Chairman Mao

UCSDHappyAsian

Senior member
Oct 22, 2003
378
0
0
I just love this name~
Anyways, I was suppose to have a presentation on that astronaut, but instructor asked me to do Chairman Mao, because he is more controversial~~



Well~~
any thoughts guys?

my instructor was from mainland China but he is totally cool if i talk $hit about Chairman Mao~~
cause he is one of the 6-4 Tien An Square student.... thats not it.
over million of students and labor joined, and only 2000 something students stayed until tank drove in... and he and his little bro were both in there~~

Anyways, anyone got something to share?
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
He was a very interesting guy (don't start your theme this way). The Long March, Little Red Book, Power Grows Out of the Barrel of A Gun. And don't miss checking out the woman he married. Do yourself a favor. Look up some real resources.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
How about something on General Tso and how he got his chicken dish into every Chinese resturaunt?:D
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Why do you overuse the tilde (~)? Just curious because I've never seen anyone type like that before.
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Are you going to talk about how his exploits with little girls? :disgust:
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Whitling
He was a very interesting guy (don't start your theme this way). The Long March, Little Red Book, Power Grows Out of the Barrel of A Gun. And don't miss checking out the woman he married. Do yourself a favor. Look up some real resources.

Hehe, don't miss checking out his women he didn't married too. Hint, ask your instructor about this book written by Mao's personal physician.

Brief overview of the book
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Anyone who can have more people purged (read killed) than all the Great Wars including the Holocost without hardly anyone caring must have done something right.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Winston, I'll check the link, but right now I'll say that I've heard figures ranging all over the board for Chinese deaths. I'd like to see your source. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. :)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Whitling
Winston, I'll check the link, but right now I'll say that I've heard figures ranging all over the board for Chinese deaths. I'd like to see your source. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. :)


I picked that site since it had things nicely in tabular form. I am afraid all my knowledge is not confined to the internet, but through various sources, some of which can be found in libraries, govt. agencies, and I am suresome of it can be found on the intarweb. As the site I linked to suggested, the numbers are hard to quantify, but estimates for all periods range from about 25 million at a low, to almost 80 million. "Best guess" places the total between 35 and 55 million, and certainly higher than good old Smokin' Joe Stalin, who as you may know was not considered exactly a nice guy.

If you take the lower figure of 35 million in the "best guess" category to be a reasonable one, my statement still holds. Of course, if the true figure is 55, then he tried harder. In any case, we are talking tens of millions. What's a few million between friends?

 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Winston, that's your source? A chart calculating standard deviations based on many guesses at a death toll.

Aye Yi Yi, Winston. The chart you link to is a chart analyzing how reliable death toll statistics are. The author says,

"I'd say that the Line of Smugness falls at a Standard Deviation of 40%. If the experts deviate by less than that, you can support mainstream estimates with confidence, but if the experts deviate by more than 40%, then you probably shouldn't act like a know-it-all because even the experts don't know."

OK, he says -- and I quote -- "If experts deviate by more than 40%, then . . . even the experts don't know."

The data for Mao's China is listed at either "uncertain," a 40 to 60% standard deviation or a "guess," 60% standard deviation.

Winston, it appears that the author is saying, "Nobody knows." What do you know about this that I don't know?

I urge others to check this . . . uh . . . authority.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Whitling
Winston, that's your source? A chart calculating standard deviations based on many guesses at a death toll.

Aye Yi Yi, Winston. The chart you link to is a chart analyzing how reliable death toll statistics are. The author says,

"I'd say that the Line of Smugness falls at a Standard Deviation of 40%. If the experts deviate by less than that, you can support mainstream estimates with confidence, but if the experts deviate by more than 40%, then you probably shouldn't act like a know-it-all because even the experts don't know."

OK, he says -- and I quote -- "If experts deviate by more than 40%, then . . . even the experts don't know."

The data for Mao's China is listed at either "uncertain," a 40 to 60% standard deviation or a "guess," 60% standard deviation.

