Click Here to Subsribe to the 'Living in China' Feed The title of this article is a little misleading. I know that you are going to talk about politics in China. Every foreign teacher does; it’s inevitable. Your students will want to talk about politics during social talk. Your friends will want to talk about politics at dinner. You can talk about politics; it is not against the law. But before you ‘tread those dangerous waters,’ you need to be aware of some simple facts about how Chinese people view their political world.
- –When your students discuss politics with you, most of them are not giving you an opinion that they have formed by themselves. They are repeating to you what they have been fed by the Chinese government/media their whole lives. Expect to hear the same political ideology repeated over and over again. Trying to get through their ideology is like attempting to drive a broom handle through a brick wall.
- –Chinese people see China as their ‘mother.’ A student explained to me recently that “we can only trust our Chinese government because it has taken such good care of us.” She went on to tell me that without the government, the Chinese people would be completely destitute. She and other friends of mine talk about the Chinese government in a very ‘caring and adoring’ manner. In other words, if you are saying bad things about the Chinese government, it is as if you are insulting every single Chinese person’s mother.
- –Any information that you provide for your friends or students that come from sources other than the Chinese government will be instantly rejected as a fabrication and distortion of the truth. Most people in China do not seek other sources of information because they are told that information from the ‘West’ cannot be trusted. You may be well armed with information from a variety of places
- –Chinese people are easily offended by political comments directed at their government. When you are making negative statements about their government they will react as if the comments are being made about them. Whatever you do, make sure that you explain that your comments about their government do not reflect your feelings about the people.
It really is better to avoid discussing politics in your ESL classes because you never know who might be listening. Teachers have been reprimanded and even dismissed for talking about political issues such as Taiwan and Tibet. You would probably do well to avoid these topics altogether. It is wiser to discuss politics with close friends who can handle your opinion.
Use common sense and always respect Chinese culture. If you have to make political comments to your friends or students, make sure that you do not make them in an inflammatory manner. Always listen to what they are saying and engage them in a conversation that leaves everyone feeling like they learned something afterwards. It is also important to always observe closely how your students and friends are reacting and be ready to change subjects if necessary. It is to be hoped that in the future the political discourse in China will be more open, but until then, you need to use a great measure of sensitivity when broaching the topic of politics and government in China.
Posted in 
Tags: 
@Sammy,
Thanks for your thoughts. Certainly the United States and Britain are guilty of some of the same things that Beijing is doing now. I guess it is just that by now, one would hope that we have ALL learned from our mistakes and will not continue to repeat the past…
I hope that you will take a minute to look around the website and see that we do believe that China is on the right path….I personally have confidence that things are changing for the better..slowly but surely…
[Reply]
My own opinion about this whole story;
I think that both the U.S. and China has
deep seeded cultural problems, but of a
very different nature. Since this is a blog
about Chinese foreign teacher abroad, I think
it appropriate to first follow on this point;
yes, it is true that freedom of speech concerning poltical
or religious beliefs is a great
issue in certain Asian countries. Not only in
China, but also in Burma and Vietnam for instance.
People can get shot for singing a freedom song
as it happened in Rangoon 2007 uprising( see Ko
thike blog, and John Pilger movies). Falung Gong believers are beaten up
for expressing their religious assertions. And people
in Lhasa get trampled on in their own territories.
However I think those negative problems should be
taken into the broader context of Western colonization.
Britain has oppressed China for a long time through
War, and the opium trade. Same is true for Myanmar. The
army is actually a residue of western oppression.
There is very good book written by Dawa Norbu which
documents the relation of Tibet and China pre colonization period (by the West).
In the 16 adn 1500s. Tibet and China were very peaceful and
respectful towards one another. The emperor entertained
good relations with the the Dalai Lama. One of them even
asked for buddhist transcripts to be translated in Chinese (see Dawa Norbu’s book).
That has changed upon western influence. My own point is that I think
China has been bitterly oppressed and has started to do to Tibet what has
been done to her before.
On the other hand, Chinese people were the first ever civilized culture in
the history of human kind. The first civilization on earth can be traced
back to as far as 6000 bc in Henan province. I think as westerner, we do
have a lot to learn from Asian culture in general. The deep sens of family
values and care for one another is of a level simply not found in the West. So these
are the good of China.
What about the West. Well as a westerner myself, I should say that the west is
a very paradoxal in what it has done in the world. It is true as Robert pointed
out that Freedom of Speech in the West is simply incomparable to China.People
can say whatever they like, but that has been a recent achievement of only 100
years old or so. A good one that we should surely celebrate. The irony is that Freedom of
Speech do change the government in the US, but very slowly. The immense power of
the United States gives a sort of immunity to the executive branch. Maybe that’s why
people are allowed to talk in the U.S.! On the other hand, my sens is that if such freedom
of speech were fully permitted in China, there is a good chance that it could create
an uprising or a turmoil of the kind of the Cultural Revolution. Hence, the reason to
trample on Freedom of Speech. Information in Asian culture can circulate at a pace that
is unknown in the West. I think these are mostly cultural differences, not political ones and maybe at the root of many people’s arousal at reading
this blog.
Western science is yet probably
the greatest achievement of human kind, and the West should remember it.
Yet it has also been the greatest curse of human kind for the last 500 years. The U.S. could never stand the to Iraqi people without a sophisticated machinery of science
warfare which gives it leverage over discussions. The United States also have
around 152 bases all over the world and has done 72 interventions since World War II.Being myself 1/2 French 1/2 Arab, born in Canada, living with an Asian partner, I am very much convinced now that greed, and avarice is as deep problem in the west of an extent not seen in Asia, or other parts of the world. Greed is very much pathological in western
cutlure, whether workign class, middle class or elite, and is often seen as a goal rather than a mean to achieving ends. It creates an great sens of insulation of a kind you simply would never see in China. Also the greatest threat to the existence of humans is also mostly of western origin, including global warming, nuclear weapons and pandemics(there is good book about the latter from Edward Hooper called “the River”).
These are the facts. The chinese reader might be delighted at reading them. Whether we westerners agree with them or not, these are truisms; western states , more precisely, France, Spain, Portugal, England, and its European offshoot the U.S. have done more harm , more destruction, pillage, and eradication than any other other cultures in the history of the world. However, in an attempt to stretch everybody’s mind, remember that what Robert says is nevertheless right. To add further to its own stand, Shenzen has recently bought over 2 million cameras to monitor the city and its citizenry . This is off course appalling.
But the Chinese government could do it because of a great deals xtruck with Western Coporations. Again this an example of western greed leading to chinese oppressing of its own people.Another example is Chinese rotten worker conditions as internal migrant or in the manufacturing industry;
Many companies in china exploit their own workers having them to work 14 hours shift in miserable and despicable conditions; however many of those companies are tied to the United States and those conditions
maximize profit and greatly enrich western stock holders.
Conclusion? We have to look at ourselves. China has its own problems; there are no fiction and out to be addressed. But on a catastrophic point of view, I do think that the West is much more blamable for many of the wrongdoings seen in the world.
This is totally off topic off course!!! I just wanted to share my point of view with everyone:)
cheers, Xie xie Pen you
[Reply]
Robert,
I completely agree with you on the fact that talking about politics in China is a bad idea. All the discussions and arguments proved that you’re right about this. What I don’t agree is the reasoning of not talking about politics in China. The implication of Chinese people being brain-washed by their government (hear the same political ideology repeated over and over again. Trying to get through their ideology is like attempting to drive a broom handle through a brick wall.) is unfair and insulting to most Chinese people.
Look at it this way: East & west have different values in culture, education, economic and politics, people adept to their value system from childhood, and they are hard to change. Due to competitions among countries, countries bring in media’s involvement in promoting their own value and weakening oppositions. All media are biased, and they mostly biased to help their own country. We all grew up in such environment, and therefore we are all biased at some level, towards wherever we were educated & grew up.
Because of the differences in background, culture and perspective, a Chinese might feel the same way about you, (thinking that you are brainwashed by Western Media and your government) and more likely, you would be offended by being labeled “brainwashed”.
My friend, even without culture differences & nation conflict, I don’t see age long domestic political issues such was abortion & gay would ever end. Like your article says, it’s not a good idea to talk about politics in China, (or anywhere) if that’s not your specialty.
If your reasoning for not talking about Politics in China is simply because of differences in background, culture and perspective, I could almost guaranty that you’d not be attacked. Once again, the famous saying: It’s not about what you say, it’s about how you say it.
Mike
[Reply]
[...] the way, Robert Vance wrote an article a while back entitled Why Talking About Politics in China is a Bad Idea. While I do not necessarily agree with everything that he wrote, you may pick up some other points [...]
correction:
Every “county” has some kind of propaganda —–
should read
Every “country” has some kind of propaganda
Sorry.
[Reply]
Listen to a human heart, don’t listen to the fancy terms of politics.
[Reply]
“Me: What do you think of TAIWAN?
Students: Taiwan belongs to China?” ——-
Yes, technically, Taiwan is part of China. But of course, if you want to twist it a little here and there, well, it become a whole different debate.
And I know lots of people from Taiwan would agree with this, but again, there are also people don’t agree. Agreeing or not is not the issue, it’s the technicality. But how do you draw that line of technicality?
I know as a fact in the early years of Taiwan ruled under KMT party (lead by Chiang Kai Shek), there were lots of propaganda were made to demonize China mainland. And people believed these propaganda at that time (of course, there are some truth in it, but propaganda never fail to exaggerate and demonize without reasoning) . KMT talked about someday Taiwan will fight China, and regained the power back from China communism. People in Taiwan believed it so much, and when CKS passed away, people were totally distraught, at least it was described by the media. After years of his past away, the true perspective started to be dug out. People in Taiwan know much better now, and thought the regaining power back from China was a hilarious joke. As time went by, KMT also had lots of corruption within the party even it does label itself as democratic party. But at the same time, we don’t want to take away the credit from what they did to benefit so much people in Taiwan.
Every county has some kind of propaganda, and we are all living in it, and we are all kind of brainwashed as long as you live under a regime or religion. It’s all about he said, she said.
At the end of day, you’ll have to face one question above all, —- are you just as human as the rest of them?
[Reply]
Here’s the root of dispute —–
Not so “pure angel” group of people portray themselves as “pure angel”, and run around accused others “pure evil”, and not so “pure evil” group of people run around defending themselves and tell the not so “pure angel” (used to be “pure evil”) people to take a hike.
Here’s the solution —-
if there’s no accusation, there won’t be defend.
[Reply]
@Harry,
Although you are half Chinese, I would like to tell you you are out of date. All of your information provided here can be reviewed everywhere in China. But 30years ago, it was hard to get it.
Your talking about China still stopped at the time of 30 years ago. Wish you could update it soon.
To correct 1 concept of you, missing something in the textbook doesn’t mean Chinese lose independent thinking, that’s the different concept. There are enough information now available through every kind of media. If someone is really interested on some topic, it’s easily to find suffifient information. It’s really upon individual himself.
Labeling “Brainwashed” when Westerner can not explain some issues is a kind of unwised reaction. Just put himself at high level.
Look at this website, there are too many westerners using this word. I have put pity on those guys.
[Reply]
Hi, my name is Harry, my mother is British and my father is Chinese. I grew up in the U.K. but my Father has told me about what he and his parents went through during the famine and cultural revolution in China.
Although I am half-Chinese, I think that I have been lucky not to grow up in China because there seems to be many many chinese people who do not know their own history and they don’t have the capacity for ‘free thinking’. That’s what I think. I don’t want to say my chinese brothers and sisters have been brainwashed, but I have read too many comments for me to think otherwise.
I feel sorry for my brothers and sisters in China because they don’t realise they are being told lies by the government. I can’t understand why the chinese people still like Mao Tse-Tung when he murdered millions of them. I know that a lot of history is not used in text books in schools in china and maybe this is why the chinese students don’t know what really went on.
I have a cousin in Shangdong province who does not know anything about Mao Tse-tung (not the truth in any case) and he knows nothing of Tian’an men Square either, yet he is studying to be a doctor, so he is quite intelligent. He was the one who told me that in school the text books don’t mention Mao and the CR, or why Tian’an men square happened.
