Sounds interesting. I think Austria should follow the example and construct a Hitler museum.
New Mao Zedong museum builds in Shaoshan, Hunan
Xinhua news:
New Mao Zedong museum under construction
New Mao Zedong museum under construction
1 - 20 of 86 Posts
@ Sean Hannity
^^ STFU! What Mao Zedong did to China is not like what Hitler did to Europe!
^^ STFU! What Mao Zedong did to China is not like what Hitler did to Europe!
Death by Government: Stalin Beat Hitler but Mao Surpassed BothThe Cebuano Exultor said:^^ STFU! What Mao Zedong did to China is not like what Hitler did to Europe!
For perspective on Mao's most bloody rule, all wars 1900-1987 cost in combat dead 34,021,000 -- including WWI and II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. Mao alone murdered over twice as many as were killed in combat in all these wars.
This is not a criticism. I think it's important that we construct these museums to explore these strong leaders who have played an important role in shaping the 20th century. We have a lot to learn from these prominent, historical figures.
Why Mao is always evil to west? At least he did nothing bad to West? And for Chinese, none of your business... Hypocritical!
What do Chinese people use to think about Mao today? And what do the government think about him? Many top leaders of the Party were purgued by Mao if I'm not wrong, so I suppose they don't like him very much... I read that the leaders of the fourth generation never quote Mao in their speechs, but since I picked it up from the Western media it might be just another lie.
z0rg said:What do Chinese people use to think about Mao today? And what do the government think about him? Many top leaders of the Party were purgued by Mao if I'm not wrong, so I suppose they don't like him very much... I read that the leaders of the fourth generation never quote Mao in their speechs, but since I picked it up from the Western media it might be just another lie.
Not quite a lie. In deed, leaders seldom mention Mao these days. But doesn't mean they don't like he, these leaders always hide their feelings... But definitely they won't follow Mao any more.
Most CHinese middle class respect Deng instead of Mao, however the poor missed him so much. Some of them still believe that life 40 years ago was perfect. Oh, most of Mao's statues can only be found in peasants' house with full respect... :cheers: :cheers:
Quote from today's BBC, many poor people in CHina think like this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5324364.stmFor some, worried about the inequalities that China's capitalist revolution is now producing, Mao represents a time when China was a more equal country.
And for many in the younger generation Mao has almost mythical status.
Tourists visit Mao's house in Shaoshan
Guides sing Mao's praises at his former house in Shaoshan
"I think Mr Chairman Mao was a great guy. To us he is not a person, he is a god," according to Mr Cai, now in his thirties, and was just a child when Mao died.
Like many Chinese, he admires Mao as the founder of modern China.
"He united China and helped the poor people. Maybe some people in the world will not like him, but we Chinese will always think he was a great man," he said.
Western comment and criticisms on China is always either political propaganda oriented, sometimes with evil intention, or ignorant.
On case of Moa, Moa fights for national unity with success. He is an idealist, he communize land ownership to state, disbands unequal wealth distribution that benefits 95% of the Chinese peasants at that time.
He wants to radically change China’s society that brings huge negative impact on Chinese culture.
While he takes away the landlord' land, landlords and some of their offspring, don't like Moa, and on Mos's following political movements, that makes some collateral victims, and may be all those people don't like him too.
However, for most of the Chinese think Moa is a national hero.
Our family used to own a lot of land, like all other landlords, our land was communized. Most of the members of our family, say my uncles , my father hate Moa. For myself, look at historical events at a grand veiw, Moa is idealist, he think what he did is good for the general public. He does things with good intension, but most of the ends up with a bad result.
Moa is no compare to Hitler of Germany and Stalin of USSR
On case of Moa, Moa fights for national unity with success. He is an idealist, he communize land ownership to state, disbands unequal wealth distribution that benefits 95% of the Chinese peasants at that time.
He wants to radically change China’s society that brings huge negative impact on Chinese culture.
While he takes away the landlord' land, landlords and some of their offspring, don't like Moa, and on Mos's following political movements, that makes some collateral victims, and may be all those people don't like him too.
However, for most of the Chinese think Moa is a national hero.
Our family used to own a lot of land, like all other landlords, our land was communized. Most of the members of our family, say my uncles , my father hate Moa. For myself, look at historical events at a grand veiw, Moa is idealist, he think what he did is good for the general public. He does things with good intension, but most of the ends up with a bad result.
Moa is no compare to Hitler of Germany and Stalin of USSR
In Chinese culture, good guy dies, a-heaven unto self-form GOD, bad guy dies, d-hell into ghost.
Hitler is the GOD's gift to ruin Germany.
Stalin seeds the soviet collapse.
Mao lays the foundation of China rise from nothing.
In terms of strategic and military thinking, there is no comparison. Hitler could not even make a correct judgement in Normandee, and Stalin did not even prepare the German attack. Indeed, they very much relies on a powerful country rather than their intellectual input. While Mao, he barely loses a single battle, and never a major one. Even in most cases, he is in huge disadvantage to start with, such as Korean War.
Stalin seeds the soviet collapse.
Mao lays the foundation of China rise from nothing.
In terms of strategic and military thinking, there is no comparison. Hitler could not even make a correct judgement in Normandee, and Stalin did not even prepare the German attack. Indeed, they very much relies on a powerful country rather than their intellectual input. While Mao, he barely loses a single battle, and never a major one. Even in most cases, he is in huge disadvantage to start with, such as Korean War.
@ Sean Hannity (May I ask you to read the entire post--many important points)
Even if Mao Zedong killed more people than Hitler, he is still better as a human-being than was Hitler because he didn't invade another country and had more warranted reasons as to the indirect killings. Hitler, on the other hand, killed a lot of Jews for the purpose of simply wiping them all out. If I'm not mistaken, Mao Zedong's "Cultural Revolution", though extremely bloody in nature, was so because there was a need to "reboot" the entire "system of society" which is why it was called the "Cultural Revolution". It was not merely the "reboot" of government policies or government system but the "reboot" of the societal norms, economy, and societal workforce structure as well. This is because Mao realized that the status quo during that time was so corrupted-by-foreign-intervention (most especially the British--with their Opium War with Mainland China) and/or out-of-context-to-solving-the-problems and/or not-extensive-and-thourough-enough-to-solve-the-core-problems-during-that-time that it required a total re-organization of society via a different societal/political mind-set, Socialism/Communism.
Somehow, a lot of Western media (I'm not saying all) have distorted and/or misinterpret the very nature, notion and purpose of the "Cultural Revolution" because they were blindly parading the notion of the "free world" via democracy. But, as you can see, if China did not become Socialist/Communist, it would not be as economically dynamic as it is today.
Why?
1.) Through the "Cultural Revolution", China experienced a complete overhaul of who are to be part of which ever sector or industry in the economy and how each sector is going to contribute to society. As most people know, an economy is composed of three main sectors, namely: industrial sector, agricultural sector, and service sector. During the "Cultural Revolution" China forced teachers, engineers, even doctors to go out into the field to work as peasants. Now you might say that this is a violation to ones right to freedom of choice, and I agree that it was. However, by looking at the positive points of this one, one can see that China was able to increase its agricultural sectors food production so as to cope with the rapidly rising survival needs of its population during the 1950s. Now I am not saying that no one went hungry in China during this time. All I'm saying is that China was in a much better position to feed its population than if China did not force nearly everyone to be farmers. There is also the notion of how this forced mandate upon the population to work on countless infrastructure projects, despite Mao's megalomaniac frenzy (refering to the Mao's mandate for the extreme construction frenzy of dams and bridges during that time), was able to lay the foundation to a more infrastructurally-served society. Many people died in that process. But, you see, this was China's best option. If China dived and embraced democracy right there and then, it would not have the mandative power to force the population to become farmers/peasants, thus the problem of food scarcity will even be worse. Furthermore, there won't be as many dams, bridges, and the like that had served their infrastructural purpose for China during that time.
2.) Through the "Cultural Revolution", China became a more egalitarian society than ever. Now being egalitarian and socialist is two-sides of the same coin when you're talking about economics. They generally imply an equal distribution of wealth. The "Cultural Revolution" redistributed wealth (i.e. taking the vast lands of the rich landlords and redistributing it among the poor peasants) among the people so that there was no one that was markedly richer than the other. If China dived and embraced the notions of Capitalism during that time, it would only exacerbate one of the main problems already plaguing pre-Cultural Revolution China which was the extreme income and power gap between the rich and poor. Now I am not saying China is, as of the present times, wrong in embracing free-market system and/or Capitalism. I believe Capitalism is far superior to Socialism in creating wealth (but this'll be a different discussion/story). All I am saying is that, during those times, it was more appropriate to redistribute wealth to coincide with the "reboot" of societal norms and workforce structure since it could still not afford to have a wealth gap among the poverty stricken entire populous. Now that China is multiple-times richer than it was during those times, China can afford to have wealth gaps reminiscent of Capitalist and/or free-market societies.
All in all, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was a terrible stage in China's history where there were many misfires in economic reforms and there were many, many lives lost in the process. However, we could never question the main goal of such a stage because, without it, China would have had not experienced "The Great Leap Forward" and "Market Reforms Movement (by Deng Xiaopeng)" that followed it. It was an essential part/stage in the process of the shift from the Old China to the Modern China we know today.
