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.
Last week Joseph Nye, the well-known China scholar, wrote on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s website about how war over Taiwan might be averted. He noted that years ago he was on a team that met with then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), “whose previous ‘unofficial’ visit to the US had caused a crisis in which China fired missiles into the sea and the US deployed carriers off the coast of Taiwan.” Yes, that’s right, mighty Chen caused that crisis all by himself. Neither the US nor the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercised any agency. Nye then nostalgically invoked the comical specter
April 15 to April 21 Yang Kui (楊逵) was horrified as he drove past trucks, oxcarts and trolleys loaded with coffins on his way to Tuntzechiao (屯子腳), which he heard had been completely destroyed. The friend he came to check on was safe, but most residents were suffering in the town hit the hardest by the 7.1-magnitude Hsinchu-Taichung Earthquake on April 21, 1935. It remains the deadliest in Taiwan’s recorded history, claiming around 3,300 lives and injuring nearly 12,000. The disaster completely flattened roughly 18,000 houses and damaged countless more. The social activist and
Over the course of former President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) 11-day trip to China that included a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) a surprising number of people commented that the former president was now “irrelevant.” Upon reflection, it became apparent that these comments were coming from pro-Taiwan, pan-green supporters and they were expressing what they hoped was the case, rather than the reality. Ma’s ideology is so pro-China (read: deep blue) and controversial that many in his own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hope he retires quickly, or at least refrains from speaking on some subjects. Regardless
Approaching her mid-30s, Xiong Yidan reckons that most of her friends are on to their second or even third babies. But Xiong has more than a dozen. There is Lucky, the street dog from Bangkok who jumped into a taxi with her and never left. There is Sophie and Ben, sibling geese, who honk from morning to night. Boop and Pan, both goats, are romantically involved. Dumpling the hedgehog enjoys a belly rub from time to time. The list goes on. Xiong nurtures her brood from her 8,000 square meter farm in Chiang Dao, a mountainous district in northern Thailand’s