5 June 2001

---

Peter,

Thanks for taking the time to read our analysis. However, I think if you were to read the analysis in its entirety, you will see that some of the points you make against us actually coincide with our own position. For example,

> I don't think the actions of the Khmer Rouge are characteristic of > Khmer > people or Khmer culture, so I wonder why you feel the need to deny > the experiences > of millions of victims of the KR.

We do not deny the experiences of millions of KR victims at all. In fact, our analysis was written to reaffirm their experience, in contrast to Ung's portrayal in which Khmer people are all evil and only light-skinned Chinese-Cambodians were victimized. Chinese-Cambodians, Khmer, Cham, Vietnamese-Cambodians, hill tribes people, etc. all suffered.

The other arguments you make against us take the details of our analysis out of context and without the bigger picture in mind. The point we were making is that there are too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Ung's story for it to be considered authentic and we use the details merely as supporting evidence. The details, such as the notion that her family took 4 days to get to Kom Baul, are not important in and of themselves. The many errors in her book are important only in that they demonstrate that her "memoir" is nothing more that the product of an active imagination with a distinct bias against the Khmer people. We do not deny that she suffered through the tragedy, but living through the KF does not give her the right to perpetuate fraud and racism.

With respect to the 3 arguments you make against our analysis:

> 1) Discrediting Ms. Ung's ethnicity and socio-economic status. Your > attempt > at character assassination was particularly laughable.

We mentioned Ung's ethnicity and socio-economic status to question the accuracy of her book, not her character. There is a distinct difference. Several members and affiliates of the Khmer Institute are of Chinese-Cambodian descent and our criticism of Ung's narration is that she perpetuates racism through her demonization of native Khmers. We were criticizing Ung's racism, not her race. Similarly, the issue of socio-economic status is not mentioned as a means to "character assassinate" but to demonstrate Ung's manipulation and misrepresentation of 1970s Cambodia. Corruption played a primary role in contributing to the rise of the KR. If anyone is "dodging the issue" as you put it, it is Ung in failing to explain why and how the KR came to be. She attributes their actions to some kind of inherent evil, failing to recognize that much of what they did was in reaction to the brutality and corruption of which they themselves were victim before they took over. Of course, no one would suggest that this excuses them for their cruelty, but it at least helps to explain it. To know the cause of the KR's rise is to prevent any such thing from happening again.

> If Ms. Ung is Chinese or Cambodian or Khmer is immaterial to the fact that the Khmer Rouge > was > responsible for the deaths of her family members and millions of other > Cambodians, > regardless of their ethnicity.

Again, that is exactly the point we are trying to make. Ung tries to portray the Killing Fields in a manner that suggests only light-skinned or Chinese-Cambodians were harmed. We are making the correction that ALL Cambodians suffered, regardless of ethnicity.

> Your repeated corrections of Ms. Ung's references > to her family as "middle class" ranged from vague allegations of her > father's > misdeeds (having policemen protect his daughter from Khmer Rouge terrorists?) > to defending her family's murder because "they disproportionately benefited > from the conditions that lead [sic] to the destruction of Cambodia."

This is an example of one of the many points you have taken out of context. It is the decadent lifestyle she describes that shows her family disproportionately benefited from corruption – her father's private use of public servants is only one example of how corruption operated in Cambodia. My parents' neighbor in Phnom Penh was an MP captain just like Ung's father, but he could not lay claim to even half the possessions Ung's family possessed. Corruption by the military in early 1970s Cambodia is clearly documented by eye-witnesses, journalists, foreign diplomats, and anyone else living in Cambodia at the time. As for the other "vague allegations of misdeeds," the simple fact is that Sihanouk's secret police were a savage lot who routinely abducted and killed people. My own uncle, a newspaper editor and journalist who spoke out against corruption during the 1960s and 70s, managed to barely escape several of their assassination attempts. His life was in such jeopardy from these thugs that he was a one point forced into voluntary exile. Finally, our analysis does not defend any murder by the KR, including her family's. It seeks to acknowledge the conditions that gave rise to the KR, of which the corruption of government officials is clearly a main cause. To glorify such a lifestyle as Ung does in her book is offensive to the millions of Cambodians who were even then (before the KR takeover) starving to death as a result.

> You > even said the fact that they were given leftovers when scavenging for > food > made them "extremely fortunate"! They had been rich, so they deserved > to > die.

Again, I know for certain none of the KI members nor myself would suggest that someone deserves to die for being rich. I'm not sure where your assertion comes from. As for being given leftovers, most survivors of the KF will attest that her family was in fact "extremely fortunate" to be given leftover chicken and rice – other people were barely living off heavily watered down rice gruel after all. I'm not sure why you would find our pointing out that fact so offensive. Our statement that only those in the KR's good graces would be given such privilege is also a fact. The KR killed people at a whim. Why would they give people they despised extra food to eat? It just did not jell with her claim that her brother was routinely beaten but then given this food to bring back to his family.

> 2) Calling into question minute details of her childhood memories. > 3) Focusing on meaningless details of her experiences.

Objections #2 and #3 are basically the same. Once again, the details are mentioned not because they are important in and of themselves, but because they go to demonstrating the story is fabricated. One or two mistakes in memory is understandable, but mistakes on every other page is not.

> Correcting her comments on > the history of Angkor Wat is not exactly proving she "misrepresents > and > distorts Khmer[1] culture and history."

You again point to one single example we gave, whereas in the analysis there were many, many more, which in totality demonstrate a disregard and contempt by the author for everything Khmer. I don't think a white author in America would be too well received if he/she wrote about black people and black culture with the level of disdain that Ung writes about the Khmer.

> Questioning whether they tried to pretend to be peasants to save their > lives > is more pettiness: it is NOT comparable to a New Yorker trying to pass > himself > off as a Mississippian, as in your expose.

How would you know?

> Your assertion that the "Khmer Rouge had strict > marriage > guidelines and infringement of these rules in the manner Ung describes, > even by soldiers, would have been dealt with quite severely" doesn't > exactly > assure me that rape and abduction by soldiers didn't happen. After > all, > millions of people were systematically worked and starved to death > under > the Khmer Rouge; it's not unthinkable, therefore, that the soldiers > may > have raped a few, too.

Nobody claims that rape did not happen. We are only questioning Ung's representation of the events that transpired. She makes it appear to be part of the KR's policy. While KR leaders will be prosecuted for numerous human rights abuses if a trial ever does take place, promoting systematic rape will not be one of them. Not because it is not a very serious crime (it is and has been recognized as so by international human rights bodies), but because it is simply not one of the many serious crimes the KR leadership committed. Let's try to get the facts straight and focus on the real atrocities (of which there are plenty), rather than sensationalizing a story by making up accusations such as ethnic cleansing and systematic rape.

  Back to Comments List