splash
[quote=“v”]cctang said: But I find it odd that, again, BSRs are heavily represented in the higher ranks of the KMT itself if “smart, young BSR after 228” were uniformly in the field of medicine. So, explain that to me. How did Lee Tung-hui (born in 1923) Wang Jynping (born in 1941) avoid systematic murder and rise to their positions in the KMT?
v asks: who has the knowledge to answer this question?[/quote]
hmm jinping was six at the time…maybe the bullets went over 'is 'ead!!
i think the answer is they were brought into the party when jing-guo began the process of localization…remember deng-hui was himself a member of the offshore independence movement while at cornell…
What does this prove except that the KMT cant do a darn thing right and thoroughlike.
dwaeg
[quote=“v”]cctang said: But I find it odd that, again, BSRs are heavily represented in the higher ranks of the KMT itself if “smart, young BSR after 228” were uniformly in the field of medicine. So, explain that to me. How did Lee Tung-hui (born in 1923) Wang Jynping (born in 1941) avoid systematic murder and rise to their positions in the KMT?
v asks: who has the knowledge to answer this question?[/quote]
According to Wikipedia:
三年后，他于1946年返国，转学进入台湾大学农业经济系就读，并于1949年毕业。1947年的二二八事件发生的时候，他是台大二年级的学生。
In 1946, LTH returned to Taiwan (from Japan) and entered Taiwan University’s agricultural economics department, graduating in 1949. During 228, he was a sophomore/second-year student at TU.
During 228 itself, he was actually an active member of the Communist Party of China. He later withdrew, rejoined, and ultimately withdrew in again 1948. Finally, in 1950, he applied and joined the KMT… 3 years after 228, and many decades before CCK did anything.
[quote=“cctang”][quote=“v”]cctang said: But I find it odd that, again, BSRs are heavily represented in the higher ranks of the KMT itself if “smart, young BSR after 228” were uniformly in the field of medicine. So, explain that to me. How did Lee Tung-hui (born in 1923) Wang Jynping (born in 1941) avoid systematic murder and rise to their positions in the KMT?
v asks: who has the knowledge to answer this question?[/quote]
According to Wikipedia:
三年后，他于1946年返国，转学进入台湾大学农业经济系就读，并于1949年毕业。1947年的二二八事件发生的时候，他是台大二年级的学生。
In 1946, LTH returned to Taiwan (from Japan) and entered Taiwan University’s agricultural economics department, graduating in 1949. During 228, he was a sophomore/second-year student at TU.
During 228 itself, he was actually an active member of the Communist Party of China. He later withdrew, rejoined, and ultimately withdrew in again 1948. Finally, in 1950, he applied and joined the KMT… 3 years after 228, and many decades before CCK did anything.[/quote]
thats fascinating isnt it? he was a member of the CPC and if im not mistaken attended independence activities in USA…how indeed did he manage to become president? and what was jiang jing-guo thinking? there must have been other BSR available to be a “puppet” leader (if that was the plan)
I’m sure there’s LTH’s own version of how he “managed” this, and other peoples version.
But from what I understand, his association with “independence activities” while at Cornell was very cursory. As in, he was friends/associates with some involved in TI movements, but this was enough to get him questioned by the ROC’s security forces. This experience supposedly was key in pushing him further in the TI direction.
By the way… all of this puts a different perspective on the position that: “oppression by the mainland CCP is the modern equivalent of 228 under the KMT”, doesn’t it? Lee Tung-hui was actually a member of the CCP before/during/after 228. Being a member of the CCP wasn’t like joining the Rotary Club or some other honor organization for purposes of future career advancement. Joining the CCP was subversive activity that would’ve led to a bullet in the back of his head, if he had ever been discovered.
I’m sure there’s LTH’s own version of how he “managed” this, and other peoples version.
But from what I understand, his association with “independence activities” while at Cornell was very cursory. As in, he was friends/associates with some involved in TI movements, but this was enough to get him questioned by the ROC’s security forces. This experience supposedly was key in pushing him further in the TI direction.
