HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "(John Cornett)" <library@SUNSPOT.SUNSPOT.NOAO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re-Transmit Letter to Akihito
Reply-To: "(John Cornett)" <library@SUNSPOT.SUNSPOT.NOAO.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:22:34 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu, XIAOJIAN@ccit.arizona.edu

Mr. Deng has brought up a statement which I believe may leave some U.S. people
very puzzled and surprised. The statement is that democracy and free press
already existed in Japan before the Rape of Nanjing, but that didn't stop the
outrage from occurring.

It is my understanding that Axis nations did have democratic elements before
World War II, both Germany and also Japan. However, Adolph Hitler as a young
man often watched Parliamentary debate in Vienna, Austria, and decided then
that he despised democracy. He thought it was too weak and indecisive. He wanted
a system in which people do not control government, but in which a small core
of elites control people. That is why, when brought to office, he completely
demolished democracy, and those democratic principles were not to be seen
again until after the fall of National Socialism.

In Japan, the Militarists decided that the democratic ideas were "Un-Japanese",
that with democratic principles, the economy could not develop and Japan could
not become a great country. Instead of the sleazy politician and businessman,
the new ideal was the frugal, selfless soldier. So rather than developing
democratic values in Japan, the idea was killed in favor of National Socialism.

As I understand it, both Japan and Germany, then, launched a system like this:
the press was not free, it was controlled by the Party; there was a Ministry
of Propaganda which had the purpose of elevating the Party, and shaming those
who dissented from Party policies. There was a network of secret police, of
informers, of kangaroo courts, and political prisons. In Germany, there were
camps for such unworthy people with the motto "Work Will Make You Free".

Free thought and free expression was not allowed, as I understand it, unless
one happened to agree with the leadership. Rather than the people hearing
from all sides on an issue, discussing the issues freely, and choosing
their leadership; the core of leaders controlled the people, and taught them
how to think.

If this is true, then I take issue with Mr. Deng. I believe the systems of
government at the time of the Rape of Nanjing, both in Japan and in Germany,
were very undemocratic. I also believe true democracy, in Germany and in Japan,
would have avoided not only The Rape of Nanjing, but also World War II as well.

I blame not the people of Germany or Japan, not the race, not the cultures.
I blame the system. I believe the people need to have a say in their society,
and that leadership needs to be afraid of the people, not the people to be
afraid of the leadership, and controlled in how to think by them. People are
not cattle, they are intelligent, they can be trusted; and can greatly help
their society greatly, if given a chance.

My apologies for length of this article.

John Cornett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ping@summit.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Ping Ding)
Subject: Re: CSS in USA maybe become SCRAP HEAP in the future China
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 20:08:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <yzhou.718562403@void> yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joe Y. Zhou)  
writes:
> zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin) writes:
> 
> >  Good article.  I would like to see more of these kinds presenting  
other side
> >of opinions about the protection bill, especially those who are not  
linked to
> >it ( CSS in Japan, Canada, Australian for instances).
>                    ~~~~~~~~
>   I was told that CSS in Canada have got a similar bill passed right  
after 6.4.
>   Can anyone confirm this?  
>   
> 
>   joe
yes, you are right.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: lwang@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au ()
Subject: Re: china attacks U.S. bill protecting Chinese students
Originator: lwang@esk
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 12:21:14 GMT


In the article titled "China Attacks U.S. bill protecting Chinese students"
in today's clari.news.gov.international:
 

The foreign ministry spokeman (for PRCG) said:
	``It has been indicated on many occasions that no matter what their
political attitudes were, they are welcomed to return to work for the
socialist construction of the country and will be properly resettled,''

Yes. I like to return to work for the construction of the country(e.g. China),
but I would not work for a construction if it is socialist.

Luo Wang
 
from Australia

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: klg7058@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ke  Liao)
Subject: Re: Should IFCSS sue Shannon Yeh?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:21:46 GMT

yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joe Y. Zhou) writes:

>What Shanoon Yeh has done in misc.jobs.*** is against equal opportunity
>and is prohibited by law. I urge IFCSS to protect CSS's rights and take
>this guy to court.


>joe
       AGREE.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "J. Cen [404] 727-4676" <PHSJJC@EMRYCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Forward: Shen Tong? (II)
Reply-To: "J. Cen [404] 727-4676" <PHSJJC@EMRYCC.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:55:00 GMT

Dear Netters:

        Now matter what everyone thinks of Shen Tong, it's undeniable that
the arrests of him and the democracy activists he visited are gross violations
of basic human rights.  To press for their immediate release, the Aliance of
Hong Kong Chinese in the United States (AHKCUS) sent the following letter
to Li Peng shortly after the arrests.

