
2:43:01 was
2:43:01 building
2:43:01 the
2:43:02 massive
2:43:02 three
2:43:03 gorges
2:43:03 dam
2:43:04 project
2:43:04 this
2:43:05 mass
2:43:05 and
2:43:06 he
2:43:06 said
2:43:06 some
2:43:07 people
2:43:07 are
2:43:08 saying
2:43:10 building
2:43:10 these
2:43:11 dams
2:43:11 it
2:43:11 could
2:43:11 be
2:43:11 so
2:43:12 easy
2:43:12 for
2:43:12 the
2:43:12 Americans
2:43:13 to
2:43:13 just
2:43:16 bomb
2:43:17 them
2:43:17 and
2:43:17 destroy
2:43:18 our
2:43:18 country
2:43:20 because
2:43:20 there
2:43:20 would
2:43:20 be
2:43:20 a
2:43:20 massive
2:43:21 flood
2:43:22 and
2:43:22 he
2:43:22 said
2:43:22 but
2:43:23 that’s
2:43:23 really
2:43:24 silly
2:43:24 that’s
2:43:24 a really
2:43:25 silly
2:43:25 argument
2:43:26 because
2:43:27 Americans
2:43:28 know
2:43:28 that
2:43:28 down
2:43:28 river
2:43:29 from
2:43:29 there
2:43:29 what
2:43:29 would
2:43:29 be
2:43:29 flooded
2:43:30 out
2:43:30 was
2:43:30 the
2:43:30 place
2:43:30 where
2:43:31 their
2:43:31 iPhones
2:43:31 are
2:43:31 built
2:43:32 and
2:43:32 and
2:43:33 they
2:43:33 want
2:43:33 their
2:43:34 iPhones
2:43:34 so
2:43:36 this
2:43:36 kind
2:43:36 of
2:43:37 notion
2:43:37 he’s
2:43:38 making
2:43:38 through
2:43:39 a
2:43:39 humorous
2:43:39 point
2:43:40 the
2:43:40 way
2:43:40 in
2:43:40 which
2:43:42 interconnectedness
2:43:43 can
2:43:45 be a
2:43:45 check
2:43:46 and
2:43:47 interconnectedness
2:43:47 can be
2:43:48 in all
2:43:48 kinds
2:43:48 of
2:43:49 ways
2:43:49 the
2:43:49 flows
2:43:50 people
2:43:50 between
2:43:51 places
2:43:52 and
2:43:53 having
2:43:54 people
2:43:55 from
2:43:55 one
2:43:56 place
2:43:56 living
2:43:56 in
2:43:56 another
2:43:57 traveling
2:43:57 to
2:43:57 another
2:43:58 studying
2:43:58 in
2:43:58 another
2:43:59 that
2:43:59 can
2:44:00 actually
2:44:00 be
2:44:01 something
2:44:01 that
2:44:02 helps
2:44:03 to
2:44:04 stabilize
2:44:04 the
2:44:05 world
2:44:05 I
2:44:05 think
2:44:05 that’s
2:44:05 an
2:44:05 important
2:44:06 thing
2:44:06 to
2:44:06 keep
2:44:06 in
2:44:07 mind
2:44:08 since
2:44:08 you
2:44:08 mentioned
2:44:09 the
2:44:09 long
2:44:10 march
2:44:11 and
2:44:11 the
2:44:12 unlikely
2:44:14 coming
2:44:14 to
2:44:14 power
2:44:14 with
2:44:14 the
2:44:14 communist
2:44:15 party
2:44:16 let’s
2:44:16 go
2:44:16 back
2:44:17 we began
2:44:18 comparing
2:44:18 Xi Jinping
2:44:18 and
2:44:19 Mao
2:44:19 let’s
2:44:19 go
2:44:20 back
2:44:20 to
2:44:20 Mao
2:44:21 how
2:44:21 did
2:44:21 Mao
2:44:22 come
2:44:22 to
2:44:22 power
2:44:23 the
2:44:24 road
2:44:24 to
2:44:25 Mao
2:44:26 coming
2:44:26 to
2:44:26 power
2:44:26 we
2:44:27 need
2:44:27 to
2:44:27 first
2:44:28 say
2:44:28 that
2:44:29 China
2:44:29 was
2:44:30 under
2:44:30 rule
2:44:30 by
2:44:31 emperors
2:44:32 until
2:44:33 1911
2:44:34 overthrown
2:44:35 by
2:44:35 an
2:44:35 upheaval
2:44:36 that
2:44:37 was
2:44:37 partly
2:44:38 by
2:44:38 people
2:44:39 who
2:44:40 wanted
2:44:41 to
2:44:41 change
2:44:41 China
2:44:42 into
2:44:42 a
2:44:42 republic
2:44:43 but
2:44:43 also
2:44:43 some
2:44:43 people
2:44:44 who
2:44:44 wanted
2:44:44 to
2:44:44 get
2:44:44 rid
2:44:45 of
2:44:45 the
2:44:46 last
2:44:46 dynasty
2:44:47 was
2:44:47 a
2:44:48 group
2:44:48 of
2:44:48 Manchu
2:44:49 ruling
2:44:49 families
2:44:50 so they
2:44:50 saw
2:44:50 them
2:44:50 as
2:44:51 ethnic
2:44:51 outsiders
2:44:52 so it
2:44:53 was a
2:44:53 strange
2:44:54 combination
2:44:54 of
2:44:55 ethnic
2:44:56 nationalists
2:44:56 who
2:44:57 wanted
2:44:57 China
2:44:57 back
2:44:58 under
2:44:58 the
2:44:58 control
2:44:58 of
2:44:58 Han
2:44:59 Chinese
2:45:00 other
2:45:00 people
2:45:00 who
2:45:01 thought
2:45:01 the
2:45:01 time
2:45:02 for
2:45:02 rule
2:45:02 by
2:45:03 emperors
2:45:03 was over
2:45:04 and wanted
2:45:04 to
2:45:04 establish
2:45:05 a
2:45:05 republic
2:45:07 and
2:45:07 Sun Yat-sen
2:45:09 became
2:45:10 a first
2:45:11 president
2:45:12 provisional
2:45:12 president
2:45:13 of this
2:45:13 newly
2:45:13 formed
2:45:14 republic
2:45:14 of
2:45:14 China
2:45:15 but
2:45:16 then
2:45:16 he
2:45:16 got
2:45:17 nudged
2:45:17 out of
2:45:17 power
2:45:18 by a
2:45:18 military
2:45:19 strong
2:45:19 man
2:45:20 and
2:45:20 then
2:45:20 there
2:45:21 was
2:45:21 a
2:45:21 period
2:45:22 where
2:45:24 the
2:45:24 country
2:45:24 was really
2:45:25 divided
2:45:25 republic
2:45:25 of
2:45:26 China
2:45:26 didn’t
2:45:26 have
2:45:26 a
2:45:27 strong
2:45:28 government
2:45:28 but
2:45:28 there
2:45:29 were
2:45:30 then
2:45:30 two
2:45:31 groups
2:45:32 one
2:45:33 rallied
2:45:33 around
2:45:34 Sun Yat-sen
2:45:35 had founded
2:45:35 something
2:45:36 that became
2:45:36 known as
2:45:36 the
2:45:37 nationalist
2:45:37 party
2:45:38 and then
2:45:39 there was
2:45:39 a small
2:45:40 group
2:45:40 of people
2:45:41 who formed
2:45:42 a communist
2:45:42 party
2:45:43 Mao was
2:45:43 one of
2:45:44 them
2:45:44 these
2:45:44 were
2:45:46 intellectuals
2:45:46 who were
2:45:47 part of
2:45:48 the May 4th
2:45:48 movement
2:45:49 of 1919
2:45:49 they were
2:45:50 inspired by
2:45:51 Marxist
2:45:51 ideas but
2:45:51 they were
2:45:52 also just
2:45:52 inspired by
2:45:53 the Russian
2:45:53 revolution
2:45:55 Russia
2:45:55 was
2:45:56 nearby
2:45:56 it
2:45:56 seemed
2:45:57 good
2:45:57 to
2:45:57 think
2:45:58 with
2:45:58 it
2:45:58 had
2:45:58 a
2:45:59 largely
2:46:00 rural
2:46:00 population
2:46:01 and
2:46:01 somehow
2:46:03 it
2:46:03 seemed
2:46:04 to be
2:46:05 getting
2:46:05 strong
2:46:06 in the
2:46:06 world
2:46:06 and
2:46:06 there
2:46:07 was
2:46:07 this
2:46:07 interest
2:46:08 in
2:46:08 how
2:46:09 China
2:46:09 could
2:46:09 do
2:46:09 that
2:46:10 and
2:46:10 the
2:46:11 newly
2:46:11 formed
2:46:12 Soviet
2:46:12 Union
2:46:13 did
2:46:14 something
2:46:14 very
2:46:15 important
2:46:16 there
2:46:16 were
2:46:16 a
2:46:16 group
2:46:17 of
2:46:17 foreign
2:46:17 powers
2:46:18 including
2:46:19 Tsarist
2:46:19 Russia
2:46:20 that
2:46:20 had
2:46:21 gained
2:46:22 big
2:46:23 concessions
2:46:23 out of
2:46:23 China
2:46:24 when
2:46:25 in
2:46:25 1900
2:46:26 the
2:46:26 Boxer
2:46:26 Uprising
2:46:27 had
2:46:27 taken
2:46:28 place
2:46:28 and
2:46:28 then
2:46:30 been
2:46:30 crushed
2:46:31 by a
2:46:31 consortium
2:46:31 of
2:46:31 foreign
2:46:32 powers
2:46:32 who
2:46:32 had
2:46:32 gotten
2:46:34 privileges
2:46:34 and
2:46:35 indemnities
