I am Ann Tompkins - an 85 year old woman who was one of the few Americans to live and participate in China's Cultural Revolution in the late 60's, have an FBI file over 1,000 pages long and sailed around Cape Horn on a wooden schooner at the age of 7! Ask me Anything!

AnnTompkins · 40分前

This is a great question. I would propose that Mao's initial persuasiveness with the peasants (way back at the beginning of the revolution) didn't have any kind of unique relationship to comminist ideology, or any ideology at all.

Instead, it was the last in a long line of large scale peasant revolutions in late imperial China. Peasants joined Mao for much the same reason they joined Li Zicheng, who had led a mass revolution several hundred years earlier that brought down the Ming dynasty (though afterwards he himself fell to the invading Qing). Starving, oppressed peasants rose up in armed revolution, and that was as much a part of the history of imperial China as anything was.

It can be noted that Mao himself saw parallels between his revolution and that of Li Zicheng. Li Zicheng had largely failed because after seizing Beijing, he let his troops loot and pillage the town. He turned the people against him in this way (also, he allowed attacks on the family of the general in charge of the critical point of the Great Wall. Guess who promptly opened the gates and let the Qing warriors in?). When they got close to conquoring Beijing, Mao had an article distributed that argued "we cannot repeat the mistake of Li Zicheng."

EDIT: At any rate, Mao wasn't the only one to launch a peasant revolution that balked at many traditional ideas. In 1850, a man claiming to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ launched the Taiping rebellion, conquoring vast swaths of China and holding out for over a decade, with something like 20-60 million casaulties in the resulting civil war.

AnnTompkins · 6時間前

The common thread is things that threaten the Party's power, not things that remind people of the cultural revolution.

That's the point--by reminding them of the cultural revolution, the Tiananmen protest was perceived as something much more threatening than it otherwise would have been.

This was played out as who could convinced Deng Xiaoping--Zhao Ziyang with his pro-student protester stance, or Li Peng with his proposal to brutally put down the protests? We are always guessing, but considering the sources we have available (including Zhao Ziyang's account in his smuggled out of the country memoir), it looks like Li Peng won by convincing Deng Xiaoping of the potential for a second cultural revolution.

Historical memory is a powerful thing. You can't understand the decisions of the Chinese leadership in 1989 outside the spectre of the cultural revolution, because it provided the framework in which they attempted to determine the threat posed by other movements.

AnnTompkins · 6時間前

it doesn't need more whitewashing, not the least by some Caucasian visitor

Wonderful point. There is no indication in her post that she EVEN UNDERSTOOD CHINESE when she was invited to China at the start of the cultural revolution. Maybe she learned a bit of the language during the next couple of years, but this was essentially a tourist who got herself involved in an atrocity while probably not really understanding what was going on around her.

published in authoritative sources by academics in the U.S.

To follow-up with a specific book recommendation, Roderick Macfarquhar's "Mao's Last Revolution" provides great insight into both the horrors that occurred and the political evil that lay behind them. Macfarquhar just retired from Harvard a few years ago, and is the West's leading expert on Mao era political history.

AnnTompkins · 7時間前

Great recommendation of a great movie, with an insightful scene depicting the horrors of the cultural revolution, and the utter insanity of its attack on intellectuals (in the movie's case, a medical doctor).

AnnTompkins · 7時間前

First Jonathan Spence's "Mao Zedong:A Life." Available in paperback or kindle on amazon. Spence is a great academic who is also great at writing for a broad audience (the acknowledged master of that among Professors of the West studying China).

After that Roderick MacFarquhar's book "Mao's Last Revolution." Also available in paperback or kindle on amazon. MacFarquhar has just retired from Harvard, and he is the West's top expert on the Mao era politics. A more academic book, but Spence will have given you sufficient background.

Avoid books like Jung Chang's "Mao: The Unknown Story." It is very popular, but it sacrifices accuracy in its desire to paint Mao as the devil incarnate. Mao was a complicated figure, capable of great achievement and great destruction. (as a general rule, avoid any book about Chinese History written by a non-historian. Like that terrible book that got popular a few years back, with the crazy submarine captain arguing Zheng He had sailed to America. Ugh, that horrible book was promoted everywhere)

AnnTompkins · 7時間前

Mao, through his wife Jiang Qing and her gang of evil, launched mob violence against political opponents, or anyone deemed incorrect. That wasn't rebelling against an "oppressive government."

Second, the horrors of the Cultural Revolution deeply affected the worldview of those who suffered under them. It's not an excuse for the evil of the Tiananmen massacre to recognize that the psychology created by an earlier evil contributed to it.

Third, read Zhao Ziyang's autobiography (the top leader who stood with the students and suffered life-long house arrest as a result), and his account of how Li Peng convinced Deng Xiaoping to launch the massacre and then tell me the memory of the Cultural Revolution wasn't in play.

AnnTompkins · 7時間前

Sure.

Start with China during the communist civil war, and pretend you are a poor peasant looking for a side. On the one hand you have Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kaishek)'s Guomindang, a corrupt and ineffectual government. Torturing people, robbing people, and incapable of putting down the warlords making regional domains into their private fiefs.

On the other side you see the Communist Party. They have retreated to the west, after their urban strength was slaughtered in a surprise massacre by the Guomindang in the cities (the two had formally been in an alliance, but Jiang Jieshi decided to end that with a night of murder). In their area, they are behaving mostly reasonably. They generally aren't confiscating much land, and more or less are just putting in place some light taxes. And they have a record of success against the warlords.

Pick your preferred side.

Ok, now let's advance to shortly after the communist victory and conquest of the mainland. The Communist Party believes in a philosophy (at this time) called "New Democracy". "New Democracy" holds that a period of capitalism and growth is nessecary before socialism, and the communist victors are busy protecting private property and inviting all the wealthy urban capitalists back (many had fled overseas), by promising to protect them and their property rights. Corruption is way down, and for the first time you aren't afraid of having your family slaughtered by a warlord or being robbed by a corrupt official.

Things probably look ok to you. You certainly don't want further armed revolution and war.

A few years later "New Democracy" is abandoned (Mao's doing, against the wishes of the rest of the party leadership, but you aren't really knowing what's going on internally), and confiscation happens on a massive scale. But without the constant war, corruption, and internal strife, your life is getting better. You don't know much political theory, but what you do know is certainly communist. So your life is getting better, and everything you know says the political system is the correct one.

Then things take a scarier turn. The Hundred Flowers, then the much much worse Great Leap Forward, and famine is everywhere. But remember famine was a reality before the revolution as well, and eventually the party reverses course. Meanwhile, you are being indoctrinated into what is increasingly a personality cult of worshiping Mao, and that is most of what you have ever known....

Of course, then we arrive at the cultural revolution. But I have typed a lot, and we are close to Mao's death, so hopefully that answered your question. From here on out it is a different story, Mao exits and Deng Xiaoping takes the country on a new road of economic reform and opening up (which will lead to greater prosperity than China had ever had, and thus huge prestige and legitimacy for the communist party, even as it represents in essence abandoning socialism for pockets of capitalism). Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

AnnTompkins · 8時間前

Sadly, the tragedy wasn't even limited to the end of the cultural revolution.

The Cultural Revolution was also a main reason why the Tiananmen massacre happened. Deng Xiaoping sending in the troops to crush the protesting students, was in many ways the actions of a man traumatized by the last time he had seen a powerful student/young people led movement. Li Peng may have had other motives (a desire to topple the pro-student Zhao Ziyang among others), but his arguments for a harsh military crackdown might not have worked if he wasn't dealing with a leadership that was fundamentally terrified of what a political movement led by young students would do.

Without the Cultural Revolution, that tragedy might have been averted.

AnnTompkins · 8時間前

Mao's economic policies which inevitably sparked the cultural revolution

I agree with much of your great post, but it wasn't inevitable. One of the main theories was that Mao fanned the flames of the Cultural Revolution to regain control of a party that was leaving his leadership behind. Whatever the merits of this explanation, the Cultural Revolution targeted many of the most influential leaders of the past, old men who had spent their lives in the service of the Communist Party. Liu Shaoqi, Peng Dehuai, all dragged from their homes, beaten, imprisoned by mobs, forced to wear shameful signs for public denouncements, denied medicine, and eventually died from the experience.

And then the roving mobs targeting basically anyone intellectual, anyone with greater education or status than them. It was about attacking education, intellectualism, and authority.

AnnTompkins · 8時間前

Even the communist party of China's official line is that only 70% of what Mao did was correct.

Care to guess what belongs to the remaining, bad 30%? Starts with "Cultural"...

AnnTompkins · 8時間前

doesn't mean she's not a monster.

She probably isn't. The tragedy of events like the cultural revolution is that they turn otherwise good, nice people into the instruments of evil. We are all capable of doing monstrous things, once our self becomes lost in a mob.

And that is what the cultural revolution was--roving mobs seizing innocents and torturing them for perceived errors in their politics, all the while thinking their actions were good and noble.

AnnTompkins · 8時間前

Exactly this.

The cultural revolution birthed an entirely new genre of literature: Scar Literature (伤痕文学) dealing with the the trauma and horror experienced by its victims.

An entire generation of intellectuals, teachers, and professionals were tortured during the cultural revolution.

The cultural revolution was not about promoting socialism. People once considered heroes of the revolution were imrisoned by mobs, beaten, tortured. Even the 70 year old former President, Liu Shaoqi, was beaten repeatedly, denied medicine for his diabetes, and died from the abuse.

The cultural revolution was about mobs seizing, imprisoning, and torturing anyone they decided (on whatever arbitrary basis) was not in line with their sense of what was politically right.

People who participated in atrocities will naturally seek solace in pleasant illusions. But, for the sake of all who perished or suffered greatly in this tragedy, please research this yourself.

nomorecarforyou · 9時間前

《笑傲江湖》 (Xiaoaojianghu) is an amazing novel, by perhaps the greatest writer of martial arts novels, Jin Yong. It explores the corruption of power, and the happiness that comes from rejecting it and living a life of freedom. It became so influential, even in other parts of East Asia, that during the Vietnam war the South Vietnam legislature would get in debates by calling each other names of the villains from the novel, like: "You are a Yue Buqun!" "Well, you are a Zuo Lengchan!"

The first time my now-wife and I met for a lunch as friends, somehow the novel came up. We discovered it was the favorite novel of both of us, and then we talked for hours. Occasionally we had our own version of the above, but with the heroes of the novel: "You are like Linghu Chong!" "You are like Ren Yingying!". ;)

nomorecarforyou · 10時間前

向問天

是的，《笑傲江湖》是我最喜欢的一部小说

nomorecarforyou · 11時間前

Depends on what the source of OP's frustration is. The disrespect inherent in treating a borrowed car in such a manner, or the damage to the car itself. I personally wouldn't mind if a family member had purchased something from me at full market value and then treated it badly, but I would be deeply hurt if they had borrowed it and behaved the same. But certainly it should depend on how OP views these things.

It's also amazing how much nicer people treat things when they own them, compared to when they belong to another, sadly.

distantadjective · 11時間前

I'd make everything both very clear and very fair from the start.

Very clear meaning she will pay her share of the rent on time, you will split the costs of utilities, groceries, etc. Also that this is a roommate situation, despite the fact that you are also dating. And that it is only for 3 months unless you decide to extend it.

Very fair meaning even though you were there first, and she probably will only be staying for a couple of months, she has equal rights to the place as you during that time, and isn't just a guest. Let her know that if she sees any problems she can bring them to you. Communicate, and compromise to make sure you both have a living arrangement that meets your needs during this time.

djsekci · 12時間前

You are right about "clinical death," but definitions of "medical death" or just "death" generally require the cessation of vital functions being permanent.

So like a ghost to use language imprecisely.

nomorecarforyou · 14時間前

He doesn't think it's a big issue, as at the most the car was worth single-digit thousands even in its original condition.

I'd offer to sell the car to your brother/nephew for whatever the book value of that model/year/milage is.

They won't accept, but it will point out the hypocrisy of their "oh it's only a few thousand dollars" stance.

If they point out it's not worth as much anymore in its damaged state, ask them who caused that and who they think should have to pay for it.

Look, your brother is unreasonable for not immediately offering to cover the costs of all the damage to the car. Now he is saying he is disapointed in you for not giving the nephew the car to continue trashing?

Wow.

EDIT: Not sure why people are downvoting the person who replied in Chinese below. The person correctly guessed the fictional character/novel my reddit username is from, worthy of an upvote if anything. ;)

djsekci · 14時間前

I died of a heart attack a few years ago

Reddit was so much cooler before all the ghosts started using it.

iranoutofideas2 · 15時間前

A week ago he admitted to me that he has had a nagging fear of missing out on other girls.

He now says he needs some time to evaluate each choice carefully and statistically. (he's a data scientist). He doesn't know when he will know.

So he wants to run some calculations on whether he can find a better arrangement than being with you?

This really doesn't sound like love on his part.

I'd say you have two options. A) break up with him, and look forward to meeting someone for whom you represent an incomparable value, or B) tell him his feelings are childish, and his attempt to justify it as some scientific need to analyze the data is absurd. Tell him he needs to grow up, apologize, and accept that his desire to sleep with random girls isn't entitled to anymore consideration or analysis than a child's desire to possess all the toys in the playground. Tell him that he either accepts that, or you can go your seperate ways.

dontsaybanana · 15時間前

I guess I'm looking for advice on how to initiate the conversation other than a random "we need to talk", which sounds like "I'm about to breaking up with you".

How about "I was thinking about our future together. Can we talk some about where we are heading?"

djsekci · 19時間前

Are you in the US? If so, the general rule is you would have to be holding yourself out to the community as married (introducing yourself as husband and wife, etc), but you should look up your state's specific requirements. If outside the US, the rules vary greatly.

djsekci · 19時間前

That seems an ungenerous assumption regarding her motives. Maybe they wanted the tax benefits of married filing jointly, so they researched the law and determined together they were common law married and so could file a joint tax return. Or they needed married status to qualify for certain government benefits programs. Or it became important for qualifying for health insurance through the other's job.

Tons of reasons someone might need to figure out the relevant law. Honestly, even feeling hurt that your partner denies the status that you had always thought the two of you shared would provide an emotional reason to seek comfort in some outside (legal) recognition of that status.

djsekci · 19時間前

Technically she's right about common law marriage - if you live together for x amount of time, depending on the country, you can treat assets as shared (and sue for them as well).

In many places (including all the US states that still have common law marriage, which isn't that many), you have to meet a years requirement AND hold yourself out to friends, family, nieghbors, etc as being married. In other words, unless this reddit post calling him her boyfriend is an anomaly, and they tell everyone else they are husband and wife, they wouldn't be common law married if in the US (though most US states don't have common law marriage anymore anyway)

The basic idea of common law marriage is to allow two people who declare each other husband and wife to the world for a long period of time, but skip the formal ceremony, to get legal recognition. It isn't intended to be a legal status that gets inadvertently triggered by living together for a period of time.

I think there are some other countries that don't have this requirement, but some of them (and some of the US states as well) only recognize common law marriage for limitied legal purposes, like inheritence under wills, while not using it to distribute property in a break up.

Now, OP could be living outside the US and have seen a lawyer or researched her own jurisdiction's laws thoroughly, so I'm not saying she is wrong. Just clarifying for the readers out there that common law marriage usually requires more (where it still exisits).

30yoat23 · 2日前

You are looking at this backwards. Your early marriage only makes you more capable of traveling and enjoying life:

1) When you travel, only 1 hotel room needed. When you are at home, only 1 apartment needed. Your expenses are lower.

2) You have a best friend to experience the world with. That is an amazing gift.

3) Being married doesn't mean you have to save any greater amount for retirement than if you were single. Being single only means that people are often living irresponsibly and not saving the amount they should.

There is no ideal age for marriage, no proper stages of life where you bounce around like a drunken idiot during your mid 20s and somehow this makes your life more fulfilled.

You know the only thing that actually achieves? The ability to craft a facebook page that makes your life look much more exciting and adventurous than it actually is, and causes all your friends to wonder why their own lives don't look like that. Seriously, your friends' social media accounts present an image of their lives that has little relation to reality. Sadly, everyone is unconsciously trying to make themselves appear to be living the happiest, most adventurous and interesting lives possible.

Here's my advice. You say your wife can't take much vacation yet, because she is new to the job. So go have weekend adventures once a month in the meantime. Pick her up on Friday, and drive all evening to get to some cool national park or forest, or some new city with fun things to see. You'd be surprised how much great stuff is in a 4-7 hour driving radius of your home (stuff doesn't become that much more interesting just because you got into a plane to get there). Go hiking, see museums, really exhaust all the awesome stuff near you over the next year, not driving home until Sunday evening so you have 2 full days of fun each time (sometimes maybe your wife can take a Friday off to make the trips 3 days of fun). You'll be a bit tired Monday, but hey, that's the fun of being young. And these trips can be very cheap, if you search for budget hotels, or camp, and stick to inexpensive but wonderful experiences like museums and great natural sites.

Then, in a year when she can start taking more regular vacations, see the world together. Being married makes exploring the world more fun.

Just do not have children, until or unless you are ready for a very settled lifestyle. That will actually limit your finances and experiences.

XiangWenTian

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率