Winston, it appears that the author is saying, "Nobody knows." What do you know about this that I don't know?

I urge others to check this . . . uh . . . authority.

I am not sure exactly what your problem is here. Go out and google on Mao and purges for crying out loud. Pick up a book on the history of the day. Are you saying Mao did not have significant purges occur? Of course no one counted the bodies. That does not mean there is not a range that can be estimated. As I said, you can look around, and if you want to claim 25 million instead of 80 million, so be it.

 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Winston, history's not my problem. Shots in the dark and inappropriate data are. Yes, there were purges.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Whitling
Winston, history's not my problem. Shots in the dark and inappropriate data are. Yes, there were purges.



It would do you well to remember that the source of ones knowledge is not always linked to a webpage. If I were to write a formal paper, I would be following citation guidelines complete with footnotes. If I made a statement about the millions of jews killed in the Holocost, I would have hardly expected a request for source and link. I would have thought this as commonly known a thing on these forums. Perhaps my expectations are too high, and regardless, I hardly cited that link as "official" but it does give numbers which give some scale compared to other atrocities. Any particulars I leave others to find for themselves.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
China with a population roughly three or four times that of the Soviet Union and similar objectives in the '49 - '76 era as during Stalin's purge era but, with fewer years to effect the agenda ought to have nearly twice the 'purge' figures of The Soviet's 'purge', statistically speaking.
I'd not have a problem estimating nearer 50m than 30m for Mao.
 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
I doubt you can quantify such a controversial individual from a forum like this. He did a lot of good for China as well as a lot of bad. Depending on how long you have to do this report, I suggest you read source material from both sides of the field, American, Taiwanese, and Chinese.

Here's a brief summary of what I think, based on what I've read. A lot of the stuff you read will be contradictory, and it is you who will have to figure out which one is "more true".

I think he truly believed for the people. It was highly evident early in the formation of the Red Army. During WWII, while Nationalist forces were stockpiling weapons (with the intermittent clash), Communist forces were doing guerilla tactics and actually fighting the Japanese on actively on their front. That brought the Red Army and the Communists a lot of popularity with the people, who viewed them as heros. Later, in the Chinese Civil War, Mao helps peasants rather than being a brute. There have been many documented reports by American advisors that the Nationalist Army was corrupt and pillaged at their whims. Take into the fact that the very core of Mao's Red Army were peasant farmers helped bolster him to an unlikely win. Literally, thousands of troops were deserting the Nationalist Army while thousands of people were boosting the Red Army ranks.

During the early days of Red China, Mao and the Communists brought forth a lot of help to the farmers, building irrigation systems, canals, and other things to the more rural areas. That is still their core support. If you go to the rural areas where the Communists have little political control (many rural areas even forego the 1 child policy), you will generally find a very strong Communist backing for the WWII/baby boomer generation for what the Red Army helped accomplish.

It was during the later days, that we see a more "Ivan the Terrible" image. The Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution were such events. That is where the bulk of the dead comes from. The Great Leap Forward contained the bulk of the dead; many starved to death because officials were guessing gratituously on their farm production (to make themselves look good). They weren't "purged" like Stalin's reign because of being political opponents, they died because they didnt have enough food because officials were were trying to make themsleves look good. The general consensus is about 35m starved to death. It wasnt evenly distributed, the bulk of the dead came from just a few provinces.

The Cultural Revolution tried to help rectify that, but it did pretty much the opposite effect. IMO, the Cultural Revolution was like a Salem Witch Hunt, where officials and people were blaming each other for being "unloyal". Local officials took power and its rule was highly localized to the point where we had clashes of different factions. It was actually Mao that stopped this, only with the help of the People's Army.
 

ManSnake

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
4,749
1
0
White cat, black cat, if it catches mice, it's a good cat.

In Chinese cat = mao, so according to Deng Xiaoping, mao must be good even though because of Mao, Deng suffered dearly during the Cultural Revolution.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Winston, you did a little rant dance about the Web not being the exclusive source of information. The subtext was "You moron." Skipping the accuracy of my observation about the subtext. Here is a quote of my original request. "Quote" means, this is an exact reproduction of what I asked. "Winston, a reference please. Preferrably in the form of a link." Although a link is easier to access, I left the form of your response entirely open. The Web isn't everything, but it shares at least one thing in common with printed material. Some of it is trustworthy, and some of it grows roses if mixed properly with the soil. You also did a little dance number about whether I wanted to claim 25 million or 80 million. You know, there is one hell of a difference between those two numbers, expecially if the subject of the conversation (as yours was) is the number of people killed.

To continue the lecture, I think we ought to face facts. Stalin and Mao were killers of the first water. But let's try to be accurate in what we say about them and, if the true knowledge isn't available, let's acknowledge that and give our best sources -- be the Internet or not.

I think I remember where the physical library is located.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Whitling
Winston, that's your source? A chart calculating standard deviations based on many guesses at a death toll.

Aye Yi Yi, Winston. The chart you link to is a chart analyzing how reliable death toll statistics are. The author says,

"I'd say that the Line of Smugness falls at a Standard Deviation of 40%. If the experts deviate by less than that, you can support mainstream estimates with confidence, but if the experts deviate by more than 40%, then you probably shouldn't act like a know-it-all because even the experts don't know."

OK, he says -- and I quote -- "If experts deviate by more than 40%, then . . . even the experts don't know."

The data for Mao's China is listed at either "uncertain," a 40 to 60% standard deviation or a "guess," 60% standard deviation.

Winston, it appears that the author is saying, "Nobody knows." What do you know about this that I don't know?

I urge others to check this . . . uh . . . authority.

I am not sure exactly what your problem is here. Go out and google on Mao and purges for crying out loud. Pick up a book on the history of the day. Are you saying Mao did not have significant purges occur? Of course no one counted the bodies. That does not mean there is not a range that can be estimated. As I said, you can look around, and if you want to claim 25 million instead of 80 million, so be it.

If your simple mind likes to contribute all death in a country to its leader, that is fine. But if you really want to understand Chinese history during the 1950's, you should really keep an open mind and stop believing all the garbage you find on the web. Lot of death happened at the time was casued by class struggle, poverty, and over correction to the corruption and inequality during the prior government. Sure Mao should take a bulk of responsibility for being the leader at the time, but he did not create the crisis, it is more like the crisis in the Chinese society at the time made him who he was.

There were certainly things he failed that caused many death. During the later years of his rule, he didn't have a clear power transition plan and his wife and her gang in an attempt to grab power, started the cultural revolution movement that caused million lives and distroyed valuable chinese values and artifacts. That was his worst failure as a politician in Chinese history.
 

LongCoolMother

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2001
5,675
0
0
Originally posted by: dexvx
I doubt you can quantify such a controversial individual from a forum like this. He did a lot of good for China as well as a lot of bad. Depending on how long you have to do this report, I suggest you read source material from both sides of the field, American, Taiwanese, and Chinese.

Here's a brief summary of what I think, based on what I've read. A lot of the stuff you read will be contradictory, and it is you who will have to figure out which one is "more true".

I think he truly believed for the people. It was highly evident early in the formation of the Red Army. During WWII, while Nationalist forces were stockpiling weapons (with the intermittent clash), Communist forces were doing guerilla tactics and actually fighting the Japanese on actively on their front. That brought the Red Army and the Communists a lot of popularity with the people, who viewed them as heros. Later, in the Chinese Civil War, Mao helps peasants rather than being a brute. There have been many documented reports by American advisors that the Nationalist Army was corrupt and pillaged at their whims. Take into the fact that the very core of Mao's Red Army were peasant farmers helped bolster him to an unlikely win. Literally, thousands of troops were deserting the Nationalist Army while thousands of people were boosting the Red Army ranks.

During the early days of Red China, Mao and the Communists brought forth a lot of help to the farmers, building irrigation systems, canals, and other things to the more rural areas. That is still their core support. If you go to the rural areas where the Communists have little political control (many rural areas even forego the 1 child policy), you will generally find a very strong Communist backing for the WWII/baby boomer generation for what the Red Army helped accomplish.

It was during the later days, that we see a more "Ivan the Terrible" image. The Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution were such events. That is where the bulk of the dead comes from. The Great Leap Forward contained the bulk of the dead; many starved to death because officials were guessing gratituously on their farm production (to make themselves look good). They weren't "purged" like Stalin's reign because of being political opponents, they died because they didnt have enough food because officials were were trying to make themsleves look good. The general consensus is about 35m starved to death. It wasnt evenly distributed, the bulk of the dead came from just a few provinces.

The Cultural Revolution tried to help rectify that, but it did pretty much the opposite effect. IMO, the Cultural Revolution was like a Salem Witch Hunt, where officials and people were blaming each other for being "unloyal". Local officials took power and its rule was highly localized to the point where we had clashes of different factions. It was actually Mao that stopped this, only with the help of the People's Army.

people flocked to the red army because they didnt know any better. very generally speaking, the nationalist army was corrupt in officials and structure, and thats the reason people gave increasing support for the communist party. in reality, they blindly did this, displeased with their current leadership. in fact, the nationalists were screwed either way during the japanese invasion.

communists suggested that the nationalists+communists cease fighting and fight the japanese together. nationalists felt their first priority was to eliminate the communists, and then fight the japanese after. later, with no choice (china in ruins), they actually did this (lot of people dont realize it). after the japanese left, communists became stronger and eventually drove the nationalists out of the mainland.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
I think no matter what good Mao did (he was a feminist in 1920s China), it doesn't outweigh the bad. He was insane, period.

I'm not surprised that Mike Tyson came out of prison with a giant Mao tattoo on his arm.

 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Originally posted by: dexvx
I doubt you can quantify such a controversial individual from a forum like this. He did a lot of good for China as well as a lot of bad. Depending on how long you have to do this report, I suggest you read source material from both sides of the field, American, Taiwanese, and Chinese.

Here's a brief summary of what I think, based on what I've read. A lot of the stuff you read will be contradictory, and it is you who will have to figure out which one is "more true".

I think he truly believed for the people. It was highly evident early in the formation of the Red Army. During WWII, while Nationalist forces were stockpiling weapons (with the intermittent clash), Communist forces were doing guerilla tactics and actually fighting the Japanese on actively on their front. That brought the Red Army and the Communists a lot of popularity with the people, who viewed them as heros. Later, in the Chinese Civil War, Mao helps peasants rather than being a brute. There have been many documented reports by American advisors that the Nationalist Army was corrupt and pillaged at their whims. Take into the fact that the very core of Mao's Red Army were peasant farmers helped bolster him to an unlikely win. Literally, thousands of troops were deserting the Nationalist Army while thousands of people were boosting the Red Army ranks.

During the early days of Red China, Mao and the Communists brought forth a lot of help to the farmers, building irrigation systems, canals, and other things to the more rural areas. That is still their core support. If you go to the rural areas where the Communists have little political control (many rural areas even forego the 1 child policy), you will generally find a very strong Communist backing for the WWII/baby boomer generation for what the Red Army helped accomplish.

It was during the later days, that we see a more "Ivan the Terrible" image. The Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution were such events. That is where the bulk of the dead comes from. The Great Leap Forward contained the bulk of the dead; many starved to death because officials were guessing gratituously on their farm production (to make themselves look good). They weren't "purged" like Stalin's reign because of being political opponents, they died because they didnt have enough food because officials were were trying to make themsleves look good. The general consensus is about 35m starved to death. It wasnt evenly distributed, the bulk of the dead came from just a few provinces.

The Cultural Revolution tried to help rectify that, but it did pretty much the opposite effect. IMO, the Cultural Revolution was like a Salem Witch Hunt, where officials and people were blaming each other for being "unloyal". Local officials took power and its rule was highly localized to the point where we had clashes of different factions. It was actually Mao that stopped this, only with the help of the People's Army.


