Eric's Beijing Diary

Note: I originally publshed this book review on Amazon on March 31, 2008

This is not a new book. It was written during the Cold War, probably in the early Seventies. As such, one may assume that it would be outdated, but in fact, it gives a good perspective on the events which led to each of the three featured individuals being singled out by the established order after the 1949 revolution. For me, it is also interesting in another way. I don't believe that any of the three individuals would be harassed today in the same way they were then. These men were not criminals. But they all had a following that brought them to the attention of the Communist authorities.

During the late eighties and early nineties, a "revolution" swept through the Communist world. In Europe, it was represented most poignantly by the fall of the Berlin Wall. In China, by the events surrounding Tiananmen and the massive student protests that followed the death of Hu Yaobang. Tiananmen was suppressed, of course—we all know that history. But I have always said that the students lost the battle and won the war. China did change, as did the other Communist countries. In the Soviet Union, that change resulted in the Party losing power. In China, the Party stayed in power, but did not really stay Communist. When the Communists first took over in 1949, there really seemed to be the belief that Christianity (along with other religions) was "the opium of the people." As such, it was antithetical to the kind of system they were trying to set up, and Christian leaders, particularly those with a reputation as "true believers," were singled out for attack. But today, the emphasis is more on regulation and containment in an atmosphere of tolerance. China does not have American style religious freedom, and the leadership is still quite sensitive to any kind of foreign control of religion. But the general attitude is much more one of resignation to religion as a part of Chinese life. In that sense, this book is useful, because it was written before that change, and gives a very helpful insight into the contrast.

Even if you are not familiar with any of the three "mighty men" whose stories are told in this book, the narratives will be interesting to you. The stories are well told by someone who was very familiar with the events. I was most interested in the description of Watchman Nee, who is quite well known by Christians in the West because of the numerous devotional type books published under his name (most of them were actually transcribed lectures--Watchman Nee himself only wrote two books). Nee's writing and work was characterized by a strong reaction to the tendency of missionaries to export their own favorite schisms to China. But he was also known for his passionate belief in an indigenous Christianity, where authority was vested in local churches, not dictated by foreign mission boards. As such, he represented the true spirit of the "Three Self" movement long before the Communists set it up, and their persecution of him showed their own hypocrisy. When Christians from that era describe the Three Self movement as an agent of suppression, it is hard to argue with them. But it's not that way now. Things have changed. This book cannot, of course, describe that change. But it helps by giving a clear picture about the way things were, thus justifying Christian's who refused to be part of the Three Self movement, while at the same time showing, by contrast, that the present status quo is something fundamentally different.

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn

Labels: Christianity, Persecution

Donald Trump is no doubt the only president in the history of the United States to take the oath of office without placing his hand on the Bible.

I first became aware of this watching a show called "Vantage" on the Firstpost network from New Dehli. The video they showed focused on his hand hanging limply by his side, as if the most important thing was to prove he did not have his hand on the Bible. But the news report was flawed, because it was almost all conjecture. So I did some research and found a Fox video (below) that shows a more complete view of the scene. The three people who matter are Melania, Justice Roberts, and, of course, Trump himself. Watch how each of them moves and tell me who you think is primarily responsible for this mishap.

But the larger question is, "Why does it matter?" To answer that question, I focus on three areas represented by the act of placing one's hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office:

1. Sentiment, or tradition
2. Principle
3. Law

Sentiment, principle, and law. Why do they matter? Which matters most?

Sentiment

Taking an oath on the Lincoln Bible is sentiment. It has to do with honoring tradition. Does that matter? After all, any Bible will do, rightd? Yes. So the purpose of taking an oath on the Lincoln Bible is not to imply that the Lincoln Bible is any more true than any other Bible. Or any more holy. But it is a tribute to a great man whom we view with respect as a man who wrestled with God. So while taking the oath of office on the Lincoln Bible doesn't make you more president than any other Bible, it deepens the experience by associating with one of the very best who have held this office.

Principle

The principle involved with placing one's hand on the Bible could be expressed as this statement: "As this book is true, so my words are true." Isn't that a bit presumptious. Yes, it is. But the presumption can be forgiven if it is a sincere attempt to be as committed to our oath as we are to the very Word of God. We keep the oath not because we are paid to, but because we honor God. But does not the act of taking an oath on the Bible imply that we actually believe what it says? So while only one president has failed to show proper regard for the Bible by failing to place his hand on it, Numerous others have openly mocked the Bible by placing their hand on it, and then regarding it's words with disdain and persecuting it's followers.

Law

The law specifies that words that must be agreed to in order to assume the office one has been given. This is right and proper. The holder of an important office should be required to make promises regarding loyalty to which they can be held for the duration of their term of office. If those words have been spoken and the promise has been made clearly, the demands of the law have been fulfilled. But a strictly legalistic approach to life is less than worthy of the man or woman of integrity that we all wish to see occupying high office.

So take a look at the video below and see if you can decide who should bear the most responsibility for this incredible mishap. What does it mean for Trump and his second term? Speaking as a Christian, I have mixed feelings about Trump and what he stands for. Part of me is frustrated by his tendancy to admire dictators and assgn to them far more humanity than I think they deserve. He did it with Kim of North Korea, Erdogan of Turkey, and now he seems to be ready to do it with Putin of Russia. This is not to say that he should not be talking to these individuals. And it's only fair to add that in spite of my frustration with his shallow approach to Zenensky and his grudging support for Ukraine, there is no question that the war there in Ukraine would never have happened if Trump had been in the White House.

Still, we should be wary of being used by autocrats to justify their mistreatment of their people. This requires the vigilence of every citizen.

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn

Labels: Donald Trump, Ukraine

I have been agitating about doing this for some time. I basically grew up with this issue. As a child, I went to bed every night about 2000 miles from Beijing, 1500 miles from Taipei, and 500 miles from Vladivostok. Not surprising that the Japanese people always considered Russia a greater threat than China. It's partly, I suppose, because Japan had occupied large parts of China in the past, and didn't consider them a threat. For us as Americans, Red (Communist) China always seemed more forboding than Russia. And throughout my childhood, Free China (Taiwan) was led by Chiang Kai-shek, who had been the president of China before the KMT escaped to the island of Taiwan. But I said "had been" the president. From his perspective (and from ours at that partular time in the cold war), he still was the president of China. Remember, the name of the country is not Taiwan. Taiwan is the name of an island, not the name of a country. The official name of the country is Republic of China (not People's Republic of China), and that government moved to Taiwan to get away from the Communists, but still considered themselves the "real" government of China. They even took the treasures of the Forbidden City with them.

American Thanksgiving falls on the fourth Thursday of November, which, this year, was two days ago, on the 28th.

In simplest terms, the Rohingya are Muslims in Burma who consider themselves to be indigenous people. The government Considers them Bengali intruders. This all strikes me as an issue that doesn't need to be, but maybe that's because I live in China. Their government of China recognizes 55 minorities in China. It's actually S6 "nationalities," but one of those 56 is the Han, and they, of course, are not a minority. Uyghur

I think there is a lot of moral confusion about ceasefires. . This blog post was inspired by a tweet from Mr. Jerad Kushner, who worked for Trump, and was very significantly involved in the development of the Abraham Accords. Perhaps we could say he was the architect of the accords.

Note: This book was originally published on Amazon on August 23, 2005

Here in China, I have met more than one young person from Europe or America, who has come to China to study the history and language of this country. I, myself am interested in the history of China, so I naturally begin to discuss the subject, and try to get their thoughts on some issue or another. But if I refer to something that pertains to the many dynasties of China, the response is always the same, "Oh. I'm only interested in modern China." I am always intrigued by this comment, because I don't think it is possible properly to understand modern China without knowing something of what went on before. But certainly the predominant interest of those from the West who write about China, is the history of "Modern China," which I date from the Macartney Mission in 1793.

