Tuesday marked the 40th anniversary of the infamous May 16 Notice that officially started China's Cultural Revolution, leading to the ferreting out of "capitalist roaders" and encouraging the Red Guards to embark on a campaign of chaos.
This period has been termed a "disaster" with official Chinese figures putting the death toll at 2 million, 7 million injured and the breakup of 70,000 families.
Chinese culture has a history that dates back thousands of years -- a fact that the Chinese have always been proud of. How then could have the country descended into such a period of self-destruction when there weren't even outside aggressors involved? Never before in Chinese history had such levels of cruelty, violence and lack of morality been seen.
The Cultural Revolution's rise can be attributed to two main causes: the despotic rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the dictatorial hold of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). If China had not been under a communist regime at the time, the Cultural Revolution would never had taken place even if Mao were on the scene. Likewise, if Mao hadn't ruled China, the country could have avoided the bloodshed and tragedy even with the CCP in power.
There is, however, another easily overlooked factor. Without the fervent participation of hundreds of millions of Chinese, Mao and those around him could never have instigated wanton destruction on the scale they did. But why did the Chinese get involved on such a scale? For this, one needs to look at Chinese history.
Within the context of a traditional culture devoid of the values of individualism, honor and freedom, the humiliation felt by the Chinese people following their defeat in the Opium Wars led to a sense of unity and nationhood. But as the Chinese -- from public officials to the masses -- learned and moved toward a consensus subordinating life and the individual to the state, this led to the suppression of the intelligensia and the public's capitulation of their own rights, making it possible for Mao to cast himself as emperor and teacher.
During the Cultural Revolution itself, the Chinese became like wild beasts, a situation made possible by their atheist background and the violence at the heart of communist ideology. They stopped at nothing to achieve their objective, with husbands and wives betraying each other, children denouncing their parents, and students attacking their teachers. It was a time when virtually everyone in China was transformed into a monster complicit in the bloodshed.
As these events unfolded, people were only concerned about ideology: They cared little for individual human lives, much less for honor. The Cultural Revolution brought out the beast in the Chinese; it was a cathartic release of the will to sin.
Today, the CCP does not wish to dwell on the Cultural Revolution because they were implicated in it, including high-ranking party officials such as Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) who was once a Red Guard leader. It is also impossible for the Chinese people to reflect on this period of their history as the dictatorial system that gave birth to it remains in place, and the government still monopolizes the right to interpret history.
Given the current Chinese mentality stressing the importance of achieving one's goal by whatever means, as well as belief in national supremacy and the country's rise as a superpower, it is not too far-fetched a claim to say that the Chinese cultural revolution is alive and well. This poses a threat not only to Taiwan, but to all humanity.
For this reason, China doesn't have a hope unless the Chinese people start to place civilized values such as life, freedom and honor above the state and nationalist ideology.
Cao Changching is a dissident writer based in the US.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did