The “textbook problem” – Ye Yonglie on Cultural Revolution education

People’s Daily announces the GPCR.

News yesterday was the announcement from the committee of editors from China, South Korea, and Japan that they had made more than 200 changes to the second edition of the joint East-Asian modern history textbook, History Open to the Future (东亚三国的近现代史). Around 10% of the edits come from suggestions made by readers, while the remainder came out of discussions among the editors themselves. Apart from standard copy-edits, the changes include attempts to make explanations better-suited for young readers, corrections of factual errors, and editing to bring the three versions in line with each other.

Forty-six edits are considered major. Six edits will increase the number of mentions of Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi’s visits to the Yasukuni Shrine and the “serious harm [they have done] to Japan’s friendly relationship with Asian countries.” The new edition will also “make clear that throughout history, China has never involved itself in the internal politics of other countries.”

China has its own “textbook problem,” says Ye Yonglie, a noted popular science writer, biographer, and the domestic collaborator on Robert Kuhn’s biography of Jiang Zemin. Ye turned to writing history, including biographical novels concerning the members of the Gang of Four, after he was targeted during the Anti-Spiritual Pollution campaign in the early 80s because of his science fiction writing.

The 16th of May marks the fortieth anniversary of the announcement of the start of the Cultural Revolution, yet little attention is being paid to it – by design. Ye writes here about the danger presented by a lack of reflection on episodes in China’s history like the Cultural Revolution and anti-rightist campaigns, as well as by the continued push by the government to enforce a uniform public opinion.

Today – the 16th of May – commemorates the 40th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was a painful time in China’s history, and it is a major historical event that deserves deep reflection.

Japan’s textbooks have obliterated invasion history, bringing on stinging attacks from the world. This is called the “textbook problem.” China, in fact, has its own “textbook problem.”

On 23 December, 2005, Yao Wenyuan died of illness. Many Chinese young people did not know what kind of person Yao Wenyuan was – “Who is Yao Wenyuan,” they asked. Some young people had heard that Yao Wenyuan was a member of the “Gang of Four,” and asked, “Who were the four people in the ‘Gang of Four’?” Online, one could find odd conversations among young people, like “Farewell, old Yao!” “Victors are kings, and losers are villains. He has passed on without notice.” Someone even left a message after one of my online essays concerning Yao Wenyuan, “A great member of the party!”

The strange series of events touched off by the death of Yao Wenyuan brought into sharp relief China’s “textbook problem”: though the 6th plenary session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC passed a “Resolution concerning certain historical questions since the founding of the nation” that completely repudiated the Cultural Revolution, the CPC has kept a close lid on the Cultural Revolution since entering the 1990s, with some people even advocating “watering down” the Cultural Revolution. China’s press and publication administrative departments have increased their control of the publication and printing of documents and books related to the Cultural Revolution. Especially following the start of the 21st century, this type of control has become more and more severe. In 2005, a publisher brought out My 1970s, which was criticised by the administrative departments merely because it printed a photo of Lin Biao at the beginning of the book. In actuality, that photo of Lin Biao was ordinary and not rare at all. The strict control the CPC authorities maintain over Cultural Revolution-related books and documents has definite implications.

Ba Jin died before Yao Wenyuan. Chinese media in covering Ba Jin’s death published vast numbers of memorial essays. However, many of these essays did not mention Ba Jin’s greatest wish during his last years – to establish a Cultural Revolution museum. This is because the administrative departments commanded the media to avoid bringing up the Cultural Revolution museum in their memorial essays.

Yao Wenyuan’s death was neither premature nor late – he “selected” a most sensitive moment: 10 November 2005, shortly before Yao Wenyuan died of his illness, was the 40th anniversary of the publication of Yao’s Criticism of the new historical drama “Hai Rui Dismissed from Office” in Wenhui Bao. This “magnificent document” opened the curtain on the Cultural Revolution. Shortly after Yao Wenyuan died was 2006 – the 40th anniversary memorial of the Cultural Revolution and the 30th anniversary celebration of the smashing of the Gang of Four. Yao’s death awakened in the Chinese public memories of the Cultural Revolution. Perhaps it is because Yao Wenyuan’s death was at such a sensitive time that the Xinhua News Agency chose to issue the news at 4 pm on 6 January 2006. That was a Friday, and at that time people were preparing to leave work for the weekend. In this way, the effect of the event could be watered-down and minimized.

Why does China avoid mentioning the Cultural Revolution? Basically, nothing more than that the Cultural Revolution was a period of history that was ultra-leftist, a period of history of civil disputes and chaos, a period of history in which Mao Zedong committed serious errors in his later years. For this reason, they fade and cover over as much as possible that period in history, and using “protecting the image of the party,” they urge the people to “look forward from stability and unity.”

And it is because of this that a monstrous absurdity can take place: the Cultural Revolution occurred in China, but research on the Cultural Revolution occurs abroad!

In actuality, remembering and studying the Cultural Revolution is, as Ba Jin has said, a way to prevent a reenactment of that kind of catastrophe in China. It is a way for China to prevent the birth of a “Zhang Chunqiao II” or “Yao Wenyuan II,” or all manner of “Zhang Chunqiao Jr.” or “Yao Wenyuan Jr.” To date, China has never completely uprooted the leftists who look to reenact the Cultural Revolution. In 1983, when the ultra-left “Eliminate Spiritual Pollution” campaign swept through China, Ba Jin even exclaimed that the Cultural Revolution had returned. Fortunately Hu Yaobang got the reins in time and forced this “later Cultural Revolution” to stop mid-way.

China not only waters down the Cultural Revolution, but it also waters down the “Anti-Rightist Campaign,” since that was also an ultra-leftist period in history. I was surprised once at a lecture I gave at China Renmin University in Beijing that students did not know who Ge Peiqi was – even the party history department students didn’t know! In 1957, Renmin University’s Ge Peiqi was a nationally-infamous “Great Rightist”, but he has completely faded from the memory of Renmin University. Next year – 2007 – is the 50th anniversary of the Anti-Rightist Campaign. I wonder how China will respond?

That year, Yao Wenyuan was China’s “director of public opinion.” Under the control of Yao Wenyuan, there was “uniform public opinion” nationwide. Newspapers large and small sang the same tune, and there was “the same word on every lip.” In today’s China, though we can say that the “director of public opinion” position has changed hands many times, the “glorious tradition” of “uniform public opinion” that Mao Zedong advocated is still passed down through the ages. It is still unclear at what time China’s “textbook problem” can attain a resolution.

Note: This post previously included a link to a Baidu search for 文化大革命, which on 16 May returned 0 results along with a message suggesting that the search term was not in accordance with relevant laws. As the keyword is no longer banned, the link has been removed.