Talk: Mao Zedong
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
Edits
It is a common misunderstanding that Mao did nothing good. He's not perfect, nevertheless he eliminated all the military factions that were present during and shortly after WWII, he chased away virtually all foreign invaders who were "renting" part of Shanghai, Nanking, etc, and he cleaned up almost all the masses left over from China's corrupted society ruled by Kuomintang. During he's years of ruling, people enjoyed maximum social security as thieves robbers were extremely rare. His revolutionary military talent made Americans cry in Korea AND Vietnam. If you don't know him, don't judge him, Western people generally don't like Mao, because of massive propagandas against him. I lived through most of Mao's ruling period, while my opinion cannot represent that of all Chinese people, I would personally say that Mao was a GREAT leader, yes he had great mistakes, but that wouldn't worsen his extraordinary accomplishment. WM
If one wants to know about a foreign leader such as Mao Zedong or Adolf Hitler, one must ask the people who're from those countries. Credible sources have stated an average Chinese citizen believes Mao was truly a great man up to the point when Mao became arrogant and split from China's only ally, the Soviet Union, in the late 50s. On the other hand an average German citizen hates Adolf Hitler. They believe his reign was one of the worst, if not THE worst, thing that ever happened to Germany.
If we won't even respect the opinions of people who're from those countries, whose opinions can we trust? --Secret Agent Man 01:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Did some minor copyediting, NPOVing, replaced "Emperor Mao" with the more widely used "Great Helmsman." 172
Found this web when doing research on Mao and FDR, learned a lot from different opinions on Mao. As a native Chinese, born in 1970s, I lived through the post-Mao influence and Den's reform. Maybe one can say I do not represent all the Chinese's opinion, the fact that Chinese live a better life than our ancestors in Qing Dynasty proved that a united (I do not think in general that Taiwan issue can affect the reality that China is a united country) China, to which Mao had contributed part, is the precondition for Deng to carry out his open and reform policy. If you were interested in talking about Mao, a murderer would not be a good term to start with. Seattlewind
Your comments on the Mao talk page were extremely astute. I'd be very happy to work with you on improving that article, especially on illustrating how the Mao era laid the groundwork for China's modernization.
A lot of Americans, especially ones with devout anti-Communist ideals, fail to look at him within the context of Chinese history. This article needs to avoid that. 172
172, Just a quick comment, in the last paragraph of the article, it says that Mao's picture appears on all new RMB, I would say all the new RMB100 is more correct. seattlewind
Questionable: "there are those who regard Mao as a symbol of moral incorruptibility and self-sacrifice in contrast to the current leadership." --Jiang
Achievements relative to Tigers and Deng Xiaoping
Trade theory suggests gains of international trade regardless of economic system. Hence the proper question is under what conditions countries give each other favorable conditions of trade instead of huge tariffs and distrustful credit terms.
I would suggest that if Mao were as poor a leader as those of India, the Philippines, Indonesia or Thailand, then Deng Xiaoping would have had no chance to enjoy the "Open Door" of U.S. trade, because Richard Nixon never would have seen Mao as someone to woo. As a result the trade embargo never would have ended.
The pattern of success speaks for itself. Countries that the United States wanted as showcases against Mao suddenly received great trade attention while the other 150 countries in a similar boat languished. 205.179.217.195 19:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Romanization
When and why did the media stop writing Mao Tse-Tung and replace it with Mao Zedong? I first saw the latter form in 1972 in matter that was not in English; I never saw it in English until perhaps the 1990s. Michael Hardy 18:46, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Pinyin was adopted by the UN and the offical organizations of the US in the mid-1980s I believe. American media must've followed soon after. --Menchi (Talk)â 02:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Worship
I don't know Chinese today "...still...worship (Mao) as a god-like figure" ... At least, I don't do that. Maybe for some people? --yacht (Talk) 01:52, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
- The keyword is "largely...still". That means only like 10% of Mainlanders don't worship Mao. I guess that's not true still. Not sure. --Menchi (Talk)â 02:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removed the first sentence. First of all, Mao is known as the four greats since he was and is largely worshipped doesn't make sense because of the since. Second, I *don't* think that Mao is still largely worshipped as a god like figure among common Chinese. Opinions about Mao run all over the map, but I don't know of too many people from the PRC that see him as a god-like figure. Even people who admire him tend to see him as flawed.
Roadrunner 00:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- At his death, illiteracy had declined to less than seven per cent, and average life expectancy had increased to more than 70 years.
Really? The CIA cites a current figure of 86% literacy, as does the UN, and what they define as literacy is fairly soft. --Robert Merkel 03:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Literacy has declined since Mao's death. On the other hand, literacy rates, especially in China, are of very questionable value, for reasons of assessment that I won't go into here. The statement should be modified. Shorne 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Further to this, isn't it possible the average life expectancy in China in 1949 was artificially low due to the chaos inflicted by the war with Japan and the internal conflicts? Any government that managed to have the chance of a country not at war would have found it quite easy to increase literacy and life expectancy. --Robert Merkel 11:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If the life expectancy was artificially low, the country's economy was also destroyed. In any case, the life expectancy had not been anything like 70 years even before the wars. Moreover, China surpassed other countries, such as India, in life expectancy during that time period, and the life expectancy in China today is actually a couple of years lower than it was under Mao in the early 1970s. You were right to raise that question about the effects of war, but the conclusion remains that Mao did dramatically improve the life expectancy of his people—something that conveniently gets omitted in tallies of deaths supposedly caused by Mao. Shorne 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As is true throughout the Third World, the vast majority of premature deaths come from starvation, not war. Even where war is a factor, it is mostly as a contributor via starvation. To understand this, we have to have a grip on the quantitative scale of starvation globally and how it dwarfs all combined war as a cause of death.205.179.217.195 19:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great Leap Forward
Re: the recent changes, is there really any dispute that the GLF was suboptimal? If anyone thinks so, please discuss here before modifying the article. Thanks. Markalexander100 05:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The statement "Both inside and outside China, the Great Leap Forward is now regarded as a disastrous policy contributing to the deaths of millions of people." is POV because not everybody regards the Great Leap Forward as a total disaster. In fact, within China you will find a substantial number who believe quite the opposite. Therefore, it is better to say "Many people believe the Great Leap Forward was a disaster."--Spencer
- There are indeed people in China, India, and other countries who believe quite the opposite, and there are many people who dispute the common claim that "millions of people" died from the Great Leap Forward. It is unacceptable to suggest universal agreement that the Great Leap Forward was a disaster. This article should briefly discuss what happened in a neutral way, and the article on the Great Leap Forward should go into the issues in more detail. I will undertake to correct the text if no one else does. Shorne 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. We'll just state its effects. --Jiang
- According to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, both the statements "Both inside and outside China, the Great Leap Forward is now regarded as a disastrous policy..." and "Many people believe the Great Leap Forward was a disaster." are weaseling. If you want to say that it is regarded as a disaster, you need to say who specifically regards it as a disaster.
No, we simply state how it was a disaster (i.e., the amt of damage it caused). Please sign your name with ~~~~. --Jiang 08:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Not everyone agrees it is a disaster. --Anon
- I would say a vast majority of the mainlanders agrees that the Great Leap Forward was a disaster, even the official media in China regards it as a catastrophe that only matched by the Cultural Revolution. --Zhouyn
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms says "As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:
- When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."
We can't say exactly who regards it as a disaster precisely because there are a lot of them. But it is relevant that it is so considered, because the balancing of the disasters against any possible benefits is an important judgment. The judgment of informed critics is worth mentioning. Markalexander100 09:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mao's Private Life
Apparently, there was a book written about ten years ago called "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" that claims, amongst other things, that Mao had a rather active extra-marital sex life. While it's peripheral to his performance as a political leader, it's certainly relevant material for a biography. Is there any independent confirmation on the truth or falsity of these claims? --Robert Merkel 01:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "Certainly relevant"?! :-D There's a tad at Talk:Homosexuality_in_China#Mao. --Menchi 05:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Gossip need not be given the dignity of acknowledgement in Wikipedia. Shorne 09:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Intro
172, can I ask why you have reverted my recent attempt to cleanup the intro? It is frustrating when you revert without providing an explanation. As I have mentioned, the phrase "free of foreign domination since the Opium War" is incorrect since Qing China only ceded a few ports to Europeans after the Opium War, the mainland was sovereign until the WWII occupation of Japan.
- That was a reference to indirect political and economic dominance. The fact that you are citing is irrelevant. 172 17:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Still, the phrase "for the first time since the Opium War" is inaccurate. Zh 17:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No, it is not. This is a reference to the forced 'opening' of the Chinese market by the British following the First Opium War, not just the cession of Hong Kong to the British in the 1842 Treaty of Nanking. 172 17:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The phrase "foreign domination" makes it seem like China was a colony of some other nation. If you need to, make the changes that you see fit. But unless an edit is pure vandalism, don't revert without an explanation - it can be frustrating for new users or those who have worked hard on an edit that gets reverted. Zh 17:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Foreign domination does not necessarily refer to colonialism. Look up the terms and do some reading on China following the Opium War. This is a reference to China's increasing economic dependence on the Western powers following the forcible opening of a series of key Pacific ports, including Shanghai and Canton (plus the cession of Hong Kong) to British residence and trade. This is not a reference to formal colonialism, but the means of Western penetration accepted along with the treaties following both Opium Wars that led to virtual economic vassalage: (1) extraterritoriality, (2) customs regulation, and (3) the right to station foreign warships in Chinese waters. 172 17:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The phrase "foreign domination" makes it seem like China was a colony of some other nation. If you need to, make the changes that you see fit. But unless an edit is pure vandalism, don't revert without an explanation - it can be frustrating for new users or those who have worked hard on an edit that gets reverted. Zh 17:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No, it is not. This is a reference to the forced 'opening' of the Chinese market by the British following the First Opium War, not just the cession of Hong Kong to the British in the 1842 Treaty of Nanking. 172 17:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Still, the phrase "for the first time since the Opium War" is inaccurate. Zh 17:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The other thing I did was remove "After his death, economic controls implemented under Mao were loosened, although politically, the CPC remained authoritarian." in the interest of conciseness, since I thougt that might belong later in the article or in an article on PRC history. If you want to add that back, feel free to do so.
I also added "In China," to the sentence "Mao is sometimes referred to as the "Four Greats": "Great Teacher, Great Leader, Great Supreme Commander, Great Helmsman (伟大导师，伟大领袖，伟大统帅，伟大舵手)". He was commonly addressed as as Chairman Mao (毛主席, Mao Zhuxi).", since Mao is certainly not referred to the "Four Greats" by those holding mainstream political views in Western countries. In addition, the old intro had typos and mistakes in it such as "Mao became developed a brand of Sinified Marxism-Leninism". Thanks, Zh 16:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Leadership over the PRC
I would like to open the discussion of minority rights in the PRC. I am not editing the article directly since I am not knowledgeable enough, but a discussion of the Tibet situation would be in order if the article is to suggest that Mao Zedong was an upholder of the rights of those who are not Han Chinese.
Bias
Many questionable opinions are presented as fact in this article. I shall have to resolve them later.
In the meantime, can anyone cite a source for the claim that China has had the highest economic growth in the world for two decades running? I also wish to know what "economic growth" means here: GDP? per-capita income? capital investment? Shorne 09:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism
Some troglodyte keeps vandalising the page by deleting large sections and adding such remarks as "i was here". Already we have reverted it at least four times in the past few hours. Please protect the page if the abuse continues. Shorne 20:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- We don't need to protect pages in cases of simple vandalism; I or some other admin will just block him from editing if he keeps it up. Everyking 20:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Policies Leading to 40 million Deaths
I am speechless after reading this article. What about the 40 million Chinese who died circa 1954 - 1960 from the brutal policies of the Red Army? What about the sheer ineptness of Mao in telling farmers to grow rice closer together, and killing birds which were responsible for keeping locusts at bay? Instead it almost sounds positive! It says "The CPC introduced price controls largely successful at breaking the inflationary spiral of the preceding ROC as well as a Chinese character simplification aimed at increasing literacy. Land was redistributed from land-owners to poor peasants and large-scale industrialization projects were undertaken, contributing to the construction of a modern national infrastructure. During this period China sustained yearly increases in GDP of about 4?9% as well as dramatic improvements in quality-of-life indicators such as life expectancy and literacy." LIFE EXPECTANCY!?!?! How can an uptick in life expectancy be measured in this short a time frame? And what about the 40 million who died? - Oct. 4, 2004
- Once you have stopped foaming at the mouth, will you kindly tell us where you got this information? There were no "40 million". Shorne 18:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There were at least 30 millions, as many sources report. Here's one at random: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/inside.china/profiles/mao.tsetung/ Anyway, the Wp page on the Great Leap Forward states the same. I also believe that the description of Mao Zedong here is way too positive (see stalin comment on top). The famine created by the Great Leap Forward was the biggest in recorded history and no scholar really disputes that fact. Luis Rib 20:32 CET, 4 Oct 2004
- So an offhand comment by CNN counts as proof? Ha!
- There is no basis for the claim of 30 million; it's a ridiculous fantasy entirely contradicted by population data. So-called scholars in the Cold War made careers out of asserting higher and higher numbers for these things. It's rubbish.
- I shall have to check the page on the Great Leap Forward. Shorne 19:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I really doubt that Chinese population figures from that period were totally accurate either... Luis rib 20:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You believe 40 million people died due to famine in the Great Leap Forward. LOGICALLY speaking, how is FORTY million even possible when China only had 500 million people in the 50s? I'm open minded but some statistics contradict simple logic. --Secret Agent Man 01:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That 40 million Chinese died is way overblown. China had bad weather for a few years. How come I never hear Hoover blamed for people who died of starvation during the Dust Bowl? China had famines for thousands of years before the CPC came to power. A few years after taking over, they had some bad weather for a few years, and have had no major crop problems since. China has problems in the late 1920's, it's a "weather problem", China has problems after the CPC comes to power, its the "brutal policies of the Red Army". Nonsense. And the idea 40 million Chinese died is ridiculous, I doubt 40 million died due to all causes in those years. Ruy Lopez 02:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- These ridiculous figures are the product of a simple-minded extrapolation from population statistics. Assuming a constant birth rate, some Western academic came up with a discrepancy of just under 30 million (29.5 million, as I recall) between her predicted population and the actual population, then assumed that this discrepancy meant 30 million excess deaths and pinned them all on Mao. This figure was widely reported as fact. In recent years, it has been puffed up to 40 million, 80 million, and even more absurd numbers.
- Anyone with any intelligence can see the many errors in this approach. First, the assumption of a constant birth rate is unwarranted at a time of natural disasters, war, and other major disturbances. The birth rate is likely to be much lower than usual in all of those cases. Second, there are other ways than death that a person can disappear from population statistics: migration is one of them. Third, the population data themselves were only estimates (censuses are conducted only every ten years even in developed countries) and contained a significant measure of uncertainty. They cannot be used for this sort of extrapolation, let alone to three significant digits. Fourth, no effort is made to assess the causes of the alleged deaths (such as the bad weather that led to crop failures); they're simply blamed on Mao.
- Just to demonstrate the invalidity of this approach, Douglas Tottle used it to calculate that 25% of the population of Saskatchewan died of starvation and repressive government policies during the Great Depression. No one would believe that, let alone pin the "mass murder" on the premier of Saskatchewan. Yet some people are all too eager to accept a similar claim about socialist China and to hold Mao responsible for deaths that never happened.
- The same invalid approach is behind the reports of a huge government-caused famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s and various other fictitious death tolls that Cold War propagandists have tried to pin on communist movements.
- What is not in dispute is UNESCO's report that 40,000 children die for lack of food every day in today's capitalist world. That's 15 million children per year, or 100 million every seven years, from that one cause alone. Why is it that capitalism seldom gets the blame for all those dead children? Shorne 11:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- "Not in dispute"? Funny that I checked, the UNESCO estimate is actually 24,000 per day, and not all of the "capitalist world" is capitalist and blaming hunger on on capitalism when it is often happening under inept Latin American regimes or sub Saharan anarchy is laughable. When you stop beating off to the communist propaganda let us know. --Ur Wurst Enema 22:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
wives
Jiang Qing is listed here as the tird wife, but her article says she is the fourth wife. I did a quick search, but could not find out the details. Anybody knows more detail? -- Chris 73 Talk 09:31, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- There seems to be a possible first wife before Yang Kaihui; [1] says Mao's first spouse, a family-chosen native of Shaoshan, ended in separation when he married his second wife, Yang Kaihui, a neophyte Marxist, but doesn't mention her name (or explain how a spouse can end in separation- sounds messy). It's also suggested that no. 1 was unconsumated, which may be why it isn't counted (I don't know what Chinese law of the time said, though). Mark1 06:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
