Mao: The Unknown Story (Unabridged) [Audio Download]

Jung Chang's young intellect was formed in an environment where totalitarian propaganda substituted for reason and evidence. After she came west, she was unable to make the adjustment. She still thinks and argues the same way. Her one-sided ram-it-down-your-throat approach, her strained interpretations, and her outright distortion of sources are the very characteristics of Maoist propaganda. She has learned nothing. This approach, and her endless repetition, make it clear that she does not trust the reader to make up his or her own mind. She should stick to reminiscences, at which she is adept, and leave history to competent historians. There are much better arguments against Mao than this. Philip Short, in just one example, makes an equally scathing case against Mao, but uses reason and an honest appraisal of sources. It is a compelling case. Chang's totalitarian mode of argument is so silly that it actually undermines the case against Mao by making it the subject of mockery. She thus gives comfort to the Maoists. Nobody except fanatics can take this book seriously, and the case against Mao should be taken seriously. As for Halliday, he should know better. "What does it profit a man...?"

All history is biased because we observe objective facts through subjective prisms, and because history's real value is interpretation, which is by its nature personal. However, some histories are more biased than others. This one doesn't even attempt to be fair. Its judgements are so extreme that they undermine the reliability of a massive, indeed impressive, body of research. Unreliability makes for poor history. What a waste of so much energy, labor, and potential! Yes, we all know that Mao was evil and the biggest mass murderer in history, surpassing even Stalin and Hitler. We also know that Mao would still have been a disgusting human being even had his politics been admirable, and none of us would have liked to have him home for dinner. Certainly not I. There is no need to excuse or romanticize anything about Mao. He was bad. But his successes were stunning and world-shaking, not only uniting China but freeing it from foreign control, creating the industrial base that allowed the economy to flourish under a less bandit-like regime, and making China a world power to be reckoned with. We are still dealing with the consequences. Does the end justify the means? Of course not. But there should be room in the authors' model for considering political brilliance or anything else positive. There isn't. They see just will, luck, cunning and ruthlessness. And they see everybody else as just gullible, even Chou En Lai. Can it be so simple? The book goes further. It attributes all evil anywhere in Asia like the Korean and Vietnam Wars solely to Mao. Wow! That's a lot of power! I didn't realize he was omnipotent. (Doesn't the looney left make the same assumptions about the CIA?) There is no subtlety in this investigation, and no sense that either human beings or historical causes can in any way be complex. This book is simplistic, simple-minded, anti-intellectual, and juvenile. It is not history. It is catharsis.

A word on style. People in this book don't just disappear; they "disappear from the face of the earth." This book reads like a seventh grade composition drawn from "Dial a Cliché." The editors couldn't improve the poor historiography, but they certainly could have done something about the pedestrian prose. Depravity, after all, can be interesting, at least in small doses. These authors make it dull.

I come from the former British colony Hong Kong. My family members were murdered and humiliated in the Cultural Revolution. I have absolutely no sympathy for Mao. Yet I can tell you this book is heavily biased both in terms of its selection of evidence and its interpretation of historical materials.

As a history graduate of Oxford and a post-graduate at Peking University, I would say this book fails to live up to its promise of representing a historical, truthful Mao. Partial selection of materials in favour of one's argument is no honest history, no matter how abundant the footnotes may seem. For those who can read Chinese, do read some Chinese books for a more balanced perspective. For those who cannot, Philip Short's is a far better (if no less critical) alternative.