The barrage of fireworks-caused explosions rattling my windows shook me from my DVD-induced daze and reminded me that today is Chinese National Day. 57 years ago today the Central People’s Government announced the official creation of the People’s Republic of China.
China’s continually in the news regarding their “troubles” with environmental issues, social unrest, and general disagreements with much the rest of the world over the rights of the peoples that live within its borders – but hell, these are domestic affairs and Western countries should keep their damn noses out of ‘em.
As there’s just not enough positive things said about this fair nation, to celebrate, I’ve made a list of a few of the more interesting things that the People’s Republic has been up to over the last half-century:
1949: After years of long marches and wars with alternating enemies, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was formed. Led by Máo Zédōng, the PRC celebrates their inauguration with plates and plates of hóngshāoròu.
1950-51: With a few months rest, the People’s Liberation Army were getting ansy to liberate something. I mean, it’s in their name, it’s what they do. They liberate more people before 6 a.m. then most people do all century. As aquatics training wasn’t scheduled until Summer of ’53, and several commanders just loved the Marx Brothers, Tibet drew the lucky straw.
“Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.” / “百花齐放，百家争鸣” – Chinese Poem
1957: Ahead of the hippies by nearly a decade, Mao decided he wanted to chill out and be a bit more groovy. As such, he launched the Hundred Flowers Campaign, rumour has it he was inspired by Elvis’ new hit “Don’t Be Cruel”. The campaign was designed to let intellectuals out from under the previously rather repressive thumbs of the Party, and allow them to engage in some honest debate and criticism of the Party itself. This lasted a couple weeks, at which point the intellectuals (now clearly-identified) were rounded up and re-educated never to answer “yes” to the age old “do I look fat” question again – some were shot.
1958-62: Now with “Great Balls of Fire” playing through the halls of Zhōngnánhǎi, Mao’s jumping around and poorly pronounced lyrics led the Party to believe he wished to initiate something called the “Great Leap Forward“. When it was restated again at a late-night Nanning KTV session, the massively reverbed Great Helmsmen indirectly launched the campaign that led to one of the largest famines in all history. Feeling horrible about the whole thing, it is said that Mao offered all starving peasants a plate of hóngshāoròu if they could “name that tune.” Roughly 35 million were not familiar with Jerry Lee Lewis’ work.
1966-1976: By the mid-sixties China’s youth were “turning on, tuning in and dropping out”. Mao, father to a nation, wished to get them more involved. Thinking back to his own youth he realized that nothing gave him so much purpose as a “cause” and a “gun”. As Mao’s prized Zhonghua cigarettes were packaged in a rather patriotic red box, the youth took the moniker “The Red Guards” and protected his smokes with their lives and the lives of many of their teachers, parents and elders. Near this time Jiang Qing, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and Wang Hongwen started a communist superhero group called the Gang of Four and launched The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution – though never admitted to publicly, it is said they could turn invisible, stretch like rubber, ignite in flame and imitate a rock respectively.
1979: With the immortal Mao’s wax-like body being preserved for generations of patriots to shuffle past with teary-eyed glee; the newly instated Deng Xiaoping, pissed that he couldn’t get the latest episodes of M*A*S*H in his office, made the landmark decision to crack open the long closed doors of China. The reformation brought with it the start of a market economy, eventual entrance to the WTO and, perhaps most welcome, McDonalds.
1989: With nothing much to do after being told that Mao’s Mausoleum was closed for the day, a group of students began a sit-in at Tiananman Sq. When asked by news broadcasters the cause for their civil unrest, seeing a chance to show off their education, they started throwing out words they vaguely recalled from their textbooks. Reporters, ignoring such phrases as “agricultural land reform” and “tridiagonal quadratic hyperbolic eigenvalue problem”, hooked on to “democracy” and “liberty”. Hearing this, Deng realized that Liberty and Liberation are damn near each other in the Chinese-English dictionary Carter gave him a decade earlier. As such, the Chinese president figured that it was time to dust off the PLA and see if these two groups couldn’t get along. Despite what appeared to be some patriotic red paint spattered around the area, nothing much seemed to come of it.
The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression. – Máo Zédōng, February 27, 1957
1997: Saddened by the passing of Chairman Deng, Britain amicably returned Hong Kong to the Mainland. Off the record, the UK was reported to have stated that not in nearly a century had they figured out how to ship the damn thing, and as such they really couldn’t see the value in renewing the lease. HK reverts to Chinese Sovereignty under a One China-Two Systems-Like Three Or Four Countries agreement. Beijing promises not to feck up the works in the wealthy city for at least 50 years, giving title to a wonderfully confusing Wong Kar Wai film.
