【大紀元6月3日訊】在八九學運與民運20週年之際，我們，大屠殺的倖存者和這場運動的組織者、參與者、研究者和支持者，再次敦促你們 —— 就像我們在1995年的敦促一樣 —— 糾正你們製作的電影《天安門》中的史實錯誤。
該影片有選擇地引用了一些句語，同時又遺漏了一些重要的史實，創作了一些不真實的歷史記錄，尤其是關係到天安門廣場總指揮柴玲的部份很不真實。若你們認為製作該片並無個人動機以故意詆譭柴玲和學運組織者，我們 ——許多當年就在天安門廣場——敦促你們將本文張貼在你們的網站上，讓公眾可以考慮雙方的觀點，以便作出自己的判斷。
你們在影片中使用選擇性的引述與詮釋及錯誤的翻譯，讓觀眾得出印象，以為柴玲在危險來臨時逃跑了，卻讓其他學生去送死，或以為她和我們所有學運組織者在挑起並期望血腥屠殺。這種印象與當年發生在天安門廣場上的事實完全不符。
顯然，柴玲的用語「期待流血」被《天安門》製片人卡瑪．韓丁Carma Hinton 錯誤地翻譯並斷章取義。「期待」應譯為「預期或等待」(anticipate or wait)，而非影片中所謂的「期望」(hope for)。我們在現場的都知道，柴玲那句話是指我們預期可能會發生鎮壓，並希望一旦發生鎮壓是在公共場所和媒體面前，而不是在陰暗的角落、不會從世人的視野中消失，就像其他1989年之前和之後眾多的民眾運動那樣。而且，重要的是我們預期的是鎮壓，而非大屠殺。另外還應注意，學運組織者已作了最大努力，以確保選擇留在天安門廣場的學生和民眾明白風險並自願留下。
尤為重要的是，柴玲那句「……我要求生」也被斷章取義，從而給出一個虛假的印象，讓人以為她自己逃跑了。而事實上，她和天安門學生和民眾示威者一直留在廣場，直到最後一刻，並在「六四」 清晨帶領大家撤離廣場，一道走回校園。正是這樣的不實印象，誤導了香港大學學生會會長陳一諤，導致他最近作了一個錯誤的公開演講，從而被暸解真相的香港大學的學生們罷免。像陳一諤這樣受誤導的觀眾很多，這從互聯網上因貴片引起的對柴玲的大量惡評就可明顯看出。
上下文有助於理解真相，因此，對於你們，影片製片人，將柴玲在1989年6月8日的錄音講話遺漏掉，我們認為很不合適。在那盤錄音帶中，柴玲詳細敘述了她在屠殺之夜的經歷和見聞，這是製片人很應該留意的地方。然而，柴玲6月8日的錄音講話在貴片中幾乎都沒採用，如果採用了這些錄音講話，貴片中上述的錄像帶的翻譯和剪輯的真實性就會成為問題——而在貴片中，5月28日那盤錄像帶倒是被大量引用，以吸引觀眾的注意。
柴玲5月28日的錄像談話提到求生的願望，這是我們共同的願望。當時的11億中國人無一沒有強烈的求生願望。事實上，面臨屠殺和監禁，我們和廣場上的同伴中的許多人都作出了艱難的抉擇，用犧牲求生的願望來維護我們的責任與尊嚴。實際上，在「六四」屠殺後被迫轉入地下的過程中，在躲藏、囚禁和流亡海外的經歷中，正是這種求生的願望，給我們以勇氣和力量生存下來。正如柴玲在《絕食書》中所說的那樣：「我們以死的氣概，為了生而戰」。
我們追求的是真相，過去是，現在依然是。在一定程度上，柴玲和我們達成了這一目標——這場運動是中國現代史上記錄得最詳盡的一次，留下了大量的照片、報告、書籍和回憶，為歷史作證，為未來存照。這場運動不像以往的民主運動那樣，被中共當局控制的媒體隱蔽在黑暗中不見天日。
很多很多年以前，托克維爾訪問美國，他經過觀察得出結論：「美國因良善而偉大。她的人民很善良……一旦她不再良善，美國也就不再偉大。」我們今天都很幸運，能夠做這樣的辯論，因為美國的國父們經過卓絕奮鬥，留給我們一個開放的系統，鼓勵言論自由與學術自由。就是為了這樣的自由，我們也曾在中國的土地上犧牲奮鬥，至今還未實現這些自由。
你們曾表示過願意「用一種容易獲得的方式，反映1989年事件背後的複雜動機與故事，並為專家和公眾提供不斷發展的研究素材。」我們也一直通過六四檔案網站(64memo.com)向公眾提供歷史檔案資料。因此，保持真實的歷史記錄，應該是我們共同的目標。
「六四」20週年即將到來，從最初向你們質疑，到現在已經14個年頭了，卻未見你們對《天安門》影片中的錯誤解讀有何糾正。因此，我們這些曾冒過危險和在流亡的人，再次敦促你們將這份公開信貼到你們的網站上，這封信是我們的簡短回應，以維護我們為推動中國自由民主的努力，也維護那些為了個人尊嚴和中國前途而冒著生命危險吶喊、甚至犧牲性命的人們，使他們的努力不致遭到扭曲或誤解。
專此佈達，並頌文安
2009年5月28日
簽名人：
方政，北京體育大學，「六四」早晨被坦克碾斷雙腿
張健，北京體育大學，「六四」凌晨在天安門廣場連中三槍
熊焱，北京大學，21通緝學生之一，「六四」在長安街阻攔軍隊
周鋒鎖，清華大學，21通緝學生之一，「六四」最後一批撤離廣場者
封從德，北京大學，21通緝學生之一，「六四」最後一批撤離廣場者
常勁，北京大學，組織過「六四」死亡調查
程真，北京師範大學，「六四」最後一批撤離廣場者
潘強，山東大學，「六四」最後一批撤離廣場者
盛雪，北京「六四」大屠殺的見證者
鄭義，著名作家，北京知識界示威遊行組織者
王容芬，中國社會科學院高級研究員，「六四」大屠殺見證者
楊建利，加州大學伯克利分校，六三夜間在天安門廣場
楊巍，當時在上海的中國民聯成員，因「六四」被關押一年半
張菁，當時在貴州勞改茶場，因參與八十年代民主運動受迫害
畢潤全，香港社工，全程參加聲援天安門學生
严家祺，中國社科院政治學所所長，北京“六四”大屠殺的見證者
還學文：北京大學哲學系本科，北京大學外哲所研究生，德國雷根斯堡大學分析哲學碩士。現自由作家，從事當代社會思想問題研究
仲維光：中國科技大學研究生院碩士，中國科學院自然科學史研究所工作，德國魯爾大學訪問學者。現自由作家。專門從事研究當代極權主義和共產黨社會問題
簽名网址：http://www.64memo.com/sign/
英文：
Open letter of Tiananmen survivors, participants, and supporters
To Carma Hinton, Richard Gordon
Director and Producer of the Gate of Heavenly Peace
May 28th, 2009
On the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Chinese Student Movement, we, the survivors of the massacre and the organizers, participants, researchers and supporters of the movement, are urging you again – as we did in 1995 – to correct the false reporting and editing in your film, The Gate of Heavenly Peace.
In your documentary, some selectively quoted statements and omissions of a few important historical facts created a false record of the history, particularly in relation to our fellow student leader Chai Ling. If you consider your production a documentary of the facts without any personal motives to intentionally discredit Chai Ling and the student organizers of the movement, we, many of whom were actually in Tiananmen Square, urge you to post this letter on your web site so that the public can consider both of our perspectives and judge for themselves.
In your documentary, you used selective quotes and interpretive and erroneous translation leaving viewers with an impression that Chai Ling had run away from the danger while sending her other students to die, or that she and all of us student leaders had provoked and hoped for the bloodshed. This impression was contradictory to the facts of what actually happened at Tiananmen.
Clearly, Chai Ling』s language “…qidai liuxue” was mistranslated by Carma Hinton, the producer, and taken out of context. “qidai” is properly translated as “hope for with anticipation or wait.” Those of us who were there know that Chai Ling meant that we were anticipating a possible crackdown and hoping that the crackdown would happen in public, in front of the media, rather than being driven back to the darkness and disappearing from the world record, like so many other uprisings in China before and after 1989. It is important to note that we anticipated a crackdown, not a massacre. It also should have been noted that the student leaders made a major effort to make sure students who chose to stay at Tiananmen were volunteers who understood the risks of remaining in the square.
