"Rival Museums Retrace Route of China's Imperial Treasures" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/arts/design/07treasures.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)
The article chronicles the joint efforts by the National Palace Museum in Taipei and the Palace Museum in Beijing to retrace the steps of the imperial collection—an important repository of Chinese culture—after it was packed up and evacuated in advance of the Japanese invasion of 1937. The dedication of the museum staff (curators, historians, archaeologists and even laborers) in safeguarding the artifacts on that arduous journey from Beijing to Chongqing is extremely inspiring.
The piece is generally well-written; however, there’s a bit of a factual error that we are very concerned about. The reporter claims that “During the Cultural Revolution, when Red Guards tried to destroy anything associated with tradition, Mao ordered the museum protected.”
Yet the texts we have encountered cite Zhou Enlai protecting the museum—probably at some personal risk, as he was swimming against the political tide. (We have consulted several sources and also checked with China scholars).
In contrast, Mao spearheaded the Cultural Revolution, publicly condoning the actions of the Red Guards and sanctioning the destruction of cultural artifacts everywhere. Not only did he author the piece “Bombard the Headquarters” and proclaim that “to rebel is justified,” [1] he also presided over massive demonstrations where millions of Red Guards from all over the country were exhorted to “Smash the Four Olds”—old thoughts, old culture, old habits, old customs. [2] Central authorities made statements that relics were to be considered “spirit kings and little devils that must be thoroughly smashed along with the anti-Party anti-socialist blackguards.” [3]
MacFarquhar and Schoenhals’ highly-regarded history of the Cultural Revolution explicitly notes:
“The Forbidden City (Palace Museum) escaped only because Zhou Enlai got wind of a planned Red Guard attack. On August 18 he had the gates closed and ordered the Beijing Garrison to send troops to protect it; on August 28, he told [Red Guard] representatives ... that the Forbidden City, the Great Hall of the People, the broadcasting station, newspaper offices, and airfields were absolutely off-limits. But when Zhou tried to follow up [the warning] by issuing a nationwide directive down to county and regimental levels, listing a wide variety of protected establishments, Mao vetoed the document.” (Mao’s Last Revolution, p.118-119)
In public, Mao assiduously cultivated an appearance of supporting the Red Guards. He condemned relics of the "feudal" past, and supported the smashing of anything associated with the "Four Olds." From this source and numerous others, Mao did not appear interested in protecting cultural artifacts or historical sites—and even willfully prevented actions (like Zhou’s) that would have mitigated the destruction, not to mention the torture and deaths of countless people.
Perhaps Mao did enjoy the Palace Museum collection in private—who knows what hypocrisy took place behind closed doors? (One source noted how he grabbed ancient books from the houses looted by Red Guards for his personal collection.) But conjecture aside, when it comes down to real consequences, his words and actions visited terrible harm on Chinese culture.
We are highly concerned at this misleading portrayal in The New York Times, a “newspaper of record.” On matters of historical responsibility and legacy, we should strive to give credit where credit is due. We should also disclose the full story: it would be tragic if readers who are not familiar with this period become confused about what happened during the Cultural Revolution. How inappropriate if they mistakenly came to believe that Mao was a great defender of Chinese culture, when in fact, he was one of the people who green-lighted its destruction!
So, we started writing letters to Prof. Shambaugh, Mr. Barboza, his news assistant and NYT editor.
Prof. Shambaugh's 1st response to our letter:
"You are right that it was Zhou Enlai who ordered the Gugong protected during the GPCR. So, technically this is true, but Mao likely also approved the order. So I don't think the quotation is wholly inaccurate. Please don't bother Mr. Barboza about this matter."
His 2nd response:
"I am glad you read the book and are interested in this subject! It
is a fascinating subject worthy of much more research!"
This coming from a well-respected Professor, we were conveniently snubbed! He wasn't interested to discuss further. It seems like he wasn't entirely sure of his theory either.
Following which, we proceeded to contact Mr. Barboza's news assistant, Angela Bao Beibei. Her *official* reply came swiftly:
"Hi this is Angela Bao from New york times shanghai bureau and David's research assistant. Thanks for expressing such deep concerns over our stories and your persistence in pursuing truth is awesome. but what we wrote in the article that Mao ordered the palace museum protected was not from us, it is a quote from Porf.David shambaugh.
In an email that prof.shambaugh wrote to us, he said it's Mao and zhou enlai who personally intervened the destructive actions. he wrote very clearly and we wrote back to confirm, and he said yes again. maybe he didn't give credits to Mao in his book, but he did say so in the email to us. he read our story before it's run and add the sentence that Mao and zhou enlai personally intervened the destruction in.
before many other serious scholars and students like you have written to us to ask why the credits didn't go to Zhou enlai, we replied in the same way. Prof.Shambaugh is a very respected professor in this area and he confirmed that Mao involved in the palace museum protection, so it's our responsibility to publish what he said.
Please contact prof.Shambaugh if you have any other questions. Thanks."
Isn't it TOTALLY WEIRD that she mentioned Prof. Shambaugh said clearly it was BOTH Mao and Zhou who personally intervened the destructive actions, and yet the article published conveniently omitted Zhou Enlai? Is this RESPONSIBLE reporting, at all?
Next up, Mr. Barboza replied:
"I have written a story about how the rival museums are working together not about what role mao and zhou enlai played in the cultural revolution. I quoted mr shambaugh fairly and understand that it bothers you that zhou enlai was not mentioned.My story is not a history of the cultural revolution and in the course of writing journalism many things are edited out for space and other considerations. But we strive to be objective and fair. Every article I write, by its very nature, omits some important references. So don't treat this as the last word on the subject or a historical document. Professor shambaugh said mao played a role. ."
Urmmm is this what you call "objective and fair", when you only rely on a single source to decide who is the defender of Chinese culture?!? (This is how we readers infer from your article!) Why do you worship Prof. Shambaugh's theory like GOD? Goodness!
The night ended with my NYT intern friend telling us to stop writing letters to Mr. Barboza, since it's most likely they know it's an obvious mistake, and yet they can't admit it; and that journalists do not have much time to plow through academic stuff. HM... ?
No comments:
Post a Comment