开元食味
德国频道
楼主: 饭桶他哥
打印 上一主题 下一主题

朝鲜战争之惨烈

[复制链接]
41#
发表于 21.9.2005 19:02:25 | 只看该作者
即时机票
&gt;&gt;但几乎每份谈到台湾问题时,都用到 &quot;acknowledge 承认&quot; 这个词<br />1.TheU.S.sidedeclared:The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on  either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan  is apart of China.The United States Government does not challenge that position.”<br />“美国方面声明:美国认识到,在台湾海峡两边的所有中国人都认为只有一个中国,台湾是中国的一部分。美国政府对这一立场不提出异议。”<br />《新英汉词典》acknowledge词条中4种中文文义,并没有一条用来表示外交关系上正式承认之意。<br />&gt;&gt;1970 五月四日 Ohio 学生反战运动,美国民兵开枪打死打学生。约 450 所大学被强制关闭。民兵在十六个州24次出动镇压<br /><br />肯特大学官方网页关于此事的记述THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH <br />FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY <br /><br />BY <br /><br />JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />INTRODUCTION <br /><br />On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.<br /><br />In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4th and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970 at Kent State University.(1)<br /><br />Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses,(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: &quot;In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class.&quot; (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.<br /><br />This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4th shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.<br /><br />WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?<br /><br />The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon&#39;s presidency, America&#39;s involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970 by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.<br /><br />rotests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.<br /><br />Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes&#39; office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus. <br /><br />The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor&#39;s office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.<br /><br />WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS? <br /><br />Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.<br /><br />Sunday, May 3rd was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protestors and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus. <br /><br />WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?<br /><br />At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1000 people were &quot;cheerleaders&quot; supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.<br /><br />Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.<br /><br />WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?<br /><br />Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4th. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.<br /><br />The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes&#39; statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4th rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.<br /><br />WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?<br /><br />Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13 second period.<br /><br />HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED? <br /><br />Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.<br /><br />Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13 second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about sixty feet; he was standing still with his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.<br /><br />WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?