HSC Stuff > Marking Thread Archives

History Extension Essay Marking Thread

<< < (6/9) > >>

bigsweetpotato2000:

--- Quote from: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 12:08:12 am ---Don't mind if I do! It definitely is very tricky, so don't lose faith if you're finding it hard - it is hard. It's history extension ;)

My comments can be found in bold within the spoiler :)

SpoilerThroughout the decades of historical examination and analysis on numerous personalities of the past, Communist figure Mao Zedong in particular continues to be a character of two contradictory perspectives. Nice! Numerous debates surrounded the character of a man who either saw beyond the prominent ideals of democracy and capitalism that had risen during the Cold War period hmmm they were around a long time before the Cold War!, yet were counteracted with the slaughtering imagery of a tyrant who supposedly found pride and joy in his maniacal elimination of human lives. The Maoist period during the 20th century was the only time where terror and corruption co-existed with economical advancement, a frightening yet promising combination for the Chinese I like how you have emphasised this juxtaposition. The brutality suffered by the Chinese have led to countless paintings of the Chairman as a ruthless murder, these conclusions drawn from the focus on the price the civilians unwillingly paid with their lives for the nation. However, the ideology that such tyranny serving as sacrifices for the greater good in recent historical analysis is becoming increasingly more accepted, as historians have stepped away from painting the western understanding on the implications on the East I love this as a discussion, but sentence is a bit messy and confusing. Yet despite this debate surrounding the actions and activities which shape one’s understanding of Chairman Mao’s character being an inconclusive argument, historians are able to come together and recognize in the words of Historian Jonathan Spence ‘Mao’s beginnings were commonplace, his education episodic, his talents unexceptional; yet he possessed a relentless energy and a ruthless self confidence that led him to become one of the world’s most powerful rulers.’. Thus historians take into consideration what they perceive held more significance, the overwhelming ambition for a country’s rapid succession or the importance of the lives who uphold the country itself to position themselves into the two sides of this controversy. Why do they perceive certain things to be more significant though? I'm hoping that comes through in your essay. However a MUCH stronger intro already bigsweetpotato :) well done!

The legacy of Mao Zedong is shaped by the interpretation of his achievements and contributions to his country, for these understandings arise when historians’ ethical considerations prioritize what actions were implemented, rather than what the personality reflects A bit confused what you mean here?. Stuart R Schram, an American Mao Scholar states that his views are shaped only by the accomplishments that advanced the contemporary nation, as ‘his virtues and vices, whether public or private, will be touched on only to the extent that they affected what he was able to achieve’ (Schram, 1994), this teleological yisssss  8) understanding recognizing the importance for such modernization to be obtained in China link it back to the actual concept of teleological history as well - Schram's teleological perspective is shaped by his belief in progress, and moving forward. Thus Mao’s recognition of the need for radical reform in China since his early years established his attainment of an  advanced understanding of the requirements for a struggling country to evolve in the 20th century, which allowed Schram to recognize Chairman Mao as a great leader who would be remembered for his efforts to improve China. By approaching Mao Zedong from Schram’s political prioritizing "political prioritizing" sounds weird point of view, one gains understanding that his purpose and goals which were indeed according to________, for the greater good for China, as the nation faced constant suppression from Western superiority they didn't face suppression from Western superiority, more so the West's belief in their superiority!. Schram asserts that Mao’s work provided ‘a very substantial industrial and scientific base’ for the growing nation at the contemporary time, which allows Schram to characterize the Chairman as a modernizing despot alongside Stalin. Despite his methods wrecking wrecking is too colloquial countless lives of the innocent innocent lives, his achievements such as securing their global market for economical exports allow Schram to outweigh such sacrifices. As a political scientist that prioritized the nation’s growth over its people, Schram recognizes that ‘by shaking up the ancient patriarchal, stratified world of China, Mao opened the way for the emergence of new ideas and institutions.’ Thus Schram applauds Mao’s recognition of the beneficial relationships with other countries and escape from being a ‘self-contained kingdom’, as such isolation would never give rise to extreme success; another accomplishment which allows Schram to reinforce Mao Zedong’s image as a reformer. Just a question is Schram a communist/communist sympathiser? Just because marxist ideology focuses on this idea of the collective good, which may be another reason why he presents this sympathetic view of Mao, because he believes he was doing a collective good for society, even if individuals at the time were negatively impacted.Despite the attacks on Mao Zedong’s progressive deterioration of legal human rights of expression and freedoms in the Chinese society during his rule, Schram through his understanding of Mao through Mao’s own texts only recognizes that such acts had potentially reflected the intended truth of Chairman Mao’s goals. He argues that the government’s response to the rebellious acts of rising confrontation through such immoral acts were the only solution to resolve the increasing foreign aggression placed on China at that period of time, ‘a successful modernizing despot’ whats the purpose of this quote?. Thus historian Tim Stanley affirms the necessity of the communist leader’s suppression as ‘Mao’s greatest fear was that his country would succumb to the bureaucratic style of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union’ (Stanley, 2012) highlights Schram’s belief that the Chairman’s priority was his country’s economical and political stance in the global environment. Yet whilst numerous historians turn to the ideology of Chairman Mao being the vigorous force who brought incredible destruction to his country, Schram’s recognition allows clarification of his perspective that Chairman Mao was a idealistic reformer, a thesis formed through his defined prioritization of the political agendas and the success of Mao’s liberating acts implemented in China during the Post War period. Therefore Schram’s viewpoint that Mao’s ‘merits outweighed his faults’ sheds lights on Chairman Mao’s legacy as a skillful reformer, however such a political view and Schram’s fascination with Mao Zedong’s character leads to a sense of biasness I think I said this in the last one - really not a fan of this word, particularly in this context, as it suggests that other sources aren't biased. ALL sources are biased, no matter what their perspective. and a narrow interpretation, hindering the validity of such a perception. SOOOO much better bigsweetpotato1 Like - so much better. There is way more of a focus on historiography here :D Yayayaya

