To what extent are the experiences of Yang Digong and Li Zucui typical of life in Modern China?

CHINA TODAY – 50 YEARS OF COMMUNISM

Q1: To what extent are the experiences of Yang Digong and Li Zucui typical of life in Modern China?

(Sources: C & E)

Yang Digong was somewhat dissimilar to other common people. Firstly he took part in Shanghai protests, for which he was soon exiled, as

“Yang Digong was marching for freedom and democracy.” (Source C)

This evidence proves that he was typical in one field; he protested. These demonstrations took place in the streets of Shanghai.

“Many fellow students took part in this to stand up for freedom and democracy…” (Source C)

As many other Chinese people, mainly students, Yang was typical for the above reasons.

“Two generations of students, the class of 1989 lauded by the West, that of 1999, often dismissed as having sold out. (Source F)

Most students took part to express their feelings towards the Government. Yang was typical for his group; typical for the students. Evidence of the punishment Yang and others received; “ Trials and executions took place” (Source C). Yang lived in the city, unlike Li Zucui; she lived in the countryside and was a peasant. Yang’s lifestyle was not typical, as most of China’s population are poor peasants. People like Li couldn’t go out and eat or lead a luxurious lifestyle, as opposed to Yang; “…Sitting around a restaurant table laden with Shanghainese delicacies and beer.”

Yang enjoyed his life and had a high standard of living. In this case, Yang was very untypical for most Chinese people. Yang is now a rich businessman; a bond dealer. Again, Yang is untypical as not many other Chinese people are bond dealers, or rich businessmen. Other individuals worked in factories and other low-paid jobs. (Source G) “ Everyone’s doing business now. That’s all” Everyone wanted wealth and an easy life. Everything was going out of politics and into business for China’s newly emerging ‘managerial’ class. Although Yang may have had interests in politics during his education, but now he is interested in money and family. Most people were interested in money but they never achieved so much, whereas Yang did. As there were less rich people, the contrast between the two classes widened: “ The gap between rich and poor widens” (Source G). As the 1 child policy arrived in 1979 by the Communists, couples were restricted. Most of China’s families abided by this rule. This was another way in which Yang was typical to other Chinese people.

“…. all I think about is my monthly income and how to look after my wife and son.” This quote proves what Yang’s new focuses were and that he only had one child.

Yang wasn’t a political man. In Yang’s own words: “ I watch the state of the bond market not politics. Even though he did take part in protests as a student, he no longer cared about these things; he aimed to make money and look after his family. This wasn’t very typical, as most people focused on money, but had to exchange family care for this. Most people, especially students, believed that politics were not important; money is the key to a good life: “ We students don’t talk about politics in our dormitory. We’re really not interested in politics. We are interested in getting a good job.”

This proved that students just wanted money to get on with their own lives. Like most people, like Yang did. Yang was a role model of Red Capitalism. Overall, Yang Digong was not typical of average life in Modern China. He was different to the average person in China. He achieved more, made money and loved a happy life.

Li Zucui’s story varied from Yang’s. She is a peasant from the countryside. Li Zucui was a victim of discrimination: Li was sold off for 2,300 Yuan by her own family; “…it was known there that women were tricked, often by someone that know into being sold as brides, or more commonly simply trapped into the marriage pay system…”. They were married without a marriage certificate; she was more or less sold to him. He beat her up and he threatened her. After she couldn’t take any more of this, she wrote into Rural Women Knowing All, a monthly Chinese magazine and told her story. She wanted help and this magazine was her only hope. Her family refused to take her back as they couldn’t re-pay the husband. As a result of this, they “threatened to disown her..” if she left her husband. Li Zucui is a typical example of discrimination against women and an example of the treatment they get in rural areas. For money, families are prepared to sell daughters into any family to any man. Li Zucui was illiterate as her family could not afford to school her. “…. The writer was also illiterate…”

She lives in the central province of Hubei and was a typical countrywoman. Obviously she was extremely poor: “…Sister told me that our family needed the money…”

Her standard of living is very low, especially if compared to people who live in the UK. Younger women in China struggle against old prejudices. Most of the country’s 600 million women still are facing discrimination. One third are illiterate, which Li Zucui is typical of. Women’s traditional place is as second-class citizens. This was a result of the fact that in the past, no one wanted a daughter. Again, this made ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

She lives in the central province of Hubei and was a typical countrywoman. Obviously she was extremely poor: “…Sister told me that our family needed the money…”

Women didn’t have a large percent of freedom, as they were committed to cleaning or doing “house-chores”. In 1954 5 percent of the NPCSC were women. Li was typical of this also as she lived in a rural area, didn’t have a job; illiterate. As she was dependant on her family, she had to obey them. This was another typicality.

