Forwarded on behalf of the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee, 27 July 2011:
The Attorney General of the United States manages the Department
of Justice, of which the Bureau of Prisons is a part. For the
next two days, we ask supporters to contact Attorney General Eric
Holder. Whether for a week, a month, a year, or 10 years... Solitary
Confinement is Torture! Solitary is cruel and unusual and was
recognized as such by the U.S. Supreme Court a century ago. Express
your concern about the impact of solitary on the health of Leonard
Peltier, a 66-year-old man in poor health. Demand that Leonard
Peltier be immediately released from solitary and returned to the
general population at USP-Lewisburg.
By Mail
Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General,
may be sent to:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
By Phone
Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555
By E-Mail
E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General,
may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. IMPORTANT: Address your e-mail to
Attorney General Eric Holder so that your e-mail will be forwarded
to his office.
----
Time to set him free... Because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
Friends of Peltier
http://www.FreePeltierNow.org
Forwarded on behalf of the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee
on 29 Jully 2011:
While less than a week ago, the current heat index in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania, is 100 degrees F. The prisoners in solitary confinement
at the federal penitentiary are not sheltered from the heat. The
prisoners have to sleep on the floor at night to get some semblance
of relief.
We received word today that Leonard now has to share his very small
isolation cell with another prisoner. We're told that the cell next
to Leonard's cell is currently occupied by three prisoners!
Recently, a prisoner in solitary at USP-Lewisburg attempted suicide.
The situation at USP-Lewisburg is critical. Please take action.
Amnesty International designated Leonard Peltier as a political
prisoner a long while ago. Amnesty International's Secretariat, based
in the UK, is responsible for the majority of the organization's
research and leads AI's campaigning work. Please contact AI and urge
that organization to immediately take an active hand in this crisis:
Telephone: +44-20-74135500
Fax number: +44-20-79561157 Address:
1 Easton Street
London
WC1X 0DW, UK
Web Form: http://www.amnesty.org/en/contact
Posts mit dem Label USA werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label USA werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Sonntag, 31. Juli 2011
Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2011
On the US "drawdown" in Afghanistan
11 July 2011. A World to Win News Service. The US has announced it will start withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan this month and hand over the country's security to the Afghan government by the end of 2014. What is the real nature of this "drawdown"? Does it reflect success or failure for the decade-long US-led occupation of Afghanistan? In order to understand this we have to examine the American plan and the situation of the war as a whole.
President Barack Obama announced a more detailed plan for the withdrawal on 22 June. He said that 5,000 US soldiers will be pulled out by the end of this summer, when this year's "fighting season" comes to end, and another 5,000 by the end of 2011. An additional 23,000 US forces are to leave in 2012.
The US has about 110,000 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, including those assigned to Nato (which has about 50,000 soldiers in addition to those under the US flag). Withdrawing 33,000 of them by the end of 2012 will still leave almost 80,000. There are also tens of thousands of employees of private security companies in Afghanistan that are not included in this plan.
Some other Nato countries such as France and the UK have followed the US in announcing the reduction of their own forces in Afghanistan. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that the UK will withdraw all its troops by 2015. However, when the details were released, it seems that the UK plans to pull out no more than 500 soldiers by the end of 2012, none of them combat forces. With 9,000 troops, the UK is the second-largest occupier after the US. Similarly, France, the third, says it will withdraw a quarter of its 4,000 soldiers by the end of 2012, but this actually postpones a planned earlier pullout.
The cost of the war that started 10 years ago has been a real burden on the imperialists, especially the US, which has recently been spending more than two billion dollars a week on the Afghan war. This will amounts to nearly 110 billion dollars a year. This has had negative effect on an economy that was already in trouble.
The Afghan war has gone through ebb and flows in the last decade. Despite their huge military advantages, the imperialists have suffered humiliating set-backs, first when their inability to deal with the situation as they had originally planned compelled the US to more than triple its forces to today's levels, and now in the increasingly public admissions from Washington and elsewhere that military victory is impossible unless the Taliban can be brought to negotiate.
Even if the invaders stick to their plan for the next year and a half, they will simply be withdrawing the forces that Obama ordered to Afghanistan in 2009. The withdrawals announced for the next 18 months would still leave the US with more than twice as many troops occupying the country as when Obama took office. The announcement that security control of Afghanistan will supposedly be handed over to Afghan forces doesn’t mean that the US will all leave Afghanistan. Although rarely mentioned, there have been well-informed reports that the US hopes "to keep upward of 25,000 American forces in Afghanistan” indefinitely, even after 2014. (The New York Times, 22 June)
This is not far from the number of invaders that first occupied all of Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban in 2001. According to this source, the US plans to keep permanent, strategic military bases in Afghanistan. They would be tasked with securing American global interests in the region, including by threatening Pakistan and if need be carrying out military action in that country.
Why the US has decided to reduce its forces at this point
The drawdown seems to represent a recognition of necessity by US imperialism, even though there are some differences within the American ruling class about the pace. The US is trying to change its war strategy and tactics in Afghanistan in order to make them more efficient and better correspond with the US's overall present situation in the region and world.
A war that was meant to increase and consolidate the global superiority of US imperialism could have the opposite effect and even has the potential to endanger America's present position if continued in the same way.
One aspect of this is the economic burden, although this doesn't seem to be the main aspect. As Obama confessed in his speech, "Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war at a time of rising debt and hard economic times."
Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is growing all over the world as well as in the US. At the same time and more importantly for US imperialism, there is a growing frustration within the American ruling class regarding the lack of success in Afghanistan.
A fear of being bogged down in Afghanistan for a long time and with little positive result for the empire is growing within the ruling class. While the spectre of Vietnam war still is most present in the minds of the US ruling class, it also cannot ignore the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
Concentrating such a massive force in one place, with the expenses associated with that, could reduce the manoeuvrability of the US in an especially turbulent world. That is something that the US cannot afford at the present time.
Not only did the US totally fail to keep any of the promises of liberation that it made to the Afghan people at the time of the invasion, it even failed to meet its own declared war aims. It was unable to build a solid state, or reconstruct the economy of Afghanistan in accordance with its own needs and interests.
In another words, the US clearly failed in "reconstructing" a country that it had totally destroyed over the previous four decades, starting when the US backed jihadi forces in the war against the Soviet occupation, continuing with the civil war between warlords after the Soviet withdrawal and the Taliban's coming to power with US approval, and then the 2001 bombardment and invasion and the installation of the government led by Hamid Karzai, whom the US and its allies had picked out as their man to lead a motley mix of pro-US jihadist forces.
The occupiers have come up with a state, government and president that some observers believe will collapse as soon as the US and Nato forces pull out.
As the International Crisis Group report of 20 November 2010 said, "Nearly a decade after the U.S. engagement began, Afghanistan operates as a complex system of multi-layered fiefdoms in which insurgents control parallel justice and security organs in many if not most rural areas, while Kabul’s kleptocratic elites control the engines of graft and international contracts countrywide. The inflow of billions in international funds has cemented the linkages between corrupt members of the Afghan government and violent local commanders – insurgent and criminal, alike."
The "reconstruction" of Afghanistan's economy comprises little more than the destructive "aid" from the imperialist countries through government agencies and NGOs, on the one hand, and on the other the opium cultivation and drug production that procures foreign currency for the country's domestic rulers.
"Nearly a decade after the US-led military intervention began, little has been done to challenge the perverse incentives of continued conflict in Afghanistan. Insecurity and the inflow of billions of dollars in international assistance has failed to significantly strengthen the state's capacity to provide security or basic services and has instead, by progressively fusing the interests of political gatekeepers and insurgent commanders, provided new opportunities for criminals and insurgents to expand their influence inside the government. The economy as a result is increasingly dominated by a criminal oligarchy of politically connected businessmen." (ICG, Asia Report No. 207, 27 June 2011)
Another ICG report on Afghanistan shows that despite their emphasis on building an Afghan army, the US and Nato have not been successful. They might have an army of 300,000 men by the end of this year, its quality reflects the mess that the invaders have created in Afghanistan. As this ICG report put it:
"Persistent structural flaws meanwhile have undermined the military's ability to operate independently. Ethnic frictions and political factionalism among high-level players in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the general staff have also stunted the army's growth. As a result, the army is a fragmented force, serving disparate interests, and far from attaining the unified national character needed to confront numerous security threats.
"The lack of consensus between Kabul, Washington and Brussels has hobbled the Afghan military's capacity to respond effectively to threats confronting the state. Failure to develop a sustainable, comprehensive long-term defence posture could risk the army's disintegration after the withdrawal of international forces.” (ICG report no. 190, 12 May 2010)
All this shows that the US has realized that it cannot meet the goals that it had set at the time of the invasion, for the creation of an Afghan puppet state and economic and social reform of the kind that could make American domination sustainable in the long run. Now Obama has publicly dropped some of those goals.
But the Obama government is very clear that it will not stop waging the war against the Taliban that the US still seeks to win by a combination of military and political means. It argues that what's needed is a switch in emphasis away from the use of massive numbers of occupation troops to hold ground and instead concentrating more on what it believes have been shown to be more efficient and effective tactics: spy networks, commando operations, and drone strikes to assassinate Taliban activists and leaders who are said to have been forced to move their bases into Pakistan. Obama's authorities point to the killing of Bin Laden in a compound in Abbotabad in Pakistan, as an example of how this war could be waged.
According to a report "The official made clear that the administration's primary focus now was a much larger, and more dangerous, presence of insurgents remaining in Pakistan." (NYT, 22 June)
In his speech, Obama indicated his preference for more focused covert operations of the kind that the US is conducting in Pakistan. "When threatened, we must respond with force… But when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas."
In other words, Obama is arguing that this is a better way to continue the war and especially to maintain US domination in Afghanistan and the region, not to end it.
In line with this, the US counting on being able to integrate an important section of the Taliban and other Islamic opposition forces into the Afghan government. The US recently officially admitted that it seeks negotiations with the Taliban and has had initial talks with them. However, some Taliban elements have already been integrated into various governmental institutions. There have been innumerable official moves by the Karzai government to please the fundamentalists, in particular by denying women's rights and maintaining other backward relations. After all, what the US is looking for in Afghanistan is not a fundamentally different world than what the Taliban are seeking, so it is not impossible for a reconciliation to take place. This issue requires a separate and more thorough examination in a future article.
So considering all the problems that the US has encountered in its drive to secure control over Afghanistan and the whole region, it has had to change its strategy and especially tactics. Some of the most important aspects of this new approach can be summarised as follows:
1) Drawdown of its forces gradually over the next three years. 2) Building permanent bases in Afghanistan and keeping around 25,000 soldiers for an indefinite period after 2014. 3) Relying on Afghan soldiers in the forefront of the war to secure the interests of US imperialism in the country and region. 4) Turning more to the assassination of activists and leaders of the opposition groups and using more drone strikes in Pakistan, while still keeping lots of "boots on the ground".
This means that the US war in Afghanistan is far from over. It will continue, even if in different ways and in accord with a changing situation. Whether or not it is successful in forcing the Taliban to enter a US-backed government – and both sides are fighting more fiercely than ever to seize a military advantageous situation from which to negotiate – the US will do its best to keep the country politically, militarily and economically at the mercy of imperialism.
Not only will the war will go on, there is no sign that the US will leave the region in the near future. Instead, it will continue to pursue regional domination in pursuit of its global interests.
Nevertheless the situation has brought to the surface some of the weaknesses and frustrations facing US imperialism.
President Barack Obama announced a more detailed plan for the withdrawal on 22 June. He said that 5,000 US soldiers will be pulled out by the end of this summer, when this year's "fighting season" comes to end, and another 5,000 by the end of 2011. An additional 23,000 US forces are to leave in 2012.
The US has about 110,000 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, including those assigned to Nato (which has about 50,000 soldiers in addition to those under the US flag). Withdrawing 33,000 of them by the end of 2012 will still leave almost 80,000. There are also tens of thousands of employees of private security companies in Afghanistan that are not included in this plan.
Some other Nato countries such as France and the UK have followed the US in announcing the reduction of their own forces in Afghanistan. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that the UK will withdraw all its troops by 2015. However, when the details were released, it seems that the UK plans to pull out no more than 500 soldiers by the end of 2012, none of them combat forces. With 9,000 troops, the UK is the second-largest occupier after the US. Similarly, France, the third, says it will withdraw a quarter of its 4,000 soldiers by the end of 2012, but this actually postpones a planned earlier pullout.
The cost of the war that started 10 years ago has been a real burden on the imperialists, especially the US, which has recently been spending more than two billion dollars a week on the Afghan war. This will amounts to nearly 110 billion dollars a year. This has had negative effect on an economy that was already in trouble.
The Afghan war has gone through ebb and flows in the last decade. Despite their huge military advantages, the imperialists have suffered humiliating set-backs, first when their inability to deal with the situation as they had originally planned compelled the US to more than triple its forces to today's levels, and now in the increasingly public admissions from Washington and elsewhere that military victory is impossible unless the Taliban can be brought to negotiate.
Even if the invaders stick to their plan for the next year and a half, they will simply be withdrawing the forces that Obama ordered to Afghanistan in 2009. The withdrawals announced for the next 18 months would still leave the US with more than twice as many troops occupying the country as when Obama took office. The announcement that security control of Afghanistan will supposedly be handed over to Afghan forces doesn’t mean that the US will all leave Afghanistan. Although rarely mentioned, there have been well-informed reports that the US hopes "to keep upward of 25,000 American forces in Afghanistan” indefinitely, even after 2014. (The New York Times, 22 June)
This is not far from the number of invaders that first occupied all of Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban in 2001. According to this source, the US plans to keep permanent, strategic military bases in Afghanistan. They would be tasked with securing American global interests in the region, including by threatening Pakistan and if need be carrying out military action in that country.
Why the US has decided to reduce its forces at this point
The drawdown seems to represent a recognition of necessity by US imperialism, even though there are some differences within the American ruling class about the pace. The US is trying to change its war strategy and tactics in Afghanistan in order to make them more efficient and better correspond with the US's overall present situation in the region and world.
A war that was meant to increase and consolidate the global superiority of US imperialism could have the opposite effect and even has the potential to endanger America's present position if continued in the same way.
One aspect of this is the economic burden, although this doesn't seem to be the main aspect. As Obama confessed in his speech, "Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war at a time of rising debt and hard economic times."
Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is growing all over the world as well as in the US. At the same time and more importantly for US imperialism, there is a growing frustration within the American ruling class regarding the lack of success in Afghanistan.
A fear of being bogged down in Afghanistan for a long time and with little positive result for the empire is growing within the ruling class. While the spectre of Vietnam war still is most present in the minds of the US ruling class, it also cannot ignore the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
Concentrating such a massive force in one place, with the expenses associated with that, could reduce the manoeuvrability of the US in an especially turbulent world. That is something that the US cannot afford at the present time.
Not only did the US totally fail to keep any of the promises of liberation that it made to the Afghan people at the time of the invasion, it even failed to meet its own declared war aims. It was unable to build a solid state, or reconstruct the economy of Afghanistan in accordance with its own needs and interests.
In another words, the US clearly failed in "reconstructing" a country that it had totally destroyed over the previous four decades, starting when the US backed jihadi forces in the war against the Soviet occupation, continuing with the civil war between warlords after the Soviet withdrawal and the Taliban's coming to power with US approval, and then the 2001 bombardment and invasion and the installation of the government led by Hamid Karzai, whom the US and its allies had picked out as their man to lead a motley mix of pro-US jihadist forces.
The occupiers have come up with a state, government and president that some observers believe will collapse as soon as the US and Nato forces pull out.
As the International Crisis Group report of 20 November 2010 said, "Nearly a decade after the U.S. engagement began, Afghanistan operates as a complex system of multi-layered fiefdoms in which insurgents control parallel justice and security organs in many if not most rural areas, while Kabul’s kleptocratic elites control the engines of graft and international contracts countrywide. The inflow of billions in international funds has cemented the linkages between corrupt members of the Afghan government and violent local commanders – insurgent and criminal, alike."
The "reconstruction" of Afghanistan's economy comprises little more than the destructive "aid" from the imperialist countries through government agencies and NGOs, on the one hand, and on the other the opium cultivation and drug production that procures foreign currency for the country's domestic rulers.
"Nearly a decade after the US-led military intervention began, little has been done to challenge the perverse incentives of continued conflict in Afghanistan. Insecurity and the inflow of billions of dollars in international assistance has failed to significantly strengthen the state's capacity to provide security or basic services and has instead, by progressively fusing the interests of political gatekeepers and insurgent commanders, provided new opportunities for criminals and insurgents to expand their influence inside the government. The economy as a result is increasingly dominated by a criminal oligarchy of politically connected businessmen." (ICG, Asia Report No. 207, 27 June 2011)
Another ICG report on Afghanistan shows that despite their emphasis on building an Afghan army, the US and Nato have not been successful. They might have an army of 300,000 men by the end of this year, its quality reflects the mess that the invaders have created in Afghanistan. As this ICG report put it:
"Persistent structural flaws meanwhile have undermined the military's ability to operate independently. Ethnic frictions and political factionalism among high-level players in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the general staff have also stunted the army's growth. As a result, the army is a fragmented force, serving disparate interests, and far from attaining the unified national character needed to confront numerous security threats.
"The lack of consensus between Kabul, Washington and Brussels has hobbled the Afghan military's capacity to respond effectively to threats confronting the state. Failure to develop a sustainable, comprehensive long-term defence posture could risk the army's disintegration after the withdrawal of international forces.” (ICG report no. 190, 12 May 2010)
All this shows that the US has realized that it cannot meet the goals that it had set at the time of the invasion, for the creation of an Afghan puppet state and economic and social reform of the kind that could make American domination sustainable in the long run. Now Obama has publicly dropped some of those goals.
But the Obama government is very clear that it will not stop waging the war against the Taliban that the US still seeks to win by a combination of military and political means. It argues that what's needed is a switch in emphasis away from the use of massive numbers of occupation troops to hold ground and instead concentrating more on what it believes have been shown to be more efficient and effective tactics: spy networks, commando operations, and drone strikes to assassinate Taliban activists and leaders who are said to have been forced to move their bases into Pakistan. Obama's authorities point to the killing of Bin Laden in a compound in Abbotabad in Pakistan, as an example of how this war could be waged.
According to a report "The official made clear that the administration's primary focus now was a much larger, and more dangerous, presence of insurgents remaining in Pakistan." (NYT, 22 June)
In his speech, Obama indicated his preference for more focused covert operations of the kind that the US is conducting in Pakistan. "When threatened, we must respond with force… But when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas."
In other words, Obama is arguing that this is a better way to continue the war and especially to maintain US domination in Afghanistan and the region, not to end it.
In line with this, the US counting on being able to integrate an important section of the Taliban and other Islamic opposition forces into the Afghan government. The US recently officially admitted that it seeks negotiations with the Taliban and has had initial talks with them. However, some Taliban elements have already been integrated into various governmental institutions. There have been innumerable official moves by the Karzai government to please the fundamentalists, in particular by denying women's rights and maintaining other backward relations. After all, what the US is looking for in Afghanistan is not a fundamentally different world than what the Taliban are seeking, so it is not impossible for a reconciliation to take place. This issue requires a separate and more thorough examination in a future article.
So considering all the problems that the US has encountered in its drive to secure control over Afghanistan and the whole region, it has had to change its strategy and especially tactics. Some of the most important aspects of this new approach can be summarised as follows:
1) Drawdown of its forces gradually over the next three years. 2) Building permanent bases in Afghanistan and keeping around 25,000 soldiers for an indefinite period after 2014. 3) Relying on Afghan soldiers in the forefront of the war to secure the interests of US imperialism in the country and region. 4) Turning more to the assassination of activists and leaders of the opposition groups and using more drone strikes in Pakistan, while still keeping lots of "boots on the ground".
This means that the US war in Afghanistan is far from over. It will continue, even if in different ways and in accord with a changing situation. Whether or not it is successful in forcing the Taliban to enter a US-backed government – and both sides are fighting more fiercely than ever to seize a military advantageous situation from which to negotiate – the US will do its best to keep the country politically, militarily and economically at the mercy of imperialism.
Not only will the war will go on, there is no sign that the US will leave the region in the near future. Instead, it will continue to pursue regional domination in pursuit of its global interests.
Nevertheless the situation has brought to the surface some of the weaknesses and frustrations facing US imperialism.
Mittwoch, 20. Oktober 2010
"The Unknown Cultural Revolution - Life and change in a Chinese village"
Dongping Han grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution and now teaches in the U.S. He is the author of the book The Unknown Cultural Revolution—Life and Change in a Chinese Village. Following is an abridged version of the session at the end of a speech he gave in December 2008 at the New York symposium "Rediscovering the Chinese Cultural Revolution: Art and Politics, Lived Experience, Legacies of Liberation," sponsored by Revolution Books, Set the Record Straight Project and Institute for Public Knowledge-New York University. The full version appeared in the 6 September 2009 issue of Revolution, voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. (revcom.us)
Question: You went back to China in 1986. When did you and others like you start to see that things were different, that China had become very different than what it had been during the Cultural Revolution?
Dongping Han: I think people realized right away. The land was privatized in China in 1983. Many people tend to think that farmers are stupid and ignorant. But I think the farmers are very intelligent people. Many of them realized the implications of private farming right away. That was why they resisted it very hard in the beginning. And in my village and in other villages I surveyed, the overwhelming majority of people, 90 percent, said the Communist Party no longer cares about poor people. Right away they felt this way. The Communist Party, the cadres, no longer cared about poor people in the countryside. The government investment in rural areas in the countryside dropped from 15 percent in the national budget in 1970s to only 3-4 percent in the '80s. So the Chinese public realized that the Chinese government no longer cared about them by disbanding the communes. But I was in college at the time and I didn't start to think about the issue very hard until 1986.
Q: Can you explain a little bit more how the Cultural Revolution came to your village?
DH: The Cultural Revolution started slowly. Before the start of the Cultural Revolution, there was a call to start to study Mao's works. The Chinese People's Liberation Army came to the village to read Chairman Mao's works. They held performances in the village. They came to people's home to teach people to read Mao's three classic articles: "Serve the People", "In Memory of Norman Bethune" and "The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains". They explained to the villagers what these articles were about. After the PLA soldiers left, many school children, like myself, started to teach villagers about Mao's works as well. When the central government announced the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, high school and middle school students left their schools, and began to write big character posters in the streets. The high school students dragged 20 of their teachers to the marketplace and denounced them publicly and shaved off half their hair in front of a big crowd. I do not think that most people knew what the Cultural Revolution would be like at the beginning.
Many students began to publish newspapers and pamphlets. There were so many pamphlets at the time, criticizing government officials. In the beginning they were mostly written by students. Not long after this, farmers and workers began to write them as well. There was so much information going on at the time. Later on, there was a group of high school and middle school students from my county that travelled all the way to Beijing to see Chairman Mao. When they came back in August 1966, they began to organize into different Red Guard factions. They started to organize mass rallies to criticize the county and commune leaders. All officials were under some kind of popular scrutiny and attack at the time.
