4月22日纽约示威 (2005.4.23-4.24)

最近我莫名其妙地陷入了或者被迫旁观了若干场辩论，颇有许多话想说。但它们都是很大的主题、并且是再怎么讨论也没有什么结果的，比如基督教与无神论、女植物人拔管子之争、天主教教皇John Paul II的去世等等。这些事情和我什么关系都没有，我却忍不住为许多人的逻辑和论据之缺乏并霸占了公众话语的空间而感到烦扰。按照时间顺序，本来这次的blog应该写这些的，或是写写最近到来的春天，发发填税表的牢骚，但是因为最近的反日活动，我的注意力就被完全地吸引住了。所以这次我还是先做一次王家卫，来一次蒙太奇，写写反日吧。

但 我不知道何从写起。几个礼拜以来，我每天更频繁地看新闻，为国内的游行而激动；同时又渐渐觉得出现的一些破坏事件被用心险恶的国外媒体大加渲染从而会使我 国难看，觉得不太好。可是人本来就不是纯理性的动物，我认为冲动和一定程度的暴力是可以理解的。日本人中无耻或是无动于衷的那一群的所作所为，其实也不是 什么新鲜事了。可是美国英国一些重要媒体的胡言乱语甚至作假，帮日本怪中国，则愈加地令我气愤，这样的颠倒黑白，正义何在？

我后来终于忍不住写了一个email给我原来同学的list，Yale国际关系专业最近几年的学生很大一部分都会收到。我不管他们怎么看待我没头没脑发来的颇有火药味（但是很有道理）的长篇大论，我只是觉得需要让更多的人认识到这里媒体的偏见（以及日本所否认的罪刑），多一个也是好的。我的大意是讲CNN搞 了个假投票，不管怎么投，票数和百分比都不变，结论是大部分的受调查人都认为中国人的愤怒情绪不是正当的。当然这种调查本来就是不科学的，可以不理会，但 这样作弊也实在太厚颜无耻了。从而说开去，这里许多媒体不谈日本如何用种种谬论美化自己的暴行、不谈日本国内的民族主义倾向，不谈日本对批评天皇的言论的 压制，却反弹中国的教科书也很可疑，或者说中国政府不允许大部分的游行，却允许这次反日游行的表现，暗示应该禁止镇压它。我也同意我们的教科书也有问题， 政府在游行集会言论自由上也做得很不够；但是很明显，有些事情应该用人性和公理判断，而非意识形态，比如说，南京大屠杀、慰安妇，这些事情都是反人类的 罪，对于修改教科书和参拜那个神社，是非应该是那么的分明，而那些自诩的中国专家和专门从中国报道的记者却避重就轻，改换主题，睁眼说瞎话，好像凡是所谓 多党制的民主国家(日本)就是对的，而中国是共产党一党制，所以就不可能对。他们给人一种印象，PRC成立前被日军害死的中国人民活该倒霉，谁让抗战后内战后，获得政权的是共产党呢？

我的日本同学Akiko 第 二天也就给所有人回了信。我知道她不喜欢日本政府，但还是为她的坦率吃了一惊。她大骂小泉去拜那个破神社，而很多日本人根本就不在乎。现用教科书的确已经 够误导，关于二战，更多强调的是美国轰炸以后，日本老百姓的日子是多么苦，多少人依然承受着原子弹后的痛苦。她本人原来也不清楚这场仗的原委，直到她到了 香港读中文在学校里看到了一本画册….她最后说她本来就痛恨自己工作所在的东京银行，听说其北京分行被砸鸡蛋，禁不住就要笑。

我看了她的email，很感动，并做了一点自省，要确保自己没有被愤怒冲昏头脑，注意不把怒火指向所有日本人，好在我的email里面讲得很清楚，阿拉反的是右翼。后来有些同学开始回信，说这样的讨论很有意义。我也以为这比在华盛顿的智库（有人管那些智库叫idea whore, 卖脑不卖身，为那些政客动足脑筋，提供理论基础，以实现其Agenda）实习机会的信息有趣多了。

信的原文：http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ycias-list/message/34

Akiko的回信：http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ycias-list/message/35

此处媒体一边倒的谎言，好像鲁迅说的，洋溢在我的周围，使我艰于呼吸视听。最郁闷的那个周末，一醒过来，就立刻想到日本的事情，一下子非常清醒，睡不着了；平常我可是要继续赖床2－3小时才起来的。我自己都有点不敢相信。我在窗上挂了个国旗，抬眼就可以看到，美丽的红色总算改善了我的心情。同时，我和几个朋友在email/MSN上交流这些事情，ZYQ给Economist写了信，ZQ给NPR写了信，写得都很精辟，yingying跟我一句一句地谈。他们都是好同志，总算我不是一个人郁闷。我又写给了Economist、NY Times和Washington Post。不晓得那些胡言乱语操纵着话语霸权的混蛋看不看这些email, 我希望他们是看的，我不指望能点化他们――照他们的逻辑，他们说不定又认为我们是政府派出的枪手。但我希望至少刺激他们一下。

4月18日周一傍晚，很烦的我突然得知周五纽约联合国前示威的事情，顿时非常开心。我终于也有机会可以表达自己了！虽然年纪一大把了，下班后，我基本是蹦蹦跳跳回家的。在路上，我注意到了傍晚的金色阳光照在白色大蛋糕状的City Hall上，达利展览的广告旗上，他的小胡子奥妙而幽默地翘着，红色和黄色的郁金香开得鲜艳的要命，蓝色水池里的大喷泉的声音那么悦耳，让我想到美丽的日内瓦。晚风吹来，舒服。

