'Freedom' has created a range of dilemmas

Cry Freedom is the evocative title of a 1987 movie about the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Over 30 years later, this title would be equally appropriate in a different context, as Western countries, led by the United States, undertake their evangelical mission of exporting their cherished freedoms to the rest of the world.

In the West, freedom is generally regarded as a fundamental right so precious that it must be defended at all costs and promoted worldwide. Freedom of speech, religion and assembly are enshrined in the US Constitution, along with freedom of the press and freedom to petition the government.

Indeed, Americans see the words "freedom" and "liberty" as synonymous with the country itself, dating back all the way to the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the "unalienable" rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Since the country's inception, Americans have described it as the "land of the free", and the Statue of Liberty is there to prove it.

If only it were so simple. There is a great deal of freedom mythology in the US, and when this is deconstructed we are left with the conclusion that the road to freedom there has been a long and winding one over the past 247 years.

Back in 1776, the liberty promised in the Declaration of Independence did not apply to well over half the population: Native Americans, slaves and women. Progress has been made since then but it has been a slow, difficult and, at times, traumatic process.

Over the past two centuries, Native Americans have suffered persecution, deprivation and some would even say attempted genocide at the hands of their white, freedom-loving conquerors. It was not until 1924 that the Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the US, and even then many states prohibited them from voting up to as late as 1948.

Slavery was finally abolished in 1865 after a bitter civil war, but overt racial discrimination continued. In the US South, this was exemplified by enforced racial segregation through the infamous Jim Crow laws. These lasted well into the second half of the 20th century, before being legislated against following the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. Not until 1965 was the Voting Rights Act passed, prohibiting racial discrimination in elections. Freedom for black Americans had to be fought for every step of the way.

For women, the fight for freedom was equally long, with women's suffrage finally being granted by the Nineteenth Amendment in1920. Mississippi was the last state to ratify this, in 1984, over 200 years after the promises of the Declaration of Independence. Even now, feminists will point to continuing impediments to their freedom, most recently the US Supreme Court's decision to end women's constitutional right to abortion, affecting the ability of women to make their own decisions about their bodies and lives.

So for well over half of the population, freedom in the US has been a long, hard-fought battle and is still ongoing.

Even with something as fundamental as freedom of speech, there are dilemmas to be resolved. For example, in the US, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but does not protect people from racist, sexist or homophobic abuse, incitement to commit criminal acts, or destabilizing, fake news. Unconstrained freedom of speech can be just as dangerous in the US as the freedom to bear arms. So whenever a freedom is practiced in the US or anywhere else in the world, there is a deep responsibility to others that needs to accompany it. Sadly, we all know that this is not always the case.

It is apparent that whenever anyone extols the virtues of introducing instantaneous Western freedoms to other countries, it should come with a health warning. Freedom is undoubtedly something we all value, but the experience of the US is, first, that freedom there evolved very slowly over a 250 year period, and, second, with every freedom there comes the need for responsibility. The US is still struggling with this second issue, and rather than proselytizing the American way to the rest of the world, it needs to be more honest in reflecting its more complicated, slowly evolving and nuanced experience.

It is also worth reflecting that there are two very different ways of viewing freedom, one active and one passive. The active focuses on "freedom to", while the passive focuses on "freedom from". The US approach is the active version, emphasizing the freedom to express one's views, to worship, to protest, to vote, to bear arms and so on. In many other parts of the world, especially in less-affluent countries, the approach is more inclined to be the passive version, emphasizing freedom from poverty, from hunger, from squalor, from disease, from ignorance or from fear.

A combination of both approaches is probably the ideal for most countries to work toward. It would be helpful if the West, and the US in particular, thought carefully about the complexities of these issues before rallying to the simplistic call of "cry freedom".

The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College in Hong Kong. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.