James J. Cen
Emory University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:     Mon Sep 07, 1992 11:25 pm  EST
From:     Stephen Kam-Cheung Ng
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: skn1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu

TO:     * Asia America Investment, Inc. / MCI ID: 298-6692
TO:       Simon Wu / MCI ID: 506-7101
TO:       members
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: members@ahkcus.org
Subject:  Letter for Shen Tong

[Comments Deleted]

                                                September 5, 1992

Premier Li Peng
People's Republic of China
Beijing
China


Dear Premier Li Peng,

    The Alliance of Hong Kong Chinese in the United States protest in the
strongest terms the recent detention of Chinese citizens Shen Tong, Qi
Dafeng, and Qian Liyun by the Public Security Bureau of Beijing.

    The constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees Chinese
citizens the freedoms of association and expression.  We have reason to
believe that Shen Tong, Qi Dafeng, and Qian Liyun were detained for their
exercise of these freedoms.  Their detention exposes once again the
continuY2 8Y..W{on of individuals for their political belief and severe
abuse of human rights in China.

    We demand the immediate and unconditional release of these three
citizens as well as all other political prisoners, including but not
limited to Wei Jingshen, Wang Juntao, Chen Zimeng, Liu Gang, and Ran
Wanding.  All Chinese citizens should be treated fairly and equally before
the law.  We strongly deplore any selective application of justice.



Yours sincerely,



Stephen K. Ng, MD
Chairperson
-----------------------------TO BE CONTINUED------------------------------
From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Taiwanese Government Is Not Only Selfish ... Re: TW News 16/9/92
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:44:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.china
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <81138@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
> 
> As for the example of Russia, does anyone believe that the Russians
> would not now trade their freedom for the first person who offers them
> bread?
> 
> 

	** I like this comment. Actually, the Bible implies that 
	   they will.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: IFCSS HQ NR-4052:  Situation Analysis and Strategy
From: xli@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:33:04 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

In article <BvrIFq.MKu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU> writes:
> **************************************************************
> IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 4052       October 7, 1992
>              SITUATION ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY
> **************************************************************
> Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
>    733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
>          Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
>                 Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu
> 
> 
>              Situation Analysis and Strategy
>              ==============================
			.
			.> 
>      The question should be in this line:
> 
>      "The Congress has passed a Chinese Student Protection Act
> which is waiting for your approval. According to staffers in the
> White House, the bill has cleared all administrative reviews and
> is waiting for your signature. Your staffers also said that you
> will sign the bill. My question^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^
> is: When are you going to sign the bill?"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HI there,
	It is critical now for the Bill and it is good for CSS to catch some
chance to make the President attention.
	However, the question asking must be gentle because there is no any
opposite symbol that he won't sign the Bill. As I see, the sentence I marked
above is not very good for asking. It may cause the opposite reaction because
the decision will be made by him and he knows what his staffs thinks. We can't
make the impression that his staff agree so that he should agree.
	Cross everybody's fingers!
X.Li 
>      We hope to get a definite "yes" or "no" answer from Bush
> in front of millions of TV viewers. If we can get some words
> from him directly, we can decide tomorrow what to do in the next
> several days.
> 
>      Please call the HQ if you have any potential candidate who
> can help us in this project.
> 
>      Thanks for the cooperation.
> 
> 
> ***************************************************************
>          IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
> ***************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: MSZHANG@SUNRISE.BITNET
Subject:      Many thanks to IFCSS HQ and CCSA
Reply-To: MSZHANG@SUNRISE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:40:00 GMT

The CSS lobby task force at Syracuse would like to express our gratitute
to IFCSS HQ and CCSA headed by Dr. Zhao, Haiqing for their great efforts
in lobbying S1216. Also we are trying to trying to use this oppurtunity
to collect more donations to support future work of IFCSS and CCSA.

Syracuse S1216 lobbying task force
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU
Subject:      Reforward message
Reply-To: JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:41:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt%uga.cc.uga.edu@USC.EDU, ifcss%wam.umd.edu@USC.EDU

From:	IN%"JUENKUNG%RAMOTH.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU"  7-OCT-1992 02:24:03.90
To:	IN%"CCNL%UTARLVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU"  "Multiple recipients of list CCNL"
CC:
Subj:	RE: I think it is not a good idea to call Bush on Larry king

Return-path: <@VM.USC.EDU:CCNL@UTARLVM1.BITNET>
Received: from VM.USC.EDU by ramoth.usc.edu (PMDF #12519) id
 <01GPNFYNOROGAC5AC8@ramoth.usc.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:23 PST
Received: from VM.USC.EDU by VM.USC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3034;
 Wed, 07 Oct 92 02:22:54 PDT
Received: from USCVM.BITNET by VM.USC.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 7609;
 Wed, 07 Oct 92 02:22:54 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:21:00 PST
From: JUENKUNG%RAMOTH.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU
Subject: RE: I think it is not a good idea to call Bush on Larry king
To: Multiple recipients of list CCNL <CCNL%UTARLVM1.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU>
Reply-to: JUENKUNG%RAMOTH.BITNET@VM.USC.EDU
Message-id: <01GPNFYNOROGAC5AC8@ramoth.usc.edu>
Comments: To: LI%U.WASHINGTON.EDU@USC.EDU
Comments: cc: ccnl@utarlvm1.bitnet