我就这样激动了若干天，虽然时不时要被某些无耻的言论搞得胸闷。终于到了4月22日周五早上，我穿着Yale的校名衫，上了去纽约的火车。我本来就要去纽约拿我去台湾的签证，所以这样更是一举两得了。

台湾办事处刚刚搬到第五大道和42街 交界的地方，碰到一个等办护照的台湾女人对我凶巴巴的，我也没理她，我要去反日示威，哪里还顾得上她？！确切的说，我拿到的那玩意儿不叫签证，同一个国 家，要什么签证？上面写的是中华民国台湾地区旅行证。想一想，当初居然能够达成一个中国的大前提真不容易，很明显，中国这个定义是故意的模糊，留下了无数 发展空间。最近，国民党、亲民党去大陆交流对话，陈水扁就觉得自己的重要性旁落，急吼吼地说人家叛国，真丢人。即使岛内政治大家各有算盘，陈水扁如此失 态，试图阻碍对话，又阻挡不了，搞些文字游戏，乱扣帽子，让人看笑话。我相信有许多台湾人是宁愿台湾独立的，大家各有想法，再加上多年的宣传得力，出现这 种情况，正常得很。Propaganda嘛， 哪个政府不做？陈水扁确实也是代表了很多人的意愿。但我认为对话总比打战好，也总比冷战好，最多白对话，陈这么着急，很明显他们关注不是什么所号称的为台 湾人民谋求幸福，而多半是成立台湾国的野心。亲日的李登辉更令人厌恶，还有参观了靖国神社、说慰安妇是自愿卖身赚钱的台联的家伙们，那才叫卖国，无论中国 的定义是什么。回到原题，我走在42街突然看到几十辆警车呼啸而过，误以为那是为下午示威维持秩序的，一下子很激动，心脏好像要跳出来了。我一下子加快了脚步，风吹着我的头发，感觉很酷。

不过时间还太早，我就又去找在UN附近上班的Jonathan 。前一天他像一个“冲头”一样发了一篇NY Times上的文章给我，大意是中国教科书上美化文革大跃进，说国内的反日游行令人想到文革时候的革命小将。我顿时怒不可遏，回信说这是一篇SxxT, 而最近SxxT太多，我决定不再一篇篇地反击，这根本就不值得我花精力。我顺便揶揄地告诉他说：我第二天要去纽约抗议，很明显，耶鲁的教育未能开化我，未能把我从政府的洗脑中解放出来。我依然受到了政府对学生的大规模操纵，而这文革时所惯用的操纵手段，在2005年已经跨出国界，来到了美国，来到了这个真正民主精髓所在的地方。他看了我这个email大概昏过去，就回信说他不是故意要惹恼我，并愿意听听我和日本韩国同学到底怎么想的。我回信说，第二天中午一起吃饭吧。于是在披萨店排队的时候，我们就开始讨论这个问题。前前后后一堆人，我故意说话说得比较响，想抓紧任何机会扩大影响。 可惜别人都在叽叽咕咕说话，店里又吵吵闹闹，没人偷听我们的对话。Jonathan不 理解为什么我那么气愤，原来是因为他以为我们教科书上依然说文革和大跃进是好事，这下他知道了那篇文章的论据不成立。当然，他本来就同意日本一面说批准那 本最糟糕的教科书是言论自由，一面又压制有关慰安妇等损害天皇形象的言论，也是很差劲。拉美裔的伙计把装着披萨的纸袋给我，还用中文对我说，你好吗。那个 纸袋不是普通的棕色纸袋，而是印着若干个黑社会的人人头，还写着，“这不是一口袋午餐，而是一口袋罪犯”。原来是一个电视的广告，我觉得这很可爱。联合国 附近有个僻静的小花园，五颜六色又粉粉的郁金香开得很美，我就和以此为背景，和这口袋罪犯合了影。

然后，Jonathan就陪我走到示威的地方，虽然时间还是有点早。若干人在路上发传单，有中国人模样的，也有老外模样的，不出所料，果然是那白痴的轮子。一个女人把一份报纸递给我，我一看就轻蔑地说，“This is rubbish!”。Jonathan 就笑，我也觉得很好笑，呵呵。后来他回去上班了，而我们的队伍还没有来，我就在那里走来走去，经过发传单的轮子的时候，就骂“垃圾”。这群轮子，本来就够丢人了，而对于反日活动，他们的立场明显是幸灾乐祸，无耻啊。

后来ZYQ打手机说，说费城的队伍已经开始进场了，我就飞跑过去，又突然看见交叉马路上出来一群人，打的是熟悉的耶鲁学生会的旗子，我狂喜。然后又看到ZQ，背着个大照相机，我非常高兴，接着又看到WQ，哈哈，他们原来都说可能不来的，最后都来了。看到了PZ, WX, 还有以前Helen Hadley的不少同学，并认识了前几天在email上结识的GR，在这样的场合重遇整整一年未见的朋友同学，又认识新的朋友，这是真的欣喜。