<br /><br />The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.<br /><br />The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government&#39;s case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.<br /><br />The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:<br /><br />In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.<br /><br />Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.<br /><br />We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.<br /><br /><br />A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards&#39; has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen&#39;s lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): &quot;The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.&quot; <br /><br />WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS? <br /><br />While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen&#39;s lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13 second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.<br /><br />Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about twenty minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.<br /><br />Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.<br /><br />The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.<br /><br />WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?<br /><br />A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a fourteen year old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.<br /><br />The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller&#39;s body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.<br /><br />John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground. <br /><br />WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?<br /><br />Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today. <br /><br />First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students. <br /><br />Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students. <br /><br />Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission. <br /><br />Third, many saw as one of the faculty&#39;s challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State ten days after Kent State. <br /><br />WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?<br /><br />Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.<br /><br />(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were &quot;outside agitators&quot; primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?<br /><br />(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?<br /><br />(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?<br /><br />(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?<br /><br />(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?<br /><br /><!--emo&(6)--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devil_smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='devil_smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?<br /><br />WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?<br /><br />In Robert McNamara&#39;s (1995) book, &quot;In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam&quot; is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was &quot;... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why.&quot; <br /><br />The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller&#39;s body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May h at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because &quot;we don&#39;t want another Kent State.&quot; Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.<br /><br />ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY<br /><br />Bills, Scott. (1988). Kent State/May 4: Echoes Through a Decade. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. This book provides town and gown reactions to May 4th. It has the best annotated bibliography available on the literature on the shootings and is the basis for<br /><br />for the annotations that follow.<br /><br />Casale, Ottavio M. & Paskoff, Louis (Eds.) (1971). The Kent Affair: Documents and Interpretations . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. This is an early, useful volume which reproduces local and national newspaper articles on the shootings as well as radio and television broadcasts.<br /><br />Davies, Peter. (1973). The Truth About Kent State: A Challenge to the American Conscience. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. This is a detailed narrative and analysis of the events of May 4 and their aftermath. He argues that the Guard conspired to fire upon the students. 74 photographs are included.<br /><br />Eszterhas, Joe & Roberts, Michael D. (1970). Thirteen Seconds: Confrontation at Kent State. New York: Dodd, Mead. A very quick publication by two Cleveland journalists who use interviews of students, faculty, and Guardsmen to provide a background and narrative of May 1970 events.<br /><br />Grant, Edward J. & Hill, Michael (1974). I Was There: What Really Went on at Kent State . Lima, OH: C.S.S. Publishing Co. The only book written by members of the Ohio National Guard, the authors provide a view of the hostile environment in which the Guardsmen found themselves.<br /><br />Hare, A. Paul (Ed.) (l973). Kent State: The Nonviolent Response. Haverford, PA: Center for Nonviolent Conflict Resolution. A series of articles by noted peace activist Paul Hare as well as many Kent State faculty members. The common theme is the search for nonviolent approaches to conflictual situations.<br /><br />Hensley, Thomas R. (1981). The Kent State Incident: Impact of Judicial Process on Public Attitudes. Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press. This is a detailed examination of the legal aftermath of the shootings, focusing upon the impact of various legal proceedings on public attitudes about the shootings.<br /><br />Hensley, Thomas R. and Lewis, Jerry M. (1978). Kent State and May 4th: A Social Science Perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. This collection brings together a number of previous articles on May 4 that were published in social science journals, but articles covering the Kent State litigation and the 1977 gymnasium controversy were written specifically for this volume. This book also contains the excellent analysis of the events of May 4 written by James Best.<br /><br />Kelner, Joseph and Munves, James. (1980). The Kent State Coverup . New York: Harper and Row. Kelner was the chief legal counsel for the students and parents in the 1975 federal civil trial. He presents a harsh analysis of the handling of the trial by Judge Donald Young. The book has a strong bias, but it provides the only detailed analysis of this long and important trial. <br /><br />Michener, James. (1971). Kent State: What Happened and Why . New York: Random House and Reader&#39;s Digest Books. This is undoubtedly the most widely read book on May 4th because of Michener&#39;s reputation and the wide publicity it received. The book suffers from being produced so quickly, however, containing numerous factual errors.<br /><br />ayne, J. Gregory (1981). Mayday: Kent State. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. The book provides a rather sketchy overview of the May 4 events, presents excerpts from letters written by participants in the events, and discusses the made-for-TV movie on May 4 to which Payne served as a consultant.<br /><br />Report of the President&#39;s Commission on Campus Unrest. (1970) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reprint edition by Arno Press. This remains the best single source for understanding the events of May 4. The report examines not only the shootings at Kent State but also the student movement of the sixties and the shootings at Jackson State University. Excellent photographs are included.<br /><br />Stone, I. F. (1971). The Killings at Kent State: How Murder Went Unpunished. New York: Review Book. This is a rather sketchy book written with a strongly held viewpoint that the Guardsmen committed murder.<br /><br />Taylor, Stuart; Shuntlich, Richard; McGovern, Patrick; & Genther, Robert. (1971). Violence at Kent State, May 1 to 4, l970: The Student&#39;s Perspective. New York: College Notes and Texts, 1971. A study of the perceptions, feelings, attitudes, and reactions of Kent State students based upon a questionnaire sent to all Kent State students shortly after the shootings. Seven thousand students responded, and although this is not a random sample, it has the best data available about the views of Kent State students about May 4.<br /><br />Tompkins, Phillip K. and Anderson, Elaine Vanden Bout. (l971). Communication Crisis at Kent State: A Case Study. New York: Gordon & Breach. This book presents a harsh analysis of the communications problems that permeated the University during May 1970.<br /><br />Warren, Bill (Ed.) (1970). The Middle of the Country: The Events of May 4th As Seen by Students & Faculty at Kent State University . A hastily compiled set of essays put together by a Kent State University sophomore containing various reactions to the shootings by Kent State students and faculty members.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />ADDITIONAL REFERENCES<br /><br />Best, James J. (1978). &quot;Kent State: Answers and Questions&quot; in Thomas R. Hensley and Jerry M. Lewis .) Kent State and May 4th: A Social Science Perspective . Dubuque, IA: <br /><br />Kendall/Hunt.<br /><br />Haldeman, H.R. (1978). The Ends of Power. New York: Times Books.<br /><br />McNamara, Robert. (1995). In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York: Times Books.<br /><br />Norton, Mary Beth; Katzman, David M.; Escott, Paul D.; Chudacoff, Howard P.; Paterson, Thomas G.; & Tuttle, William M. (1994). A People and a Nation: A History of the United <br /><br />States. Fourth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.<br /><br />NOTES<br /><br />1.In addition to the many books on the Kent State shootings, numerous reports, book chapters, and articles have been written. The most comprehensive and accurate commission investigation is The Report of the President&#39;s Commission on Campus Unrest (1970) chaired by William W. Scranton. An excellent book chapter on the shootings is by James J. Best (1978). The most comprehensive bibliography on the shootings is in Bills (1988).<br /><br />2. Professor Hensley, the co-author of this article, became aware of this reference to the Kent State shootings because his daughter, Sarah, was taking Advanced Placement United States History at Kent Roosevelt High School with Mr. Bruce Dzeda. We thank Mr. Dzeda for reading this article and offering his reactions, although he bears no responsibility for the ideas expressed in this article.<br /><br />3. In addition to Guard officers and enlisted men, Governor James Rhodes was also a defendant in the civil trial and signed the statement.<br /><br />UBLISHED IN REVISED FORM BY THE OHIO COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES REVIEW, VOL 34, NUMBER 1 (SUMMER, 1998) PP. 9-21 <br /><br /><br />看懂了吗?弄清楚了吗?这和屠杀以及搞运动制造冤狱甚至把中共高层领导都弄死是一个概念吗?
42#
发表于 21.9.2005 19:21:55 | 只看该作者
&gt;&gt;笑话,一个国家表态本土受攻击要反击居然要投票?<br />你认为士兵用枪炮互射的战争和核战争是一个概念吗?你认为军队伤亡和无辜平民灭绝性毁灭是等同的吗?<br />&gt;&gt;议会投票又怎么呢,如果你会投票说美国全部都可以牺牲掉。按你的理论就合法了?<br />议会投票以及全民公决起码反映了公民的意愿,总比你以少数几个人的商议就决定了十几亿人的生命要好的多吧?欧洲的民主制度总比你欣赏的独裁统治要使人民生活的好吧?<br />&gt;&gt;士兵的职业是打仗,目的却是为了和平。说狠话,有时候却是为了化干戈<br />事情经常不是非按黑白来分的<br />你说的只是一部分,正义的战争才是为了和平.侵略没听说也是为了和平.朱成虎说的话是为了和平吗?他是为了恐吓阻止美国干预,而为自己发动战争铺平道路.你能说他说的话是为了和平?你通过和平谈判要求台湾并入中华人民共和国,美国也要攻击你?<br /><br /><br /><br />
43#
发表于 21.9.2005 19:31:35 | 只看该作者
&gt;&gt;怎么叫反美呢,我用的都是美国人自己承认的东西啊? 你不知道,我说出来而已。说说你是如何定义反美的?<br />即使有的人反美,我觉得也没声么关系。不是也有不少人亲美嘛。大家的自由。但为了反美或亲美说谎话我不敢苟同<br />反美亲美我不管,但你的观点就是.老子中国天下第一,错误都是人家的.并且不断的不正确反思自己国家的过去,一味的为错误辩护.所有为屠杀辩护的论调,其核心,说到底,无非是宣称,我们是为了其他人的长远利益而牺牲你们的。<br />   历史决定论是虚妄的。牺牲当下人们的生命,并不确定是否能赢得其他人的长远利益。<br />   更根本的是,谁有权利以下一代人追求富裕的名义、以未来的长远利益名义,或以任何其他人的名义,来屠杀当下活生生的国民?谁授权给你了?通过何种程序授权给你了?你从哪里获得代表未来人或整体国民的权利?<br />   更深一层考察,难道未来的人不是与我们当前人的权利是不平等的吗?何以为了他们的福祉就要夺取我们的生命?他们高人一等?<br />   因此,历史,不可能作为杀人的遮羞布。未来,不可能把当前的杀人合理化。<br />
44#
发表于 22.9.2005 00:56:36 | 只看该作者
其他问题上,我就不说了。<br /><br />但台湾问题我愿意和你讨论,当然只是限于公报。因为这个是官方的,统一的:<br /><br />&gt;1.The U.S.president declared:The United States acknowledges that<br />&gt;all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there<br />&gt;is but one China and that Taiwan is apart of China.The United<br />&gt;States Government does not challenge that position.”<br /><br />&gt;“美国方面声明:美国认识到,在台湾海峡两边的所有中国人都认为只有一个中国,<br />&gt;台湾是中国的一部分。美国政府对这一立场不提出异议。”<br /><br />&gt;《新英汉词典》acknowledge词条中4种中文文义,并没有一条用来表示外交关<br />&gt;系上正式承认之意。<br /><br />你说摘录那段是1972.02.28 联合公报上第十二条的内容:<br /><br />12:<br />The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese<br />on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and<br />that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. <br /><br />但你的翻译很有意思,因为你在前面的回答中提出:<br />&gt;首先你最好去看看中美联合公报的原文,看看人家的意思到底是不是说了承认台湾是<br />&gt;非法的.不要老拿中共翻译过来的话来理解.<br /><br />是不是给人中国政府乱翻译的感觉?<br /><br />所以我刚才就到人民网看了一下:<br /><a href='http://www.people.com.cn/GB/shizheng/8198/30781/30784/2231843.html' target='_blank'>http://www.people.com.cn/GB/shizheng/8198/...84/2231843.html</a><br />美方则表示:它认识到在台湾海峡两边的所有中国人都认为只有一个中国,台湾是中国<br />的一部分,美国对这一立场不提出异议。<br /><br />嗨,怪了。你用的是&quot;中共翻译过来的话&quot;阿? 我没有必要看原文嘛。<br />但你那句&quot;不要老拿中共翻译过来的话来理解&quot;又该如何理解呢?<br /><br />我这里有本 Oxford Advanced Learner&#39;s Dictionar,我想和你的《新英汉词典》<br />出入不大。你不把四个意思公布出来就作结论,我只有自己查查了:<br />1. accept the truth of sth.<br />    admit sth.<br />2. report that one has received sth.<br />3. express thanx for sth.<br />4. show that one has noticed or recognized sb.<br />5. accept or recognize sth:<br />    the country acknowlegded his claim to the throne.<br /><br />2.3.显然不对,4是指对人。那就是1和5。<br />都有承认的意思啊?<br /><br />当然acknowlege这个词也有认识这一说。这里是一个政治上的手段。意思是说<br />我认识到了,但不等于承认。以后可以根据利益随时倒来倒去。这是一个有诚意<br />的做法吗?当然,这是一个政治习惯,也没什么。<br /><br />那我们退一步,当&quot;认识&quot;来讲,看其他部分:<br />1. all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there<br />    is but one China<br />2. China and that Taiwan is apart of China<br />3. The United States Government does not<br />    challenge that position<br /><br />1. 所有两岸的中国人都认为只有一个中国。强调一下,是说所有中国人,不是双方政府,<br />    这个算不算民主?<br />2. 大陆和台湾都是中国的一部分<br />3. 美国不提出异议<br /><br />美国&quot;认识到&quot;两岸的中国人都认为只有一个中国。而台湾不是国家阿,美国在台湾没有<br />大使馆。只在中国有,也就是说只承认中国是独立主权国家了。<br /><br />是不是等于美国&quot;认识到&quot;台湾是中国的一部分呢?<br /><br />既然认识到了,也不提出异议,但是又提供台湾武器,要保持双方军事平衡。支持搞对<br />抗。阻碍其他方式的和平统一。这算不算嘴上一套,实际一套?这种做法光彩吗?<br /><br />中国有很多值得批评的地方,但不能没有证据的瞎批评。<br />美国呢,不能光看他说什么,也要看看他曾经说过什么,更要看看他做什么