2001: Led by groundwork of the late Deng’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (what the rest of the world calls “capitalism with some weird bits”), China enters the Word Trade Organization (WTO).
2003: In a one-sided space race with Japan, China successfully launches their first manned space flight. China plans to be the second country to land on the moon, with an expected touchdown date of 2024 – a mere 55 years after the first lunar landing.
Well PRC, if what you’ve accomplished in the last five and a half decades is any indicator … there’ll be lots to talk about before that happy Moon Festival.
Highly amusing! Thanks for that.
Look, I have a sense of humor. It doesn’t all have to be “Happy Happy Joy Joy” or “Look at the funny Chinglish I saw today”. I read your stuff religiously and love most of it (like dirty, little Chinese restaurants), but I disagree with the tone of this post. This kind of cynicism, though occasionally amusing, is dangerous. My problem (and it is mine – I’ll owe up) is that so many of the people I’ve met here are quick to judge without getting information. While I’m sure your personal understanding isn’t as myopic as this (it’s just a humorous post, after all), these might as well be talking points for a lot of folks I’ve met in country. In my short time here, there have been too many people (for my liking, anyway) who’ve taken the “Wild Swans” tour of China and decided they’ve seen all there is to see.
The kind of thing they turn a blind eye to, and the kind of thing your history doesn’t mention, is the number of people who have been moved from the “seriously worried where next week’s meal is coming from” column to the “moderately worried where next month’s meal is coming from” column in the last 57 years. Health care, dentistry and digital watches.
This is serious “I used to be cruel to my woman. I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved…” stuff that has gone down, and it should be presented as such. In my opinion. Tonight.
Anyway, I’m glad you’re putting this site together. People owe you.
Happy Mid-Autumn Festival.
err…make that “own up”
It’s interesting that “Wild Swans” always comes up whenever negative stuff about China is mentioned. Being critical and objective of “Wild Swans” and the info that she presents is just common sense – discounting it because a bunch of laowai are running around thinking it’s the gospel, is just silly. Jung’s got her moments and as biased as it may be, she’s not completely off base.
I’m going to state it for the record, and then I’m going to forget it: Debunking Wild Swans does NOT edge anyone above the people that preach it as fact anymore than someone criticising people for all liking the same music makes said music bad music. Elitists be critics and critics be damned.
But you’re right Josh; the CPC has done a load of great stuff to improve the country – both from what it was in Imperial times and what it was in the 50s and 60s. Sort of their job though, isn’t it?
Shenme what?
Man… now I’m all serious and shit. Someone post something funny.
@Ben: Thanks
@Josh: Forgot to say, it’s nothing personal about that “Wild Swans” thing… just my pet-peeve, much in the reverse of yours it would seem. Oh, and that credit goes to Rick for the “dirty little Chinese restaurant” post. We’re a multi-authored blog
I think Jung got more right than she got wrong. I’ve not read Wild Swans, but I have read her Mao biography. Slanted, yes, but that doesn’t mean she’s way off base. The amount of research that went into that book convinced me that it was mostly on the level.
Sure, some things have improved in China since the institution of the PRC, but it has been at a snail’s pace. Compare China’s development to that of Japan. Japan started to join the rest of the world at relatively the same time that China became the PRC. Granted, Japan had begun to do away with imperialism (rather it had begun to westernize slightly) several years earlier. But then there was WWII and we bombed the hell out of it in the near-middle of the 20th century. Japan was forced to embrace democracy and rebuild. Now, it’s a modern society that competes on the same level with the rest of the world. Meanwhile, China is still crawling while Japan is flying.
The way I see it, Chairman Mao made only one improvement to Chinese society: instituting women’s rights. You can thank Sun Yat-sen for getting rid of Imperialism. The rest of the real improvements have only occurred in the last 20 years. Just think where China could be today without the CCP.
And Ryan, you did mean “CCP”? Right?
Sorry about the rant. I just feel like a lot of Chinese think that criticizing the Chinese government is a criticism against China itself or its people. That’s not true. China is a great country with great people, interesting history and amazing things to see. The CCP, however, if full of crap. It’s just like saying America is a great country, but Bush is full of crap. I don’t get all offended when people say things like that. And thank God nobody gets put in jail for saying it either. The fact is that China is a developing nation still, but it would already be a developed nation if not for Mao and the CCP. And that’s what the Chinese should be “owning up to”.