示威的所在是一个小广场，在联合国斜对面。几百人中，有许多是各所大学的学生，除了Yale外，还有Columbia等。还有不少人开了很多小时的车，从波士顿或巴尔的摩过来，精神可嘉。除了学生以外，还有华侨组织，也包括ABC和 台湾人。韩国人也来了，广场上也有不少韩国国旗。大家拉着中英文的横幅，打着各种各样标语，还有揭示暴行的图片。集会的格式是各界代表轮流发言，然后大家 齐声喊口号。我们面前黑压压一群媒体记者，多半是日本媒体，都沉着脸在拍。大家爱国热情都很高，齐心协力，令人感动。有个老人，好像有家人死在日本人手 中，他演讲起来充满热情，喊起口号声嘶力竭，当他喊起“打倒日本军国主义！”，这是发自心肺的。我个人认为，中文演讲和标语太多，我们熟知有关一切，而目 的应该是让别人（包括日本媒体）知道日本的真面目，理解中国人民的立场，所以应该用英文。而不少英文口号和标语的语法需要改，不过呢，要求也不能太高了。 耶鲁的中国学生捐钱买了50本Iris Chang的Rape of Nanking（南 京大屠杀）的书，作为标语的一部分，还发给日本记者和路人，希望可以提高他们的认识。美国的书贵，学生囊中羞涩，却还这样全力支持，即使这些书的影响还是 有限，但这是多么执着真诚的努力，那些诋毁这一切自发努力为政府操纵的人，或者用一个贬义的愤青帽子来扣的人，良心在哪里?

突然发现ZQ上 去了，他代表耶鲁学生发了言。他用英文讲的，讲得很好，如果我的记忆准确的话，他不是一味的谴责，而讲的是很有道理的话，这样更加能让外人理解接受。大红 的国旗在他头上飘扬，下面簇拥了一大群人，他看上去很酷很有领导气质，让我这个老大为这个小喽?骄傲。后来日本共同社的记者还采访了他，那个记者没说什么 特别的。但是，听GR说， 采访她的另一个记者则非常阴险，一个劲儿想从她嘴巴里套话，想套出这个游行不是自发的，而是政府组织的。记者问她，你这样游行，国内父母知不知道，是不是 父母叫你们来的？她回答说，这和父母有什么关系！真可怕，如果她回答说父母知道（并支持）的话，那个记者一定就可以发挥成，政府通过其父母唆使这次集会。GR很警惕，回答得真好，粉碎了敌人的阴谋。幸好那个记者没有问我，不然说不定我就会不假思索地回答了，多危险。

关于非学生人士，ZYQ的报告写得够好的了，我就在此引用一下：“……终于见到了这次集会费城地区的组织者。原来他们并不是UPenn，Drexel或者Temple的学生会，而是费城的侨界，就是早些年到美国的华人，大多操着带点广东、福州腔的普通话。说实在的，原先我对他们的印象并不是很好，总以为他们没太多文化，只能在Chinatown开开中餐馆。这次集会却使我不得不对他们刮目相看。他们的年龄都不小，却依然有着年轻人一样的热情。准备工作做的很细致，租了大巴，为每个人准备了好吃的sandwich和饮用水，还写了许多标语。以他们的年龄和境遇看，他们中的许多也许是要终老美国的，但为什么他们依然关心着爱护着那个似乎对他们来说没有太多利益纠葛的祖国呢？看起来 ‘爱国之情’对许多人说来真的是至死不渝的。”

可 惜，我们被批准的只是在这块固定的地方示威，并不能在路上走，所以谈不上游行。由于联合国所在的第一大道并不繁华，往来的行人不太多，不过有些双层旅游车 经过的时候，就停一会儿，上面的游客就好奇地看。不过，这个广场是示威专用地，既然目的是要反对日本入常，跑到第五大道也不合适，虽然效果应该会好很多。 这一天突然很冷，风很大，不过可以把旗帜舒展开，所以还是值得的。

在 集会的中间，广播里放了几次《歌唱祖国》。如果在国内，听到这歌估计没什么感觉，但是在纽约的街头听到，还是很感动。最后唱了国歌，我好久没有机会唱了， 心情很激动，虽然起调的人把它起得太高了，呵呵。我知道有些可以度身事外的人，会觉得我们都被洗脑了，但是那些人还有什么更高尚更值得的passion 吗？

周五那天早上起来，看到小泉在万隆又道了一次歉，照Economist的话来说，这下子是日本第18次道歉了，中国怎么还不依不饶的。可是同一天，近百位国会议员又去参拜了靖国神社。我认为，他还不如不要道歉的呢。

集会结束后，冻僵了的我和Yale的一帮人一起去56街去吃中饭（他们是饿着肚子喊口号的！）。阴天，走在路上，拿着红红的小国旗，像火一样。川菜辣得我要死，我也没吃饱，青岛啤酒倒把我的脸弄得很红。然后我们走到42街的中央火车站，他们就回New Haven去了，我则在纽约继续晃悠消磨时间。

对逛百货公司毫无兴趣的我去了附近的纽约公共图书馆。图书馆建筑宏伟美丽，雨后的灰色外墙显得非常干净。门前园子里开着粉红色郁金香，好像美女的嘴唇，很香艳的样子。图书馆内部也很有气派，让我想到耶鲁的图书馆。我自然拍了很多照片。最后，我坐在图书馆门外的椅子上给yiyi打电话，报告我的兴奋。后来我饿了，就去中央火车站那里买点东西充饥，卖甜点的little pie company很有名，我看中了小杯状的奶酪蛋糕，本想买两个，一摸口袋只剩下最后两块钱现金只够买一个，滑稽。

终于熬到了6点45分，等到了Jonathan。他正好有林肯中心音乐会的票子，我自然要去听：National Chorale 演 出威尔第的安魂曲。唱诗班的男人们都穿着一色的西装，女人们穿得五颜六色，大概是为了迎合春天这个季节。那个男低音还是个中国人。唱诗有些单调，听了有些 困，但是当乐团开始大声奏乐，我就醒过来啦。在音乐会开始之前，我自然兴奋不已地告诉他下午的壮举，给他看照片，并希望旁边的人偷听我们的对话，呵呵。音 乐会幕间休息的时候，我想起来要给我妈打电话，以免她看见我那么晚还没有回家上网，一定以为我被纽约警察抓走啦，哈哈。

买了一个小热狗，乘上23：15最后一班回费城的火车，我依然沉浸在相当程度的激动中。在火车上，我就打电话给在上海的妈妈、Eric和小朱，进行骚扰和炫耀。这一天我一箭多雕，实在太牛了。不好意思，写到这里我想不出什么很严肃深刻的结尾了。反正大家也看累了吧。

P.S.