45#
发表于 23.9.2005 12:44:55 | 只看该作者
着急啊,大家看看是不是这么回事:<br />辩论双方:2046和伞<br /><br />1.论点。<br />此次辩论涉及2个问题:朝鲜战争和台湾问题。<br />a.朝鲜战争问题:<br />2046的论点很鲜明,反对政府类似屠杀性质的军事援助。<br />伞的论点不明,主要进行客观陈述,但不视朝鲜战争为极端恶劣的错误。(如果不是请原谅,并明示)<br />b.台湾问题:<br />2046的论点不明,遭到攻击的部分主要是涉嫌支持台独。且认为核威慑是无赖叫嚣行径。<br />伞的论点很明确,台湾问题属于内政。且核威慑是正常范围内的“激动”言论<br /><br />2.论据<br />这个部分相信广大看客和我有同感。<br />伞的论据充分,引用原文不但挑选章节,且全程翻译。逻辑性强。这样容易征服广大看客。最简单了说,也是扫盲。<br />相比之下,2046的论据就少得可怜了。唯一一篇重量级引用,还是全之又全的全文引用。我狠狠拉了几下鼠标也没见底,通篇中文只有两三行,恕我素质低下,英文文献的阅读理解能力太差,就没看。一定会有高素质的看客全文理解,并希望顺道给我们重要信息摘录。<br /><br />3.辩论<br />逻辑性是自圆其说的根本。哪个对对方妄加评断,乱扣帽子,哪个是以彼逻辑攻彼之说,我们看客也不是瞎子。相信双方没有征服看客的狭隘之欲,不过辩论的结果也不会是希望让支持对方观点的人增多吧?<br /><br /><br />所以我谨代表我自己,一个看客说,<br />希望双方明确论点,不然辩啥呢?<br />论据引用要服人,麻烦谁引的谁自己先看一遍,说服你自己再拿出来说服别人。看客也是人,别拿那么厚一摞不是美元的英文印刷品砸我。<br />辩论中不要断章取义,抓住别人某句言辞不当做文章,还是意会为先,驳倒论点才是正经。<br /><br />很希望能继续从中向双方学习。说得不当,大家可以骂我。
46#
发表于 23.9.2005 22:42:11 | 只看该作者
楼上的认为还有辩论下去的必要吗?辩论是讲道理而不是罗列文档数字,对于中国由古自今专制统治下的屠杀可谓罄竹难书,我想这个对中国历史有点常识的人基本都会知道,我想也不用再来一一罗列了吧.辩论的重点在于说理,一些论据类似地球是圆的问题我想不用我再罗嗦.伞也承认屠杀,但对于他的辩论方法和对人生命的价值观使我觉得没必要辩论了,他对于无法自圆其说的问题一律回避,对于中国历史上的屠杀事件只用一句中国是存在一些问题来敷衍了之,难道事关人命的问题就在你嘴里被那么轻描淡写一下就算完了吗?<br />这篇帖子的争论是谈论人的社会观价值观和人的正义感,而不是搞文字游戏,每一个例子后面都牵扯着中国人民的巨大牺牲,希望你们讨论问题能尊重事实而不是满世界的找对方的小纰漏来进行攻击.<br />
47#
发表于 25.9.2005 10:07:41 | 只看该作者
<!--QuoteBegin-steve2046+23.09.2005, 22:42 --><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve2046 @ 23.09.2005, 22:42 )</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->楼上的认为还有辩论下去的必要吗?辩论是讲道理而不是罗列文档数字,对于中国由古自今专制统治下的屠杀可谓罄竹难书,我想这个对中国历史有点常识的人基本都会知道,我想也不用再来一一罗列了吧.辩论的重点在于说理,一些论据类似地球是圆的问题我想不用我再罗嗦.伞也承认屠杀,但对于他的辩论方法和对人生命的价值观使我觉得没必要辩论了,他对于无法自圆其说的问题一律回避,对于中国历史上的屠杀事件只用一句中国是存在一些问题来敷衍了之,难道事关人命的问题就在你嘴里被那么轻描淡写一下就算完了吗?<br />这篇帖子的争论是谈论人的社会观价值观和人的正义感,而不是搞文字游戏,每一个例子后面都牵扯着中国人民的巨大牺牲,希望你们讨论问题能尊重事实而不是满世界的找对方的小纰漏来进行攻击.<br />[right][snapback]763970[/snapback][/right]<br /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br />当然没有和你再辩论下去的必要,你对历史知识的狭隘片面的理解,逻辑思维的紊乱,才几个回合就只会开始对自己祖国母亲进行攻击,让民运人士和法X功都变得和蔼可亲,至少他们会把你说的这些的主语变为XX民或XX党,而不是中国。屠杀,专制,篡改历史从来不是中国的专利,我都懒得再和你说什么,你对自己祖国可以不管死活,可以尽管去投靠X国,但是你有什么资格,你对祖国有什么深仇大恨,说出这些来,<br />我也不想再说你什么,你的这些话看来是有你心态上的原因的,难为伞大哥还和你辩论了一番,没必要了,我们也不会来扔你什么的,你在这里不会有人帮你说话的,你今天所说的不孝的话,将来总会有人会如数奉还给你的。<br />西点军校有句话送给你,忠于你的祖国,哪怕她是错的。
48#
发表于 25.9.2005 21:05:14 | 只看该作者
既然你们都这么喜欢引用名言作为真理那就也送给你们几句:<br />&quot;我们有些同志,听不得反的意见,批评不得。这是很不对的.&quot;------毛泽东<br />“争取你个人的自由,就是争取国家的自由。一个真正的开明进步的国家,不是一群奴才造成的,是要有独立个性,有自由思考的人造成的”-----胡适<br />另外你不要乱给人扣帽子,什么叫对祖国有深仇大恨.对中国历史乃至现今的制度以及很多现象不满就叫对祖国有深仇大恨了?那看来从古至今对中国有深仇大恨的人可谓数之不尽了.<br />&gt;&gt;让民运人士和法X功都变得和蔼可亲<br /><br />我还真没觉得他们有什么可恶的地方,虽然他们未对国家做出什么实质性的贡献但他们也并未损害到中国人民的利益.相比之下比那些贪污腐败的官员和你们某些搞不清东南西北就知道空喊爱国的人要可爱和明智的多.<br />&gt;&gt;我也不想再说你什么,你的这些话看来是有你心态上的原因的,难为伞大哥还和你辩论了一番,没必要了,我们也不会来扔你什么的,你在这里不会有人帮你说话的,你今天所说的不孝的话,将来总会有人会如数奉还给你的。<br /><br />呵呵,感觉你真的不应该出国,浪费资源.也许技术上多少会学点东西.但思想上丝毫未接受开明理念.中国封建专制统治的三纲五常依旧再你心里根深蒂固,并且还奉为神明来教训别人.100年前的孙中山就以接受了要民主不要专制的理念,可做为100年后的国外留学生却依旧执迷不悟.不知道算不算可悲.对于你看来最适合待在中国的党校学习.<br />&gt;&gt;西点军校有句话送给你,忠于你的祖国,哪怕她是错的。<br />不知道你对祖国的概念做何理解?春秋战国时期一共是七个国家,每个地区的人民的祖国都不同,可后来秦统一天下这些地区的人民便有了共同的祖国.蒙古在归属中国的时期,其人民的祖国是中国.但独立后其人民的祖国就是蒙古.现波兰捷克境内很大一部分土地原来隶属德国,可现在已划入波兰捷克的版图.那些人的祖国也随之变化.请问那些人民到底要忠于哪个祖国呢?<br />清兵入关,远在四川的张献中闻讯后开始感到绝望,遂在四川大肆屠杀人民.请问那些被屠杀的人民还依然要忠于他的祖国吗?<br />德国和法国边境地区的萨尔州,本来是属于法国所有,后来通过居民自决,加入德国,成为德国的一个州。你能说那个地区的人都是大逆不道?<br />一个通常的误解是,先有国家,后有国民,而正确的理解是先有国民,后有国家。我的祖国的定义是国民,无论当权者是谁,只要他能充分保证国民的利益,我就拥护并忠于它.
49#
发表于 25.9.2005 21:34:07 | 只看该作者
zt<br />     最近系列文章在网上的某些个论坛上受到极少数个别人的人生攻击与谩骂--且以一副爱国者嘴脸与气势仅仅作干巴巴的不涉及文章内容本身的人生攻击与谩骂.<br /> 这大慨业己成为今日之中国互联网上并不鲜见的惯常现象。如果说对某个文章帖子的内容或观点有的放矢作出反驳并批判应该都是很正常的,但这些自以为是的所谓爱国者却对文章帖子的内容和观点并不能作出任何有理性的反驳与批判,却为文章本身恼羞成怒,以致耍起了人生攻击连带谩骂的爱国者脾气来。其实,仅仅标榜爱国是一无是处的,更没有任何的实质意义,问题关键是在于如何爱国,爱在何处,爱向何方。臭名昭著的希特勒就是一个狂热的爱国(主义)者,在爱国主义的座右铭下,残暴迫害犹太人,为了争取所谓的″生存空间″发动二次大战,不但使欧洲各国遭受战争的蹂躏,同时把本国人民也紧紧梆定在侵略战争的战车上,这种气壮如牛的爱国(主义)牛劲恐怕迄今为止无人能够与之比美。萨达姆无疑也是一个爱国者,在强大的英美联军面前表现出了铁板一块的打击侵略者的爱国主义英雄气慨,可在英美联军真正动手后,萨达姆君非但没有率领伊拉克军民浴血奋战、反而一个人偷偷躲进了土洞,据说在美军验证他身份的时候还表现得十分的配合,这种搞笑式的爱国讲穿了爱的只是他自己及其独裁专制政权。陈克杰、胡长青、程维高们也堪称优秀的爱国者,他们大会小会的报告、讲话充斥著爱国的志趣与理想,可他们骨子里爱的是己经到手的权位、金钱与美女。文革时期的红卫兵也算宣誓旦旦的爱国者,看到那家有海外关系就断定有里通外国之嫌,谁不跟著喊″世界上还有三分之二的人民生活在水深火热之中″他们就用充血的眼睛瞪著谁,(不过由于当时的资讯业不发达等原因,应该属于被蒙骗的一代)。今天的一些高调爱国者对于揭露社会阴暗、抨击权力腐败很不以为然,于是动用最粗鄙的叫唤来围剿你,捡起爱国的旗帜为现今我们这个国家的贪污腐化作遮丑布;他们憎恶人权,藐视中国人的基本权益,谁要进行公民维权他们就气急败坏,就站在爱国的这个制高点上来一通狂乱扫射,似乎是看到外国侵略者打进来了、走进国门来攫取或瓜分他们的地盘和利益了、惊扰了他们一枕千秋家国美梦了。不难看出,如果能亮出其真实身份及家庭、家族状况,这些高调爱国者其中必有一些就是出身在为所欲为的官宦或准官宦之家、也许本身就是官场中的混混儿、或者说有著当前社会强势集团的背景、最起码与权力有著千丝万缕的干系、可能在″摸著石头过河″的浑水中至今还正在捞著金银珠宝、至少现今正悠悠吃著一份优裕的皇粮或在权力斡旋下吃着变相的皇粮什么的,于是扯起爱国大旗作虎皮搞起了爱国与否之间的斗争--这似乎是过去阶级斗争在新世纪中国互联网上的翻版,他们知道现在搞这种斗争己经不合时宜了(资产阶级与无产阶级谁斗谁啊),于是就操起了爱国家伙当作利器是最适宜不过了。上述形形色色、林林总总,很能显示出爱国(主义)这个东西很受用、很实用、用途广泛并且堂而皇之,用来看家护院、装神弄鬼自然不在话下,扮个钟馗、逞回英雄也未尝不可。 应该说,爱国(包括爱国主义),说到底就是爱这个国家的人民,以人民的利益与权益为基本准则。爱祖国的山山水水、一草一木目的还不是让人民有一个适宜生存的栖息之地吗!揭露社会阴暗、抨击权力腐败最终还不是为了给老百姓一个清廉公正的明媚世界吗!爱国就犹如爱自己至爱的亲人一样,首先要关注他的自身身体状况,如他生了什么恶瘤或顽症的话,该打点滴就力主打点滴,应挖肉割疮就敦促挖肉割疮,至亲面前无伟人,不要老是肉麻地恭维它的高大英俊、武林身手,这样不但是见外了,而且适得其反,只会加速他的支撑不住。爱国更不是空泛与肤浅的,高歌了一曲&lt;&lt;我的中国心&gt;&gt;就真的有″中国心″了吗?唱响&lt;&lt;春天的故事&gt;&gt;就真的走进″春天″了吗?赞颂综合国力增强就能阻挡弱势群体不断扩大吗?就能把他们从生存的边缘拉回来吗?说到底,爱国就是为了全体国人,并不是为一部分人、一个利益集团、一种特权界层乃至自己及自己的家庭、家族 。 总而言之,爱国(主义)是具体的不是抽象的,并在特定的历史时期内赋予特定的内容,这就首先必须要找到爱国(主义)的方向---这就犹如方便必须要找到厕所一样,否则就别空喊爱国,随地一堆屎、一泡尿是万万使不得的,这不但有碍观瞻,而且可能伤及甚至毁坏祖国。鉴于现在的祖国权灾泛滥、腐败横行,弱势群体落花流水、徒呼奈何,中华民族处在如此的窘况下,因此整治权灾、肃清腐败,伸张人的基本权益、倡导制度革新无疑是今天这个历史时期最重要的首屈一指的爱国(主义)方向,正是这个爱国(主义)的大方向能代表今天最广大人民的最大利益、也就体现了爱国就是爱民的根本宗旨。 从上个世经纪告别了理想主义时代后,共产主义、马克思主义就成为人们荼余饭后的谈资笑料,取而代之的就有今天吵吵嚷嚷、虚无飘渺的爱国鼓噪,可叹这些找不著北的爱国者在恶炒爱国的同时仍明显地裸露出一条过去僵死的意识形态尾巴,用极左的思维诠释著爱国,用极左的愤怒显示著爱国,越左几乎越能体现爱国的深度,并不时地把它用作于阿谀奉迎、谄嫉作威,于是吃饱了撑着,象无头苍蝇一样,使劲地辱骂连带着人生攻击,同时似乎又为了尽快地消化肠胃中不错的美味佳肴,寻求美妙如意的现实生活之外的爽感。如此爱国,可对于广大弱势群体及灰头土脸、苛且生存的人们来说却特别感觉到腰痛肾虚、肌肠漉漉。<br />
50#
发表于 26.9.2005 16:43:12 | 只看该作者
大概是日本人的屠杀和毛泽东的领导把羊变成了狼吧。<br />所以也可以理解西方人对毛泽东那种莫名的深刻仇恨:一向予取予求的中国,忽然有了一只看家恶狗,从此一切好处都跟他们无关了。<br />
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

站点信息

站点统计| 举报| Archiver| 手机版| 小黑屋

Powered by Discuz! X3.2 © 2001-2014 Comsenz Inc.

GMT+1, 8.11.2024 22:02

关于我们|Apps

() 开元网

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表