I am so happy I did not grow up in China even though I am half-Chinese. That is all I have to say.
Background
This article contains Chinese text.
Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Chinese characters.
[edit] Social background
Prior to the Cultural Revolution, most of the intimidation tactics were already established from the earlier Yan’an Rectification Movement (延安整风运动). The political changes after the 1949 Communist takeover also resulted in sweeping social changes, particularly the labeling of much of the former ruling class and intelligentsia as rightists and “revisionists,” “black elements” or “black gang elements.” Their houses were confiscated, and any items that did not conform to Mao’s values were smashed. Hardly any family with a problematic record against the system could escape the turmoil.[2]
In the initial preparation, the “Central Press and Broadcasting Bureau” was the driver in pushing all schools, army units, and public organizations at all levels to install public loudspeakers and radio receivers. The Central People’s Broadcasting Station was the main instrument established as part of the “Politics on Demand” concept. By the 1960s, 70 million speakers would reach the rural population of 400 million.[3]
[edit] Great Leap Forward
Main article: Great Leap Forward
In 1957, after China’s first Five-Year Plan, Mao Zedong called for an increase in the speed of the growth of “actual socialism” in China (as opposed to “dictatorial socialism”), as the first step in making the country into a self-sufficient Communist society. To accomplish this goal, Mao began the Great Leap Forward, establishing special communes (Cultural nexus of power) in the countryside through the usage of collective labour and mass mobilization. The Great Leap Forward was intended to increase the production of steel and to raise agricultural production to twice 1957 levels.[4]
However, industries went into turmoil because peasants were producing too much low-quality steel while other areas were neglected. Furthermore, the peasantry, as agriculturalists, were poorly equipped and ill-trained to produce steel, partially relying on such mechanisms as backyard furnaces to achieve production goals, which had been mandated by the local cadres. Meanwhile, farming implements like rakes were melted down for steel, impeding agricultural production. This led to a decline in the production of most goods other than steel. To make matters worse, in order to avoid punishment, local authorities frequently reported grossly unrealistic production numbers, which hid the problem for years, intensifying it. Having barely recovered from decades of war, the Chinese economy was again in shambles. Steel production did show significant growth, to over 14 million tons of steel a year, from the previous 5.2 million. The original goal was to produce an overly optimistic and, in hindsight, unrealistic 30 million tons of steel, though that was later revised down to twenty million. However, much of the steel produced was impure and useless. In the meantime, chaos in the collectives and unfortunate climatic conditions resulted in widespread famine, while Mao continued to export grain to “save face” with the outside world. According to various sources,[5] the death toll due to famine may have been as high as 20 to 30 million.
In the 1959 Lushan meeting of the Central Committee (庐山会议), renowned military General Peng Dehuai criticized Mao’s policies on the Great Leap in a private letter. Peng wrote that the Great Leap was plagued by mismanagement and “petty-bourgeois fanaticism.” Although Mao made repeated self-criticisms in speeches for the Great Leap Forward and called for the dismantling of the communes in 1959, he insisted that the Great Leap was 70% correct overall. Also in 1959, Mao resigned as chairman of the PRC, and the government was then run by other leaders such as the new chairman Liu Shaoqi, Premier Zhou Enlai and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Deng Xiaoping. Mao remained Chairman of the Party. Politically, Mao formed an alliance with Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, in which he granted them day-to-day control over the country, in return for framing Peng and accusing him of being a “right-opportunist”.
Among Liu’s and Deng’s reforms were a partial retreat from collectivism, seen as more pragmatic and more effective. Liu Shaoqi declared famously, “buying is better than manufacturing, and renting is better than buying,” opening a new economic frontier in China that contradicted Mao’s self-sufficiency ideals.[6]
[edit] Increasing conflict between Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi
In China, the three years beginning with 1959 were known as the Three Years of Natural Disasters （三年自然灾害). Food was in desperate shortage, and production fell dramatically. By the end of the Three Years of Natural Disasters, which was the direct result of the failed Great Leap Forward campaign, an estimated 20 million people had died from widespread famine.
Liu Shaoqi decided to end many Leap policies, such as rural communes, and to restore the economic policies used before the Great Leap Forward.
Because of the success of his economic reforms, Liu had won prestige in the eyes of many party members both in the central government and among the masses. Together with Deng Xiaoping, Liu began planning to gradually retire Mao from any real power, and to turn him into a figurehead. To restore his political base, and to eliminate his opposition, Mao initiated the Socialist Education Movement, in 1963.
Mao later admitted to some general mistakes, while strongly defending the Great Leap Forward in concept. One great irony of the Socialist Education Movement is that it called for grassroots action, yet was directed by Mao himself. This movement, aimed primarily at schoolchildren, did not have any immediate effect on Chinese politics, but it did influence a generation of youths, from whom Mao could draw support in the future.
In 1963, Mao began attacking Liu Shaoqi openly, stating that the idealism of “the struggle of the classes” must always be fully understood and applied; yearly, monthly, and daily. By 1964, the Socialist Education Movement had become the new “Four Cleanups Movement”, with the stated goal of the cleansing of politics, economics, ideas, and organization. The Movement was directed politically against Liu.
[edit] Immediate influences
Chinese poster saying: “Smash the old world / Establish a new world.” Classical example of the Red art from the early Cultural Revolution. A worker (or possibly Red Guard) crushes the crucifix, Buddha and classical Chinese texts with his hammer; 1967In late 1959, historian and Beijing Deputy Mayor Wu Han published the first version of a historical drama entitled “Hai Rui Dismissed from Office” (pinyin: Hai Rui Ba Guan, Chinese: 《海瑞罢官》). In the play, a virtuous official, (Hai Rui), was dismissed by a corrupt emperor.
The play initially received praise from Mao. In 1965, Mao Zedong’s wife Jiang Qing and her protégé Yao Wenyuan—who at the time was a little-known editor of a prominent newspaper in Shanghai—published an article criticising the play. They labeled it a “poisonous weed” (毒草 dúcăo）and an attack on Mao, using the allegory of Mao Zedong as the corrupt emperor and Peng Dehuai as the virtuous official.
The Shanghai newspaper article received much publicity nationwide, with many other prominent newspapers asking for publication rights. Beijing Mayor Péng Zhēn, a supporter of Wu Han, established a committee studying the recent publication and emphasizing that the criticism had gone too far. On February 12, 1966, this committee, called the “Group of Five in Charge of the Cultural Revolution,” issued an “Outline Report on the Current Academic Discussion”, which later became known as the “February Outline”. In this document the group emphasized that the dispute over Hai Rui Dismissed From Office was academic rather than political.
In May, 1966, Jiang Qing and Yao Wenyuan once again published various articles with content denouncing both Wu Han and Peng Zhen. On May 16, following Mao’s lead, the Politburo issued a formal notice representing figuratively the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. In this document, titled “Notification from the Central Committee of Communist Party of China,” Peng Zhen was sharply criticized, and the “Group of Five” was disbanded. “Completely penetrated with double-dealing, the thesis furiously attacked the Great cultural revolution, personally developed and managed by comrade Mao Zedong, the instructions of comrade Mao Zedong concerning criticism of Wu Han,” stated the “Notification.” One year later, on May 18, 1967 this “Notification” was called “a great historical document developed under the direct management of our great leader comrade Mao Zedong” in the editorial section of People’s Daily.
Chinese poster showing Jiang Qing, saying: “Let the new socialistic performing arts occupy every stage.”, 1967(in this poster there is a wrong word-”午台” instead of “舞台”-stage.)In a later meeting of the Politburo in 1966, the new Cultural Revolution Group (CRG) （文革小组）was formed. On May 18, Lin Biao said in a speech that “Chairman Mao is a genius, everything the Chairman says is truly great; one of the Chairman’s words will override the meaning of tens of thousands of ours.” Thus started the first phase of Mao’s cult of personality led by Jiang Qing, Lin Biao, and others. At this time, Jiang and Lin had already seized some actual power. On May 25, a young teacher of philosophy at Peking University, Nie Yuanzi, wrote a dazibao （大字报）(”big-character poster”) where the rector of the university and other professors were labeled “black anti-Party gangsters”. Some days later, Mao Zedong ordered the text of this big-character poster to be broadcast nationwide and called it “the first Marxist dazibao in China.” On May 29, 1966, at the Secondary School attached to Tsinghua University, the first organization of Red Guards was formed. It was aimed at punishing and neutralizing both intellectuals and Mao’s political enemies.
On June 1, 1966, the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the CCP, stated that all “imperialists”, “people with affiliations with imperialists”, “imperialistic intellectuals”, et al., must be purged. Soon a movement began, that was aimed at purging university presidents and other prominent intellectuals. On July 28, 1966, representatives of the Red Guards wrote a formal letter to Mao, stating that mass purges, and all such-related social and political phenomena were justified and right. Mao responded with his full support in an article entitled “Bombard the Headquarters”, thus began the Cultural Revolution.[4]
[edit] Beginning
[edit] 1966
On August 8, 1966, the Central Committee of the CCP passed its “Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” (also known as “the 16 Points”).[7] This decision defined the GPCR as “a great revolution that touches people to their very souls and constitutes a new stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country, a deeper and more extensive stage”:
“ Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and endeavor to stage a comeback. The proletariat must do just the opposite: It must meet head-on every challenge of the bourgeoisie in the ideological field and use the new ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the proletariat to change the mental outlook of the whole of society. At present, our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system. ”
The decision thus took the already existing student movement and elevated it to the level of a nationwide mass campaign, calling on not only students but also “the masses of the workers, peasants, soldiers, revolutionary intellectuals, and revolutionary cadres” to carry out the task of “transforming the superstructure” by writing big-character posters and holding “great debates.” One of the main focuses of the Cultural Revolution was the abolishment of the Four Olds: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. The decision granted people the most extensive freedom of speech the People’s Republic has ever seen, but this was a freedom severely determined by the Maoist ideological climate and, ultimately, by the People’s Liberation Army and Mao’s authority over the Army, as points 15 and 16 already made clear. The freedoms granted in the 16 Points were later written into the PRC constitution as “the four great rights (四大自由)” of “great democracy (大民主)”: the right to speak out freely, to air one’s views fully, to write big-character posters, and to hold great debates (大鸣、大放、大字报、大辩论 – the first two are basically synonyms). (In other contexts the second was sometimes replaced by 大串联 – the right to “link up,” meaning for students to cut class and travel across the country to meet other young activists and propagate Mao Zedong Thought.) Those who had anything other than a Communist background were challenged and often charged for corruption and sent to prison. These freedoms were supplemented by the right to strike, although this right was severely attenuated by the Army’s entrance onto the stage of civilian mass politics in February 1967. All of these rights were deleted from the constitution after Deng’s government suppressed the Democracy Wall movement in 1979.
On August 16, 1966, millions of Red Guards from all over the country gathered in Beijing for a peek at the Chairman. On top of the Tiananmen Square gate, Mao and Lin Biao made frequent appearances to approximately 11 million Red Guards, receiving cheers each time. Mao praised their actions in the recent campaigns to develop socialism and democracy.
During the Destruction of Four Olds campaign, religious affairs of all types were persecuted and discouraged by the Red Guards. Many religious buildings such as temples, churches, mosques, monasteries and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes looted and destroyed.[8] The most gruesome aspects of the campaign were the torture and killing of innocent people and the suicides that were the final options of many who suffered beatings and humiliation. In August and September, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone. In Shanghai in September there were 704 suicides and 534 deaths related to the Cultural Revolution. In Wuhan during this time there were 62 suicides and 32 murders.[9] The authorities were discouraged from stopping the violence of the Red Guards. Said Xie Fuzhi, national police chief: “If people are beaten to death . . . its none of our business. If you detain those who beat people to death . . . you will be making a big mistake.”[10] Mao himself had no scruples about the taking of human life, and went so far as to suggest that the sign of a true revolutionary was his desire to kill: “This man Hitler was even more ferocious. The more ferocious the better, don’t you think? The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are.”[11]
For two years, until July 1968 (and in some places for much longer), student activists such as the Red Guards expanded their areas of authority, and accelerated their efforts at socialist reconstruction. They began by passing out leaflets explaining their actions to develop and strengthen socialism, and posting the names of suspected “counter-revolutionaries” on bulletin boards. They assembled in large groups, held “great debates,” and wrote educational plays. They held public meetings to criticize and solicit self-criticisms from suspected “counter-revolutionaries.” Although the 16 Points and other pronouncements of the central Maoist leaders forbade “physical struggle (武斗)” in favor of “verbal struggle” (文斗), these struggle sessions often led to physical violence. Initially verbal struggles among activist groups became even more violent, especially when activists began to seize weapons from the Army in 1967. The central Maoist leaders limited their intervention in activist violence to verbal criticism, sometimes even appearing to encourage “physical struggle,” and only after the weapons seizures did they begin to suppress the mass movement.
