Scan barcode
lpm100's review
3.0
When (Jewish) revolutionaries live on for a bit too long........
Book Review
3 stars
*******
Dear Readers, if you ever want to know the fate of a revolutionary that lives on waaaaay past the time of the revolution, then this is the book that answers those questions.
It appears that the author is a character right out of Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.
The early parts of this book show him taken a very well trodden path:
1. A loser is looking around (and failing) for something to occupy his time and life (p. 49: "For one thing, I wanted life to have more meaning.....escape the corrupt environment of the marketplace");
2. Joining the US Army (this takes in a lot of would be revolutionaries);
3. Leaving the Army and looking for something to direct him. It appears that he found China- a new religion of his ancestors that he never took up (p. 275). He claimed to have no interest in religion, but it doesn't seem that way to this reviewer.
About 1/3 of the way through the book (p. 101) the author says that "For the first time in my life, I had a sense of purpose."
The way that Shapiro writes gives me the impression of two things: 1. That he was someone who lived to see a revolution through and became disenchanted with the results. (He writes of events something like 4 decades after they actually happened.) 2. He did cut away the revolutionary fervor and revised his viewpoint to be more balanced (pps. 79, 131 he even states as much).
There were a number of things that made me wonder if, perhaps, he might have had rose colored glasses on. (The only other possibility is that he was disingenuous.)
1. p. 48. "Absence of racial or religious prejudice is traditional in China." (Sorry, but 95% of schools in China will not hire black teachers.) An "open arms policy toward all races and religions"? (p. 256). Try telling that to Africans from English speaking countries that are trying to be approved for work permits to teach English.
2. p. 61. Price controls led to the quenching of inflation? (Did this work out for Venezuela? Did it even work out for China-- they did issue a new currency.)
3. "Wife beating is rare" (p. 93). (Just, no.)
4. The Great Famine occurs in this book over exactly 14 pages (pps 128-142), and if the reader did not know about the 30+ million people who had starved to death during that period, he would not find out that information from this book. He does concede that "wishful thinking swamped common sense" and that there were many "silly excesses" committed during the period (p. 137).
5. He took constant slaps at the United States. But by the time this book was written, he had been gone for 50 years-- or about 3 generations. How did he know what was going on (p.195)? He was talking about corruption in China (of course nothing as bad as in the United States), but how did he know? Where do Chinese officials flee when they have a lot of money that they can't explain (other than Canada)?
6. Chinese "invented rockets centuries ago." (p. 211). Really?
There are a lot of strange/ inconsistent leftovers from his days as a revolutionary:
1. Shapiro refers to lots of people/ things as "imperialist"--frequently. He used that word every 3rd page or so, and by p. 128, it was starting to get annoying. (Yes, that is the exact page when I decided that I'd heard that word just a time too many.)
2. He speaks of the then-Soviets as "backsliding" into capitalism (p. 77). Does this mean that the reforms that China undertook after 1979 were "backsliding"?
3. At one point, he describes that Kruschev "showered sticky kisses on the backsides of the US imperialists" (p. 137). But just the same, the Sino-Soviet fissure was not clear (I still don't know what it was about after 3 books in which it was featured, and for that matter I don't think anyone else does. This book didn't clarify it. ) Was it an ego trip played over the heads of the common people on both sides?
4. Several times he brings in blasts from the past ("dialectic"). He also flaps on quite a bit about Marx's stages of civilizations without ever considering whether they have any basis in reality. Everything bad in China was left over because of "feudalism" or every other nation was an "imperialist." There were just "contradictions" all over the place (p. 192). "Socialist internationalism" (p. 315).
By the last half of the book, it just fell apart:
1. On one hand, he is saying that the birthdate of Chairman Mao was more important than Christmas (p. 333), but just before he had said that in the economic field that Mao was "ignorant, stubborn, and inept." (p. 150)
2. Under feudalism, there were some number of haves and many more have nots. Under the "socialist market system" (whatever that is), there are some number of haves and many more have nots. (p.170). So, what was the point of all that revolution? He also mentions that feudalism as the order of the day in ancient China and that neo-feudalism is the new order of the new day. And that no one can do anything about it. (p. 290)
3. The author was forced to bow before portraits of Mao and Lin Biao (p. 176). And also to clean toilets behind revolutionaries. So, he was not satisfied when he didn't have to do those things in the States (where people were unequal), but satisfied when he had to do it in China? (It has been said that "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them. " I believe it.)
4. The granddaughter, Stella Guo, felt that her life was in China. But then she married and American and had a child with him-- even though there were tons of Chinese men to choose from.
5. He implies something that I have heard before. FREQUENTLY. ("We had perfect Communism, but those guys [the Gang of Four] ruined it.") p.215
What conclusions did I reach?
1. Singapore and Switzerland have the best ideas with respect to foreign affairs. If outright isolation is not the best (Switzerland), then "neutrality and non alignment" (Singapore) are a close second. It appears that people on the ground (Shapiro) and people in the various government organs than concern themselves with such things had totally different perceptions of what was happening. Better to not be bothered with it at all.
2. That foreigner was (as other book reviews have noted) a pampered little prince who didn't live the same struggles as the real life Chinese people.
3. We did get some details of how the One Child Policy works. (p. 230)
Verdict: Recommended, but not at more than the price of $1.
