Monday, October 6, 1997
Letters
Evil China?
"Utmost stupidity" are the only words I can use to describe the
subtitle of the article "Raising a War Ship" on Sept. 30.
This smaller title says: "Taiwan will soon be able to pay
tribute to Sun Yat-Sen at the site of their hard-won independence
from China."
Obviously, Meghan Ward did not write the title – she wrote a
very good story and explained very clearly any historical
background information with which we Americans aren’t necessarily
familiar. However, I am still searching for a clue from the story
that supports the mentioning of Taiwan’s "independence."
Taiwan (official name since 1949: Republic of China) never
claimed independence from China. To Beijing, the Republic of China
ceased to exist legally on October 1, 1949, when Mao Zedong
proclaimed the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The flag
flown in Taiwan today is, to the mainland/communist government, the
"former Chinese flag." To Taipei, the Chinese Communist Party
"stole" the country and illegally established a government, which
expelled Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government to exile on
Taiwan.
Both governments claim to be the sole legal government of all of
China. Upton-Knittle’s proposal seeking financial support from
Taiwan is simply because the great Dr. Sun Yat-Sen is, to the
Chinese people both in Taiwan and the Mainland, the "father of
Modern China."
The Bruin’s use of the words "Taiwan’s hard-won independence
from China" illustrates utmost ignorance about Chinese and Asian
affairs. Attaching the concept of evil to the word "China,"
regardless of whether it refers to the communist government or its
people, is despicable. If America ever engages in war with China,
the cause will surely be such ignorance on either or both
sides.
Cecil Ma
Fifth year, atmospheric sciences
Seek the truth
I am writing in response to Trina Enriquez’ article "Jews for
Jesus: Is It Really an Oxymoron?" (Oct. 1). I cannot say that I am
the least bit surprised at the ignorance portrayed in the article –
it can be seen every day on campus, at home, in lecture halls and
in life in general. I think there is a problem when someone can say
that they don’t know what something is about, but that it bothers
them (regarding a comment made in the article by a UCLA student).
Ignoring what one is bothered by is dangerous. People don’t want to
put in the effort to find out what something is or what it is about
before they decide for it or against it, but the best choice is
never made by choosing to be ignorant. Sure, it may take less work
and might even be more comfortable … for a little while.
I can hardly believe that I am the only one to be a little
disturbed by the comment made by Rabbi Cunin in the article. He
stated, "Jews for Jesus is out to destroy the Jewish people. In
America, they can’t get away with killing us physically, so they
pump millions of dollars into marketing to try to get Jewish people
to convert. They are interested in seeing the annihilation of the
Jewish people." Imagine in that sentence, if you will, the fear of
the Jewish people integrating into German society. Rabbi Cunnin
sounds to me like our fellow human Adolf Hitler. Hitler did not
empower himself. One man cannot kill 6 million people. He was
empowered by the ignorance of those around him who did not seek the
truth, but rather, were satisfied with a comfortable opinion that
they chose to believe was their own.
It is only when one is insecure about one’s own beliefs that he
or she would feel the need to spread anger, hatred and fear to
secure them. However, there is contradiction in that statement
alone, for belief is with and without doubt. To believe in
something is to feel its intensity with all the energy in the
universe. Wouldn’t questioning one’s own "belief" make those views
stronger? The fear of those beliefs being shattered are what keep
people from questioning. The grand question, then, is what are you
believing in?
In science, law, religion and life, those who seek the truth
will find it. The truth answers all questions that can possibly be
posed on the matter. Hate, anger and fear are needed to defend and
secure anything that is less. The trick is that all sides must be
questioned before arriving at the truth. So if you don’t know what
Jews for Jesus is about but you know that it bothers you, maybe
you’ll sleep a little easier at night if you knew. Or maybe you
won’t. It all depends on what you’re searching for.
Jane Sayegh
Third year, communication studies
She’s still here
I am not a "former professor of political science." I remain as
professor of political science at UCLA, a position I took up in
1990. I have no intention of resigning.
I made it very clear to your reporter in two conversations that
the events referred to happened (more or less as reported) at
another time, in another country, in another university. The fact
that The Bruin apparently does not know who is on the faculty at
its own university and prints such reports about events that never
happened at UCLA, is an outrageous abrogation of your
responsibilities as a newspaper.
Carole Pateman
Professor of political science
Editor’s Note: A correction was published on Oct. 1. The Bruin
sincerely regrets the error.