And as Tim said above, this is what’s really “disingenous”: pretending that poor ole uncle Chiang is the “victim” here, and not, in fact, the demon. He was a fascist thug and a villain to both the Taiwanese and the Chinese, and when people are blinded by their loyalty to China to directly admit it we have a problem. Hell, rationalizing CKS’ reign of terror on Taiwan isn’t even something the KMT is willing to do, um, yet.

Furthermore, most people don’t get gigantic, mausoleum-style memorial halls named after them or have their bodies placed in sarcophagi.

You say that “it’s fine to hold CKS accountable for all the bad things he did,” but when someone does exactly that, you leap to his defense. What gives?

Imagine if, at the end of World War II, the Chinese Nationalist Party did what they were supposed to and actually protected Taiwan instead of stealing all of its resources, destroying so many things, killing so many people, imposing martial law, murdering politicians’ families, and continuing their Gestapo-like behavior right up to the present day.

Imagine if, in April of 1980, the Chinese Nationalist Party government had lifted martial law 7 years early, reformed their party, and in place of the memorial to their party deity (read the KMT history books which do deify the pitiful excuse for a human being) built a memorial to the “little people” who suffered under their cruel regime. Where would Taiwan be today in the face of a bullying neighbor who aspires to wrongfully take power? Instead of building a new nation, the Chinese KMT clung to their old, defunct one, just like Norman Bates did with his long-dead mother in the Alfred Hitchcock thriller Psycho.

To “confront[] the alternative” without seeing the demon that was CKS — that would be a better candidate for the “disingenuous” category. While some people fight for freedom and democracy, why do others defend dead authoritarians?

As I said in my earlier comment, it is quite normal for democratic countries to remove memorials to former dictators. Conversely, I find it quite odd for people (e.g., you) from democratic countries to be defending the continued adoration of these cruel figures.

Tim Maddog

Point four that I made above is what I think is the most important thing. The moral gravity of an act is not diminished simply because someone, somewhere else did or might have done something worse. You seem to think my argument is disingenuous. Our views are completely at odds here. It makes discussion difficult.

my own brief response:

1. yes, there are still CKS supporters, mostly old-timers like this guy. That doesn’t rise to the level of deification, however. And in fact, that old man raises the same point: where would Taiwan be now if not for CKS (even more so, his son CCK)? The icons I saw in a Taoist temple are interesting, but don’t represent deification either-the icons are placed well in the rear, and are not the main objects of worship-just low level bureaucrats in the Celestial realm.

2. I have to disagree on this point. The CCP considered Taiwan an integral part of China-this was one area in which it was in total agreement with the KMT. If there had been no CKS on Taiwan, with a fully-equipped army, I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the PLA would’ve arrived in Taiwan sometime in the summer/fall of 1949. The Taiwanese had no army. There would have been little, if any, initial resistance.

3. 100 miles of ocean would not have stopped the PLA. Logistically, its invasion of Tibet posed far more difficult challenges. So did Xinjiang. The PLA went to those places regardless. And remember, the only reason the PLA didn’t take Jinmen (Taiwan was next, btw) is precisely due to CKS and the KMT army. So without CKS, who would’ve defended Taiwan?

4. The point I’m making here is that sure it’s fine to hold CKS accountable for all the bad things he did. No one denys them. But he did not exist in a vacuum. If CKS was not on this island, Mao would’ve been. So the question then becomes, with what we know of events on the PRC in the 1950s and 1960s, and how the PRC deals with dissent of all types even today, how should the Taiwanese evaluate CKS’s legacy?

To demonize CKS without confronting the alternative is disingenuous, in my book.

1. Regarding those who consider CKS as a god you need look no further than this photo or this one. Prince Roy, you have even blogged on CKS being given an “entry-level positions in the Taoist heavenly bureaucracy!”.

2. Who knows where Taiwan would be today if CKS and the KMT hadn’t landed upon its shores? However, there is absolutely no reason why it couldn’t have become an independent democratic state. The Taiwanese were quite capable of managing their own affairs and determining what their future should be.

3. More than 100 miles of ocean would have done a pretty good job of stopping the PLA. The PLA was never able to capture Jinmen. What hope would it have had of capturing Taiwan?

4. I don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make when you say, “Compare and contrast CKS’ White Terror with what Mao’s response would have been to the events that led to 2/28.” Are you trying to say White Terror under Mao would have been even more terrible? I really don’t think making these kinds of comparisons are a good idea as they tend to create a notion that some groups of peoples’ suffering was worse than others. Disappearings, arbitrary detentions, executions and a climate of fear are terrible things in any country in under any leader.

What or who would have stopped the PLA? Truman had already written CKS off, and if not for the Korean War, Taiwan would likely look very different today.

It’s a legitimate question. Compare and contrast CKS’ White Terror with what Mao’s response would have been to the events that led to 2/28.

To “Guest from America” it is not about erasing history. It is about presenting a version of history which is closer to reality rather than the ridiculous fantasy of CKS as God which some people still seem to believe.

What happened here was the removal of a memorial which glorified a dictator — a perfectly normal thing to do. If the history books don’t talk about Chiang, blame that on those who still worship him.

BTW, the thing about “if it wasn’t for him” sounds exactly like a fake KMT talking point.

On Thanksgiving, I’m not sure what your point is, but have a look at this video.

Tim Maddog