Book Review
3 stars
*******
Dear Readers, if you ever want to know the fate of a revolutionary that lives on waaaaay past the time of the revolution, then this is the book that answers those questions.
It appears that the author is a character right out of Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.
The early parts of this book show him taken a very well trodden path:
1. A loser is looking around (and failing) for something to occupy his time and life (p. 49: "For one thing, I wanted life to have more meaning.....escape the corrupt environment of the marketplace");
2. Joining the US Army (this takes in a lot of would be revolutionaries);
3. Leaving the Army and looking for something to direct him. It appears that he found China- a new religion of his ancestors that he never took up (p. 275). He claimed to have no interest in religion, but it doesn't seem that way to this reviewer.
About 1/3 of the way through the book (p. 101) the author says that "For the first time in my life, I had a sense of purpose."
The way that Shapiro writes gives me the impression of two things: 1. That he was someone who lived to see a revolution through and became disenchanted with the results. (He writes of events something like 4 decades after they actually happened.) 2. He did cut away the revolutionary fervor and revised his viewpoint to be more balanced (pps. 79, 131 he even states as much).
There were a number of things that made me wonder if, perhaps, he might have had rose colored glasses on. (The only other possibility is that he was disingenuous.)
1. p. 48. "Absence of racial or religious prejudice is traditional in China." (Sorry, but 95% of schools in China will not hire black teachers.) An "open arms policy toward all races and religions"? (p. 256). Try telling that to Africans from English speaking countries that are trying to be approved for work permits to teach English.
2. p. 61. Price controls led to the quenching of inflation? (Did this work out for Venezuela? Did it even work out for China-- they did issue a new currency.)
3. "Wife beating is rare" (p. 93). (Just, no.)
4. The Great Famine occurs in this book over exactly 14 pages (pps 128-142), and if the reader did not know about the 30+ million people who had starved to death during that period, he would not find out that information from this book. He does concede that "wishful thinking swamped common sense" and that there were many "silly excesses" committed during the period (p. 137).
5. He took constant slaps at the United States. But by the time this book was written, he had been gone for 50 years-- or about 3 generations. How did he know what was going on (p.195)? He was talking about corruption in China (of course nothing as bad as in the United States), but how did he know? Where do Chinese officials flee when they have a lot of money that they can't explain (other than Canada)?
6. Chinese "invented rockets centuries ago." (p. 211). Really?
There are a lot of strange/ inconsistent leftovers from his days as a revolutionary:
1. Shapiro refers to lots of people/ things as "imperialist"--frequently. He used that word every 3rd page or so, and by p. 128, it was starting to get annoying. (Yes, that is the exact page when I decided that I'd heard that word just a time too many.)
2. He speaks of the then-Soviets as "backsliding" into capitalism (p. 77). Does this mean that the reforms that China undertook after 1979 were "backsliding"?
3. At one point, he describes that Kruschev "showered sticky kisses on the backsides of the US imperialists" (p. 137). But just the same, the Sino-Soviet fissure was not clear (I still don't know what it was about after 3 books in which it was featured, and for that matter I don't think anyone else does. This book didn't clarify it. ) Was it an ego trip played over the heads of the common people on both sides?
4. Several times he brings in blasts from the past ("dialectic"). He also flaps on quite a bit about Marx's stages of civilizations without ever considering whether they have any basis in reality. Everything bad in China was left over because of "feudalism" or every other nation was an "imperialist." There were just "contradictions" all over the place (p. 192). "Socialist internationalism" (p. 315).
By the last half of the book, it just fell apart:
1. On one hand, he is saying that the birthdate of Chairman Mao was more important than Christmas (p. 333), but just before he had said that in the economic field that Mao was "ignorant, stubborn, and inept." (p. 150)
2. Under feudalism, there were some number of haves and many more have nots. Under the "socialist market system" (whatever that is), there are some number of haves and many more have nots. (p.170). So, what was the point of all that revolution? He also mentions that feudalism as the order of the day in ancient China and that neo-feudalism is the new order of the new day. And that no one can do anything about it. (p. 290)
3. The author was forced to bow before portraits of Mao and Lin Biao (p. 176). And also to clean toilets behind revolutionaries. So, he was not satisfied when he didn't have to do those things in the States (where people were unequal), but satisfied when he had to do it in China? (It has been said that "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them. " I believe it.)
4. The granddaughter, Stella Guo, felt that her life was in China. But then she married and American and had a child with him-- even though there were tons of Chinese men to choose from.
5. He implies something that I have heard before. FREQUENTLY. ("We had perfect Communism, but those guys [the Gang of Four] ruined it.") p.215
What conclusions did I reach?
1. Singapore and Switzerland have the best ideas with respect to foreign affairs. If outright isolation is not the best (Switzerland), then "neutrality and non alignment" (Singapore) are a close second. It appears that people on the ground (Shapiro) and people in the various government organs than concern themselves with such things had totally different perceptions of what was happening. Better to not be bothered with it at all.
2. That foreigner was (as other book reviews have noted) a pampered little prince who didn't live the same struggles as the real life Chinese people.
3. We did get some details of how the One Child Policy works. (p. 230)
Verdict: Recommended, but not at more than the price of $1.
More...