Thanks,

Robert

Why we need to specify any particular race in a certain behavior since every human has the same potential in any emotion or any behaviorial characteristic… it is just the human nature. What should be in concern is the truth of the matter.

Truth is all prevailing. What was truth in the past is truth in the present too. And it will be the truth in the future also. Truth needs no withness or identity.

I am totally agreed with Sophea in illustrating the truth of the matter of who (individuals or states) were involved in the tragedy of Cambodia. We must not deny the truth by pointing to just the behavior of the victims, Cambodian themselves for the cause of the problem. Logically per se… A+B=C, if there is no A or B, there would not be the result in C.

True, and many have also said the same concerning the Japanese, and the Chinese….hell, you could add the Americans, when talking about race; Europeans, when talking about anti-semitism; et alii, mutatis mutandis.

I must admit I’ve had a problem catching just what is the crux of the discussion in this post. I mean, no one with any knowledge of the subject denies that events in Cambodia were part of the proxy wars of the Sino-Soviet split. I also believe that Prof Chandler wasn’t necessarily being paternalistic in his observation that many Cambodians are not aware of their own history. In addition to the cultural concept of “face” as relating to Cambodian socio-pedagogy, Cambodian schools just don’t have the money and other resources to produce modern textbooks that can afford to cover these topics. Thus, if they are going to teach this part of history, they are forced to depend on outside sources for the time being. I don’t see why recognition of this fact is controversial.

Indeed, in referring to Grasshopper and Don’s discussion, if the Cambodians wish to reestablish ownership of their historical narrative then they must legitimize their cultural narrative/folk history through the production of a large body of work from indigenous scholars in the fields of History, Anthropology, and Archeology, to engage the current academic discourse on their own terms.

*steps on soapbox*
(Unless, of course, such scholarship unveils too many inconvenient truths. I refer to the latest polemic by “Prof.” Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground, which attacks the Israeli attempts to reclaim and legitimize their heritage through indigenous scholarship in History, Anthropology, and especially, Archeology, because such findings threaten such post-colonalist sacred cows as “trendy academic Judeophobia” and “the cult of eternal Palestinian victimhood”. )
*steps off soapbox*

To certain degree of argument Mr. Ponchaud is correct but it depends on who Mr. Ponchaud was asking. I just hope that I have the opportunity to answer Mr. Ponchaud personally about Cambodia culture and tradition. To make it short…let’s just say that Mr. Ponchaud was asking the wrong person for the right information.

Regarding the admittance of guilts and responsibilities; you probably didnt read my lines clearly in sentences. Please read between the line. If you believe what Mr. Ponchaud is saying then you should read in abstract to which Mr. Ponchaud claimed that we as Khmer do not understand abstracts. Not that I despise your ability to understand things in abstracts. Please forgive me. My point is that as human we have the ability to learn and grasp on new things should opportunities present to us in ways where coercion is not a part of the tactics.

We are the next baby boomers and we are nowhere close to those of our predecessors. We are educated and learnt from the West thus our mind are sharp and ready to except the responsibility with full understanding of consequences should there be as such. However, we do not preach of violence. We are utilizing the logical sense of what has been practiced by famous individual such as Ghandi and MLK. These are heroes of our time and I have learnt quite abit must I say so. We do not believe in vengence or having vindictive attitude to those who have harmed us.

The question you have to ask yourself is…what makes you happy as a person? If happiness is what we’re after then the world would be a great place to live, but it is not so. We as nations constantly think of ways to protect our national security and at the same time become a perpetrator to our own cause and because of this heinous and psychotic thinking we also put ourselves at risks. Hence, what Dr. Kissinger is saying in 1957 is true until this very day and I quote:

” There are those who believe that the principal objective of this generation should be peace at any price. For such people the capacity of the Russians to bring on an atomic holocaust should not be particularly disturbing since peace can probably always be secured — on Russian terms.”

As people and most importantly as human, we must begin to dissect the statement made by or written by Dr. Kissinger with best possible observation then proceed with full comprehension as to what led to the idea of Atomic Holocaust into the thoughts of the Russian government when most believe in peace. I hate to be offtrack discussing the issue of Cambodia and jumping onto something else, but you have to understand that they are all related. Just as Russia, China and Vietnam related to Cambodia dilapidation.

Thus foreign policy and respecting of each country sovereignty is most crucial act. However, it is not so. Bigger nations tend to interveine with smaller nations for the sake of economic interests as we have seen in the case of Cambodia. Such as granades, tanks, AK47, artilleries and ammunitions not to mention a bunch of other sophisticated weaponry systems. These weapons if placed in the wrong hands of people then innocense lives will be at risk again as the case in Cambodia.

If peace is the ultimate quest for human endeavors, why creating more destructive weapons for the sake of saving lives. Why not develop something that would help secure peace rather than war?

There are more to come…

Thank You

Sophea

“I’m not going to save the world.”

You don’t know how hard that was to say!

Along broadly similar lines, one can also say about the Filipinos, although admission is not an issue but national memory. Think about Marcos or the Marcoses and their recent incarnates – the Arroyos. Is this Asian?