Almost everybody, I would say 90 percent of the population, was part of a mass organization.
I was in third grade at that time. Five of my friends and I also organized a Red Guard organization. We designed our Red Guard symbols and began to publish a single page newspaper. We collected enough money to get a hand printer to print our newspaper. In my school there were 13 small newspapers. We would recruit others and write something and go to the marketplace to distribute it to the people. That's how it started. There were big character posters everywhere. The village streets were plastered with big character posters, mostly criticizing village leaders. Before the Cultural Revolution, the village leaders had a lot of power. They normally didn't work in the field and they would eat and drink a lot at the village's expense. And the Cultural Revolution held them to task. That's how it started actually.
In all these activities with the big character posters, all were written by the farmers themselves. And I remember some of the farmers who didn't know how to write. They came to us, they came to the school kids, and we would write it for them. So it was a very mobilizing movement. Everybody in the village was touched by that.
The reason the officials are corrupt today and were not during the Cultural Revolution years is because the masses were really empowered. There was always a mass meeting every night and all the government policies and directives were read to the farmers. And it was required by the government at the time. They were read to the farmers and then the farmers discussed these documents, so everybody knew what was going on and why. The reason why the Chinese people were eager to read and willing to recite Mao's works at the time is because they found what Mao said represented their best interests. And Mao said what they wanted to hear. For example Mao's article "To Serve the People" is only one and a half pages long. But in this short article Mao elaborated on how a communist official should behave. A communist official shouldn't have any self interests. He should work for the people and serve the people. They should care about the poor people and the farmers. They should welcome criticism. If they were not doing something right, they should change it for the sake of the people. This is all something the farmers never heard and they wanted to hear.
Q: Why during that time, during those 10 years of the Cultural Revolution, was there no effort made to purge the Communist Party of the right-wing capitalist roaders?
DH: The Cultural Revolution was not to purge people, it was to educate the people. Many of the capitalist roaders had fought for the revolution and made important contributions to the Chinese revolution. It was an accepted traditional idea that those who fight for the revolution should enjoy the privileges when the revolution succeeded. It was not enough to purge these people. The problem was the old traditional ideas. So the Cultural Revolution was to do away with the traditional ideas and educate the people through mobilizing the farmers and the workers. I think if there was no coup in 1976, I doubt that this government apparatus would have changed by itself. It happened because there was a coup. But I don't think to purge people is a solution either. I remember during the Cultural Revolution there were some high officials in my county who encouraged their own children to work with the farmers and to ask for the most difficult assignments and tasks to build their character. It seemed that these high officials did change with the change of social climate during the Cultural Revolution years. But when the social climate changed, they changed back.
Most people were not aware that there was a coup in 1976. Mao's wife and three other important leaders were arrested. And there was a very extensive purge throughout China. Hundreds of thousands of people who supported the Cultural Revolution were arrested right away. Some people argue that Mao should have killed Deng Xiaoping and a few others to prevent the arrest of the Gang of Four. Maybe he should have, but he did not.
Q: Could you paint a picture comparing what the average daily life was like for you and your family during the Cultural Revolution compared to, on the one hand communism before the Cultural Revolution, and then compared to your family now in capitalist China?
DH: The Cultural Revolution was launched because the Great Leap Forward failed. It failed partly because there was a 100-year natural disaster on the one hand. On the other hand, it failed because communist officials in the villages were not really socialist yet. They ordered farmers to do too much and they themselves didn't want to work hard. There was not enough to eat during the Great Leap Forward because of the natural disasters on the one hand and mismanagement on the other. So the reason I think the Cultural Revolution was launched by Mao was that he realized at the time that the Chinese officials needed to be educated and that the Chinese people needed to be educated through a socialist movement. That's why he mobilized the Chinese farmers to criticize the officials in the village. And of course, I was too young, I don't remember too much about the Great Leap Forward. But during the Cultural Revolution, I remember very well. I was working in the fields with the farmers and at that time in the rural areas, each village had a production brigade, and each brigade was divided into several production teams. In my village there were eight production teams. Each production team had about 40 families. We elected five production team leaders each year. We had a production team head, a woman leader, an accountant, a cashier, and a store keeper. Before the Cultural Revolution these people were appointed by the village leaders and the village leaders were appointed by the commune leaders. It was not democratically elected. During the Cultural Revolution years, these production team leaders were elected by the farmers.
We worked in the fields together. Everybody came out and worked together. And at the end of the day the cashier would record how many people worked that day. And at the end of the year, when the harvest came in, the village accountant, together with the production team accountant, would develop a distribution plan. Seventy percent of the grain was distributed according to how many people you had in your family. Thirty percent was distributed according to how much you worked in the collective. So if you did not work in the fields, you were still entitled to 70 percent of the grain from the collective. That was the distribution on the production team level. There was also distribution at the production brigade level. The village owned many enterprises. After putting away money for a welfare fund, money to purchase new equipment and so on, the village would distribute its income according to how much you had worked in the collective. The collective also produced vegetables, fruits, peanuts and we also raised pigs. These would be distributed to villagers regularly according to the same distribution schedule as grain was distributed. We also purchased fish, wine, cigarettes collectively with the money earned by the village enterprises, and this was distributed to each family on important occasions like Chinese New Year and other holidays. We got almost all our supplies from the collective.
After the Cultural Revolution years, I went to college and my two sisters who used to work for the village, found jobs in a state-owned factory in the early '80s. Now the factory has been sold and my two sisters have been unemployed since 1996. My younger sister is still working in the village, as the village cashier now. My village is doing well compared with other villages. Life has changed dramatically in the countryside. I think for most working class people, life has changed for the worse. Even though they may get more money, they have lost benefits like free medical care and free education of the socialist past. They now have to pay for their education. They have to pay for their medical care. Most farmers cannot afford the medical care. If they are sick for a small problem, they just endure the problem. If they are sick for a big problem, they just wait to die. Many of them say they do not want to leave a big debt for their children by going to the hospital. The medical care is very expensive now and it is beyond the reach of most farmers and working class people in urban areas.
Q: Could you talk a little about what the cultural life was like in your village and how that changed?
DH: Before the Cultural Revolution, Chinese performing arts were mostly about talented young men and beautiful ladies, kings, generals and so on. That's what the Chinese traditional plays were about. During the Cultural Revolution, there was a surge of a new kind of art. Every village at the time had a group of farmer artists and they played instruments, sang revolutionary songs, danced revolutionary dances, and staged revolutionary plays. There was some kind of performance in the village almost every night. These performances became educational tools. Revolutionary ideas spread because of these revolutionary performances. And it was very powerful. But of course today you don't see that any more in the countryside. But if you go to China today, you can still see older people singing the revolutionary songs in parks and public spaces to entertain themselves.
Q: In the movies that we see about China and the Cultural Revolution, there is a representation of people being picked up and tried by popular tribunals and paraded around town, punished. My question is: where does this image come from, did you hear about things like this in China, how widespread was this?
DH: That image was from the Cultural Revolution years. For a few weeks in the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese officials were being criticized on the stage. That was very common. I saw it many times. I would say most government officials went through some of that at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. At the same time, I would argue, many of these people deserved some kind of punishment. They had made mistakes in their work. And because of their mistakes, people suffered. People were looking for ways to air their anger. In the villages, the struggle against village leaders was more gentle and peaceful.
These public struggle sessions to deal with officials who committed crimes and made mistakes were different ways of dealing with these people. After they were struggled with for a day or two, they were allowed to go free. They were taught a lesson by the people. In the U.S. people are sent to prison. I still think this public education during the Cultural Revolution was very effective, not only to educate the village officials, but also everybody else. After the session, they were free. So I don't think that was a bad practice. I think it was a very good practice.
Q: What about the situation in China now, particularly the economic crisis and how you think that's working itself out, especially in the rural areas, but more generally?
