opinion_
ours
Election endorsements use panel approach
un i uesday, tne Emerald win begin
a series of editorials endorsinq candi
dates and measures in state and local
races that appear on the general
election ballot Nov. 7.
These endorsements will comple
ment a continuing Emerald coverage of
personalities and issues, culminating
with an election supplement in our Nov.
3 issue.
Almost all candidates for political of
fices at stake in the election have met
and discussed campaign issues with a
panel of Emerald editors and political
reporters.
in these discussions - and subse
quent decisions on endorsements - the
panel's inquiries focused on the ele
ments and alternatives of growth - the
economic and population changes fac
ing Lane County and Oregon.
Specifically, we explored the
candidate’s knowledgeability, past per
formance and present positions re
garding energy, particularly their at
titudes toward conservation, nuclear
technology and alternative power
sources.
Another growth-related area of ques
tioning dealt with land-use planning
and the enviornment, including discus
sion of urban-growth boundaries, pre
servation of agricultural, recreational
and wilderness areas and state in
volvement in implementing land-use
policies.
The issues of taxes and correspond
ing government services were raised in
relation to priorities placed by candi
dates on higher education and
property-tax-relief proposals.
We considered our endorsements in
the light of collective values that, we
hope, reveal a humanistic concern for
egalitarian justice and practicality, as
well as more particular student in
terests.
To this end, the candidates’ styles
and emphasis on issues were closely
examined for clues as to their sensitiv
ity of the human impact of political de
cisions.
This attitude also guided our scrutiny
of such ballot propositions as rein
statement of the death penalty and
prohibitions on state abortion aid for
low-income persons.
i i
I
yours
China ‘facts’ assailed
Please excuse me for appearing again on these
pages, but I fear that my turf has been trampled upon by
some apologists for the "Republic of China” on Taiwan. As a
teacher of Chinese history, I cannot stand in silent tolera
tion of the misrepresentation of facts which appeared in
your ''Opinion” column of October 16.
Item: “Dr. Sun Yat-sen... founded the Republic of
China(on) Oct. 10, 1911.” Actually, Sun was in Denver,
Colo., when the revolution against China's last emperor
broke out on Oct. 10. He read about it in the newspapers,
then returned to China slowly, via Europe, in time for the
actual founding of the Republic, Jan. 1, 1919.
Item: "More than 60 million Chinese people on the
mainland were killed by the communists as counter
revolutionaries. This popular 60 million figure is derived by
adding all casualties, direct and indirect, on all sides, in all
wars (including the war against Japan) and civil war in
China since the founding of the Chinese Communist Party
in 1921.
Possibly 60 million did die -- but most were killed by the
Japanese and the "Nationalist” Chinese, whose love of the
people was reflected in their twice blowing up the Yellow
River dikes (first to stop the Japanese, then to stop the
Communists) at the expense of flooding thousands of
square miles of farmland and farmers.
Regrettably, even a student in our Asian Studies prog
ram, Jim Carroll, has his facts all mixed up. He says he was
one year old ‘when Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang
("Nationalist” Party) threw the Germans out of China and
sided with the U S. and England.
I assume he means the onset of World War II. But
Chiang hardly threw out the Germans: they were providing
the military advisers for his attempt to destroy the com
munists and establish a facist state-a desire which Chiang
made explicit in the 1930s before his joining the Allied
cause against the Axis made open advocacy of fascism a
bit undiplomatic.
The Germans left China only after the forming of the
Rome-Tokyo-Berlin axis and not because Chiang threw
them out, but because the Japanese pressured Hitler to
withdraw his support for China’s "Nationalist” Government,
which Japan was trying to destroy.
But the heart of the letter from the Taiwan students is
the allegation that the Communists undermined the
“Nationalist" Government during and after the War of Re
sistance with Japan.
There is no question that Communist power grew
enormously during the war against Japan, but it grew be
cause the Communists were vigorously fighting a "peoples
war" of guerrilla warfare and social reform in the villages of
North China, while the Nationalist Government was half
heartedly fighting a defensive, positional war whose main
object was to survive, amass as much American aid as
possible, and smash the Communists in the civil war which
they expected to follow American victory over Japan in the
Pacific
Not only does an enormous weight of American schol
arship document the success of Communist guerilla war
fare against Japan-in contrast to the corruption, bureauc
ratism, conservatism and decay of the "Nationalist”
Government-but the Japanese war records show that it
was the Communists who were their most stubborn
enemies.
Finally, the authors offer the old saw that captured
Japanese weapons, given the Communists by the Rus
sians who occupied Manchuria in the last days of the war,
allowed the Communists to defeat the Nationalists in the
Civil War. One need only note that U S. aid to the
"Nationalist” Government was incomparably greater, and
that the chief of the U S. Army Advisory Group to the
“Nationalist” said in1948, as the forces he was advising
Page 4
meirs
crumbled before the tough, popularly-supported com
munist army: “No battle has been lost since my arrival due
to lack of ammunition or equipment.’’
The “Nationalists” lost in China because their regime
of military officers, Shanghai bankers, urban intellectuals
and conservative landlords lacked any popular base of
support.
The Communists had (and have) that support, and
with it have transformed the backward, oppressive,
inflation-ridden China of the "Nationalist” party in a pro
gressive, egalitarian, socialist state whose continuing rapid
ecomonic growth makes it a world power worthy of atten
tion and understanding.
The students from Taiwan should, of course, be ex
cused their ignorance of many of these facts. I have lived on
that island where martial law poses as a “free way of life.” I
am well aware of the human rights violations which have
earned it condemnation by Amnesty International and
others. And I also know that the one-party Kuomintioal dic
tatorship there does not allow access to sources on the
modern history of China beyond the self-serving publica
tions of the Kuomintang Party itself.
But we have other sources available here which allow
us to disprove their misreading of history. I’d welcome
these students coming to read such material in my classes:
from their letter, I'd say they have quite a lot to learn about
modern Chinese history.
Joseph Esherick,
associate professor, history
‘Ugly statement’ irks trio
With growing disgust we watch the stalemate in the
negotiations between the University administration and the
Graduate Teaching Fellowship Federation (GTFF).
While we understand the importance of such negotia
tions to both parties involved, we feel it is also necessary to
understand the plight of an additional party—the students.
Our position is classically between the rock and the
hardspot. Any support given to the GTFF’s cause by the
students, means neglecting an important group investment
—our own education. And because investing in an educa
tion is so costly these days, it puts a greater burden on us all
to really get our monies worth.
It is unfortunate that some of the GTFF’s members fail
to consider our position.
Along with our misgivings about these items, we are
further angered by other unprofessional and inappropriate
actions. These include a recent bombardment of harran
gue during classtime; along with distribution of GTFF prop
aganda, urging the support of students; and the classless
act that members of the GTFF have taken up of name
calling.
We have had one GTFF explain the make-up of our
possible substitutes, calling them, “slimy graduates ’, and
"know-nothing lizards '. We feel that these sorts of actions
by a professional organization display a very immature
method with which to solicit support.
While our sincerest hopes are for a satisfactory set
tlement prior to a strike, we hope the GTFF understands
our lack of support, due to these actions.
Courtney Sapin
sophomore, psychology
Marc Smiley,
sophomore, journalism
Greg Harris,
sophomore, business
fetters policy
The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters
and opinion columns containing fair comment on
ideas and topics of concern or interest to the Univer
sity community. Letters and opinions will be run on a
first-come, first-served basis. Both letters and opin
ion columns must be typewritten, using 65 character
margins, and should be triple-spaced. Letters and
opinions must be signed and the author's field of
study (or faculty status) noted.
A,