This new biography by Jonathan Fenby, former editor of the South China Morning Post, promises to be the definitive work on the subject for years to come. There are several reasons why I like his book. I will try to elucidate the most important. First of all, Chiang Kai-shek has often been seen by westerners as the person who "lost" China because of his refusal to fight the Japanese. Much of this view came from Barbara Tuchman's biography of Joseph Stillwell, which came out in '70 or '71. Stillwell was protrayed as the hero who tried to save China, but was prevented from doing so by Chiang. In actual fact, Stillwell was a jerk, who according to one of his strongest supporters (Marshall) was "his own worst enemy." He referred to Chiang Kai-shek as "Peanut," and FDR as "Rubber Legs." Jonathan Fenby sums up Stillwell with one simple statement: "He was the wrong man at the wrong time." Very well put.

But getting back to Chiang Kai-shek. Should he have concentrated more on fighting the Japanese, and not so much on fighting the Communists? Probably so. Chiang always said that the Japanese were a disease of the skin, and the Communists were a disease of the heart. In some ways, you could argue that history has supported his approach, because the Japanese were ultimately defeated, not by the Communists or the Nationalists, but by the Americans, when they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the problem is that the Americans made Europe a priority. Asia came second. And by the time the Japanese were finally defeated, too much damage had been done in terms of the relationship between the Nationalists and the laobaixing (common people) of China. If Chiang Kai-shek had fought more vociferously, he would certainly have prevented the Xi'an Incident, and may have been more likely to have the people with him by the time the Americans finally did what they had to to put the Japanese out of business. At least that's the thinking. It is very hard to say for sure.

But Fenby is fair. He shows that the Communists employed basically the same strategy--avoiding conflict with the Japanese to save themselves for the inevitable showdown with the KMT. So what is the truth. T?e fact is that both the Nationalists and the Communists fought the Japanese, but probably not as well as they could have if they had not been fighting each other. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. And then there is the matter of opium. It is well known that Chiang Kai-shek was supported by Big-Eared Du, who controlled the opium trade in Shanghai. But what is not commonly known is that Mao had a production facility for opium set up in Yanan. He fully intended to wipe out opium after the Communists were in power, but he could not resist the temptation to benefit from the sizeable revenue this drug brought in during a time when the fledgeling Communist Party desparately needed cash. According to Fenby, the production and sale of opium in Yan'an by the Communists brought in billions of dollars, and at one point constituted 40% of total revenue.

This is a sad book. But it is a very important one, because it deals so completely with a very important time in China's history. It is also important because it is missing much of the bias one way or another that characterized stuff that was written about Chiang Kai-shek during the cold war period. I don't know that it would be easy to follow for someone who is completely unfamiliar with 20th Century Chinese history. When you're reading this book it definitely helps to have some familiarity with the dramatis personae. That being said, it is a significant addition to the study of this period. And although it will probably not be sold openly on the mainland for a long time, it will definitely redefine the way this period is viewed, both by supporters and detractors of this most unusual figure in the history of modern China. Five stars without any hesitation.

Transistors represent the intermediate slage between vacuum tubes and modern serucconductors.

In 1938, a group of physicians from India traveled to China to assist the Eighth Route Army of the fledgling Chinese Communist Party in their war of resistance. It was Agnes Smedley's idea, actually. She suggested to Mao's general, Zhe De (spelled "Chu Teh" in the book) that he request the help of Nehru, particularly in the form of medical supplies and surgeons. The response was quick in coming, and this book is the story of that response.

First of all, the writer of this book is a doctor, not an author. This book is basically a transcription of his diary. So it is not always the smoothest reading. But that's OK. I don't mind, because when you are interested in the historical details, the records of a physician who was a stickler for detail are at least as important and valuable as a book written by a journalist, which could be more readable, but also possibly a little less accurate.

There are several very interesting insights in this book. These insights are possible because the medical mission from India was sent to Yanan, which was the headquarters of Mao and his cohorts during days after the Long March.

Dr. Basu records Mao's skepticism of Gandhi. Mao was very much opposed to non-violent resistance. He believed very firmly that it was completely unrealistic to talk about genuine revolution without violence. The Communists believed very strongly that the war against imperialism would require bloodshed. This, of course, necessitated extensive medical assistance, because the kind of violence the Communists believed to be necessary would deplete the ranks if wounded soldiers could not get fairly immediate medical attention.

Another interesting insight is Basu's observation of Zhe De's comments about democracy. It is very clear from this book, that Zhe De believed he was fighting for the purpose of helping to usher in a democratic system, which would stand as a glaring contrast to the quasi-fascist Guomindang, and the Empire of the Qing Dynasty which preceded it. One wonders how Zhe De would assess the democratic quality of the system ushered in by the hard-fought civil war he had such a large part in. What would he have said about the Cultural Revolution if he had felt completely free to comment?

In addition to these insights, the book is useful in helping one to appreciate what the day to day "grind" of life was like in the Yanan community. I have never been to Yanan, but I have stayed in the Yaodong (earth caves) in neighboring Shanxi Province. These villages tend to become very close because they are so isolated from the outside world.

Again, Basu is not an historian, but, notwithstanding the sometimes boring diary-like style, this book does give a useful insight which would probably not be possible without it. There have been several good books written which touch on what life was like in Yanan, and this book is more meaningful if read in the context of those. For example, this book contains nothing of the political infighting that went on in Yanan. During these days, Westerners (including the American military delegation) tended to be a bit overawed by the Communists. Joseph Stillwell himself once commented that he would almost rather fight for Zhe De than to be associated with Chiang Kai-shek, whom he despised. Basu's book is useful because, although it clearly gives the perspective of an outsider, it is not American. It was written by someone who is ideologically sympathetic to the Communist cause, and equally contemptuous of Western "imperialism."

This book will be very useful to you if you have any interest at all in the unique series of events which led to the formation of New China, and the demise of the Guomindang on the mainland.

Labels: History

Note: This book was first published on Amazon.
Reviewed in the United States on January 21, 2009

I think this is the second book I have read by this author. Not positive, but I'm quite sure that one of the books on tape I went through back when I was a truck driver was written by this author.

He's good. The author makes the book. That may seem to be an obvious statement, but there are books that survive in spite of who wrote them. To be sure, the subject of this book is interesting, too. But the usefulness of this book in understanding Russian history is definitely enhanced by the thorough research of the author, combined with the readability of his writing.

Who is Alexander, and why is he important? Would he not have some great significance by mere virtue of being a Czar of Russia? Perhaps, but there is one specific thing that, I believe, sets him apart: He freed the serfs. For this reason, he has sometimes been referred to as the "Abraham Lincoln" of Russia, but let the comparison stop there. He was no Lincoln. He simply did not posses the greatness of character that Lincoln had. But the fact that he freed the serfs combined with the way he did it does make his story important, and perhaps helped to bring about his ultimate demise.

The serfs were given freedom and a little land, but not really enough of it. Their lives were still quite difficult. So there remained a fair amount of unrest among the peasant community. Alexander's reforms did not really bring in democracy, and even though he himself did want to give people more latitude, he allowed for repressive measures in order to control an increasingly restive population. So what can we say about 19th Century Russia? Was it just a crazy place that was destined to cause trouble for any leader, or were there certain elements of his reign that generated needless animosity? Read the book and see what you think. And when you do, let me know if you can figure out why he refused to leave the scene of his assassination after the first bomb (which did not hurt him) went off. If he had been a U.S. president guarded by Secret Service agents, he would have been immediately hustled away from the scene, and would have survived.

It's a fascinating story. But it leaves unanswered one question that always puzzles me when I read Russian history or literature: Do the Russian people survive in spite of autocratic leaders, or do they tend to adopt autocratic leadership because that's the only way they can survive?

If you're new to Russian history, this book will do as a starting point, although I wouldn't wait too long before you read Robert K. Massie's Peter the Great . Alexander was a contemporary of the great 19th Century Russian writers, so this book will also help you to understand the background for the works of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy.