The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution each reinforced the absolute power of Mao and the CCP. Through their brutality and totality, they demonstrated that the Party is indeed "Above heaven and above the Law". Any meaningful opposition was smothered; Tiananmen Square ended any hope of serious re-evaluation. But the economic resurgence and rise to new world power also occurred under the Party's guidance. Just as no one in China is unaffected by the tragedies and crimes of 50 years ago, even less so is anyone unaffected by these more recent, and for many, more relevant events. The feeling that China was humiliated and cruelly exploited by the West and by Japan is still strong, and the desire for justice, if not revenge, is palpable everywhere. The Party and its founder, Mao, are getting the credit for restoring China to its rightful place as the Center of the World, no matter what errors were committed on the way.
Hundreds of millions alive today remember the pain caused by crimes carried out in the name of revolutionary purity. But they have little hope that the their wish for a full accounting and for justice will be heard.
The victors write the history.
We don't seriously fret about slavery and the annihilation of our Native populations. These were unfortunate, regrettable, but not as important, in our mythology, as the growth of our nation. In China the CCP is victorious. Mao is the Icon and will remain so. To dream otherwise is disingenuous and self-deluding.
Hundreds of millions alive today remember the pain caused by crimes carried out in the name of revolutionary purity. But they have little hope that the their wish for a full accounting and for justice will be heard.
The victors write the history.
We don't seriously fret about slavery and the annihilation of our Native populations. These were unfortunate, regrettable, but not as important, in our mythology, as the growth of our nation. In China the CCP is victorious. Mao is the Icon and will remain so. To dream otherwise is disingenuous and self-deluding.
I am surprised at this comment section being still open. I didn't get to read this earlier.
The fact that Mao is still revered, worshipped, honored or remembered with fondness & adoration is due to a mystical aspect of his charisma, which is beyond logic. Certain rare people have that attribute. Lenin had it. Sukarno had it. Mustafa Kemal had it. Napoleon had it. Fidel has it. To a minor extent Donald Trump MAY have it, for his unforeseen successes in the primaries.
During the war against Chiang Kai-shek's army, as it has always been, Mao suffered from chronic constipation. Whenever Mao had a good bowel movement, his followers celebrated it & the soldiers were encouraged to fight with greater vigor, according to Li his confidant & personal physician for 22 years until his death!
However, the vast majority of such leaders turned out to be, on balance, quite destructive as Hitler had been. In a democracy (fortunately more people live in democracy than at any time in history), we have to make a conscious choice not to be swayed by such charm & overpowering charisma. And we have to carefully assess, measure the charisma of our leaders. While voting we ought to discount the effect of charisma.
Hillary Clinton has little charisma. Donald Trump has quite a bit. We may have to deduct points from the swaying power of Trump & add points to Clinton as she is too unappealing.
The fact that Mao is still revered, worshipped, honored or remembered with fondness & adoration is due to a mystical aspect of his charisma, which is beyond logic. Certain rare people have that attribute. Lenin had it. Sukarno had it. Mustafa Kemal had it. Napoleon had it. Fidel has it. To a minor extent Donald Trump MAY have it, for his unforeseen successes in the primaries.
During the war against Chiang Kai-shek's army, as it has always been, Mao suffered from chronic constipation. Whenever Mao had a good bowel movement, his followers celebrated it & the soldiers were encouraged to fight with greater vigor, according to Li his confidant & personal physician for 22 years until his death!
However, the vast majority of such leaders turned out to be, on balance, quite destructive as Hitler had been. In a democracy (fortunately more people live in democracy than at any time in history), we have to make a conscious choice not to be swayed by such charm & overpowering charisma. And we have to carefully assess, measure the charisma of our leaders. While voting we ought to discount the effect of charisma.
Hillary Clinton has little charisma. Donald Trump has quite a bit. We may have to deduct points from the swaying power of Trump & add points to Clinton as she is too unappealing.
1
Finally Didi actually interviews a Chinese person in Beijing, even if it is a driver.
Didi can report on anything because no one censors her writing in China; the NY Times is blocked in China.
But situated in the center of the political heart of the world's newly most powerful nation, Didi for some reason never interviews government officials.
Imagine a correspondent from People Daily, stationed in Washington who only interviews Iranians and Russians and a plethora of anti-U.S. experts from outside the U.S.
Then again, she does visit Mao's corpse.
Didi can report on anything because no one censors her writing in China; the NY Times is blocked in China.
But situated in the center of the political heart of the world's newly most powerful nation, Didi for some reason never interviews government officials.
Imagine a correspondent from People Daily, stationed in Washington who only interviews Iranians and Russians and a plethora of anti-U.S. experts from outside the U.S.
Then again, she does visit Mao's corpse.
My husband and I are repatriating back to the U.S. next month after five fascinating years living in Shanghai. Thank you to Didi Kirsten Tatlow and all of the other intrepid and intelligent NYTimes correspondents who helped us make more sense of this foreign country we chose to live in. We always joked to ourselves that the day we couldn't read the NYTimes (because it's officially blocked in China - we can only access it when the VPN is working) would be the day we moved back to the U.S. The Chinese censors seem to have been working overtime since the start of the year. It's time to leave China.
Talk is currently of the Cultural Revolution because it is the anniversary. But the Mao's Great Leap Forward of the late 50's was horrific and just as deadly, if not more so.
Even though Mao’s cultural revolution is currently a sensitive topic in China, there are still fierce debates in online forums and blogs despite the censorship. Because of income inequality and corruption that started and intensified after the beginning of economic reforms, there are now quite many people with nostalgia for that chaotic and horrific era. It would not be surprising if some of the old "rebels" who gained power and then lost it after the Mao’s death still express reverence for him and support his policies. What may be puzzling to many is that some of those who suffered significantly in that period have become defenders of Mao and are rejecting the market reforms. One way to understand them is to think of them as a kind of religious fundamentalists who idealize a bygone era where the society seems much simpler and more egalitarian and choose to disregard all the abuse and inequality in a different form (high-ranking government officials had a lot of privilege with access to goods that were not available to ordinary citizens in an era of shortage).
One good thing that followed the cultural revolution is that the Chinese society overall rejected Mao's ideology and started experimenting with more pragmatic policies. Even though there is a backlash primarily from those at the lower end of the economic ladder against the reforms, further economic development and expansion of social welfare will hopefully dull their yearning for such an idealized society.
One good thing that followed the cultural revolution is that the Chinese society overall rejected Mao's ideology and started experimenting with more pragmatic policies. Even though there is a backlash primarily from those at the lower end of the economic ladder against the reforms, further economic development and expansion of social welfare will hopefully dull their yearning for such an idealized society.
2
Thank you for your insights... Mao's echoes are clearly going to resonate for a while... even if (when?) China's political elites finally disown him.
I would disagree with the statement that "Mao is everywhere in China". During my 2 weeks stay in China recently, I don't remember seeing him once. But I didn't go to Beijing, which maybe an exception. Nowadays
the Chinese use Mao to make money, mainly to foreign tourists, who
likely remember the red book more than most of the Chinese do.
If you venture to locations that are filled with tourists and look for those
souvenirs, they are there. But Mao is not in the lives of most of Chinese.
And for the generation that was born after Mao's death, I don't think they
even know much about him.
the Chinese use Mao to make money, mainly to foreign tourists, who
likely remember the red book more than most of the Chinese do.
If you venture to locations that are filled with tourists and look for those
souvenirs, they are there. But Mao is not in the lives of most of Chinese.
And for the generation that was born after Mao's death, I don't think they
even know much about him.
2
We are too ordinary to comprehend anything related to the Culture Revolution. Yes, we were brain-washed, thus do not have any religious, no God, nor Ma. Sorry.
2
Ms Tatlow is lucky that she can report "freely" without meeting the same fate as her other Western colleagues, like the French journalist, Ursula Gauthier end of 2015, for her report on the Uighurs.
That Mr. Huang she interviewed in Chongqing kept a room at the InterContinental Hotel, probably at the expense of the taxpayers and probably for private pleasures with mistresses etc reveals the level of corruption among officials.