I believe societies need to experience a stage of extreme hardship (just a temporary period) [for this case the "Cultural Revolution"] so as to instill the proper societal norms and/or proper societal principles to the greater populous. In that way, a society will emerge from the ashes of hardship and become a more capable and formidable political and economic force. I also believe that, slowly but surely, China is leading to a more democratic society as the population gets wealthier and more educated.
:cheers:
Even if Mao Zedong killed more people than Hitler, he is still better as a human-being than was Hitler because he didn't invade another country and had more warranted reasons as to the indirect killings. Hitler, on the other hand, killed a lot of Jews for the purpose of simply wiping them all out. If I'm not mistaken, Mao Zedong's "Cultural Revolution", though extremely bloody in nature, was so because there was a need to "reboot" the entire "system of society" which is why it was called the "Cultural Revolution". It was not merely the "reboot" of government policies or government system but the "reboot" of the societal norms, economy, and societal workforce structure as well. This is because Mao realized that the status quo during that time was so corrupted-by-foreign-intervention (most especially the British--with their Opium War with Mainland China) and/or out-of-context-to-solving-the-problems and/or not-extensive-and-thourough-enough-to-solve-the-core-problems-during-that-time that it required a total re-organization of society via a different societal/political mind-set, Socialism/Communism.
Somehow, a lot of Western media (I'm not saying all) have distorted and/or misinterpret the very nature, notion and purpose of the "Cultural Revolution" because they were blindly parading the notion of the "free world" via democracy. But, as you can see, if China did not become Socialist/Communist, it would not be as economically dynamic as it is today.
Why?
1.) Through the "Cultural Revolution", China experienced a complete overhaul of who are to be part of which ever sector or industry in the economy and how each sector is going to contribute to society. As most people know, an economy is composed of three main sectors, namely: industrial sector, agricultural sector, and service sector. During the "Cultural Revolution" China forced teachers, engineers, even doctors to go out into the field to work as peasants. Now you might say that this is a violation to ones right to freedom of choice, and I agree that it was. However, by looking at the positive points of this one, one can see that China was able to increase its agricultural sectors food production so as to cope with the rapidly rising survival needs of its population during the 1950s. Now I am not saying that no one went hungry in China during this time. All I'm saying is that China was in a much better position to feed its population than if China did not force nearly everyone to be farmers. There is also the notion of how this forced mandate upon the population to work on countless infrastructure projects, despite Mao's megalomaniac frenzy (refering to the Mao's mandate for the extreme construction frenzy of dams and bridges during that time), was able to lay the foundation to a more infrastructurally-served society. Many people died in that process. But, you see, this was China's best option. If China dived and embraced democracy right there and then, it would not have the mandative power to force the population to become farmers/peasants, thus the problem of food scarcity will even be worse. Furthermore, there won't be as many dams, bridges, and the like that had served their infrastructural purpose for China during that time.
2.) Through the "Cultural Revolution", China became a more egalitarian society than ever. Now being egalitarian and socialist is two-sides of the same coin when you're talking about economics. They generally imply an equal distribution of wealth. The "Cultural Revolution" redistributed wealth (i.e. taking the vast lands of the rich landlords and redistributing it among the poor peasants) among the people so that there was no one that was markedly richer than the other. If China dived and embraced the notions of Capitalism during that time, it would only exacerbate one of the main problems already plaguing pre-Cultural Revolution China which was the extreme income and power gap between the rich and poor. Now I am not saying China is, as of the present times, wrong in embracing free-market system and/or Capitalism. I believe Capitalism is far superior to Socialism in creating wealth (but this'll be a different discussion/story). All I am saying is that, during those times, it was more appropriate to redistribute wealth to coincide with the "reboot" of societal norms and workforce structure since it could still not afford to have a wealth gap among the poverty stricken entire populous. Now that China is multiple-times richer than it was during those times, China can afford to have wealth gaps reminiscent of Capitalist and/or free-market societies.
All in all, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" was a terrible stage in China's history where there were many misfires in economic reforms and there were many, many lives lost in the process. However, we could never question the main goal of such a stage because, without it, China would have had not experienced "The Great Leap Forward" and "Market Reforms Movement (by Deng Xiaopeng)" that followed it. It was an essential part/stage in the process of the shift from the Old China to the Modern China we know today.
