Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mao Tse Tung good bad or normal?

rebel warrior said:
Short Harman article on the contradictions of Mao here

Wow that is an awful article - talk about painting by numbers.! I love the idea that the attraction of maoism in the 1930's was something to do with industalisation - at the time they were either on the long march or confined to one of the most backward and unindustralised provinces of the whole country.
 
Well Edward Heath liked him.
uk010.jpg
 
CUMBRIANDRAGON said:
Mao lead his red army to ethnic cleanse The Tibetans,who were proboly some of the most spiritual people in the world.
The spiritualism which led to the barbaric conditions which existed before.

Where women were "inferior births" and they were forbidden from touching iron instruments or to look above the knees of a man. Some were burnt for giving birth to twins or for practicing the old Bon religion. Wealthy me had many wives by arranged marriages and porrer families would share one wife between several brothers. Serfs could not marry without their master's permission and could be moved from their family at will. under the Ulag system masters could demand "temporary wives"!

The many slaves and serfs were not allowed to look above the knees of nobels or lamas. 626 people held 93% of the land and 70% of the Yaks. No one was ever paid wages for work (which is actually how China destroyed their system).

The Dalai Lama was the biggest serf owner in Tibet with 6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves. When his family fled in 1959 they still left gold, silver, 20,331 pieces of jewelry and 14,676 pieces of clothing.

This society left the bulk of the population on the brink of starvation. There traditional food was a mush of tea, yak butter and barley. A report in 1940 said that 38% never got tea and drank wild herbs and 75% were forced at times to eat grass. 50% could get butter - the only source of protein.
At the same time the Jokka Kang shrine burnt 4 tons of yak butter as offerings every single day ! ! !

One third or butter was burnt daily at the 3,000 temples - not including small household altars.

The monk declared that disease and death were cause by sinfulness and religious practices were the only protection from disease. It was a sin to kill lice or germs or rabid dogs.

So the serf had no sewers or toilets. A third of the population had smallpox, 90& had venereal disease.

Torchure and beating were widespread. Buddhist prescription against taking life meant that people would be wipped to the edge of death and then released to die "as an act of god". sutting off of hands, gouging out of eyes with hot irons, hanging by the thumbs, crippling and sewing someone into a bag and throwing them in a river were also practiced. There are even reports of the burying of children alive in monastary ground-breaking ceremonies.
 
The Dalai Lama is an evil man. I hate the liberals all fawning over him. He should be brought to court for crimes against humanity. Like the Saudi nobility and all the other assholes who want to go back to the 14th century.
 
kasheem said:
The Dalai Lama is an evil man. I hate the liberals all fawning over him. He should be brought to court for crimes against humanity. Like the Saudi nobility and all the other assholes who want to go back to the 14th century.
mao could have brought him to justice but didn't, in fact mao seemed to be quite favourable to him and the panchan lama. The tibetan people seem to be extremely tolerant, perhaps that's why the dalai religion thing went on so long, not because it was any good.

did anyone read The Private Life of Chairman Mao: The Memoirs of Mao's Personal Physician? great book, couldn't get on with tibetan book of the dead!
 
kasheem said:
The Dalai Lama is an evil man. I hate the liberals all fawning over him. He should be brought to court for crimes against humanity. Like the Saudi nobility and all the other assholes who want to go back to the 14th century.
what crimes are these you allude to?
 
You are very astute Pickman's in your assertions.

I still feel hurt and rejected that you didn't want to sniff the sack.
 
scawenb said:
The spiritualism which led to the barbaric conditions which existed before.

Where women were "inferior births" and they were forbidden from touching iron instruments or to look above the knees of a man. Some were burnt for giving birth to twins or for practicing the old Bon religion. Wealthy me had many wives by arranged marriages and porrer families would share one wife between several brothers. Serfs could not marry without their master's permission and could be moved from their family at will. under the Ulag system masters could demand "temporary wives"!

The many slaves and serfs were not allowed to look above the knees of nobels or lamas. 626 people held 93% of the land and 70% of the Yaks. No one was ever paid wages for work (which is actually how China destroyed their system).

The Dalai Lama was the biggest serf owner in Tibet with 6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves. When his family fled in 1959 they still left gold, silver, 20,331 pieces of jewelry and 14,676 pieces of clothing.

This society left the bulk of the population on the brink of starvation. There traditional food was a mush of tea, yak butter and barley. A report in 1940 said that 38% never got tea and drank wild herbs and 75% were forced at times to eat grass. 50% could get butter - the only source of protein.
At the same time the Jokka Kang shrine burnt 4 tons of yak butter as offerings every single day ! ! !

One third or butter was burnt daily at the 3,000 temples - not including small household altars.

The monk declared that disease and death were cause by sinfulness and religious practices were the only protection from disease. It was a sin to kill lice or germs or rabid dogs.

So the serf had no sewers or toilets. A third of the population had smallpox, 90& had venereal disease.

Torchure and beating were widespread. Buddhist prescription against taking life meant that people would be wipped to the edge of death and then released to die "as an act of god". sutting off of hands, gouging out of eyes with hot irons, hanging by the thumbs, crippling and sewing someone into a bag and throwing them in a river were also practiced. There are even reports of the burying of children alive in monastary ground-breaking ceremonies.

Thats a very good reply .You have opened my eyes
 
fuck me thats insane.

Er, you have opened my eyes!

Fucking dali lama, next time he turns up touting for 'his' country back we should steal his glasses and play catch with them*. No really, what a prick.

So much for fucking buddhism what a crock of bollocks.


*imho, this is the worst thing you can do to someone. Though we could sew him into a bag and burry him in a monastery too.
 
