To be frank, let me say that this guy is an erudite speaker and refreshing dose of realism to counter the cultural relativism of some members of his audience.
What a great talk from an accomplished historian. Having read the books in this “trilogy,” I expected that. However, hearing his philosophy on teaching and about how he wants to put primary sources in his students’ hands instead of feeding them interpretations, was an especially pleasant surprise. If only more professors still cherished similar feelings here in the US.
I live in USA, received my higher education in USA, and had taught in USA. I am not aware of any academic institutions in USA where the professors do not require and expect their students to study the primary sources. Granted the primary sources in any field now are so extensive that it would take more than a life time to read, professors do expect the students to read at least a sample of major primary sources together with some well written textbooks (secondary sources). E.g. If one is a beginner and you want to study the history of modern China, it would do one good to have a copy of something like Johnthan Spence's "The Search for Modern China" or Immanuel C. Y. Hsu's "The Rise of Modern China." Or, if one is a beginner and want to study neuroscience, one better have a copy of "Principles of Neuroscience" by by Eric Kandel, John D. Koester, Sarah H. Mack, Steven Siegelbaum, before and by one's side when one digs into the primary sources; otherwise, one would be like a tiny raft without a sail, a map, or a compass, or a GPS gadget lost in the oceans in a storm. And if one should write a paper in history, psychology, biology...etc. one better read the primary sources and secondary sources referrenced in one's paper and give citations to them. Nowadays, in some high schools, depending on the teachers, some would require high schools students to read some primary sources for their subject.
When he said he feels safe I realized this must have been before the CCP broke the Hong Kong Treaty. Would love to hear some first person accounts from people who lived through the cultural revolution period. How so many people could suddenly act together to commit such acts is disconcerting. How did they justify it in their own minds?
Prior to the cultural revolution most people in China lived in even more dire conditions of poverty. Basic amenities and education were accessible to only a few people in China before the cultural revolution.
@@cameronpatterson130 So all the history books lie when they say that Hitler rose to power in part because of the spike in poverty and poor economic conditions in Germany?
@@sburgos9621 no, you are lying when you compare the two. As there is no comparison between nazi germany and the CCP. Completely different conditions. Germany was no longer a feudal peasant society, the way China was. Germany was fairly successful in the Weimar period until the Great Depression. German Jews were among a fairly well off German citizenry until the Nazis came to power. The vast majority of German society was industrialized or industrializing unlike China which still had feudal relations and remnants of ancient Chinese society and nobility.
A wonderful, clear and concise presentation of an immensely complex and hyper-horrific series of events. It (both the starvation years and the CR) really explains so much of the present day social interactions, mistrust and general silence of people in the PRC today. Ms. Mong's perspective at the end - to listen to the older generation - is so important. It becomes personal, and can hopefully generate a sense of compassion and understanding, if not action for a more humanistic society in mainland China. Thank you Frank for sharing your wonderful research. The most under-covered and under-understood events of the 20th century.
Frank Dikotter on students contact with Primary sources. In Cultural Revolution, a man's personal file, in 1958 he didn't put enough water in fertilizer, causing a row of carrots to die. How much punishment did he get? A fine? 3 months. 1 year. 5 years. The correct answer is 20 years in prison.
Important lesson for Trump. Start real Republican revolution! Dump all old republican leaders. Humiliate them, jail them, starve them and new cadre of young republicans believing in Al Quinine should take the ver!
The great cause of the famine was Western propaganda. Dikotter frames his analysis from the perspective that ignores the initial conditions of China and what they achieved through their plight (literacy from 10% to 80% under Mao, radical improvements in healthcare, etc). Dikotter’s figures of 40 or 20 million starving are cyclically referenced (pseudoscientific) and primary sources are *selected* to match the desired conclusion (confirmation bias). The figures are trumpeted because of our *real* qualm over Mao - we were unable to maintain or take control of China. The phrase “Loss of China”’ was in our newspapers frequently in the 1950s, which is telling, as it assumes you have to own something before you can lose it. Regarding deaths, look up the increase in life expectancy from 1950 until 1978 - it rose dramatically from Mao’s reforms, so he saved lives almost radically. If you think about it you have to respect for China successfully fending of western imperialism prior to 1948, a profoundly difficult achievement. Look at the result of the other major regions that failed in this regard (Africa, India, even aboriginal Australia, etc). Respect to Mao and vast bulk of the ordinary population for protecting China from outside interference. Mao also did the forgotten but crucial work of rural health development programmes saving 100 million lives and modernizing architecture which set the conditions to make the industrialisation that followed being possible. Life span increased dramatically, rights of females and literacy increased from 10% to 90% under Mao. Rather than cherry picking setbacks give respect where respect is due.
