Having gone on a short break, I took the time to read Shackleton online accounts of his stay in Taiwan. As you know he is a New Zealand UN worker at the time.
One thing which strike me as odd in the book, in the acknowledgement his son thanks some Taiwanese people for digging up the book, which was never published, in the attic. This is a serious point for people in the book industry who might question if this book is a written by a ghost author. The son even goes on to admit Shackleton was not trained as a writer or historian. But letâs assume it is real and written shortly after Shackleton experiences on Taiwan.
The other point is that Shackleton is obviously a foreigner on Taiwan. He needs a translator to communicate with people. So it is hard to say how accurate his perception of events is without language ability. I would like to point to his âspeechâ given in front of the Chinese Hotel incident to disperse the mob. Not only does not specify what he says in English, but leaves the reader with the impression that it was all due to the effort of the translator. He was just the âbunglingâ master commonly characterized in literature.
But there are few points that support my view of WSR dying at the hands of BSR.
The whole hiding out of the Chinese hotel incident. It was obviously a BSR mob trying to kill a WSR police official.
Throughout the chapters reliving the riots, Shackleton implies because of fact he was not recognized as âAsianâ that kept him above the fray so to speak. If he had looked like his translator, I sure he would have been dead in the Chinese hotel incident.
I am curious to why Shackletonâs sidekick, the Chinese translator, is never approached for a book. It would seem the interpreter would have a more accurate account of the situation.
I would also like to see some Chinese sources (from both sides of the spectrum) on the 228 incident. I, too, believe that the minimal English sources are not enough to prove anything 100%, and that many things may have been misinterpreted by someone who wasnât familiar with the language, culture, or historical setting. BTW, I have read Kerr, and while it was interesting, heâs not what I would call a âhistorianâ in the academic sense of the word, and his research does not meet academic standards.
Thereâs hundreds out there. Go find them. Why not start with the original documents from the Taiwan Garrison Command and the Executive Administration Office? Readily available in good bookstores and published by the Taiwan Provincial Documents Committee (traditionally pan-blue) and the Academia Sinicaâs Institute of Modern History. Li Ao (no friend of the pan-greens) published some great stuff in the 1980s, and the Executive Yuan Report (Lai Tse-han ed.) is a cracking read. Plenty of bloodshed, more than enough primary sources.
I have read Kerr too, and I think you are setting the bar way too high. I would also challenge ANY âhistorianâ to publish a full and frank description of the 228 Incident in 1965, as only Kerr did (to the detriment of his career) when any attempt to do field work in Taiwan would have resulted in execution or a long stay on Green Island. Letâs be sensible, shall we?
As to the issue of deaths, even the most conservative government-sourced death tolls at the time indicated that BSR were the largest number killed. Taking a harder line than even those spin doctors is a real achievement. I would advise any person who doesnât want to cover himself in disgrace to think carefully before parroting 228-denial rubbish.
I asked to be pointed in the direction of source material in Chinese. I was not âparroting 228-denial rubbish.â So because I donât support the TIers (and as Iâve pointed out before donât support the pan-Blues either), Iâm automatically in denial of the 228 incident or disregard what happened? Iâm looking for facts, thatâs it.
I asked to be pointed in the direction of source material in Chinese. I was not âparroting 228-denial rubbish.â So because I donât support the TIers (and as Iâve pointed out before donât support the pan-Blues either), Iâm automatically in denial of the 228 incident or disregard what happened? Iâm looking for facts, thatâs it. [/quote]
The quote you object to was clearly directed at others in the thread and they richly deserve it. And I have given you a fairly generous list of references to start your search, which you would have got from nobody else in this forum, from what I can make out (I thought I was being constructive
I appreciate the references and will certainly check them out. However, I tend to believe that the âtruthâ will probably be found somewhere in between what both groups claim, as is usually the case in such politically sensitive issues.
[quote]But there are few points that support my view of WSR dying at the hands of BSR.
[/quote]
Iâm not disputing that some âWSRâ were killed. Itâs your ridiculous claimt hat the majority killed were âWSRâ that I take issue with. Show me a reliable source (on either side of the debate) which argues that the majority killed were not BSR.
If you have time to read Li Aoâs book âThe 2-28 You Donât Know,â he forwards that theory that many of those we died on Feb 2 to Mar 3 were recent immigrants from Fujian. These immigrants could speak minnan but could not speak Japanese.
The military action that resulted in the killing of BSR did not start happening till March 3.
Hence, 228 is commemorating the wrong ethnic group being killed. Like I mentioned the event has been politicized to such a point people are muddling up all the events leading up to the âWhite Terrorâ period.
The guy saved Peng Min-Ming. Hence, Li Ao is critical positive influence to the leadership of the DPP, not to mention the 1996 presidental race between the KMT and DPP.
Ahh AC youâre back with your grand theories again⌠like the earth being flatâŚ
Get some facts and not theoriesâŚ[/quote]
I only use the Earth being flat concept as an illustration of âsubjective truth,â a subject I broach in my study of Nietzsche. The German philosopher was attacking people of the âSocraticâ mind in the sense they were not willing to challenge the fundamentals of their own thinking, and give in to their âhumanâ nature, hence restricted by their own paradigm of âlogic.â In other words, he was illustrating flaws in what we commonly call the âmob mentalityâ or âgroup think.â
Like I mentioned, the theories I forwarded are usually theories forwarded by otherâs I have read. Li Aoâs argument is compelling. If you find my presentation of his argument less than compelling, I suggest you digest the original material and form your own opinion. The book is still in publication on Taiwan.
Read Li Aoâs book first. Once youâre done we can have a discussion. It took me a year to get through Kerr. Iâm a patient person.[/quote]
Youâre setting yourself up for a big fall, ac. Li Ao has published much more than one book on 228, and Iâm telling you, the other stuff doesnât back you up. The book you refer to is a grab-bag of single questions and answers aiming at the coffee table book market, and some of the answers refer to government sources that have since been shown to be unreliable.
The other problem is Li Aoâs books are all in Chinese. So please provide the page number for the benefit of those who canât read Chinese. People havenât got the time to go through a whole book looking for a reference to bolster your argument.
Was pretty radical for his time. His books love putting down the KMT.
Too my knowledge Iâm not aware of any other book that specifically covered the subject of 228.
[quote=âac_dropoutâ]
Too my knowledge Iâm not aware of any other book that specifically covered the subject of 228.[/quote]
So after 12 pages of discsussion, you finally admit that you havenât really read anything about 2-28. This should serve as evidence to everyone that getting into a discussion with AC is a waste of time. Heâll argue in circles without making any real, substantiated points, and then finally admit that he has been talking out of his ass the whole time. Thank you for coming clean, AC. :bravo:
He meant other books on the subject of 2/28 by Li Ao! Donât be an ass. He has clearly read more (and is more willing to read) sources about 2/28 than a majority of the posters here.
I go with what he wrote and not what other people think he might have meant, specially since he hasnât referenced anything other than one book by the prize pillock Li Ao, political gadfly or disingenuous obsfucator depending on your POV.
Plus of course, ac has a long, long history of talking out his arse.
Or you could go with what he wrote in context, namely the post directly above his to which he was responding. Simple things like that.
Of course, itâs easy to take pot shots at AC just because his views arenât comfortable for some people and because his humor, which exaggerates what TIers would say, isnât even understood as such by people brainwashed by TIers to such an extent that they canât even tell the difference!
The same people donât understand Li Aoâs biting comedy indicting Taiwanese society for the same reason.
Whatever. Iâd prefer to wait until he posts the references to the books on 228 that heâs read. So far we know heâs read Kerr and one (at least partially discredited) book by Li Ao.
Simple things like that.
Ahh AC youâre back with your grand theories again⌠like the earth being flat⌠Get some facts and not theoriesâŚ[/quote]
I only use the Earth being flat concept as an illustration of âsubjective truth,â a subject I broach in my study of Nietzsche. The German philosopher was attacking people of the âSocraticâ mind in the sense they were not willing to challenge the fundamentals of their own thinking, and give in to their âhumanâ nature, hence restricted by their own paradigm of âlogic.â In other words, he was illustrating flaws in what we commonly call the âmob mentalityâ or âgroup think.â
[/quote]
Damned if that description doesnât fit you to a tee AC⌠Youâve done well to recognize your own inbuilt design flawsâŚ
