"Man, if it wasn't for Weimin..." I don't know how many times I have thought that to myself. We've been communicating, 3-4 years now. He has helped me immensely to understand China. Frequently, I turn to him with questions or for advice. Here, I didn't even know about Feng's defense of Song, and Dr. Mo sends me this translation of Feng's article and a rebuttal by Yi. I am posting this immediately upon receipt. I will read it carefully and probably post a response. Thank you, Dr. Mo. I dedicate this page to Dr. Mo.



Is It True That Song Binbin's Only Delinquency Is not Being Able to“Protect” the Principal?

-- Examining Feng Jinglan's Untangling the August 5 Incident

By Yi Hong

(In order to help reader separate clearly Feng Jinglan's statement and Yi Hong's rebuttal, two colors are used to indicate the two authors. Feng's is in red and Yi's in blue)

Untangling the August 5 Incident is written by one of the major members of Song Binbin “group”, Ms. Feng Jinglan. This writing is only an observation about some of the points Feng made in her article.

F (Feng Jinglan): …at the meeting which we initiated for the apology, one of former senior schoolmates said to me, “Upon seeing the school leaders were being herded to public humiliation, I felt it was a revolutionary action to attack them, why should we stop the violence? However, I saw Song Binbin try to talk (the thugs) out of it. At that time, I would never have done that if I was in her position."

Y (Yi Hong):  On 6/8/2007, Tao Luosong, a student of the Girl's School then, in Words of an Eye-Witness in Tao Luosong's Testimony, 2007,  writes, “Song Binbin was one of the Red Guard leaders. On 8/5/1966 when our school leaders Bian Zhongyun,  Hu Zhitao, Liu Ziping and two school counselors, Wei Shumin and Wang Yubin, were forced to be on their knees on the sportground platform, suffering gang torturing, Song Binbin was right behind me.  I heard her say, ‘It is not a bad idea to have them (school leaders) humiliated.” Another school girl then, Zhang Min, writes in her article Recalling and Reflecting on the Death of Bian, “Recently I read about it that Song Binbin said when Bian was being tortured, she was around, but was not involved in beating. She also said she intervened to stop the beating twice. Regarding what Song claims about intervening in an attempt to stop the beating, I find the claim questionable. Based on what I know about the situation at that time, if Liu jin, Song Binbin, and Ma Dexiu had stood out and shouted aloud, 'Stop beating people!' or even just one of them did it,’ with the heraldic position and influential power they had, a large number of students would have followed them in action to stop the beating. And Principal Bian would not have been killed that day. However, throughout the whole process of beating as I witnessed, no one came out to stop the beating.”

Therefore, the ststement, which was made by the girl Feng Jinglan mentioned above, namely, “I saw Song Binbin try to talk (the thugs) out of it,” doesn not go with the testimonies made by Tao Luosong and Zhang Min who eye-witnessed what was happeneing that day.  The person who got invited to Feng's meeting obviously identified herself ideologically with Song Binbin, Ye Weili, Liu Jin, and Feng Jinglan and belonged to what Feng later called “our group”. And those who didn’t identify ideologically with Song Binbin, Ye Weili, and Feng Jinglan were unlikely to be invited to the meeting, such as Principal Bian’s widower and children. A handful of people who blew their own horns within their own circle are far from credible. On the contrary, Tao Luosong, in her Words of Eye-Witness, also mentions Deng Rong, in addition to Song Binbin. In similar details, Zhang Min also mentions in her article a girl named Deng and a girl named Liu. Tao Luosong moved to Australia. If she had not been a witness who heard what Song Binbin said then and there with her own ears, why should she bother to write, as late as 6/8/2007, such an article as Words of An Eye-Witness's Testimony to offend Deng Rong and Song binbin? Zhang Min also directly mentions “a girl named Deng “ and  “a girl named Liu”. If Deng Rong, Liu Dingding, and Song Binbin had not been involved in Bian’s death, with their position and power, how come they would have kept quiet for so many years without trying to do something about the two testimonies? In fact, Tao Luosong and Zhang Min are the genuine witnesses in the true meaning of the word "witness".

F: Forcing school leaders to public humiliation was an action of the masses at the beginning of the CR. It was not a murder case and, therefore, there is no such question as who is the murderer. We have to reiterate that the principal suffered gang beating and torture all the way to her death. Gang beating is violent. Likewise, torture reveals the dark side of human nature. However, who would you pick as the killer?

Y: What a strange theory!  “School leaders were forced to public humiliation” and “they were beaten and tortured all the way to their death”. With all that being done, it cannot even be called a "murder case"! With all that being done, it can be nullified light-heartedly by pretending the death simply resulted from the "action of the masses"! Following this logic, the issue of the Nazis gassing the Jews to death was nothing but an action of the masses. And the genocide Rwanda Hutus committed to Tutsis was simply an action of the masses. We have to say the death of Bian Zhongyun is a murder case. A muder that involves many killers is still a murder case. The murderers can be divided into major culprits and their accomplices. Making an effort to dig out all the major culprits and their accomplices is the call of justice. It is in itself a justice to be served.

F: Since we apologized together as a group, the positive response from the mainstream is strong. And it is a great encouragement to  us as a group.

Y: “Apologizing as a group” cannot be used as a fig leave. The “positive response” does not mean to set free murderers and the ring leaders who are behind the murder. Has the “group” realized that the negative response (to their meeting) is very strong, too?  Articles like Resurfacing of the Evil of Banality: Analysis of the Farce of Apologization by Liu Zheli, Tackles between Wang Jinyao and Song Binbin by Crane, and Apologizing Is not Enough to Close the Anti-Humanity Case by Wang Rongfeng  are part of the “negative response”.  More negative responses are coming from the heart of the readers and audience. Ye Weili, Song Binbin, Liu Jin, and Feng Jinlan have underestimated the IQ of the Chinese.

F: This time the mainstream response (to our meeting) is positive. Even famous scholars like Xu Youyu also wrote articles to apologize to Song Binbin for his publications  based on untruthful data. As a matter of fact, Mr. Xu has apologized several times over the past few years, and that indicates some scholars of the three oldest classes of the CR are serious about their responsibilities.

Y: It is very nice of Mr. Xu to apologize for his mistakes. However, he apologized only for the fact that he believed and put in his writings Song Binbin directly killed a half dozen or so people. His apology has nothing to do with the issue of Bian’s murder.

F: We didn't plan the meeting, but we did look for the right time to have it. This time it was accidental. On 1/8/2014, Liu Jin and others went to see Teacher Jin Yuan, who actually isn't much older than we are, sort of like our sister. She provided alot of assistance to us during our August 5 Incident Investigation before. Durng the visit, they talked about the investigation and our plans in the future. they also expressed the wish to get together with former teachers. Teacher Jin immediately responded, "What are you waiting for? You may do it right now!"

Y: The person who cooked up the whole thing was Ye Weili. The timing is by no means unplanned. When Chen Xiaolu's apology was positively accepted by the public, Ye Weili jumped on it as an opportunity. However, the reason why Chen Xialu's apology was accepted by the public was because many people felt his sincerity in the apology. In contrast, Song Binbin, with her spurious apology which is focused on distorting the facts, has no way to clear her name. Even worse, what she did enables many people to reexamine the havoc of the CR and urges more people to question the legality of the communist regime. From this viewpoint, Song binbin's apology has its positive meaning. However, this kind of positive meaning is not what the initiators and  implementers of the activity have hoped for or anticipated.

F: Without the truth, there is no reflection or apology. Clarification is a must. For instance, the rumor has it that Song Binbin organized a killing match and killed 7-8 people herself. Also, there is the hearsay that she led the Red guards in killing Principal Bian. Without clarifying the facts, what is she going to apologize for? Even at court, people are allowed to defend themselves. Isn't it necessary for Son Binbin to clarify that she didn't organize or was not involved in any violent actions, especially during the meeting where she is with teachers and schoolmates she knows so well?

Y: Wang Youqin, Liu Zheli, and Zhang Min have all proved that there existed in Girls' School of BNU then organizations of Red Guards and Song Binbin was one of the leaders. Besides, it was on 8/1/1966 that Mao Zedong wrote the letter in response to the Red Guards of Middle School of Qinghua University. Anyone, with a little knowledge about the CR and how the spellbound middle school students worshipped Mao and would do anything he ordered right away, would consider it something uncomprehensible if there was still no Red Guards organizations at Girls' School of BNU by 8/5, the date on which Bian was murdered.

Song Binbin admits only the trivial facts but denies the critical ones. In her letter of apology, she claims that in the matter of Bian's murder, she feels guilty only for writing the first big-character post on campus and for not being able to prevent with a great effort the torture and humiliation inflicted on Principal Bian and other leaders and for not being able to "protect well the school leaders". She brags about her "basic humane disposition and moral bottomline" and how her alma mater "has held to principles and proved her innocence". she continues to say, "I am here to tell my teachers and alma mater that I have followed your teachings and stick to the principles all my life, that is, taking everything seriously and living my life innocently". She repeats, " I want to take this opportunity to say to you, teachers who know me, that during the CR, I didn't organize or participate in any violent activities, including search people's houses, beating up people, or deliberately harming teachers and fellow students."

Song says, "Liu Jin and I went to the sportsground and the back compound twice to stop the beating. When we saw the excitement-watching students began to leave, we thought nothing serious would happen, so we left, too. In that sense I was responsible for Principal Bian's death." What she says here puzzles me. Song Binbin and Liu Jin had successfully" stopped" the beating twice, not even "with a great effort". That proves the fact that Song Binbin and Liu Jin were in a position of authority at that time. Otherwise, how could you explain that when Red Guards were brutally beating up the principal, as soon as they two "appeard on the sportsground and the back compound to intervene", "the excitement-watching students would begin to leave"? If "the excitement-watching students began to leave", how about the perpetrators who brandished brass-buckled-belts and struck people with table legs full of nails"? If those perpetrators were gone, how about Ms. Bian Zhongyun and other deputy principals who had been tortured there? Were they staying around there waiting for the perpetrators to come back and continue their beating? Or they were by then already in a serious coma because of the beating and torture? Also, based on what did Song Binbin and Liu Jin made their decision that "nothing serious was going th happen"? If Song Binbin and Liu Jin  "went to the sportsground and the back compound to intervene and stop beating twice" till they both believed that "nothing serious was going to happen", then why did Song Binbin and Liu Jin have to "apologize" for not being able to "protect" the principal? if they really wanted to make an effort to "protect" the principal, why did they leave the site, too? If Son Binbin and Liu Jin were not actually in a position of authority at the Girls' School on 8/5/1966, How come, 47 years later, Song Binbin would so carelessly use the word "protect"? In a nutshell, anyone who says Song Binbin "didn't lead the Red Guards in beating the principal to death" is trying to deny the historical reality.

F: I have to emphasize this, Song Binbin is trying to clarify the facts instead of questioning or fighting those who have denounced and criticized the CR. To those who have exposed the brutality of the CR, we have only the great respect and appreciation.

Y: Wang Youqin is "one of the people who defamed the CR". The so-called "group" headed by Ye Weili, Liu Jin, Feng Jinglan didn't "show their great respect and appreciation" at all to her. On the contrary, they spared no efforts in attacking her in their journal Remebrance and the book they published, Good Stories Are not Necessarily Good History. Isn't it too hypocritical for Feng Jinglan to claim in her Untackling the August 5 Incident for the virtue of respect and appreciation?

F: (When asked "What would you like to say to some of your schoolmates who are directly responsible for the insident) Of course, I hope they can face themselves and openly stand out to apologize. After all, they were children then, not grownups. They have evey reason to set themselves free.  However, you need to think why it's you, not anyone else, that should be held responsble. It could be because you were then cold-hearted, emotionally unrefined, unsympathetic in nature, psychologically abnormal, etc. There are various presonal features that could have made you be "the one".

Y: Those who are directly responsible for the incident were not children. They are muderers. In dealing with killers who are not quite 16 or 18, there are different standards. Nevertheless, Judging by different standards doesn't mean a criminal not quite 18 years old is not a criminal. A cminals is a criminal. She doesn't "have any reasons to set herself free".

One more thing, at the meeting, the term "just children" was used several times by teachers there. What I can say is those teachers are not people of principle when faced with serious right or wrong issues. Song Binbin and Liu Jin joined the communist party as early as 1965. Did the Chinese Communist Party accept children to be its members? By August, 1966, Song Binbin and Liu Jin were at the age of 19 and they were already grownups . They organized and led the steuggle meeting against fellow students on 8/4 and the one against teachers on 8/5. in the murder of Bian Zhongyun, they are responsible for organizing and leading the struggle meeting.

F: Recently a German scholar told me that Germans didn't do their reflection on WWII till late 60s when the younger generation began to question their parents about whether they were Nazis or killed people. By and by, they pushed the whole society as well as political parties and the nation to do reflection on it.

Y: The basis for the younger Germans to ask their parents is the fact that the Nazis' atrocities were totally denounced and cases settled. Without exposing the truth about Nazis' crimes or without denouncing the Nazis throughout Germany, how could the young Germans raise any questions? If all those who experienced the CR are like Feng Jinglan who could not distinguish between right and wrong or between virtue and evil, how could we expect younger generation in China to push the "whole society to do some reflection"? How could they push "the political parties and the nation to do reflection"? Unremorseful apology is fake apology. It is an insult to the victims of the CR if you try to cover for yourself or someone else in name of making an apology. It is also an irresponsible attitude toward the country and the nation.

January, 2014, by the Ohio River

Translated by Weimin Mo