What about the temples being the monylenders of their day - forcing changes on the surrounding population to their personal advantage. Being the financiers for wars against local peasant populations or other enemies for which the poor always paid...
 
butchersapron said:
What about the temples being the monylenders of their day - forcing changes on the surrounding population to their personal advantage. Being the financiers for wars against local peasant populations or other enemies for which the poor always paid...
who are you talking to BA?
 
scawenb said:
The spiritualism which led to the barbaric conditions which existed before.

Where women were "inferior births" and they were forbidden from touching iron instruments or to look above the knees of a man. Some were burnt for giving birth to twins or for practicing the old Bon religion. Wealthy me had many wives by arranged marriages and porrer families would share one wife between several brothers. Serfs could not marry without their master's permission and could be moved from their family at will. under the Ulag system masters could demand "temporary wives"!

The many slaves and serfs were not allowed to look above the knees of nobels or lamas. 626 people held 93% of the land and 70% of the Yaks. No one was ever paid wages for work (which is actually how China destroyed their system).

The Dalai Lama was the biggest serf owner in Tibet with 6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves. When his family fled in 1959 they still left gold, silver, 20,331 pieces of jewelry and 14,676 pieces of clothing.

This society left the bulk of the population on the brink of starvation. There traditional food was a mush of tea, yak butter and barley. A report in 1940 said that 38% never got tea and drank wild herbs and 75% were forced at times to eat grass. 50% could get butter - the only source of protein.
At the same time the Jokka Kang shrine burnt 4 tons of yak butter as offerings every single day ! ! !

One third or butter was burnt daily at the 3,000 temples - not including small household altars.

The monk declared that disease and death were cause by sinfulness and religious practices were the only protection from disease. It was a sin to kill lice or germs or rabid dogs.

So the serf had no sewers or toilets. A third of the population had smallpox, 90& had venereal disease.

Torchure and beating were widespread. Buddhist prescription against taking life meant that people would be wipped to the edge of death and then released to die "as an act of god". sutting off of hands, gouging out of eyes with hot irons, hanging by the thumbs, crippling and sewing someone into a bag and throwing them in a river were also practiced. There are even reports of the burying of children alive in monastary ground-breaking ceremonies.

Yep, the Dalai Lama was/is an arse but so was that butcher Mao. And China doesn't exactly have an clean record when it comes to human rights in Tibet either.

Do you agree that Tibetens have the right to self-determination?
 
One Step Beyond

Previous bios showed Mao as a ruthless power hungry stalinist with a bizarre line in military tactics, whose deviousness brought the CCP to power.

The latest biography goes one step further and suggests most of his military victories were myths that never happened, that he was a useless military leader who had no compunction, when that seemed the best way to power, in causing defeats of his own army, sacrificing the CCP itself to his own ambition.

Have a look at a map of the Long March. According to this book its weird route was caused by Mao not wanting to take his army to a safe haven where there was another powerful CCP leader in case he lost power. So he walked it around China until huge numbers died for no other purpose than to waste time until his position strengthened. He then fooled the other CCP leader into marching into a swamp and then into precarious winter quarters in order to reduce the size of his CCP rivals' army from 80,000 to 10,000.

The book is a terrifying list of a life of crime which makes Stalin seem moderate. It puts Mao one step beyond just about every other person in history in terms of the successful pursuit of personal power. Only Max Stirner could have knowingly admired him as he was, if this book is true.

20 million in camps ? the Mao this book portrays would see that as going soft on the people.
 
What book is it? It sounds a bit like it was written by a rich chinese-american hysterical anti-communist, but maybe I'm wrong. Not defending Mao at all, by the way.
 
butchersapron said:
Just adding some more stuff to the anti-buddhist pot. Not having a pop at anyone. Except dwen.

good work, entirely misrepresenting someone's views who you;ve seen a maximum of 2 posts of.

keep it up. :p
 
Oh please, you think i've seen a max of two of your posts in the four years that we've been here? You what? As it goes, i was making a jokey reference to the series of long running arguments that you had with Ern in the theory forum about the Dalai Lama and religion - maybe you've erased them from your memory?
 
The now known Mao ?

It is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

Mao: The Unknown Story


I think it is probably seriously biased. (there are no sources or footnotes, btw)

Sometimes it ascribes motives to Mao in situations where, simply, no one could know his motives. So it certainly lacks balance.

But......Where I could check one thing - Braun's memoirs - they didn't noticeably misuse them and it does explain things that did not make sense otherwise.

So biased it might be, but is it wrong. I don't know. Haven't checked reviews.
 
gilhyle said:
It is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

Mao: The Unknown Story


I think it is probably seriously biased. (there are no sources or footnotes, btw)

Sometimes it ascribes motives to Mao in situations where, simply, no one could know his motives. So it certainly lacks balance.

But......Where I could check one thing - Braun's memoirs - they didn't noticeably misuse them and it does explain things that did not make sense otherwise.

So biased it might be, but is it wrong. I don't know. Haven't checked reviews.


It's a rather compelling case for historians to write populist, narrative history for the greatest possible impact though...
 
gilhyle said:
It is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

Mao: The Unknown Story


I think it is probably seriously biased. (there are no sources or footnotes, btw)

Sometimes it ascribes motives to Mao in situations where, simply, no one could know his motives. So it certainly lacks balance.

But......Where I could check one thing - Braun's memoirs - they didn't noticeably misuse them and it does explain things that did not make sense otherwise.

So biased it might be, but is it wrong. I don't know. Haven't checked reviews.

I haven't managed to find a half-decent critique of the book yet, anyone got any links?

Incidently is Haliday still a writer for New Left Review? They were fairly pro Maoist in the 70's and I hear that Haliday was a bit of a Kim Ill Sung groupy back in the day...
 
Back
Top Bottom