Posters labelled Liu Shaoqi a traitor and scab, and advocated for his “eternal expulsion” from the Party.Liu Shaoqi was sent to a detention camp, where he later died in 1969. Deng Xiaoping, who was himself sent away for a period of re-education three times, was eventually sent to work in an engine factory, until he was brought back years later by Zhou Enlai. But most of those accused were not so lucky, and many of them never returned.
The work of the Red Guards was praised by Mao Zedong. On August 22, 1966, Mao issued a public notice, which stopped “all police intervention in Red Guard tactics and actions.” Those in the police force who dared to defy this notice, were labeled “counter-revolutionaries.”
On September 5, 1966, yet another notice was issued, encouraging all Red Guards to come to Beijing over a stretch of time. All fees, including accommodation and transportation, were to be paid by the government. On October 10, 1966, Mao’s ally, General Lin Biao, publicly criticized Liu and Deng as “capitalist roaders” and “threats”. Later, Peng Dehuai was brought to Beijing to be publicly displayed and ridiculed.
[edit] 1967
On January 3, 1967, Lin Biao and Jiang Qing manipulated the media and local cadres to create the so-called “January Storm”, in which many prominent Shanghai municipal government leaders were heavily criticized and purged.[12] This paved the way for Wang Hongwen to hold real power in the city and in the city’s CCP power apparatus as the leader of the Municipal Revolutionary Committee. The Municipal government was defunct. In Beijing, Liu and Deng were once again the targets of criticism, but others, who were not as engaged in the CCP criticism sessions, like Chen Boda and Kang Sheng, pointed at the wrongdoings of the Vice Premier, Tao Zhu. Thus started a political struggle among central government officials and local party cadres, who seized the Cultural Revolution as an opportunity to accuse rivals of “counter-revolutionary activity” as the paranoia spread.
On January 8, Mao praised these actions through the People’s Daily, urging all local governmental leaders to rise in self-criticism, or the criticism and purging of others. This started the massive power struggles which took the form of purge after purge among local governments, some of which stopped functioning altogether. Involvement in some sort of “revolutionary” activity was the only way to avoid being purged, but it was no guarantee.
In February, Jiang Qing and Lin Biao, with permission from Mao, insisted that the “class struggles” be extended to the military. Many prominent generals of the People’s Liberation Army who were instrumental in the founding of the PRC voiced their great concern and opposition to the “mistake of the Cultural Revolution”. Former Foreign Minister Chen Yi, angered at a Politburo meeting, said that the new factions were going to completely destroy the military, and in turn the party. Other generals, including Nie Rongzhen, He Long, and Xu Xiangqian expressed their extreme discontent. They were subsequently denounced on national media, controlled by Zhang Chunqiao and Yao Wenyuan, as the “February Counter-current forces”. They were all eventually purged by Red Guards. At the same time, many large and prominent Red Guard organizations rose in protest against other Red Guard organizations who ran dissimilar revolutionary messages, further complicating the situation and exacerbating the chaos. This led to a notice to stop all unhealthy activity within the Red Guards from Jiang Qing. On April 6, Liu Shaoqi was openly and widely denounced by a Zhongnanhai faction whose members included Jiang Qing and Kang Sheng, and ultimately, Mao himself. This was followed by a protest and mass demonstrations, most notably in Wuhan on July 20, where Jiang openly denounced any “counter-revolutionary activity”; she later personally flew to Wuhan to criticize Chen Zaidao, the general in charge of the Wuhan area.
On July 22, Jiang Qing directed the Red Guards to replace the People’s Liberation Army if necessary, and thereby to render the existing forces powerless. After the initial praise by Jiang Qing, the Red Guards began to steal and loot from barracks and other army buildings. This activity, which could not be stopped by army generals, continued until the autumn of 1968.
[edit] 1968
In the spring of 1968, a massive campaign began aimed at promoting the already-adored Mao Zedong to god-like status. On July 27, 1968, the Red Guards’ power over the army was officially ended and the central government sent in units to protect many areas that remained targets for the Red Guards. Mao had supported and promoted the idea by allowing one of his “Highest Directions” to be heard by the masses. A year later, the Red Guard factions were dismantled entirely; Mao feared that the chaos they caused—and could still cause—might harm the very foundation of the Communist Party of China. In any case, their purpose had been largely fulfilled, and Mao had largely consolidated his political power. In early October, Mao began a campaign to purge officials disloyal to him. They were sent to the countryside to work in labor camps. In the same month, at the 12th Plenum of the 8th Party Congress, Liu Shaoqi was “forever expelled from the party”, and Lin Biao was made the Party’s Vice-Chairman, Mao’s “comrade-in-arms” and “designated successor”, his status and fame in the country was second only to Mao.[13]
In December 1968, Mao began the “Down to the Countryside Movement”. During this movement, which lasted for the next decade, young intellectuals living in cities were ordered to go to the countryside. The term “intellectuals” was actually used in the broadest sense to refer to recently graduated middle school students. In the late 1970s, these “young intellectuals” were finally allowed to return to their home cities. This movement was in part a means of moving Red Guards from the cities to the countryside, where they would cause less social disruption.
[edit] Time dominated by Lin Biao
Main article: Lin Biao
Lin Biao, Mao’s chosen successor, became the most prominent figure during the Cultural Revolution following 1968. In September 1971 China (and the world) was shocked when a plane in which he was believed to be on board crashed in Mongolia, following what seemed to be a series of assassination attempts on Mao’s life. It is impossible to examine the events related to Lin Biao from 1968-1971 with cogency and accuracy because of the political sensitivities that surround the event until this day[14]. Lin’s years in power, and his disputed death have been of interest to historians worldwide, who have never been able to come to a conclusion on the issue.
[edit] Transition of power in the party
On April 1, 1969, at the CCP’s Ninth Congress, Lin was the big winner, officially becoming China’s second-in-charge, and also significant military influence that was second to none. Lin’s biggest political rival, Liu Shaoqi, had been purged and Zhou Enlai’s power was gradually fading.
The Ninth Congress began with Lin Biao delivering a Political Report, which was critical of Liu and other “counter-revolutionaries” while constantly quoting Mao’s Little Red Book. The second thing on the agenda was the new party constitution, which was modified to officially designate Lin as Mao’s successor. Henceforth, at all occasions, Mao’s name was to be linked with Lin’s, to be referred to as “Chairman Mao and Vice-Chairman Lin”. Thirdly, a new Politburo was elected with Mao Zedong, Lin Biao, Chen Boda, Zhou Enlai, and Kang Sheng being the five new members of the Politburo Standing Committee. This new Politburo consisted mostly of those who had arisen as a result of the Cultural Revolution, with Zhou barely keeping his status, having dropped in rank to fourth among the five.
[edit] Lin’s attempts at expanding his power base
At his pinnacle of power, Lin’s status, both legally and in practice, was second only to Mao.After being confirmed as Mao’s successor, Lin Biao focused on the restoration of the position of State President, which had been abolished by Mao due to Liu Shaoqi’s dismissal from power. Lin’s aim was to become Vice-President, with Mao holding the position of State President.
On August 23, 1970, the 2nd Plenum of the CCP’s Ninth Congress was once again held in Lushan. Chen Boda was the first to speak, widely praising Mao and boasting of Mao’s status, with the unstated intention of raising his own. At the same time, Chen requested the restoration of the position of State President. Mao was deeply critical of Chen’s speech and removed him from the Politburo Standing Committee. This was the beginning of a series of criticism sessions across the nation for people who used “deceit” for gains, who were called “Liu Shaoqi’s representatives for Marxism and political liars”.
Chen’s removal from the Standing Committee was also seen as a warning to Lin Biao. After the Ninth Congress, Lin had continuously requested promotions within the party and the Central Government, leading Mao to suspect him of wanting supreme power and even of intending to oust Mao himself. Chen’s speech added to Mao’s apprehensions. If Lin were to become Vice-President, he would legally have supreme power after the President’s death — presenting a clear danger to Mao’s safety.
[edit] Attempted Coup
Main article: Project 571 Outline
Mao’s refusal to let Lin gain more prominence within the party and the government deeply frustrated Lin. Moreover, his power base was shrinking by the day within the Party apparatus, and his health was also gradually waning. Lin’s supporters decided to use the military power still at their disposal to oust Mao Zedong in a military coup. Lin’s son, Lin Liguo, and other high-ranking military conspirators created a coup apparatus in Shanghai aimed solely at ousting Mao from power by the use of force, and dubbed the plan Project 571, which was somewhat homologous to “Military Uprising” in Mandarin. In one known document, Lin stated in Shanghai that “A new power struggle has surged upon us, if indeed we could not take control of revolutionary activity, then these control powers will fall upon someone else.”
Lin’s plan consisted mainly of aerial bombardments and the widespread use of the Air Force. Were the plan to succeed, Lin could successfully arrest all of his political rivals and gain the supreme power that he wanted. But if it were to fail, he would face great and dire consequences.
Assassination attempts were made against Mao in Shanghai, from September 8 to September 10, 1971. It was learned that before these attacks upon Mao there was initial knowledge of Lin’s activities on the part of local police, who stated that Lin Biao had been coordinating a political plot, and Lin’s loyal backers were receiving special training in the military.
From these events onward came continuous allegations and reports of Mao being attacked. One of these reports suggested that en route to Beijing in his private train, Mao was physically attacked; another alleged that Lin had bombed a bridge that Mao was to cross to reach Beijing, which Mao avoided because intelligence reports caused him to change routes. In those nervous days, guards were placed every 10–20 meters on the railway tracks of Mao’s route, facing outwards from the train, to prevent attempts at assassination.
Although reports are conflicting, it is known that after September 11 of the same year, Lin never appeared in public again, nor did his backers, most of whom attempted to escape to then British-held Hong Kong. Many failed in doing so, and around twenty army generals were arrested.
It was also learned that on September 13, 1971, Lin Biao, his wife Ye Qun, son Lin Liguo, and a few staff attempted to fly to the Soviet Union. En route, Lin’s plane crashed in Mongolia, killing all on board. On the same day, the Politburo met in an emergency session to discuss matters pertaining to Lin Biao. Only on September 30 was Lin’s death confirmed in Beijing, which led to the cancellation of the National Day celebration events the following day.
The exact cause of the plane crash remains a mystery. It is widely believed that Lin’s plane ran out of fuel or that there was a sudden engine failure. There was also speculation that the plane was shot down. It could also have been Soviet forces, who later took possession of the bodies of those on board. Regardless, Lin’s attempted coup had failed, leading to the destruction of his reputation within the CCP and in the country.
[edit] Years of the “Gang of Four” and their Downfall
Main article: Gang of Four
[edit] Antagonism Towards Zhou and Deng
In light of what seemed like the betrayal and fall of one of his closest comrades, Mao’s political apprehension was strongly raised, and another void had opened with the question of succession. In the absence of fitting candidates, in September 1972, a young cadre from Shanghai, Wang Hongwen, was transferred to work in Beijing for the Central Government, quickly being elevated to become the Communist Party’s Vice-Chairman in the following year, seemingly being groomed for succession. At the same time, however, under the advice of Premier Zhou Enlai, then politically-disgraced Deng Xiaoping was also transferred back to work in Beijing as Executive Vice-Premier, directing “day-to-day government affairs”.
