Related thematic articles:
NBA's Top Ten Un-crowned Kings
CBA Exoneration Record I: Who Fabricated Xinjiang's Withdrawal If They Don't Win The Championship _ Holy Hand _ Sina Blog
NKT Activity Mask - Surfing
Cannonade Jiang Rong on the Sophistry of the Wolf Totem Issue
Editor: St. Tong, Australian Cultural Scholar Compilation: Hao Ge Times Review
After the release of the article "Cannonade The Wolf Totem", a netizen sent me a sentence of doubt: "Truly speaking, human nature is much more terrible than wolf nature. Not only is it terrible, but also very sinister. Hypocritical, insidious and cunning, this is the best interpretation of humanity. It's just that everyone is unwilling to admit it. Criticizing The Wolf Totem is actually a great joke. Isn't human hypocrisy enough? Do we have to criticize The Wolf Totem to express ourselves?"
Yes, the netizen is absolutely right. Some people are indeed more terrifying than wolves.
But I would like to correct something. A person who is solemn, insidious and cunning is not human nature, but an individual who deviates from humanity and lives like a beast. Strictly speaking, such people have already lost their souls. Their bodies are possessed by demons.
Therefore, such people and literary works created by such people must be attacked with fatal blows.
Literary criticism has always been directed at the work rather than the person. I basically agree with such a view or principle. But I don't think such a principle is absolute. For example, we often say "the writing reflects the writer." The personality of the writer directly determines the quality of his work. Literary works are not simply about telling a good story and being done with it. It must, and must include strong social awareness. Therefore, the saying that writers are mirrors of the times and history is truly heartfelt.
When I first criticized The Wolf Totem, I still chose to start from the perspective of the text and avoided criticizing the author himself. So why am I directly naming and criticizing the author today? The reason does not lie in me, but in the author Jiang Rong himself. It was he who finally stood up to confront those who criticized him. Thus, we had no choice but to include him as the object of criticism. This is truly a helplessness for the critics. At the same time, I hope everyone can understand!
In October 2006, the author conducted an on-site investigation of the Hongshan Culture Ruins at Niuheliang in Chaoyang, Liaoning.
On April 25th, I received a "response" article from The Beijing News forwarded by relevant parties. The title of the article was "The Wolf is 'Heaven Dog', the Spirit of the Grassland."
It seems Jiang Rong has finally found the courage to face a question he hasn't dared to for many years (from 2004 to 2008), though it's rumored that he did so after the domestic publisher of The Wolf Totem novel appeared. But can the content expressed in The Wolf Totem really stand under the sunlight? Today, he has finally mustered the courage to speak out.
Then, he again delivered a resounding slap across the face of world literature, except the publishers of the domestic edition of The Wolf Totem don't need slapping anymore because they've long since thrown their dignity down the toilet. However, British Penguin Publishing couldn't escape being slapped! Dear reader, please bear with me as I explain the situation:
When publishing The Wolf Totem (regardless of which publisher), it was first categorized as a "novel." However, the Chinese version of the novel repeatedly emphasizes that it is "true," based on the author's personal experiences (which essentially means nothing). Readers thus blindly believed: Wow, everything in here is true! Wasn't the translator of the English version of The Wolf Totem also shouting that it's all true? Haven't the media also been constantly claiming it's true?
If it's true, then why call it a novel? One slap! (I hit him because he deceived people!)
Alright! Once I hit him, someone said: What they call a novel allows fiction. In other words, it permits fabrication, allowing nonsense. An issue arises. If it's nonsense, then it must have a strict boundary with academia, cultural concepts, history, etc.
However, wasn't The Southern Weekend still helping him shout that "it" isn't nonsense when interviewing him? Wasn't he still loudly proclaiming to the media in many places that "this book isn't just about one book, it's a system"; "all the details and stories in my book mostly have sources, and they are all real occurrences"; "the Huaxia nation actually originated from nomadic tribes"?