2:46:35 out of
2:46:35 that
2:46:36 and
2:46:36 the
2:46:37 newly
2:46:37 formed
2:46:37 Soviet
2:46:38 Union
2:46:39 renounced
2:46:39 those
2:46:39 said
2:46:40 you know
2:46:40 that was
2:46:41 the old
2:46:41 order
2:46:42 that was
2:46:43 imperialism
2:46:44 and
2:46:44 so
2:46:47 Marx’s
2:46:47 ideas
2:46:48 were
2:46:50 attractive
2:46:51 to some
2:46:51 Chinese
2:46:52 thinkers
2:46:52 but
2:46:53 Lenin
2:46:53 was
2:46:53 very
2:46:54 attractive
2:46:54 because
2:46:54 of
2:46:55 his
2:46:55 combination
2:46:55 of
2:46:56 anti-imperialism
2:46:58 and
2:46:58 his
2:46:58 notion
2:46:58 of
2:46:58 a
2:46:59 vanguard
2:46:59 party
2:47:00 leading
2:47:01 a
2:47:01 country
2:47:01 forward
2:47:04 so
2:47:05 there
2:47:05 was
2:47:05 a
2:47:05 small
2:47:06 communist
2:47:06 party
2:47:06 a
2:47:06 bigger
2:47:07 nationalist
2:47:07 party
2:47:07 they
2:47:08 were
2:47:08 involved
2:47:08 in
2:47:08 these
2:47:09 protests
2:47:09 against
2:47:10 warlords
2:47:10 and
2:47:10 against
2:47:11 imperialists
2:47:12 and
2:47:13 while
2:47:13 Sun Yat-sen
2:47:14 was
2:47:14 alive
2:47:15 Sun Yat-sen
2:47:17 got the
2:47:17 two
2:47:17 parties
2:47:17 to work
2:47:18 together
2:47:19 because
2:47:19 Sun Yat-sen
2:47:20 wasn’t a
2:47:20 Marxist
2:47:20 he didn’t
2:47:21 believe in
2:47:21 class
2:47:21 struggle
2:47:22 but
2:47:22 he
2:47:23 admired
2:47:23 Lenin
2:47:24 and
2:47:24 Leninism
2:47:25 and
2:47:26 so
2:47:26 he
2:47:26 said
2:47:26 that
2:47:27 actually
2:47:28 the
2:47:28 communist
2:47:29 party
2:47:29 and the
2:47:29 nationalist
2:47:29 party
2:47:30 may have
2:47:30 had
2:47:30 different
2:47:31 views
2:47:32 of
2:47:32 the
2:47:32 path
2:47:33 forward
2:47:33 for
2:47:33 China
2:47:34 but
2:47:34 they
2:47:34 agreed
2:47:35 on
2:47:35 who
2:47:35 the
2:47:35 enemies
2:47:36 were
2:47:36 and
2:47:36 the
2:47:37 enemies
2:47:37 were
2:47:37 the
2:47:38 warlords
2:47:38 who
2:47:38 were
2:47:39 keeping
2:47:39 China
2:47:40 weak
2:47:40 and
2:47:40 too
2:47:40 willing
2:47:40 to
2:47:41 compromise
2:47:41 with
2:47:42 Japan
2:47:43 and
2:47:44 foreign
2:47:44 imperialism
2:47:45 so
2:47:45 China
2:47:46 needed
2:47:46 to get
2:47:46 rid
2:47:46 of
2:47:46 the
2:47:47 warlords
2:47:47 and
2:47:48 become
2:47:48 a
2:47:49 stronger
2:47:50 country
2:47:50 and
2:47:50 then
2:47:50 they
2:47:50 could
2:47:50 sort
2:47:51 it
2:47:51 out
2:47:52 of
2:47:53 what
2:47:53 road
2:47:53 to
2:47:53 take
2:47:54 Sun Yat-sen
2:47:55 dies
2:47:55 in
2:47:56 1925
2:47:57 and
2:47:57 his
2:47:58 successor
2:47:59 Chiang Kai-shek
2:48:01 is
2:48:01 initially
2:48:02 keeps
2:48:02 the
2:48:03 alliance
2:48:03 going
2:48:03 with
2:48:04 the
2:48:04 communist
2:48:04 party
2:48:04 but
2:48:05 in
2:48:05 1927
2:48:06 he
2:48:06 turns
2:48:07 against
2:48:07 the
2:48:08 communists
2:48:08 and
2:48:08 tries
2:48:08 to
2:48:08 carry
2:48:09 out
2:48:09 a
2:48:09 purge
2:48:09 against
2:48:10 communist
2:48:10 party
2:48:11 members
2:48:11 he’s
2:48:11 the
2:48:12 head
2:48:12 of
2:48:12 the
2:48:13 nationalists
2:48:13 he’s
2:48:13 the
2:48:13 head
2:48:13 of
2:48:13 the
2:48:14 nationalists
2:48:14 and
2:48:15 he
2:48:15 has
2:48:15 some
2:48:16 very
2:48:16 different
2:48:17 he’s
2:48:17 he’s
2:48:17 a
2:48:17 kind
2:48:18 of
2:48:18 culturally
2:48:19 more
2:48:19 conservative
2:48:20 figure
2:48:22 but
2:48:22 what’s
2:48:23 important
2:48:23 in part
2:48:23 about
2:48:24 this
2:48:24 is
2:48:25 there
2:48:25 are
2:48:25 some
2:48:26 members
2:48:26 of
2:48:26 the
2:48:26 Chinese
2:48:26 Communist
2:48:26 Party
2:48:27 who
2:48:28 accept
2:48:28 the
2:48:28 basic
2:48:29 ideas
2:48:29 of
2:48:30 Marxism
2:48:30 of
2:48:31 revolution
2:48:31 comes
2:48:32 from
2:48:32 the
2:48:32 cities
2:48:34 but
2:48:34 Mao
2:48:35 has
2:48:36 this
2:48:36 idea
2:48:36 that
2:48:37 actually
2:48:38 he’s
2:48:38 he’s
2:48:39 partly
2:48:40 he
2:48:40 loves
2:48:40 this
2:48:41 idea
2:48:41 of
2:48:41 peasant
2:48:42 rebellions
2:48:42 in
2:48:42 China’s
2:48:43 past
2:48:43 is
2:48:43 driving
2:48:44 history
2:48:44 forward
2:48:44 and
2:48:45 he
2:48:45 starts
2:48:46 writing
2:48:46 about
2:48:47 how
2:48:48 well
2:48:48 maybe
2:48:48 in
2:48:49 China’s
2:48:49 case
2:48:49 actually
2:48:49 the
2:48:50 peasantry
2:48:51 farmers
2:48:51 can
2:48:51 be
2:48:52 a
2:48:53 radical
2:48:53 force
2:48:54 and
2:48:55 so
2:48:55 the
2:48:55 Communist
2:48:56 Party
2:48:56 is
2:48:56 on
2:48:56 the
2:48:56 run
2:48:57 it’s
2:48:57 being
2:48:58 pushed
2:48:58 around
2:48:59 but
2:48:59 the
2:48:59 Nationalists
2:48:59 are
2:49:00 trying
2:49:00 to
2:49:00 exterminate
2:49:01 them
2:49:02 but
2:49:02 eventually
2:49:04 and
2:49:05 the
2:49:05 Nationalists
2:49:05 and the
2:49:06 Communists
2:49:06 ally
2:49:07 again
2:49:08 after
2:49:08 Japan
2:49:09 invades
2:49:09 China
2:49:09 in the
2:49:10 1930s
2:49:10 they
2:49:10 form
2:49:11 what’s
2:49:11 called
2:49:11 Second
2:49:12 United
2:49:12 Front
2:49:13 but
2:49:13 during
2:49:14 this
2:49:14 period
2:49:14 Mao
2:49:15 is
2:49:15 emerging
2:49:16 as
2:49:17 taking
2:49:18 leadership
2:49:19 in the
2:49:19 Chinese
2:49:19 Communist
2:49:20 Party
2:49:21 and
2:49:21 his
2:49:21 idea
2:49:22 of a
2:49:22 different
2:49:22 kind
2:49:23 of
2:49:23 vision
2:49:23 of
2:49:24 Communist
2:49:24 Revolution
2:49:25 that
2:49:26 has
2:49:27 the
2:49:27 revolutionary
2:49:28 vanguard
2:49:29 somehow
2:49:29 being
2:49:31 the
2:49:31 peasantry
2:49:33 in
2:49:34 after World War
2:49:35 II
2:49:35 after the
2:49:35 two
2:49:36 parties
2:49:36 have
2:49:38 brokered
2:49:38 a truce
2:49:39 and sort
2:49:39 of worked
2:49:39 together
2:49:40 against
2:49:40 Japan
2:49:41 there’s a
2:49:42 civil war
2:49:42 between the
2:49:43 Nationalists
2:49:43 and the
2:49:43 Communists
2:49:45 and against
2:49:46 all odds
2:49:46 the Communist
2:49:47 Party
2:49:47 wins
2:49:48 the
2:49:48 Communist
2:49:48 Party
2:49:48 gets
2:49:49 support
2:49:49 from
2:49:49 the
2:49:50 Soviet
2:49:50 Union
2:49:51 the
2:49:51 Nationalists
2:49:52 get
2:49:52 support
2:49:52 from
2:49:52 the
2:49:53 United
2:49:53 States
2:49:56 even
2:49:56 though
2:49:56 neither
2:49:57 of them
2:49:57 are quite
2:49:57 doing
2:49:58 things
2:49:58 the way
2:49:59 that
2:49:59 their
2:50:00 backer
2:50:00 would
2:50:00 like
2:50:00 them
2:50:01 to
2:50:01 but
2:50:02 there
2:50:02 also
2:50:02 is
2:50:02 a
