I distrusted this book the moment I opened it. The reason for this initial reaction was the routine hostility to Mao Zedong (毛澤東) evident on every page. I couldn't find a single point anywhere in his favor.
Human beings are not like this, I thought. I'd become accustomed to thinking of all people as a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, with even the worst kinds of tyrants motivated by what they believed, however misguidedly, were idealistic motives. The mass killer who has an affection for his mother or his pet canary is an established type. But nothing like that is allowed to Mao in this book. It credits him with no altruistic motives whatsoever, and indeed its hatred for the Great Helmsman is unrelenting.
I found this puzzling. The two writers -- the author of the hugely successful Wild Swans and her British husband -- researched this book for over a decade and, you would have thought, would want to succeed in it with their scholarly peers. But scholars don't usually write sentences such as this (the book's conclusion): "His mind remained lucid to the end, and in it stirred just one thought: himself and his power." Photo captions contain phrases such as: "... [Mao's] book-strewn bed, on which he also romped with his numerous girlfriends" and "congratulating the Khmer Rouge in 1975, for bringing about a slave society in one fell swoop."
I therefore decided the ultimate readership these authors had in mind was not fellow scholars at all, but rather China's own citizens. China, it could be argued, flourishes on myths, and it's little use offering to a mass readership a scrupulous narrative that weighs the pros and cons. The Chinese have been fed pro-Mao propaganda for decades, and what they needed, you can imagine this pair of writers thinking, was anti-Mao propaganda that was equally clear-cut and ruthless.
So -- what in essence do Chang and Halliday argue? The answer is one big thing and many incidental ones. The big thing is that Mao was always interested only in personal power, and to this end urged executions, terror and communal brutality. His crack-pot schemes causing millions of deaths were not misguided attempts to improve people's lives but deliberate sacrifices of Chinese citizens for his own strategic advantage. This is the main thrust of the book's argument.
Specific accusations include that the courage of the Long March was a myth, and that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) let the Reds pass unresisted because his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), was a hostage in Moscow; that the Dadu Chain-Bridge Incident was a fiction; that Mao prolonged the Korean War, despite terrible Chinese casualties, simply to embarrass the US; that he encouraged raising cash by opium cultivation; and that he paid Moscow vast sums for military and other aid.
One of the problems is that the book claims to offer "the unknown story" of Mao. To know what's unknown you need to know what was previously known, and to do that you'd have to read all earlier biographies -- a near-impossible task. Clearly, then, it was necessary to defer to specialist historians of China and other China-watchers and find what they thought of the book.
So I looked at earlier reviews. One of the most controversial appeared in the London Review of Books. By the Columbia professor and writer on China Andrew Nathan, it insisted that "many of Chang and Halliday's claims are based on distorted, misleading or far-fetched use of evidence."
The authors interviewed 363 people, in China and elsewhere, but didn't always cite sources other historians could verify. Some of the written materials they used, too, couldn't be checked. Nathan's review led to a detailed rebuttal by the authors, to which Nathan in his turn replied.
Most other reviews were openly enthusiastic. In London's Guardian Michael Yahuda, a professor emeritus at the London School of Economics, though complaining that there was "no discussion of the quality of the sources or how they were used," still called the book "magnificent" and "stupendous." Hong Kong's last British governor Chris Patten described the book as "a bombshell," former UK Labor Party deputy-leader Roy Hattersley found Mao finally nailed as an example of pure evil, while Simon Sebag Montefiore in The Sunday Times considered the book exposed Mao as "probably the most disgusting of the bloody troika of 20th-century tyrant-messiahs."
My overriding feeling, after reading this book, was that revolutions always lead to tyrannies, whereas civilizations are the result of painstaking improvements, often simple practical ones, by innumerable individuals, accumulated over the centuries. Mao may have been the monster this book alleges, but he was also a type, the kind of person who almost inevitably acquires power in revolutions and then has his worst tendencies encouraged by the situation he finds himself in.
It's impossible to judge how "true" this near-caricature portrait of Mao is. Its value will probably be as a counter-balance to the weight of pro-Mao propaganda, portraying him as a remote sage not entirely in control of events, that in the past convinced many, Westerners included.
Mao: The Unknown Story involves few balancing acts, but it may in reality be a book aimed at influ-encing future events on the ground in China, presenting a vigorous case against the Communists at the highest possible level that can be used as ammunition when the time is ripe. Jung Chang was born in China and was even briefly a Red Guard. This book, then, looks like her attempt, together with the loyal support of her husband, to influence the future history of her native people in a more positive direction by demonstrating how pointlessly Mao crucified and tortured them and thus helping prepare the way for their eventual salvation.
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50