Fending off imperialism? In 1945, Japan controlled most of China. The US drove Japan out. "Rights of females"? Neither women nor men had any "rights." No one was safe, and "rights" were just a "bourgeois fetish." "Outside interference?" Most of Mao's ideas came from Stalin and his ilk, and from Marx.
This was a task suitable for EX commie, some refugee from china, some defector? All Chinese are extremely defensive supporter of Mao in n West. Their excuse is we have distant relatives, friends there!. Many of them are spies and supporter their Chunghi Munghi Wa!
This is an overly black view of the Cultural Revolution. Indeed those were bad years but it is still grotesque of this guy and the Party to say they were a HUGE setback. Far, far fewer people died in this time than the GLF, years of economic progress were not wiped out like in the GLF. The Third Front was not a huge misallocation of resources. It helped develop the interior of China extensively, which Deng admitted helped make the economic boom in the 1980s possible as it allowed for China to more fully connect to itself. The problem with the Third Front was that all the senior cadres with years of hard won experience had been purged or cowed so a lot of the potential of Third Front went to waste. There was a lot of increase in production and much of it was wasted. But in these years literacy and life expectancy both improved. The food situation improved after 1968. Moreover the 'sent down' Red Guards did not stay there for long as Mao had no intention of leaving them there, just giving them an experience of harsh rural life to understand the problems of the country better (this is not to detract from what a harsh punishment this was or to not question the necessity). The Cultural Revolution is not the GLF. It is a period that demands "Why?" and not like the GLF "How could you?!"
Overly black? I would argue that anything this murderous and dehumanizing could not have anything but the blackest view...communist apologists are the deepest liars there are...
@@stevenfenley9359 If you want to indulge in hysteria as opposed to objective analysis sure. But Dikotter focuses exclusively on negative aspects of the Mao era and not the positive aspects. He gets a number of key facts wrong about relations in rural China in The Tragedy of Liberation. One can condemn the Mao era and Mao without defamation.
I definitely feel there’s some personal venom in his work. Possibly dealing with mainland riff raff in Hongkong has driven him to the edge. He wouldn’t be the first. I’ve seen rational men talk of murder.😅
@@dewittbourchier7169 Do you have a source for these criticisms of Frank Dikotter? I would like to read them to see if they have merit and maybe get a more balanced view of this time period.
@@henrimourant9855 Felix Wemheuer's 'A Social History' for an overview of society in the Mao era, Macfarquhar and Schoenhals 'Mao's Last Revolution', Mao's Third Front by Covell Meyskens, China under Mao by Andrew Walder and generally books by Jonathan Spence. All of these books I should not homages to Mao, Walder and Macfarquhar & Schoenhals are deeply critical and justly so. But reading them I think avoids a lot of the overwrought language and analysis Dikotter uses. I also recommend Li Zhisui's 'Private Life of Chairman Mao' which shows Mao in his element both his many bad sides and some of his good sides.
@@oldplace5 It was distracting. Almost as if he wanted to be a Shakespearean actor when younger and was unsuccessful and so uses these public lectures to flex his acting muscle.
@@Headhunter_212 It was his way of speaking rather than his use of language I was commenting on. My Dutch is nonexistent at present but who knows what the future holds.
To be frank, let me say that this guy is an erudite speaker and refreshing dose of realism to counter the cultural relativism of some members of his audience.
"To be frank" lol
What a great talk from an accomplished historian. Having read the books in this “trilogy,” I expected that. However, hearing his philosophy on teaching and about how he wants to put primary sources in his students’ hands instead of feeding them interpretations, was an especially pleasant surprise. If only more professors still cherished similar feelings here in the US.
Read The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt.