No problem if only he and some irresponsible newspapers said so. The problem lies in the fact that these words, these media outlets, aren't addressing Jiang Rong himself, but the vast readership. His words constitute fraud, deception, misleading, and seduction towards the readers. Thus, the publishers of The Wolf Totem commit moral crimes against the readers due to their lack of moral conscience and professional integrity; the media committing such information without rigorous verification similarly commits moral crimes against the readers due to their lack of moral conscience and professional integrity.
A novel is a novel, academia is academia. History is history, facts are facts.
Thus, people who know the inside story of Jiang Rong began to speak out, as their conscience wouldn't allow Jiang Rong's consistent behavior to continue.
Thus, the Beijing educated youth who went to the countryside with Jiang Rong began to issue critical voices.
Thus, Jiang Rong, finally forced by public opinion, stood up to begin actions (please note, he first had some actions, and only after these actions were confirmed did he start other behaviors – this action was "according to Zhang Hongjun's (Jiang Rong's first wife) phone call yesterday (April 26th), the local herders said that it was Lü Jiamin who called the herders to Beijing to discuss investment cooperation issues"). Then he released a "response" article, stating: Educated youths have no right to evaluate whether Wolf Totem is fake or not; only the local herders have the qualification to judge whether this matter is true or false.
Then he listed several names of local herders to demonstrate objectivity and authority.
Ordinarily, such evidence would certainly gain the approval of the vast readership. Not only that, even I, who have consistently criticized The Wolf Totem, would feel "reasonable." However, upon pausing for a moment, it immediately becomes clear that Jiang Rong has once again started his usual sophistical behavior (see the "Logical Criticism" chapter in my Critique of The Wolf Totem).
Firstly, for a cultural concept like a totem, proving whether the claim that the wolf totem is the Mongolian nation's totem exists or not requires extremely solid historical and archaeological evidence, not merely human testimony.
Jiang Rong can produce nothing. He is merely conjecturing, imagining, dreaming, fabricating, and lying.
All over China, even the whole world, is there only Jiang Rong who is the smartest, most academic, and most authoritative? If his statements were true, our history and historians would have to go home and sell sweet potatoes.
Yet Jiang Rong dares to publicly declare such rumors as facts for three reasons: first, he is sufficiently ignorant and thus sufficiently shameless; second, he has an escape route, claiming he wrote a novel, not an academic work; third, he knows that not many people are willing to take him seriously or that he considers everyone else fools. If possible, another point could be added: once someone questions him, haha, doesn't that just stir up publicity for his The Wolf Totem? Doesn't he make money? Can't the publisher sell more toxic books?
Secondly, the totem itself is an imported concept, and China does not have this concept locally.
This issue remains an unresolved question in academia. Our numerous scholars currently seem to be doing no research in this area, thus giving people like Jiang Rong an opportunity to exploit it.
Thirdly, an important point about the establishment of a totem is that believers in the totem absolutely cannot harm or kill that totem.
However, even Jiang Rong himself keeps saying that the Mongolian nation has always been killing wolves. This fundamentally negates the possibility that the wolf is the Mongolian nation's totem.
These three points determine that Jiang Rong's conclusion that the Mongolian nation's totem is the wolf, based solely on his novel The Wolf Totem, lacks empirical support regardless of how many systems he may have gone through. In other words, it is still pure nonsense.
However, on April 25th, Jiang Rong still stood up to boast! But he only planned to engage in a "death struggle" with those opposing him regarding the cultural concept of "human testimony."
However, a problem arose: the utterly illogical Jiang Rong brought forth a few local herders who weren't even born yet (or were only a few years old) to testify for him, and claimed these herders were "indignant," believing the book was very "true."
Another problem emerged: if it were physical evidence, then the witness should have been present at the "scene of the incident." Herders who weren't even born at the time obviously weren't present at the scene, so can such witnesses qualify as witnesses? And weren't the educated youths present at the scene qualified to prove whether Jiang Rong's views were right or wrong? If so, then Jiang Rong himself is also an educated youth and therefore shouldn't qualify to write about Mongolian culture. Isn't this self-inflicted slap too harsh?