2:50:03 way
2:50:03 in
2:50:03 which
2:50:04 the
2:50:04 and
2:50:04 this
2:50:04 is
2:50:04 something
2:50:05 I
2:50:05 think
2:50:05 the
2:50:05 Communist
2:50:06 Party
2:50:06 leaders
2:50:07 remember
2:50:08 there’s
2:50:08 a
2:50:08 feeling
2:50:09 that
2:50:09 the
2:50:09 Nationalist
2:50:10 Party
2:50:10 doesn’t
2:50:10 really
2:50:11 believe
2:50:11 its
2:50:12 own
2:50:13 rhetoric
2:50:13 that
2:50:13 in fact
2:50:14 all it
2:50:14 cares about
2:50:14 as
2:50:15 having
2:50:15 power
2:50:16 and
2:50:16 that
2:50:16 it’s
2:50:17 internally
2:50:17 corrupt
2:50:18 Chiang
2:50:18 Kai-shek
2:50:19 himself
2:50:19 isn’t
2:50:20 viewed
2:50:20 as
2:50:22 personally
2:50:22 corrupt
2:50:22 but
2:50:24 family
2:50:25 members
2:50:25 and
2:50:25 there’s
2:50:27 an idea
2:50:27 that
2:50:27 there’s
2:50:27 just a
2:50:28 small
2:50:28 band
2:50:28 of
2:50:29 people
2:50:29 that
2:50:29 are
2:50:30 benefiting
2:50:31 and
2:50:32 there’s
2:50:32 a
2:50:32 kind
2:50:33 of
2:50:33 disgust
2:50:33 with
2:50:33 the
2:50:34 leader
2:50:34 with
2:50:35 the
2:50:35 Nationalists
2:50:37 end up
2:50:37 in
2:50:38 retreat
2:50:39 in
2:50:39 Taiwan
2:50:40 that’s
2:50:40 why
2:50:40 Taiwan
2:50:41 then
2:50:41 becomes
2:50:42 the
2:50:42 Republic
2:50:42 of
2:50:43 China
2:50:44 there’s
2:50:45 an
2:50:45 uprising
2:50:45 there
2:50:46 that
2:50:47 Chiang Kai-shek
2:50:47 people
2:50:48 the
2:50:49 Nationalists
2:50:49 repress
2:50:51 and there
2:50:51 starts
2:50:51 being
2:50:52 from the
2:50:52 late
2:50:53 1940s
2:50:53 on
2:50:53 this
2:50:53 long
2:50:54 period
2:50:54 of
2:50:54 martial
2:50:54 law
2:50:55 on
2:50:56 Taiwan
2:50:56 and
2:50:56 there
2:50:56 becomes
2:50:57 then
2:50:57 this
2:50:58 period
2:50:58 where
2:50:59 the
2:50:59 mainland
2:50:59 is
2:50:59 under
2:51:00 the
2:51:00 control
2:51:00 of
2:51:01 a
2:51:02 Leninist
2:51:03 party
2:51:04 believes
2:51:04 in
2:51:04 one
2:51:05 party
2:51:05 rule
2:51:07 and
2:51:07 believes
2:51:07 that
2:51:07 it
2:51:07 was
2:51:08 a
2:51:08 very
2:51:09 bad
2:51:09 period
2:51:09 in
2:51:09 Chinese
2:51:10 history
2:51:11 when
2:51:13 China
2:51:13 was
2:51:14 unable
2:51:14 to
2:51:14 stand
2:51:14 up
2:51:14 to
2:51:15 imperialists
2:51:17 Taiwan
2:51:17 is
2:51:17 controlled
2:51:18 by
2:51:19 a
2:51:20 Leninist
2:51:20 party
2:51:21 that
2:51:21 believes
2:51:21 in
2:51:22 one
2:51:22 party
2:51:22 rule
2:51:24 limits
2:51:24 on
2:51:24 participation
2:51:25 believes
2:51:26 that
2:51:26 it was
2:51:26 a
2:51:27 bad
2:51:27 time
2:51:27 when
2:51:28 China
2:51:28 was
2:51:28 being
2:51:29 bullied
2:51:29 by
2:51:29 imperialists
2:51:30 what
2:51:31 distinguishes
2:51:31 Chiang Kai
2:51:32 Shek has
2:51:33 a personality
2:51:33 cult
2:51:34 Mao
2:51:34 has a
2:51:34 personality
2:51:35 cult
2:51:36 they have
2:51:36 a lot
2:51:36 in
2:51:37 common
2:51:37 but
2:51:37 one
2:51:38 clear
2:51:38 thing
2:51:39 that
2:51:39 makes
2:51:39 them
2:51:40 different
2:51:40 is
2:51:40 Chiang Kai
2:51:41 Shek
2:51:41 says
2:51:41 that
2:51:41 what’s
2:51:42 wrong
2:51:42 with
2:51:42 the
2:51:43 communist
2:51:43 party
2:51:43 is
2:51:43 they’ve
2:51:44 abandoned
2:51:45 Chinese
2:51:46 traditional
2:51:46 values
2:51:47 of
2:51:48 Confucianism
2:51:49 and
2:51:50 Mao
2:51:50 says
2:51:50 that
2:51:51 on
2:51:51 the
2:51:52 nationalists
2:51:53 what’s
2:51:53 really
2:51:54 bad
2:51:54 as
2:51:54 they
2:51:54 are
2:51:55 still
2:51:55 wedded
2:51:56 to
2:51:56 these
2:51:56 traditional
2:51:57 Chinese
2:51:58 values
2:51:58 of
2:51:59 Confucianism
2:51:59 so
2:52:00 cycling
2:52:00 back
2:52:01 to where
2:52:01 we began
2:52:02 with
2:52:03 Mao
2:52:03 and
2:52:03 Xi
2:52:04 you could
2:52:04 actually
2:52:05 say
2:52:05 Xi
2:52:06 Jinping
2:52:06 in some
2:52:07 ways
2:52:07 is
2:52:08 like
2:52:09 living
2:52:09 out
2:52:09 the
2:52:10 dream
2:52:10 that
2:52:10 Chiang Kai
2:52:11 had
2:52:11 had
2:52:11 of
2:52:12 one
2:52:12 party
2:52:13 rule
2:52:14 and
2:52:15 also
2:52:15 kind
2:52:15 of
2:52:16 celebrating
2:52:17 Confucianism
2:52:18 yeah
2:52:18 there’s
2:52:18 elements
2:52:20 you’ve
2:52:20 spoken
2:52:20 about
2:52:20 the
2:52:21 elements
2:52:21 of
2:52:21 Chi
2:52:21 Kai
2:52:22 Shek
2:52:22 and
2:52:23 Mao
2:52:23 that
2:52:24 Xi
2:52:24 Jinping
2:52:24 kind
2:52:25 of
2:52:25 combines
2:52:26 you’ve
2:52:26 also
2:52:26 mentioned
2:52:27 an
2:52:27 interesting
2:52:28 you know
2:52:29 if we
2:52:29 had
2:52:30 you know
2:52:30 a hundred
2:52:30 hours
2:52:31 to talk
2:52:31 about
2:52:31 there’s
2:52:31 another
2:52:32 interesting
2:52:32 side
2:52:32 effect
2:52:34 similarity
2:52:35 that
2:52:35 you
2:52:35 talk
2:52:35 about
2:52:36 where
2:52:37 Xi
2:52:37 Jinping’s
2:52:38 wife
2:52:40 is
2:52:40 out
2:52:40 there
2:52:40 a
2:52:41 known
2:52:41 entity
2:52:42 a
2:52:42 part
2:52:42 of
2:52:42 his
2:52:43 public
2:52:43 image
2:52:44 and
2:52:44 same
2:52:44 was
2:52:44 the
2:52:45 case
2:52:45 with
2:52:46 Chi
2:52:46 Kai
2:52:47 Shek
2:52:47 yes
2:52:47 and
2:52:48 both
2:52:48 of
2:52:49 them
2:52:49 right
2:52:49 they
2:52:49 had
2:52:49 high
2:52:50 profile
2:52:51 wives
2:52:51 who
2:52:51 were
2:52:53 sort
2:52:53 of
2:52:54 celebrity
2:52:54 figures
2:52:55 and
2:52:55 and
2:52:56 made
2:52:58 a
2:52:58 good
2:52:58 impression
2:52:59 globally
2:52:59 and
2:52:59 were
2:52:59 more
2:53:00 like
2:53:00 kind
2:53:00 of
2:53:00 first
2:53:02 first
2:53:02 ladies
2:53:04 but
2:53:04 both
2:53:05 shang kai
2:53:05 shek
2:53:06 and
2:53:06 xi jin
2:53:06 ping
2:53:08 were
2:53:08 oversaw
2:53:09 a period
2:53:09 of
2:53:10 emphasizing
2:53:10 more
2:53:11 traditional
2:53:12 patriarchal
2:53:12 values
2:53:13 in
2:53:13 china
2:53:14 and
2:53:14 one
2:53:14 of
2:53:14 the
2:53:14 things
2:53:15 i
2:53:15 didn’t
2:53:15 mention
2:53:15 before
2:53:16 xi
2:53:16 jin
2:53:16 ping
2:53:16 has
2:53:16 been
2:53:17 very
2:53:19 in
2:53:19 this
2:53:20 idea
2:53:20 of
2:53:20 trying
2:53:21 to
2:53:21 do
2:53:21 away
2:53:22 with
2:53:22 difference
2:53:22 within
2:53:24 prc
2:53:24 he’s
2:53:25 been
2:53:26 pushing
2:53:26 against
2:53:26 feminists
2:53:27 of
2:53:27 any
2:53:27 kinds
2:53:27 of
2:53:28 feminist
2:53:28 movements
2:53:28 so
2:53:29 going
2:53:29 back
2:53:29 to
2:53:30 confucius
2:53:30 yeah
2:53:31 yeah
2:53:32 in
2:53:32 some
2:53:32 way
2:53:33 i mean
2:53:33 there
2:53:33 are
2:53:34 people