Shared and subjective notions of ethic and morality have often been utilized to shroud interpretations of Mao Zedong, as his potentially positive contributions are clouded by the perceived terror of his regime. Historians such as Jonathan Spence present their subjective view of Chairman Mao as a tyrannical leader who acted without remorse through their interpretations of the primary recounts of suffering from the people. This verification can be denoted in Spence’s understanding that ‘him (attempting) to push in a more radical direction so as to prevent stagnation’ (Spence, 1982) becomes a confirmation of the immoral Maoist acts that brought astonishing death rates during the contemporary period. Furthermore, Spence’s detailed analysis of his extensive range of sources brings to attention his focus on the terrors suffered in 20th century China, highlighting his affirmation of the cruel suppression of the government to those opposing such implemented political agenda. His documentation of 20th century Chinese author Ding Ling showcases his ‘scrupulous attention’ to the ‘solid and sedulous readings’ his work is created upon. The explicit detail of the cruel psychological and physical abuse on intellectuals such as Ding Ling who voiced self opinionated reasoning in Spence’s book clarifies his conviction of Chairman Mao’s tyrannical leadership, as he states that she ‘called on the Fourth National’s people’s congress… to restore some levels of socialist democratic rights’.` Yet a voice that called for equality and justice was met with inhumane ideals that brought ‘struggle sessions’, a horrific suppression of individuals as Spence reinforces the Maoist acts that implemented ‘mental strain and physical abuse’ with the intention of reeducating. Dr Katherine Reist too, agrees with Spence’s careful consolidation of Mao’s power as she identifies ‘‘Mao, removed from much of the turmoil he created, willingly paid that price. The Chinese people are still reckoning the cost.’ (Reist, 2000) finding a certain extent of validity in Spence’s work through his exploration of extensive sources. Whilst the Red Guards continue to label their deeds as courageous acts benefitting the new world, Spence highlights the transition of the common enemy character from the Japanese to each other, reinforcing the perspective of Mao Zedong as a totalitarian who manipulated the nation to his liking for his beliefs. Despite Spence’s acknowledgement of the cultural, social and political ‘uniqueness’ on a balanced viewpoint, Chairman Mao’s achievements continue to be unappreciated great discussion of limitations!as his immoral ethnics undermine the humane right of freedom of speech. Finally, as Spence’s interpretation is validated in the words of Mao Zedong as the policies of the Cultural Revolution were aimed to ‘definitely destroy feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, liberalist, individualist, nihilist’ (McDougall, 1980), the idea of individualist aligning with the feudal allows correspondence of Chairman Mao with the image of a brutal enforcer and so, further establishes his tyranny. Again, so much better! However, in both paragraphs, I'd like a bit more of a discussion on the actual historians contexts, and how that impacts upon their interpretations. I think a discussion upon the subjectiveness of morality as a concept would be good as well here - is morality a valid argument, if it is inherently not objective? (though personally I don't think any history is objective lol)

However the political agendas of Mao Zedong despite the painted tyrannical ideologies expressed the intellectual understanding of the Chairman in reforming China and also provided the foundation for China’s position as a leading world power. This sentence doesn't really make sense - I don't know what you're arguing here. Professor G P Deshpande presents the Western interpretation of China’s revolutionary movement under the idea of a purge, yet retaliates how only deeper understanding of such beliefs with Mao Zedong’s policies at the contemporary time result in the admittance of historians that such description ‘was not only inadequate by also irrelevant.’ (Deshpande, 1966) Deshpande recognizes the advancing aspects of the Cultural Revolution through a Marxist thinking conception of history, aligning such a movement with the inevitable class struggles outlined in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s economic and political philosophy. Great link to theory! With clarification on the irrelevance of Mao’s character as an influence on neither his plans nor a weapon that yields to Mao’s tyrannical desires, Deshpande develops his thesis that extends beyond the dogmas of the west. Through the correlation between the sixteen points program to China’s situation during that period did Deshpande establish a new accepted understanding that the politburo resolution implemented merely addressed the economical and political issues China faced in the 1960s and 1970s.This modernist understanding led to Deshpande’s appreciation of Mao’s objectives that served as solutions bringing the nation a step closer to ‘Mao’s vision of tomorrow’s China.’ Despite such policies holding ‘an air of militancy, Professor Deshpande ‘argues in favour of the Leninist notion’(Deshpande, NIL)  that a party which is tight and cadre-based could bring about revolutionary leadership, seen in the eventful Cultural Revolution and so ultimately resulting in a fully developed world power.  Such a unique interpretation illustrates China’s attempt to break free of their powerless position in society and take a great leap forward, allowing one to attain a more diverse perception of the Chinese communist leader. Yet Deshpande’s understanding of the optimal motives behind each point was brought to the surface when considering the campaign under the conditions of contemporary context. YES The Maoist vision allowed him to understand how the program held no tactics that were new and original to revolutions but rather brought a driving force to mobilize the Chinese for the new China. Thus, Deshpande’s perception of Mao Zedong holds incredible significance, as Professor Alka Acharya reveals how he successfully provides a vision which contrasted the characterization at the time where commentary and reports were dominated by the influential West, Professor Deshpande’s assessments were able to ‘deconstruct the events in all their complexity’, demonstrating his thorough analysis to seek the most justified deconstruction of Chairman Mao. The validation of Mao’s eradication of the bourgeoisie and ‘the four olds’ arises from Deshpande’s modernist values what are modernist values? Be specific and historian Dun J Li’s statement ‘let the demons and hobgoblins come out of their lairs in order to wipe them out better, and let the seeds sprout to make it more convenient to hoe them’ (Dun J. Li, 1969), bringing to focus that such acts was due to Mao’s realization of tradition being outdated in the new industrialized world. Thus by following up on Schram’s understanding of the necessity for Mao’s refurbishing revolution to create the groundwork for ‘national salvation and renewal’ (Schram, 1994), Deshpande’s perspective hold significant impact on developing the character of Mao Zedong. Such a detailed assessment which aligns with Edward Said’s Orientalism ideals not really orientalism ideals - Said wasn't advocating for Orientalism (in fact the opposite!), it was just his theory, so it would be better to say: "Such a detailed assessment aligns with Edward Said's theory of Orientalism... removes the influence of the Western convictions and highlights Mao Zedong’s contribution by providing a foundation for modern China today. Rather than portraying the Chinese government as manipulative tyrants, Deshpande provides a fresh interpretation of the Chinese, which becomes an acknowledgement of their noble ideals, such including sacrifices made for the greater good. Thus, Deshpande’s perception of Chairman Mao as a reformer tactician becomes a thesis that holds slightly larger relevance than his tyrannical brutality, when analyzing the Communist figure. Are there any limitations to Deshpande's analysis though? Anything to criticise? I feel like you'd been a bit too kind to him ;) But again, fantastic work.