(Regarding witnesses, first, the witnesses must not be fabricated. That is, first, the issue of whether the witnesses were present. The witnesses Jiang Rong found were not present, to put it bluntly, they were fabricated, because herders around 30 years old cannot verify the life of educated youths around 60 years old. Calling countless non-present witnesses to testify that the testimonies of those present at the scene were wrong is an "illegal" act, tantamount to inducing others to perjure.)
However, the matter didn't end there. The so-called "evidence" Jiang Rong subsequently presented to the media was merely a subjective supply on his part, and he failed to provide corresponding audio-visual evidence with legal consequences. Logically, this is almost a big joke!
Finally, Jiang Rong, who always likes strategy, began to subtly push the criticisms made by the educated youths toward "political issues" in his "response," which is quite characteristic of his behavior during the "Cultural Revolution."
On April 23rd, he actively contacted a reporter from The Northern Weekend Newspaper, insisting that the content of The Wolf Totem is entirely based on his 11 years of life experience in the grassland pastoral areas, and there is absolutely no fabrication. He further stated that recent media doubts and criticisms about his work are one-sided and inaccurate, similar to the recent Western media propaganda about China's Tibet issue.
What a Jiang Rong, biting but not showing teeth!
Logically, this is the effect of "influence." But influence alone is insufficient; influence affects only public thinking, while those who control the facts are not afraid of such deceptive misguidance.
On the contrary, the repeated assertion in the novel The Wolf Totem that the desertification of the grasslands is due to the "invasion" of the Han people is truly indefensible. Everyone knows that moderate grazing per unit area of the grassland is the direct cause of rapid grassland desertification, coupled with global climate change exacerbating the large environmental context of grassland desertification.
If anyone wants to question this behavior, please obtain evidence from Jiang Rong's two former wives and those who have come forward today to expose his deception and lies!
Xiao Yao's "Lamp Oil" and Zhang Hongjun's (Jiang Rong's discarded first wife) novel "Fallen" accurately record Jiang Rong's personal behavior. If you can't find these two books, just search online. I believe readers will get the information.
Finally, I'd like to add a bit of off-topic talk: what exactly is the choreographer of the dance "Wolf Totem" at the Beijing Dance Academy trying to promote? Although in the eyes of many people, most dancers have little culture (some individuals do, but they have suffered a lot of setbacks, for example, Sun Ying, the founder of truly Chinese classical dance previously known as "Han-Tang Chinese classical dance" at the Beijing Dance Academy, is a learned teacher), they should still learn some history and culture during their education process.
That's all. Few empty words. Below is Jiang Rong's "response" letter and the response from informed individuals to this "response" letter (the "Lü Jiamin" mentioned in the response is Jiang Rong's real name, hereby explained)
This is the representative image of the great wolf spirit theory
Full Text of Jiang Rong's Response to the Criticism:
The Wolf is "Heaven Dog", the Spirit of the Grassland
Recently, some media have continuously published articles, claiming that Jiang Rong's The Wolf Totem is a cultural forgery. I now respond as follows:
In my book The Wolf Totem, I have already used my personal experiences of raising wolves and studying wolves during my educated youth period, a large number of authentic stories about grassland wolves, and valuable rich historical documents and materials to prove the existence of the "wolf totem" from both "empirical evidence" and "historical theory". I have unearthed historical legacy information scattered in the folk and swallowed by time. All I want to say has already been written in the book. I have always believed that time will give a fair evaluation. The informed herders will also prove whether the "wolf totem" is a "cultural forgery".
But just today (April 23rd), eight or nine Mongolian herders and cadres from Mandu Bao Li Ge Town in Dongwu Banner, Inner Mongolia, where I originally went to work in the countryside, came to Beijing on business, and I met them. During the meeting, my educated youth friend Chen Jiqun and I introduced to them the relevant situation that some media consider the "wolf totem" to be a "cultural forgery". After listening, they were indignant. The town leaders and herders expressed the following views, hoping the media could hear their voices. So I convey their opinions as instructed:
1: The herders in Mandu Town who have read the Mongolian version of The Wolf Totem believe that the novel is very realistic and reflects the actual grassland life of the Mandu Pasture back then.
