Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av mickes418
Om nu länkarna innehåller så mycket fel, ta fram källor som visar på det. Likaså gällande Mao-boken, ta fram källa på att den innehåller rena lögner.
Tidningsartiklarna är ju bara en reporter som far omkring, han kan ju ha ljugit ihop allt. Jag kan skriva att Carl XVI Gustaf har dödat 2 miljoner och att Rheinfeldt heilar och marscherar till onkel kånkel och få folk att säga det till mig också men det är inte direkt en verklig bild även om jag pulicerar det i en tidning som jag äger (eller hemsida).
Om Mao-boken då jag inte vet något om den andra. Jag har inte tillgång till alla källor och historikers skrifter men en snabb titt på wikipedia nämner några.
"David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Contemporary China Studies at the University of Technology, Sydney, wrote a sharply critical review of Chang and Halliday's book in The Pacific Review. He suggested that there is an implied argument in Mao: The Unknown Story that there has been "a conspiracy of academics and scholars who have chosen not to reveal the truth" - an argument which he likened to the conspiracy theorizing of the The Da Vinci Code. [b]Goodman argued that
"the 'facts' in The Da Vinci Code are about as reliable as those to be found in...Mao: The Unknown Story." Goodman argued that the style of writing was "extremely polemic" and that
the book could even be thought of as a "form of fiction" where "a strong narrative" is "a substitute for evidence and argument." Goodman was highly critical of Chang and Halliday's methodology and use of sources as well as several of their specific conclusions, claiming that their
focus on vilifying Mao led them to write "demonography" rather than objective history and biography"
Och:
"Similarly, Professor Jonathan Spence of Yale University argued in the New York Review of Books that
the authors' single focus on Mao's vileness had undermined "much of the power their story might have had.""
Och:
"Professor Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University referred to the book as "... a major disaster for the contemporary China field..." because the "scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally
stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader.""
Och:
"Professors Gregor Benton (Cardiff University) and Steve Tsang (University of Oxford) argued that the book was "
bad history and worse biography" which made "numerous flawed assertions." Chang and Halliday "
misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light.""''
Och:
"Timothy Cheek (University of British Columbia) argued in his review that "Chang and Halliday's book
is not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis," rather it "reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera." Cheek found it "
disturbing...that major commercial Western media can conclude that this book is not only history, but terrific history."[26] (Det sista stödjer det vilket vi som inte är hjärntvättade redan vet, dvs att media styr vad folk ska tycka, här i väst liksom i andra system, skillnaden är att vissa är blinda för det eftersom "vi lever i den fria världen där media är objektiv" hahaha!)
Och som avslutning:
In 2009, Gregor Benton edited a volume entitled Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday’s "Mao: The Unknown Story",
which compiles sixteen previously-published academic responses to the book and concludes that
a more balanced picture of Mao is needed.
Som sagt är det bara ur wikipedias sidor då jag är mitt i en flytt och har svårt att rota fram grejer. (och det är till skillnad från det oseriösa gifta paret som skrev Mao: The Unknown Story gjort av ett flertal (minst 16st enligt wikipedia) proffessorer och forskare av historia på de största och mest inflytelserika universiteten på jorden).
