《自由之声》发刊词： “六·四”终须忘

AI-Generated by Timothy Huang

每年六月四日，海外华人圈总会陷入一种莫名的、寂静的撕裂。一些人在热情地、甚至疯狂地纪念和朝拜他们一整代人的精神图腾，另一些人则在嘲讽之余，感叹“秀才造反，十年不成”——而这两波人，平常可能是并肩作战的战友，或者相谈甚欢的伙伴。尽管新一代的活动家们早已对“六·四”祛魅，并开始试图按照国际通行的政治参与模式推动中国的宪政进程，三十六年前的那场悲剧对所有中国人来说，仍然是一座无法绕过的大山，山路旁则竖着几个大字：若想从此过，留下买路财。

趋利避害的人性，谁都无法挑战，哪怕是处在为十四亿人争取自由和宪政的事业中，哪怕是一群无私奉献于崇高事业中的人。在很大程度上，“六·四”的符号无意中成为了派别之间话语权之争的工具，成为了江湖上的“屠龙宝刀”，或者至少在人心里成为了如此形象。武林至尊，宝刀屠龙，号令天下，莫敢不从。我想，这就是新一代活动家们对“六四”嫌弃多于批评、回避多于反思的原因所在。

每每思虑至此，我都会好奇，当中国的海外政治运动摆脱了三千年专制文化的乡土味，开始真正与国际接轨后，“六·四”又将以什么样的角色存在于人们心中？一场足以推翻一个帝国的丑闻，仅仅用来制作海报和高喊口号，是否过于奢侈了？这片土地上的人们，以及从这片土地上逃离的人们，是否有资格享受这种奢侈呢？

或许有，或许没有。又或许无所谓。

然而，新一代的活动家们的共识是，“六·四”不是属于他们的时代，他们没有权利亦无资格去弘扬或批判什么“六·四精神”。于他们而言，唯一现实和理性的选择是，不去触碰这团烈焰，不去打扰守护它的人们，在自己的道路上孤独前行。

任何运动，任何历史悲剧，自有它自己的守护者，也必须任由他们去打扮。这正是人们试图塑造历史的过程，也是真正为之奋斗过的人们及他们精神的继承者应有的权利。如果有人对此进行否认、嘲讽，甚至歪曲、抹黑，效仿的不是他们所要攻讦的人，而是他们所要攻讦的人都蔑视和鄙夷的人。

只是，这并不会自动成为“后浪”的责任或义务。每一代人都有自己的精神图腾，无论它是“六·四”还是“A4”。人们的确必须吸取前人的经验和教训，但完全不必把前人走过的路再走一遍，而路没走通的前人们，更没有资格要求别人沿着自己的路前进。

如果后来者看到了前人们一段完整的路程，而自己并不满意，他们自然而然会避开这些“错误选项”。这并非否认或不尊重他们的努力，而是任何一个理智的人都会做出的选择。新一代的海外政治活动家们不像初夺权柄的邓小平，需要靠他对毛泽东的“继承”来确立自己地位的合法性；拥抱文明、拥抱自由、拥抱宪政的要求之一，就是与这种源自继承的合法性的否认，无论它承自毛泽东还是王丹。

这并不是我本人或我们杂志对民运前辈们的批评；相反，半山相遇时，我们定会向前辈们奉上崇高的敬意与感谢。我们也相信，前辈们的肚量完全容得下我们这个在伦敦角落里闪着微光的《自由之声》，正如自由世界容得下各种光怪陆离的理念。

勿忘“六·四”终须忘，心属群星不恋光。

明年六四，愿你我都能度过宁静和平常的一天。

“June Fourth” Must Ultimately Be ForgottenInaugural Editorial, Voice of Liberation Magazine

Timothy Huang

Every year on June 4th, the overseas Chinese community falls into a quiet, inexplicable rupture. Some commemorate and even venerate what they see as the spiritual symbol of an entire generation. Others mock this fervour, lamenting, “Scholars rebel for ten years and still fail.” Ironically, these opposing camps often work side by side - comrades in action or friends in conversation during the rest of the year.

While a new generation of activists has already begun to demystify June Fourth, adopting instead globally recognised models of civic engagement to push for constitutional reform in China, that tragedy from 36 years ago remains a mountain that all Chinese must reckon with. And on the path to crossing that mountain, there stands a toll gate, marked with a warning: To pass, one must pay tribute.

No one can defy the human instinct for self-interest - even those devoted to the noble cause of securing liberty and constitutionalism for 1.4 billion people. Indeed, the symbol of June Fourth has, in many ways, unintentionally become a tool in the struggle for discursive dominance among political factions—a kind of mythic “Dragon-Slaying Sword” in the collective imagination. The Supreme Blade. The One Who Wields It Rules All. This, perhaps, is why the new generation of activists tends to avoid rather than reflect on June Fourth, and why their reaction is more aversion than critique.

Whenever I reflect on this, I can’t help but wonder: once the overseas Chinese political movement sheds its parochial ties to thousands of years of authoritarian culture and fully embraces international norms - what role will June Fourth then play in our minds? Is it not a kind of indulgence, a luxury, to reduce a symbol powerful enough to topple an empire into little more than a poster slogan? Do the people of this land - or those who’ve fled it - have the right to such luxury?

Maybe they do. Perhaps they don’t. Maybe it doesn’t matter at all.

But what is clear is this: for the new generation of activists, June Fourth does not belong to their time. They neither claim the right nor feel the qualification to champion or condemn the so-called “Spirit of June Fourth.” Their only rational path is to leave the flame untouched, to avoid disturbing those who guard it, and to walk their own solitary road forward.

Every movement and historical tragedy has its own guardians, and those guardians must be free to shape its memory. That is part of how history is made - and a right belonging to those who truly fought, and those who inherit their spirit. To deny, mock, or distort that legacy is not to emulate their enemies - it is to become the kind of person even their enemies would disdain.

Yet this does not make their cause the obligation of the next wave. Every generation must choose its own symbol - be it “June Fourth” or the “A4 Paper.” Yes, we must learn from the past, but we are under no obligation to relive it. And those whose paths led to dead ends have no standing to demand others follow in their footsteps.

If those who come after us see a full stretch of the road already taken and find it unsatisfying, they will naturally avoid repeating its mistakes. This is not rejection nor disrespect - it is simply what any rational person would do. Unlike Deng Xiaoping, who had to invoke Mao to legitimise his rule, the new generation of overseas activists need not claim an inheritance from any ideological father figure. To embrace civilisation, freedom, and constitutionalism is to reject legitimacy by inheritance - whether it comes from Mao Zedong or from Wang Dan.

This is not a critique of our predecessors in the pro-democracy movement. On the contrary, when we meet halfway up the mountain, we will offer them the deepest gratitude and respect. We believe they will be generous enough to accept our small voice glowing quietly in the corner of London - just as the free world has always found space for ideas, no matter how wild or strange.

To never forget June Fourth, we must one day forget it.Let our hearts belong to the stars, not just to the firelight.

May next year’s June Fourth be a peaceful and ordinary day - for you and for me.