        I agree with Li's point, i.e., don't ask about S1216 on Larry
King's show.
        On Sept.8, US president G. Bush had an interview with the delegation
of American university students for his re-election campain. The first question
raised by the student delegates was:"College students now more than ever are
concerned about getting a job when they graduate. What, during your second
term, do you plan to do to improve students' chances of getting a job when
they graduate and make sure their college investment will pay off?"

        I cite the above news just for CSS's reference.
        I am not saying that the American students are sure against S1216,
since we all have seen that it was American students who innitiated the resure
Shen Tong's rally one week ago at Boston! I was deeply impressed! Now, whenever
I go to the lab to teach, I feel those American students who are watching and
listening to me are so different, they are no longer boys and girls who always
make lots of parties and noisy mucic around my apartment, they know more than
that, they care about Shen Tong, one of their Chinese fellow students!

        I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words to Shen Tong
even though this is behind him: Shen Tong, your heroic deeds, i.e., visit home
AND SPEAK OUT under China's constitution, not only again raised the world's
attention toward the human rights in China, but also provide a big push
to the 1992 Chinese Student Protection Bill! You lost freedom, yet more
people have a better chance to gain liberty. Your name will not only remain
in Senater Gonton's speech to the US senate, but will also remain in your
fellow CSS who might be benefited from S1216. ...

        May God bless Shen Tong!

        My God bless the red(courage), the blue(justice) and the white(truth)
on the flag of the United States of Amerca!

Thank you for your attention!

J.K. at Los Angeles, California.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang)
Subject: Re: CSS in USA maybe become SCRAP HEAP in the future China
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:28:55 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yidao@cae.wisc.edu (Yidao Cai)
Subject: Re: (none)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:48:52 CDT

In article <1992Oct12.183106.11235@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>In article <Bw0t68.BE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Weimin Shen <SHEN@JUNO.PHYSICS.WISC.EDU> writes:
>>
>
>	This is what you should do: hurry up and get a green card. Five years
>after that you'll get U.S. citizenship, and then you can get green cards for
>all your family members. Once they get over here, they'll never have this
>problem again. In fact, eventually we can get everybody in China a green
                                              ***********
Then US would start to have this kind of problems.  

>card. This is definitely the best way to solve these sorts of problems in
>China.
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: esh1@cec2.wustl.edu (Edmond Siu-kei Hui)
Subject: Re: (FWD) Response to Shannon Yeh
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:11:55 GMT

In article <Bvv6Mx.FxH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> tang@riemann.math.purdue.edu (Puqi Tang) writes:
>b. The American uphold its banner of freedom and democracy. The U.S is a great
>country not only because of its power, but also the loyal belief. 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah,Ah,Ah! What power, power to conquest the mother nature?
          What belief, belief to against the GOD they claim to trust?

>here, where people are used to different opinions, and open to them, it won't 

He perhaps is dirty. But you are either too innocent or a asskisser.
Try to tell your American friend that you are a communist and see how
they react! Ask them to read a book from Marx and give them some cultural
shock! 

>Let me tell you this--- my parents worked so hard and they contributed greatly
>to the society as succeful , well known scientists. However, they are paid only
>160 Yan, plus several yan for hair-cutting. Well, as Marx analyzed---where is 
>the rest of the value they created?   It is contributed to the society. In 

So, what's the big deal? My grandfather is a honest small landlord in China.
He definitly pay more "TAX" to government than your well-known parents.
Is 40 Yan too much for him to be a land-manager? I guss people who didn't
have a PHD just can't be your boss, right? I hope you won't have a hillbilly 
aMErican
boss in the futher.
>
>It is just a joke that CCP colleted money from people, and then say" look ,
>I am feeding you!" This is high way robbery. The CCP surely did a good job
>of brain washing to some people like you. "Make the people stupid, and then
>it is easier to control."----the old Chinese dictators always said.

Hi, I never brainwashed by the CCP. But I think you did.
Go out of the school area and you can find a lot of SMART people.
Don't get your PHD in purdure and get it in a farm. 
I am not sure whether those people smart or not according to your definition.
The only thing I pretty sure about is that most of them are honest.
>
>Finally, you know what is so good of this country?---It allows people like you,
>to speak freely, even.

Really? How about burning a American flag? It is up to you to pick the
location: US, China, Middle East, S.Korea, Taiwa.. ..