Above all, our fellow student Chai Ling’s language “…I want to live…” was also taken out of context, and gives a false impression that she ran away. In fact, she was there with her fellow student demonstrators until the last minute at Tiananmen, and led the last protestors on the Square retreating to campus in the morning of June 4th, 1989. It was with that false impression, Chan Yi’ngok, the recently impeached Chair of Hong Kong University Students’ Union, had made an errant public speech and ruined his reputation.
Context helps provide truth, thus we are critical that you as filmmakers left out Chai Ling』s audio tape from June 8th, 1989, where she gave detailed accounts on what happened during the night of massacre, and of which the filmmakers must have been aware. Most of Chai Ling』s June 8th speech was intentionally omitted from the documentary, as it would have called into question the veracity of the translation and editing of her videotaped clip in the film quoted above—a clip that was used extensively to promote and draw attention to the film.
Chai Ling』s voice on May 28th, 1989, regarding her desire to live is a voice of all of us. There is no one, among the billions of Chinese people that does not have a strong desire to live. The truth is that when the massacre and imprisonment came, many of us and our colleagues made the difficult decision to sacrifice the desire to live in order fulfill our duty and honor. The fact is also that, during those long dark days, months, and years following Tiananmen of being underground and in hiding, imprisonment, or exile overseas, the very desire to live has gave us all the courage and strength to survive. As Chai Ling said during her Hunger Strike speech: “With the courage of facing death, we are fighting for the right to live”.
Our goal was, and is, truth. Chai Ling and all of us accomplished the goal to some extent in that this is one event in China’s modern history that left extensive photos, reporting, books, and memoirs for the world to see and to tell the history and show the truth. This movement did not disappear into darkness as others did before, via the Chinese Government’s controlled media.
Many, many years ago, de Tocqueville visited America, observed and concluded, “America is great because she is good. Her people are good…Once it ceases its goodness, America will ceases its greatness”. We are all fortunate today, to have this debate, because the American founding fathers have fought and left us an open system that encourages free speech and academic freedom. The very freedom that we all fought for, sacrificed for, and yet have not achieved inside China.
We value you and your colleagues’ stated interest to “reflect the complex motives and stories behind the events of 1989 in an accessible format, and to provide specialists and the public with an ongoing research resource.” We, too, are continuing our effort to build a historical archive for public access via the web site: www.64memo.com. It should be our common interest to work together to preserve a true record of the history.
On the 20th anniversary remembering all of the Chinese students’ and citizens’ sacrifices, it has been 14 years since we first raised our concerns with you, but we have seen no action taken to correct misrepresentations in The Gate of Heavenly Peace. Again, we who took the risk and live in exile today because of it, urge you to post on your website this brief response and defense of our attempt to bring freedom and democracy to China, and of those students and citizens who risked or sacrificed their life and future to cry for a better future of China.
Sincerely,
Signatories ‘ Name, College in 1989, brief note
FANG Zheng, Beijing Sport University, Crushed by Tank in the morning of June 4, 1989
ZHANG Jian, Beijing Sport University, Shot in the early morning of June 4, 1989
XIONG Yan, Peking University, on the 21 Most Wanted List, among the last protestors on Chang’An Avenue
ZHOU Fengsuo, Tsinghua University, on the 21 Most Wanted List, among the last students on the Square
FENG Congde, Peking University, on the 21 Most Wanted List, among the last students on the Square
CHANG Jing, Peking University, on a Wanted List, organized the survey of deaths in hospitals
CHENG Zhen, Beijing Normal University, among the last students on Tiananmen Square
PAN Qiang, Shandong University, among the last students retreating from Tiananmen Square
SHENG Xue, witness of Beijing Tiananmen massacre
ZHENG Yi, well-known writer, organizer of Beijing Intellectuals’ demonstrations
WANG Rongfen, Junior researcher of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, witness of the massacre
YANG Jianli, U.C. Berkeley, witness of Beijing Tiananmen massacre
YANG Wei, activist in Shanghai, who was put in jail for 18 months after the massacre
ZHANG Jing, activist in Guizhou, who was in jail then
BI Runquan, social worker in Hong Kong, supporting all along the Tiananmen student movement
(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