I live in USA, received my higher education in USA, and had taught in USA. I am not aware of any academic institutions in USA where the professors do not require and expect their students to study the primary sources. Granted the primary sources in any field now are so extensive that it would take more than a life time to read, professors do expect the students to read at least a sample of major primary sources together with some well written textbooks (secondary sources). E.g. If one is a beginner and you want to study the history of modern China, it would do one good to have a copy of something like Johnthan Spence's "The Search for Modern China" or Immanuel C. Y. Hsu's "The Rise of Modern China." Or, if one is a beginner and want to study neuroscience, one better have a copy of "Principles of Neuroscience" by by Eric Kandel, John D. Koester, Sarah H. Mack, Steven Siegelbaum, before and by one's side when one digs into the primary sources; otherwise, one would be like a tiny raft without a sail, a map, or a compass, or a GPS gadget lost in the oceans in a storm. And if one should write a paper in history, psychology, biology...etc. one better read the primary sources and secondary sources referrenced in one's paper and give citations to them.
Nowadays, in some high schools, depending on the teachers, some would require high schools students to read some primary sources for their subject.
When he said he feels safe I realized this must have been before the CCP broke the Hong Kong Treaty. Would love to hear some first person accounts from people who lived through the cultural revolution period. How so many people could suddenly act together to commit such acts is disconcerting. How did they justify it in their own minds?
Prior to the cultural revolution most people in China lived in even more dire conditions of poverty. Basic amenities and education were accessible to only a few people in China before the cultural revolution.
@@cameronpatterson130 Just like prior to the Third Reich.
@@sburgos9621 nonsense. Before the 3rd Reich germany was the most developed country in Western Europe besides maybe the UK.
@@cameronpatterson130 So all the history books lie when they say that Hitler rose to power in part because of the spike in poverty and poor economic conditions in Germany?
@@sburgos9621 no, you are lying when you compare the two. As there is no comparison between nazi germany and the CCP. Completely different conditions. Germany was no longer a feudal peasant society, the way China was. Germany was fairly successful in the Weimar period until the Great Depression. German Jews were among a fairly well off German citizenry until the Nazis came to power. The vast majority of German society was industrialized or industrializing unlike China which still had feudal relations and remnants of ancient Chinese society and nobility.
A wonderful, clear and concise presentation of an immensely complex and hyper-horrific series of events. It (both the starvation years and the CR) really explains so much of the present day social interactions, mistrust and general silence of people in the PRC today. Ms. Mong's perspective at the end - to listen to the older generation - is so important. It becomes personal, and can hopefully generate a sense of compassion and understanding, if not action for a more humanistic society in mainland China. Thank you Frank for sharing your wonderful research. The most under-covered and under-understood events of the 20th century.
What leads you to believe China is less humanistic today than before the cultural revolution?
Sorry for my bluntness, but this is Fkin fascinating.
Frank Dikotter on students contact with Primary sources. In Cultural Revolution, a man's personal file, in 1958 he didn't put enough water in fertilizer, causing a row of carrots to die.
How much punishment did he get?
A fine?
3 months.
1 year.
5 years.
The correct answer is 20 years in prison.
Important lesson for Trump. Start real Republican revolution! Dump all old republican leaders. Humiliate them, jail them, starve them and new cadre of young republicans believing in Al Quinine should take the ver!
Very good indeed.
我认为，在人类的一切智能活动里，没有比价值判断更简单的事了。假如你是只公兔子，就有做出价值判断的能力--大灰狼坏，母兔子好；然而兔子就不知道九九表。此种事实说明，一些缺乏其他能力的人，为什么特别热爱价值的领域。倘若对自己做价值判断，还要付出一些代价；对别人做价值判断，那就太简单、太舒服了。讲出这样粗暴的话来，我的确感到羞愧，但我并不感到抱歉。因为这种人士带给我们的痛苦实在太多了。
The great cause of the famine was Western propaganda. Dikotter frames his analysis from the perspective that ignores the initial conditions of China and what they achieved through their plight (literacy from 10% to 80% under Mao, radical improvements in healthcare, etc). Dikotter’s figures of 40 or 20 million starving are cyclically referenced (pseudoscientific) and primary sources are *selected* to match the desired conclusion (confirmation bias). The figures are trumpeted because of our *real* qualm over Mao - we were unable to maintain or take control of China. The phrase “Loss of China”’ was in our newspapers frequently in the 1950s, which is telling, as it assumes you have to own something before you can lose it. Regarding deaths, look up the increase in life expectancy from 1950 until 1978 - it rose dramatically from Mao’s reforms, so he saved lives almost radically. If you think about it you have to respect for China successfully fending of western imperialism prior to 1948, a profoundly difficult achievement. Look at the result of the other major regions that failed in this regard (Africa, India, even aboriginal Australia, etc). Respect to Mao and vast bulk of the ordinary population for protecting China from outside interference. Mao also did the forgotten but crucial work of rural health development programmes saving 100 million lives and modernizing architecture which set the conditions to make the industrialisation that followed being possible. Life span increased dramatically, rights of females and literacy increased from 10% to 90% under Mao. Rather than cherry picking setbacks give respect where respect is due.
Fending off imperialism? In 1945, Japan controlled most of China. The US drove Japan out.
"Rights of females"? Neither women nor men had any "rights." No one was safe, and "rights" were just a "bourgeois fetish."
"Outside interference?" Most of Mao's ideas came from Stalin and his ilk, and from Marx.
If his rule was that good, why did a large number of citizens flee to Hong Kong?
This was a task suitable for EX commie, some refugee from china, some defector? All Chinese are extremely defensive supporter of Mao in n West. Their excuse is we have distant relatives, friends there!. Many of them are spies and supporter their Chunghi Munghi Wa!
This is an overly black view of the Cultural Revolution. Indeed those were bad years but it is still grotesque of this guy and the Party to say they were a HUGE setback. Far, far fewer people died in this time than the GLF, years of economic progress were not wiped out like in the GLF. The Third Front was not a huge misallocation of resources. It helped develop the interior of China extensively, which Deng admitted helped make the economic boom in the 1980s possible as it allowed for China to more fully connect to itself. The problem with the Third Front was that all the senior cadres with years of hard won experience had been purged or cowed so a lot of the potential of Third Front went to waste. There was a lot of increase in production and much of it was wasted. But in these years literacy and life expectancy both improved. The food situation improved after 1968. Moreover the 'sent down' Red Guards did not stay there for long as Mao had no intention of leaving them there, just giving them an experience of harsh rural life to understand the problems of the country better (this is not to detract from what a harsh punishment this was or to not question the necessity). The Cultural Revolution is not the GLF. It is a period that demands "Why?" and not like the GLF "How could you?!"
Overly black? I would argue that anything this murderous and dehumanizing could not have anything but the blackest view...communist apologists are the deepest liars there are...
@@stevenfenley9359 If you want to indulge in hysteria as opposed to objective analysis sure. But Dikotter focuses exclusively on negative aspects of the Mao era and not the positive aspects. He gets a number of key facts wrong about relations in rural China in The Tragedy of Liberation. One can condemn the Mao era and Mao without defamation.
I definitely feel there’s some personal venom in his work. Possibly dealing with mainland riff raff in Hongkong has driven him to the edge. He wouldn’t be the first. I’ve seen rational men talk of murder.😅
@@dewittbourchier7169 Do you have a source for these criticisms of Frank Dikotter? I would like to read them to see if they have merit and maybe get a more balanced view of this time period.
@@henrimourant9855 Felix Wemheuer's 'A Social History' for an overview of society in the Mao era, Macfarquhar and Schoenhals 'Mao's Last Revolution', Mao's Third Front by Covell Meyskens, China under Mao by Andrew Walder and generally books by Jonathan Spence. All of these books I should not homages to Mao, Walder and Macfarquhar & Schoenhals are deeply critical and justly so. But reading them I think avoids a lot of the overwrought language and analysis Dikotter uses. I also recommend Li Zhisui's 'Private Life of Chairman Mao' which shows Mao in his element both his many bad sides and some of his good sides.
For the mass of his lies this man is known as Pinocchio .
Shut up commie 🤡
What?
ya allah plz forgive me stop watching this.
Why? Wtf
Allah is very mad at you and (I have it on good authority) He does not forgive you.
@@mutestingray You're so wrong Allah told me he forgives him
A strange, distracting rather silly manner of speaking. Accelerating and then decelerating quickly at some words and changing his voice. Odd.
Was it that hard to understand? He may have an odd speech pattern but he speaks clearly.
@@oldplace5 It was distracting. Almost as if he wanted to be a Shakespearean actor when younger and was unsuccessful and so uses these public lectures to flex his acting muscle.
Not hard to understand, he’s reading a script.
You do realize that English is not his first language ? How’s your Dutch?
@@Headhunter_212 It was his way of speaking rather than his use of language I was commenting on. My Dutch is nonexistent at present but who knows what the future holds.