What's new

China tries to write its history

TruthSeeker

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
6,390
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
The party line on party history

China’s Communists try to get in final word as organization’s 90th anniversary approaches

By Andrew Higgins, Friday, May 27,12:37 AM , Washington Post

China’s Communist Party has finally got its story straight. It took 16 years of editing and four extensive rewrites. Chinese leaders, otherwise preoccupied with running a rising superpower, weighed in throughout.

“I never thought it would take so long,” said Shi Zhongquan, who helped craft what the party hopes will be the final word on some of the most politically sensitive and also bloodiest episodes of China’s recent history — a new 1,074-page account of the party’s early decades in power.

As China races into the future, the Communist Party — which marks its 90th birthday in July — still takes the past, especially its own, very seriously. “Writing history is not easy,” said Shi, a veteran party historian.

It gets particularly hard when it includes not only two of the past century’s most lethal man-made catastrophes — the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution — but also a modest yet now ticklish upset back in 1962 — the disgrace of Xi Zhongxun, the father of Xi Jinping, China’s current vice president and leader-in-waiting.

“It’s an old communist joke that Marxists can predict the future, but the past is more difficult,” said Roderick Macfarquhar, a Harvard University scholar and leading authority on Chinese politics under Mao Zedong, who died in 1976. The past, added Macfarquhar, “is important because it legitimates the present” and “what went wrong then has to be justified now.”

The party published its first official history 20 years ago but ended the story with Mao’s conquest of China in 1949. It has now ventured into far more treacherous territory with the January publication of “History of the Chinese Communist Party, Volume 2 (1949-1978),” which continues the saga until the year Deng Xiaoping started undoing much of Mao’s legacy.

As China gears up to mark the July anniversary of the party’s founding in 1921, history has become a boom industry. Nobody outside a tiny group of die-hard Maoists wants to revive communes, class struggle and brutal purges. But the party is hammering a message it views as crucial to its grip on power: China’s surging economy and growing international clout are entirely the fruit of uninterrupted one-party rule.

The state poured nearly $400 million into a new National Museum stuffed with revolutionary memorabilia, and millions more into “The Founding of a Party,” a star-studded epic movie due to be released soon. Chinese TV stations, meanwhile, have been told to yank cop shows and focus on airing dramas about party history instead.

Shaping history is particularly important to China’s so-called princelings, the offspring of Mao’s comrades. Having secured influence and often wealth on the basis of their family connections, members of this small but powerful group celebrate a wart-free version of the past that boosts their status — and sidesteps their parents’ role as enforcers and then victims of party brutality.

‘Distort and smear’

Xi, the Politburo member who is due to take over as leader of the party next year and whose father was purged by Mao in 1962, has been particularly active in stressing the need to get history right. In a keynote address at a “history work conference” last summer, he called on all party members — numbering nearly 80 million — to “resolutely combat the wrong tendency to distort and smear the party’s history.” (He didn’t comment on his father.)

Also weighing history has been the son of Liu Shaoqi, a former Chinese president who died in 1969 after being denied medical treatment, having been purged by Mao during the Cultural Revolution. The son, military officer Liu Yuan, wrote in a preface to a new book that “the Party has been repeatedly betrayed by general secretaries, both in and outside the country, recently and in the past.”

Mao, whose portrait hangs above the main gate to the Forbidden City, has taken a beating in recent years from books — all now banned in China — that portray him variously as a megalomaniac, sex maniac and mass murderer.

Standing behind Mao

Shi, a former deputy director of the Party History Research Center, acknowledged wide differences of opinion among scholars, both Chinese and foreign, but said the party was not budging from the line it first fixed in 1981 that Mao made “gross mistakes” but, overall, did far more good than harm. “You can’t attack Mao and not attack the Chinese Communist Party,” Shi said.

So touchy is the party about its past that the new history Shi helped edit had to be vetted by 64 party and state bodies, including the People’s Liberation Army. An initial draft took four years to finish, but that didn’t pass muster with the leadership. It took 12 more years before the Politburo finally signed off on a finished text. This, according to an editor’s note, followed “clear demands regarding revisions” from party chief Hu Jintao, his heir apparent, Xi, and vice president Zeng Qinghong.

