teaching about post-1949 china

[Anonymous]

How much of the Chinese government's protection of Mao's name is just a front to protect their own standing as leaders of China. I really don't believe that the Chinese government cares about anything but naked power. They are not interested in communism, but protecting their own status and once the cat is let out of the bag in China about Mao, in their mind, the party is over.

[Anonymous]

Wow! This is a great thread. Too bad nobody has been on this one recently. Along the theme of the Mao, t-shirt wearing commie loving student, I've had students come in with Che Guevara shirts on and I immediately point them to my Che poster in my classroom. It's called "The Victims of Che Guevara." The poster is the typical picture of Che but his face is made up of all of the victims of Che Guevara. Students who exalt people like Che or Mao or Obama (oops, I may have gone too far) usually don't know how oppressive Communism really is. It's just a romantic notion in their simplified minds. Speaking of going to far, the one thread comparing Mao to the original G.W. (George Washington) was going to far.

[Anonymous]

Here is another thread that needs to be revitalized! This subject seems to be mum or taboo to speak about. Ever since communism took hold in China religion has been outlawed. This is typical for a communist country because one not need to look to any other savior but the government (unless of course Obama is that savior, haha). Christians are, to this day, persecuted by being put into prison or jailed for simply practicing their faith. The communist government is scared that people who are of faith will start thinking for themselves and overthrow the government or start some sort of revolution. What we can relay to our students is the beauty of the freedoms we have here because in other countries people do not have those same freedoms.

Unfortunately, many students are apathetic to these freedoms and would only be more appreciative if our freedom of religion (not freedom from religion for all the misinterpreters of the 1st amendment) and freedom of speech were taken away in a communist style government. In other words, you don't know what you have until its gone.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that many of the students who wear the Che Guevarra t-shirts actually know much of anything about him. They know that he was hispanic, a rebel, and has a cool graphic print in his honor. I like to question them and see if they are actually aware of what they are espousing. Questioning them and teaching them to question is part of the ongoing process of education.

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of good communist t-shirts out there. I have a friend with a Carl Marx shirt that says "Sharing is Caring." I think the whole ideology battle is kind of funny. Communist countries condemn Democratic countries and Democratic countries villanize communist countries. Growing up in the United States we have been taught to fear and hate communism. Is there really anything that bad about Communism that we should hate it? Or is it just that it is the ideology of our foes of the past. I would prefer to live in a democratic country than a communist one, but I think all the finger pointing and talking about the evils of the other is counter productive to us moving towards a global community.

[Anonymous]

Wow! comparing Obama with Mao, shame, shame-!!!- I am fine with tee-shirts as long as the kids know the history of what they are wearing, my son has some zingers, however when my students watch 7 years in Tibet, it gives them some introduction to Chinese Communism, I am glad that now I have the seminar notebook that explains more on Mao. Being this is my first in depth look at East Asia, the readings are helping and I am sure that I can bring more to the table next year to my 7th graders about Chinese Communism. Viva Zapata!!

[Anonymous]

Oh, by the way when I was reading the posts about Mao we had a pretty big shaker (earth quake), maybe Mao is still alive!

[Anonymous]

The Cultural Revolution has serious connections to present day pop culture. When I was reading through the section in our text about the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guard my students were not quite capable of understanding what destroying three thousand years of culture might mean to a person from the inside of the revolution. We read about and discussed the "four olds," old habits, old culture, old customs and old ideas. In the technological age the throwing out of the "olds" and staying modern, hip and new is the dominant theme. When we say that we are advanced, excellerated or progressive we are saying words that have a positive connotation. Words that mean we are good, or better than the opposite. It seems as though, in our own way, we are perpetually trying to throw out the old, or at least many of our students are. The newest phone, tv, shoes, shirt.

How does this fit into teaching about the post-1949 China? This is an era fraught with chaos, turmoil, change and oppression. I wonder, are we not also oppressed by our societal obsession with the new and Mao was obsessed with the new?

I am attaching an informative and interesting look into this time period. The link is here http://spice.stanford.edu/docs/115 and can be read online or downloaded into pdf form. The article is written by Stephanie Lamb and is entitled "China's Cultural Revolution". It is a necessary read for anyone seeking more information about this period in China's history.

[Anonymous]

This link is no longer valid.

I have found a speech with the same topic but later in the year, in December at Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism.

Try this insteadThe video is here.

The link I am posting here has a description of his latest book Mao's Last Revolution.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MACMAO.html?show=reviews

There is also an intriguing article I found in the New York Times Book Review written by him but analyzing the book of Margaret MacMillan, Mission to Mao[Edit by="llogan on Jul 29, 2:25:35 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

I was listening to a talk radio station today and one of the hosts posited that the opening ceremonies of the Olympics was a political statement in itself. They explained that its grandeur was more of a message to the world that We, China, have arrived and we are a nation to be reckoned with. Judging from what we learned in the seminar, I would say it could also be that they were so proud of this event that nothing could be short of spectacular. After all, they had been waiting for this moment for a long time, and being denied in the past made this event even more meaningful. Any merit to this argument? I say it is certainly possible, but not in the manner of comparing China's military might to that of the opening ceremonies. Yes, they have arrived one might say, to the modern age, and they are no longer the China of the past. [Edit by="mburditt on Aug 12, 1:10:20 AM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Matt -

Yes, I think there is merit to the suggestion that the opening ceremonies were China's "big break" - their chance to show their stuff to the world. Simplistic, but true.

I guess what intrigues me is the enormity of the 'people involvement' and the ease with which things are accomplished. I keep waiting for the activities in China, from the manufacture of pretty much everything sold in the world today, to the presentation of the Olympics, to hit some sort of brick wall, which would basically be the Communist government or rules or something. But that's not happening. The media seems to be focused on the games, where they should be. Outside of what seems to me relatively few demonstrations, the global citizenry are traveling to, attending, and enjoying the games. Of course, I'm sure there will be stories once everyone returns home, but the rest of the world just seems to be going about the business of the Olympics, putting aside the Communist politics for now.

On the flip side, I also keep wondering what will happen at some point when the Chinese government itself says, uh, hey, we're capitalists after all...and happy ones, too. I mean unless they are filtering all those funds straight on out to the countryside to build new schools and roads and install health services, at some point, someone is going to start wondering where all the money is going, and they will not be happy with, "well, we reinvested, see..."

Maybe I'm all wrong, maybe the lines of demarcation are just not as clear as they once were, and as long as we can all continue to be consumers/suppliers, everybody is happy, regardless of their ideologies.

Any thoughts out there?
Susie

[Author]

Posts