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china,soc.culture.china
From: syu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Song Yu)
Subject: Time to evaluate ourselves 
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Morality
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:08:09 GMT

Now that S1216 has been signed into law, my fellow Chinese students, it is time 
to calm down and think about ourselves. 

Don't argue with other people about what they should do or not.
Ask ourselves:
1. Why do I want to stay here(the U.S.)?
2. How did those Chinese students get their PR before S1216? Can I get my PR the same way if I want to stay here? If not, why?
3. If June 4 had not happen, what would I do? Go home or try to stay here? If try to stay here, how to do it?
4. What I am really afraid of when thinking about going home? Poverty or political
prosecution?
5. What do I think about what I have done during 1989(either here or in China) as compared with what the people in China (and still stay there) have done during 1989?
6. How would I feel about those who died on June 4 when I resort to S1216?
7. When my life becomes easier after I get the PR through S1216, how would I think about June 4 and my standard of morality?
8. Do I really deserve the protection or I just need badly an easier way to get a PR?
9. How am I going to explain the way I get my PR to my child in the future? What would I tell my child about those who died on June 4?

The list of questions can be endless. Other people may come up with more profound
and more disturbing questions. 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JDW5139@TAMXRD.TAMU.EDU
Subject:      RE: China Bank
Reply-To: JDW5139@TAMXRD.TAMU.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:26:54 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

> From:       Chunde Shi <cshi@CS.ULOWELL.EDU>
> Subject:    China Bank

> Before You starting to trash the country, PRC which happened to my country,
> make sure who, China Bank, or your master US' bank is lying. It only
> reveals your slave metality that your jump gun that China Bank is lying.
> Event China Bank is lying, is it China Bank policy to do the lying or
> some crook in the Bank did it?

You are so patriatic that George Bush should hire you to revitallize his
"patriatism" attack on Clinton---of course you are too patriatic too even
consider his offer.

Be cool. PRC is your country, it is my country too. However that does not
mean that she, as beautiful as she is, does not have problems. Furthermore,
it does not mean that the problems should not be looked at. As far as I can
see, the original posting did not "trash" China. It did not even trash the
Bank of China. The message was merely a complaint about an unpleasant en-
counter with one branch of the bank, perhaps intended to invite suggestions
as to how to get the $$ charge back. We all know offices in China do not all
operate consistently, and there are crooks as you correctly pointed out.
Whatever the cause, he or she (the person who posted the original message)
as a customer would not be happy being charged extra. I wouldn't either if I
were in that situit. n. He or she has the right to complain, and the right
to solicit opinion from fellow CSS, and the right to ask IFCSS for help!
Would you be happy if you were charged an unjustified sum? Then again you
would assume it is the American's fault. But would you not complain about
it? Or would you?

Nothing personal, just human nature.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: Once Again, US Welcome You (Wa Re: Once again, please ...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:05:55 GMT

In article <16199@mindlink.bc.ca> Sanyee_Tang@mindlink.bc.ca (Sanyee Tang) writes:
>    In article <98227@bu.edu> (10 Oct 92)  Xiaowen Li writes,
>
>> Well, Eddie's question about morality makes much more sense.  ...  The
>> problem, as Eddie asked, is whether it is moral for me to take the this
>> advantage [Protection Bill].

This is really good a questioning. 

>    I know a Chinese professor, who came to US before 1949, took three
>Ph.D. degrees to keep his student status, in order to be not an American.
>He finally applied PR in the later '50s, exhausted his hope to return to
>the mainland.

You showed no evidence that he was an opportunist. He was not paralle
to what we observed in the past a few months.

>    Sometime, he would betray a so-so respect not common among overseas
>Chinese towards some Nobel laureates.
>
>    But, who else cares the "protection bill" for Chinese after the eruption
>of Korea War?  Who is going to others' closet to check whether s/he took
>this advantage or not?  Not even CCP.
>
>    As an incurable individualist, I would say: you may be unable to save
>PRC, but at least don't ruin yourself.

And take the advantage of the precious blood in 1989, for personal gains?

>    Some historical background: in 1950, Zhou Enlai was waving to overseas
>intellectuals with his famous smile, and CCP's oppression wasn't fully
>unfolded yet.

Nobody says that you should go back. The question is how you get it, 
By being "protected" or by your talent? U Understand?

There are still a lot of space for people to handle this LAW. If it
were enacted, I suggest that ALL the capable benificiaries apply for
it if necessary. In doing so, the real opportunists would get less 
chance to take the advantage of the other people. The problem of
conscience doesn't exit in this sense. 

Since the LAW is going to be activated half a year later, there is 
still a lot of time for international political games to be played, 
in the duration. So, there might be many things unpredictable in 
order.

We will see, anyhow.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.china