Politically incorrect

Post-Searchlight ^ | 10-24-03 | SAM GRIFFIN JR.

[tallhappy]

Editorial: Politically Incorrect

By SAM GRIFFIN JR., Publisher October 24, 2003

On Friday, May-ling Soong, 106, died in New York City. And for whatever reason, the press and people of the United States accorded her passing little notice: Ignorance, oversight, embarrassment or the conceit of political correctness—none of it reflected graciously upon us. Older generations of Americans will recognize May-ling Soong as Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, wife of Nationalist China’s leader Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek.

In circles of academia and liberal intelligentsia—and thus in the press and in subsequent textbooks—it has been gauche to make complimentary remarks about the generalissimo. Chinese bandit, corrupt politician, ruthless war-lord, milker and bilker of resources from the United States—these are the current, politically correct views of Chiang and the Kuomintang. The purveyors of these characterizations prefer, instead, the People’s Republic of China, the character and philosophies of Chairman Mao, the invasion and subjugation of Tibet; and the subsequent regimes responsible for the institutionalized murder, torture, imprisonment, oppression and death by starvation of tens of millions of Chinese since 1949.

The unreliability of our support for Chiang Kai-Shek culminated in October 1971 when we turned our backs on Nationalist China and acquiesced to its removal from the United Nations. As Nationalist China’s foreign minister, Chow Shu-Kai, departed from the organization he had helped found 26 years earlier, a great deal of our national character departed with him. Generalissimo Chiang died four years later. Defaming Chiang was thereafter officially chic. Perhaps it helped to cover our embarrassment.

Despite our churlishness, Madame Chiang chose to live out her remaining years in New York City. She was a gracious, if reclusive, woman whose work for the International Red Cross and other humanitarian efforts were substantial.

Daughter of a Methodist Minister, Yaoju “Charlie” Soong, in 1908 she came to this country and lived in Macon, where her sister was a student, and where she was tutored by Wesleyan students and was taught piano by the late Mrs. Gordon Chason at Wesleyan Conservatory. She graduated from high school in Demorest, Ga., and was said by her classmates to have been a popular, bright and quick student who spoke English with a Georgia accent. It must have been effective, for she acted as an interpreter for her husband, who spoke no English. Her sister, Ching-ling Soong, married Dr. Sun Yat-Sen—Chiang Kai-Shek’s mentor, who was credited with ousting the Manchu dynasty and establishing modern China. Both sisters were active in their country’s politics, and Madame Chiang was a woman of significant power and influence in China and on the world scene, especially for her time.

It’s no longer fashionable to mourn the death or even recognize the life of May-ling Soong or her husband because to do so would contradict more than 30 years of carefully crafted defamation. Surely, much criticism of the generalissimo’s ego and manipulations are deserved. But, tell us honestly: From the sanctuary of half a century since, who looks better—Chiang Kai-Shek and his ChiNats or Mao Zedong and his ChiComs? Which has been more on the side of progress and human rights? Which has hurt, oppressed and killed more people? Which has been a threat to world peace? Which one do we fear and distrust? Which has been the better, more consistent friend? Which one forced down a U.S. aircraft from international airspace and impounded its crew? Whose people live better and enjoy more freedoms? Which one, now, would we rather have won in 1949?

Farewell, Madam Chiang. Forgive us. You, your husband and your country deserved better from us.—SMG

[Cicero]

Back in Joe McCarthy's day, people often asked, "Who handed China to Mao Tse Tung?" It's still a pretty good question, as Ann Coulter points out, and the answer is pretty clear to anyone who chooses to look.

[wizardoz]

This is an issue I need to learn more about. Bump for the ChiNats.

[tallhappy]

ChiNats are now a spent issue.

They don't exist. Those that do or claim to are ChiCom toadies or more.

Taiwan has nothing to do with it and should be separated from the equation.

[HighRoadToChina]

BUMP

[freedumb2003]

The premise of this article is not true. Her passing recieved subsantial print and air media coverage.

The problem is that most Americans have no concept of history. The only ones that care anout it are the over-the-hill Hippie Leftists who are trying to relive their counterculture days of the 60s.

Want proof? Just watch an episode of "Jaywalking."

[Old Professer]

For an insight, you might want to read, The Soong Dynasty, Copyright 1985, Harper and Row,ISBN 0-06-015308-3 by Sterling Seagrave.

[tallhappy]

The premise of this article is not true. Her passing recieved subsantial print and air media coverage.

I disagree. I think it recived way less than I thought it would or should.

It was a buried "and by the way" sort of news item.

[tallhappy]

I read that book.

It is not objective. It is not a true history. It is not scholarly. Much is probably not true.

There are a lot of things to criticize Chiang Kai-shek's government and regimes about.

But Seagrave's sensationalist overkill tripe is shoddy.

It was polemic, not history.

[HighRoadToChina]

A better historical book about what really happened to China would be professor Anthony Kubek's, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949.

[tallhappy]

Thanks.