2:53:34 who
2:53:34 will
2:53:34 argue
2:53:35 for
2:53:35 a
2:53:35 less
2:53:36 patriarchal
2:53:37 confucius
2:53:37 but it
2:53:38 fits
2:53:38 with
2:53:38 that
2:53:39 mode
2:53:39 so
2:53:40 now
2:53:40 that
2:53:40 gets
2:53:40 us
2:53:41 close
2:53:41 to
2:53:41 mao
2:53:42 consolidating
2:53:43 power
2:53:44 then
2:53:44 then
2:53:44 the
2:53:45 story
2:53:45 after
2:53:46 1949
2:53:46 with
2:53:47 mao
2:53:47 is
2:53:48 there
2:53:49 were
2:53:51 divisions
2:53:51 within
2:53:55 the
2:53:55 communist
2:53:55 party
2:53:56 over
2:53:57 sort
2:53:57 of
2:53:58 mao
2:53:58 was
2:53:59 impatient
2:53:59 he
2:53:59 wanted
2:54:00 to
2:54:00 transform
2:54:01 the
2:54:01 country
2:54:01 quickly
2:54:02 he
2:54:02 had
2:54:02 a
2:54:03 utopian
2:54:03 streak
2:54:04 he
2:54:04 thought
2:54:05 just as
2:54:05 the
2:54:06 peasantry
2:54:06 could
2:54:06 sort
2:54:06 of
2:54:07 you
2:54:07 didn’t
2:54:07 have
2:54:07 to
2:54:08 stick
2:54:08 to
2:54:08 the
2:54:08 traditional
2:54:09 pattern
2:54:10 of
2:54:10 moving
2:54:11 slowly
2:54:11 to
2:54:12 socialism
2:54:12 and
2:54:12 then
2:54:12 to
2:54:13 communism
2:54:13 he
2:54:13 tried
2:54:13 to
2:54:14 the
2:54:14 great
2:54:14 leap
2:54:14 forward
2:54:15 was
2:54:15 this
2:54:16 disastrous
2:54:17 policy
2:54:17 of his
2:54:18 that
2:54:18 imagined
2:54:19 China
2:54:20 outdoing
2:54:21 the
2:54:22 West
2:54:22 in a
2:54:23 quick
2:54:25 industrialization
2:54:25 and move
2:54:25 like this
2:54:26 and it
2:54:27 just
2:54:28 didn’t
2:54:29 work
2:54:29 and all
2:54:29 kinds
2:54:29 of
2:54:30 things
2:54:30 were
2:54:30 wrong
2:54:30 and
2:54:30 that
2:54:30 would
2:54:30 be
2:54:33 a
2:54:33 whole
2:54:33 other
2:54:34 session
2:54:34 to do
2:54:34 the
2:54:35 great
2:54:35 leap
2:54:36 forward
2:54:36 and
2:54:36 the
2:54:36 cultural
2:54:37 revolution
2:54:37 but one
2:54:37 of the
2:54:38 simple
2:54:38 ways
2:54:38 to
2:54:38 think
2:54:39 about
2:54:39 it
2:54:39 is
2:54:40 Mao
2:54:40 made
2:54:41 these
2:54:41 kind
2:54:41 of
2:54:42 disastrous
2:54:43 moves
2:54:43 and
2:54:44 then
2:54:44 was
2:54:44 partially
2:54:45 sidelined
2:54:46 and
2:54:46 then
2:54:46 wanted
2:54:46 to
2:54:46 get
2:54:47 back
2:54:47 to
2:54:48 power
2:54:49 and
2:54:49 there
2:54:49 was
2:54:50 this
2:54:50 struggle
2:54:50 between
2:54:51 people
2:54:51 who
2:54:51 are
2:54:51 more
2:54:52 gradualist
2:54:53 more
2:54:54 let’s
2:54:54 try to
2:54:55 work
2:54:55 more
2:54:55 kind
2:54:55 of
2:54:56 rationally
2:54:56 and
2:54:57 the
2:54:57 more
2:54:58 utopian
2:54:58 side
2:54:59 with
2:54:59 Mao
2:55:00 and
2:55:00 both
2:55:00 the
2:55:01 great
2:55:01 leap
2:55:01 forward
2:55:02 and
2:55:02 then
2:55:02 later
2:55:02 the
2:55:03 cultural
2:55:03 revolution
2:55:04 were
2:55:05 Mao’s
2:55:05 efforts
2:55:06 to
2:55:09 to do
2:55:09 things
2:55:10 dramatically
2:55:11 even at the
2:55:11 risk of
2:55:12 chaos
2:55:12 even at the
2:55:13 risk of
2:55:16 undoing a
2:55:16 lot of the
2:55:17 kind of slow
2:55:18 building of
2:55:20 state building
2:55:21 going on
2:55:21 and then there
2:55:22 were other
2:55:23 figures who
2:55:24 were more
2:55:25 concerned with
2:55:27 kind of
2:55:27 incremental
2:55:28 moves and
2:55:29 then after
2:55:30 Mao’s death
2:55:31 one of
2:55:31 those
2:55:31 figures
2:55:32 Deng Xiaoping
2:55:33 ends up
2:55:34 being the
2:55:35 next
2:55:36 long-term
2:55:37 paramount
2:55:37 leader
2:55:38 he led to
2:55:39 decades of
2:55:40 economic
2:55:40 progress
2:55:41 his economic
2:55:41 reforms
2:55:42 led to
2:55:43 record-breaking
2:55:43 growth for
2:55:44 China and
2:55:44 so on
2:55:45 but I
2:55:45 gotta linger
2:55:46 on
2:55:47 the great
2:55:48 leap
2:55:48 forward
2:55:49 a bit
2:55:50 enough to
2:55:50 understand
2:55:51 modern-day
2:55:51 China
2:55:52 so
2:55:54 as people
2:55:55 know
2:55:55 as I’ll
2:55:56 talk about
2:55:57 in other
2:55:57 episodes
2:55:59 the great
2:56:00 leap forward
2:56:00 this
2:56:01 agricultural
2:56:02 collectivization
2:56:03 and rapid
2:56:04 attempt to
2:56:05 industrialize
2:56:07 has killed
2:56:08 30 to
2:56:09 45 million
2:56:10 people
2:56:11 it’s
2:56:11 one of
2:56:12 the greatest
2:56:13 atrocities in
2:56:13 human history
2:56:15 how could
2:56:16 Mao
2:56:18 be so
2:56:19 catastrophically
2:56:19 wrong on
2:56:20 the policy of
2:56:21 collectivization
2:56:23 and be
2:56:24 so
2:56:25 unwilling
2:56:25 to see
2:56:26 the atrocity
2:56:27 and the
2:56:27 suffering he’s
2:56:28 causing
2:56:29 enough to
2:56:30 change course
2:56:31 so with
2:56:32 the great
2:56:32 leap forward
2:56:33 it’s caused
2:56:34 this incredible
2:56:35 famine
2:56:36 the just
2:56:36 incredible
2:56:37 devastation
2:56:38 one of the
2:56:40 one of the
2:56:40 things that
2:56:41 happened was
2:56:42 getting very
2:56:43 bad information
2:56:43 there was a
2:56:44 sense that
2:56:46 there was
2:56:46 people
2:56:47 officials were
2:56:48 afraid that
2:56:49 if they gave
2:56:49 bad news
2:56:50 if they
2:56:50 if they
2:56:52 if they
2:56:53 admitted that
2:56:53 they were
2:56:53 failing to
2:56:54 meet these
2:56:56 giant targets
2:56:56 that were being
2:56:56 set
2:56:57 that would
2:56:58 be seen
2:56:58 as a
2:56:58 political
2:56:59 mistake
2:56:59 so it
2:57:00 got
2:57:01 it got
2:57:02 to be
2:57:03 a survival
2:57:03 mechanism
2:57:04 to pass
2:57:04 on
2:57:06 unrealistic
2:57:06 reports
2:57:07 on what
2:57:07 was going
2:57:08 so some
2:57:08 of it
2:57:08 was
2:57:10 a culture
2:57:11 of fear
2:57:11 around a
2:57:12 great
2:57:12 leader
2:57:13 that led
2:57:14 to
2:57:15 not getting
2:57:17 not getting
2:57:17 accurate
2:57:18 information
2:57:19 so that was
2:57:19 one part
2:57:19 of the
2:57:20 dynamic
2:57:21 ego
2:57:21 was a
2:57:21 big part
2:57:22 of it
2:57:23 there were
2:57:23 all kinds
2:57:24 of things
2:57:24 that were
2:57:25 unmoored
2:57:27 when
2:57:28 early in
2:57:28 the Chinese
2:57:29 Communist Party
2:57:30 history
2:57:31 and power
2:57:32 there was
2:57:33 the connection
2:57:33 to the
2:57:34 Soviet Union
2:57:35 and Mao
2:57:36 and Stalin
2:57:36 had a
2:57:36 connection
2:57:38 after Stalin’s
2:57:38 death
2:57:40 Mao was
2:57:40 haunted
2:57:41 by the
2:57:42 move toward
2:57:43 de-Stalinization
2:57:44 and the moves
2:57:45 by Khrushchev
2:57:46 and thus
2:57:47 laid the groundwork
2:57:48 for the
2:57:49 Sino-Soviet