2: The main evaluators of whether The Wolf Totem is a "cultural forgery" should be the original residents and cadres of Mandu Town, not the educated youths. Some Han educated youths actually do not truly understand grassland culture.
3: Regarding "wolf culture," for hundreds of years, the herders in Mandu Town have believed that wolves are "Tengri Nohai" -- meaning "Heaven Dog." The Heaven Dog is sent by Tengri (Heaven) from the sky to protect the grassland, reduce the number of pests such as wild rabbits, rats, and marmots, and prevent the grassland from becoming desertified.
4: For hundreds of years, after Mongolian grassland herders die, their corpses are placed in the sky burial grounds on the grassland, mainly for the "Heaven Dog" to handle. According to the tradition of Mongolian herders, within three days of a herder's death, family members must visit the sky burial ground. If the corpse is handled cleanly, the soul of the deceased ascends to heaven. If not handled, the soul of the deceased cannot ascend to heaven. On the grassland, only the wolf pack can "handle" the corpse cleanly within three days. The number of eagles on the grassland is small, and their size is also small, making it impossible for them to "handle" the corpse cleanly within three days, let alone deal with the large bones in the corpse. Other small animals like foxes and rats cannot handle this "task" either. Therefore, the sky burial of Mongolian herders is mainly carried out by the "Heaven Dog." Through the "Heaven Dog," the soul of the herder is taken to heaven.
5: On the grassland, if a wolf bites a sheep from someone's flock, the herders do not consider this a bad thing, indicating that the sheep are healthy. Etc.
Both the herders and cadres believe they have the most authority to speak about The Wolf Totem. Local herders have already called Mandu (i.e., the Elun Grassland in the book) the "homeland of the wolf totem." But why don't the reporters from those newspapers go to Mandu Town to understand and investigate? This time, the cadres and herders I met were: Hu Rizha, Party Secretary of Mandu Town; Chaoke Tu, Deputy Town Mayor; Hasbatur, Chief of Baiyinburide Village (Village Chief); Saiyingerile, Chief of Manduboli Ge Village (Village Chief); Erdenebaiyila, Chief of Taoshen Village (Village Chief). They welcome the media and tourists to visit Mandu Grassland for tourism, sightseeing, investigation, and research.
The above views of the grassland herders and cadres contain rich content.
Among them, the most valuable opinion is about the concept of "Heaven Dog" in Mongolian traditional culture. It includes four systematic and closely linked contents. One: the identity of the "Heaven Dog." In Chinese traditional culture, the "Heaven Dog" that "eats the moon" is a dog in the sky, a deity in the sky. In Mongolian grassland culture, the "Heaven Dog" is not a dog but a wolf, but it is also a deity. The "Heaven Dog" is sent down by heaven, so the "Heaven Dog" is the messenger of Tengri (heaven) and is the deity worshipped by Mongolian herders. Two: the first mission of the Heaven Dog descending to the grassland is to protect the grassland. Three: the second mission of the Heaven Dog is to take the souls of dead Mongolian herders to heaven. Four: the Heaven Dog is the main executor of the sky burial of Mongolian herders.
Clearly, the concept of the "Heaven Dog" is a relatively complete and systematic primitive religious concept. The Heaven Dog descends to earth for the "life" of Mongolian herders. The Heaven Dog ascends to heaven to treat the deaths of Mongolian herders kindly. For hundreds of years, the Heaven Dog has cycled between the grassland and the sky, assisting Mongolian herders in completing the alternating cycle of life and death. Therefore, for hundreds of years, Mongolian herders' understanding of the "Heaven Dog" expresses a primitive simple religious concept. It solves substantive religious problems such as the spirit and soul, this life and the next, worldly involvement and rebirth, and the shore and the other shore for Mongolian herders. So, the "Heaven Dog" of Mongolian herders is a deity, a "totem," and a truly religious natured totem.
