China's Warhol Gets Dirty

Sounds good, Mr. Chen. While you're at it, why not also admit Mao is responsible for more Chinese deaths than the Japanese were? Our argument isn't zero-sum, after all.

Ever read about the Changchun massacre? I'm guessing not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02anniversary.html

"Say what you will about Mao, and all his mistakes, he was the founder of the PRC--who stood up to the world without say allowing the U.S. to occupy and control China--you know, the way Japan did."

No, Mao freakishly boxed at shadows. The US had no intent of occupying or controling China--see the China aid act of 1948 and Truman's declarations on the subject. What Mao "achieved" through his ideological idiocy was unnecessary war with a nation that could have helped China. Pitiful, that. And stupid.

Which people have more rights today? Japan's or China's? Yet that's ok to you because the Chinese people aren't "controlled". Absurd.

"Childishly demanding removal of his picture in Beijing is then rather like saying the same in America about George Washington."

Only if you lack the intellectual resources to distinguish between the two. The little red book is something like Clockwork Orange with a telos. It speaks of the Chinese people's primary characteristics as being "poor and blank" and says this is good because they can be controlled easily (Actually, it says their minds can be "shaped" and "written over").

Ever read the writings of Washington? I do suggest it. Washington was a slave-owner, sure, but then so was Qian-Long and the wealthy in China at the time. And Washington accomplished what Mao could never do--giving up control to others, stepping aside for the next round of leadership. Indeed, he didn't want to dominate.

"My guess is that Mao remains more popular in the PRC than the Dalai Lama. MUCH more."

Well, since "Maoist theory" is mandatory reading for every single middle school, high school, and college student, my guess is that it's not exactly a fair fight.

Or is that what you, in your complete benightedness, think democracy is? Giving people one imput and then saying...look at the output!

"As for your Tibetan wet-dreams, what would you think if I advocated letting birds pluck your fat supposed (but pretend) reincarnated Dalai Lama's picture? In the name of free speech, you understand. Only I wouldn't do that. Too barbaric and violent."

No, you wouldn't do that. But you will advocate the occupation of Tibet and support Chinese killing Tibetans. Typical Fascists--you pride yourself in "culture", speak about your others' barbarism, and you go on killing. It's all very impressive.

(1) Hitomi: why are you so sure that I'm a "Mr."?
(2) I will take your not exactly soul of wit verbosity as acknowledgment that you do NOT admit that the Rape of Nanking took place. I've heard these statistics before--blaming Mao for every calamaty and death of poverty and war and disease, et., al. You realize if I added up all the deaths Japan indirectly caused in WWII, that would be a lot, right? You probably do not even take credit for the Japanese greatest contribution to recent U.S. history: being role models to Al Qaida on how to fly suicide planes. Be proud, Hitomi, be proud.
(3) It was the U.S.' decision to back "the wrong horse" in Taiwan, rather than their WWII ally against the psychotic Emperor of the Sun (and so forth); and I certainly agree that it was a 'pity' AND 'stupid' as you say. But the U.S. now has learned their lesson and moved forward. Today, the PRC is a "most favored nation," top 3 trading partner (or is that top 2?), so certainly the U.S. has 'moved on.' Hitomi? er, not so much.
(4) My analogy remains valid: Mao IS the George Washington of the PRC. Sorry, but colonial Brit Sir Wade Gilles is no longer the Pinyin-master for the world's most popular language. I repeat: you have no say in removing Mao's picture in the capitol city of another nation. Who do you think you are? The U.S. warmongering in the middle east? Deal, Hitomi, Deal.
(5) I have no say in empirical countrol of geographically connected land, and I was not even making a case that Mao is very popular in China today--just that he was MORE popular than Richard Gere's pudgy hero. Concerning Tibet--and without going into all that archaic supernatural reincarnated--so he can talk directly to the deity while ruling serfs in an oligarchy business; "freeing" Tibet at this point would be exactly the same as "freeing" Texas, or Oklahoma, or Hawaii, or Alaska, or even California.
(6) I want to make you feel good, though, Hitomi, so I'll leave you with this question: how come you guys have the world's most violent pornography?

thank you very much.

Except to a number of PRChinese older than 50, Mao is an embarrassment to the ruling Communist Party of China, which directs the population's thinking accordingly (in this and in all else).