DH: The Chinese government is faced with a huge challenge today and the Chinese government officials themselves have admitted that on many occasions. Some people estimate that there are 100 incidents involving more than 100 people challenging the government and 300 incidents involving less than 100 challenging the government each day. I read in a document about an incident in Guangdong province where three police officers stopped a car without a license plate and upon further check they found the driver without a driver's license. But the three people came out the car and yelled that the police are harassing people and about 2,000 people came out. They turned the police car upside down and set it on fire. The government is warning the police to be careful because the tension between the people and the government is very high.
And there are a lot of people in the countryside who are very angry with the township government. I was told by a farmer about an incident in a rural township. The party secretary was taking a nap one day. But about 100 farmers ,who were angry with the township government's decision to move the market to a different place, went to his bedroom. They actually dragged him by his four limbs into the marketplace and threw him up into the air for a half hour. They didn't hit him. They just toyed with him for a half hour. In the end the government had to remove him from office because he had become an embarrassment for the government. This happened last year. There was another government official who was beaten by the farmers. The villagers wanted him to take a patient to the hospital. He refused. He said that not everyone could ride in his car. The farmers almost killed him, but the government didn't punish the people who did it. So I think the government realizes how tense its relationship is with the masses.
In the old days, the Chinese government officials came to the village and worked with the farmers. And today they don't do that. They come to the village in big cars, only to get money from farmers and to enforce the one child policy... I think the government has a legitimacy crisis. The Chinese government was able to survive the challenges of the Great Leap Forward posed by unprecedented natural disasters and mismanagement by its officials because of the socialist legitimacy. I don't think it will be able to survive any challenges close to that of the Great Leap Forward.
Q: Could you talk about what happened during the coup in 1976 and also how that whole period was being understood where you were?
DH: I still remember where I was on 9 September 1976. At 4 o'clock that day, I was walking with my friend outside the village when the loudspeaker said there was a very important announcement. And we immediately realized something was wrong. And they said Chairman Mao had passed away. I don't know how I walked home that day. I remember that everybody around me was crying. Finally I reached home. My father cried all the way home from his factory. When my grandpa died he didn't cry. He gathered the family together and he said, today our poor people's sky has fallen and we do not know what life will be like tomorrow. At the time, I thought, in my heart, how could that be possible? We have built the socialist state. How could the poor people's sky fall just because Chairman Mao died?
It turned out that my father was right. When the Gang of Four was arrested, the Chinese government said the people were really happy. That was not true. In my home town many young people really respected Jiang Qing because of an incident that happened in a neighbouring commune. On Chinese New Year in 1975, the village leader played over the loudspeaker a traditional drama which was criticized during the Cultural Revolution. A young man in the village criticized the village leader for playing that over the loudspeaker. But the village leaders accused him of causing trouble in the village. He called the police and the police took him away. While he was in prison, he wrote a letter to Jiang Qing, and in less than five days, Jiang Qing responded to his letter. Jiang Qing ordered that the person be released. And the village leader was dismissed from office. Young people in my area loved Jiang Qing. When the Gang of Four was arrested a few weeks after Mao died, we knew things were going to be different.
Question: You were saying that the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution were the most exciting of your life. Could you give some examples of that spirit that you felt?
DH: The way that I felt at that time was that I had a strong sense of security. I was not alone in this world. My neighbours, my production team leaders, the village leaders would take care of anybody if they needed help.
In 1998, one of my friends who worked with me committed suicide. When I received the news from my village I cried. The reason I cried was because I felt that if the collective had not been disbanded he would not have died; he would not have committed suicide. And this person was about my age. When he was young, he couldn't get up early in the morning. So every morning my production team leader told me to go to wake him up. When I went to wake him up the first time, he answered me, and got up. The second day, he said, I'll get up but he never got up. So I had to drag him up from his bed. The third day his grandmother was very upset that I woke him up every day. She told me that her grandson needed more sleep. But the production team leader said to me: "Do not mind his grandmother. Wake him up. He needs help." So he came to work with us with my help. He worked every day. He was a very good worker. He was very talented as well. He played the Chinese instrument, the erhu very well and he also painted well. But after the collective was disbanded, nobody went to wake him up anymore. He was able to sleep as much as he wanted. So eventually his wife left him. And by 1996, 1997 he became mentally disturbed. And the last time I saw him was in 1997 when I went back home. I saw him walking naked on the street. He saw me and ran back home. I followed him to his house. I asked him why he walked naked in the streets. He said that life was bad for him. He did not want to live any more. I told him that he had to change his mindset, that he needed to face the challenges. I asked him why he didn't go back to painting if he could not do anything else. I told him that I would be in the village for another 10 days, and I would like to buy a painting from him. He promised that he would do it. But the next day, he came to see me. He said that he could not do it now. He told me that he would do it for me the next year. I told him that it was him that I was interested in not the painting. I wanted to see him stand up and take control of his life. But three months after I left the village, he committed suicide. He hung himself. When I learned of this news from my younger sister, I cried very hard. I felt that if the collective were not disbanded, he did not need to commit suicide. The community was no longer there. Your friends and your neighbours became competitors and strangers to you. The security network had been taken away. For Americans you're used to this kind of competition. But for Chinese farmers who lived under the socialist system before, the change was too dramatic for many people.
Q: The Cultural Revolution sent shock waves around the world. In your village, how much were you aware of the international situation, the influence this was having internationally?
DH: At that time when I was in the village, I really felt we were part of the international revolution. We were young and we were part of a big picture. I remember in 1971 there was a huge drought in our area. The county government held a huge rally in the marketplace. At the rally, government leaders and representatives of farmers and workers said that we were fighting this drought not just for ourselves. We were fighting this in support of the Vietnamese people's fight against U.S. imperialism. We were fighting this drought to support oppressed people in Africa and so on. After the rally, everybody in our school wrote a pledge to join the fight against the drought. The school was closed for two weeks. We went back to the village to fight the drought with the villagers for two weeks. Everybody worked very hard. I felt that I was doing something significant to help the revolution. At that time I didn't really understand what it meant. It was standard language. I believed what we were told by the government that we had friends all over the world. After the Cultural Revolution was over, the Chinese elite told us that it was government propaganda. But it was not simply propaganda. I found this out when I studied in Singapore. When Mao died in 1976, China did not have diplomatic relations with Singapore. So the branch bank of Bank of China decided to hold a memorial service for Mao for three days. Ordinary Singaporeans and seaman from all over the world came to show their respect for Mao day and night. The line was so long, the staff at the Bank of China had to extend the memorial service from three days to ten. I realized then that our fight in China was connected with the struggle of oppressed people all over the world.
Q: I want to step back to your experience in the Cultural Revolution. You were able to go to school, you grew up and became an educated youth in the countryside, and yet there was this political campaign that was going on for 10 years. How did this intersect with you, how much were you continuing to follow it?
Dongping Han: My whole value system was changed very dramatically. Before the Cultural Revolution, my father never allowed me to talk back to him; that's how the Chinese family was. He never allowed me to talk back to him. Whenever there were guests in the house I was never allowed to say a word. But during the Cultural Revolution years that changed. I said, "Chairman Mao said I can talk back to you!" But many people in the U.S. country think that the revolutionary campaign is an interruption of life. No. The revolution did not disrupt most people's lives, particularly in the village. During the day most work continues, and at night people went out to the streets and there was a lot of debate; different groups debate in the streets. My cousin and I went to shops at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution to propagate Mao's ideas. The government-owned shops extended their hours until 10 at night at the time. So we went to the shops to read Mao's teachings and perform the plays, and so on. We loved that.
