Talk:Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China

Old spellings

Page xi: The author said that several old spellings had been used by English speakers for a long time, and continuing to use them is like using Venice for Venezia and Vienna for Wien

The old spellings he uses are:

• Peking for Beijing
• Nanking for Nanjing
• Tientsin for Tianjin
• Canton for Guangzhou
• Chungking for Chongqing
• Hankow for Hankou
• 2 in the Shanghai area
  • Hongkew for Hongkou District
  • Chapei for Zhabei District

He also points out the apostrophe for breaks between symbols where there would be ambiguation - Yan'an vs. incorrect Ya'nan

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On accuracy of material

• P. 31: "Wang Jiaxiang, who did without a pseudonym, was another brave man - he endured a stomach with great fortitude before and during the Long March - and he had enough independence of mind to help Deng Xiaoping in 1933, when he was in political disgrace"

I believe the Benjamin Yang book review said that it was an inaccuracy WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Benjamin Yang book review says: "Factual errors, coupled with wild guesses, are abundant, some major and others minor. Was Liu Shaoqi the son of a poor peasant? Is Deng from a Hakka family? Did Deng work as chief secretary of the CCP central committee in the late 1920s? Was Deng imprisoned and then rehabilitated by Wang Jiaxiang in the early 1930s? These are just a few examples." WhisperToMe (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Dick Wilson book review says "There is an occasional misjudgment: M. N. Roy, the Indian revolutionary, was expelled from the Comintern after bungling his mission in China, but that did not lead to his becoming, as Evans states, a fascist. The radical humanist movement which he went on to lead in post-war India was a far cry from national socialism." (p. 825)

Wilson says "Compared with previous biographies in English such as those by David Goodman and David Bonavia, Evans has more to offer and is, of course, more up-to-date. He has benefited from much of the new materials coming out and from his own interviews. The paucity of footnotes or references to sources is compensated for by the "inside" feel which an Ambassador in post from 1984 to 1099 who returned for further discussion afterwards can command." (p. 825)

Also: Wilson also states "[t]his is the kind of detail which enlivens what is otherwise a necessarily dull biography, filled with "perhaps," "possibly," "it could well be" and other variations on the lack of hard fact." (p. 824-825). - So if you cite the book, pay attention and make sure you note whether it is presented as hard fact, or not. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Other notes

Wilson says "But in the case of Tiananmen, Evans deduces that Deng was angry at the way the military operation had been conducted." (p. 825) Meng says "Yet due to the scarcity of materials on Deng, whether official or personal, never before has there been a full-length biography published in English" and that Evans "presented this study of Deng, the first in English" WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Zagoria says that "this biography of Deng Xiaoping will be a reliable and valued guide for years to come" "Despite the scarcity of reliable information about China's supreme leader, the enormous difficulty of gaining access to key documents, and the problems of dealing with a country in which history is still viewed as a political weapon", that Evans was "a sinologist in his own right", and that "According to Evans, democracy does best when it grows slowly in a developing country and reaches maturity only when that country has achieved high levels of prosperity and education." WhisperToMe (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

On p. 160 of the 2nd edition of the book, it says Zagoria was the first western scholar to study the Sino-Soviet conflict of the 20th century and to "reveal its intensity and extent" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The book review by David S.G. Goodman doesn't seem to have an opinion on the book's style. It seems to mainly talk about Deng and his child Deng Rong. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In the Ann Kent review, in p. 307 she says "it is hard to accept his judgment that the Party leaders 'liked [Deng] better as an architect than they had ever liked Mao as a helmsman [and] that they were going to miss him'" (cited from page 309 of Evans book) if one went "from Evans' somewhat pallid interpretation" and in p. 307-308 she argues that in the book the problems that arose due to Deng's "demise" were less so "irreplaceable attributes of Deng" but more so "a failure in the quality of succession". Kent also said "as a personal observation" that "there appears to be more than a little concern on the part of the successors" who had received positive publicity from Deng's market reform programs that Deng "is about to give China the slip just when the underside of those achievements is demanding a solution". WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the paucity of details Moody in his book review said that while "Deng's life was probably more staid than his colleagues" "most readers" would show more curiosity than Evans regarding when Deng was disgraced and purged by his party superior who then "took to himself Deng's wife" in the 1930s (p. 212)

Moody said that these are "new" material from the book, on p. 213 of his review:

• Deng had Hakka ancestors but his family for centuries did not follow a Hakka lifestyle - Moody said this was "a sensible case"
• That Deng's "white cat, black cat" statement originated from Liu Bocheng, his military commander
• "Interesting discussion of the role of the Party secretariat that Deng headed in the 1950s"
• The method in which Deng's comments were assembled during the 1992 "Southern Tour"

Moody said that these claims may be controversial on p. 213 of his review:

• The description of Feng Yuxiang as "an honest man" -> Moody wrote: "Many of Feng's allies might dispute this, since he betrayed every one of them."
• Moody doubts that Chairman Mao was, in Moody's words, "largely driven by his love of community"
• Moody said another argument was "it took the Gang of Four to teach Zhou Enlai how to intrigue"
• Moody argues that the section about the conflict between the Gang of Four and Zhou "is uncritical victors' history"

Moody also states on p. 213:

• The book has thumbnail sketches of Deng's colleagues in the 1980s that are "interesting" but are "mighty sketchy"
• Evans's judgments "tend toward the bland—the diplomatic, one might say."
• Argues that the conclusion of Deng "to be pragmatic in economics and repressive in politics" "seems fair enough"
• Evans argues that Deng's style of rule may lead to democracy later, Moody wonders whether the "continued political harshness" is really required for the economic development

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Date of publication? Publisher?

Some very basic info is missing from this article about a book. PamD 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. I added the dates of the first British and US editions. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Current History notes

p. 288:

Notes from AP

• Jiang Qing is "cast as the villainess" of the work and that during the struggle meeting "there is a moment[...]when readers get a glimpse of what [Deng] felt, but there is almost no feeling in the book for the millions of ordinary and promising Chinese whose lives were blighted by Mao's two great undertakings."
• Evans stated that Deng was "angered" with the military crackdown on Tiananmen "but mainly, readers infer though the author is not even willing ot admit that Deng must have approved the attack, because it was too drawn-out and messy and there were too many reporters around."

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Jennings

Read also the Jennings book review for a list of things he felt were issues in the book. Including, but not limited to:

p. 165:

• Not mentioning Mao's description of Deng as “a needle wrapped in cotton”

p. 165-166

• "Evans dismisses as “circumstantial” the evidence against Deng from the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957 (when approximately 500,000 people were punished, some for periods exceeding twenty years in prison or internal exile) even though many Chinese intellectuals and foreign scholars hold Deng responsible for his “zealous” attitude to “rightists”"

p. 166

• Jennings critiques the idea that, as stated by Evans, "“Democracy does best when it grows slowly in a developing country and reaches maturity when that country has achieved quite high levels of prosperity and education.”"

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Mirsky

Mirsky describes instances where he thinks Evans is being too deferential to Deng: Evans issuing an "open verdict" for Deng's involvement in the backlash against the Hundred Flowers campaign and his beief that Evans's wasn't responsible for the purge of Peng Dehuai. He also debates the Tiananmen involvement, arguing that his speech indicated that he wanted the military actions to happen.

It argues that the appraisal by The China Quarterly is "more analytical and meticulous in its use of Chinese materials, and, surprisingly for a professional journal, it is often more vivid than Evans's account." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)