Hello Mr. Harris,
Thank you for coming to the presentation, but you have misquoted me. First, my
name is Jie Li and not Jie Lie, and Li is my last name. Secondly, I have not
made most of the statements you have attributed to me. I can send you the
parts of the paper related to Song Binbin, from which I was reading, provided
that you will take away the existing misquotations.
Point by point,
1. I did not say that Morning Sun exculpated Song Binbin but that the audience
of the film claim that Morning Sun exculpated Song Binbin. To say this does
not mean I agree with them.
2. The second statement:
Morning Sun also exculpated Song of volitional change of her surname from
Binbin, meaning “gentle and refined” to Yaowu, “be militant.”
implies that the change is volitional, and there is no evidence of it, so I did
not make that statement.
3. “Outrage” by Chinese toward Song after Morning Sun is due to her violation of
expected Chinese gender roles (submissiveness and repentance).
I said gender played a role, but not an exclusive role. My paper is on the role
of gender but not using gender as the exclusive explanation.
4. It is Song “the symbol and not the person” that is responsible for her
demonization.
I agree that I said this and will hold onto this. A person is held innocent
until proven guilty, and I have not seen any hard proof of her personal
violence. I know that Wang Youqin considers her not innocent, but provided no
evidence of her participation in violence. I have also spoken to Hu Jie (by
the way, I have an article about his CR films in the newest issue of the
journal "Public Culture" which might interest you), who said Song Binbin is
guilty only by virtue of her holding power and allowing the violence to take
place, but not by being violent herself. If you have other conclusive and hard
evidence of her personal participation in violence, I would appreciate the
reference.
5. Song is “a scapegoat and victim” of the Cultural Revolution.
Now this contradicts statement #1. If I say Morning Sun exculpated her, then it
would suggest that I agree that she's guilty and the film merely pardoned her.
The CR was a period with many victims, some of them complicit or even guilty
victims. Being a victim does not exclude the possibility of being a
perpetrator, and a scapegoat means who carries other people's guilt, but it
does not necessarily mean "innocent."
We can discuss this further in two weeks or so--I'm on a research trip
currently.
With Best Wishes,
Jie
Thank you for coming to the presentation, but you have misquoted me. First, my
name is Jie Li and not Jie Lie, and Li is my last name. Secondly, I have not
made most of the statements you have attributed to me. I can send you the
parts of the paper related to Song Binbin, from which I was reading, provided
that you will take away the existing misquotations.
Point by point,
1. I did not say that Morning Sun exculpated Song Binbin but that the audience
of the film claim that Morning Sun exculpated Song Binbin. To say this does
not mean I agree with them.
2. The second statement:
Morning Sun also exculpated Song of volitional change of her surname from
Binbin, meaning “gentle and refined” to Yaowu, “be militant.”
implies that the change is volitional, and there is no evidence of it, so I did
not make that statement.
3. “Outrage” by Chinese toward Song after Morning Sun is due to her violation of
expected Chinese gender roles (submissiveness and repentance).
I said gender played a role, but not an exclusive role. My paper is on the role
of gender but not using gender as the exclusive explanation.
4. It is Song “the symbol and not the person” that is responsible for her
demonization.
I agree that I said this and will hold onto this. A person is held innocent
until proven guilty, and I have not seen any hard proof of her personal
violence. I know that Wang Youqin considers her not innocent, but provided no
evidence of her participation in violence. I have also spoken to Hu Jie (by
the way, I have an article about his CR films in the newest issue of the
journal "Public Culture" which might interest you), who said Song Binbin is
guilty only by virtue of her holding power and allowing the violence to take
place, but not by being violent herself. If you have other conclusive and hard
evidence of her personal participation in violence, I would appreciate the
reference.
5. Song is “a scapegoat and victim” of the Cultural Revolution.
Now this contradicts statement #1. If I say Morning Sun exculpated her, then it
would suggest that I agree that she's guilty and the film merely pardoned her.
The CR was a period with many victims, some of them complicit or even guilty
victims. Being a victim does not exclude the possibility of being a
perpetrator, and a scapegoat means who carries other people's guilt, but it
does not necessarily mean "innocent."
We can discuss this further in two weeks or so--I'm on a research trip
currently.
With Best Wishes,
Jie