Maybe I can give you an example to illustrate the change. Before the Cultural Revolution years, people in my area never gave blood to anybody. If you needed a blood transfusion, you went to your family: your wife, your father or your brothers. People thought that if you gave blood to another person, you would lose your own vitality in life. But one day, one of my colleagues was sick and needed a blood transfusion. Most of the factory workers were working in fields harvesting. It was a busy time in the village. Twenty young people who were working in the village went to the hospital. The nurses checked our blood types. I was the only person who qualified to give the blood. I knew at the time any one of the 20 people would give their blood to save my colleague. The village party secretary asked me what to do. I said that we needed to save the patient. They took more than 700 cc from me and after that I couldn't walk and they had to take me home in a wheelbarrow. And the next morning I woke up and my mom and my two aunts were all crying. They actually cried the whole night. They thought I wouldn't be able to get married, nobody would marry me. But life changed, and it wasn't just me. All the people who went to the hospital that day would have happily given blood to that person that day.
Whenever there was a storm, even at midnight people would get up to cover the collective crops. If it snowed we would get up to clean the streets. We did not have bulldozers. Everybody would get out to clean the streets. Another important change in the rural life was that there were almost no crimes during the Cultural Revolution years. For 10 years, we did not have any crime in the village. In my commune of 50,000 people, I did not hear of any serious crime for 10 years. But now, crime has become so common in China.
Q: Could you compare your daily life during the Cultural Revolution to what the daily life would have been like for your grandparents before 1949?
DH: The reason why my father was so supportive of the Communist Party was that he had to work 18 hours a day. He had to pick up the capitalists′ night soil and did household chores beside long hours of work in the workshop. When the communists came to power, the workday became eight hours, so my father's life changed for the better under socialism. My father used to believe in Buddhism. After the communists came to power, he no longer believed it any more. On the Chinese New Year, my mom always asked to kowtow to the gods of the family. My father would always tell me not to do it. He was told that he was suffering because he did something wrong in the previous life. He changed his previous life, but his life suddenly changed for the better with the Communist Party in power.
Both my father and my mom begged before 1949, and were hungry all the time. Both my grandmothers died in their 30s in 1944, without any medical care. But ever since I could remember, I never felt hungry. I always had enough to eat. My father never bought any toys for me when I was young. I often compare my childhood with my son's in the U.S. At the time, we had a lot of kids in the neighbourhood to play with and we made toys for ourselves. We played a lot of games ourselves. We worked on the collective farm during the summer, spring and fall. In winter we played popular games in the streets when there was nothing to do in the fields. And I always ask my son which childhood is better. Of course it's very hard for him to imagine. But I strongly believe that my childhood was much more healthy, much more creative than that of my son who has nothing else but toys and video games. We had community, and we learned how to interact with one another; we learned how to build up leadership skills and things like that. And my son didn't have those skills. When I first came to the U.S, I had a class on the Cultural Revolution. And the professor said that Cultural Revolution education was a disaster, and most students in the class agreed with him. In the end, I told the class that I was a product of the Cultural Revolution education. I challenged the whole class to a competition with me to see who is better educated. Nobody was willing to take on the challenge.
Question: You went back to China in 1986. When did you and others like you start to see that things were different, that China had become very different than what it had been during the Cultural Revolution?
Dongping Han: I think people realized right away. The land was privatized in China in 1983. Many people tend to think that farmers are stupid and ignorant. But I think the farmers are very intelligent people. Many of them realized the implications of private farming right away. That was why they resisted it very hard in the beginning. And in my village and in other villages I surveyed, the overwhelming majority of people, 90 percent, said the Communist Party no longer cares about poor people. Right away they felt this way. The Communist Party, the cadres, no longer cared about poor people in the countryside. The government investment in rural areas in the countryside dropped from 15 percent in the national budget in 1970s to only 3-4 percent in the '80s. So the Chinese public realized that the Chinese government no longer cared about them by disbanding the communes. But I was in college at the time and I didn't start to think about the issue very hard until 1986.
Q: Can you explain a little bit more how the Cultural Revolution came to your village?
DH: The Cultural Revolution started slowly. Before the start of the Cultural Revolution, there was a call to start to study Mao's works. The Chinese People's Liberation Army came to the village to read Chairman Mao's works. They held performances in the village. They came to people's home to teach people to read Mao's three classic articles: "Serve the People", "In Memory of Norman Bethune" and "The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains". They explained to the villagers what these articles were about. After the PLA soldiers left, many school children, like myself, started to teach villagers about Mao's works as well. When the central government announced the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, high school and middle school students left their schools, and began to write big character posters in the streets. The high school students dragged 20 of their teachers to the marketplace and denounced them publicly and shaved off half their hair in front of a big crowd. I do not think that most people knew what the Cultural Revolution would be like at the beginning.
Many students began to publish newspapers and pamphlets. There were so many pamphlets at the time, criticizing government officials. In the beginning they were mostly written by students. Not long after this, farmers and workers began to write them as well. There was so much information going on at the time. Later on, there was a group of high school and middle school students from my county that travelled all the way to Beijing to see Chairman Mao. When they came back in August 1966, they began to organize into different Red Guard factions. They started to organize mass rallies to criticize the county and commune leaders. All officials were under some kind of popular scrutiny and attack at the time.
Almost everybody, I would say 90 percent of the population, was part of a mass organization.
I was in third grade at that time. Five of my friends and I also organized a Red Guard organization. We designed our Red Guard symbols and began to publish a single page newspaper. We collected enough money to get a hand printer to print our newspaper. In my school there were 13 small newspapers. We would recruit others and write something and go to the marketplace to distribute it to the people. That's how it started. There were big character posters everywhere. The village streets were plastered with big character posters, mostly criticizing village leaders. Before the Cultural Revolution, the village leaders had a lot of power. They normally didn't work in the field and they would eat and drink a lot at the village's expense. And the Cultural Revolution held them to task. That's how it started actually.
In all these activities with the big character posters, all were written by the farmers themselves. And I remember some of the farmers who didn't know how to write. They came to us, they came to the school kids, and we would write it for them. So it was a very mobilizing movement. Everybody in the village was touched by that.
The reason the officials are corrupt today and were not during the Cultural Revolution years is because the masses were really empowered. There was always a mass meeting every night and all the government policies and directives were read to the farmers. And it was required by the government at the time. They were read to the farmers and then the farmers discussed these documents, so everybody knew what was going on and why. The reason why the Chinese people were eager to read and willing to recite Mao's works at the time is because they found what Mao said represented their best interests. And Mao said what they wanted to hear. For example Mao's article "To Serve the People" is only one and a half pages long. But in this short article Mao elaborated on how a communist official should behave. A communist official shouldn't have any self interests. He should work for the people and serve the people. They should care about the poor people and the farmers. They should welcome criticism. If they were not doing something right, they should change it for the sake of the people. This is all something the farmers never heard and they wanted to hear.
Q: Why during that time, during those 10 years of the Cultural Revolution, was there no effort made to purge the Communist Party of the right-wing capitalist roaders?
DH: The Cultural Revolution was not to purge people, it was to educate the people. Many of the capitalist roaders had fought for the revolution and made important contributions to the Chinese revolution. It was an accepted traditional idea that those who fight for the revolution should enjoy the privileges when the revolution succeeded. It was not enough to purge these people. The problem was the old traditional ideas. So the Cultural Revolution was to do away with the traditional ideas and educate the people through mobilizing the farmers and the workers. I think if there was no coup in 1976, I doubt that this government apparatus would have changed by itself. It happened because there was a coup. But I don't think to purge people is a solution either. I remember during the Cultural Revolution there were some high officials in my county who encouraged their own children to work with the farmers and to ask for the most difficult assignments and tasks to build their character. It seemed that these high officials did change with the change of social climate during the Cultural Revolution years. But when the social climate changed, they changed back.
Most people were not aware that there was a coup in 1976. Mao's wife and three other important leaders were arrested. And there was a very extensive purge throughout China. Hundreds of thousands of people who supported the Cultural Revolution were arrested right away. Some people argue that Mao should have killed Deng Xiaoping and a few others to prevent the arrest of the Gang of Four. Maybe he should have, but he did not.
