Commemorate 228: But What are We Commemorating?

Commemorate 228: But What are We Commemorating?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 27, 2009

It's 228 again, i.e., February 28, the anniversary of the 228 Incident of 1947. This is the Ma administration's first 228. President Ma has ordered the 228 Foundation's 1.5 billion NT budget unfrozen, and plans drawn up for a national grade memorial hall.

Ma Ying-jeou feels bound by a deep sense of "original sin." His heartfelt desire to admit wrongdoing and apologize for 228 is palpable. Alas, he has never offered a balanced and objective assessment of 228. Meanwhile the Green Camp's calculated hate-mongering has ripped society apart. It has absolutely no intention of getting to the truth of the 228 Incident.

The 228 Incident is a political Gordian Knot, primarily because the truth has not been established. The ruling and opposition parties have remained bound by a variety of false and discredited explanations. Each side has its own prejudices. Each maintains its own position. Without a truthful explanation of 228, how can we commemorate 228?

Let's examine several explanations for the 228 Incident. One. The KMT's explanation. Initially the KMT considered 228 taboo. The KMT's explanation has been revised repeatedly. For example, Chinese Communists and Taiwan Communists took part in the 228 Incident, They were the best organized and most effective fighting force. But the KMT considered this part of the historical record taboo. It was afraid to lump Chinese Communists and Taiwan Communists together with the people of Taiwan. Over the past two decades, Lee Teng-hui tried to reestablish the historical facts. But because he himself was a part of the reunification vs. independence struggle, he too failed to lead the public out of this spiritual prison. Now Ma Ying-jeou is in office. He is the product of 228 reconciliation. But as mentioned earlier, although Ma earnestly seeks reconciliation, he lacks the ability to get at the truth.

Two. Beijing's explanation. From the beginning Beijing has viewed the 228 Incident as an extension of the civil war between the KMT and the CCP. It claims that mainland Chinese Communists and Taiwan Communists stood united, and constituted the main force of the 228 resistance army. Beijing commemorated the 228 Incident each year. Only when it was recast as an "ethnic" struggle over reunification vs. independence, did Beijing's commemoration of the event become more low-keyed, or even cease.

Three. The "228 Victim's Families" explanation. The death of their relatives cut them to the quick. It is natural for them to feel wronged and to want revenge. Over the past 60 years some have found peace. But others remain caught up in their grief. This has led to a variety of explanations. Today these rank among the chief explanations for 228.

Four. The "375 Landlords and Japanese Imperial Subjects" explanation. Workers' and peasants' class consciousness during Japanese occupation was one of the pillars of the opposition movement. Two large organizations, the Cultural Association and the Farmers Cooperative were socialist oriented. Their protests were an important part of the 228 incident. The KMT government disappointed the public. Elderly sharecroppers experienced hardship and anxiety. Taiwan Retrocession failed to imbue the public with a feeling of genuine citizenship. Ironically, over the past several decades, most of the political spin on the 228 Incident has been orchestrated by descendants of 375 landlords and Japanese Imperial Subjects. They have exploited resentments arising from 228 in order to exact revenge on behalf of 375 landlords and Japanese Imperial Subjects. How can their explanations of 228 not lead to distortions of the truth?

The most influential explanation of the incident, and also the most distorted explanation, is the Taiwan Independence or DPP explanation. This explanation asserts that the 228 Incident was an anti-KMT movement, an anti-mainlander movement, an anti-China movement, therefore it is a Taiwan independence movement. It has linked Taiwan independence to the 228 Incident. From an historical and factual perspective, this "explanation" is sheer fabrication. It has no basis in reality. In 1947, when the 228 Incident erupted, Taiwan independence was not even an issue. Commemoration of the 228 Incident today hardly requires advocacy of Taiwan independence. One. This distorted explanation of the historical reality of 228 eradicates or downplays the role of the Chinese Communists in 228. It drops the civil war between the KMT and CCP down the memory hole. Two. The Taiwan independence movement denies the Chinese Communists any role in the 228 Incident. It blanks out the class consciousness of workers and peasants during the 228 Incident. Descendants of 375 landlords and Japanese Imperial Subjects would later arrogate to themselves the right to interpret the 228 Incident. This is why to this day the Democratic Progressive Party remains a phony champion of socialism.

The moral of the 228 Incident is that incompetent rule harms the people. It forces them to rebel. But the specific reasons are complex and varied. Naturally our analysis of the various explanations is much too sketchy. Besides, more explanations of 228 have been offered. We merely wish to stress that each explanation is custom tailored, hence defective. That is why we must seek a comprehensive explanation, a true explanation. To ask people to commemorate 228 in the absence of a true explanation, a full explanation, is to ask people to kowtow before false idols fabricated by political charlatans.

