lets hope you morons stop with the anti-american lies about a stolen election.
but sadly i doubt you will.
why do you hate america?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Mao, the Untold Story. Yung Chang
- Thread starter DrFelch
- Start date
but sadly i doubt you will.
why do you hate america?
Werbung:
Gabriel_Bell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2024
- Messages
- 7,281
You mean like having the lowest inflation rate of any major country? You mean having the lowest unemployment rate? Yo mean not having the White House turned into a bad reality TV show?
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 27,698
Lefties do not want any investigations to determine how many illegals voted in 2020. They are happy with the outcome without wanting to see if the outcome was crooked.
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 27,698
Democrats are blind in one eye - the eye that is forced to look at the realities of looming bankruptcies in big Democrat voting wards.
Houston Democrat Mayor John Whitmire Declares City is 'Broke' | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft 3-28-24
Houston Democrat Mayor John Whitmire Declares City is ‘Broke’
how do you know that? did "lefties" vote on not doing investigations or what? lol
Gabriel_Bell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2024
- Messages
- 7,281
How is this Biden's fault? How could Trump fix it? Get real, Trump was an incompetent bungling idiot who caused thousands of Covid deaths. The problem with our country's government is Republicans and Trump.
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 27,698
Democrats never asked for or supported investigations to find out how many illegals voted in 2020.
how do you know that? prove it, liar. lol
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 27,698
I feel no urge to prove what you cannot disprove.
You feel no urge to look intelligent, that's for sure.
100% whining and 0% proof is a bad look for most people, but you surely seem to enjoy it. lol
Gabriel_Bell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2024
- Messages
- 7,281
There is no reason to assume that any did.
Stalin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,439
for the odious WarParty, the achievements of the communist party in china are the "threat of a good example", similar to cuba
which is why they are ramping preparations for a war with china and the destruction of the socilalist state
as for the book..let the experts speak
"...Chang and Halliday's book has been strongly criticized by various academics. In December 2005, The Observer stated that many knowledgeable academics of the field have questioned the factual accuracy of some of Chang and Halliday's claims, notably their selective use of evidence, questioning their stance in the matter, among other criticisms; the article also said that Chang and Halliday's critics did not deny Mao's monstrous actions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-Fenby_2005-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>
David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Chinese Politics at the University of Sydney, wrote in The Pacific Review that the book, like other examples of historical revisionism, implied that there had been "a conspiracy of academics and scholars who have chosen not to reveal the truth." Goodman stated that as popular history the book's style was "extremely polemic" and he was highly critical of Chang and Halliday's methodology and use of sources as well as specific conclusions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-39"><span>[</span>39<span>]</span></a> Professor Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University referred to the book as "a major disaster for the contemporary China field" because the "scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-McDonald_2005-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a>
The China Journal invited a group of specialists to give assessments of the book in the area of their expertise. Professors Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang wrote that Chang and Halliday "misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-40"><span>[</span>40<span>]</span></a> Timothy Cheek (University of British Columbia) said that the book is "not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis", and rather it "reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-41"><span>[</span>41<span>]</span></a> University of California at Berkeley political scientist Lowell Dittmer added that "surely the depiction is overdrawn" but what emerges is a story of "absolute power", leading first to personal corruption in the form of sexual indulgence and paranoia, and secondly to policy corruption, consisting of the power to realize "fantastic charismatic visions and ignore negative feedback ... ."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-42"><span>[</span>42<span>]</span></a> Geremie Barmé (Australian National University) stated that while "anyone familiar with the lived realities of the Mao years can sympathize with the authors' outrage", one must ask whether "a vengeful spirit serves either author or reader well, especially in the creation of a mass market work that would claim authority and dominance in the study of Mao Zedong and his history."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-43"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a>
The 2009 anthology Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story", edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, brings together fourteen mostly critical previously published academic responses, including the reviews from China Journal. Benton and Lin write in their introduction that "unlike the worldwide commercial media, ... most professional commentary has been disapproving." They challenge the assertion that Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths, since the number's origin is vague and substantiation shaky. They include an extensive list of further reviews.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-44"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a> Gao Mobo, of the University of Adelaide, wrote that the book was "intellectually scandalous", saying that it "misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-45"><span>[</span>45<span>]</span></a>
Writing for the Marxist New Left Review, British historian Tariq Ali criticized the book for its focus "on Mao's conspicuous imperfections (political and sexual), exaggerating them to fantastical heights, and advancing moral criteria for political leaders that they would never apply to a Roosevelt or a Kennedy"; Ali accused the book of including unsourced and unproven claims, including archival material from Mao's political opponents in Taiwan and the Soviet Union whose reliability are disputed, as well as celebrity interviewees, such as Lech Wałęsa, whose knowledge of Mao and China are limited. Ali compared the book's sensationalist passages and denunciations of Mao to Mao's own political slogans during the Cultural Revolution.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-46"><span>[</span>46<span>]</span></a>
Historian Rebecca Karl summarizes: "According to many reviewers of [Mao: The Unknown Story], the story told therein is unknown because Chang and Halliday substantially fabricated it or exaggerated it into existence."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-47"><span>[</span>47<span>]</span></a>
en.wikipedia.org
comrade stalin
moscow
which is why they are ramping preparations for a war with china and the destruction of the socilalist state
as for the book..let the experts speak
"...Chang and Halliday's book has been strongly criticized by various academics. In December 2005, The Observer stated that many knowledgeable academics of the field have questioned the factual accuracy of some of Chang and Halliday's claims, notably their selective use of evidence, questioning their stance in the matter, among other criticisms; the article also said that Chang and Halliday's critics did not deny Mao's monstrous actions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-Fenby_2005-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>
David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Chinese Politics at the University of Sydney, wrote in The Pacific Review that the book, like other examples of historical revisionism, implied that there had been "a conspiracy of academics and scholars who have chosen not to reveal the truth." Goodman stated that as popular history the book's style was "extremely polemic" and he was highly critical of Chang and Halliday's methodology and use of sources as well as specific conclusions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-39"><span>[</span>39<span>]</span></a> Professor Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University referred to the book as "a major disaster for the contemporary China field" because the "scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-McDonald_2005-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a>
The China Journal invited a group of specialists to give assessments of the book in the area of their expertise. Professors Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang wrote that Chang and Halliday "misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-40"><span>[</span>40<span>]</span></a> Timothy Cheek (University of British Columbia) said that the book is "not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis", and rather it "reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-41"><span>[</span>41<span>]</span></a> University of California at Berkeley political scientist Lowell Dittmer added that "surely the depiction is overdrawn" but what emerges is a story of "absolute power", leading first to personal corruption in the form of sexual indulgence and paranoia, and secondly to policy corruption, consisting of the power to realize "fantastic charismatic visions and ignore negative feedback ... ."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-42"><span>[</span>42<span>]</span></a> Geremie Barmé (Australian National University) stated that while "anyone familiar with the lived realities of the Mao years can sympathize with the authors' outrage", one must ask whether "a vengeful spirit serves either author or reader well, especially in the creation of a mass market work that would claim authority and dominance in the study of Mao Zedong and his history."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-43"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a>
The 2009 anthology Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story", edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, brings together fourteen mostly critical previously published academic responses, including the reviews from China Journal. Benton and Lin write in their introduction that "unlike the worldwide commercial media, ... most professional commentary has been disapproving." They challenge the assertion that Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths, since the number's origin is vague and substantiation shaky. They include an extensive list of further reviews.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-44"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a> Gao Mobo, of the University of Adelaide, wrote that the book was "intellectually scandalous", saying that it "misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-45"><span>[</span>45<span>]</span></a>
Writing for the Marxist New Left Review, British historian Tariq Ali criticized the book for its focus "on Mao's conspicuous imperfections (political and sexual), exaggerating them to fantastical heights, and advancing moral criteria for political leaders that they would never apply to a Roosevelt or a Kennedy"; Ali accused the book of including unsourced and unproven claims, including archival material from Mao's political opponents in Taiwan and the Soviet Union whose reliability are disputed, as well as celebrity interviewees, such as Lech Wałęsa, whose knowledge of Mao and China are limited. Ali compared the book's sensationalist passages and denunciations of Mao to Mao's own political slogans during the Cultural Revolution.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-46"><span>[</span>46<span>]</span></a>
Historian Rebecca Karl summarizes: "According to many reviewers of [Mao: The Unknown Story], the story told therein is unknown because Chang and Halliday substantially fabricated it or exaggerated it into existence."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-47"><span>[</span>47<span>]</span></a>
Mao: The Unknown Story - Wikipedia
comrade stalin
moscow
Gabriel_Bell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2024
- Messages
- 7,281
China is not at all like Cuba. China has a major industrial base, Cuba cannot manage to even produce enough salt, sugar or feminine hygiene products to keep up with demand. China has grown from an economy smaller than Italy's in the late 1970's to the world's second largest. Cuba is decaying and falling apart.for the odious WarParty, the achievements of the communist party in china are the "threat of a good example", similar to cuba
which is why they are ramping preparations for a war with china and the destruction of the socilalist state
as for the book..let the experts speak
"...Chang and Halliday's book has been strongly criticized by various academics. In December 2005, The Observer stated that many knowledgeable academics of the field have questioned the factual accuracy of some of Chang and Halliday's claims, notably their selective use of evidence, questioning their stance in the matter, among other criticisms; the article also said that Chang and Halliday's critics did not deny Mao's monstrous actions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-Fenby_2005-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>
David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Chinese Politics at the University of Sydney, wrote in The Pacific Review that the book, like other examples of historical revisionism, implied that there had been "a conspiracy of academics and scholars who have chosen not to reveal the truth." Goodman stated that as popular history the book's style was "extremely polemic" and he was highly critical of Chang and Halliday's methodology and use of sources as well as specific conclusions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-39"><span>[</span>39<span>]</span></a> Professor Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University referred to the book as "a major disaster for the contemporary China field" because the "scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-McDonald_2005-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a>
The China Journal invited a group of specialists to give assessments of the book in the area of their expertise. Professors Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang wrote that Chang and Halliday "misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-40"><span>[</span>40<span>]</span></a> Timothy Cheek (University of British Columbia) said that the book is "not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis", and rather it "reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-41"><span>[</span>41<span>]</span></a> University of California at Berkeley political scientist Lowell Dittmer added that "surely the depiction is overdrawn" but what emerges is a story of "absolute power", leading first to personal corruption in the form of sexual indulgence and paranoia, and secondly to policy corruption, consisting of the power to realize "fantastic charismatic visions and ignore negative feedback ... ."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-42"><span>[</span>42<span>]</span></a> Geremie Barmé (Australian National University) stated that while "anyone familiar with the lived realities of the Mao years can sympathize with the authors' outrage", one must ask whether "a vengeful spirit serves either author or reader well, especially in the creation of a mass market work that would claim authority and dominance in the study of Mao Zedong and his history."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-43"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a>
The 2009 anthology Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story", edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, brings together fourteen mostly critical previously published academic responses, including the reviews from China Journal. Benton and Lin write in their introduction that "unlike the worldwide commercial media, ... most professional commentary has been disapproving." They challenge the assertion that Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths, since the number's origin is vague and substantiation shaky. They include an extensive list of further reviews.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-44"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a> Gao Mobo, of the University of Adelaide, wrote that the book was "intellectually scandalous", saying that it "misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-45"><span>[</span>45<span>]</span></a>
Writing for the Marxist New Left Review, British historian Tariq Ali criticized the book for its focus "on Mao's conspicuous imperfections (political and sexual), exaggerating them to fantastical heights, and advancing moral criteria for political leaders that they would never apply to a Roosevelt or a Kennedy"; Ali accused the book of including unsourced and unproven claims, including archival material from Mao's political opponents in Taiwan and the Soviet Union whose reliability are disputed, as well as celebrity interviewees, such as Lech Wałęsa, whose knowledge of Mao and China are limited. Ali compared the book's sensationalist passages and denunciations of Mao to Mao's own political slogans during the Cultural Revolution.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-46"><span>[</span>46<span>]</span></a>
Historian Rebecca Karl summarizes: "According to many reviewers of [Mao: The Unknown Story], the story told therein is unknown because Chang and Halliday substantially fabricated it or exaggerated it into existence."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#cite_note-47"><span>[</span>47<span>]</span></a>
Mao: The Unknown Story - Wikipedia
comrade stalin
moscow
Both countries repress their citizens, but neither has as high a percentage of citizens in prisons and jails as the US.
China's leaders are still improving the infrastructure, Cuba's leaders are mostly just giving speeches. Cuba is far more corrupt than China.
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 27,698
Democrats know their luck will only hold out as long as Americans cannot finance an investigation of the magnitude that would be necessary to uncover just how many illegals voted, and as long as democrats remain successful in registering illegals to vote.
Werbung:
republicans have billionaires supporting them. if it was a matter of money, the fraud would have been found. duh.
obviously trump himself could have financed it.
god you say the dumbest things. lol
