"When thousands of youths changed China:
Thoughts after the May 4th Movement"
Some decades ago, protests in Beijing marked a new stage in China's struggle against imperialism and feudalism.
Commonly known as the May 4th movement, this important part of history was one of the manifestations of China's revolutionary experience since the downfall of the Qing dynasty and its foundation as a republic in 1911. This movement also made an appearance, a new camp consists of the working class, the studentry, professionals, and the new "national bourgeoisie" whose call was a renewed patriotism. And around the time of this important event, that thousands of students converged in Beijing, all voicing out their opposition against Japanese intrusion in China's affairs, of unequal treaties with western countries, to punish interest-seekers from the Beiyang government, and to revive China's nationalism with the pressing need for sociopolitical reforms. In these respects, this May 4th movement "went a step beyond the revolution of 1911".
Background
To look back at China's history, China's desire for national rebirth was borne out of various struggles: the Opium war, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Sino-Japanese war of 1894, the Guangxu reforms, the Boxer Rebellion, the 1911 revolution, the war against warlords, even the civil war between Kuomintang and the Communists, and the renewed battle against the Japanese during the Second World War. From those times, China's experience was all about the need for rebirth after years of subjugation by the subservient, corrupt, and despotic lords whose interests prevailed over those of the nation's, that even with "reforms" this failed as the very order itself became a stumbling block, rather than a guide in a quest for a nation's redemption.
"Science", "Democracy", and an end to foreign-led subjugation
In what came to be known as the May 4th movement, Chinese student leaders, along with professionals, protested against the Chinese government's subservience to the interests of foreign powers especially after its capitulation at the Treaty of Versailles. At those times, China joined the First World War at the side of the Allies by mobilising its labour force in the western front, with the expectation that China be able to get back German-occupied Jiaozhou (especially Qingdao)- that only to end occupied by Japan.
And to think that the Chinese felt the promises of "self determination" as written in the "fourteen points" of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; that China demanded an end to extraterritoriality for foreign powers on its soil, and a cancellation of Japan’s exploitative ‘Twenty-One Demands'. However, none of the China's demands were taken seriously by the representatives of the Allied powers, even Wilson himself. Part of the problem for China was that pursuant to the ‘Twenty-One Demands’ China had conceded to Japan former control of Germany’s holdings. In the allies’ view, this made the Chinese appeal at the Paris Peace Conference a non-starter—especially when diplomatic energies could be directed toward the more pressing issue of dealing with Germany. In the end, China walked away from the Paris Peace Conference with nothing in hand. Worse yet, Jiaozhou and its city, Qingdao had fallen into the hands of the Japanese, who had defeated China during the first Sino-Japanese war and became a symbol for China’s growing nationalist anger at the time.
For the Chinese, the May 4th Movement was more than just a series of mass actions and an outpour of thoughts. For in a country that’s trying to break away from being an appendage of corrupt and subservient rulers and not-so-serious members of the scholar-bureaucrats, the Chinese folk had to “assert” their desire for self-determination as a nation in the face of imperialist threat and domestic reaction that's prevailing. On the other side, the protests forced the government to accept the widespread grievances and respond, though it was too late to have Chinese interests be represented in the post-war settlement. The Beiyang government condemned the Treaty of Versailles, satisfying a core symbolic issue for the protesters. The government also fired Cao Rulin, Zhang Zongxiang, and Lu Zongyu, China’s representatives at the Paris Peace Conference. And finally, the government agreed to release all students arrested during the protests.
Its timeless significance
Being an outpour of thought and action, this movement was directed toward national independence, emancipation of the individual, and rebuilding society and culture, all after centuries of strangled by the seeming invincibility and deadly pervasiveness of tradition. With the mobilisations in Beijing, being ultimately successful in its goal, showed the power of collective action and building sentiment against imperialism and of domestic reaction. The event was also significant in that it was during a time of diverse, open intellectual fervor, especially that with the "New Culture Movement", stressed the importance of Democracy and Science ('Mr. D. and Mr. S.') would allow people to liberate their thinking and free themselves from the past. However, the pressing issue of national salvation came to overshadow that earlier movement for cultural renewal and self-liberation.
For the orderists, this kind of action really disrupted China. That other than protests and outpour of dissent, also created discussions, if not debates between modernists and conservatives regarding China's destiny as a nation; and even overhearing accusations such as Guomindang's Chiang Kai-Shek who branded the said movement as "corrupting morals", promoted Confucianism, even controlled education at various levels as he purged "western ideas" in favour of his conservative view. Others, like liang Shuming, wanted to based new systems on Chinese values; or Li Changzhi, who dismissed the May 4th movement as "simply copying western culture" and "lost the essense of its own".
But this doesn't stop the youth and intellectuals from learning and fighting for their struggling homeland as they've become really concerned about its state of affairs. As what Mao Zedong said: "In the Chinese democratic revolutionary movement, it was the intellectuals who were the first to awaken. This was clearly demonstrated both in the Revolution of 1911 and in the May 4th Movement, and in the days of the May 4th Movement the intellectuals were more numerous and more politically conscious than in the days of the Revolution of 1911. But the intellectuals will accomplish nothing if they fail to integrate themselves with the workers and peasants. In the final analysis, the dividing line between revolutionary intellectuals and non-revolutionary or counter-revolutionary intellectuals is whether or not they are willing to integrate themselves with the workers and peasants and actually do so. Ultimately it is this alone, and not professions of faith in the Three People's Principles or in Marxism, that distinguishes one from the other. A true revolutionary must be one who is willing to integrate himself with the workers and peasants and actually does so."
Overall, the actions exhorted the Chinese folk to place China's national interests above all others. Before the movement, Chinese diplomats had a gentle approach to many unequal contracts. China's diplomatic backpedals have emboldened foreign exploiters, who see China as a weakling who does not know how to refuse. Another outcome was the promotion of written vernacular Chinese (白话文) over literary or classical Chinese, as Hu Shih, proclaiming that "a dead language cannot produce a living literature", wanted to replace traditional Confucian learning with a modern approach especially in research.
As for the Filipinos, the May 4th Movement and the earlier "New Culture Movement" were all but Chinese versions of the Propaganda Movement, whose call was national awakening. The Chinese had its Le Jeunesse and the Philippines, its La Solidaridad. The Chinese had its Lu Xun and Chen Duxiu, while the Philippines had its own personages such as Jose Rizal and Marcelo H. Del Pilar. The desires of both movements were ranging from a series of radical reforms to an outright revolution, with China wishing for a new society "breaking away from old ideas" using "Science and Democracy", while the Philippines yearning for "recognising the Filipinos as those of Spaniards", "reinstatement of representation in the Spanish Cortes" to those of "outright Independence" as what happened in the 1896 revolution.
But what was clear was how both movements in China and in the Philippines was its leaders' interest in modernisation, of science, and the future-forward outlook against the backwardness and enforced "contentment" in these two countries. That somehow would say not surprising if its succeeding generations would follow suit in the desire for both national and social liberation: that Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, would follow the aspirations of Lu Xun and Li Dazhao; as Claro M. Recto, or even Jose Maria Sison, would follow those of Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, and Isabelo de los Reyes who in turn followed either Rudolf Virchow, Robespierre, or Karl Marx. The outpour of popular dissent, ideal, of "really moving forward" in a renewed nationalism meant challenging both a subservient order and a foreign overlord that dictates every policy people detests with. On the first place, why on earth should a nation be subservient? Is it because that domineering nation acting as a 'master' has its power be it economic means to those of use of arms?
Perhaps for the concerned, especially after tensions between the Philippines and China over the contested isles and shoals in the West Philippine Sea, should think what the Chinese did during its earlier times. Whereas Duterte et al. acted like those of the Beiyang government kowtowing to entrenched interests and agreeing to the unequal treaties and agreements, the Filipino folk should stand up and oppose such submission. Furthermore, the Filipino should realise the importance of national interest with the promotion of a sound national economy, a patriotic and popular education and culture, and a true independent foreign policy that neither from Beijing nor Washington, Wall Street or Shanghai Bund will dictate those from Manila. For sure people may disagree how this note compares the Philippines of today with those of Beiyang-era China, but look at Duterte and his camarilla did, isn't that reminds of warlord Yuan Shikai and Zhang Zuolin whose interests and yearn for power prevail over those of the folk? Perhaps, the Filipino needs a May 4th scenario and a renewed Propaganda movement.