Mao Zedong: Reformer, Tyrant or Both?
The cost of ultimate power.
Throughout the decades of historical examination and analysis on numerous personalities of the past, Communist figure Mao Zedong continues to be a character of two contradictory perspectives
I quite like this as an introductory sentence . Was he a man who saw beyond the prominent ideals of democracy and capitalism that had risen during the Cold War period, or a tyrant who found pride and joy in his maniacal elimination of human lives?
Hmmm not to keen on the use of rhetorical questions - this is an essay, not a speech. The Maoist period during the 20th century was the only time where terror and corruption co-existed with economical advancement, a frightening yet promising combination for the Chinese. Whilst recent historical analysis of the Chinese communist leader has showcased an increasing number of agreements
"increasing number of agreements - that just sounds weird. I'd probably reword it like this "though (insert view) in recent historical analysis is becoming increasingly more accepted," something more like that. Also - why? Why has it become more accepted. I don't want you to just list the different perspectives,
what I want to see is that you can analyse and dissect why these perspectives have come to be (though the integration of various historiographical issues and concepts). that ‘he is one of the great leaders of the China… (His) new style was employed presumably to underline the twin principles of ‘democracy and reform’.’ (G.P.D, 1980) many agree to differ
I get that you are trying to do the whole "agree to disagree thing" - but it's just a tad confusing, and not really consistent with how you are meant to construct an academic essay.. Arts correspondent Arifa Akbar share similar understandings with historians, including Frank Dikotter
Unless these are key historians - i.e. they feature in every paragraph and their works are basically case studies, I don't really recommend including their names here, just because its a bit too much for an intro. that Mao Zedong ‘qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history’ (Akbar, 2010). There is no doubt one can come to this conclusion
no doubt? But many people do doubt don't they? I'd shy away from making definitive statements like this in history extension. I'd probably say "the plausibility of this conclusion is evident," or something like that instead., as Mao Zedong’s campaigns including ‘The Great Leap Forward’ and the ‘Cultural Revolution’ brought approximately 30 million to 40 million deaths between 1959 to 1961
I'm gonna play devils advocate here, because you have to in history extension. Many suggest that these statistics are either a) false, or b) an oversimplification. Does that mean that they are right? No! However you can't just ignore these criticisms - this is another example of avoiding over-generalisations and definitive statements - especially if you don't provide a source to back it up!. Despite the contradictory views that surround Mao’s personality debate
'Mao's personality debate' sounds a bit off - 'The debate surrounding the actions and activities or Mao' sounds more sophisticated, historians are able to come together and recognize in the words of Historian Jonathan Spence ‘Mao’s beginnings were commonplace, his education episodic, his talents unexceptional; yet he possessed a relentless energy and a ruthless self confidence that led him to become one of the world’s most powerful rulers.’. Thus historians take into consideration what
they perceiveheld more significance
- the overwhelming ambition for a country’s rapid succession or the importance of the lives who uphold the country itself, to position themselves into the two sides of this controversy.
This final sentence needed to be integrated earlier - this idea of contradictory perspectives forms the basis of your argument and is the historiographical element of your essay. This introduction came across as a little bit too much of just a list of perspectives. What I want to see is not what the perspectives are, but why they have developed. At present this is reading a little bit too much like 'the history of historiography' - what I need to see is just the historiography, the analysis, the thematic links, etc. etc. I see a glimmer of it here within this final sentence, but I want more!Stuart R. Schram, an American Mao Scholar presents his understanding and perspective of Chairman Mao through the acknowledgement of his achievements and contributions to China.