2:57:50 split
2:57:50 but there
2:57:51 was also
2:57:51 this kind
2:57:52 of
2:57:53 obsession
2:57:54 with doing
2:57:54 things
2:57:55 differently
2:57:57 that Mao
2:57:58 had in that
2:57:58 case as
2:57:58 well
2:58:00 and you
2:58:00 have
2:58:00 factional
2:58:01 struggles
2:58:01 you have
2:58:02 all kinds
2:58:02 of things
2:58:02 that are
2:58:03 happening
2:58:04 simultaneously
2:58:06 there’s
2:58:06 something I
2:58:07 learned about
2:58:07 called
2:58:08 Gray’s
2:58:08 Law
2:58:10 which states
2:58:10 any
2:58:11 sufficiently
2:58:12 advanced
2:58:12 incompetence
2:58:13 is
2:58:14 indistinguishable
2:58:14 from malice
2:58:15 so I
2:58:16 would say
2:58:16 when
2:58:18 30 to
2:58:18 45 million
2:58:19 people die
2:58:20 it doesn’t
2:58:20 really matter
2:58:21 what the
2:58:21 explanation
2:58:22 is
2:58:23 that’s a
2:58:24 longer
2:58:24 discussion
2:58:26 but the
2:58:26 interesting
2:58:27 discussion
2:58:27 that connects
2:58:28 to everything
2:58:28 we’ve been
2:58:29 talking about
2:58:29 is
2:58:30 how is
2:58:31 Mao
2:58:32 seen
2:58:33 in modern
2:58:33 day China
2:58:34 what has
2:58:35 Xi Jinping
2:58:37 said
2:58:38 about
2:58:38 Mao
2:58:39 so
2:58:40 before
2:58:41 Xi Jinping
2:58:42 there was
2:58:42 this
2:58:43 kind of
2:58:45 assessment
2:58:45 of
2:58:46 Mao
2:58:46 as
2:58:47 having
2:58:47 been
2:58:48 early
2:58:48 in the
2:58:49 early
2:58:49 80s
2:58:50 of being
2:58:51 70%
2:58:51 right
2:58:52 30%
2:58:53 wrong
2:58:53 I guess
2:58:53 Mao’s
2:58:54 own
2:58:54 analysis
2:58:54 of
2:58:55 Stalin
2:58:56 was
2:58:57 that
2:58:57 Stalin
2:58:57 was
2:58:58 70%
2:58:58 right
2:58:59 and
2:58:59 30%
2:58:59 wrong
2:59:01 so they
2:59:01 applied
2:59:02 the same
2:59:02 kind of
2:59:03 logic
2:59:03 there
2:59:04 mathematical
2:59:05 analysis
2:59:05 to
2:59:06 Mao
2:59:06 yeah
2:59:07 but
2:59:08 Xi Jinping
2:59:09 has had
2:59:09 a different
2:59:10 way of
2:59:10 talking
2:59:11 about
2:59:11 this
2:59:11 and
2:59:11 he’s
2:59:12 talked
2:59:12 about
2:59:12 the
2:59:12 first
2:59:13 30
2:59:13 years
2:59:13 of
2:59:13 the
2:59:14 people’s
2:59:14 republic
2:59:14 of
2:59:14 China
2:59:14 and
2:59:15 the
2:59:15 second
2:59:15 30
2:59:16 years
2:59:17 and
2:59:17 says
2:59:17 that
2:59:17 we
2:59:17 should
2:59:18 not
2:59:19 use
2:59:19 the
2:59:20 successes
2:59:20 of
2:59:20 one
2:59:21 to
2:59:21 criticize
2:59:21 the
2:59:22 other
2:59:22 that
2:59:22 we
2:59:22 need
2:59:22 to
2:59:23 see
2:59:24 where
2:59:24 we
2:59:24 are
2:59:25 today
2:59:26 as
2:59:28 benefiting
2:59:28 from
2:59:28 both
2:59:29 those
2:59:29 first
2:59:29 30
2:59:29 years
2:59:30 and
2:59:30 those
2:59:30 second
2:59:30 30
2:59:31 years
2:59:32 which
2:59:33 implicitly
2:59:33 or
2:59:33 he
2:59:33 sometimes
2:59:34 talks
2:59:34 about
2:59:34 a
2:59:34 new
2:59:34 era
2:59:35 suggests
2:59:35 that
2:59:36 in
2:59:36 many
2:59:37 ways
2:59:37 he
2:59:38 sees
2:59:38 China
2:59:38 as
2:59:39 now
2:59:39 in
2:59:39 a
2:59:40 post
2:59:41 reform
2:59:41 era
2:59:42 we
2:59:42 can
2:59:42 think
2:59:43 about
2:59:43 a
2:59:44 third
2:59:44 stage
2:59:44 and
2:59:45 there
2:59:45 are
2:59:45 people
2:59:45 who
2:59:45 write
2:59:45 about
2:59:46 it
2:59:46 in
2:59:46 that
2:59:46 way
2:59:48 and
2:59:48 so
2:59:48 he
2:59:49 clearly
2:59:51 there’s
2:59:51 always
2:59:52 been a
2:59:52 way
2:59:52 of
2:59:52 trying
2:59:53 to
2:59:54 separate
2:59:55 out
2:59:55 a
2:59:55 kind
2:59:55 of
2:59:56 Mao
2:59:56 of
2:59:56 the
2:59:57 periods
2:59:57 when
2:59:57 things
2:59:57 were
2:59:58 not
2:59:59 going
2:59:59 horribly
3:00:01 and
3:00:02 I
3:00:02 think
3:00:02 Xi
3:00:02 Jinping
3:00:03 would
3:00:03 think
3:00:03 that
3:00:04 Mao
3:00:05 having
3:00:06 managed
3:00:06 to
3:00:06 fight
3:00:07 the
3:00:07 Korean
3:00:07 War
3:00:07 to
3:00:08 a
3:00:08 standstill
3:00:09 which
3:00:09 is
3:00:09 how
3:00:10 things
3:00:11 are
3:00:11 how
3:00:12 the
3:00:12 history
3:00:12 of
3:00:13 that
3:00:13 period
3:00:13 is
3:00:14 described
3:00:15 in
3:00:15 the
3:00:15 PRC
3:00:15 and said
3:00:16 look
3:00:16 you had
3:00:18 so many
3:00:18 different
3:00:18 forces
3:00:19 of the
3:00:19 more
3:00:19 developed
3:00:20 world
3:00:21 fighting
3:00:21 on one
3:00:22 side
3:00:22 and
3:00:22 that
3:00:23 war
3:00:23 did
3:00:23 not
3:00:24 end
3:00:24 in
3:00:24 a
3:00:24 defeat
3:00:25 for
3:00:26 North
3:00:27 Korea
3:00:27 and
3:00:27 for
3:00:27 the
3:00:28 Chinese
3:00:28 side
3:00:30 so
3:00:30 yeah
3:00:31 Xi
3:00:31 Jinping
3:00:31 I
3:00:31 think
3:00:32 wants
3:00:32 to
3:00:32 be
3:00:32 seen
3:00:32 as
3:00:33 an
3:00:33 inheritor
3:00:36 of
3:00:36 Mao
3:00:37 continue
3:00:38 of
3:00:38 one
3:00:39 side
3:00:39 of
3:00:39 the
3:00:39 Mao
3:00:40 legacy
3:00:41 but
3:00:41 clearly
3:00:42 circling
3:00:42 back
3:00:42 to
3:00:43 where
3:00:43 we
3:00:43 began
3:00:44 not
3:00:44 the
3:00:45 Mao
3:00:45 who
3:00:45 liked
3:00:45 to
3:00:46 stir
3:00:46 things
3:00:46 up
3:00:47 not
3:00:47 the
3:00:47 Mao
3:00:47 who
3:00:48 believed
3:00:48 in
3:00:49 mobilizing
3:00:50 youth
3:00:50 on
3:00:51 the
3:00:51 streets
3:00:52 Jews
3:00:52 not
3:00:52 the
3:00:52 Mao
3:00:53 who
3:00:53 let
3:00:53 things
3:00:53 get
3:00:54 out
3:00:54 of
3:00:54 control
3:00:55 but
3:00:55 the
3:00:55 Mao
3:00:56 who
3:00:56 was
3:00:57 responsible
3:00:57 for
3:00:58 strengthening
3:00:58 the
3:00:58 nation
3:01:00 can
3:01:00 I
3:01:00 ask
3:01:00 you
3:01:00 about
3:01:00 the
3:01:01 1953
3:01:02 speech
3:01:02 can you
3:01:03 just watch
3:01:03 it real
3:01:04 quick
3:01:04 this
3:01:04 particular
3:01:05 speech
3:01:06 is about
3:01:08 in 1953
3:01:09 at the
3:01:09 end of
3:01:09 the Korean
3:01:10 war
3:01:11 saying
3:01:11 China
3:01:11 will
3:01:11 not
3:01:12 surrender
3:01:13 well
3:01:14 let’s
3:01:14 actually
3:01:14 just
3:01:14 listen
3:01:15 to
3:01:15 it
3:01:15 the
3:01:16 speech
3:01:16 reads
3:01:17 as
3:01:17 to
3:01:18 how
3:01:18 long
3:01:18 this
3:01:19 war
3:01:19 will
3:01:19 last
3:01:19 we’re
3:01:20 not
3:01:20 the
3:01:20 ones
3:01:20 who
3:01:21 can
3:01:21 decide
3:01:22 it
3:01:23 used
3:01:23 to
3:01:23 depend
3:01:23 on
3:01:24 President
3:01:24 Truman
3:01:25 it
3:01:25 will
3:01:25 depend
3:01:25 on
3:01:26 President
3:01:26 Eisenhower
3:01:27 or
3:01:28 whoever
3:01:28 will
3:01:28 become
3:01:28 the
3:01:29 next
3:01:29 U.S.