1. 这里还有我2003年9月写的一个blog: 《关于日本》，我觉得很有道理，嘻嘻

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~hg52/blog/japan.htm

2. ZYQ写的一点东西，我觉得非常好。稍作删节，引用如下：

“今天六点多醒来，竟然睡不着….我忽然想到几个名人在50年前的那场国难中的表现……

1、胡适

胡适先生可以说是一个极端的自由主义者。在他的《介绍我自己的思想》一文中曾说过：“现 在有人对你们说：‘牺牲你们个人的自由，去求国家的自由！’我对你们说：‘争你们个人的自由，便是为国家争自由！争你们自己的人格，便是为国家争人格！自 由平等的国家不是一群奴才建造得起来的’！”他早年在回国的船上听到张勋复辟的消息时，失望于中国黑暗的政坛，曾经发誓“二十年不问政治”。但是抗战军 兴，，胡适先生却欣然担当了中国驻美国大使，踏入政坛，用自己在美国的关系和学界的声望，奔走于中美政府之间，为抗日战争的胜利作出了相当的贡献。在民族危亡之际，一个自由主义者可以抛弃自己的原则……

2、吴佩孚

吴佩孚在历史教科书上的评价似乎并不高。他镇压过京汉铁路大罢工，也是当年北伐战争的主要对象，最终被北伐军赶下了台。但是从另一个角度来说,……祖国对他的伤害不可谓不深。那么，在日军侵华的时候，他去做汉奸似乎是无可厚非的。事实恰恰相反。1938年，日本侵略者决定把华北伪政府和伪南京政府合并为一个汉奸政权，日本大特务土肥原贤二要拉吴佩孚做“中国王”时，吴佩孚说：“叫我出来也行，你们日本兵必须全部撤出中国去。”在民族危亡之际，一个深受祖国“伤害”的军阀可以保持民族气节……

3、林徽因

林徽因女士出生于书香门第，16岁即入伦敦St. Mary's College学习，后来又在UPenn获得美术学学士，在Yale学习舞台美术，可以说得尽欧风美雨之熏陶。1944年，日军攻占贵州独匀，直逼重庆。她的儿子梁从诫问她，如果日军真的打进重庆，你们准备怎么办？林徽因说，“中国念书人总还有一条后路嘛，我们家门口不就是扬子江吗？”梁从诫急了又问，“我一个人在重庆上学，那你们就不管我啦？”病中的林徽因握着儿子的手，仿佛道歉似的小声回答：“真要是到了那一步，恐怕就顾不上你了！”在民族危亡之际，一个精通西学、才貌贯世的学人可以置幼子于不顾，视生死如无物…..

4、杨荫榆

杨 荫榆不是一个讨人欢喜的人物，曾经被鲁迅先生在《纪念刘和珍君》中大加鞭挞。而且她长年独身，性格乖僻，连她侄女杨绛对她的回忆也是颇有微词。抗战时期， 苏州沦陷，杨荫榆住在盘门，四邻小户人家都深受日军蹂躏。因为她早年在日本留学，精通日语，就多次跑去见日本军官，责备他纵容部下奸淫掳掠，因此成为日本 人的眼中钉，终于在1938年元旦被两个日本兵枪杀。在民族危亡之际，就连这样一个性情乖张的人都会挺身而出反抗暴行……

其实这样的例子在50多年前还有太多太多。能使那么多经历不同、思想各异的人作出几乎是相同的举动，这样的力量只能来源于一种崇高的情感??‘爱国’。”

Response on a fabrication-based article on NY Times

My Response to below article:

This is another piece of shit that fits perfectly with my analysis.
Getting angry at the absence of consicience and objectivity of such
reports and wrting rebuffs have consumed a lot of my time and lowerd my
work efficiency lately. I can't write any more to rebuff this kind of
shit. When surrounded by piles of shit, I no
longer think it is an efficient way to fight back one by one. It's
simply not worth it. And maybe useless, too, as the media here
apparently has made judgment on what is the politically correct things
to say and what not. And anyway, the public here does not really care.
For those who are aware of this event, their previous impression gets
further reinforced. The Chinese government becomes even uglier, the
Chinese people become even more of a puppet manipulated when against
foreign government whereas more of an angry populace oppressed by the
government when they have issues against the Party. And people like me,
just gets more angry with the media. HOnestly, Japan government's
reaction is outrageous but not surprising as it is with its behavior
pattern. But this event makes me more cynical of the freedom of speech
here.

Well, i might write more in response to this article if i have time and
if i can't help it. BUt tomorrow I'm going to NYC to protest Japan
government, a protest organized by the Chinese (and Korean) student
organizations in Greater New York, led by Columibia University as far as
i know. I will join the Yale gang. Of course, Yale education failed to
enlighten me, failed to free me from the brainwashing of CCP. I'm still
subject to the "mass manipulation of studnets of another era, the
Cultural Revolution", which in 2005, has reached overseas to America
where the essence of true democracy is.

(Cultural Revolution defined as a serious mistake and a disaster in Chinese texbooks. This author bases all his argument on fabrication. My question is, how could one, talking nonsense, be so confident and have it published on New York Times?!