Those scholars who think the Mongolian nation does not have a totem, or that "wolves" are not the primary totems of the Mongolian grassland nation, should still leave their studies and delve into the grasslands and grassland herders to conduct field investigations. Only in this way can they obtain true knowledge of grassland culture.
As for those educated youths who think "grassland herders deeply hate wolves, and no herders regard wolves as gods to worship," I believe this is "quite inconsistent with the facts." In fact, in the past, almost every grassland native in Mandu regarded wolves as "Heaven Dogs" and handed over their corpses to the Heaven Dogs for handling, thereby letting the Heaven Dogs take their souls to heaven. This is a kind of deep inner worship of the Heaven Dog. However, I believe that the opinions of these educated youths cannot be considered "forgery," but ignorance of grassland culture.
This time, talking with Mongolian herder cadres from my second hometown, I felt their deep love for the grasslands and their deep concern for the future. The ecological environment of the grasslands, grassland culture, and grassland primitive religion are rapidly degenerating. They hope that more people can sincerely care about and cherish the Inner Mongolia grasslands.
Jiang Rong responds to criticism of Wolf Totem leading to stronger cannonades Group Articles
Relevant Responses One:
Contemporary Zhao Gao - Pointing Deer as Horses "Holy Hand"
Xiao Yao
Note: The author is a Beijing educated youth who went to the countryside with Jiang Rong at the same time, and the author of the long documentary "Lamp Oil."
During the Qin Dynasty, it is said there was a eunuch named Zhao Gao who wielded immense power. To test his authority, he once brought a deer to court and insisted it was a horse. Emperor Qin Er Shi asked the ministers, and some remained silent while others followed Zhao Gao's lead and agreed. Now, our familiar Lü Jiemin (pen name Jiang Rong) has become a modern-day Zhao Gao, pointing deer as horses, claiming that the Mongolian nation has revered wolves as totems for thousands of years.
On April 23rd, he proactively contacted a journalist from The Northern Weekend Newspaper, stubbornly insisting that the content of The Wolf Totem is entirely based on his 11 years of life experience in the grassland pastoral areas, and there is absolutely no fabrication. He further stated that recent media doubts and criticisms about his work are one-sided and inaccurate, similar to the recent Western media propaganda about China's Tibet issue.
Just earlier this month, when Lü Jiemin was interviewed by The Southern Weekend, he said that his book is "China's story, Western spirit," and he was smug about the praise his book received from certain Western journalists and writers. Just ten days later, because of his own needs, he likened us to "Western media," changing faces too quickly. To learn the trick of face-changing, he doesn't need to seek a master elsewhere.
We arrived in the pastoral area at the end of 1967. Lü Jiemin should be well aware that during his years in the pastoral area, the production method was still primarily nomadic. He should clearly know that the sheep he herded were plagued by wolves, losing nearly three hundred sheep, breaking the records of wolf attacks on sheep in our brigade and the entire pasture during those years. If wolves eating sheep were not a bad thing, why did he shift the blame onto Zhang Hongjun (Jiang Rong's first wife, also known as Lü Jiemin) back then? Because wolves frequently attacked weak cattle and horses, especially sheep, wolves are the natural enemies of grassland people, a fact that cannot be obliterated.
During those years Lü Jiemin spent in the pastoral area, grassland people (including not only herders but also educated youths) annually hunted wolves in spring. Riding fast horses, they would hunt in groups, chasing wolves until they were exhausted and then killing them or having them torn apart by packs of dogs (not packs, but a few). Simultaneously, they would raid wolf dens and throw newborn wolf pups to their deaths. At that time, every household outside the Mongolian yurts kept several dogs to guard the sheep at night. Families with good dogs could even kill or injure wolves attacking the sheep. (Of course, Mongolians traditionally have the most benevolent and peaceful nature, without any tradition of wiping out anything completely, so we haven't heard of plans