The CPC line for some time now is that Mao was 70% right which is an amazing statement by Beijing given that Mao's baby, the CPC, says it is always 100% right. Mao's mausoleum in Tianaman Square isn't ever open, hasn't been open since after Deng took charge of the PRC, isn't ever again going to be open - no pickins to be had there.

The new RMB notes coming on line later this year demote Mao to the RMB 50 note from the highest note, the RMB 100. In fact a new highest RMB note will enter the currency, the RMB 500 which will bear the likeness of Deng Xiao Peng (the new RMB 100 will picture peaceful countryside but will take no note of the 800 000 000 Chinese who live out there on USD $2 a day or less). In the PRC Mao is dead physically and ideologically - he's quickly being forgotten or at the least downplayed significantly.

It's small consolation that Mao in the PRC is more popular than the Dalai Lama, sort of like George Bush in the USA being more popular than bin Laden. Yes, Tibet was backward, but so was Iraq. Mao's photo will remain in Tianaman but as only 70% right - 70% for now. That's a 2.0 GPA, which is considerably lower than that of George Washington.

It's the China before and after Mao that applies. Five thousand years of totalitarian rule by emperors and their dynasties before Mao have been succeeded by 60 years of a new (and nervous) dynasty of CPC authoritarian rule, the past 30 years of it post Mao. Mao's cultural revolution was the effort by Mao to regain at any cost to China his former status as boss of the CPC which he'd lost to Deng and other economic reformers.

The Japanese don't get of the hook either, as they still refuse to own up to WW II either to their own population or to the world, to include China. The Japanese however have many, many more post war positives than do the CPC/PRC. It's the post WW II PRC that is marching around Asia invading and conquering Tibet, Xinjiang, menacing Taiwan, supporting North Korea and bullying anywhere they can in East Asia and around the world.

(1) That question is justified. I assumed inane, tangential, jingoistic idiocy was reserved in China to the male sex. I stand corrected.
(2) The fact that the Nanjing Massacre occured, the fact that it was carried out by Japanese soldiers, is not disputed by Japan. The only dispute seems to be over the number killed, and that only among a certain segment of historians. Indeed, you can read about it here and in many other Japanese newspapers:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-china-at-odds-over-nanjing-massacre-victims-in-history-report

Now, if you would, show me a Mainland Chinese newspaper which treats the Changchun massacre. You will not find a single one, but you should still try. This was, let me remind you, a direct order from Mao; he didn't "indirectly" cause it. Make certain you bark up the right trees.

(3) No, the US backed the "right horse" among two ugly horses. It did so because the GuoMinDang was still the official government of China during a time when China was beset by war and scavengers calling themselves revolutionaries. But surely US support of Mao's group would not have been seen as "interfering" in China's affairs, right? China hasn't moved on. Look at its protection of North Korea and the anti-American rhetoric it throws around in its schools. If China left the "interference" rhetoric die, it would have no excuse for its involvement in Korea (indeed, it doesn't).

(4) Your analogy is laughable, as is your insistence that it's valid because you say so. Mao was everything Washington disdained--abusive, sybaritic, chauvinistic, completely lacking respect for his citizens' welfare--and in the end, a rable-rouser (I would say demagogue, but he wasn't an impressive speaker). He had no qualms about murdering his own people and certainly didn't mind murdering the Koreans or Vietnamese either. If you want his picture to act as a symbol of China, feel free. At least the rest of us will know how hideous the mainland really is at heart.

The fact that you bring up Wade-Giles here only indicates how the mainlanders can't get control of their misdirected anger.

(5) No, obviously Tibet is not like Oklahoma or Texas. This is typically where you mainlanders show your colossal mental depravity and presumptiveness. Should the US have no troops stationed in Oklahoma or Texas, those states would not secede. Should China pull its hundreds of thousands of troops out of Tibet, Tibet would immediately seek independence. Try as you might, you can't turn your empire into a nation. Tibet is China's military occupation.

Can't quite understand why you keep bringing up the Dalai Lama's girth, particularly with respect to Mao. Mao got fat during famines when his citizens were canabalizing each other, for god's sake. You simply reveal your own inability to reflect on what you say. We shouldn't be surprised.

(6) Probably for the same reason cheap mainland prostitutes can be found all over the world (I think they make up about 90% of the street life in Singapore, for one example) and throughout every major city on the Mainland. At least hardcore pornography is an act--low grade prostitution is a way of life for a huge number of mainlanders. So again, a little self-reflection would be welcome here.

Can you bear it? That's what I'm wondering when I read the posts from you and the more hysteric Japanese guy. You know, free speech and all, do you really allow it when it challenges YOUR world view?
(1) Except to a # of PRC Chinese older than 50 (note: I am under 50)--70% right, 2.0 GPA, (my gosh, aren't you familiar with with what your great writer Mark Twain said about statistics?); Mao is an embarrasssment (disagree); the Mao Mauseleum hasn't been open since Deng (false: I've been inside as recently as the late 90's); (3) in the PRC, Mao is dead physically (true!) and ideologically...becoming forgotten or at least downplayed significantly (partially true. but really, ask some American kid to tell you about George Washington. Will they be able to say anything other than myths about cherry trees and throwing a coin across the river?); (4) Mao's cultural revolution disaster was his effort to regain power (nope. the Japanese guy said he was 'boxing at shadows' but you have to remember in context the legitimate spectacle of just how much firepower and military might the World's biggest power--the U.S. was expending in Vietnam at the time, in a very unpopular war they were yes eventually destined to lose, but how was Mao to know that for certain at the time? So he "relocated" these people towards the South to defend what he expected to be the inevitable U.S. invasion of China from the South--and/or through Korea, and to the north--where another enemy--Russia might be expected to invade; It was a terrible terrible mistake, but understandable in historical context. We're talking a country--the U.S., who tended to send war ships into harbors and demand nations surrender to their economic authority. Mao had other ideas. (5) thanks for at least a little criticism of Japan. Hitomi will be angry at you. Hopefully not enough to commit hari kari. (6) your final sentence is ridiculous, especially particularly in comparison to the U.S. (role-model?) behavior on the world stage, say in Vietnam, in the middle East--continuing through this day, Hawaii, and don't forget of course, Latin America. Have you ever read any books by Noam Chomsky? I would suggest "Manufacturing Consent." There is I'm afraid a very very obnoxious and undeserved shorthand the people of the U.S. affect sometimes when debating foreign policy or politics in general with others such as in China, and it goes something like 'China, bad, 0% democratic, U.S., good, 100% democractic." In the context of U.S. behavior worldwide for quite some time, you must know that this sense of entitlement you earned in WWII as the 'good guys' has long since been extinguished by hypocrisy.

(1) you sure name-call a lot, Hitomi. Why is that? Do you know in debate, this is called 'ad-homynm attack'? Look it up.
(2) The ruling party of Japan has NOT admitted the Rape of Nan Jing, nor your countrymen came close to admitting just how extreme, cruel, and numerous were your atrocities. I don't need to read your dumb report. May I suggest a book? Try "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang. She has pictures too. Really funny stuff like severed heads with cigarette butts poked in their mouths. Educate yourself, Hitomi.
(3) China does not protect North Korea, although certainly the U.S. protects South Korea. I have never heard Sectry of State Hillary Clinton charge China with 'protecting' N.K. I HAVE head where she asks for China's help in keeping that nut's nucleur arsenal from exploding. I've read about that. Have YOU? (4) "anti-American rhetoric"? Is that what you call criticism? Not use to having it are you. Ironic. Maybe you should get use to it. China is after all a country on the way up rather than one on the way down. You know, like Japan and the U.S. (5) You have not "proved" my anology of Mao to G.Washington was "laughable" simply by name-calling. Sorry. As for your thoughts of how "hideous" one billion people are, I believe the term "misanthrope" might be applicable? (6) Still more name-calling, because Hitomi, you really really REALLY don't like being disagreed with. Too bad. All of my examples of land and territory attained by the U.S. involved bloodshed (I'm really not sure where you got the idea that the American Indians 'voted' themselves into near extinction for the benefit of the new U.S., wars, invasions, and forced occupation. Several involved the sovereignty of independent nations--Texas, Oklahoma, Hawaii. Again, sorry you don't seem to know about these historical facts. Is it because the school books in your country didn't tell you? man, they must really be skewed to kiss your butt. Maybe that's why you criticize the school system of China so much, you know, the pot calling the kettle black I believe is the idiom. I do apologize about one thing though. I didn't mention slavery and slave labor, or the opium wars, or when the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and pretended that they had an old map. Sorry I didn't mention the lack of women vote and minority vote and Jim Crow and all of these many things the U.S. did long long long after only 60 years of being a new country. There's something about glass houses and throwing stones. I'll have to look for that idiom book again. (7) What the heck, I will defer to your non-explanation for why Japan has the worlds' most violent porn. You could have been honest and say 'we like it.'

May I suggest to you also, the books from M.I.T. Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky, such as "Manufacturing Consent"? The U.S. people do not really support the mandated decisions made on their behalf. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq. I read that as many as 70% of Americans have wanted out for quite some time, and of course, those countries are not really happy about all the U.S. military occupation stuff and resultant daily civilian violence and deaths. Open your small mind, Hitomi, and learn to bear Chinese opposition to your conventional, archaic paradigms.

(1) I wonder if the British at the time shared your view of George Washington NOT being a rabble rouser. A revolution I would guess seldom succeeds or even fails without. Right?
(2) I am so charmed by your compassion for the Vietnamese people that China killed. I believe the debate term is "selective vigilance."

My spouse who is also Chinese, asked me this question: why is the U.S. so interested in the cultural revolution period in China? so many movies, books, and now this artist guy who lives in New York. This brings up the full spectrum of 'debate' on the subject from some people in the States, from "China now it's like Mao never left--those tanks keep driving down Chang An Jie every day!!" to Mao the terribles influence is gone and disgraced in China--all they care about now is money you know.

What do you think would be the reaction in say Beijing, if a white American goes there and displays his art or book or movie in 2010, which is based on McCarthyism? Maybe in one of his paintings, he pictures Richard Nixon with balloon bubbles talking about Crackers the dog and "bringing the boys home." Would he receive so breathless media attention (concerning and based on 40 year-old and older American history)?

Maybe:

To those in America who have a vested interest to pretend that China is same now as it was in 1970, the reaction to these artists is open arms and anger at that bad old Mao.! Why yes, I'll let you display your paintings! Maybe this artist guy in NY needs to make a living? I can hear his secretary and art director now: 'we got Richard Gere's agent on the phone. Of course, we'll hold!'

(1) You appear somewhat muddled. Accurate description is not to be confused with the assignation of a name. Saying you display inane, jingoistic idiocy is merely accurate. Calling you an idiot or *sshole, by contrast, would be name-calling. And please learn how to spell ad-hominem. I rarely comment on people’s spelling because I also make a few typing errors. But this clearly is not an error on your part—it is simple, shameless ignorance.

(2) Wrong again, chap. You know, this putting your fingers in your ears and screaming na-na-na-na may seem to work for you, but most people need a new tactic by the time they are 12. The DPJ has admitted the Nanjing massacre. I realize you don't want to look at any evidence that contradicts what you think you know, but here is another report:
http://csis.org/files/publication/1001qjapan_china.pdf
and another
http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/japan-china-play-nanjing-numbers-game-that-both-will-lose

The Rape of Nanking? Who hasn't read it. Anyone who thinks they are "introducing" that text clearly lacks resources.

Still no proof of the Changchun massacre in the Mainland media, then? I'm waiting.

(3) Your sanity-defying capital letters aside, China does protect North Korea. Or rather, the North Korean government. It protects them from sanctions, no matter how many people they bomb (Rangoon, KAL 007) and kill. No matter how long their nuclear testing continues. Of course, it doesn't protect the North Korean people. No, it just sends North Korean refugees back to be tortured. Clinton is misguided if she thinks China can play a positive role. China wants a divided Korea.

(4) No, I'm talking about children in school still being taught about "the war against American imperialism" (i.e. the Korean War), despite the fact that any non-mainlander can look at the two Koreas today and obviously see the South is not the victim of imperialism, whereas the North is merely a client state. Are those students encouraged to read other books on the topic? No. That would be too "complex" in the eyes of Chinese historians. There is a difference between criticism and deceit. Not being able to handle criticism herself, China always chooses the latter.

(5) Again, there's no name calling and you don't have an analogy. Mao was nothing like Washington in character; he cared not at all for institutions of governance, as Washington in fact did; he tried to hold on to power for as long as humanly possible, unlike Washington; and Mao murdered (directly, not indirectly) millions of his own people. Try again. Hideous is anyone who tries to protect the legacy of such a man as Mao. If that's the entire people of his empire, so be it.

And no, Washington was not regarded as a rabble-rouser by the British. He was, in fact, deeply respected. When told that Washington planned to return to his farm after winning independence, King George said, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." Learn something, anything really, before you speak.

So I will have to assume that you agreed with me on those. You do name-call, what was it, I'm less than 12 years-old? But it's you not me who said 'na-na na-na' (?) You just project I guess. Surely your ex-wife told you that before she left. Sorry my (were there really so many?) use of capital letters defied your sanity. I suspect it was already in peril though, and I promise to get all spelling right (even of latin words!) if Foreign Policy Magazine supplies a spell check/edit key. Til, then, I guess you'll have to settle for me not using hanzi. You know, be man enough to accept that. Again, your ex-wife...Some--not all, I'm saying some Japanese are little. A face the side of the wall, but overall, they are small.

p.s. when can South Korea be freed from Western superstition/Religion, that's what I'd like to know?

I dodged nothing. I merely find oblique arguments, particularly those asserted without sufficient research, to be distractions. Let me know where you'd like me to pick up under a suitable topic and we'll continue.

Read my sentences closely before you accuse me of name-calling. I may have implied that you are using the logic-tactics of a 12 year old ("most people would..."), but I nowhere determined that to be true.

I'm not married yet; however, it is likely my wife will leave me. All that Japanese porn, you see.

Use HanZi if you want--no one is scared of that here. Don't know what you are saying about Japanese women, but if that gets you off--well, alright.

South Koreans can be freed from that whenever they want to. This shouldn't surprise you in a world with just a bit more freedom.

I was really commenting more on Japanese (gamer) boys than girls. Maybe I'm a little younger than you.

I am not your mother, so you must forgive my skepticism in your suggestions that in comparison to you, Sectry. of State Hillary Clinton is too naiive regarding her dealings with modern-day China and Asia in general; and that your own linguistic skills are more impressive than Noam Chomsky's. Let the record show that I was not the one to use the slang word bleep hole, but could have. Just please do me one favor if you can: please assure me that you are not some jack-booted CIA thug sent to the far East in efforts to cause mahem. I wish you were in China trying to help things get better if you truly cared.

...cointelpro, right?

cointelpro??? Haha, you're more fun than monkeys, a barrel of monkeys with nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

I'd stated in my post that I was opposed to the Vietnam War. Yet you desperately and absurdly suggest I was 'cointelpro'. I got clubbed, tear gassed and the enmity of many of my parents' WW II generation in doing so. As a veteran of the US military, I had a certain right to express my views despite the Nixon-Kissinger policy of continuing the war while the dynamic duo knew well it was unwinnable as a conventional war.

So you come off the wall with "cointelpro" as your only and best, feeble response. This is the problem. You Chinese Jung Gwo (central country) will not hear a syllable of critique or criticism. For 5000 years warlords, emperors and dynasties (nasties) of emperors have ruled without question. The Chinese Jung Gwo are right, correct, and right in the absolute, no question, no why or why not - its just a given of nature that the Chinese Jung Gwo are inherently right. You are born to be right, correct in the absolute. So what's there to tolerate by way of questioning, critique, constructive criticism. You are right in the absolute so therefore you quash all questioning, critique, criticism. You embody this more than any other Jung Gwo who comments at FP.

Your absolute and unrelenting response to critique or criticism is to push back. You and the culture of the Jung Gwo push back immediately, strongly, loudly. You don't listen, you only bark back. This is your greatest weakness. Given that you have an horrendous political, ideological and social system, do continue to pursue and to practice your weakness and failings in this regard, as it will more quickly lead to the demise of your 5000 year old system of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, your immediate and absolute rejection of any and all criticism. (Did I mention ideology is a brain disease?)

The Chinese Jung Gwo are thin skinned and an insecure people, which is why your instant reaction to critiques is to push back and to push back loudly and forcefully. You just can't possibly be wrong, not about anything. Why not? No why, no why not - it's just so. Always so past, present and future.

The mindlessness of the Jung Gwo dissembled it in the past and will continue to assure its recurring downfall.