That Mr. Huang she interviewed in Chongqing kept a room at the InterContinental Hotel, probably at the expense of the taxpayers and probably for private pleasures with mistresses etc reveals the level of corruption among officials.
Why do so many Chinese still revere Mao despite his horrific and disastrous impact on the people? Simple.
Brainwash young people starting from day one with all the powers of authority: parents, teachers, relatives and religious figures; apply peer pressure by making kids join youth groups, indoctrinate them with beliefs and ideology in school & study groups, feed them polished propaganda stories, discourage critical thinking, suppress access to opposing ideas, give them a bogus target to hate, etc.
What one learns as a child is hard to give up. Fresh thinking and open-mindedness are difficult to come by, especially as people grow older. That's why Americans, especially those in the bible-belt, are so fervently part of the "religious-right". And Muslims kids are taught to be "injustice collectors" - blaming Western exploitation and moral corruption for their misfortune. And so it goes for people all over the world. People are all at the mercy of childhood brainwashing. Nothing new.
Brainwash young people starting from day one with all the powers of authority: parents, teachers, relatives and religious figures; apply peer pressure by making kids join youth groups, indoctrinate them with beliefs and ideology in school & study groups, feed them polished propaganda stories, discourage critical thinking, suppress access to opposing ideas, give them a bogus target to hate, etc.
What one learns as a child is hard to give up. Fresh thinking and open-mindedness are difficult to come by, especially as people grow older. That's why Americans, especially those in the bible-belt, are so fervently part of the "religious-right". And Muslims kids are taught to be "injustice collectors" - blaming Western exploitation and moral corruption for their misfortune. And so it goes for people all over the world. People are all at the mercy of childhood brainwashing. Nothing new.
6
Mao has achieved the status of a deity in ways that Lenin or Stalin were never able to achieve. Lenin did quite a bit better than Stalin in terms of personality cult. Stalin's cult faded quickly. But Mao has surpassed them all and I believe Mao is in league with the yellow Emperor and other Chinese sages. He is no ordinary politician. The excesses of the Cultural Revolution are not his fault in this selective understanding of history. Mao is above such "mistakes".
Mao is a demigod who returned Chinese pride from the humiliation by barbarian in the Opium War and the like. The president leadership cannot touch Mao without incriminating themselves. They know better. Deng Xiaoping knew this. He hated Mao but he never dared voicing it. It is like you're a Christian and you may sometimes secretly question Jesus but you never say it publicly.
Mao, whatever he was as an individual is irrelevant. The cult has superseded the person Mao.
Mao is a demigod who returned Chinese pride from the humiliation by barbarian in the Opium War and the like. The president leadership cannot touch Mao without incriminating themselves. They know better. Deng Xiaoping knew this. He hated Mao but he never dared voicing it. It is like you're a Christian and you may sometimes secretly question Jesus but you never say it publicly.
Mao, whatever he was as an individual is irrelevant. The cult has superseded the person Mao.
2
"We can report on it freely, but Chinese media cannot because the state still heavily censors discussion."
Hmmm. The Chinese trust their media twice as much as we trust ours. This disparity is not unique to China: citizens of all countries with State owned media trust it 2:1 over private media. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, 80–90% of Chinese trust their government, the highest trust level of any national government.
http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanAPAC/2012-edelman-trust-barometer-china...
Gary King, director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, is one of the most interesting social scientists around. In August last year, he and two colleagues published in the journal Science the results of a fascinating experiment in which they had uncovered precisely how the Chinese internet is managed by the regime. “Criticisms of the government in social media (even vitriolic ones) are not censored.”
Finally, Mao's Cultural Revolution was aimed at China's 1% (what a concept!), whose memories of it dominate the media here and there. But for the 99% it was a great adventure during which the peasants stood up to corrupt officials for the first time in 5,000 years. It changed the course of China's history and – in the form of the current anti-corruption campaign – continues to do so. Locate a little work titled "The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village". It's an eye-opener.
Hmmm. The Chinese trust their media twice as much as we trust ours. This disparity is not unique to China: citizens of all countries with State owned media trust it 2:1 over private media. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, 80–90% of Chinese trust their government, the highest trust level of any national government.
http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanAPAC/2012-edelman-trust-barometer-china...
Gary King, director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, is one of the most interesting social scientists around. In August last year, he and two colleagues published in the journal Science the results of a fascinating experiment in which they had uncovered precisely how the Chinese internet is managed by the regime. “Criticisms of the government in social media (even vitriolic ones) are not censored.”
Finally, Mao's Cultural Revolution was aimed at China's 1% (what a concept!), whose memories of it dominate the media here and there. But for the 99% it was a great adventure during which the peasants stood up to corrupt officials for the first time in 5,000 years. It changed the course of China's history and – in the form of the current anti-corruption campaign – continues to do so. Locate a little work titled "The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village". It's an eye-opener.
1
Polls done in China cannot be considered as a reliable barometer because many (not all, mind you) people in China understand that the consequences of giving the "wrong" answers can be dreadful.
That some still dissent and offer views that challenge the mainstream view is remarkable...
As for the motivation behind "Mao's Cultural Revolution", as you call it, I think it unwise to apply your understanding of modern US (or Western European) political dynamics to that event, as you seem to have done here ( by claiming it "was aimed at China's 1%").
Mao's motivations were hardly so altruistic, even if he understood the need to couch his actions (and those of his followers) in terms that made it seem as if he were striking out against elites for the sake of the common man.
That some still dissent and offer views that challenge the mainstream view is remarkable...
As for the motivation behind "Mao's Cultural Revolution", as you call it, I think it unwise to apply your understanding of modern US (or Western European) political dynamics to that event, as you seem to have done here ( by claiming it "was aimed at China's 1%").
Mao's motivations were hardly so altruistic, even if he understood the need to couch his actions (and those of his followers) in terms that made it seem as if he were striking out against elites for the sake of the common man.
2
I trust NYT's reporting on China as much as I would trust Fox News, which
I never watch or read. To get a fair and balanced view about China, I have to
go to sources outside US, or even in other languages. But the best way is to
go to China and see for yourself. I also have a problem with reporting about
the paper by Gary King of Harvard, which states there are 477 million posts
online by paid government employees every year to support or boost
government's positions. It sounded like a huge number to us in the west.
But then I heard there are 700 million internet users in China. And let's
assume on average each posts 10 online comments a year, there will be
7 billion online postings and therefore 477 million is less then 7 percent.
I never watch or read. To get a fair and balanced view about China, I have to
go to sources outside US, or even in other languages. But the best way is to
go to China and see for yourself. I also have a problem with reporting about
the paper by Gary King of Harvard, which states there are 477 million posts
online by paid government employees every year to support or boost
government's positions. It sounded like a huge number to us in the west.
But then I heard there are 700 million internet users in China. And let's
assume on average each posts 10 online comments a year, there will be
7 billion online postings and therefore 477 million is less then 7 percent.
Do the dreams of Mao and Xi Jinping are same? Indeed, the dreams are different. Mao's dream was to emancipate the mass of China from ignorance to industrious with strong principles of communism that advocates a sort of hatred faith against industrially developed, capitalist western world. One could witness a real clash between oriental and occidental way of life during cultural revolution in Mao's China. Today, the China is a dragon with two heads by Mr.Xi's very pragmatic weighing of options of merits and demerits of communism and democracy. When poverty alleviates, population is under control and billionaires are on rise, the communism will flow out of Great walls of China and make a confluence in democracy. There is a difference in the Red -dreams of Mao and Xi about China , the red rays are passing through the prism of democracy and dispersion is visible. Mr.Xi's era is the beginning of China's journey towards democracy.
1
I think that it would be useful to write about how the gov is now not just cutting out pages from the New York Times in China, but just simply holding some editions altogether and just tossing them away. They never did this in 25 years I've been here, just started this last month. It's a shame to see the country taking big steps backwards.
3
The New York Times is banned in China.
Maoism was always considered the most insane branch of an already crazy ideology. Nothing new here.
8
We were in Chongquing on our way to the Yangtse cruise. Saw the place up in the mountain where Mao and Chang Kai Shek met for a temporary truce to fight against the Japanese. The local is spectacular with Jailin river meeting Yangtse. It was 47 degrees Celsius! (117 F)
1
In the US, we ignore the awful parts of our history, starting with the genocide of the native Americans, and focus of what our country has built. Why is it that when Americans go to other countries and the US media covers such countries, especially those with different political and value systems, they relentlessly focus the bad. Do we really need to be reminded that civilization has been built on horrific behaviors only when we want to criticize the "others"? Perhaps if the US had the task of China and Mao, and had one fifth or all humanity within its borders, we might do better.
21
Those of us who live live in the new world, unless we have indigenous relatives, all have benefitted from horrific crimes that lead to people loosing their land. Mostly the worst acts happened long ago, and decent people acknowledge those crimes. Mao 's crimes are within living memory, and denied by a vicious and corrupt elite in China
5
Gee, Daniel. I wasn't aware. Did we KILL 40,000,000 Native Americans too?
Leave the adult conversations to the adults, Daniel.
Leave the adult conversations to the adults, Daniel.
4
Nice try, Daniel. The difference (and it is huge) is that in the United States and other countries, we do have access to the alternatives to the (sometimes self-serving) mainstream historical narratives.
In countries like China, people are prevented by the ruling party from accessing those narratives. It's how authoritarian regimes operate.
As for the old chestnut about how China is "different" because of its size and its "unique" governance problems, and how all that might somehow justify the atrocities visited upon the Chinese by Mao and his successors, well, what is that but self-serving? The present regime in China uses the same argument all the time to justify its repression of dissent.
In countries like China, people are prevented by the ruling party from accessing those narratives. It's how authoritarian regimes operate.
As for the old chestnut about how China is "different" because of its size and its "unique" governance problems, and how all that might somehow justify the atrocities visited upon the Chinese by Mao and his successors, well, what is that but self-serving? The present regime in China uses the same argument all the time to justify its repression of dissent.
1
It has long been astounding to me that Mao, despite his horrific record of genocide, is still revered in China. It's as if you were to go to Germany and be greeted by posters of Hitler. How can this cognitive dissonance persist, given that almost no family was spared the terror of the Cultural Revolution? Would it be different if Mao had been defeated in a war? I was once given a souvenir with Mao's face on it by a friend who'd traveled to China. I threw it away.
11
Amazing that the Chinese still revere the man who killed as many as 40M of his countrymen while destroying their economy and making them a pariah in the world.
It says something sinister about the "new" China that they continue to venerate this horrible man.
It says something sinister about the "new" China that they continue to venerate this horrible man.
17
Sinister? Maybe not. Banal, yes. "Survival" or "keeping your head down" (depending, of course, on who you are). These are just as compelling, as explanations go, for why today's China still indulges the "Mao as demigod" myth.
That said, there are those (the neo-Maoists) who either believe in what they think he represented (egalitarianism--laughable as that seems to most other people who understand the history better) or exploit that perception to advance their own rants against market capitalism (and the corruption that has accompanied its spread) in modern China.
That said, there are those (the neo-Maoists) who either believe in what they think he represented (egalitarianism--laughable as that seems to most other people who understand the history better) or exploit that perception to advance their own rants against market capitalism (and the corruption that has accompanied its spread) in modern China.
1
I was amazed to see Mao's image still so prevalent when I visited China. After a lifetime of seeing China through Western eyes, my visit revealed that its historical relationship with him is far more nuanced than simple historical accounts make it out to be.
At a lunch in Chengdu with Western educators, I asked a young Chinese assistant what she and, by extension, all young people in China today think of Mao. She was surprised to not only have a question directed to her personally but one fraught with propaganda, emotion, identity, and more. I felt badly for putting her on the spot but secretly thrilled to witness the aftermath of 50 years of Chinese history in her rapidly shifting countenance. She put her chopsticks down, paused while she thoughtfully composed an answer, and finally replied, "There is a saying: Mao Zedong saved us from the fires of imperialism and colonialism but it was Deng Xiaoping who taught us how to feed ourselves and live within the greater world once the fires were over."
What a remarkable resolution to all that came before. I was unwinding the implications carefully packed into that answer for some time after. As I later roamed through a local market, I came across a red metal wind-up clock with Mao smiling on its face while his arm waves in time as the seconds hand. I bought it and now think of that young woman at the Chinese crossroads of History and the Future every time I see Mao waving to me across the complex and surreal distance of Time.
At a lunch in Chengdu with Western educators, I asked a young Chinese assistant what she and, by extension, all young people in China today think of Mao. She was surprised to not only have a question directed to her personally but one fraught with propaganda, emotion, identity, and more. I felt badly for putting her on the spot but secretly thrilled to witness the aftermath of 50 years of Chinese history in her rapidly shifting countenance. She put her chopsticks down, paused while she thoughtfully composed an answer, and finally replied, "There is a saying: Mao Zedong saved us from the fires of imperialism and colonialism but it was Deng Xiaoping who taught us how to feed ourselves and live within the greater world once the fires were over."
What a remarkable resolution to all that came before. I was unwinding the implications carefully packed into that answer for some time after. As I later roamed through a local market, I came across a red metal wind-up clock with Mao smiling on its face while his arm waves in time as the seconds hand. I bought it and now think of that young woman at the Chinese crossroads of History and the Future every time I see Mao waving to me across the complex and surreal distance of Time.
14
An answer given to a foreigner's very probing and politically loaded question, given in a very public setting.
What else could she have said? It was masterful, but also a repetition of what's been drummed into people by rote for more than 35 years... While it was clearly a moving event, perhaps what you saw should also be understood as living proof that intelligent people who must preserve their careers in Xi Jinping's increasingly repressive China must do.
What else could she have said? It was masterful, but also a repetition of what's been drummed into people by rote for more than 35 years... While it was clearly a moving event, perhaps what you saw should also be understood as living proof that intelligent people who must preserve their careers in Xi Jinping's increasingly repressive China must do.
1
Interesting. I enjoyed Ms Tatlow's observations.
In Russia first Lenin then Stalin maintained their iron rule through bloody murderous killings of their opponents and the kulak class of landowners they overthrew. In China, Mao started the 1966 Cultural Revolution to eliminate his rivals like Liu SHao Chi. Millions of peasants starved so that China could pay through grain shipments for Russian military hardware.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao are now expensively maintained as their dead bodies lie exposed in glass cases. Grotesque! No leader has yet been able to shift the people away from public adulation of these monsters.
Perhaps one day the funding for the embaimers will dry up and the bodies wil crumble away into dust in open display of their irrelevance ?
In Russia first Lenin then Stalin maintained their iron rule through bloody murderous killings of their opponents and the kulak class of landowners they overthrew. In China, Mao started the 1966 Cultural Revolution to eliminate his rivals like Liu SHao Chi. Millions of peasants starved so that China could pay through grain shipments for Russian military hardware.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao are now expensively maintained as their dead bodies lie exposed in glass cases. Grotesque! No leader has yet been able to shift the people away from public adulation of these monsters.
Perhaps one day the funding for the embaimers will dry up and the bodies wil crumble away into dust in open display of their irrelevance ?
7
Great article and retrospective. Mao as a red hot wire is a valuable analogy. Also notable: how the life of a foreign correspondent in China is quite different from that of a foreign student, diplomat, or business person.
4
I just want to add some nuances here, and have no intention to defend Mao at all. First, where did you get your idea that Mao killed 40 million people? Indeed, millions died in the famine, but killing and starvation are different. Also nobody knows for sure how many died. Millions were missing, partly because they left home, and partly because statistics included those who were never born. Can you imagine a hungry couple had the energy to produce and raise a baby?
Even if 40 million died, that would be out of 700 million. What was percentage of people who died in, say, the black death? Should rulers take all the blame or credit for all things that occurred during their reigns? How many native Americans died? I do not know. How many were killed? How many died of infectious diseases? How many died from hardship? What was the percentage of the dead in the total population?
Please do not say I am Mao's defenders. Mao was a bloody criminal.