Not bad at all for someone in the USA...... :)

I woud suggest strongly to read directly from him..... get his book, read it. A man committed to people who missed a few steps.... and millions payed the price. However, let's not forget the fact that China was a medieval country after WW2 was over, so ANY mistake could have caused huge problems....
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
people flocked to the red army because they didnt know any better. very generally speaking, the nationalist army was corrupt in officials and structure, and thats the reason people gave increasing support for the communist party. in reality, they blindly did this, displeased with their current leadership. in fact, the nationalists were screwed either way during the japanese invasion.

communists suggested that the nationalists+communists cease fighting and fight the japanese together. nationalists felt their first priority was to eliminate the communists, and then fight the japanese after. later, with no choice (china in ruins), they actually did this (lot of people dont realize it). after the japanese left, communists became stronger and eventually drove the nationalists out of the mainland.

Actually, if you read any good account of "Nationalist" cooperation with U.S. forces during WWII you will find that Chiang Kai Shek refused to fight the Japanese unless put under extreme pressure by his U.S. allies, and even then it was always half hearted. Even during WWII, years after Japan invaded Manchuria, Chiang was taking U.S. weapons and equipment and using them against the Communists. Chiang was ALWAYS more intereted in fighting the Commies because he knew that Japan was only interested in Manchuria and some cities, whereas the communists wanted the entire country. The only problem, though, was that Manchuria was the industrial center of China, which meant that its occupation by foriegn troops exasperated China's poverty epidemic even further, thereby improving the commies' attractiveness.

The communist revolution in China, imho, was an outgrowth of western imperialism that eventually brought China to its knees. China in the 1820's was a self contained cultural, political, and economic entity that had little to gain from the west, it could even produce textiles cheaper than the British with their machines. The brits came in and hated the conditions they had to trade under (among other things they COULDN'T SELL OPIUM!!) and so, after the chinese destroyed a huge amount of conviscated opium, they fought the First Opium War. After that they and the french fought a second. There were a couple of more interventions, some of which the U.S. was involved in. After each little war the Chinese had to accept further indignities: The Europeans established municipal governments into segments of key trading cities that they had full soverienty over, European and American warships could patrol Chinese RIVERS, incredably high reparations, etc. Japan was only getting in on the looting. It's no wonder why Chinese society colapsed, with warlordism (effictively the absence of civil government) growing out of control.

Dr. Sun Yat-Sen started the nationalist movement to get rid of the warlords, get the foriengners out of China and to restore stability to the chaotic mess created by our ancestors, but he died a hero, leaving a judas as successor. Chiang Kai Shek sold out to the Europeans and Americans, and somewhat to the Japanese. He killed hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) in his quest for power and the destruction of the communists.

That opened up the door for the Communists to claim to be the saviors of China. The peasents were tired of being screwed by the landlords, so they joined. The intellectuals were sick of Chiang and his betrayal of chinese nationalism, so they went communist (providing the backbone of the party). They took the countryside, were driven to the northwest, solidified, and retook the country after WWII.

After Mao's amazing accomplishment he went nuts. It's kind of understandable, he had done what every leader of China since the appearance of the European traders had failed to do, kick the foreigners out and restore the national borders. He developed a god complex to compete with his messiah complex and started all these huge projects that ended up with millions of deaths. Only now is China reemerging from the darkness it found itself in during the 19th century.

Much of the blame should fall on him, but it also should fall on Chiang as well as the Europeans, Americans and Japanese that imploded Chinese society. They brought a civilization to its knees in order to loot and pillage, and the communist revolution was a backlash against the foreigners that had dramatic effects on the chinese populaiton.

This is an object lesson in why you don't fvck up a civilization beyond repair. It just creates some ideology/religion/movement that repairs the social/economic/political framework. The problem is that it is done in defiance of us, and therefore in a manner that we do not condone.