By the way… all of this puts a different perspective on the position that: “oppression by the mainland CCP is the modern equivalent of 228 under the KMT”, doesn’t it? Lee Tung-hui was actually a member of the CCP before/during/after 228. Being a member of the CCP wasn’t like joining the Rotary Club or some other honor organization for purposes of future career advancement. Joining the CCP was subversive activity that would’ve led to a bullet in the back of his head, if he had ever been discovered.[/quote]
i cant help thinking he’s a man after Machiavelli’s own heart…i was present at the speech he gave a few years ago where he called the KMT a foreign occupying force in Taiwan…(happen to agree with this but thats neither here nor there)…there are probably few other leaders in the world who have jumped ship in such a spectacular fashion… he has his own explanation for his aboutface but at the end of the day I doubt there is much moral component to his politics…just an opportunist with a degree of personal charisma and the luck to be in the right place at the right time…
Well Chiang Ching Kuo got funny politics too. Only his brand of communism was the Soviet model before the Soviet put their support behind the Chinese Communists. Got himself a Russian wife too. This wasnt talked about so much as that he was the son to Chiang Kai Shek. And lao Chiang needed a successor to the throne. There was a bastard Chiang somewhere who its said resembled Kai Shek much more so than Ching Kuo and was foisted on a family friend…
In the old Republic of China, its not so much political ideas but family that was the main determinant.
Now because the KMT got their asses kicked and booted out of the mainland by the Communists, people confuse KMT’s anti communist stances with its being on the opposite end of the political spectrum. While in reality its just a slightly different version of what its nemesis represented. Statist monopolists. Leftists through and through, for those label conscious. Only until the latter years under xiao Chiang was there some sort of easing up of the state control of individual freedom and national resources and industries. The only major difference at least in the earlier years post 1949 was that ROC got international support and recognition during an heightened era of anti Communist struggles, which also somehow reinforced the illusion of a Free China. Part of the free world and all.
Given its history, its therefore not that much surprising to see both parties come into some kind of cooperative partnership once again. Its certainly qualifies as an improvement for Taiwan as far as political openness is concerned that KMT members can now openly flaunt their CCP connection and mainland junkets with impunity. And get applauded for their efforts towards achieving peace across the strait instead of that proverbial bullet in the back of their head as traitors.
splice
sfwe
Just Li Ao from what I’ve read. He wants to call it 302, for the day WSR actually started killing BSR, prior to 302 he claims it was BSR killing WSR.
Rumor has it he became a KMT collaborated and informed on known Japanese sympathizers within his rank, since his family was well received by the Japanese during the colonial days.
The turning point in his stance was really after when the PRC and USA snub that forced him stay on his airplane in Hawaii while re-supplying to his final destination in South American. After that incident he pursued his aggenda with a renew zeal.
What’s there to deny about 228? I’m sure there was a rebellion (filled with indiscriminate killing) and oppression (filled with indiscriminate killing) in response. That was status quo throughout China. College student activists had been executed in China for decades before 1947.
It’s easy to want to put a convenient label on events, but the truth is rarely that simple. If you really want to find an analogue, take a look at what’s happening in Iraq today. Who’s really “at fault”? Was it Saddam, the United States, the Sunni insurgents, or the Shiite death-squads? Don’t Sunni insurgents have the right to fight for the independence and sovereignty of their nation? Don’t Shiite death-squads have the right to defend their people? Doesn’t the United States have the right to defend her borders and interests from hostile extremists?
Everyone involved has their own moral outrage and their own revenge motivations. The ones who ultimately win will get to write history.
sdf
Huh, where did he justify genocide and mass murder? The only thing I could see is that nothing is simple like black and white.
Of course, there is evidence that BSR were killing WSR too for 228. Of course, the TI’er don’t seem to be too concerned about that. And, please don’t make any argument about who killed more. Wouldn’t want to justify murder, would you. :no-no:
er
[quote=“almondcookie”][quote=“LA”]
don’t you shake your fingers at me. and how would arguing about numbers murdered be justifying murder!!! bad arguing yes, but “bad” and “worse”…? wouldn’t be justification of “bad” itself at all.[/quote][/quote]
Not sure what you are jiving. Murder: “bad,” “worse,” justification… 
aha
Oh no, you are not justifying “incredibly incredibly incredibly incredibly bad” murder, because it is not “incredibly incredibly incredibly incredibly incredibly incredibly bad” murder?
Say it isn’t sooooooooooooooooooo. 
I don’t think you read very well. What justification of murder was there? 228 was one in a long series of indiscriminate, illegal killing (call it murder if you’d like) by Chinese of Chinese after 4 decades of non-stop civil war.
Again, the parallels to Iraq should be obvious here. Of the hundreds killed in Iraq every month… which ones are being “murdered”, and who’s guilty of their murder?