The death of Lin Biao and Mao’s declining health also saw an increase in the power of Mao’s wife Jiang Qing and her supporters. Although Jiang Qing was at the forefront of carrying out Maoist policies in the earlier stages of the Cultural Revolution, it was clear following Lin Biao’s death that Jiang Qing had political ambitions of her own. She allied herself politically with propaganda specialists Zhang Chunqiao and Yao Wenyuan, and the politically-favoured Wang Hongwen, and formed a political clique later dubbed as the “Gang of Four”. Together they held effective control of the media and China’s propaganda network and were antagonistic towards Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping’s economic initiatives. In late 1973, they seized the opportunity to begin another political movement, the Pi-Lin Pi-Kong (”Criticize Lin (Biao), Criticize Confucius)” campaign, whose stated goals were to eradicate China of neo-Confucianist thinking and denounce Lin Biao’s actions as traitorous and regressive. The campaign was widely publicized and was indirectly aimed at Premier Zhou Enlai, whose political position the Gang of Four were seeking to weaken. The Gang identified Zhou as the main political threat in post-Mao era succession. Reminiscent of the first years of the Cultural revolution, the political battle was acted out through historical allegory, and although Zhou Enlai’s name was never mentioned during this campaign, the Premier’s historical namesake, the Duke of Zhou, was a frequent target. But the public was generally weary of useless or devastating political campaigns and movements, and lent little effort this time around. The campaign failed to achieve its goals.
The Gang of Four’s heavy hand in political and media control did not prevent Deng Xiaoping from reinstating progressive policies in the economic arena. Deng’s stance against party factionalism was clear and his policies aimed at promoting unity as the first step to reimplementing effective production. Mao, however, dubbed Deng’s policies as an attempt at “rehabilitating the case for the rightists”. With the reputation of the entire Cultural Revolution at stake should Deng further his policies, Mao responded by directing Deng to write self-criticisms during December 1975, a move lauded by the Gang of Four.
[edit] 1976
On January 8, Zhou Enlai died of bladder cancer. The next day, Beijing’s Monument to the People’s Heroes began filling up with wreaths expressing the people’s mourning for the Premier. The event was unprecedented. On January 15, Zhou’s funeral was held, and because of his popularity nationally, events commemorating Zhou across the country took place. The Gang of Four, however, was anxious that the spontaneous gatherings could turn the political tide against them. They acted through the media to impose restrictions, forbidding the “wearing of black sashes and white flowers” along with other mourning activities. Deng Xiaoping delivered Zhou’s official eulogy in a funeral attended by all of China’s senior leaders with the exception of Mao himself, who was also gravely ill.
In February, the Gang of Four began to criticize its final serious political opponent, Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping. Deng was once again stripped of all state and party positions. But after Zhou’s death, Mao did not select a member of the Gang of Four to become Premier, instead choosing the relatively unknown Hua Guofeng.
April 5 was China’s Qingming Festival, a traditional day of mourning for those who have died. People had gathered since late March in Tiananmen Square, mourning the death of Zhou Enlai. At the same time, there grew significant anger towards the Gang of Four. Gradually, more and more people began writing and posting messages of disapproval against the Gang. On April 5, hundreds of thousands of people were gathered in and around Tiananmen Square, turning the assembly into a form of non-violent protest. The Gang of Four, in the name of the Central Committee, ordered police to enter the area, clear the wreaths and messages of hate, and disperse the crowds. They pointed out that the Tiananmen Incident, as it became known, was masterminded by a “small minority of right-leaning reactionaries” under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, and subsequently denounced the event on national media. In a Central Committee meeting on April 6, Zhang Chunqiao personally criticized Deng, who was stripped of all his positions and was sent into house arrest.
On September 9, 1976, Mao Zedong died. Mao’s image from the Cultural Revolution portrayed him as an ideal person who mingled among the general public. To many, Mao’s death symbolized the loss of the socialist foundation of China, and when his death was announced on the afternoon of September 9, 1976, in a press release entitled A Notice from the Central Committee, the NPC, State Council, and the CMC to all those in the military and party, as well as all Chinese people,[15] the entire nation descended into a massive state of spontaneous grief and mourning, with people weeping in the streets and public institutions closing for over a week. Before dying, Mao had allegedly written a message on a piece of paper stating “With you in charge, I’m at ease”, to Hua Guofeng. This legitimized Hua as the Party’s new Chairman. Before this event, Hua had been widely considered to be lacking in political skill and ambitions, and as posing no threat to the Gang of Four in the race for succession. But under the influence of prominent generals like Ye Jianying, and partly under influence of Deng Xiaoping, and with the support of the Army, Hua ordered the arrest of the Gang of Four following Mao’s death. By October 10, the 8341 Special Regiment had all members of the Gang of Four arrested. Historically, this marked the end of the Cultural Revolution era.
[edit] Aftermath
Even though Hua Guofeng publicly denounced and arrested the Gang of Four in 1976, he continued to invoke Mao’s name to justify Mao-era policies. Hua opened what was known as the Two Whatevers,[16] saying “Whatever policy originated from Chairman Mao, we must continue to support,” and “Whatever directions were given to us from Chairman Mao, we must continue to work on their basis.” Like Deng, Hua’s goal was to reverse the damage of the Cultural Revolution; but unlike Deng, who was not against new economic models for China, Hua intended to move the Chinese economic and political system towards Soviet-style planning of the early 1950s.
It became increasingly clear to Hua that without Deng Xiaoping, it was difficult to continue daily affairs of state. Deng also had notable prestige within the party. On October 10, Deng Xiaoping personally wrote a letter to Hua asking to be transferred back to state and party affairs. Unconfirmed information allegedly stated that Politburo Standing Committee member Ye Jianying would resign if Deng was not allowed back into the Central Government. With increasing pressure from all sides, Hua decided to bring Deng back into state affairs, first naming him Vice-Premier of the State Council in July 1977, and to various other positions. In fact, through the process Deng had become China’s number two figure. In August, the Party’s Eleventh Congress was held in Beijing, officially naming (in ranking order) Hua Guofeng, Ye Jianying, Deng Xiaoping, Li Xiannian, and Wang Dongxing as the latest members of the oligarchical Politburo Standing Committee.[17]
In May, 1978, Deng seized the opportunity for his protégé, Hu Yaobang, to be further elevated to power. Hu published an article on Guangming Daily, making clever use of Mao’s quotations while lauding Deng’s ideas. After this article was published, it was clear that support was with Hu, and thus Deng. On July 1, Deng publicized Mao’s self-criticism report of 1962 regarding the failure of the Great Leap Forward. With an expanding power base, in September 1978, Deng began openly attacking Hua Guofeng’s “Two Whatevers”.[16]
On December 18, 1978, the pivotal Third Plenum of the Eleventh CCP Congress was held. During the congress Deng famously stated that “a liberation of thoughts” was in order and the party and country needed to “seek truth from facts”. Hua Guofeng engaged in self-criticism, stating that his “Two Whatevers” policy was a mistake. Wang Dongxing, formerly Mao’s trusted ally, was also criticized. At the Plenum, the Qingming Tiananmen Square incident was also politically rehabilitated. Disgraced leader Liu Shaoqi was allowed a belated state funeral. [18]
At the Fifth Plenum of the Eleventh CCP Congress, held in 1980, Peng Zhen, He Long and many others who had been purged during the Cultural Revolution were politically rehabilitated. Hu Yaobang was named General-Secretary and Zhao Ziyang, another of Deng’s protégés, was introduced into the Central Committee. In September, Hua Guofeng resigned, with Zhao Ziyang being named the new Premier. Deng was the Chairman of the Central Military Commission. The power transition into a new generation of pragmatic reformist leaders was now complete.
[edit] Official Historical Assessment
Under unspoken conventions, the Communist Party saw itself as the national legal authority on all modern historical issues, therefore it was necessary to lend the Cultural Revolution an appropriate historical judgment. Among the challenges faced by the new government was the question of how to assess and assign responsibility in the events and how to treat the event in China’s historiography.
On June 27, 1981, the Central Committee adopted the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China”, a document pertaining to the official historical assessment of a series of political movements since 1949. In this document, it is stated that the “Chief responsibility for the grave ‘Left’ error of the ‘Cultural Revolution,’ an error comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration, does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong”. It is stated that the Cultural Revolution was carried out “under the mistaken leadership of Mao Zedong, which was manipulated by the counterrevolutionary groups of Lin Biao and Jiang Qing, and brought serious disaster and turmoil to the Communist Party and the Chinese people.”
It was necessary in this official view, which has since become the dominant framework for the Chinese historiography of the time period, to separate the personal actions of Mao during the Cultural Revolution from his earlier heroism. It also separates Mao’s personal mistakes from the correctness of the theory that he created, which remained a guiding ideology in the Party even until this day. It also aimed to continue the legitimacy in the mandate of the Communist Party and the construction of socialism – although many interpretations on Mao’s ideology as well as the founding principles of the Party would change with the rise of what would later become known as Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
[edit] Effect
The central section of this wall shows the faint remnant marks of a propaganda slogan that was added during the Cultural Revolution, but has since been removed. The slogan reads “Boundless faith in Chairman Mao.”The effects of the Cultural Revolution directly or indirectly touched essentially all of China’s populace. During the Cultural Revolution, much economic activity was halted, with “revolution”, regardless of interpretation, being the primary objective of the country. The start of the Cultural Revolution brought huge numbers of Red Guards to Beijing, with all expenses paid by the government, and the railway system was in turmoil. Countless ancient buildings, artifacts, antiques, books, and paintings were destroyed by Red Guards. By December 1967, 350 million copies of Mao’s Quotations had been printed.[19]
Elsewhere, the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution also brought the education system to a virtual halt. The university entrance exams were cancelled during this period, not to be restored by Deng Xiaoping until 1977. Many intellectuals were sent to rural labor camps, and many of those who survived left China shortly after the revolution ended. Many survivors and observers suggest that almost anyone with skills over that of the average person was made the target of political “struggle” in some way. According to most Western observers as well as followers of Deng Xiaoping, this led to almost an entire generation of inadequately educated individuals. However, this varies depending on the region, and the measurement of literacy did not resurface until the 1980s.[20] Some counties in the Zhanjiang district, for example, had illiteracy rates as high as 41% some 20 years after the revolution. The leaders denied any illiteracy problems from the start. This effect was amplified by the elimination of qualified teachers–many of the districts were forced to rely upon chosen students to re-educate the next generation.[20]
Mao Zedong Thought had become the central operative guide to all things in China. The authority of the Red Guards surpassed that of the army, local police authorities, and the law in general. China’s traditional arts and ideas were ignored, with praise for Mao being practiced in their place. People were encouraged to criticize cultural institutions and to question their parents and teachers, which had been strictly forbidden in Confucian culture. This was emphasized even more during the Anti-Lin Biao; Anti-Confucius Campaign. Slogans such as “Parents may love me, but not as much as Chairman Mao” were common.
The Cultural Revolution also brought to the forefront numerous internal power struggles within the Communist party, many of which had little to do with the larger battles between Party leaders, but resulted instead from local factionalism and petty rivalries that were usually unrelated to the “revolution” itself. Because of the chaotic political environment, local governments lacked organization and stability, if they existed at all. Members of different factions often fought on the streets, and political assassination, particularly in rural-oriented provinces, was common. The masses spontaneously involved themselves in factions, and took part in open warfare against other factions. The ideology that drove these factions was vague and sometimes nonexistent, with the struggle for local authority being the only motivation for mass involvement.
[edit] Destruction of antiques, historical sites and Culture
China’s historical reserves, artifacts and sites of interest suffered devastating damage as they were thought to be at the root of “old ways of thinking”. Many artifacts were seized from private homes and often destroyed on the spot. There are no records of exactly how much was destroyed. Western observers suggest that much of China’s thousands of years of history was in effect destroyed during the short ten years of the Cultural Revolution, and that such destruction of historical artifacts is unmatched at any time or place in human history. Chinese historians compare the cultural suppression during the Cultural Revolution to Qin Shihuang’s great Confucian purge. The most prominent symbol of academic research in archaeology, the journal Kaogu, did not publish during the Cultural Revolution. Religious persecution, in particular, intensified during this period, because religion was seen as being opposed to Marxist-Leninist and Maoist thinking.