3:01:29 president
3:01:30 it’s
3:01:30 up
3:01:30 to
3:01:30 them
3:01:31 but
3:01:31 no
3:01:31 matter
3:01:32 how
3:01:32 long
3:01:32 this
3:01:33 war
3:01:33 is
3:01:33 going
3:01:33 to
3:01:34 last
3:01:34 we
3:01:35 will
3:01:35 never
3:01:36 yield
3:01:45 we’ll
3:01:45 fight
3:01:46 until
3:01:46 we
3:01:46 completely
3:01:47 triumph
3:01:49 yeah
3:01:49 so
3:01:49 this
3:01:50 is
3:01:52 the
3:01:52 version
3:01:52 of
3:01:52 Mao
3:01:52 that
3:01:53 you’re
3:01:53 speaking
3:01:53 to
3:01:54 that
3:01:55 is
3:01:55 still
3:01:56 celebrated
3:01:57 today
3:01:58 and
3:01:59 from
3:01:59 the
3:02:00 Chinese
3:02:00 perspective
3:02:01 I guess
3:02:01 they could
3:02:01 tell the
3:02:01 story
3:02:02 about
3:02:02 that
3:02:02 particular
3:02:03 proxy
3:02:03 war
3:02:03 that
3:02:03 they
3:02:05 triumphed
3:02:06 now
3:02:07 what do
3:02:07 you think
3:02:07 about that
3:02:08 speech
3:02:08 about
3:02:08 these
3:02:09 performances
3:02:09 I
3:02:16 well
3:02:16 he
3:02:16 had
3:02:17 a
3:02:17 really
3:02:18 difficult
3:02:18 accent
3:02:19 to
3:02:20 make
3:02:20 sense
3:02:20 of
3:02:20 and
3:02:21 people
3:02:22 native
3:02:23 speakers
3:02:23 of
3:02:23 Chinese
3:02:24 can
3:02:24 have
3:02:24 trouble
3:02:24 with
3:02:26 his
3:02:28 speech
3:02:29 that
3:02:29 one
3:02:29 was
3:02:29 less
3:02:31 hard
3:02:31 to
3:02:31 follow
3:02:31 than
3:02:33 some
3:02:33 of
3:02:33 them
3:02:33 what
3:02:34 explains
3:02:34 the
3:02:34 accent
3:02:35 well
3:02:35 he’s
3:02:35 just
3:02:35 from
3:02:36 Hunan
3:02:37 and
3:02:37 he
3:02:37 had
3:02:38 a
3:02:38 heavy
3:02:39 accent
3:02:40 this
3:02:41 is
3:02:42 another
3:02:42 complicated
3:02:43 side
3:02:43 of
3:02:44 Mao
3:02:44 he
3:02:45 was
3:02:47 both
3:02:48 anti-intellectual
3:02:48 and very
3:02:49 intellectual
3:02:50 he liked
3:02:50 to
3:02:51 write
3:02:52 poetry
3:02:52 and to
3:02:52 fashion
3:02:53 himself
3:02:53 as that
3:02:54 but he
3:02:54 also liked
3:02:55 to be
3:02:55 seen as
3:02:56 incredibly
3:02:56 earthy
3:02:58 and
3:02:59 critical
3:02:59 of
3:03:02 intellectuals
3:03:02 and
3:03:03 if he
3:03:03 had an
3:03:04 animus
3:03:04 toward
3:03:04 you know
3:03:05 wanting
3:03:06 to
3:03:06 even
3:03:06 though
3:03:06 he
3:03:07 was
3:03:09 intellectual
3:03:09 he had
3:03:09 that
3:03:10 anti-intellectualism
3:03:11 but no
3:03:11 I think
3:03:11 what’s
3:03:12 interesting
3:03:12 about that
3:03:13 speech
3:03:13 in part
3:03:14 is
3:03:14 how
3:03:17 in
3:03:17 even
3:03:17 the
3:03:18 depiction
3:03:18 of
3:03:19 the
3:03:20 Korean
3:03:20 War
3:03:20 as
3:03:21 being
3:03:21 the
3:03:22 war
3:03:22 against
3:03:23 America
3:03:23 and
3:03:23 resist
3:03:24 America
3:03:24 and
3:03:25 support
3:03:25 Korea
3:03:26 I
3:03:27 think
3:03:27 it
3:03:27 fit
3:03:27 with
3:03:28 his
3:03:28 idea
3:03:29 that
3:03:30 it
3:03:31 wasn’t
3:03:31 just
3:03:31 about
3:03:32 China
3:03:34 working
3:03:35 in
3:03:35 self
3:03:36 interest
3:03:36 but
3:03:36 siding
3:03:37 with
3:03:39 the
3:03:40 underdog
3:03:41 countries
3:03:42 against
3:03:43 the
3:03:43 hegemonic
3:03:44 ones
3:03:45 and
3:03:45 that
3:03:45 was
3:03:46 another
3:03:46 part
3:03:46 of
3:03:47 Mao’s
3:03:49 desire
3:03:49 to
3:03:50 see
3:03:50 China
3:03:50 as
3:03:51 representing
3:03:52 the
3:03:52 kind
3:03:53 of
3:03:56 third
3:03:56 world
3:03:56 and
3:03:57 the
3:04:00 countries
3:04:00 that had
3:04:01 felt the
3:04:01 brunt
3:04:02 of
3:04:03 imperialism
3:04:05 Western
3:04:05 imperialism
3:04:05 and
3:04:06 Japanese
3:04:07 imperialism
3:04:07 and
3:04:08 trying to
3:04:08 find
3:04:09 one or
3:04:09 another
3:04:13 country’s
3:04:14 imperialism
3:04:14 to focus
3:04:15 on
3:04:15 and that
3:04:15 point
3:04:16 he was
3:04:16 focusing
3:04:16 on
3:04:17 America
3:04:17 which
3:04:17 is
3:04:17 something
3:04:18 that
3:04:18 can
3:04:18 have
3:04:19 particular
3:04:20 resonances
3:04:21 now
3:04:23 Mao
3:04:23 could
3:04:24 alternate
3:04:24 that
3:04:25 certain
3:04:25 points
3:04:25 he
3:04:25 thought
3:04:26 there
3:04:26 should
3:04:26 be
3:04:27 an
3:04:27 alliance
3:04:27 with
3:04:28 where
3:04:28 he
3:04:28 said
3:04:29 that
3:04:29 China
3:04:29 should
3:04:29 be
3:04:30 able
3:04:30 to
3:04:30 work
3:04:30 with
3:04:31 Japan
3:04:32 because
3:04:35 at one
3:04:35 point
3:04:35 he said
3:04:36 well
3:04:36 without
3:04:36 Japanese
3:04:37 imperialism
3:04:37 the
3:04:37 Communist
3:04:38 Party
3:04:38 wouldn’t
3:04:38 have
3:04:38 risen
3:04:39 because
3:04:39 we
3:04:40 wouldn’t
3:04:40 have
3:04:40 had
3:04:40 this
3:04:41 ability
3:04:41 to
3:04:41 unite
3:04:42 the
3:04:42 people
3:04:44 we
3:04:45 have
3:04:45 seen
3:04:45 in
3:04:47 the
3:04:47 post
3:04:47 Mao
3:04:48 period
3:04:48 some
3:04:49 leaders
3:04:49 playing
3:04:49 on
3:04:51 anti-Japanese
3:04:51 sentiment
3:04:52 because
3:04:52 of the
3:04:52 history
3:04:53 of
3:04:54 Japanese
3:04:54 aggression
3:04:55 or
3:04:56 there
3:04:56 can
3:04:57 be
3:04:57 anti-American
3:04:58 sentiment
3:04:58 because
3:04:58 of
3:05:00 the
3:05:01 history
3:05:01 of
3:05:01 American
3:05:02 roles
3:05:02 in
3:05:03 imperialism
3:05:04 or
3:05:04 it
3:05:04 can
3:05:04 be
3:05:04 played
3:05:05 in
3:05:05 a
3:05:05 different
3:05:05 way
3:05:05 the
3:05:05 United
3:05:06 States
3:05:06 certainly
3:05:07 tried
3:05:07 that
3:05:07 the
3:05:07 United
3:05:08 States
3:05:08 didn’t
3:05:08 have
3:05:08 formal
3:05:09 colonies
3:05:10 in
3:05:12 Asia
3:05:13 the way
3:05:13 that
3:05:14 Britain
3:05:15 and France
3:05:15 did
3:05:15 and tried
3:05:16 to present
3:05:16 itself
3:05:17 differently
3:05:17 so
3:05:17 these
3:05:18 things
3:05:18 are
3:05:19 but
3:05:19 these
3:05:19 things
3:05:19 are
3:05:20 also
3:05:20 kind
3:05:20 of
3:05:20 in
3:05:21 flux
3:05:21 and
3:05:21 now
3:05:21 we’re
3:05:22 in
3:05:22 this
3:05:22 very
3:05:23 unusual
3:05:24 influx
3:05:24 period
3:05:25 at
3:05:25 the
3:05:25 beginning
3:05:25 of
3:05:26 the
3:05:27 imposition
3:05:27 of
3:05:28 tariffs
3:05:28 there
3:05:28 were
3:05:29 leaders
3:05:30 of
3:05:30 China
3:05:31 Japan
3:05:31 and
3:05:32 Korea
3:05:32 all
3:05:33 to
3:05:33 South
3:05:33 Korea
3:05:34 all
3:05:34 together
3:05:35 in
3:05:36 photo ops
3:05:36 which
3:05:37 was not
3:05:37 something
3:05:38 that
3:05:39 I mean
3:05:40 being on
3:05:40 the same
3:05:40 side
3:05:41 so
3:05:41 so
3:05:41 I think
3:05:41 this
3:05:42 is
3:05:42 also
3:05:42 just
3:05:42 a
3:05:43 broader
3:05:43 lesson
3:05:44 to
3:05:44 not
3:05:46 assume
3:05:46 that
3:05:46 configurations
3:05:47 will
3:05:47 always
3:05:48 stay
3:05:49 if
3:05:49 you
3:05:49 look
3:05:50 out
3:05:50 into
3:05:50 the
3:05:51 21st
3:05:51 century
3:05:53 what
3:05:53 are
3:05:53 some
3:05:53 of
3:05:54 the
3:05:54 best
3:05:54 possible
3:05:55 things
3:05:55 that
3:05:55 could
3:05:55 happen
3:05:55 in
3:05:55 the
3:05:56 region
3:05:57 and
3:05:57 globally
3:05:59 with
3:05:59 China
3:06:00 at the
3:06:00 center
3:06:01 of the
3:06:01 world
3:06:01 stage
3:06:02 what
3:06:02 are
3:06:02 the
3:06:03 possible
3:06:03 trajectories
3:06:04 you
3:06:04 could
3:06:04 see
3:06:05 culturally
3:06:07 economically
3:06:08 politically
3:06:09 in
3:06:09 terms
3:06:10 of
3:06:10 partnerships
3:06:10 and
3:06:11 all
3:06:11 this
3:06:11 kind
3:06:11 of
3:06:11 stuff
3:06:14 it’s
3:06:14 such a
