The first thing I felt after watching the movie was the sentence in the title. Gouli's country lives and dies, so why avoid it because of misfortune and good fortune.
The Chun Doo-hwan government is equal to South Korea, but South Korea is not just the Chun Doo-hwan government.
If a country is only equal to a certain government, a certain regime. Does that mean that loving the government is the same as loving the country? So the lawyer in the film is obviously not as patriotic as the police in the film. And the heroes and sons and daughters who were born in the Qing Dynasty to overthrow the Qing government and were born in the Republic of China to overthrow the Nationalist government are no longer patriotic who type in front of the screen.
Therefore, the meaning of patriotism should depend on the people, not a certain ruling authority.
To borrow a sentence from the film, the main body of a country is its citizens.
Imagine that in this land called China, if there are no yellow-skinned Chinese, only black-skinned people with resident ID cards, will this land still be called China? I'm afraid it's more appropriate to be called Little Africa by dark skinned people. If there are only white-skinned people, it seems to be called Eastern Europe, Eastern America, (this has nothing to do with race, but the reason why a certain country is called a certain country)
Similarly, if the Chinese immigrate, they will concentrate on living somewhere in other countries. If there are a few thousand people, this place will be called Chinatown. If it is tens of thousands, it should be a Chinese community. What if it is hundreds of thousands? The nickname Chinatown seems to be a good one. What if there are more Chinese, millions? Perhaps there will be Chinese dominions and autonomous prefectures.
Institutions are the means and the end is good governance.
Democracy is neither the end nor the prosperity. Democracy is only the least bad system, and its function is to resolve internal conflicts. Because as long as it is people who share the cake, it will always be the one who will share the biggest piece for themselves. The advantage is that when various interest groups feel that the pie is unevenly distributed, there is no need to overthrow the ruling authorities. Within the rules of the game, legal operation, compromise, blending, and changing individuals to share the cake can at least solve emotional problems very well. There is an old saying, "Don't worry about the few, but not the balance. In fact, the ancients of China had similar wisdom thousands of years ago."
The rise of the modern West, in addition to being accompanied by the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, wars, and killings, seems to have one thing in common, that is, each has its own set of democratic systems. Thanks to this system, the Eurasian royal families survived, and did not end up like the Russian Nicholas, the French Louis, the British Charles and other kings. The same is true for the United States. If Washington had chosen to become a dictator and chose an autocratic system, I am afraid that the United States would have already fallen apart. Thanks to such systems, many modern Western regimes have remained the same since their establishment.
Looking back on history, in the 5,000 years of China, only a handful of regimes died from foreign aggression, and most of them died from civil strife. In the hundreds of years of modern times, the regimes on this land of China have changed six or seven times (Ming, Shun, Nanming, Qing, Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, Beiyang Warlords, Republic of China).
Personally, I feel that human nature often desires centralization, autocracy, and collectivism. Democracy is more like what the ruling authorities need.
Because human beings have never been creatures that can survive when they are fed and clothed. People need a sense of identity, achievement, and belonging.
Just like idol stars always have a group of fans. When a small individual is incapable of discovering his inner true self-worth, in such a group, he can easily gain a sense of belonging.
A group of like-minded partners speak out for their favorite idols, and together they shoot at hostile idols, fans, and passers-by. Whether it is insulting or personal attacks, the sense of identity is finally satisfied.
Seeing the other person either angry, sad, or speechless, a sense of accomplishment arises spontaneously.
When the moral and social mechanisms that constrain individuals lose their effectiveness in a fanatical collective, how many people are willing to think about whether their words and deeds are the words and deeds of loving their idols, and have their words and deeds brought real help to their idols? Someone once said, "When we lose our independence in a movement, we also gain a new freedom, a freedom to hate, to intimidate, to insult, to abuse without shame. We Got the right to do nasty things." That's exactly what the autocratic stuff is.
The human nature of the people needs autocracy, and that set of things can bring pride, pride, greatness, and "the right to do nasty things" to the people. And then to meet the people's sense of belonging, identity, and achievement, which is a luxury that most classes can't be satisfied with their life-long efforts.
Democracy is more like something the ruling class needs objectively.
In fact, dealing with the contradiction between the autocratic system and the ruled class is not the primary difficulty. Let them be fed and clothed, and then create a strong external pressure, establish a villain, and an object of hatred is enough to divert the attention of most people. The most difficult thing is how to deal with the conflict of interests and the transfer of power among the various factions and forces within the system. After all, except for the one in the north of Korea, it is difficult to have a regime that can be handed over to future generations as in ancient times.
Justified logic gets justified views, and vice versa. Use rogue logic, do not pass or double standards, discuss all things, and see if you can get a point of view that conforms to your own position, and whether the logic is self-consistent.
Just like a "patriot" who is expelled from other people's nationality today, he will be sprayed by more patriotic people tomorrow for driving Japanese cars, using Japanese digital products, and watching Japanese anime.
And the "patriots" who smashed Japanese cars could be sprayed by more "patriotic" people when they were wearing Nike shoes when they smashed cars.
"Patriots" who spray others wearing Nike shoes can still be sprayed by more "patriotic" people. When they spray others, they use iPhones.
Huawei users who criticize others for using Apple phones will also be criticized by more "patriotic" people who use Android-based phones.
Big Brothers and Nokia users who spray Android phones will also be sprayed by more "patriotic" people, who eat KFC and McDonald's, and send ammunition to the United States.
Then if there is a perfect person, living in the deep mountains and old forests, without electric lights, with torches for lighting. Without cell phones, without electronics, he wrote letters. No foreign words are used in writing letters, only traditional Chinese vocabulary is used. Don't wear underwear, wear a apron. Don't wear socks, use foot wraps. Do not ride, do not take a car, do not travel far, do not take planes and ships, the main means of transportation are ox carts and horse-drawn carts. Food comes from their own farming. Only learn poetry, songs, and traditional culture, and do not learn anything about Western knowledge. So, such a perfect person, can he scold everyone and be unpatriotic? Even if everyone pays more taxes than he does, he has made a great contribution to society, helped more people, and enabled more citizens to live a better life.
Don't let everything "humiliate China", and don't let everyone be "patriotic" and criticized as "unpatriotic".
In times of peace, what is patriotism. I believe it should depend on love for one's own people, not hatred.
To the last word, add one more paragraph. Patriotism is obviously a selfless feeling, but now many people are doing selfish things just to satisfy their own selfishness in the name of patriotism. What is patriotism. Have not experienced the war years have no right to speak. But in times of peace, I believe it depends on love for the people, not hatred. To love, you first need to give yourself, and then you need to get the other party's response, so that you can feel satisfied. Love is selfless. It takes tremendous courage and will. Hate is much simpler. Hate can unilaterally make one's own feelings vent and satisfy. Satisfy what human beings need to survive in addition to material things: a sense of belonging, identity, and accomplishment. So easy, so selfish.
View more about The Attorney reviews