The characterization of Mao Zedong as a ruthless dictator is found upon the interpretation of his beliefs on death bringing power and advancement as inhumane thoughts that lacked moral understanding. Chinese Revolution historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday affirm the perceptions of a barbaric character who exploited his people for self or political gain in Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday reveal their anti-Mao interpretations of this nation leader, their analysis detailing every action that reflected a brutal tyrant who purposely created massacres like the Cultural Revolution to catalyze the formation of his new country. The significant claims of Chairman Mao that led China to its demise has been thoroughly emphasized by Chang and Halliday, including how Communist leader Mao sold their nation’s agriculture supplies through falsified claims that they had ‘unlimited supplies of food’(Chang and Halliday, 2007) when the reality was half the population was suffering starvation. Furthermore, the atrocity of ‘Mao knew that in many places people were reduced to eating compounds of Earth. In some cases, whole villages died as a result, when people’s intestines became blocked’ reinforces their assessments of Mao and serves as insight when understanding this complex 20th century leader. Chung and Halliday’s research extended beyond exploration of numerous archives, they visited sites in China, annotated uncensored and published memoirs and interviewed thousands to provide their detailed thesis great discussion of methodologies!. In addition, Historian Lucian Pye‘s understanding of the Maoist acts being policies of success is ‘not particularly convincing because China today follows very few of the early Mao’s ideologies’ as such ideals go against his own Political Modernization Theory. This perception reinforces Chang and Halliday’s recognition that such actions undertaken by Chairman Mao mainly destroyed the Chinese rather than bring political advancement. However, such 20:20 hindsight 20:20 hindsight it too colloquial - hindsight itself isn't - but the 20:20 part is. belittles his recognition to an extent, which validates Professor Deshpande’s recognition that understanding Mao requires analysis from its context I want you to explore this historiographical implications of this a bit more :). Ten years of intensive research created 800 pages of critique on Chairman Mao’s despicability. Such detail not only provides a clear insight on the brutality but leads us to question the narrow interpretation that shapes Chang and Halliday’s interpretation. Chang and Halliday’s research basis is from an extensive range of sources both published and unpublished, leading to the questioning of its reliability of some. Despite the provided citations, there is no provided information to evaluate sources’ authenticity which often leads to apprehension of their perspective. As Jung Chang was one of the numerous who suffered the consequence of Chairman Mao’s policies in her early years the formidable anger she retains may have potentially played a large influence in channeling the direction her and Halliday’s perspective, belittling the perspectives reliability.  Spence continues to affirm the tyrannical characterizations of Chairman Mao through his skillful integration of accuracy integration of accuracy? and emotion in his words, as his conveyance of the mercilessness of Mao Zedong in his encouragements of destruction evokes a sense of empathy for those who suffered and a sense of hatred for the brutal leader so further focusing on morality!. Chang and Halliday’s understanding recognizes Mao Zedong’s awareness of the brutality retained in his policies, yet heeds no attention to the suffering allowing their comprehension of an immoral leader to develop. Thus such an understanding more or less more or less is too colloquial created by heavy in-depth analysis and influenced by a personal influence, such perceptions despite aligning with other historians hold an element of biasness i'm not even sure if biasness is a word? I think it's just referred to as bias., becoming an interpretation which is considerably valid in assessing Chairman Mao’s tyrannical aspects but still carries a level of biasness, weakening the perspective.

Communist leader Mao Zedong has carried numerous different understandings of his character and his legacy over the decades. In the words of Tim Stanley, ‘there was a big gulf between the theoretical Maoism and Maoism in practice (of Mao Zedong)’ Nice!. Whilst most recognize him as the tyrant whose machinations brought death to civilians, some choose to look beyond his social and cultural impacts on the Chinese civilians and understand his policies targeted the economical and political advancement. Chang and Halliday along with Spence all aimed to present the Chinese understanding and perspective of Mao Zedong as a tyrannical leader who held no ethical values. In contrast, Schram and Deshpande look beyond the surface infiltrated by stories of the sufferings and acknowledge Mao Zedong on his ability to achieve political and economical advancement. However, Chairman Mao’s controversial character cannot be with reformer or tyrant, but both. Once considering Mao’s words ‘the struggle to consolidate the socialist system…will take a long historical period’ (Mao, 1957) realization that without such suffering China would not have arrived at its current stage arises. Yet such recognition of Mao Zedong’s character can only be developed once aligned with self valued morals and ethics and when examined at the particular period of time. Understanding of this controversial figure is only clear when one recognizes the unavoidable ramifications of every action. Thus whilst Mao Zedong the tyrant, paid with his people’s lives the cost for China’s ultimate power, Mao Zedong the reformer would not have succeeded in modernizing China if such sacrifice was not made.