Remnants of a banner from the Cultural Revolution in Anhui.The status of traditional Chinese culture within China is also severely damaged as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Many traditional customs, such as fortune telling;[4] paper art; feng shui consultations;[5] wearing traditional Chinese dresses for weddings; use of traditional Chinese calendar; scholarship in classical Chinese literature; and the practice of referring to the Chinese New Year as “New Year” rather than “Spring Festival”; had been weakened in China. Yet some aspects recovered fully, and some still survived in some forms in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and overseas Chinese communities, notwithstanding the impacts of Western culture (and Japanese culture in the case of Taiwan and Manchuria) on those communities.
The Cultural Revolution was particularly devastating for minority cultures in China. In Tibet, over 6,000 monasteries were destroyed, often with the complicity of local ethnic Tibetan Red Guards. In Inner Mongolia, some 790,000 people were persecuted, of these 22,900 were beaten to death and 120,000 were maimed,[21] during a ruthless witchhunt to find members of the allegedly “separatist” Inner Mongolian People’s Party, which had actually been disbanded decades before. According to Jung Chang in her book Mao: The Unknown Story, cases included a Muslim woman having her teeth pulled out with pliers, then her nose and ears twisted off, before being hacked to death. Another woman was raped with a pole (she then committed suicide). One man had nails driven into his skull. Another had his tongue cut out and then his eyes gouged out. Another was beaten with clubs on the genitals before having gunpowder forced up his nostrils and set alight.[22] In Xinjiang, copies of the Quran and other books of the Uyghur people were burned and Muslim imams were reportedly paraded around with paint splashed on their persons. In the ethnic Korean areas of northeast China, language schools were destroyed. In Yunnan Province, the palace of the Dai people’s king was torched, and an infamous massacre of Hui Muslim people at the hands of the People’s Liberation Army, called the “Shadian Incident”, claimed over 1,600 lives in 1975.
[edit] Persecution
Millions of people in China reportedly had their human rights annulled during the Cultural Revolution. Millions more were also forcibly displaced. During the Cultural Revolution, young people from the cities were forcibly moved to the countryside, where they were forced to abandon all forms of standard education in place of the propaganda teachings of the Communist Party of China.[16]
Some of the most extreme violence took place in Guangxi,[23] where a Chinese journalist found a “disturbing picture of official compliance in the systematic killing and cannibalization of individuals in the name of political revolution and ‘class struggle.’”[24] Senior party historians acknowledge that “In a few places, it even happened that ‘counterrevolutionaries’ were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers].”[25]
Estimates of the death toll, civilians and Red Guards, from various Western and Eastern sources[5] are about 500,000 in the true years of chaos of 1966—1969. Some people were not able to stand the cruel tortures, they lost hope for the future, and simply committed suicide. One of the most famous cases was communist leader Deng Xiaoping’s son Deng Pufang who jumped/was thrown from a four-story building during that time. Instead of dying, he became a paraplegic. In the trial of the so-called Gang of Four, a Chinese court stated that 729,511 people had been persecuted of which 34,800 were said to have died.[26] However, the true figure may never be known since many deaths went unreported or were actively covered up by the police or local authorities. Other reasons are the state of Chinese demographics at the time, as well as the reluctance of the PRC to allow serious research into the period.[27] One recent scholarly account asserts that in rural China alone some 36 million people were persecuted, of whom between 750,000 and 1.5 million were killed, with roughly the same number permanently injured.[28] In Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday claim that as many as 3 million people died in the violence of the Cultural Revolution.[29]
[edit] World reaction
The reaction abroad was mixed, and inevitably, tied to political movements of the time. A significant re-evaluation of the events of the Cultural Revolution occurred amongst the western left once the full extent of the destruction became known, thus tarnishing China’s image in the West.[30] Hong Kong also launched a strike such as the Hong Kong 1967 riots and its eventual excessiveness damaged the credibility of pro-Communist activists in the eyes of Hong Kong residents for more than a generation.[31] In the Republic of China, Chiang Kai-shek initiated the Chinese Culture Renaissance Movement to counter what he regarded as destruction of traditional Chinese values by the Communists on the mainland.
Whatever the case, several self-described “Maoist” political parties survive today, throughout the globe, such as those found within the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.
[edit] Thinking
Some commentators argue that the Cultural Revolution years saw the Chinese people leave behind many uncritical habits of conformist and authoritarian thinking. This can be seen in the words of some of the student leaders of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. According to student leader Shen Tong in his book, Almost a Revolution, the trigger for the famous hunger-strikes of 1989 was a “dazibao” (big-character poster), a form of public political discussion that gained prominence in the Cultural Revolution and was subsequently outlawed. When students organized demonstrations in the millions, something not seen since the Cultural Revolution, youths from outside Beijing rode the trains into Beijing and relied on the hospitality of train workers and Beijing residents, just as their counterparts had ridden the trains freely during the Cultural Revolution. Also, as in the Cultural Revolution, students formed factions, with names similar to those of Red Guard factions, using the term “Headquarters” for instance, and according to Shen Tong, these factions even went to the extent of kidnapping members of other factions, just as they had done in the Cultural Revolution. Finally, in a small minority of cases, some of the student leaders of 1989 had been youth activists in high school during the Cultural Revolution. It was as a result of the Cultural Revolution that criticism of high-level authority in public became more thinkable in the PRC, although criticism of Mao Zedong still remained entirely off-limits during the Cultural Revolution and criticism of his ideology also remained off-limits afterwards.[4]
[edit] Historical views
Today, the Cultural Revolution is seen by most people inside and outside of China, including the Communist Party of China and Chinese democracy movement supporters, as an unmitigated disaster, and as an event to be avoided in the future. There are no politically significant groups within China that defend the Cultural Revolution. However, there are many workers and peasants in China who, left behind by economic liberalization and the widening rich-poor gap, feel nostalgia for the Cultural Revolution (as well as the Maoist Era in general), during which the proletariat was glorified. Gao Village, an anthropological history written by peasant born author Mobo Gao, discusses the positive influence the Cultural Revolution had on rural development. [32] Some memoirists, such as Ma Bo, also hold aspects of the Cultural Revolution to be worthy of fond remembrance.[33]
Among those who condemn it, the causes and meaning of the Cultural Revolution remain highly controversial. Supporters of the Chinese democracy movement see the Cultural Revolution as an example of what happens when democracy is lacking and place responsibility for the Cultural Revolution on the Communist Party of China. Similarly, human rights activists and civil libertarians also see the Cultural Revolution as an example of the dangers of statism. Briefly put, these views of the Cultural Revolution attribute its cause to “too much government and too little popular participation”.
By contrast, the official view of the Communist Party of China is that the Cultural Revolution is what can happen when one person establishes a cult of personality and manipulates the public in such a way as to destroy the party and state institutions. In this view, the Cultural Revolution is an example of too much popular participation in government, rather than too little; and is an example of the dangers of anarchy rather than statism. The consequence of this view is the consensus among the Chinese leadership that China must be governed by a strong party institution, in which decisions are made collectively and according to the rule of law, and in which the public has only limited input. After Mao’s death, the Communist Party blamed the Gang of Four for the negative results of the Cultural Revolution.[34] Liu Xiaobo argued that this is still the case, with the Gang of Four being used as convenient scapegoats, rather than focusing upon Mao Zedong’s responsibility.[35]
These contradictory views of the Cultural Revolution were put into sharp relief during the Tiananmen Protests of 1989, when both the demonstrators and the government justified their actions as being necessary to avoid another Cultural Revolution.
The relationship between Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution is also controversial. Although there is general agreement that Mao was responsible for the Cultural Revolution, there is considerable dispute concerning the effect of the Cultural Revolution on Mao’s legacy. The PRC’s official version of history regards the Cultural Revolution as a serious error by Mao Zedong, whose contribution to history was 70% good and 30% bad. Using this formulation, the Party has argued that the Cultural Revolution should not denigrate Mao’s earlier role as a heroic leader in fighting the Japanese, founding the People’s Republic of China and developing the ideology which underlies the Communist Party of China. This allows the Party to condemn both the Cultural Revolution and Mao’s role within it, without calling into question the ideology of the Party.
The first museum specifically dedicated to the Cultural Revolution opened in mid-2005 as a privately-funded museum in Guangdong province, created by Peng Qi’an, 74, a former deputy mayor of Shantou. Peng himself was almost executed during the Cultural Revolution, and survived only due to a last-minute reprieve. He stated that he wanted future generations of Chinese to realise how large an impact the period had on China, and how much ordinary Chinese suffered. Although the museum continues to operate, publicity about the museum was suppressed by provincial authorities shortly after its opening.
[Reply]
It seems that the topic is out of hand. Going back to the topic, “Why Talking about Politics in China is a Bad Idea”. It was my first time to teach in China in the mid of Sept. 2006 when I’ve noticed that it’s so hard to make Chinese students talk. Now, I started simple questions like,
Me: What do you think of BEIJING?
Students: Beijing is the capital of China.
At this point, students were already expressing themselves about Beijing saying that there are lots of things to be seen like The Great Wall and more. There was already simple discussions going on which made my class active. Now, the second question comes.
Me: What do you think of SHANGHAI?
Students: Shanghai is a wonderful city.
This question made my students talked about their experiences in Shanghai making me feels good for they are already talking, and that is a role of a foreign teacher in China, (to make their students talk)
I went to my last question which was really a surprised for me for I didn’t expect their unfriendly answers.
Me: What do you think of TAIWAN?
Students: Taiwan belongs to China?
As you can see, the way they have answered the last question was totally different. It was already a political answer as compared to their answers in the first two questions. My students here was already shouting “TAIWAN, TAIWAN” which was so mind boggling for I don’t know why. I’ve concluded that they were “brainwashed” which you have been using here.
[Reply]
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/15/news/mn-22993
http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/tibet/cia5.htm
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1996/248/13397
So many documents showed the fact that CIA was involved in Tibet issue. You just ignored it.
[Reply]
@totochi,
This is for you: (to know CIA’s involvement in Tibet)
http://www.takhli.org/rjw/tibet.htm
[Reply]
totochi:
Which by itself, means absolutely nothing. Just because you can’t find anything, it doesn’t mean that the program has continued for 45 years. Of course, it may have continued until this day, you just don’t have proof either way. If you believe the CIA is so secretive, then not finding any documents is normal, right? BTW, there’s a lot of conspiracy-theory stuff in your posts. I’m not saying you’re wrong but you provide no sources to back up your comments. Please provide links so we can evaluate the evidence and the sources ourselves.
Yugung:
Whether CIA is today still involved in Tibet or not is a political judgemnet.
What they did in the past and their motives all play a part in making this judgement.
A serial killer have killed 10 people already. He had shot at you last month.
I suppose U can’t proof that he wants to kill you until u are dead.
There were plenty of evidence of CIA involvement in ploting coups, funding terrorists(freedom fighters) and China have been targeted as shown in the declassified CIA documents.
If you insist that there is no proof of CIA involvement in Tibet I think u just have to sharpen your political acuity.
totochi:
how do you know what you read outside of China, especially CIA documents, is not propaganda or some kind of reverse-psych-ops meant to confuse you?
Yugung:
The declassified CIA document on Tibet can be found on the US Government websites. Don’t think it is a trick.
I never said China is perfect, however,it’s a bit hard to think that CIA’s plot in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia is done in the interest of the Chinese people. Again some people have rich imagination. In Taiwanese dialect it’s called “kan tua” or “ngae ao” or 乌贼战术. Some wise guy once said: if you cannot win an argument try and confuse them.
BTW, I am trying to learn “Tai Yu”.
[Reply]
@yugung
“I have not come across any CIA document that say the Tibet programe has ceased.”
Which by itself, means absolutely nothing. Just because you can’t find anything, it doesn’t mean that the program has continued for 45 years. Of course, it may have continued until this day, you just don’t have proof either way. If you believe the CIA is so secretive, then not finding any documents is normal, right? BTW, there’s a lot of conspiracy-theory stuff in your posts. I’m not saying you’re wrong but you provide no sources to back up your comments. Please provide links so we can evaluate the evidence and the sources ourselves.
Finally, you said:
“Large amount of money is being spent to manufacture anti-China propaganda. The most tragic part is, most westerners don’t realize that their Governments are feeding them propaganda.”