Overall, Li Zucui was extremely typical of life in Modern China. She was discriminated like many other women were and went through many of the same experiences. But she wasn’t typical of all women. For example, the two female students (Source C) stated what they wanted in life. They were independent. They were “…products of a consumer culture that has shown young people of the possibility of rapid advancement and wealth.” Representing a change in women’s society and their ability. The two girls had ambitions, which most girls in rural areas never had the chance to have. Girls like the two mentioned above, looked towards the future and not the past. Also. the woman, who runs the magazine “Teresa Poole”, was an independent businesswoman; not typical of millions of Chinese women. She is an example of some improvement in the society of women. Li Zucui was typical of most life in Modern China, but not all life.

Q2: In October 1999 President Jiang Zermin visited the UK. There were a number of demonstrations about human rights in China and China’s treatment of Tibet. Do you think these protests were justified?

(Sources: J, K, L, M, AND H)

Firstly, protesting was about demonstrating facts concerning human rights in China and general freedom. Also, China’s treatment of Tibet. The government brought the protests upon themselves, as their methods of controlling China harmed people; the protestors were prepared to protect the people of China: “…for keeping things that they rather than really putting the needs of the people as a whole first” These protestors were slightly conservative; they welcomed change, but good change. These political opponents were rebellious. The consequences of these protests were severe. Political opponents were jailed; any form of protest was callously penalized. The treatment the demonstrator were punished very harshly; in most cases, more than necessary. They were held longer than the 3-year period the Chinese law permits. Some of these were patriotic prisoners. According to Amnesty International over 2,000 political prisoners were held. These people weren’t guilty of any criminal offence. Here is an example of how crude some people were: “Yang…. was marching for freedom and democracy through Shanghai…”

These students also protested against the “butcher of Tibet”, formally known as Jiang Zermin. It was about abuse of human rights.

On many occasions, the government said they were acting against” hooliganism” or public offences. This acted as a veil of what in reality was torture and murder. Nonconformists were not only looking for freedom for themselves, but for the whole of China: “Dissidents point out that China’s attitude to basic freedom affects not just an individual live but the possibility of general material improvement…”

The demonstrators didn’t deserve the treatment they received; they were simply speaking their mind. Instead of acting so harshly, the government should have taken things which the protestors said in to concern. By acting so harshly, the government simply increased the hatred towards itself.

The law was strict. If these laws were broken, the price to pay was often death. To inform the public of what the punishment for breaking these laws was, public executions took place.

In Wang Jianye’s case there was no chance of him defending himself, as he was not allowed to display evidence. Wang Jianye should have been given the opportunity to justify his actions. I personally believe that these punishments were unnecessary.

There are now 68 offences now punishable by death in China. This is probably more than any other country. This simply conveys China’s level of ‘discipline’. This is another reason which can be used to justify the demonstrations in China. These 68 offences now include “counterfeiting, fraud, bribery, illegal share speculation, tax evasion, spreading superstition, hooliganism, pimping and smuggling” I think that these punishments were far too strict. Punishments for these crimes should simply be imprisonment for varies lengths of time; each depending on how serious the crime is. Fair trials should be held and equal rights should be given to all sexes and people of different status. In my perspective, the law rightly punished the criminals, but innocent individuals were executed due to accusations, which weren’t proven or tried.

Religious freedom was also limited; quite strange and surprising. This all links to the Falun Gong; a religious denomination, which consists purely of middle-aged, middle class China. Members of this cult include Civil Servants, factory managers, office workers, etc. Many of these people never committed crimes. The sect leader called Li Hongzai, received accusations from the Government that he was planning to overthrow the Communist Party. As the CCP had failed before, e.g. Great Leap Forward, they couldn’t afford to take another fall; they had to restrict religious freedom. As people were angered at this law, they demonstrated, often outside main government buildings. These protests were signs that the Chinese people wanted freedom, not political power. All the books published by Falun Gong, more than 100,000, were destroyed. More than 10,000 cassettes destroyed. This proved publicly that there was no religious freedom. This was just an attempt to make the sect followers reject it; show it was powerless.. More than 2 million Chinese people were involved in the Falun Gong, which was a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism. This sect involved meditation, and they never disturbed anyone by doing this. As this sect practised peace and meditation, they weren’t doing any harm, especially to the government.