Okay!!
Sosoosososososososososo so much better bigsweetpotato2000! This has significantly improved since last time, and is way more historiographical! I love how you are really delving into the limitations of these historians as well, rather than just discussing their interpretations.

My only major comments are:
1) I'd like potentially a bit more of a discussion upon some of the historiographical issues that you raised outside of Mao Zedong, so just, in a general sense, why is the context of the historian important, how is utilising morality as a historiographical tool effective/ineffective, etc. etc. Integrating historiographers that aren't necessarily focusing on Mao throughout (eg. EH Carr). That way you can show that you understand these historiographical theories, and how they apply to different historical issues.

2) Language and expression - I know you said that your word choices were a bit off, so I'm not too concerned, as you seem to be aware of this problem, but I thought I should raise it anyway. There are some sentences that don't really make sense, and that is limiting the effectiveness of your analysis.

But overall, such a massive improvement since last time! I'm super proud of you, this really is shaping up to be an excellent major work. I don't think you are "screwed" at all - this is already great, and you've still got a week to make it even better!

Great work,

Susie

--- End quote ---

Oh my goodness you have NO IDEA I was dreading your response - Was so ready to just drop and cry if I got another 'Its horrible' response (Not saying you said that but face it, the first one was a pretty ridiculous draft.)
Okay.
No crying
Okay
THANK YOU SO MUCH SUSIE YOU HAVE NO IDEA MY LIFE LOOKS SO MUCH BRIGHTER

sudodds:

--- Quote from: bigsweetpotato2000 on July 20, 2017, 12:24:50 am ---Oh my goodness you have NO IDEA I was dreading your response - Was so ready to just drop and cry if I got another 'Its horrible' response (Not saying you said that but face it, the first one was a pretty ridiculous draft.)
Okay.
No crying
Okay
THANK YOU SO MUCH SUSIE YOU HAVE NO IDEA MY LIFE LOOKS SO MUCH BRIGHTER

--- End quote ---
aha oh my goodness, well I'm very glad I was able to provide some reassurance! Your last response wasn't horrible by the way - 99.99% of major works will look like that tbh, but I knew you (and everyone else on AN!) could go so much further, if you were just given a little push - and I'm so glad that I did because in my opinion this is a much better essay. So good! No crying! Only celebrating, because you're almost DONEEEEEEE :D

bigsweetpotato2000:

--- Quote from: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 12:36:50 am ---aha oh my goodness, well I'm very glad I was able to provide some reassurance! Your last response wasn't horrible by the way - 99.99% of major works will look like that tbh, but I knew you (and everyone else on AN!) could go so much further, if you were just given a little push - and I'm so glad that I did because in my opinion this is a much better essay. So good! No crying! Only celebrating, because you're almost DONEEEEEEE :D

--- End quote ---

I honestly can't wait - Such a weight on the shoulders.

And I have forgotten to send in the question to my essay, could you perhaps give some insight if I answered the essay question well for my essay or should I edit it a bit to match my essay more?

Question:

Mao Zedong: Reformer, Tyrant or Both?
The cost for ultimate power.

Thanks Susie!

Bigsweetpotato Farm

sudodds:

--- Quote from: bigsweetpotato2000 on July 20, 2017, 01:01:33 am ---I honestly can't wait - Such a weight on the shoulders.

And I have forgotten to send in the question to my essay, could you perhaps give some insight if I answered the essay question well for my essay or should I edit it a bit to match my essay more?

Question:

Mao Zedong: Reformer, Tyrant or Both?
The cost for ultimate power.

Thanks Susie!

Bigsweetpotato Farm


--- End quote ---
Hey! no worries :) I think you answered the question well don't worry!

olr1999:

--- Quote from: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 08:07:26 pm ---Hey olr1999!
So keen to read through your essay, however you need a few more posts before I can do that! You may have missed it, but due to the increase in forum activity, so we can keep up we had to increase the post spend to 25 posts for an essay mark. You're super close, once you've reached 40 posts you'll qualify - once you've done that, nudge me and I'll get to marking your response ASAP!

Susie

--- End quote ---

Hey Susie,
I've got 40 posts!
Thank youuuuuuuuuu!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page