The whole process lasted so long that more than a dozen of the scholars involved at the start died before publication. Of an original trio of three senior editors, Shi, now 73, is the only one still alive.

The leadership’s close attention has at least helped boost sales: The two-volume text topped the Beijing News bestseller list for more than a month, due in large part to bulk orders from party units, which have been ordered to study the work.

Regular historians sniff at the whole venture: “This is politics and propaganda,” said Yang Kuisong, a prominent history professor in Beijing. “I have no interest in the topic.”

Unlike China’s recently opened National Museum and other party-sponsored excursions into the past, however, the official history doesn’t simply trumpet triumphs such as China’s first atomic-bomb test in 1964. It also tackles the party’s painful episodes.

The most “sensitive” period to write about, according to Shi, was not the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, which the party long ago declared a disaster and blamed on the so-called Gang of Four, but the decade before. That was when Mao first turned on many of his former allies, first intellectuals during the so-called anti-rightists campaign, and then senior party officials, including Xi Zhongxun, the father of Xi Jinping, the all-but-certain successor to President Hu.

An early revolutionary and a vice premier, Xi Zhongxun fell from favor in 1962 amid calls by Mao to step up “class struggle” against those accused of seeking to restore capitalism. Xi, who vanished from public view for 16 years, got caught up in an obscure internal feud over a novel called “Liu Zhi Dan.” Mao saw the book as part of an alleged plot to rehabilitate Gao Gang, an earlier purge victim who killed himself.

The new official party history skirts details of the saga and blames Xi’s downfall mostly on the machinations of Mao’s security chief, Kang Sheng. Branding Xi and others as members of “an anti-Party clique” was “totally wrong,” the history says. Xi was finally rehabilitated after Mao’s death.

Tackling the Great Leap

In a lengthy discussion of the Great Leap Forward, a ruinous crash program of industrialization and rural collectivization launched in 1958, the party history acknowledges great suffering and even notes that because of food shortages and illness, China’s population in 1960 fell by 10 million.

But, claiming that Mao’s goal throughout was basically the same as that of China’s current leadership, it says he was driven by “a desire to change a picture of poverty and backwardness and make China grow rich and strong so it could use its own strength to stand tall in the forest of nations.”

Mao, according to the party’s version of events, “realized relatively early through preliminary investigation and research that there were problems in [the Great Leap] movement and worked hard to correct them.”

Frank Dikotter, a Dutch scholar who last year published a study of the period, “Mao’s Great Famine,” dismissed this as a “barefaced lie.” Mao, he said, was indeed aware of the starvation caused by his policies but pressed on, with the result that as many as 45 million people died.

Not recorded in the official history is a 1959 comment by Mao that Dikotter unearthed from a Chinese provincial archive: “It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”

Today's paper
 
.
I now know why many Chinese forum goers call the Washington Post "America's People's Daily".
 
.
^^The artical is not very surprising the reaction of Orientalist in the West.

I would love to read history of the West written by Native people around the world.

When white people put the pen down into words about the history of other non-white people, you can be damn sure it is biased.
 
. .
Read "The Unknown Story MAO by Jung Chang. It will open your eyes and break your heart, especially if you love the Chinese people. Mao Tse-tung was the most evil human being who ever lived. He was responsible for more deaths (mostly Chinese) than Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.
 
.
Denouncing a dead man dose make you hero nor will bring back the lives of the dead in the past but only costs more in the future.

---------- Post added at 03:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 AM ----------

Unless this is what you intend to do.
 
.
Read "The Unknown Story MAO by Jung Chang. It will open your eyes and break your heart, especially if you love the Chinese people. Mao Tse-tung was the most evil human being who ever lived. He was responsible for more deaths (mostly Chinese) than Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.
Professor Andrew Nathan of Columbia University published an extensive evaluation of the book in the London Review of Books. While he was complimentary of the book in some respects — noting for example that it "shows special insight into the suffering of Mao’s wives and children" — and acknowledged that it might make real contributions to the field, Nathan's review was largely negative. He noted that "many of their discoveries come from sources that cannot be checked, others are openly speculative or are based on circumstantial evidence, and some are untrue." Nathan suggested that Chang and Halliday's own anger with the Chinese leader caused them to portray "a possible but not a plausible Mao" or a "caricature Mao" and to eschew a more complex explanation of modern Chinese history in favor of "a simple personalisation of blame."[23] Similarly, Professor Jonathan Spence of Yale University argued in the New York Review of Books that the authors' single focus on Mao's vileness had undermined "much of the power their story might have had."[24]

David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Contemporary China Studies at the University of Technology, Sydney, wrote a sharply critical review of Chang and Halliday's book in The Pacific Review. He suggested that there is an implied argument in Mao: The Unknown Story that there has been "a conspiracy of academics and scholars who have chosen not to reveal the truth" - an argument which he likened to the conspiracy theorizing of the The Da Vinci Code. Goodman argued that "the 'facts' in The Da Vinci Code are about as reliable as those to be found in...Mao: The Unknown Story." Goodman argued that the style of writing was "extremely polemic" and that the book could even be thought of as a "form of fiction" where "a strong narrative" is "a substitute for evidence and argument." Goodman was highly critical of Chang and Halliday's methodology and use of sources as well as several of their specific conclusions, claiming that their focus on vilifying Mao led them to write "demonography" rather than objective history and biography.[25]

Professor Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University referred to the book as "... a major disaster for the contemporary China field..." because the "scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."[3]

A detailed examination of Mao: The Unknown Story was published in the January 2006 issue of the The China Journal. Professors Gregor Benton (Cardiff University) and Steve Tsang (University of Oxford) argued that the book was "bad history and worse biography" which made "numerous flawed assertions." Chang and Halliday "misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light." They discussed a number of specific errors and problematic sourcing practices before concluding that the book "does not represent a reliable contribution to our understanding of Mao or twentieth-century China."[26] Timothy Cheek (University of British Columbia) argued in his review that "Chang and Halliday's book is not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis," rather it "reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera." Cheek found it "disturbing...that major commercial Western media can conclude that this book is not only history, but terrific history."[27]

In 2009, Gregor Benton and Lin Chun edited Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday’s "Mao: The Unknown Story", which compiles fourteen previously-published academic responses, most of which are highly critical. Benton and Lin wrote that "unlike the worldwide commercial media... most professional commentary has been disapproving." [28] Mobo Gao, Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Adelaide, wrote that The Unknown Story was "intellectually scandalous", and characterised it by saying that it "it misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."[29]

Glorious reviews I must say.
 
.
Read "The Unknown Story MAO by Jung Chang. It will open your eyes and break your heart, especially if you love the Chinese people. Mao Tse-tung was the most evil human being who ever lived. He was responsible for more deaths (mostly Chinese) than Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

The unknown stories of the native americans break our heart!
 
.
Read "The Unknown Story MAO by Jung Chang. It will open your eyes and break your heart, especially if you love the Chinese people. Mao Tse-tung was the most evil human being who ever lived. He was responsible for more deaths (mostly Chinese) than Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

you shouldn't believe everything you read.
 
.
The worst propaganda is the ones that sound so reasonable, so nonbiased and objective, yet deliberately withdrawing information from sight such that you "logically come to your own conclusion" - the only conclusion this propaganda lets you come to.

Well that and the illusion that a freepress means a fair press.
 
.
Although personally i dont agree with Mao communism, but still i believe that what Mao did for China was good and today they are reaping the fruits ..... he laid the basic foundation and others carried on after him
 
.
Mao’s Great Famine just a rumor.It maybe concluded by the reduction of population which just a result of correction of over estimated population.Every thing was over estimated during Great Leap Forward movement.
 
.
Read "The Unknown Story MAO by Jung Chang. It will open your eyes and break your heart, especially if you love the Chinese people. Mao Tse-tung was the most evil human being who ever lived. He was responsible for more deaths (mostly Chinese) than Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

lol``if its unknown then why the writer knows? lol gulible people are funny``you still believe in good vs evil ? what you like 8? :P
 
.
lol``if its unknown then why the writer knows? lol gulible people are funny``you still believe in good vs evil ? what you like 8? :P

Read my post. Even most Western scholars thought the book was a load of complete bull...
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom