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.
The canonical shot of an East Asian city is a night skyline studded with towering apartment and office buildings, bright with neon and plastic signage, a landscape of energy and modernity. Another classic image is the same city seen from above, in which identical apartment towers march across the city, spilling out over nearby geography, like stylized soldiers colonizing new territory in a board game. Densely populated dynamic conurbations of money, technological innovation and convenience, it is hard to see the cities of East Asia as what they truly are: necropolises. Why is this? The East Asian development model, with
June 16 to June 22 The following flyer appeared on the streets of Hsinchu on June 12, 1895: “Taipei has already fallen to the Japanese barbarians, who have brought great misery to our land and people. We heard that the Japanese occupiers will tax our gardens, our houses, our bodies, and even our chickens, dogs, cows and pigs. They wear their hair wild, carve their teeth, tattoo their foreheads, wear strange clothes and speak a strange language. How can we be ruled by such people?” Posted by civilian militia leader Wu Tang-hsing (吳湯興), it was a call to arms to retake
This is a deeply unsettling period in Taiwan. Uncertainties are everywhere while everyone waits for a small army of other shoes to drop on nearly every front. During challenging times, interesting political changes can happen, yet all three major political parties are beset with scandals, strife and self-inflicted wounds. As the ruling party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is held accountable for not only the challenges to the party, but also the nation. Taiwan is geopolitically and economically under threat. Domestically, the administration is under siege by the opposition-controlled legislature and growing discontent with what opponents characterize as arrogant, autocratic
When Lisa, 20, laces into her ultra-high heels for her shift at a strip club in Ukraine’s Kharkiv, she knows that aside from dancing, she will have to comfort traumatized soldiers. Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, exhausted troops are the main clientele of the Flash Dancers club in the center of the northeastern city, just 20 kilometers from Russian forces. For some customers, it provides an “escape” from the war, said Valerya Zavatska — a 25-year-old law graduate who runs the club with her mother, an ex-dancer. But many are not there just for the show. They “want to talk about what hurts,” she
RSS