In commemorating 228, we must reject the notion that of "mainlanders" are somehow riddled with "Original Sin," or that we must overthrow the Republic of China. This is not a truthful explanation of 228. Only a false explanation of 228 demands "ethnic" strife and Taiwan independence. In order to commemorate 228, isn't it necessary to first establish the facts surrounding 228?

Merely bowing and scraping and apologizing, without telling the whole story, will merely add fuel to the fire. It will merely play into continuing efforts to incite hatred. It will not establish the truth.

紀念二二八，但全貌真相是什麼？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.27 03:56 am

又到二二八。這是馬政府的第一個二二八，馬總統指示，二二八基金會預算總額十五億元解凍，並研籌「國家級」紀念館。

馬英九深受「原罪感」的綑縛，他對二二八認錯道歉的心意可感，卻迄無能力為二二八建立一個平衡的全論述；相對而言，綠營的政治操作，則以累積仇恨與撕裂社會為能事，亦迄無意願為二二八建立一個真論述。

二二八迄今仍是一個難解的政治繩結，主要是因二二八的真論述及全論述迄未建立，朝野始終陷於各種偽論述及殘論述之中，各懷成見、各執一詞所致。但若不能為二二八建立一個全論述及真論述，如何紀念二二八？

以下略論二二八的各種版本。先說國民黨版：最早，國民黨視二二八為禁忌，其用於政治操作的版本亦多經剪裁。僅舉一例，二二八事件中，中共與台共頗具角色，可謂是最具組織及武鬥最慘烈的勢力，但國民黨視此一部分史實為忌諱，唯恐將中共台共劃成與台灣人民同一邊。至近二十年來，李登輝雖曾嘗試還原史實，卻因後來自陷於統獨族群鬥爭，遂亦未能帶領國人走出心靈困境；及至馬英九出線，本即是二二八和解的產物，但如前所述，馬雖「和」意甚誠，卻似仍缺「解」的能力。

再說北京的版本：北京自始即將二二八視為國共鬥爭的延伸戰線。自認中共及台共非但站在台灣人民的統一戰線，且是二二八反抗義軍的主力。北京往昔年年大事紀念二二八，直至台灣內部的二二八論述轉向統獨族群內鬥，倡獨反統，北京的紀念活動始趨低調，甚至停息。

此外，亦有「二二八受難者家屬」的版本：由於親人死難，椎心刺骨，自有雪冤復仇的情愫；六十餘年來，有些人的思考尋得昇華，但有些人仍深陷傷痛，於是形成各種論述，如今亦是二二八的重要版本。另有「三七五地主及皇民」的版本：工農階級意識是日據時代政治反對運動的一大支柱。兩大組織，文化協會及農民組合，皆具社會主義色彩；因而，此類抗議思想亦是台灣民間在二二八事件中的重要內涵。換句話說，二二八事件當年，國民黨政府所以令人民失望，其中亦有老佃儂的愁苦與既光復卻仍沒有「真國民感」的悲憤。諷刺的是，此後數十年來，二二八的論述，卻是由三七五地主及皇民後裔勢力所主導，標舉二二八的仇怨，其實是為三七五地主及皇民復仇；這樣的二二八論述，如何能不扭曲？

對二二八事件影響最大卻亦是最扭曲的版本，則是台獨版或民進黨版。此版二二八論述的主體是：二二八→反國民黨→反外省人→反中國→所以要台獨。將二二八與台獨聯結，就史實論，根本是杜撰偽造，在現實上亦無邏輯可言。在二二八當年，台獨絕非主題；如今紀念二二八，亦不必然就應主張台獨。簡略而言，此一版本扭曲了二二八的二大史實：一、抹去或淡化中共台共在二二八的角色，使國共內戰的主線消失。二、因台獨諱言中共台共在二二八的角色，遂使二二八的工農階級意識未能凸顯，嗣後更被三七五地主及皇民之後裔主導了二二八的詮釋權；這亦是民進黨迄今仍是一個「偽社會主義者」的原因。

二二八的主體是失政傷民、官逼民反；但其錯綜複雜的內外因素，亦是經緯萬端。當然，此處對各種版本的解析太過簡略，且二二八亦不止這幾種版本而已；在此想要強調的是，各種版本均有剪裁、均有缺陷，所以必須設法建立一個全版本、真版本。若無真版本、全版本，卻謂要紀念二二八，那豈不是要叫人們向騙徒政客製造的偽神假廟磕頭頂禮？

紀念二二八，就要聲討外省人的「原罪」，就要推翻中華民國，這不是真版本；紀念二二八，就要撕裂族群，就要主張台獨，這也是偽論述。談紀念二二八，難道不應首先還原二二八的全貌真相嗎？

只會鞠躬道歉，不是全版本；只會挑撥仇恨，更不是真版本。