April 21, 2005

LETTER FROM ASIA
By Playing at 'Rage,' China Dramatizes Its Rise
By HOWARD W. FRENCH

SHANGHAI, April 19 - The banners had been carefully printed, the slogans
memorized, and the students and young unleashed onto the streets of China's
largest, most sophisticated city, where they were to speak sacred truths and
make the enemies of the people tremble.

Chinese today have little experience of mass organized protests, so when the
Government tolerated - some would say encouraged - a huge anti-Japanese
demonstration here that flirted with turning into a riot over the weekend,
for many it bore echoes of the mass manipulation of students of another era,
the Cultural Revolution.

For hours on Saturday, thousands of Chinese, from teenagers to people in
their 30's, lay siege to the Japanese consulate in this city, smashing its
windows and defacing its walls with a copious rain of rocks and bottles. But
for all the expressions of anger against Japan by people far too young to
have memories of China's brutal subjugation by its neighbor, at its most
basic level this was a festival of runaway nationalism, of a
government-nurtured Chinese-ness.

Declaring themselves to be all one people, the demonstrators proclaimed
their love of the police who escorted them as they marched to the consulate,
smashing Japanese shops along the way. Banners extolled Chinese greatness,
in contrast to little Japan, chanters called for their homeland to stand
tall, and talk was dominated by Chinese "feelings," a word repeated over and
over, as if no other feelings counted.

Revealingly, people who had lived through the real Cultural Revolution, not
the sanitized one taught in China's history books, watched from the
sidelines with looks of amazement and worry. They were old enough to
remember just how badly things can go when intoxication is the order of the
day, and laws are swept aside by feelings.

"I watched the police cars escorting the demonstrators and felt this all
looked familiar, like an official event in the Cultural Revolution, but
those drew bigger crowds and were more emotional," said Zhu Xueqin, a
historian at Shanghai University who emerged from a public library to watch
the march go by. "I observed it as a bystander, and the people observing
around me looked indifferent, seemingly full of reservations."

Shanghai is the most dazzling symbol of a China that has changed so much
since the Cultural Revolution as to be almost unrecognizable. But in some
important ways, most notably the government's will to control information
and through it people's minds, the events of the weekend here and their
aftermath show that this country has barely changed at all.

The Maoist slogans of 40 years ago have been replaced by anti-Japanese
watchwords, and then as now, few of those caught up in the excitement paused
to examine the relationship of today's slogans to the truth. Here were
students mouthing such claims as "Japan has never apologized to China," or
"Japanese textbooks whitewash history." Many Japanese textbooks have
recently de-emphasized atrocities committed in China, and some have been
widely distributed. But in China, the most tendentious of them is the one
cited as a representative sample, although it is used by less than 1 percent
of Japanese schools.

Others said, trembling with conviction, that Japan wants to keep China down,
or even instigate the country's breakup. Never mind that for over two
decades, Japan has been a leading source of development assistance for China
- to the tune of $30 billion in low interest loans - helping build
everything from Shanghai's futuristic airport to expensive highway and water
systems in the country's vast, impoverished west.

Few in the Chinese crowds, including many educated in the country's best
schools, seemed aware of facts like those, or of any other side to the story
save what could be fit into the dichotomy of a China that is essentially
good and a Japan that is predatory, evil, conniving or, in a word heard over
and over, "disgusting."

Like anything that involves information in China, this ignorance seems the
result of careful planning. Since diplomatic relations between the two
countries were normalized in 1972, for example, Japanese officials have
apologized numerous times to China for the suffering their country inflicted
in the 20th century. In 1995 on the 50th anniversary of the war's end, for
example, Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama spoke of the " tremendous damage
and suffering" his country had caused, adding, "I regard, in a spirit of
humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my
feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology."

But China's state-controlled media have usually focused on finding fault
with each Japanese pronouncement, sustaining the belief that Japan has
indeed never apologized.

The largest question, perhaps, is why China would so carefully sustain anger
at Japan.

One possibility is that in recent years, the legitimacy of China's
leadership has rested on few things so much as the idea of inevitability - a
destined ascension of the country to prosperous world-power status and a
return to the unquestioned pre-eminence in the East that it enjoyed before
the 20th century. In this picture there is little room for Japan, a country
that has derailed China's ambitions before, and suddenly seems unwilling to
fade.

This could help explain China's reactions to Tokyo's bid for a United
Nations Security Council seat and discussions under way in Japan about
revising the country's so-called peace constitution, as well as Chinese
nervousness about Taiwan, which Japan, together with the United States,
recently called a joint security concern.

By midweek, signs were multiplying that China's leaders were rethinking
their confrontation with Japan, at least at the level of public relations.
With the ugliness toward their neighbor threatening a loss of international
sympathy on other issues, China first reportedly made a quiet offer to
repair Japan's damaged consulate, and on Tuesday urged an end to
demonstrations.

Left aside in the weekend's atmospherics in the effort to dispel them was
the question of whether China has done a better job teaching history than
its neighbor. In the West, it is accepted as fact that more Chinese were
killed by the policies of Mao Zedong than by the Japanese, including many by
summary execution and other atrocities that are glossed over in Chinese
textbooks. In those books, Mao is still treated with reverence.

China also claims never to have seized territory from a neighbor, but China
attacked India by surprise in 1962 and the details of other campaigns, from
Korea and Xinjiang in the north to Vietnam and Tibet in the country's south
and west, are also absent from textbooks.