Prison is not a place for innocent people. So many people have been involved in this sect including Communist party members and army members. “As many as 700,000 party members are suspected of being heavily tied….”

This confirms that many people believed in this path of life. It was popular and accepted by many people. A warning was given to them; if the group didn’t renounce themselves punishment would be given. Many were already arrested.

The youngest political prisoners was an 8 year old boy who the Dalai Lama believe is the 11th incarnation of the Panchen Lama, which is the 2nd most important religious figure in Tibet. All minorities and religions are treated with great brutality. An 8-year-old boy could not be guilt of a crime, which is worthy of imprisonment. Dalai Lama is now an exiled religion. He was the political leader of the Tibetan people; he is working for the freedom of Tibetans. In 1997 hundreds of suspected terrorists and religious militants were arrested. When the Communists came to power in China, Tibet was independent, but in 1951 the People’s Liberation Army set out to take over it. Tibetans were almost powerless. Dalai Lama them temporarily fled the country. After a Tibetan uprising in 1959, where they were suppressed by Chinese troops, Dalai Lama left for good. In 1965 Tibet was made a autonomous independent and self-sufficient region in China.

There was rioting in Xinjiang, which is the home to Turkish-speaking Uighurs. (Source K). The Uighurs simply want full independence and freedom. Some Uighurs died with clashes with the Chinese army. There is no respect for many religions within the Chinese government.

The Chinese people’s freedom compared to ours is very diverse. To begin with, Chinese people have a different system of status and rights compared to the British System today. We today have freedom of speech and expression, whereas Chinese people don’t. Confirmation for this is the Hundred Flowers Campaign. This was a campaign aimed to let people comment on their thoughts. He wanted China to become into an industrial powerhouse, but they faced abuse and repression instead.

Another prime example is, the Democracy Wall, which was a wall full of posters; a wall full of criticism against the government. China has no democracy and we have a democratic system. No matter what type of democracy they have, it will never be the same as the system as we have today. Also, we have the right vote when aged 18 and over. No Chinese people have voting power.. We don’t have death penalty for such offences like “..counterfeiting, pimping…and smuggling” Another minor punishment will be give instead of a death penalty; imprisonment, community service... Britain today hold trials for all cases before a punishment is decided, and they have fixed punishments for specific crimes. So, overall China is still dissimilar to us. The main difference is freedom; we have a lot, as opposed to China’s little. Especially for women. Compared to China’s past from today, a few factors have changed. China’s no longer reliant on the West; it is an independent country. Women’s rights have changed for the better. Women were allowed some freedom since Mao came into control; although by law, not all people changed their views towards women. He freed them from forced marriages and gave them much-needed opportunities to work. Today, men and women are almost equal in China.

The demonstrations against the treatment of Tibet and the government of China were justified, as they were to help the people of China; improve life. None of the protests were in order to abolish the CCP, just to improve it.

Too many executions took place and too many innocents died. If the government doesn’t listen to people when they talk in a mature and well-mannered fashion, how can they be blamed for protesting?. I personally think that they were justified for the straightforward reason; the way the people were being treated was not justified. If these people don’t have the right to speak their mind, then what rights do they have? This proves that they don’t really have a right to do anything of their freewill.

Q3: How successful has the 1949 Communist programme been implemented?

The aim of this question is how the Communist Country, China has improved and if they haven’t then why they haven’t. (Source B) Mao Zedong announced all things he wanted China to reform and strive for in the creation of the People’s Republic of China on October 1st 1949. The first factor mentioned was Independence. China has achieved independence, as they ware now no longer reliant on the West as they were before. They stopped trading with Foreign Devils, after the British tried to invade China, by starting off the Opium Wars. China allowed the British to buy Chinese tea, silk and porcelain with silver. This links with the 3 principles of Sun Yat-Sen:

Nationalism: Foreigners must have no power over China. China must become a strong country again.

Democracy: The Government must be chosen by all the people.

Socialism: The lives of the poor must be improved. Land must be taken from the landlords and shared amongst peasants. More factories must be built. The Government must own some of them and look after the people who work in them.

They also stopped Capitalist influences, which could hinder Communist process. This made them even more independent. China only traded with nations of “similar” ilk, who were of the similar type so trust could be formed. Later on, they started to trade with the West, but only on their terms. Proving some sort of independence. Inefficiency was reduced to improve Chinese economy, the Capitalists benefit but so does the state. They were joint enterprises. They did achieve independence and they kept it, which was the most important thing, and China became stronger day by day.

Moving onto democracy, they never did succeed in making a democracy, as we know it. China’s citizens can’t choose the party elected, but they can choose who’s in the party. It’s not democratic; theirs is a democratic dictatorship for those who oppose Communism. So technically they didn’t achieve this, because freedom wasn’t given, votes weren’t taken. Citizens were allowed to vote at all, like over 18’s are allowed o in this country. The main reason as to why they never implemented this aim was because freedom wasn’t given.

Onto the 3rd factor, Peace, they achieved this Even though they were involved in the Korean War in 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960’s but they never had an invasion. China had friendship with the USA and aimed to establish closer links with Britain and other European countries. Mao supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary and gave Africa and Asia military aid. China now has a great understanding with the West, as they kept to the concept of Nationalism.

The main aim of China was for them, to develop China economically and make it a better place. China didn’t intervene with other countries unless necessary. So China did achieve peace in the end.

Unity, China has achieved Unity. The Communists kept China together and kept the concept of Nationalism. Communists held minorities and separatists down as they were suspected of breaking down the concept of Communism and overtaking or ruling the world, so China would stay united. China accepted no foreign devils and they at first, didn’t want to trade with the West. As a result of this, China stayed united and still is up until today.

Moving onto prosperity, prosperity means the condition of being prosperous and having good fortune or financial success. After all the trouble of plans China went through, my opinion is that they did achieve prosperity; they did achieve some successful fortune and success. After the failure of the economic plans, followed by the unsuccessfulness of the Great Leap Forward. This failed because of the high intensions Mao made and the rush to get things right and done quickly. This followed by the collapse of the Backyard Steel Campaign and many other factors. The steel was of poor quality; transport was poor to take the steel to certain places. Too much steel was produced of poor quality. There was a relative boom of 80’s/90’s, but it only benefited a few. There is still a lot of poverty about, BUT are they better off> I think that they are better off. They’ve achieved prosperity, by gaining information and learning from their mistakes. Financial success was achieved but quite slowly.

Transforming land ownership was never achieved no matter how many attempts were made. There were various stages in land ownership. It was transformed but not in the way envisaged. Firstly, the landlords owned the land, and then rented it out to poor peasants, they then had some rights of the land. Then communism came in and they owned the lad. Peasants lived in Communes where all land and food was shared out equally to all peasants. Technically, they now have their own land.

“A peasant landownership” was the aim, Landownership wasn’t achieved. Because of the various stages of this land, freedom is not given to the peasants. Mao began to introduce land reform, the redistribution of land from landlords to poor peasants in the 1920’s. The process of this didn’t start in earnest until the late 1940’s as Communists swept into power. Then in 1950, the Agrarian Reform Law introduced a legal framework for the transfer of land fro rich to poor peasants. After the new land was implemented, poor peasants owned 46.8% of land and landlords owned 2.1%. Poor men still had to rent land from richer citizens. Mao was determined to end this, and hoped eventually to ensure that all land was commonly owned. Freedom wasn’t given to peasants. It didn’t have instant success.

Transforming from Agriculture to an Industrial on, in my opinion was achieved. There were various attempts to implement this aim. For example the Great Leap Forward where it’s aim was to change. For this Chinese people were made to stay in mess hall communes, sleep in large dormitories and shared everything. The scheme was over-ambitious. The 4m’s were aimed to develop agriculture, industry, science and technology and defence. These progressed exceptionally slowly. China today is till predominantly agricultural, but are well known for their industry. The 4m’s were quite successful. Industries such as mining and textile making were developing in th early 1900’s. The industrial aspect of the Great Leap Forward was a great success. The productions of steel and coal had grown greatly.

The overall increase of industrial growth was about 15.5%. New products, for example electrical goods were manufactured in China for the first time. Mao set out to accelerate industrial development. Steel production had indeed greatly increases. Overall, Mao’s policies on industry were a great success. When he came to power China was an agricultural country who peasants had no industrial experience. After two years of his death, by 1978, it had a growing industrial factor that produced 72 per sent of national output. Overall, it was an achievement.