I believe societies need to experience a stage of extreme hardship (just a temporary period) [for this case the "Cultural Revolution"] so as to instill the proper societal norms and/or proper societal principles to the greater populous. In that way, a society will emerge from the ashes of hardship and become a more capable and formidable political and economic force. I also believe that, slowly but surely, China is leading to a more democratic society as the population gets wealthier and more educated.
:cheers:
"Even if Mao Zedong killed more people than Hitler,"
Up this point, it’s waste time read this kind of post, which is quoting age old propaganda comparison base propaganda data, any drawn conclusion upon and forward is meaningless.
What so call Mao killed a lot of people, is usually refer to people die on Great Leap Forward Movement and Cultural Revolution. First of all, Mao doesn't intent to kill people. How many people die on those irrational Movement is a myth, the west "estimated" 30 million to 60 million die is totally illogical. In earlier to 1960's, the total Chinese population is about 600 million, according to those western nonsense propaganda number, 1/10 - 1/20 of Chinese were gone, which is impossible.
Up this point, it’s waste time read this kind of post, which is quoting age old propaganda comparison base propaganda data, any drawn conclusion upon and forward is meaningless.
What so call Mao killed a lot of people, is usually refer to people die on Great Leap Forward Movement and Cultural Revolution. First of all, Mao doesn't intent to kill people. How many people die on those irrational Movement is a myth, the west "estimated" 30 million to 60 million die is totally illogical. In earlier to 1960's, the total Chinese population is about 600 million, according to those western nonsense propaganda number, 1/10 - 1/20 of Chinese were gone, which is impossible.
Did you count the numbers? You must be a genius to do so.Sean Hannity said:Death by Government: Stalin Beat Hitler but Mao Surpassed Both
For perspective on Mao's most bloody rule, all wars 1900-1987 cost in combat dead 34,021,000 -- including WWI and II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. Mao alone murdered over twice as many as were killed in combat in all these wars.
Some times I feel really laughable to see some westners keep repeating those stupid rationals. So let's see, Mao killed 60 millions alone ???? (I have parents and grandparents, they can never recall seeing any sign of famine, but people were hungary for sure during GLF.)
Well okey, then using this rational, how many people killed by Japanese invasion, and we need to include not just direct brutality, but also all of the famines occured during Jap invasion. The numbers will be hundreds of millions for Japanese atrocity alone because there would have been no famine if there had been no invasion.
Well, just go to the basic, the Chinas populasion curve during 1840 to 1976, Chinese life expectancy, literacy, everything is crystal clear.
West has only one thing when they come to China, LIE!!!
Well okey, then using this rational, how many people killed by Japanese invasion, and we need to include not just direct brutality, but also all of the famines occured during Jap invasion. The numbers will be hundreds of millions for Japanese atrocity alone because there would have been no famine if there had been no invasion.
Well, just go to the basic, the Chinas populasion curve during 1840 to 1976, Chinese life expectancy, literacy, everything is crystal clear.
West has only one thing when they come to China, LIE!!!
You stupid comment really makes me outraged!Sean Hannity said:Death by Government: Stalin Beat Hitler but Mao Surpassed Both
For perspective on Mao's most bloody rule, all wars 1900-1987 cost in combat dead 34,021,000 -- including WWI and II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. Mao alone murdered over twice as many as were killed in combat in all these wars.
What an idiot you are to quote such a more stupid conclusion! Do you ever use your brain when you read?? So all the death during a century is caused by Mao?? Do you know what a war is? and what a policy mistake is?
He is not a good economist but he is definitely a hero to most Chinese, without him, China might already lost 1/3 of the territory (especially Tibet) and became another clowns of US and barking after it barks.
You f**king idiot. Hide your ass before entering China next time.
Excuse me people. I just cannot stand those stupidities and hyprocrites anymore.
Dear duskdawn, dont waste your time with these i***ts. If they enjoy masturbation， just let them be.
We can all agree that many people died under Mao's regime.
Your "rebooting" argument sounds strange.The Cebuano Exultor said:This is because Mao realized that the status quo during that time was so corrupted-by-foreign-intervention (most especially the British--with their Opium War with Mainland China) and/or out-of-context-to-solving-the-problems and/or not-extensive-and -thouroug-enough-to-solve-the-core-problem during that time that it required a total re-organization of society via a different societal/political mind-set, Socialism/Communism.....
Because its quite apparent that the CR, instead of strengthening the culture and societal norms, acheived the opposite, it severely damaged it. The cultural revolution was a time of chaos and destruction; it had a very negative impact on chinese culture.
And what does the cult of personality of Mao, which was a major part of the CR, got to do with "rebooting"?
Also, why is it impossible that many millions died in the great leap forward?
1 - 20 of 86 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7620 Replies
calatravavx
2410 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1726 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