More remarkable than any glance at the receding past, however, was the way
news of the anti-Japanese demonstrations has been treated in China in the
here and now. Chinese authorities televised notices that the protests had
not been approved on the eve of Saturday's anti-Japanese demonstration,
which served as much as anything else as an announcement of the event. The
news the next day avoided all mention of disorder. Similarly there were no
images of young people pelting the Japanese consulate at their leisure,
within arm's reach of paramilitary police.

The seeming contradictions in all of this were not lost on all Chinese,
however. Discussions have raged all week on the Internet, with many
questioning their countrymen's behavior and the government's permissiveness
toward anti-Japanese violence. "How shameful is it that to release our
emotions we damaged the property of our countrymen and bullied the weak,"
wrote one forum participant? "You call yourselves patriotic? Patriotic
what?"

China, Japan and the Bullshitization of News Media

Sorry for being vocal on this sensitive issue, but I think it is important to speak out against the hegemony of a misled media. Anyway, I have track record of abusing this list, so there is nothing that I’m afraid of:

CNN has a quick vote on whether China’s anti-Japanese sentiments are justified.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/15/china.japan/index.html

This past Sunday night I looked at the quick vote from the computer at home and noted the statistics as below and I kept a screenshot.

28% (6073413 votes) yes and 72% (15438349) no.

However, last week’s vote on whether Japan should be given a Security Council seat, 98% vote no. Probably many Chinese went to the site and vote and it’s unlikely that they didn’t this time. Therefore this 28% vs. 72% is odd enough, given the usually big number of votes. I’m aware of certain computer programs that can run automatic votes that can be used on both sides. So 28% vs. 72% is fine.

Today, Monday morning, I just voted another yes from my computer in the office. The result is still the same (I got another screenshot):

28% (6073413 votes) yes and 72% (15438349) no.

Not only the percentage is the same but also the number of the votes!!!!!!! If voting has ended, why can one still vote by clicking that vote button?! Even if the vote has a self-claim that it is not scientific, it is still a vote. How can CNN just post a number and a percentage that it wants and claims it is the result of voting?!!!! (And this is such an sloppy job done!) I could have dismissed the whole thing, whether it is 98% vs. 2% or 28% vs. 72%: neither of these is reflective of the facts esp. when such mechanism is subject to statistical flaw and technical manipulation. (OK, I admit I tried to vote several times.) But isn’t it deplorable and sad when many more Chinese come to this site and vote diligently, having learned about this vote from the widespread emails, only to find such a sham? People would think CNN is influential as news media and hoped to express their views and make a difference on the number, but CNN failed the expectation in such an ugly manner. I know the result of such vote has no actual bearing on what is going to happen between China and Japan whatsoever except that the public opinion might have some remote long-term effect (though the public here probably don’t care at all.) But how could CNN so blatantly violating professional ethics? (Or maybe I should have come to this conclusion earlier from Lou Dobbs’ xenophobia with his saggy face and depressed look.)

But the reason that I continue to write this long is that, I’ve noticed that CNN, along with a good part of the media such as the supposedly respectable New York Times and The Economist, are systematically telling lies or at least misleading with a one-sided view. To me, they are, knowingly or unknowingly, serving as an accomplice in continuing Japan RIGHT WING (note I’m not saying the whole Japan or all the Japanese) plain denial of its atrocities against the Chinese and others in Asia. Throwing eggs and smashing windows is violence and not right; killing, raping, mutilating, burning (and denying) is not violence and is right?! If Schroeder as prime minister of Germany pays yearly tribute to Hitler on the ground that Hitler, too, died for his own country, how acceptable is that?! Chinese government might be selective in allowing and forbidding different types of protests. However, if protests and congregation are the right forms of freedom of speech, why is it wrong for China to allow anti-Japanese protests to go on? (Yes, I think the non-report on the protests in Chinese media is wrong.) So it seems that media in the “Western world” only want Chinese government to allow protests against itself but not against another country. So what did the media say when the Lebanese were calling for Syrian troops to get out? Why is the media almost silent on protests of the same nature in Korea against Japan? Is it because that would be a case of democracy vs. democracy, democracy in the sense of multi-party election? In the case of China vs. Japan, it is a communist country (perceived as dictatorship) vs. a democracy, therefore the answer should be self-evident?the dictatorship must be in the wrong?! Or is it anti-intuition that a communist country should be growing this fast and gaining momentum therefore some bashing is deemed necessary?

Yet, the crimes Japan committed in the WWII was against HUMANITY but not the People’s Republic of China government, which didn’t exist by the end of WWII. How can one be so unethical to accuse the PRC government of simply using these protests in service of its political ends? Where is the sense of justice and proportion? Are they saying that China is politically motivated using its victim status whereas Japan is sweet and innocent, unfortunately insulted and injured whose only focus is world peace?

In the Nanjing Massacre and throughout the war from 1937 to 1945, civilians including children were killed or buried alive in masses. Japanese veterans reported that 15-20 women were assigned to each soldier to be raped and then killed (often with breasts cut, vagina stabbed, and womb taken out by shining bayonets in a masochist pleasure) since dead people could not talk. I heard from the Korean comfort woman that did a presentation at Yale that when the sex slaves got seriously ill from sexual abuse, they were left to rot and die in the same room where the dead bodies of Japanese soldiers were placed. If the women had not died at the time of the burial, they were buried half-alive. I realize that there was some peer pressure among the Japanese soldiers and not doing this would be seen as a sign of weakness and disloyalty to the Emperor. And these soldiers, would-be average sons and husbands in peace times, were transformed by the morbidity of the war. But can someone tell me how to forgive and forget when the government of the perpetrators merely refers this as an incident and at the shrine where the war criminals are worshipped it is stated that Japan was innocently forced into the War under the tacit agreement with U.S. etc.? How can one trust the Japanese government when it approves history-whitewashing textbooks on the base of freedom of speech while “NHK TV network, after getting a high-level warning, preemptively cut short a program on comfort women that laid blame on the emperor”? How can anyone be convinced that Japan’s current bid for Security Council seat is solely for peace when claiming on some occasions to this day that Japan’s occupation of China and other countries was for the prosperity and peace of East Asia, even if peace is indeed the only thing on its mind now?!

