This is correction to the previous post on China.
"Verdict" is not the same as "history." The official CCP verdict on the CR was as quoted previously.
There is no official "history" of the CR.
There is no "official" history of anything in the West. Anyone--officials (winners, losers), participants (winners, losers), survivors, scholars, bloggers--can write "a" history of a subject. There are many histories. The closest thing to an "official" history of a subject in the West is an "accepted" one, one that is so authoritative that a consensus develops that it is "it." My guess is that of the "it" histories written by participants more are likely to have been written by winners than losers. I don't think many "it" histories in the West are written by winners or losers. I think they're written by non-participants, that is professional historians, scholars, "neutrals." Sometimes there's an "it" history and sometimes there is not. Even an "it" history can change. A new generation of historians can come up with a new "it."
That's history in the West. There is no such thing in the People's Republic of China on the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution is, officially, a forbidden subject of study in the PRC. No study therefore no histories therefore no "it" history. Only an "official" "verdict."
It is often said--in China, by Chinese--that the history of China is written by the foreigner. That is inevitable given the previous paragraph. Histories of the Cultural Revolution have been written in the West by Westerners and by Chinese ex-patriots. My guess is that Mao's Last Revolution is, currently, the "it" history of the CR in the West. The authors, Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, were neither winners, losers, nor survivors of the CR. The Chinese ex-pat histories have been written by survivors.
The American Civil War was won by the United States of America and lost by the Confederate States of America. Histories, and History, agree. Who "won" the Chinese Cultural Revolution? As I read both the histories and the history of the CR, there is also agreement that no one "won" the CR in a manner remotely similar to who won the American Civil War. The CR wasn't a civil war, not the Chinese Revolution or like the Russian or American Revolutions; there were not "sides" in the CR in the same manner as there were sides in those others. Millions of Chinese "lost" in the Cultural Revolution; each Chinese ex-pat writer lost. The Cultural Revolution was uniquely Chinese with a uniquely Chinese outcome: those who lost and those who "won" only by surviving. It is the Chinese soul; survival is the soul of China.
"Verdict" is not the same as "history." The official CCP verdict on the CR was as quoted previously.
There is no official "history" of the CR.
There is no "official" history of anything in the West. Anyone--officials (winners, losers), participants (winners, losers), survivors, scholars, bloggers--can write "a" history of a subject. There are many histories. The closest thing to an "official" history of a subject in the West is an "accepted" one, one that is so authoritative that a consensus develops that it is "it." My guess is that of the "it" histories written by participants more are likely to have been written by winners than losers. I don't think many "it" histories in the West are written by winners or losers. I think they're written by non-participants, that is professional historians, scholars, "neutrals." Sometimes there's an "it" history and sometimes there is not. Even an "it" history can change. A new generation of historians can come up with a new "it."
That's history in the West. There is no such thing in the People's Republic of China on the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution is, officially, a forbidden subject of study in the PRC. No study therefore no histories therefore no "it" history. Only an "official" "verdict."
It is often said--in China, by Chinese--that the history of China is written by the foreigner. That is inevitable given the previous paragraph. Histories of the Cultural Revolution have been written in the West by Westerners and by Chinese ex-patriots. My guess is that Mao's Last Revolution is, currently, the "it" history of the CR in the West. The authors, Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, were neither winners, losers, nor survivors of the CR. The Chinese ex-pat histories have been written by survivors.
The American Civil War was won by the United States of America and lost by the Confederate States of America. Histories, and History, agree. Who "won" the Chinese Cultural Revolution? As I read both the histories and the history of the CR, there is also agreement that no one "won" the CR in a manner remotely similar to who won the American Civil War. The CR wasn't a civil war, not the Chinese Revolution or like the Russian or American Revolutions; there were not "sides" in the CR in the same manner as there were sides in those others. Millions of Chinese "lost" in the Cultural Revolution; each Chinese ex-pat writer lost. The Cultural Revolution was uniquely Chinese with a uniquely Chinese outcome: those who lost and those who "won" only by surviving. It is the Chinese soul; survival is the soul of China.