Irony aside, how do you know what you read outside of China, especially CIA documents, is not propaganda or some kind of reverse-psych-ops meant to confuse you? Do you consider anything that conflicts with your world view western propaganda or any criticism as anti-China?
If you can’t (or won’t) see that some of us point out the bad parts of China because we want to make it better, then we’re all wasting our time and bandwidth.
[Reply]
totochi,
CIA operations by their very own nature is secretive.
Their Tibet operations, after 50 years, were only partially declassified.
The Dalai Lama in the 80s and early 90s still claimed that he never had any connection with the CIA and that all the allegations made since the 50s were mere CCP propaganda.
Countries that have reasons the believe that they are targets of CIA operations have better be careful. I am 100% sure China is a target. If some of u want to argue otherwise, I am sure they can always find something to say.
Nixon’s abuse of the secret service during the Watergate scandal prompted President Carter to control their government’s secret activities. When Reagan came to power he started the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) taking over some of the functions of the CIA under a different name. What u see at their website is just small part of the story eg their funding of the Reporters without Border was not disclosed until somebody (leftists of course) went to court and obtain those info under the Freedom of Information Act. BTW, it was the Reporters Without Border that started the Olymic protest in Greece. How many so called mainstream western media tell u this?
A lot of the funding from the NED came under the general heading of the International Republican Institute (IRI) or Freedom House. From there u don’t know where the money went. Back in ?1994 the IRI went and bought the Mongolia election and put a proAmerican government in power. (That gov was so corrupt that it was booted out after 4 years.) Most of the NED expenses on China there is not clear discription of who recieve the money. My point is the NED website do not tell the whole story. What is very clear is that China projects list is getting longer.
Not only USA is doing it, UK has a Westminister foundation For Democracy, Taiwan has a Democratic Foundation and Chiang Ching Guo Foundation and lots of secret fund going around. The Dalai Lama’s elder Gyalo Thondup mentioned in the CIA document is still stationed somewhere in Taiwan today.
You want to know if CIA is still involved in Tibet.
They will go to jail for disclosing it.
If u want to see their document u have to wait another 30 years hopefully they declassify some of if.
The 1964 document however did mention this: Nonetheless, this program will continue to require fairly large expenditures over a long period of time to keep the possibility of a non-Communist government alive to the Tibetan people. We recommend continuance of this program.
——————
I have not come across any CIA document that say the Tibet programe has ceased.
[Reply]
@yugung
“Please, before anybody accuse me of being brainwashed verify every thing that I have said.”
Since we’re off-topic anyway… First, thanks for the links. I didn’t know about NED until your comment.
A couple of comments:
@yugung
“All 3 organizations have one thing in common ie they all receive funding from the U.S. National Endowment For Democracy #(NED), a CIA front specializing in psychological warfare.”
Is this a quote from an article or your comment? I would like to see more evidence that NED is “a CIA front specializing in psychological warfare.” In the spirit of “verify everything you said,” I couldn’t find anything on this CIA link; maybe that’s proof that they ARE CIA. I also searched NED’s grant database for “Tibet” and there were three entries:
Center for International Private Enterprise/Tibet Federation of Industry and Commerce
1998: $96,710
The Tibet Fund/Tibet Voice
1995: $38,950
Tibet Fund/Tibet Voice Project
1998: $30,000
That’s it. I couldn’t find other stuff mentioned in the Global Research article. Of course, one could claim that if NED is a CIA front, then they won’t publish any funding data, or just some data. Also, NED gives out ~300 grants per year with the average grant ~$50k for a total of ~$15M per year; $166k over the past 17 years does not seem like a huge propaganda campaign for Tibet. I suppose one could again claim they’re hiding all their data on Tibet since they’re a CIA front.
BTW, you should do some research on globalresearch.ca. Their own website says that they are “a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism”"; the director/editor, Michel Chossudovsky, is anti-war/anti-globalization. That typically, but not always, means a pretty left-wing bias in reporting, especially if they put scary quotes around “war on terrorism.”
@yugung
“Declassified CIA document on CIA operation in Tibet including annual payment of US$180,000 to the Dalai Lama.”
Also very interesting that the CIA had a anti-Chinese Tibet Program. I’ll need to research more on this. However, the $180k amount was in 1964. Do you have any other sources on how long the program lasted and whether the subsidy to the Dalai Lama was continued? Maybe we’ll find out more as documents are declassified. 1964 was a long time ago and China under Mao is very different than China today. Maybe the people in charge of the Tibet Program have retired from the CIA or have changed their minds.
@yugung
“Few people will dispute the fact that these reports are highly biased…”
I will dispute your comment and probably most non-Chinese people will disagree that all Western media is highly biased on Tibet reporting. Maybe we “don’t realize that [our] governments are feeding [us] propaganda.”
[Reply]
@yugung
“I certainly do not think you live in fear of anything or you will not be saying what you are saying now. Is it fashionable to pretend to be some kind of victim of persecution?”
What are you talking about? That doesn’t even make any sense.
Did you even read the original post? I personally know English teachers that were deported by the Chinese government because of what they said in class about politics or religion. Your comments and random quotes (please provide links to sources in the future; anyone can type stuff and claim they “read it” somewhere) criticizing Americans has nothing to do with the US government censoring political speech of foreigners. There are legitimate issues to discuss about American society as well as Chinese society. The difference is that the Chinese government censors political discussion so you can’t even talk about it. Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7525736.stm.
Robert is relating his personal experience regarding political discussion in his classes in China. You can disagree with his opinion or argue against his advice to other foreign ESL teachers but your comments have pretty much been, “Americans are bad.” That’s not going to convince us that our opinion is incorrect. At least Winter is trying. It seems that you have a real problem with not just the US government but American people. Is that from personal experience or from stuff you read/hear in the news?
@yugung
“There were so many attempts by Americans to shoot their president, shoot teachers, and shoot judges. Americans hold the world record of having shot the most number of teachers.”
Again, what does that have to do with the political discussion climate in China? I don’t mean the subject is taboo but you’re a guest on someone else’s blog so at least try to stay on topic. Also, do you have any sources on this “world record” or are you making stuff up? BTW, do you know how many judges and politicians were killed in Colombia by the drug cartels?
@yugung
“I hold the world record for being called “brainwashed” the most number of times, mostly by the Americans.”
@yugung
“Large amount of money is being spent to manufacture anti-China propaganda. The most tragic part is, most westerners don’t realize that their Governments are feeding them propaganda.”
Did you just infer that “most westerners” are brainwashed? Good Lord, the irony.
[Reply]
RV:
I never said that America doesn’t have societal problems but I don’t think that there is really much of a connection between political tolerance and school shootings in America. You’re reaching on that one. Most of the school shootings that have taken place are perpetrated by deranged kids who are angry at life and angry at the world. I don’t really see the connection between that and how Americans react to people who disagree with them politically.
Yugung:
Americans shoot politicians, judges, students as well as teachers in large numbers. Generally it is a society that is prone to use violence to settle differences.
If some Arab families, during the aftermath of 9-11, were to openly side with the Al Queda and call the the Americans bullies, the chace of them getting shot at is pretty high.
In China nobody vent their anger on the Tibetans dispite all the hysterical reaction in the west.
RV:
If “brainwashed” is the nastiest name that you have been called by an American then I don’t think you have much to complain about. I have been called a host of dirty names by Chinese people on the internet who cannot stand my opinion. Many of the comments have been made in Chinese of course, but my Chinese friends have seen the comments and frankly have been a little bit shocked by the harshness. I’ve been called brainwashed a million times and like I have said before, I believe that we all are brainwashed to a certain extent.
yugung:
Actually 4 letter words are not so bad. It condense a person’s feeling into one single word. I used it when I have to.
RV:
As far as your comments about what Americans did following 9-11, I find it laughable that you even post that information here considering that two of the three cases were anonymous. How do you even know Americans did these things? Yes, there are a few bad apples here and there but those kind of reactions were very few and far between.
Yugung:
If u find my previous examples laughable,here are more examples of American “tolerence” after 9-11:
————
Sikh men with turbans have been most affected by post 9/11 hate crimes. Post September 11 backlash violence has been primarily directed at those perceived to resemble the enemy – a turbaned and bearded Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda leader. Nearly all people who wear turbans in the United States are Sikh, members of the world’s fifth largest religion who trace their heritage to the Punjab region of India. On September 15, 2001 in Mesa, Arizona, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh man, became the first person murdered in the hate epidemic. Out of the estimated nineteen people murdered in the immediate aftermath, four were turbaned Sikh men.
——————-
[Reply]
Yugung said:
There were so many attempts by Americans to shoot their president, shoot teachers, and shoot judges.
Americans hold the world record of having shot the most number of teachers.
I hold the world record for being called “brainwashed” the most number of times, mostly by the Americans. If u don’t have bitter disagreement with the Americans on politics naturally they don’t use foul language on you.
Robert Vance says:
I never said that America doesn’t have societal problems but I don’t think that there is really much of a connection between political tolerance and school shootings in America. You’re reaching on that one. Most of the school shootings that have taken place are perpetrated by deranged kids who are angry at life and angry at the world. I don’t really see the connection between that and how Americans react to people who disagree with them politically.
If “brainwashed” is the nastiest name that you have been called by an American then I don’t think you have much to complain about. I have been called a host of dirty names by Chinese people on the internet who cannot stand my opinion. Many of the comments have been made in Chinese of course, but my Chinese friends have seen the comments and frankly have been a little bit shocked by the harshness. I’ve been called brainwashed a million times and like I have said before, I believe that we all are brainwashed to a certain extent.
As far as your comments about what Americans did following 9-11, I find it laughable that you even post that information here considering that two of the three cases were anonymous. How do you even know Americans did these things? Yes, there are a few bad apples here and there but those kind of reactions were very few and far between.
[Reply]
Winter said this:
After 911,foreigners were so afraid to talk about plolics in american ,because the americans are so willing to revenge,people are becoming offensive when you were saying “The american govenment deserve this…”,the americans of course became very angry,we can understand that,but why the americans can not understand the others in the world.
yugung:
These were some examples of what Americans did following 9-11:
In Chicago, an unknown perpetrator throws a firebomb at an Arab American community center.
In Tennessee, an anonymous caller directs two Arab American clinic workers to “get out of our country” and declares them “foreign fags.”
In Texas, shooters fire bullets into the Islamic Center of Irving.
[Reply]
RV:
If you look around on the internet you will find Chinese people who have said really nasty things about me simply because I did not agree with their opinion. Most Americans can handle criticism of their country; we’re used to it. Most Chinese cannot; they will defend their governmen to the death.
Yugung:
U think Americans are tolerant?
There were so many attempts by Americans to shoot their president, shoot teachers, and shoot judges.
Americans hold the world record of having shot the most number of teachers.
I hold the world record for being called “brainwashed” the most number of times, mostly by the Americans. If u don’t have bitter disagreement with the Americans on politics naturally they don’t use foul language on you.
To Winter:
Don’t feel intimidated by all the criticism. No shame in defending the truth
[Reply]
totochi:
Because the topic of this thread is “Why Talking about Politics in China is a Bad Idea.” It is not to debate individual historical events. In the US, you can discuss these topics all you want, even if you (not you personally) do not know anything about the topic. If you have examples of foreigners (in the US) being deported for discussing a taboo political topic, let’s hear it. Otherwise, if you just want to list all the bad things about the West, start your own blog and post all you want. Don’t hijack the thread.
yugung:
The title say “Why Talking about Politics in China is a Bad Idea.”
It never say whose politics.
I certainly do not think you live in fear of anything or you will not be saying what you are saying now. Is it fashionable to pretend to be some kind of victim of persecution?
[Reply]
@yugung
Because the topic of this thread is “Why Talking about Politics in China is a Bad Idea.” It is not to debate individual historical events. In the US, you can discuss these topics all you want, even if you (not you personally) do not know anything about the topic. If you have examples of foreigners (in the US) being deported for discussing a taboo political topic, let’s hear it. Otherwise, if you just want to list all the bad things about the West, start your own blog and post all you want. Don’t hijack the thread.
[Reply]
totochi:
Then they come back with inane comments about American Indians, the Civil War, and Iraq as if it’s relevant to the topic.
yugung:
why are these topics irrelevant?
[Reply]
Thanks. Interesting post and even more interesting comments.
I’ve read through many comments at different blogs about China and a lot of them reinforces your point. If there’s disagreement, then it’s the laowai who’s ignorant or anti-China. Even in this thread, you see comments like, “don’t have real friends… blah, blah, blah… never get a chance to know the real China… blah, blah, blah… you shoud learn Chinese… blah, blah, blah… obviously you need to get to know more about China, etc.” Then they come back with inane comments about American Indians, the Civil War, and Iraq as if it’s relevant to the topic.
I know many “foreign” teachers in China and I’ve taught some seminars in Beijing. Interestingly, they are all ethnically Chinese, including myself. We were told over and over by the school and other organizations not to discuss politics because, like you mentioned, people get deported. I found it easier to speak English and tell people I’m American than try to explain my Taiwan-accented Mandarin.
[Reply]
yeah , it is true, dont talk politics in china, that’s the rule, and especiallly religion.some of our chinese friends wont believe this but every foreigner in china knows this before signing a contract.so whats the point of arguing with them. thats why in class some students will ask u questions to tease you, and some of these questions were given to them by the political department of the school to ask you. at the same time there are many chinese who will speak bad about their government to a foreigner not to other chinese, while it is true that anything negative about chinese is offensive and u are regarded as an enemy,we are all humans with our differences, but politics and politicians can only make use of our differences for self gains.chinese should be sentimental to their government because of the circumstances that led to the creation of new china and it recent successes, but we should learn to accept criticism and it ’s these criticisms that spured chinese leaders and people to strive towards the best and they are doing it , we only need time,but please do accept negative ideas with restraint and maturity,if u need a top place in the world, china must accept this things and treat them with care and maturity just like the USA and others, not always crying like a baby……
[Reply]
@Winter,
I never referred to you as uncivilized. You have always been very polite in expressing your opinions and I appreciate that. Your contribution to this forum is much valued because it seems you are not blinded by your media. You do think things through and I respect that.
I am also sorry that I have encountered such hostility not because it hurts my feelings but because I think it causes me and others to unfairly assume that all Chinese people are like that. You have proved that is not true.
@Ammy,
Thanks for your comments. You do hit on something that most people seem to miss. This entire website is aimed at foreign teachers in China. For better or worse, I have a lot of Chinese people who view this website and they don’t understand that I am simply giving helpful advice to teachers. They turn it into a heated political discussion. I am more than willing to engage them in discussion but I wish they would understand who exactly I was writing too.
[Reply]
if you observe carefully the comments flow you would notice that its all about CHINA and US!!
the post was about chinese politics,sadly the comments are about how Chinese views how the US sees.Culture misunderstanding is one thing.Politics is another.
Most chinese posters here are really scripted!!same old propaganda.th article was about politics in classes.where did Tibet came from??
this was aimed at Foreign teachers.what u know about that my chinese pal??
its sad to see that soo many people speaks the same thing.its as if they don’t think at all.
With all the bad things the US has done through WAR.I would never Question the level of Freedom of Speech that exists in that country.almost perfect.
same can’t be said about china(which is the main point here incase u missed it).
so, chinese friends, its about foreign teachers to be careful not to think china is US or EUROPE for that case.and its not about china is bad.ayt??
one last advice:disagreeing with the government does not make u less of a CITIZEN.it does not put an asterik in your patriotism.its just expressing opinions.
[Reply]
I am sorry if some of my words make you angry,and I am so ashamed that I am uncivilized.
“In your post you yourself just referred to us as international killers. Great. That’s your opinion.”I am sorry ,but the truth is clear,people innocent in IRAQ are killed everyday by the American troops.Maybe “killers” is not a word liked by Americans,but there are do a lot of people in the world call you this name,not me.
“I’m not going to call you names and say dirty things about your mother.”
It seems that you are really angry,To tell you the truth,I am not happy for this.
“If you look around on the internet you will find Chinese people who have said really nasty things about me simply because I did not agree with their opinion.”
I believe this,and I am really sorry for that.I also wish I will not get any really nasty words from any americans.
What I want to express is that there are so many differences in the world,we have to understand each other.The way you are thinking about China and Chinese is not right.
“Really? Foreigners were afraid to talk about politics? When did that happen? There were plenty of Americans who said the same thing. ”
Maybe what I said before was wrong,because I just read them from internet.
“I have traveled around the world. I have talked politics with people in many countries but never I have encountered such hostility towards differing opinions as I have here in China. That’s the truth.”
Like I said before,there are so many differences in the world,and maybe you and the people who you talked with in China did not realize there were misunderstandings between you and them.but still sorry for the hostility you have encountered.
Wish you make more friends in China,and know more about China and Chinese people.
[Reply]
Spring said,
In the same way, today I have some Chinese friends and they feel absolutely free to tell me and talk about about what they are not satisfied with in Chinese politics. But If I without knowing them already had verbally attacked their society, however, perhaps they would have responded in a defensive way which would make some think that they are “brainwashed”?
@Spring,
Defensive is one thing; downright rude is quite another. Of course everyone is defensive about his or her own country. I accept that. But resorting to personal attacks goes well beyond being defensive. I don’t expect Chinese people to roll over and play dead. I do not do that either. But I do like to have a civilized conversation with people. Which is what we are having here now.
I have traveled around the world. I have talked politics with people in many countries but never I have encountered such hostility towards differing opinions as I have here in China. That’s the truth.
[Reply]
Winter Said,
“After 911,foreigners were so afraid to talk about plolics in american ,because the americans are so willing to revenge,people are becoming offensive when you were saying “The american govenment deserve this…”
Really? Foreigners were afraid to talk about politics? When did that happen? There were plenty of Americans who said the same thing.
I still stand by my article that talking about politics in general in China is not a great idea. I have seen too many Chinese people ‘fly off the handle’ and go beserk when a foreigner does not agree with their point of view.
In your post you yourself just referred to us as international killers. Great. That’s your opinion. I’m not going to call you names and say dirty things about your mother. If you look around on the internet you will find Chinese people who have said really nasty things about me simply because I did not agree with their opinion. Most Americans can handle criticism of their country; we’re used to it. Most Chinese cannot; they will defend their governmen to the death.
[Reply]
I am a scandinavian who is very interested in Chinese culture. I have studied traditional Chinese medicines for four years and Chinese ways of exercise for over ten years. I have also traveled to China, sadly only over the course of one month when I was placed in Nanjing Municipal Hospitals for acupuncture practice. Some friends I made there I still have contact with per e-mail and letters.
In the same way, today I have some Chinese friends and they feel absolutely free to tell me and talk about about what they are not satisfied with in Chinese politics. But If I without knowing them already had verbally attacked their society, however, perhaps they would have responded in a defensive way which would make some think that they are “brainwashed”?
My personal experience is that if you openly criticize the Chinese government in front of strangers, many Chinese will react with insult. But this does not mean they are brainwashed! Perhaps they percieve you as acting superior? As a Norwegian, if an American comes up to me and tells me my country is being run in a ridiculous fashion, I respond with dismay and tell him in no uncertain terms what I think about american society. I start listing up reason for reason about why our social democracy is humanistically superior to the USA. But with friends who know me, and respects my position, I can debate the problems of scandinavian social democracy and even acknowledge that on some points, even american market liberalism (or chinese communism for that matters) have some qualities that our society do not contain!
I’m sorry for the length of this comment. My personal two cents: why not ask a new chinese friend openly about politics and how chinese society works, rather than criticize it and offer your own opinion straight off the bat? After all, the “brainwashed” Chinese ARE more knowledgeable than you on what it’s like living in communist China. (this was not directed to any one person on this blog, it’s just a general comment)
[Reply]
The topic is right.
But the way you are thinking is wrong,I think.
Every country is different ,the people are different,the way they are thinking of course is different.
I learnt from the internet that some indians want independence from the States,why the American people do not let them do it…
no very long ago,the Americans killed so many indians ,robbing theri lands,I think the americans should return the lands back to the indians,because the lands belonged to the indian for thousands of years.
When the American civil war began,why you guys just let the south got its own independence?most of the people from the south were willing to get independence from the States,why just let them do it,the States are democratic States.
even today,your prisident started war again and again,killing thousands of lives,the people who chose him as the head of the country twice are to be blamed more,I think.
Even when you are expressing opinions like”American an international killer”,proving you are free to show your own ideas ,do not forget,you are still playing the part of “internatinal killer”,killing thousands more lives.Saying is much easier than doing.
The Chinese people love theri country,The American people love their country ,is there any difference between them?
After 911,foreigners were so afraid to talk about plolics in american ,because the americans are so willing to revenge,people are becoming offensive when you were saying “The american govenment deserve this…”,the americans of course became very angry,we can understand that,but why the americans can not understand the others in the world.
It hurts “their feelings.” who does not have a feeling?just because there are so many diffenrences in different countries,we need to know their feelings,we need to understand their feelings,we need to know why they are feeling like this way or that way,if we don’t even know why,we don’t even want to know why ,haha,I don’t know what to say then…
I wish you do not feel offended…
wish you good day..
[Reply]
Livia said: “I just image that in if it happened in US schools and universities, that a chinese or iracain teacher talked about the politics in class, especialy said very bad things about US or US gouverment, such as “US is the international killer ” something like that… Do you think that he would not have any problem in US? I do believe that the famous FBI will engage in the affair, or in the better case they would “just” lost their job in the school or university…”
@Livia,
The actual situation in America is actually quite the opposite from what you wrote. Most of the public universities in America (and many private as well) are filled with teachers who have nothing but bad to say about America. They say exactly what you wrote…”US is the international killer” etc….they think that America is a big bully and that Americans should be ashamed of their country. In my last semester of college, ’some’ years ago, 4 out of my 5 teachers were from foreign countries and they had nothing but negative things to say about America. They constantly bashed the Iraq war, President Bush, and America’s world role in general. No one lost their job. In fact, most of them were applauded for their strong anti-American sentiments because half of the American teachers agreed with what they were saying. Why? In America, we have free speech. We can say whatever we want about the government (short of making a terroristic threat). I hope you were just being funny when you mentioned the FBI. What do you think the FBI is? The thought police? The FBI is not going to investigate you for calling America “an international killer.” They would investigate you if you made a direct threat on a government official or a terroristic threat.
My teacher friends who have been reprimanded or dismissed by universities were simply expressing an opinion that someone else didn’t like. That is how it goes in China; you are allowed to express your opinion about politics or religion until someone gets offended. In my experience, Chinese people get very defensive and angry when you disagree with them on the Tibet or Taiwan issues and in the case of these teachers, someone complained.
If it’s ok to talk about politics in China, then why are many foreign teachers specifically prohibited in their contracts from bringing up political issues? Quite simply, it’s because the government here as well as many of its people cannot handle someone other political opinions. It hurts “their feelings.” That is exactly why I have warned foreign teachers to be ‘tread carefully’ when it comes to discussing politics here.
[Reply]
Hello
Just an idea comes to my mind when I read the comment from Robert Vance n°16:
“….I would ask you to consider that this ‘freedom’ may be restricted in other schools and universities. I did not make up what I wrote about teachers being dismissed from universities because of talking about politics in class. Unfortunately, it happens. I wrote this post to warn teachers that talking about politics in China can be ‘risky’ especially in class. Schools that I have worked in have warned us repeatedly not to talk about politics and in some cases our contracts include language that prohibit us from doing so. Perhaps you should learn a little more about what it’s like to be a foreign teacher in China.”
I just image that in if it happened in US schools and universities, that a chinese or iracain teacher talked about the politics in class, especialy said very bad things about US or US gouverment, such as “US is the international killer ” something like that… Do you think that he would not have any problem in US? I do believe that the famous FBI will engage in the affair, or in the better case they would “just” lost their job in the school or university…
So I do think that It’s not a problem about talking about the politics in Class, it’s about the way how (&/or what) they talk about it.
Do you know what exactly being talked in class by your friend teachers who have been dismissed from universities after that?
–> this is a pure question, to help me to analyse the “risk” level.
Regards
[Reply]
Yuyung…LMFAO….you saying propoganda does not exist here? Are you also thinking that China-US relations have not improved over the last 50 years?
[Reply]
There is no question that USA and its most faithfull ally UK considered China as its biggest rival in the future. Large amount of money is being spent to manufacture anti-China propaganda. The most tragic part is, most westerners don’t realize that their Governments are feeding them propaganda. Chinese people，otoh, have high index of suspicion.
There are about 5 mil ethnic Tibetans in China, mostly in remote and isolated western China. It is amazing how this small community generate so much news for the world media. Taking a closer look at these news, one will find that most of these news have originated from 3 main sources
(1) The Tibet Information Network (TIN), based in London
(2) Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, based in India.
(3) International Campaign for Tibet.
All 3 organizations have one thing in common ie they all receive funding from the U.S. National Endowment For Democracy #(NED), a CIA front specializing in psychological warfare. News from these organizations are usually pick up by Reuters and AFP of Europe, Associated press of USA and Sidney Morning Herald in Australia. They eventually penetrate into the secondary markets all over the world. Most of the world’s news papers simply copy their international news form each other. It’s easy, cheap and good for the balance sheet.
Other NED funded organization that has been in the news included the Reporters Without Border.
The London based Tibet Information Network (TIN) also receives funding from the British Westminister Foundation For Democracy (WFD). WFD is a British equivalent of NED of USA. It is London’s contribution to the Anglo-American propaganda war effort against China. TIN’s senior staffs are mostly from the BBC and is one of the main outlet for Dalai Lama’s propaganda.
Few people will dispute the fact that these reports are highly biased, but when they are circulated by the world’s leading media groups such Reuters or the Dow Jones (AP is member of DJ group) most readers will accept their reports without too much question.
For background info on NED please read:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530
Declassified CIA document on CIA operation in Tibet including annual payment of US$180,000 to the Dalai Lama.
http://www.intellnet.org/documents/700/040/744.html
Please, before anybody accuse me of being brainwashed verify every thing that I have said.
[Reply]
Luzezhong,
Thank you for your post. I congratulate you if you are in fact someone who has an open mind about politics in China. While you may be free to talk about politics in your particular school, I would ask you to consider that this ‘freedom’ may be restricted in other schools and universities. I did not make up what I wrote about teachers being dismissed from universities because of talking about politics in class. Unfortunately, it happens. I wrote this post to warn teachers that talking about politics in China can be ‘risky’ especially in class. Schools that I have worked in have warned us repeatedly not to talk about politics and in some cases our contracts include language that prohibit us from doing so. Perhaps you should learn a little more about what it’s like to be a foreign teacher in China.
[Reply]
It’s quite beyond me why you understand we Chinese this way, what is more inapprehensible is that some people who never been to China(I dare say) go so far as to agree with you, say post 2 and 3 . In fact, we often talk about politics, even in class. And we would even criticize our government sometimes. Obviously you need to get to know more about China.
[Reply]
last time you asked me to give Tibet Exile website:
http://www.tibet.com/
http://www.tibet.net/
and this one is our goverment
http://www.tibet.cn (Chinese)
http://eng.tibet.cn/ (English)
[Reply]
Hi Bob,
I used worlds “must have been” and “Strongly opposed”. That’s the condition. I mean that there is possible what you said is incorrect. I didn’t conclude that you must be wrong. That’s different.
All the tibet and Taiwan’s information you have is only single side. If you and your colleague regard these information as the truth, it’s predictable it could not be happy discussion.
Suggest your teacher not to talk this kind of sensitive topics is ok. But the reason to avoid this kind of talk is not because of brainwashed students. It’s because of your single side information which resulted in difficulty of communication.
Although you said you didn’t trust CNN very well, you thought what Western media talked about the Tibet, Taiwan are 100% true. And the rest of your colleagues have the same kind of concepts.
Plesae rememer that We are Chinese and we know more about our government and Tibet than you as we are living here since we are born and we are able to get any kind of information more than you can imagine. A title “Brainwashed” can not be explained to everything. Wish from now on, you could throw this hat away and never put this into your Chinese students. I could tell it’s unpolite.
[Reply]
Jason,
You show your true colors in your last comment. You say that “if someone has strongly opposited to you about the issue of China, that means your information must have been something incorrect because most of Chinese are shying to express if they don’t have confidence on the answer.” In other words, anytime I say something and my Chinese friends disagree with it, this means that I was wrong or that the information I was using was false. Jason, that is a classic case of “brainwash.” It’s because of such statements that I do suggest to teachers to avoid the topic of politics in China.
Most of the Chinese people who I know are willing to talk about politics on their own terms. If they can’t convince you that they are wrong, they become angry and defensive. I am not making this up, my friend. In reality, most foreign teachers know that they have to be careful about talking about politics in China because if they say something that offends their students, the students can go and complain to the government and get the teacher in trouble. I know teachers personally that have had this experience. The best way for a foreign teacher in China to have a peaceful life is to ’shut up about politics.’
[Reply]
“Chinese people are easily offended by political comments directed at their government. When you are making negative statements about their government they will react as if the comments are being made about them. Whatever you do, make sure that you explain that your comments about their government do not reflect your feelings about the people. ”
If someone has strongly opposited to you about the issue of China, that means your information must have been something incorrect because most of Chinese are shying to express if they don’t have confidence on the answer, but if your idea could be proved by them is wrong, they have confidence to express it out. The best way to solve this problem is to show both evidences instead of saying “don’t talk with Chinese about politic”. I could tell you most of Chinese people are independent thinkers.
I wish you’d better learning Chinese culture and characters. Seems that you have more lessons to learn on these areas.
[Reply]
Hi Bob,
After having read your suggestion items, I think you are far from understanding Chinese people.
I don’t know why this kind of perception you could have. Perhaps it comes from the people who you have contacted with.
The problem is I think the Western media told you you always think are correct. Therefore the Chinese people told you must have been brainwashed. It’s you who don’t retrospect whether all of the “Truth” you get are correct, not just the Chinese people.
Chinese people same as the people at the rest of world are willing to talk about politic freely. Once the ideas are different, please listen both sides and try to find evidence, not just jump into the conclusion taht the other side must be brainwashed.
Your suggestion to your western friends is regarded by me as nonsense. You didn’t tell the true fact although you have spent so many years in China.
[Reply]
Hi Robert,I submitted my new comment earlier this day,but for some reason(maybe the webserver?or some net problem?),I can’t see them.
Whatever,thank you for your writing back,I appreciate that.
My early comment suggests you study Chinese Language as a way of understanding China and its peolpe,if you don’t like,just foget it,Ithat’s only my advice.
Thank you again for being so kind and reasonable.
[Reply]
Hi Robert ,this is Winter.thank you for your writing back,I appreciate that.As you know,there are some people in China watching foreign Channels or listening to them on the air. And as you can see from the up-to-the-minute news,that China now has the most netizen in the world,and of course we can seek information from all around the world like CNN,BBC,etc.if we want,we are not brainwashed(so many of you are describing us using this word and just deprive our right of speaking),we listen,we learn from different sources around the world,and we think in our way(the way maybe not be accepted by you).Every government has its own problems,so does the Chinese government,so does the US government.The point is ,the Chinese government(though it is a government established by CCP which you do not think well)have made a great progress that enrich the majority of our population,we appreciate the great progress it bring to us.
I wish you have made some true friends in China,though some people say some improper words which offended you,please don’t care about it,every person has a emotion that sometimes out of control,and I already had enough of them when I was looking through words from some English websites.Just be cool.
Thank you for being so kind to listen.Meanwhile,I want to give you a suggestion,it may help you to know China well if you want,that is “to Learn the Chinese Language”.It may be a challenge to you,because Chinese is considered to be the hardest language to learn,but if you can understand the language ,then you can understand the people,and you begin to know the culture of this old nation,you begin you understand the way they are thinking,and you begin to know the real China.
After you really know this Country ,56 peoples living in it,you may begin to understand why China is so different from the rest of the world.
It may be a long and hard term if you decide to learn Chinese Language,so good luck with you.
It’s just a suggestion,and it’s OK if you don’t want to .
[Reply]
Robert,
This is exactly why you are saying that “talking about politics in China is a bad idea”
People has the every right to be angry about the medias and US/Paris government stances. At least this anger draw more attentions, and more people may know that there are stories on the other side. This is the beginning of communication. And western should get used to it, there are other value systems other than western.
The recent movement of oversea Chinese does not only include oversea young Chinese students, there are many people who live abroad for many years. They are not “biased” by any CCP’s news agent, they access the western news freely, but they are angry about the biased media report too.
I doubt if there were many oversee Iraqis as Chinese, who could raise up to against media propaganda, many lives can be saved. There are some people like you, who can observe the world with own eye, but I don;t think that you are the one of majority. Most US rednecks or even white collars do not care about the outside world (actually politics), they will not waste time to seek “truth”. How much difference it make that a few Chinese die in Lhasha or not? The Chinese people and government are the easy alibi for many problems, “chinks and thugs” right?
with regards
[Reply]
Hello Winter. This is Robert Vance. I appreciate your detailed comments on my blog. I do know that some people in China watch CNN and listen to VOA but I don’t believe that there are many. I’m happy that you have decided to seek information from outside sources. I rarely watch CNN or listen to the BBC. Those channels also say bad things about our American government. Did you know that? The point is, I try to seek information from more than once source.
For me, true friends in China are people who will listen to my opinion without insulting me. I will also listen to them and not be offended if they say something against my government. After all, I am not my government and my government is not me. I am a separate entity.
Thank you again for commenting. I appreciate that you did it in a civil way instead of calling me names like so many others. I am always open minded and willing change my attitudes if I find that I have an error in thinking. I also wish you a good life in China and hope to hear again from you soon.
[Reply]
I see,you’ve been through something in China.
A lot of people in China listen to CNN or Voa on the air,do you know this ?
1840AD,the UK invaded China for China refusing UK’s opium bussiness in China.
1856AD，UK and France invaded China again and burned the Summer Palace.
1884AD,France started a war with China.
1894AD,Japan started a war with Chin.
1900AD,Eight Military alliance including UK,Russia,Japan,France,Germany,USA,Italy,Austria invaded China.
1933-1945AD,Anti-Japanese War
1945-1949AD,Civil War
1949-1966AD,Development for a short time..
1966-1976AD,ten years of lost..
1978AD,we started our new day..
Now…So many westen people do not know China,still doubting about China,denying the progress it has made..
Have you ever though of why these happened?
More than 100years ago,You Western people came to invade ,torture,insult us,after that ,you snatched every penny we had.
Finally we built up a new world that makes our lives much better than ever in history,you come again,cursing that the world which you don’t know at all is evil.
Can you make sure ,for the sake of your god,that what you hear from your Cnn or your other western media may not be truth.
I don’t know the way you are thinking,so you can not imagin the way the Chinese are thinking,please don’t ignore their thougts,they are not stupid,they have their own thoughts as you do.
I make this comment because I have to tell you,If you want to be a real friend of Chinese people,you have to make friends with him or her heart to heart,I don’t if you are making friends the way we do,but If not heart to heart ,you will not make real friends in our country and you will never have a chance to know a real China.
I wish you a good life in China..
[Reply]
Are you teaching in elementary school?
[Reply]
Any information that you provide for your friends or students that come from sources other than the CNN/BBC(GOD knows how they MAKE news) will be instantly rejected as a fabrication and distortion of the truth. Most people in Westen do not seek other sources of information because they are told that information from the ‘Communist’ cannot be trusted. You may be well armed with information from a variety of places
-SO True.GOOD WORK
[Reply]
What you write here is SO true. Good work.
[Reply]
It seems to depend on where and with whom you talk politics. A friend of mine who has stayed in China for years says that he avoids talking politics at work and with colleagues, but for instance did discuss politics with a Chinese friend who is well connected, not afraid of speaking his mind, but who is also nationalistic. This has included several weeks where they didn’t talk at all, except for Hello and Goodbye, as the Chinese chose to “boycott” him, but then came up with politics himself once again.
Above all, you probably shouldn’t seek opportunities for talking politics yourself as a foreigner. If Chinese people do, and find out that you are as serious about your ideals, as they are about theirs, it MIGHT lead to a reasonable dialogue over time.
Of course, it is inevitable to discuss politics once you TEACH politics, like Daniel A. Bell does or did in Beijing:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=418
[Reply]