China in its contemporary history has been invaded and colonized by many countries, but why don’t Chinese protest against everyone? It still comes down to the attitude of being honest about the history. Chinese people are not violent by nature and nobody LOVES to be angry. China’s anti-Japanese Right Wing SENTIMENTS are totally justified. Some of my friends participated in the protests in Shanghai the past weekend though the government asked them to stay calm at home and let the problems be solved by diplomatic means. The atmosphere of unity and patriotism of the protest, according to them, was very moving especially when Shanghainese are stereotypically viewed as indifferent to politics. Bottle-throwing and window-smashing did occur, but in terms of proportion, it was in the minority. Not all protesters were approving of this violence. There were protesters who stayed behind to clean up the mess after the crowd. Again, Chinese people may be controlled by the government, but are not non-thinking (and violent) puppets that can be so easily manipulated in such great number. To dismiss all this genuine feeling as the result of a political game is comparable to saying that the American patriotism is the very result of Bush cashing on 9-11 and diverting attention from the economic recession and huge deficits during his presidency. I don’t like Bush but I don’t think he is that bad. And who can be so sure to claim that one is totally free from government (and religious) propaganda?

I am aware that there are things that the Chinese textbooks were ambiguous about, such as its war with India and Viet Nam, which is not right, either. But it did say the Great Leap, the Famine and Cultural Revolution under the Communist rule were huge mistakes and disastrous---contrary to some reporters’ assertion without even touching the textbooks ---I did grow up with these textbooks. And again, two wrongs don’t make a right. Such media should be ashamed, very ashamed to see their failure to make objective judgment and apply consistent standards. Simply poor journalism.

I agree that China does not have a whole lot of press freedom. There are a lot of things not told to the public. That’s wrong. And here, the press distorts and misleads the public, which is already ignorant and self-centered enough in certain sense. I don’t know which is worse. Or is it a fact known to all and I haven’t been smart enough to see this till now? When Rumsfeld commented China was a country ''we hope and pray enters the civilized world in an orderly way", I was wondering where/what exactly is this civilized world for China, a country of one of the longest histories, to enter.

********

However, on a second thought, Japan’s bid for a seat in the Security Council may not be such a big deal. U.S. can go to Iraq war without UN authorization. Sudan can continue its ethnic cleansing disregarding UN warnings. Kofi Annan has a son in the Iraq Oil for Food program scandal. And then U.S. suddenly got quiet insisting on his resignation. Only idiots would believe his son didn’t get the position and network without his dad’s influence in the first place. UN official sexual harassment. UN peace-keeping force rape. What’s the use and “moral status” of UN anyway?! I was occasionally questioning myself whether declining the UNDP Leadership program offer was wise for a while. But now I think I made the right choice for not going to a morally-degraded and organizationally collapsing bureaucracy. Any country that wants a seat of SC should be granted such wish. It is not of much use anyway except projecting an image of allegedly higher status and greater importance in the so-called system of international relations. ?Alright, for this paragraph, I’m getting overly sarcastic, not there yet.

My comment on a NY Times Article:

This is a good article!

Agreed that this country is becoming more and more like a theocracy now
when these religious zealots disregard other people's beliefs and tramp
on their rights. That is fundamentally wrong and must be stopped by all
means necessary. The very term "religious right" in itself suggests
that the separation between government and church is at peril. It
indicates that the government is heavily incluenced, if not owned by
this group of people, which are pushing this country toward something
like what we know about the Dark Middle Ages of Europe (Of course, back
then people didn't talk about democracy that much so they actually had
some excuse.)

However, i think religion is in itself exclusive to other religions and
atheism. Therefore if a religious believer is moderate enough to
tolerate other beliefs, that very tolerance undermines his own belief.
I can't imagine a Christian worshipping his God and a Hindu worshipping
his own God(s) side by side. If they do, it implies that they
acknowledge the existence of other gods, which is in conflict with their
holy scripts and creeds.

Therefore, only the religious extremists that deny everything else are
the true believers but apparently they are threatening the fundamentals
on which this society is based. So my conclusion is that religion is not
compatible with democracy by nature. From a sociological perspective,
myth and religions are the products of people trying to cope with the
unpredictable nature and has its positive effects. However, as society
evovles, the role that religion can play is less predictable, especially
when carried out in full strength and with blind faith.

If there are anyone can be both genuinely religious and moderate, they
must be those who hold their thoughts/views in private. Their attitude
to the non-believers should be "do as you wish" and keep the other half
of the sentence to themselves "but personally i know you will go to
hell." In this way, nonbelievers will have their life undisturbed and
the believers happy enough with the thought they are on their way to
heaven.


NY Times.com: What's Going On?
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:54:47 +0000

March 29, 2005

What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their
midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily
turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those
whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for
example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing
influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong
to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great
political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has
brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is
going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative
reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The
Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.

One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce
laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri
Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close
associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a
doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate
the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious
right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's
law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report
that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from
the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce
the judge's order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name
of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent
of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel
pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists
who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or
morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the
effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make
a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists
will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or
"refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow
doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any
patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and
intimidation.