3:06:15 such a
3:06:15 such a
3:06:16 hard
3:06:16 moment
3:06:17 to be
3:06:17 imagining
3:06:18 these
3:06:18 things
3:06:19 I mean
3:06:19 I’ve
3:06:20 long
3:06:20 wanted
3:06:21 to see
3:06:23 a
3:06:23 return
3:06:24 of
3:06:24 China
3:06:25 to
3:06:26 this
3:06:26 path
3:06:26 toward
3:06:27 a
3:06:27 more
3:06:27 kind
3:06:28 of
3:06:30 yeah
3:06:30 it wasn’t
3:06:30 one of
3:06:31 the people
3:06:31 who
3:06:32 imagined
3:06:32 that
3:06:34 there
3:06:35 would be
3:06:35 this
3:06:35 convergence
3:06:36 of
3:06:37 sort
3:06:37 of
3:06:37 where
3:06:37 China’s
3:06:38 emergence
3:06:38 into
3:06:39 evolution
3:06:39 into
3:06:40 a
3:06:40 liberal
3:06:41 capitalist
3:06:42 kind
3:06:42 of
3:06:42 country
3:06:43 but
3:06:44 I’d
3:06:44 love
3:06:44 to
3:06:45 see
3:06:45 a
3:06:45 return
3:06:45 to
3:06:46 that
3:06:46 more
3:06:47 kind
3:06:47 of
3:06:48 tolerance
3:06:48 of
3:06:49 diversity
3:06:49 within
3:06:49 China
3:06:50 variations
3:06:51 within
3:06:51 China
3:06:52 more
3:06:52 space
3:06:52 for
3:06:53 civil
3:06:53 society
3:06:55 and
3:06:56 it’s
3:06:56 a hard
3:06:57 time to
3:06:57 even
3:06:57 imagine
3:06:58 that
3:06:58 because
3:06:58 Hong Kong
3:06:58 kind
3:06:59 of
3:06:59 represented
3:07:01 that
3:07:03 place
3:07:03 that
3:07:03 was
3:07:03 somehow
3:07:04 within
3:07:04 it
3:07:04 was
3:07:04 an
3:07:05 amazing
3:07:05 thing
3:07:05 I think
3:07:06 looking
3:07:06 backward
3:07:08 rather than
3:07:08 forward
3:07:09 I think
3:07:09 it’s
3:07:10 really
3:07:10 extraordinary
3:07:11 how much
3:07:13 leeway was
3:07:13 given to
3:07:14 Hong Kong
3:07:14 for a
3:07:15 period
3:07:15 there
3:07:16 that was
3:07:16 really
3:07:16 special
3:07:17 no
3:07:17 communist
3:07:18 party
3:07:18 run
3:07:19 country
3:07:19 had ever
3:07:20 had a
3:07:20 city
3:07:20 within
3:07:20 it
3:07:21 that had
3:07:22 as free
3:07:23 a press
3:07:23 as Hong Kong
3:07:24 had then
3:07:24 as much
3:07:25 tolerance
3:07:25 for
3:07:27 protests
3:07:28 and
3:07:28 and
3:07:28 and
3:07:29 I
3:07:29 think
3:07:29 it
3:07:30 was
3:07:31 I
3:07:31 mean
3:07:32 I
3:07:33 hope
3:07:33 it
3:07:33 can
3:07:33 be
3:07:34 seen
3:07:34 by
3:07:34 some
3:07:35 at least
3:07:35 within
3:07:35 Beijing
3:07:36 as a
3:07:36 miscalculation
3:07:37 too
3:07:38 the
3:07:38 people
3:07:39 trying to
3:07:39 wanted
3:07:40 soft
3:07:40 power
3:07:41 and
3:07:41 Hong Kong
3:07:42 films
3:07:43 were admired
3:07:43 around the
3:07:43 world
3:07:44 this industry
3:07:45 it was
3:07:46 there was a
3:07:46 way in which
3:07:47 creativity
3:07:48 flourishing
3:07:49 so I
3:07:49 guess
3:07:49 it
3:07:49 would
3:07:49 be
3:07:49 just
3:07:49 the
3:07:50 hope
3:07:51 for
3:07:51 more
3:07:53 more
3:07:54 spaces
3:07:54 where
3:07:55 that
3:07:55 kind
3:07:56 of
3:07:57 creativity
3:07:58 and
3:07:58 openness
3:07:59 debate
3:07:59 where things
3:08:00 can
3:08:00 flourish
3:08:00 I
3:08:02 love to
3:08:02 think
3:08:02 that
3:08:02 there
3:08:03 actually
3:08:03 are
3:08:04 variety
3:08:04 of
3:08:04 things
3:08:04 in
3:08:05 Taiwan
3:08:06 that
3:08:06 if
3:08:06 those
3:08:06 could
3:08:07 become
3:08:08 broader
3:08:09 norms
3:08:11 not
3:08:11 that
3:08:12 Taiwan’s
3:08:12 perfect
3:08:12 it
3:08:13 has
3:08:13 its
3:08:13 own
3:08:14 internal
3:08:15 problems
3:08:15 but
3:08:15 there
3:08:16 are
3:08:16 many
3:08:17 really
3:08:17 attractive
3:08:18 things
3:08:18 about
3:08:18 it
3:08:19 right
3:08:19 now
3:08:20 different
3:08:20 kinds
3:08:20 of
3:08:21 things
3:08:21 that
3:08:21 flourish
3:08:23 so
3:08:24 maybe
3:08:25 a
3:08:27 setting
3:08:27 in which
3:08:27 Taiwan
3:08:28 and
3:08:29 in
3:08:29 its
3:08:30 post
3:08:32 martial
3:08:32 law
3:08:33 post
3:08:34 Leninist
3:08:35 incarnation
3:08:38 would be
3:08:38 something
3:08:39 that we
3:08:39 could
3:08:39 think
3:08:39 of
3:08:39 more
3:08:41 yeah
3:08:41 and
3:08:41 you’re
3:08:41 right
3:08:42 Taiwan
3:08:42 and
3:08:43 especially
3:08:43 Hong
3:08:44 Kong
3:08:44 are
3:08:45 these
3:08:45 it’s
3:08:46 a truly
3:08:46 special
3:08:47 place
3:08:47 it’s
3:08:48 a case
3:08:49 study
3:08:50 it
3:08:50 doesn’t
3:08:50 make
3:08:51 sense
3:08:51 that
3:08:51 that
3:08:51 would
3:08:51 happen
3:08:52 but
3:08:52 it
3:08:52 happened
3:08:53 history
3:08:53 is
3:08:53 full
3:08:53 of
3:08:54 wonderful
3:08:54 things
3:08:54 like
3:08:54 this
3:08:56 and
3:08:56 I
3:08:56 guess
3:08:57 can you
3:08:57 clarify
3:08:58 you think
3:08:58 the protests
3:08:59 of 2019
3:09:00 like the protests
3:09:01 in 20
3:09:03 they’re mostly
3:09:04 a failure
3:09:05 is there still
3:09:06 a possibility
3:09:07 that Hong Kong
3:09:08 like rises
3:09:09 and
3:09:11 its
3:09:12 way of
3:09:13 life
3:09:13 its way
3:09:14 of being
3:09:14 the
3:09:14 democratic
3:09:16 ideals
3:09:17 not
3:09:17 necessarily
3:09:17 full
3:09:18 on
3:09:18 democracy
3:09:18 or
3:09:19 this
3:09:19 kind
3:09:19 of
3:09:19 thing
3:09:20 but
3:09:20 would
3:09:21 actually
3:09:22 in a
3:09:23 sense
3:09:25 permeate
3:09:26 China
3:09:27 not the
3:09:27 other way
3:09:27 around
3:09:28 so that
3:09:29 was a hope
3:09:29 early on
3:09:30 and there
3:09:30 were ways
3:09:31 in which
3:09:31 some
3:09:32 parts
3:09:32 of Hong
3:09:32 Kong
3:09:33 style
3:09:33 even
3:09:34 sort of
3:09:35 permeated
3:09:35 across
3:09:35 the border
3:09:36 I think
3:09:37 it’s hard
3:09:38 to see
3:09:38 it
3:09:39 now
3:09:39 with how
3:09:40 Hong
3:09:40 Kong
3:09:40 has
3:09:40 changed
3:09:41 but
3:09:42 I
3:09:42 hesitate
3:09:43 to
3:09:43 I
3:09:43 mean
3:09:44 an
3:09:44 awareness
3:09:44 of
3:09:45 the
3:09:46 unpredictability
3:09:46 of
3:09:47 things
3:09:47 there’s
3:09:48 no way
3:09:48 to know
3:09:48 what
3:09:48 kind
3:09:48 of
3:09:49 thing
3:09:49 there
3:09:49 would
3:09:49 be
3:09:49 for
3:09:50 Hong
3:09:50 Kong
3:09:50 later
3:09:51 I
3:09:51 do
3:09:51 think
3:09:51 there
3:09:51 are
3:09:52 things
3:09:52 about
3:09:53 Hong
3:09:53 Kong
3:09:54 that
3:09:54 even
3:09:54 in
3:09:55 the
3:09:55 failure
3:09:55 of
3:09:56 the
3:09:56 movement
3:09:57 have
3:09:57 been
3:09:58 have
3:09:58 had
3:10:01 repercussions
3:10:01 that are
3:10:01 not
3:10:03 all
3:10:03 negative
3:10:03 I
3:10:04 think
3:10:05 the
3:10:05 Hong
3:10:05 Kong
3:10:06 spirit
3:10:06 which
3:10:06 is
3:10:07 being
3:10:07 kept
3:10:07 alive
3:10:08 in
3:10:08 diaspora
3:10:09 communities
3:10:10 around
3:10:10 the
3:10:11 world
3:10:11 is
3:10:11 really
3:10:11 interesting
3:10:12 there
3:10:13 are
3:10:13 things
3:10:13 that
3:10:14 are
3:10:15 spreading
3:10:16 I
3:10:16 think
3:10:16 Hong
3:10:17 Kong
3:10:17 represented
3:10:18 a
3:10:19 vision
3:10:19 of a
3:10:19 different
3:10:20 way
3:10:20 of
3:10:21 being
3:10:21 Chinese
3:10:21 a
3:10:21 different
3:10:22 notion
3:10:22 of
3:10:23 Chineseness
3:10:24 and I
3:10:24 think
3:10:24 that
3:10:25 is
3:10:25 something
3:10:25 that
3:10:26 exists
3:10:28 and
3:10:28 there
3:10:28 have
3:10:29 been
3:10:29 protesters
3:10:29 in
3:10:30 a lot
3:10:30 of
3:10:30 other
3:10:30 parts
3:10:31 of
3:10:31 the
3:10:31 world
3:10:31 Belarus
3:10:32 to
3:10:33 I
3:10:33 used
3:10:33 to
3:10:33 say
3:10:34 from
3:10:35 Minneapolis
3:10:35 to
3:10:36 Minsk
3:10:37 because
3:10:37 in
3:10:37 2020
3:10:37 there
3:10:38 were
3:10:38 protests
3:10:38 in
3:10:38 the
3:10:39 U.S.