Q: Could you paint a picture comparing what the average daily life was like for you and your family during the Cultural Revolution compared to, on the one hand communism before the Cultural Revolution, and then compared to your family now in capitalist China?
DH: The Cultural Revolution was launched because the Great Leap Forward failed. It failed partly because there was a 100-year natural disaster on the one hand. On the other hand, it failed because communist officials in the villages were not really socialist yet. They ordered farmers to do too much and they themselves didn't want to work hard. There was not enough to eat during the Great Leap Forward because of the natural disasters on the one hand and mismanagement on the other. So the reason I think the Cultural Revolution was launched by Mao was that he realized at the time that the Chinese officials needed to be educated and that the Chinese people needed to be educated through a socialist movement. That's why he mobilized the Chinese farmers to criticize the officials in the village. And of course, I was too young, I don't remember too much about the Great Leap Forward. But during the Cultural Revolution, I remember very well. I was working in the fields with the farmers and at that time in the rural areas, each village had a production brigade, and each brigade was divided into several production teams. In my village there were eight production teams. Each production team had about 40 families. We elected five production team leaders each year. We had a production team head, a woman leader, an accountant, a cashier, and a store keeper. Before the Cultural Revolution these people were appointed by the village leaders and the village leaders were appointed by the commune leaders. It was not democratically elected. During the Cultural Revolution years, these production team leaders were elected by the farmers.
We worked in the fields together. Everybody came out and worked together. And at the end of the day the cashier would record how many people worked that day. And at the end of the year, when the harvest came in, the village accountant, together with the production team accountant, would develop a distribution plan. Seventy percent of the grain was distributed according to how many people you had in your family. Thirty percent was distributed according to how much you worked in the collective. So if you did not work in the fields, you were still entitled to 70 percent of the grain from the collective. That was the distribution on the production team level. There was also distribution at the production brigade level. The village owned many enterprises. After putting away money for a welfare fund, money to purchase new equipment and so on, the village would distribute its income according to how much you had worked in the collective. The collective also produced vegetables, fruits, peanuts and we also raised pigs. These would be distributed to villagers regularly according to the same distribution schedule as grain was distributed. We also purchased fish, wine, cigarettes collectively with the money earned by the village enterprises, and this was distributed to each family on important occasions like Chinese New Year and other holidays. We got almost all our supplies from the collective.
After the Cultural Revolution years, I went to college and my two sisters who used to work for the village, found jobs in a state-owned factory in the early '80s. Now the factory has been sold and my two sisters have been unemployed since 1996. My younger sister is still working in the village, as the village cashier now. My village is doing well compared with other villages. Life has changed dramatically in the countryside. I think for most working class people, life has changed for the worse. Even though they may get more money, they have lost benefits like free medical care and free education of the socialist past. They now have to pay for their education. They have to pay for their medical care. Most farmers cannot afford the medical care. If they are sick for a small problem, they just endure the problem. If they are sick for a big problem, they just wait to die. Many of them say they do not want to leave a big debt for their children by going to the hospital. The medical care is very expensive now and it is beyond the reach of most farmers and working class people in urban areas.
Q: Could you talk a little about what the cultural life was like in your village and how that changed?
DH: Before the Cultural Revolution, Chinese performing arts were mostly about talented young men and beautiful ladies, kings, generals and so on. That's what the Chinese traditional plays were about. During the Cultural Revolution, there was a surge of a new kind of art. Every village at the time had a group of farmer artists and they played instruments, sang revolutionary songs, danced revolutionary dances, and staged revolutionary plays. There was some kind of performance in the village almost every night. These performances became educational tools. Revolutionary ideas spread because of these revolutionary performances. And it was very powerful. But of course today you don't see that any more in the countryside. But if you go to China today, you can still see older people singing the revolutionary songs in parks and public spaces to entertain themselves.
Q: In the movies that we see about China and the Cultural Revolution, there is a representation of people being picked up and tried by popular tribunals and paraded around town, punished. My question is: where does this image come from, did you hear about things like this in China, how widespread was this?
DH: That image was from the Cultural Revolution years. For a few weeks in the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese officials were being criticized on the stage. That was very common. I saw it many times. I would say most government officials went through some of that at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. At the same time, I would argue, many of these people deserved some kind of punishment. They had made mistakes in their work. And because of their mistakes, people suffered. People were looking for ways to air their anger. In the villages, the struggle against village leaders was more gentle and peaceful.
These public struggle sessions to deal with officials who committed crimes and made mistakes were different ways of dealing with these people. After they were struggled with for a day or two, they were allowed to go free. They were taught a lesson by the people. In the U.S. people are sent to prison. I still think this public education during the Cultural Revolution was very effective, not only to educate the village officials, but also everybody else. After the session, they were free. So I don't think that was a bad practice. I think it was a very good practice.
Q: What about the situation in China now, particularly the economic crisis and how you think that's working itself out, especially in the rural areas, but more generally?
DH: The Chinese government is faced with a huge challenge today and the Chinese government officials themselves have admitted that on many occasions. Some people estimate that there are 100 incidents involving more than 100 people challenging the government and 300 incidents involving less than 100 challenging the government each day. I read in a document about an incident in Guangdong province where three police officers stopped a car without a license plate and upon further check they found the driver without a driver's license. But the three people came out the car and yelled that the police are harassing people and about 2,000 people came out. They turned the police car upside down and set it on fire. The government is warning the police to be careful because the tension between the people and the government is very high.
And there are a lot of people in the countryside who are very angry with the township government. I was told by a farmer about an incident in a rural township. The party secretary was taking a nap one day. But about 100 farmers ,who were angry with the township government's decision to move the market to a different place, went to his bedroom. They actually dragged him by his four limbs into the marketplace and threw him up into the air for a half hour. They didn't hit him. They just toyed with him for a half hour. In the end the government had to remove him from office because he had become an embarrassment for the government. This happened last year. There was another government official who was beaten by the farmers. The villagers wanted him to take a patient to the hospital. He refused. He said that not everyone could ride in his car. The farmers almost killed him, but the government didn't punish the people who did it. So I think the government realizes how tense its relationship is with the masses.
In the old days, the Chinese government officials came to the village and worked with the farmers. And today they don't do that. They come to the village in big cars, only to get money from farmers and to enforce the one child policy... I think the government has a legitimacy crisis. The Chinese government was able to survive the challenges of the Great Leap Forward posed by unprecedented natural disasters and mismanagement by its officials because of the socialist legitimacy. I don't think it will be able to survive any challenges close to that of the Great Leap Forward.
Q: Could you talk about what happened during the coup in 1976 and also how that whole period was being understood where you were?
DH: I still remember where I was on 9 September 1976. At 4 o'clock that day, I was walking with my friend outside the village when the loudspeaker said there was a very important announcement. And we immediately realized something was wrong. And they said Chairman Mao had passed away. I don't know how I walked home that day. I remember that everybody around me was crying. Finally I reached home. My father cried all the way home from his factory. When my grandpa died he didn't cry. He gathered the family together and he said, today our poor people's sky has fallen and we do not know what life will be like tomorrow. At the time, I thought, in my heart, how could that be possible? We have built the socialist state. How could the poor people's sky fall just because Chairman Mao died?
It turned out that my father was right. When the Gang of Four was arrested, the Chinese government said the people were really happy. That was not true. In my home town many young people really respected Jiang Qing because of an incident that happened in a neighbouring commune. On Chinese New Year in 1975, the village leader played over the loudspeaker a traditional drama which was criticized during the Cultural Revolution. A young man in the village criticized the village leader for playing that over the loudspeaker. But the village leaders accused him of causing trouble in the village. He called the police and the police took him away. While he was in prison, he wrote a letter to Jiang Qing, and in less than five days, Jiang Qing responded to his letter. Jiang Qing ordered that the person be released. And the village leader was dismissed from office. Young people in my area loved Jiang Qing. When the Gang of Four was arrested a few weeks after Mao died, we knew things were going to be different.
