- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1953 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by 468259058 at 2012-3-16 07:14|
liuyedao Post time: 2012-3-15 21:25
We know you feel excited to read this kind of news.
To provoke, bring disaster and calamities are ...
Do you forget Fangzheng town case? Do you forget the latest Nanjing case? Do you forget Sichuan case?
The local Fangzheng town party and government honored Japanese invaders and humiliated Chinese national heroes.
The local Nanjing party and government leaders were smiling when Japanese leaders denied Japanese atrocious killing civilians in WW2.
The local Sichuan leaders told a poor old soldier to get help from KMT in Taiwan, not from the present Communist Party and government. The old soldiers that he fought against Japanese invasion in WW2 was for KMT, not for Communist Party.
What's wrong with Fangzheng's local party and government leaders? Or there was sth wrong in the principles and guides of foreign relationship managment from 1949?
Guy A is selling Ordinary Chinese and national interests to foreign powers and he believes communism and has a good relationship with leaders. Then party and government would label guy A as a so called "National Heroes". Guy B maybe doesn't have a good relationship with leaders, but he is defending Ordinary Chinese and Chinese national interests. And party and government would label guy B as a so called "National traitors".
For example: Zhang Lingpu.
He is a Evil guy in our textbooks. He was KMT member and refused to surrender to Communist Party. However, after internet came into our life, I know he had ever fought against Japanese invaders fierecly in WW2 from the internet. Now, I know he is also a national hero, though I had viewed him as a evil guy in my childhood and in my schoolhood. From the internet and my experience, I know that a large amount, maybe nearly a half, of present military leaders are driving Japanese branded cars.
What's wrong with our textbooks and principles? One guy who have ever fought for our Chinese national benefits and interests and he didn't believe in communism. Then our textbooks would label him as a evil guy. Another guy had ever hurt Chinese national benefits and interests, but he had a relationship with leaders after 1949. Then our textbooks would label him as a good guy.
This yunnan case as well as Fangzheng town case and Nanjing case are a little different from our moral principles of traditional Han Chinese culture. Oh, of course, several Qing leaders had ever sold Ordinary Chinese to foreign powers for their own benefits and friendship. Is it good to go on sacrificing Ordinary Chinese for the great benefits and friendship among countries' leaders?