I think this should be the explanation of your judgement - not the judgement itself. Your introductory sentence should be more simple, and straight to the point (not necessarily shorter, but just lacking specific detail, such as historians) - perhaps: "The legacy of Chairman Mao is shaped by the way in which his achievements and contributions to China are perceived and interpreted - these interpretations a derivative not only of the historians own context and values, but further, their interpretations of __________" (idk if that last part is actually your argument, I'm just including it because I want to push the historiographical elements of your essay). Schram states that his views are shaped only by the accomplishments that advanced the contemporary nation, as ‘his virtues and vices, whether public or private, will be touched on only to the extent that they affected what he was able to achieve’ (Schram, 1994). Thus Mao’s recognition of the need for radical reform in China since his early years did not provide any grounding to the establishment of his character being sadistic and tyrannical, but rather having attained a advanced understanding of the requirements for a struggling country in the 20th century.
So Schram's interpretation is essentially the destination is more important than the journey? I'd have a look at the concept of teleology (it might be completely inconsequential, but I'd take a look, because you might be able to integrate it his some how). Also just as a side note, considering this is about Mao, I hope you look at the Marxist Conception of history somewhere in this essay! His purpose and goals which were indeed, for the greater good for China as the nation faced constant suppression from Western superiority
Could perhaps look at Edward Said's theory or 'Orientalism'? Again, you don't have to, just spit balling ideas . Chairman Mao’s consideration of preserving China’s own culture and tradition whilst building on the prestige and wealth of the contemporary undeveloped country allows identification that his intentions as the leader of the developing country were pure
Is this a reductionist view of Mao?. His efforts cannot be denied, as the numerous development tactics created modernization for rural areas and the foundation for China’s local industries, providing ‘a very substantial industrial and scientific base’ for the growing nation at the time
This is reading a bit too much like a history essay - where is the analysis of the interpretation? Why does Schram accept this view? And I don't mean "because he looked at this evidence" - he would have come up with his hypothesis before looking at the evidence, this is just what he found to support his interpretation. What is his purpose or motive for writing history like this? Is he a marxist who seeks to validate the work of Mao? Is he a revisionist historian? etc. etc.. Furthermore, the increasing interactions with leaders of other countries opened many doors for China, securing their global market for exports to provide economic development in China. Thus Mao’s recognition of the beneficial relationships with other countries encapsulates the view that by continuing to hide and be a ‘self-contained kingdom’, such isolation would never give rise to extreme success; another accomplishment of the Chairman which reinforces his role as a reformer. Despite the attacks on Mao Zedong’s progressive deterioration of legal human rights of expression and freedoms in the Chinese society during his rule, Schram recognizes the true intentions
are they definitely true?!? Or are they just what he believes are true because _____________. behind such acts. He argues that the government’s response to the rebellious acts of rising confrontation through such immoral acts were the only solution to resolve the increasing foreign aggression placed on China at that period of time. Thus historian Tim Stanley affirms the necessity of the communist leader’s suppression as ‘Mao’s greatest fear was that his country would succumb to the bureaucratic style of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union’ (Stanley, 2012) highlighting the Chairman’s prioritization of his country’s economical and political stance in the global environment. Yet whilst numerous historians turn to the ideology of Chairman Mao being the vigorous force who brought incredible destruction to his country, Schram recognizes Chairman Mao the reformer through the success of his liberating acts implemented in China during the Post War period. His understanding of the necessity to eradicate and change the archaic environment China has sunk in is affirmed in his assertion that ‘By shaking up the ancient patriarchal, stratified world for China, Mao opened the way for the emergence of new ideas and institutions’.
Where is your judgement? All I am really seeing is an explanation of Schram's. What is your opinion on Schram's view - do you think he is right? wrong? Why do you think that? Dissect his argument, tear it to shreds. Look at his methodology, his ideology, his socio-philosophical background. At present this is reading too much like just a list of the different perspectives. We know there are different perspectives - this is history! As EH Carr states, "interpretation is the lifeblood if history" - thus it is not enough just to tell me what the interpretations are. I need to see your interpretation of the interpretations!A perspective that prioritizes ethical and moral considerations can be deprived from the work of historian Jonathan D Spence, who consolidates Mao’s character in his book, The Gate of Heavenly Peace.
Again, I don't want you to mention the historians in your first sentence, that just strengthens my perception that this essay is just a list of different historians interpretations. It would have been much better if you started like this: "Shared and subjective notions of ethics and morality shroud interpretations of Mao Zedong, as his potentially positive contributions are clouded by the perceived terror of his regime." With that in mind, I would LOVE a discussion upon the historical implications of letting such a subjective concept of ethics centre a historical debate! The revolutionary aspect of Mao Zedong’s implemented acts on China presents the image of a tyrannical leader who acted without remorse
I don't think Mao actually has anything to do with this image - more so the historians who curated it. That isn't to say that Mao wasn't that - but it wasn't he who developed that image, and as this is a historiography essay anyway, it is better to focus on the historians contributions anyway. Mao’s determination to achieve success by decreasing the time allocated for China to rise as the dominant world power resulted in ‘him (attempting) to push in a more radical direction so as to prevent stagnation’ (Spence, 1982), resulting in the increase of deaths of civilians. Spence affirms the terrors the Chinese suffered in the 1960s, where opposition to the political agenda was controlled by the cruel physiological and physical abuse on individuals who voiced their opinions that opposed the Maoist ways.
Again - this is too much history, not enough historiography. Just because a historian says this doesn't mean its historiography (in the history extension sense). Spence documents his understanding through 20th century Chinese author Ding Ling, who suffered the suppression of her political government when echoing the thoughts of the nation as she ‘called on the Fourth National’s people’s congress… to restore some levels of socialist democratic rights’. Her writings which called out the unjust and inhumane ideals behind Mao’s revolutionary plans brought ‘struggle sessions’ that consist of officers continuously implementing ‘mental strain and physical abuse’ with the intention of reeducating. Under the sole purpose of China taking a great step forward in the global community, Chairman Mao brought immense struggle to his people, ranging from betrayals to death.
History essay. Katherine Reist too, agrees with Spence’s consolidation of Mao’s power as she identifies
why? ‘‘Mao, removed from much of the turmoil he created, willingly paid that price. The Chinese people are still reckoning the cost.’ (Reist, 2000) suggesting Mao’s inhumane decisions to manipulate human lives like chess pieces portrays a tyrant who yields power as his sword. Furthermore, Chairman Mao under the Cultural Revolution acts not only utilized the youth of the contemporary nation to removal those upholding the bourgeoisie ideals through tyrannical means as seen numerous individualists’ humiliation through placards stating their counter-revolutionary and criminal identity
History essay. Despite the Red Guards believing they performed courageous deeds for the bright future of China, Spence highlights the transition of the common enemy character from the Japanese to each other, reinforcing the perspective of Mao Zedong as a tyrant who manipulated the nation to his liking for his beliefs. Thus it is the clarification of Mao Zedong’s speech that the policies of the Cultural Revolution were aimed to ‘definitely destroy feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, liberalist, individualist, nihilist’ (McDougall, 1980) where the idea of individualist is leveled on the same platform as the feudal does one correspond Chairman Mao with the image of a brutal enforcer of his ethnics that held no moral consideration.
Like before, I don't see your opinion, or your voice at all. All I see is an explanation of other peoples voices, and only on a surface sense. Why do these historians place morality and ethics above economic progress, whereas others the opposite? They both have access to the same evidence/sources (unless they don't -then that is something you can discuss!) - it is not about the history anymore when assessing their interpretation, it is about the historians.Professor G P Deshpande
no historians in first sentence presents an advanced and further understood
? this is an odd way of describing it response to Chairman Mao’s political agendas, as he counterpoints the presumed tyrannical ideologies painted on Chairman Mao with his recognition of the intellectuality behind such dehumanizing acts imposed in China during his reign. Deshpande presents the Western understanding of China’s revolutionary movement through their categorization of such action under the idea of a purge, yet presents how deeper understanding of the Maoist acts establishes the admittance of historians that such description ‘was not only inadequate by also irrelevant.’ (Deshpande, 1966.)
This is better! This is historiography Still need to see your voice more, but this is definitely more like it - particularly the link to their Western heritage, and how that clouds their view. Again, suggest having a read of Edward Said's 'Orientalism'. His views were that the Cultural Revolution plan was not ‘the product of a whim or fantasy of ageing Mao’ or his weapon that yields to Mao’s tyrannical desires. Only through the correlation between the sixteen points program to China’s situation during that period did Deshpande present his understanding of the Maoist acts that were harnessed. This politburo resolution created and implemented by the Chairman addressed the economical and political issues China faced in the 1960s and 1970s, providing objectives that served as solutions that brought the nation a step closer to ‘Mao’s vision of tomorrow’s China.’ Deshpande himself illustrates how the sixteen points despite having ‘an air of militancy’ surrounding them, the goals of Chairman Mao all targeting one sole purpose; China’s attempt to break free from their powerless position in society and rise to new heights to take a great leap forward. Yet Deshpande’s understanding of the optimal motives behind each point was only found when considering the campaign under the conditions of contemporary context
Methodology!! Great . The Maoist vision allowed him to understand how the program held no tactics that were new and original to revolutions but rather brought a driving force to mobilize the Chinese for the new China. In addition, Mao’s reasoning for the eradication of those who upheld the bourgeoisie and ‘the four olds’ ideologies during the revolutionary movement can be perceived through historian Dun J Li’s statement ‘let the demons and hobgoblins come out of their lairs in order to wipe them out better, and let the seeds sprout to make it more convenient to hoe them’ (Dun J. Li, 1969) bringing to focus Mao’s intentions were all contributions to China’s prosperous future. Thus by following up on Schram’s understanding of the necessity for Mao’s refurbishing revolution to eradicate the old customs of China and thus, create the groundwork for ‘national salvation and renewal’ (Schram, 1994), Deshpande presents his perspective that Mao’s creation of the Cultural Revolution was a ‘well-planned drive to mobilize the people, to make them more vigilant and tackle the enormous problems of China’ rather than a meticulous plan full of ‘the woes and failing of China’ (Pye, 1986) establishing Chairman Mao as a reformer tactician.
This was a much better paragraph. It is still (mainly - I did like your discussion of methodology) an explanation of the perspective rather than an analysis, but it was still more historiography than the other paragraphs. What you need to improve on though is the integration of your own voice and opinion.The ruthless dictatorship of Mao Zedong is drawn upon the understanding of his dismissal of lives that held significant power in their previous bourgeoisie government.
This is the introduction of a history paragraph. Where is a mention of interpretations? Chinese Revolution historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday affirm the inhumane character of the communist leader who recognized the sacrifice required in order to modernize the Chinese economy in Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday reveal the horrific truth
again - is it truth? Can one interpretation be objectively the truth? of the nation leader, a man who understood the effects of The Great Leap Forward on his people yet continued to export their food products for economical gain, reaching numbers of 4.74 million tons of grain in 1959. Mao’s falsified claims about the ‘unlimited supplies of food’ (Halliday, and Chang, 2007) to international leaders sheds light on the atrocities he committed his people to
History essay. Peasants and agricultural workers suffered intense malnutrition and starvation due to Mao’s radical depletion of their food intake, as the exportation numbers were not calculated based on what could be produced, but rather what Mao required for his program to provide profit in order for China to overtake all the dominant capitalist countries in the 20th century
History essay. Thus, the affirmation of Halliday and Jung that ‘Mao knew that in many places people were reduced to eating compounds of Earth. In some cases, whole villages died as a result, when people’s intestines became blocked.’ continues to expose such tyranny that existed in the 20th century. However, it brings us to questions where such sufferings effective in bringing positive change to the Chinese economy?
Morality again! I really think that there should be a general discussion upon the historiographical implications of writing history based on morality as it is such a subjective concept. Historian Lucian Pye argues that despite Mao Zedong being recognized for his contribution to the wealth China is indulged in at this current time, the idea of the failures of the Maoist acts being undermined by his success is ‘not particularly convincing because China today follows very few of the early Mao’s ideologies.’ (Pye, 1986)
So he invalidates history through a present day lens? Could maybe discuss the historiographical notions of hindsight being 20:20. It's very easy for historians (and anyone from the present day) to look back at historical personalities and civilisations and say that they were wrong because we know the outcome of their actions. The thing is - they DIDN'T. For example, we can look at the failures of the WW1 Generals, and say "Douglas Haig, upon looking at the failures of the battle of the Somme, I deem you an idiot and a bad man" - however, you've got to remember that Douglas Haig and all the other WW1 generals weren't used to or trained to deal with the new form of war (war of attrition) that developed during WW1, and thus had no experience dealing with the war, and no way of knowing the outcome. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but you get the point - it is very easy for us in the present to ridicule people from the past because we know their future, it is important to recognise that they did not. His
utilities utilisation of the young crowd to carry out his cruel deeds were effective acts of manipulation, where Mao was able to eradicate his enemies through the student activists who support him and in so, hid behind the façade of being a nation valuing politician.
History essay. Chang and Halliday asserts Chairman Mao’s fabrications of trust through his orchestration of turning the students against government figures who disagreed with Maoism, as ‘Many of these officials were on Mao’s hit list, but for now he used them to spread terror (Red Guards) - one that would soon engulf themselves’, bringing forth the reality of Mao’s understanding of the terrors he infringed on the Chinese, but regardless went forth under the reasoning of change. Similarly, Spence also affirms the mercilessness of Chairman Mao in his public announcements of encouragement of the destruction chased by the criticizing youth during the revolutionary period. Chairman Mao’s speech in February 1957 further establishes his support for the rebellion against the traditional values that plagued the country prior to his rule. Spence conveys this in the words of Harvard Professor Roderick MacFarquhar that he issued a ‘forceful warning that only through the creative struggle and daring would the Chinese be able to deepen the revolution and attain higher levels of political and social life’ (D Spence, 1982). This understanding, recognizes the truth
again - is it truth? Is truth obtainable? of Mao Zedong’s understanding of the brutality of his policies, yet heeds no attention to the suffering under the belief that ‘To achieve its ultimate consolidation, it is necessary… to carry on constant and arduous socialist revolutionary struggles and socialist education on the political and ideological fronts’ (Mao, 1957).
Communist leader Mao Zedong has carried numerous different understandings of his character and his legacy over the decades. In the words of Tim Stanley, ‘there was a big gulf between the theoretical Maoism and Maoism in practice (of Mao Zedong)’. Whilst most recognize him as the tyrant who was a disaster to mankind ironically in the form of homo-sapiens himself
? I don't really get the irony here, and appears a bit too dramatic., some choose to look beyond his social and cultural impacts on the Chinese civilians and understand his policies were merely based on the understanding that China required immediate revolution in order to be where it is at this present time. In a context where Lucian Pye confirms that ‘loss of culture and of spiritual values, loss of hope and ideals; loss of time, truth and of life, loss, in short, of nearly everything that gives meaning to life’ one cannot deviate from the characterisation of Chairman Mao as a tyrannical leader who held no ethical values. However, once considering the recognition of the truth in Mao’s words ‘the struggle to consolidate the socialist system…will take a long historical period’ (Mao, 1957) historians realise that without such suffering China would not have arrived at the stage it is at today. Yet the perspective of Mao Zedong can only be developed once aligned with self valued morals and ethics and when examined at a particular period of time. Understanding of this controversial figure is only clear when one recognises the unavoidable ramifications of every action. Thus whilst Mao Zedong the tyrant, paid with his people’s lives the cost for China’s ultimate power, Mao Zedong the reformer would not have succeeded in modernising China if such sacrifice was not made.