Look, it isn’t about the book. I’m not talking about debunking “Wild Swans.” I haven’t read it, and I don’t have any desire to. I used it as a symbol because it DOES come up in so many conversations with foreigners here, and what I’ve noticed is that when it is mentioned, Mao or the Party is then blamed for every problem, real or imaginary, that has occurred since the country was founded.
For instance, a teacher gets a substandard essay written by a substandard student in a second language (quite a feat), and it’s all “Well, I’ve been reading “Wild Swans” and this crappy essay really shouldn’t surprise me because Mao destroyed all sense of creativity in these people when he…” It’s absurd.
That lyric is from the Beatles’ “Getting Better.” As in “I have to admit it’s getting better…getting better all the time.” Very positive song. That lyric was Lennon’s addition. It was autobiographical. See, Lennon hit women. If I go and read a biography of what kind of a bastard John once was, and I stop there, it’s very easy for that little piece of information to influence how I experience the Beatles. I never get around to appreciating that “it’s getting so much better all the time.” That’s how people on the “Wild Swans” tour strike me.
@Stu: Communist Party of China (CPC)/Chinese Communist Party (CCP) – the first is the official English translation of 中国共产党 | Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng, the second is a common alternative.
@Josh: Thanks for the lyrical explanation. The big difference is the CPC isn’t going around adding lyrics to songs admitting mistakes. In fact, any songs with such lyrics would undoubtably be removed. And to be fair, Lennon also wrote “I am the walrus”
I get what you’re saying though. The “Wild Swans” mentality is an easy answer for complex problems, and generally speaking it offers a simple solution and opinion for foreigners to use to handle the oddities they face daily here in China. And the fact that these foreigners often don’t take the time to think about said problems much deeper than the “Wild Swans” explanation twists your tit.
I tend to agree, and I wish to be clear, I truly do not believe that the CPC is at all solely responsible for the plight of the Chinese people. The above post was simply a humoristic statement regarding National Day, in a small attempt to add some balance to the endless number of blindly patriotic opinions I face every day in the most nationalistic country I’ve ever found myself in.
Hi, guys. Stu’s last comment has inspired me to add a few words. It is unfair to compare China and Japan without considering the enormous amount of American aid that Japan received after WWII, and that it continues to receive up to this day. Japan is the beneficiary of billions of dollars of U.S. investment, and it doesn’t have to maintain an army. Where it would be without that extra help is anybody’s guess.
Yes, I understand that. But China also would have received this kind of support had it been a democratic nation rather than a communist one, entirely closed off from a rapidly modernizing world. Essentially, I’m not comparing China to Japan. I’m comparing a faulty autocratic (communist) system to a democratic system which could benefit from the support of Western powers. China could have benefitted from our help as well, but it chose to be our enemy instead of our friend. So, in that sense, it’s entirely fair to compare the two nations. I’m comparing the different paths they chose to take (actually, I’m contrasting thme). But now China has opened up quite a bit and has adopted some very Western, very capitalist policies (Mao would be rolling over in his mausoleum if he weren’t so full of fermaldehide). And now things are getting better in China. Even so, where would China be if the U.S. weren’t at this very moment pouring billions of dollars into its economy through trade (and not just us but many other Western countries)? Take a look at North Korea for a clue.
Stuart,
I find the following choices of terms problematic: enemy, friend, Japan + choice.
You’d give credit to Sun Yat-Sen for getting rid of imperialism, but fault China for choosing not to be a “friend” to Western powers. Where is the distinction? Besides, hasn’t China been a friend to the US for a long while now?
In what way did Japan choose its path? Would heavy investment in Japan have been as important in US foreign policy had the Behemoth not been sleeping just across the sea?
Would you call the carving of the Korean peninsula imperialism? Without it, would there even be a North Korea to make the comparison to?
I don’t pretend to know the answers, but I’m not prepared to play what-ifs with such certainty. And lacking that certainty makes it too difficult for me to pass judgement.
@Josh I’m sorry you don’t agree, but it’s just the way I see things. Personally, I don’t have a problem “passing judgment”. You can judge me any way you wish as a result.