Question: You were saying that the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution were the most exciting of your life. Could you give some examples of that spirit that you felt?
DH: The way that I felt at that time was that I had a strong sense of security. I was not alone in this world. My neighbours, my production team leaders, the village leaders would take care of anybody if they needed help.
In 1998, one of my friends who worked with me committed suicide. When I received the news from my village I cried. The reason I cried was because I felt that if the collective had not been disbanded he would not have died; he would not have committed suicide. And this person was about my age. When he was young, he couldn't get up early in the morning. So every morning my production team leader told me to go to wake him up. When I went to wake him up the first time, he answered me, and got up. The second day, he said, I'll get up but he never got up. So I had to drag him up from his bed. The third day his grandmother was very upset that I woke him up every day. She told me that her grandson needed more sleep. But the production team leader said to me: "Do not mind his grandmother. Wake him up. He needs help." So he came to work with us with my help. He worked every day. He was a very good worker. He was very talented as well. He played the Chinese instrument, the erhu very well and he also painted well. But after the collective was disbanded, nobody went to wake him up anymore. He was able to sleep as much as he wanted. So eventually his wife left him. And by 1996, 1997 he became mentally disturbed. And the last time I saw him was in 1997 when I went back home. I saw him walking naked on the street. He saw me and ran back home. I followed him to his house. I asked him why he walked naked in the streets. He said that life was bad for him. He did not want to live any more. I told him that he had to change his mindset, that he needed to face the challenges. I asked him why he didn't go back to painting if he could not do anything else. I told him that I would be in the village for another 10 days, and I would like to buy a painting from him. He promised that he would do it. But the next day, he came to see me. He said that he could not do it now. He told me that he would do it for me the next year. I told him that it was him that I was interested in not the painting. I wanted to see him stand up and take control of his life. But three months after I left the village, he committed suicide. He hung himself. When I learned of this news from my younger sister, I cried very hard. I felt that if the collective were not disbanded, he did not need to commit suicide. The community was no longer there. Your friends and your neighbours became competitors and strangers to you. The security network had been taken away. For Americans you're used to this kind of competition. But for Chinese farmers who lived under the socialist system before, the change was too dramatic for many people.
Q: The Cultural Revolution sent shock waves around the world. In your village, how much were you aware of the international situation, the influence this was having internationally?
DH: At that time when I was in the village, I really felt we were part of the international revolution. We were young and we were part of a big picture. I remember in 1971 there was a huge drought in our area. The county government held a huge rally in the marketplace. At the rally, government leaders and representatives of farmers and workers said that we were fighting this drought not just for ourselves. We were fighting this in support of the Vietnamese people's fight against U.S. imperialism. We were fighting this drought to support oppressed people in Africa and so on. After the rally, everybody in our school wrote a pledge to join the fight against the drought. The school was closed for two weeks. We went back to the village to fight the drought with the villagers for two weeks. Everybody worked very hard. I felt that I was doing something significant to help the revolution. At that time I didn't really understand what it meant. It was standard language. I believed what we were told by the government that we had friends all over the world. After the Cultural Revolution was over, the Chinese elite told us that it was government propaganda. But it was not simply propaganda. I found this out when I studied in Singapore. When Mao died in 1976, China did not have diplomatic relations with Singapore. So the branch bank of Bank of China decided to hold a memorial service for Mao for three days. Ordinary Singaporeans and seaman from all over the world came to show their respect for Mao day and night. The line was so long, the staff at the Bank of China had to extend the memorial service from three days to ten. I realized then that our fight in China was connected with the struggle of oppressed people all over the world.
Q: I want to step back to your experience in the Cultural Revolution. You were able to go to school, you grew up and became an educated youth in the countryside, and yet there was this political campaign that was going on for 10 years. How did this intersect with you, how much were you continuing to follow it?
Dongping Han: My whole value system was changed very dramatically. Before the Cultural Revolution, my father never allowed me to talk back to him; that's how the Chinese family was. He never allowed me to talk back to him. Whenever there were guests in the house I was never allowed to say a word. But during the Cultural Revolution years that changed. I said, "Chairman Mao said I can talk back to you!" But many people in the U.S. country think that the revolutionary campaign is an interruption of life. No. The revolution did not disrupt most people's lives, particularly in the village. During the day most work continues, and at night people went out to the streets and there was a lot of debate; different groups debate in the streets. My cousin and I went to shops at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution to propagate Mao's ideas. The government-owned shops extended their hours until 10 at night at the time. So we went to the shops to read Mao's teachings and perform the plays, and so on. We loved that.
Maybe I can give you an example to illustrate the change. Before the Cultural Revolution years, people in my area never gave blood to anybody. If you needed a blood transfusion, you went to your family: your wife, your father or your brothers. People thought that if you gave blood to another person, you would lose your own vitality in life. But one day, one of my colleagues was sick and needed a blood transfusion. Most of the factory workers were working in fields harvesting. It was a busy time in the village. Twenty young people who were working in the village went to the hospital. The nurses checked our blood types. I was the only person who qualified to give the blood. I knew at the time any one of the 20 people would give their blood to save my colleague. The village party secretary asked me what to do. I said that we needed to save the patient. They took more than 700 cc from me and after that I couldn't walk and they had to take me home in a wheelbarrow. And the next morning I woke up and my mom and my two aunts were all crying. They actually cried the whole night. They thought I wouldn't be able to get married, nobody would marry me. But life changed, and it wasn't just me. All the people who went to the hospital that day would have happily given blood to that person that day.
Whenever there was a storm, even at midnight people would get up to cover the collective crops. If it snowed we would get up to clean the streets. We did not have bulldozers. Everybody would get out to clean the streets. Another important change in the rural life was that there were almost no crimes during the Cultural Revolution years. For 10 years, we did not have any crime in the village. In my commune of 50,000 people, I did not hear of any serious crime for 10 years. But now, crime has become so common in China.
Q: Could you compare your daily life during the Cultural Revolution to what the daily life would have been like for your grandparents before 1949?
DH: The reason why my father was so supportive of the Communist Party was that he had to work 18 hours a day. He had to pick up the capitalists′ night soil and did household chores beside long hours of work in the workshop. When the communists came to power, the workday became eight hours, so my father's life changed for the better under socialism. My father used to believe in Buddhism. After the communists came to power, he no longer believed it any more. On the Chinese New Year, my mom always asked to kowtow to the gods of the family. My father would always tell me not to do it. He was told that he was suffering because he did something wrong in the previous life. He changed his previous life, but his life suddenly changed for the better with the Communist Party in power.
Both my father and my mom begged before 1949, and were hungry all the time. Both my grandmothers died in their 30s in 1944, without any medical care. But ever since I could remember, I never felt hungry. I always had enough to eat. My father never bought any toys for me when I was young. I often compare my childhood with my son's in the U.S. At the time, we had a lot of kids in the neighbourhood to play with and we made toys for ourselves. We played a lot of games ourselves. We worked on the collective farm during the summer, spring and fall. In winter we played popular games in the streets when there was nothing to do in the fields. And I always ask my son which childhood is better. Of course it's very hard for him to imagine. But I strongly believe that my childhood was much more healthy, much more creative than that of my son who has nothing else but toys and video games. We had community, and we learned how to interact with one another; we learned how to build up leadership skills and things like that. And my son didn't have those skills. When I first came to the U.S, I had a class on the Cultural Revolution. And the professor said that Cultural Revolution education was a disaster, and most students in the class agreed with him. In the end, I told the class that I was a product of the Cultural Revolution education. I challenged the whole class to a competition with me to see who is better educated. Nobody was willing to take on the challenge.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)