3:10:39 and
3:10:39 in
3:10:40 Belarus
3:10:40 where
3:10:40 there
3:10:41 were
3:10:41 activists
3:10:42 who
3:10:42 were
3:10:42 talking
3:10:42 about
3:10:43 the
3:10:43 Hong
3:10:43 Kong
3:10:44 idea
3:10:44 of
3:10:46 trying
3:10:46 to
3:10:47 focus
3:10:47 on
3:10:48 more
3:10:49 flexible
3:10:50 protest
3:10:51 tactics
3:10:51 something
3:10:52 and
3:10:52 clearly
3:10:53 in
3:10:53 Thailand
3:10:54 there
3:10:54 were
3:10:54 people
3:10:54 who
3:10:55 looked
3:10:56 at
3:10:56 things
3:10:56 to
3:10:57 learn
3:10:57 from
3:10:57 Hong
3:10:57 Kong
3:10:58 even
3:10:58 in
3:10:58 defeat
3:10:59 there
3:10:59 there
3:10:59 there
3:11:00 is
3:11:00 a
3:11:00 New
3:11:01 Zealand
3:11:01 based
3:11:01 China
3:11:02 specialist
3:11:02 Jeremy
3:11:03 Barmé
3:11:03 who
3:11:03 talks
3:11:04 about
3:11:04 the
3:11:04 other
3:11:05 China
3:11:05 which
3:11:06 can
3:11:06 exist
3:11:06 within
3:11:07 China
3:11:08 physical
3:11:08 China
3:11:08 or
3:11:09 elsewhere
3:11:09 which
3:11:09 is
3:11:10 this
3:11:12 equally
3:11:13 attached
3:11:13 to
3:11:14 Chinese
3:11:14 traditions
3:11:15 but
3:11:15 thinking
3:11:15 of
3:11:15 those
3:11:16 traditions
3:11:16 as
3:11:16 including
3:11:17 not
3:11:17 just
3:11:18 Confucianism
3:11:18 but
3:11:19 Taoism
3:11:20 not
3:11:20 just
3:11:21 hierarchy
3:11:22 but
3:11:22 also
3:11:23 openness
3:11:23 to
3:11:24 cosmopolitanism
3:11:24 not
3:11:25 just
3:11:25 nationalism
3:11:25 but
3:11:26 cosmopolitanism
3:11:27 and
3:11:27 I
3:11:28 think
3:11:28 there
3:11:28 are
3:11:28 some
3:11:31 elements
3:11:31 of
3:11:32 that
3:11:32 that
3:11:32 even
3:11:32 in
3:11:33 failure
3:11:34 the
3:11:34 Hong
3:11:34 Kong
3:11:35 movements
3:11:35 the
3:11:35 Hong
3:11:35 Kong
3:11:36 protests
3:11:36 of
3:11:36 the
3:11:37 2020s
3:11:37 were
3:11:37 a
3:11:37 last
3:11:38 flourishing
3:11:39 of
3:11:39 that
3:11:39 and
3:11:39 we
3:11:40 can
3:11:40 see
3:11:40 some
3:11:40 elements
3:11:40 of
3:11:41 that
3:11:42 in
3:11:43 we
3:11:43 can
3:11:44 think
3:11:44 of
3:11:44 Taiwan
3:11:45 elements
3:11:45 of
3:11:45 that
3:11:46 as
3:11:46 another
3:11:46 China
3:11:47 as
3:11:47 well
3:11:49 and
3:11:49 I
3:11:50 think
3:11:50 recovering
3:11:51 not
3:11:52 allowing
3:11:53 the
3:11:53 particular
3:11:54 version
3:11:54 of
3:11:55 Chineseness
3:11:55 that
3:11:55 the
3:11:56 Chinese
3:11:57 Communist Party
3:11:57 under
3:11:57 Xi Jinping
3:11:58 wants
3:11:59 to
3:11:59 make
3:12:00 people
3:12:00 think
3:12:01 of
3:12:01 as
3:12:02 the
3:12:02 essence
3:12:02 of
3:12:03 Chinese
3:12:03 Chinese
3:12:04 China
3:12:05 has
3:12:05 multiple
3:12:06 cultural
3:12:07 strands
3:12:07 multiple
3:12:08 traditions
3:12:09 that
3:12:09 people
3:12:10 can
3:12:10 tap
3:12:11 into
3:12:12 and
3:12:12 it’s
3:12:12 something
3:12:13 richer
3:12:15 and
3:12:16 more
3:12:16 admirable
3:12:17 I think
3:12:17 than this
3:12:18 narrowed
3:12:18 down
3:12:18 version
3:12:19 and
3:12:19 I
3:12:19 hope
3:12:20 for
3:12:20 a
3:12:20 future
3:12:21 where
3:12:21 both
3:12:21 Hong
3:12:22 Kong
3:12:22 and
3:12:23 Beijing
3:12:24 have
3:12:25 bookstores
3:12:26 that
3:12:26 carry
3:12:27 1984
3:12:27 Brave
3:12:28 New
3:12:28 World
3:12:28 and
3:12:29 all
3:12:29 of
3:12:29 your
3:12:29 books
3:12:32 and
3:12:32 I
3:12:32 can’t
3:12:33 wait
3:12:33 to
3:12:33 visit
3:12:33 them
3:12:35 and
3:12:35 enjoy
3:12:36 the
3:12:36 intellectual
3:12:37 flourishing
3:12:37 of
3:12:38 incredible
3:12:39 people
3:12:39 what a
3:12:40 beautiful
3:12:40 world
3:12:40 to live
3:12:41 in
3:12:41 the
3:12:41 Chinese
3:12:42 people
3:12:42 all the
3:12:43 people
3:12:43 I’ve
3:12:43 met
3:12:43 it’s
3:12:43 just
3:12:44 so
3:12:45 great
3:12:46 to
3:12:47 interact
3:12:48 with
3:12:49 totally
3:12:50 different
3:12:50 culture
3:12:50 you
3:12:50 can
3:12:51 feel
3:12:51 the
3:12:51 roots
3:12:52 run
3:12:52 deep
3:12:53 through
3:12:53 ancient
3:12:54 history
3:12:54 that
3:12:54 are
3:12:55 very
3:12:55 different
3:12:57 and
3:12:57 it’s
3:12:57 amazing
3:12:58 it’s
3:12:58 amazing
3:12:59 that
3:12:59 earth
3:12:59 produced
3:13:01 Chinese
3:13:01 people
3:13:03 Indian
3:13:03 people
3:13:04 the
3:13:05 Slavic
3:13:05 people
3:13:06 there’s
3:13:06 just
3:13:06 all
3:13:07 kinds
3:13:07 of
3:13:07 variants
3:13:08 and
3:13:08 we
3:13:09 all
3:13:09 have
3:13:09 our
3:13:09 own
3:13:10 weirdnesses
3:13:11 and quirks
3:13:11 and so
3:13:11 on
3:13:12 everybody
3:13:12 has
3:13:13 brilliant
3:13:13 people
3:13:14 we
3:13:14 all
3:13:14 start
3:13:15 shit
3:13:15 with
3:13:15 each
3:13:15 other
3:13:15 every
3:13:16 once
3:13:16 in
3:13:16 a
3:13:16 while
3:13:16 but
3:13:17 I
3:13:17 hope
3:13:17 now
3:13:17 that
3:13:17 we
3:13:18 have
3:13:18 nuclear
3:13:18 weapons
3:13:19 and I
3:13:19 hope
3:13:20 now
3:13:20 that
3:13:20 we
3:13:20 have
3:13:21 technology
3:13:21 that
3:13:21 connects
3:13:22 us
3:13:22 we’ll
3:13:22 actually
3:13:25 collaborate
3:13:26 more
3:13:27 than we
3:13:27 fight
3:13:28 each
3:13:28 other
3:13:29 and
3:13:29 thank
3:13:29 you
3:13:29 for
3:13:30 being
3:13:30 one
3:13:30 of
3:13:30 the
3:13:30 people
3:13:30 that
3:13:31 shows
3:13:31 off
3:13:31 the
3:13:32 beauty
3:13:32 of
3:13:32 this
3:13:32 particular
3:13:33 peoples
3:13:34 of
3:13:35 the
3:13:35 entire
3:13:36 region
3:13:36 really
3:13:36 of
3:13:36 Southeast
3:13:37 Asia
3:13:38 and it’s
3:13:39 an honor
3:13:39 to talk
3:13:39 to you
3:13:39 thank you
3:13:40 so
3:13:40 much
3:13:41 thanks
3:13:41 for
3:13:41 having
3:13:41 me
3:13:41 on
3:13:43 thanks
3:13:43 for
3:13:43 listening
3:13:43 to
3:13:44 this
3:13:44 conversation
3:13:44 with
3:13:45 Jeffrey
3:13:45 Wasserstrom
3:13:46 to support
3:13:46 this
3:13:47 podcast
3:13:47 please check
3:13:48 out our
3:13:48 sponsors
3:13:48 in the
3:13:49 description
3:13:50 and now
3:13:51 let me
3:13:51 leave you
3:13:51 with some
3:13:52 words
3:13:52 from
3:13:53 Confucius
3:13:54 when
3:13:55 anger
3:13:56 rises
3:13:57 think
3:13:58 of the
3:13:59 consequences
3:14:01 thank you
3:14:01 for listening
3:14:02 and hope
3:14:03 to see
3:14:03 you
3:14:04 next
3:14:04 time
3:14:11 bye