But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the
filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to
upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that
he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and
that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against
religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the
Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely
defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical
Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses
based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case
is so timid that it's hard to be sure.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel.
There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the
rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed
one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives
who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates
take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen
here.

Japan is a lier on its Fascist history and should not be on the Security Council

This is in response to 2 articles "The genie escapes" and "A collision in East Asia" on China and Japan on the April 14 edition of THE ECONOMIST:

Even if Chinese government may seem manipulative of situation in allowing "anti-Japan" protests but not others, this does not justify Japan's plain denial of its hideous crimes. I'm dismayed to see how little has been explored and expounded on Japan's blatant lies, its culture of blind loyalty to power and its own nationalism. I'm shocked to see how quickly some so-called experts jump to the conclusion that China will have a problem if the protest gets out of control, as if that is a scenario that they just can't wait to see.

After all, Japan committed a crime against the HUMANITY and it is still denying it till this day. Can you imagine Schroeder paying annual tribute to Hitler because he died for his own country? How can such a country like Japan be on the Security Council?! I'm disgusted when I read "In service of its present interests, China endlessly drags up the legacy of the past..." This assertion further victimizes the genuine indignation of the Chinese people. This writer is in effect an accomplice in continuing Japan's atrocities, if not a Right Wing activist himself/herself.

The writers certainly failed to mention similar protests in Korea and the vandalism, damage and blackmail to Chinese embassy and Bank of China branch in Japan, which will make their points weaker. They also failed the precision test: the Chinese people are against Japanese RIGHT WING, not all Japanese.

The article in question:

China, Japan and the UN

A collision in East Asia

Apr 14th 2005
From The Economist print edition

There should be no enlarged Security Council without Japan

YOU can be sure that a march of 10,000 protesters through the heart of Beijing would have been halted by China's security services if they had been marching for democracy. Since they were marching instead to denounce Japan, for its supposed failure to apologise for historical crimes, and for its temerity in seeking permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, China's authorities allowed the demonstration to go ahead, with predictable results (see article). Japanese shops were ransacked and Japan's embassy pelted with eggs and stones. The protests, which had started in Chengdu a week earlier, spread to other cities, including Shenzhen and Guangzhou in the prosperous south.

For anyone who had taken the view that the present proposals to reform the United Nations and change the architecture of the Security Council were just a parlour game for diplomats, these demonstrations mark a rude awakening. All of the council's permanent five?America, Britain, China, France and Russia?guard their seats at the top table jealously and are wary about the prospect of this honour being diluted. Some, it is now plain, are willing to whip up the emotions of their people to resist unwanted newcomers. And when it comes to China and Japan, those emotions are still remarkably raw.

It is not much of an exaggeration to say that these two Asian giants are scarcely any better reconciled than they were in 1972, when they established diplomatic relations. This is true in spite of an economic relationship that has grown increasingly intimate. In most years, China and Japan are nowadays each other's biggest trading partner. Some 16,000 Japanese firms do business on the Chinese mainland: Japan's technology and China's low-paid workers make a natural and mutually advantageous fit. In culture and consumption, too, the two countries are growing closer: younger Chinese admire Japanese boy-bands, older ones relish buying reliable Japanese cars and applying Japanese cosmetics.

In politics, however, the story is quite different. The mighty neighbours are competing for natural resources and squabbling over the sovereignty of tiny islands. In service of its present interests, China endlessly drags up the legacy of the past, taking the view that Japan has never apologised properly for its brutal behaviour in China during the second world war and before. No Chinese president has visited Japan since 1998, and Japan's prime minister has not been to China since 2001.

If anything, relations have in fact grown worse. In previous decades the wounds of war were no less deep but the neighbours enjoyed a sort of understanding about their respective places in the world. China was a heavyweight in geopolitics but an economic weakling. Japan was the opposite: an economic superpower, barred by its own constitution and historical guilt from playing any significant role in world affairs. But this division of labelling has been breaking down.

China is on the way to becoming an economic superpower: today it is China and no longer Japan that runs the world's biggest trade surplus with the United States. And Japan, which still has the world's second-largest economy, is no longer willing to be a second-class citizen in diplomacy. As a populous and rich democracy, a big contributor of foreign aid, the second-biggest contributor after America to the United Nations, and (within the limits imposed by its post-war constitution, which it has been flexible in reinterpreting) an increasingly active international peacekeeper, it believes it deserves a permanent seat in any enlarged Security Council.

And it is right. The UN's current archaic system gives permanent seats, and vetoes, to five countries and condemns everyone else, no matter how regionally powerful or active in international security, to an occasional two-year term. If permanent membership of the council is to be enlarged, as Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, says he would like it to be, Japan (along with India and Brazil) is a natural candidate by dint of population, standing and economic power. Germany has a strong case, too, though one complicated by the fact that the European Union would then have three permanent members. A case can also be made for a large African country such as South Africa or Nigeria, and perhaps an Arab one, such as Egypt. But what is absolutely plain is that to add India, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa or Egypt but to exclude Japan would not only constitute an egregious insult to the Japanese but also make a nonsense of the whole exercise.

Don't call the whole thing off

In which case, should the exercise be abandoned? That might be convenient to some. Countries such as Italy and Pakistan, dismayed by the prospect of neighbours and rivals taking places at the top table, are already complaining. Although America pays lip service to enlargement, it might welcome an excuse to stick with the present system?and China's exclusion of Japan would certainly provide one. But what a pity that would be. The UN system will never be perfect, but it can be improved to reflect the world more as it is today, not as it was at the end of the second world war more than half a century ago. The Japanese belong in an enlarged Security Council?not least so the Chinese come to understand that they cannot have everything their way in East Asia's future.