I’m not sure how mentioning Sun Yat-Sen coincides (or doesn’t) with “faulting China” for not choosing a path of friendship with the West. I was stating a historical fact about Sun Yat-Sen, not really a matter of opinion. The Nationalists ended imperial rule in China. That’s a fact. The CCP then took advantage of the Kuomintang’s weakness (mostly made so by fighting the Japanese) to thrust itself into power. All through this period (from 1911 to 1949), the U.S. worked closely with the Kuomintang, and we now have (and have always had) close ties with Taiwan. For this reason, I’m lead to believe that a China under Nationalist rule would have been an ally to the West. Instead, China got Mao and 27 years of isolationism.
Also, I’d like to point out that I don’t “fault” China. I’m faulting Mao and the CCP. And as for your rhetorical question “hasn’t China been a friend to the US for a long time now?”, I believe I did mention something akin to this if you take another look at what I said. And this “friendship” is one of the main factors contributing to China’s successes of the last 30 years.
Technically you’re right that Japan did not choose it’s path. We chose it for them. Would they have been as important to U.S. foreign policy otherwise? Maybe not, it’s true. As for China, I rather think that one of the biggest nations on earth would have achieved some level of importance to the U.S. in that regard. Even if not, it could have been benefitting from trade with the West for 56 years rather than just 30. Those 27 years under Mao severely stunted the growth of the nation.
As for splitting the Korean peninsula? Don’t know if I’d call that imperialism. True, maybe N. Korea wouldn’t exist if not for that (although I believe the entire peninsula would be communist if not for us). It’s actually irrelevant to my argument because I really only meant to point out how closing ones self off to the rest of the world resulted in stunted development for China (and continues to do so for N. Korea).
“I don’t pretend to know the answers, but I’m not prepared to play what-ifs with such certainty.” You say this as if having an opinion or theorizing about “what-ifs” makes one iota of difference at all, as if the balance would tip and all would fall into chaos if you stated something you felt resolutely about. I’m pretty sure that neither of us are gods or great leaders, so having an idea about something isn’t going to alter the course of the world one bit. I guess this is why I’m not afraid of theorizing about things. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Doesn’t really make a difference anyway. I’m always surprised when people respond to things I say, as if my immortal soul (or theirs) might be in jeopardy because I might have made an erroneous judgment or historical interpretation.
In conclusion, I don’t pretend to know the answers either. Of course, I’m not really trying to come up with any answers. The idea is kind of ludicrous to me. Nothing I ever say is going to make a light go in Hu Jintao’s brain and lead him and the CCP to adopt democracy. I’m just discussing my ideas. That’s it.
@Ryan–Sorry for highjacking your blog, man. I really liked your post.
If anyone wants to discuss anything further with me, I have an email link on my blog. Take care.
Let’s not give old Dr. Sun too much credit. When the 1911 Wuchang Uprising took place (that is, when the bombs a group of New Army recruits were making went off accidentally and they knew that they were all about to be arrested complete with membership lists*) Daddy Sun was in the US on one of his many fund raising trips. He learned about it from the Denver Post. It was also Sun who, after finally making it back to China, decided to hand the keys over to Yuan Shikai in exchange for Yuan not doing anything real nutty–like support the Qing or declare himself emperor. Sun was a helluva PR man and a superb fundraiser, but his revolutionary, political, and military record was decidedly mixed. It was also Sun, it should be remembered, who accepted Soviet help in building the KMT party apparatus when he could find no backers in the West. (Check out Marie Claire Bergere’s biography of Sun)
As for KMT weakness, I might suggest checking out Lloyd Eastman’s “The Abortive Revolution, still one of the best works on the subject.
BTW, Ryan, I thought your post was quite funny given that most of your audience is familiar with the original back story. The cheek is definitely on my top 5 places for a tongue.
(*There’s also the side story where the recruits then went to find their commanding officer, who had no idea about the plot and was hiding under the bed after the explosion. They pulled him out, put a gun in his face, and said, “Congratulations, you are now leading the revolution.”)
@Stu: Don’t worry about hi-jacking the blog. Happy to have your opinions.
@Emily & Josh: (sorry to do that couple lump there), also happy to have yours.
@J.: I love you man. Honestly your knowledge of Chinese history, and more so the humorously anecdotal stuff, fascinates me. I agree that it would be a big leap for anyone in this blog’s audience to assume Mao actually started the Great Leap Forward with misprounced lyrics…the whole post is so obviously farce that I am surprised it’s created such dialog … but hey.. neat to read what people think and get some differing opinions.
As I understand it, the official foreign expert view of Wild Swans is 70% good, 30 % bad…….