Is Mao Zedong of China the real hero or is it Deng Xiaopeng?
97959
Mao also killed a lot of people.\n\nAnd while China did have the brunt of the Japanse in WWII (just as the Soviets has the brunt of the Germans), they were not alone - there were also the Nationalist Chinese.\n\nI have known some people from China who grew up during the cultural revolution (sent out to ourlying districts to farm poor land) and weren't too happy about that. But being of that time they rarely said anything bad about Mao (and we were in the US).\n\nToday, I suspect most Chinese are more interested in what Deng did than Mao.
796009
It is estimated that the Soviet Union exterminated over 20 million of it's own people.\nChina exterminated 50 million to a 100 million of it's own Chinese.\nHow's that for Human Rights?\n(These are facts that can be checked out.)
786213
Yes. The People's Republic of China has both President and Prime Minister. The current President of China is Pres. Hu Jintao and the current Prime Minister, or Premier as it is known in China, is Wen Jiabao. Although both share executive power, the President is the Chief Executive and Head of State. The Premier is the Chief of the Chinese Communist Party and is the top man in the legislature.
736145
Good post. Stalin was a terrible man.\n\nAnd let's not forget Chairman Mao.
522249
that's because patriotism is the only sentiment we can consider as selfless .Heroes are not those who perform marvelous acts in films .the real Heroes are those who fight for the pride of their nation even at the verge of death as they are not individuals but representation of a whole country.
1141588
Dr. José Protacio Mercado Rizal y Alonzo Realonda \n(June 19, 1861 – December 30, 1896), \n\nvariously called the "Pride of the Malay Race," "The Great Malayan," "The First Filipino," "The Messiah of the Revolution," "The Universal Hero" and "The Messiah of the Redemption." He is the national hero of the Philippines. Despite his relatively short life, Rizal's passion as a patriot together with his intelligence as one of the first Third World intellectuals of the post-colonial era have inspired succeeding thinkers and revolutionaries of the centrality of national identity as a social force in the project of nation-building. He is called by Benedict Anderson as one of the best exemplars of nationalist thinking.
485047
found this some time ago, think may have what you need...\n\n\n\n\nThe last Chinese emperor abdicated in 1912. China fell into utter chaos until, in 1926, Chiang marched an army northward and achieved a semblance of national unification. From 1928 China was under Chiang's dictatorship, with Nanking as the capital. However, Japan seized Manchuria in 1931. Four years later, Chiang's grand effort to stamp out the Chinese Communist party failed when Mao Tse-tung took his followers on the Long March to a remote region. In 1937 the Japanese invaded metropolitan China in force and a general war commenced, with the U.S. joining in on China's side after Pearl Harbor. Chiang and Mao maintained a wary alliance until Japan's defeat. Then there was civil war. The Communists won, establishing the People's Republic in 1949. Chiang fled to Taiwan, where he maintained an authoritarian dictatorship until his death in 1975. \n\nThe conventional wisdom, naturally much encouraged by the Communists and their Western shills, is that Chiang lost China because he was inflexibly incompetent, cared nothing for the common people, and alienated his U.S. ally by permitting his wife's family to loot the country for their own enrichment. One of the things one hopes to learn from a book about Chiang is the degree to which this conventional wisdom is correct. Jonathan Fenby's new biography leaves one believing that it is, with some minor qualifications. To borrow a rhetorical figure from Orwell: Some things are true even though the Chinese Communist party says they are true.\n\nIn fact, once civil-war passions had cooled, the Communists adopted a more generous line towards Chiang. When he died in 1975, they offered to make a suitable burial plot available for him in his home district. (The offer was refused.) The traditional attitude of the Chinese to failed political enterprises is: "If you win, you're the Emperor; if you lose, you're a bandit." This at least has a certain moral neutrality about it, and leaves scope for magnanimity, so long as the failed enterprise can be shown to have had some patriotic color. Chiang's undoubtedly did. Fenby shows us that Chiang was, from his earliest years, motivated mainly by patriotism, though it was a patriotism refracted through his own narrow mind and stunted, unattractive personality. \n\nYet Chiang's greatest enemy was neither Japan nor Mao, but China herself. It requires an effort of imagination for an American of today to grasp the sheer backwardness of China in the period Fenby is writing about, the first half of the 20th century. China was, to be sure, a great civilization, with a glittering literary tradition stretching back continuously to the Bronze Age, respectable accomplishments in pre-industrial science and technology, and a great body of religious and philosophical writing. In matters social, political, and economic, however, China was medieval. Reading Fenby's book, time and again one feels oneself to be not in the modern world at all, but in the Scotland of Macbeth, the Germany of Otto the Great, or the England of the early Plantagenets. Listen:\n\nThough the small, delicate, ruthless governor [of Yunnan Province] had rallied to the Kuomintang cause in name, his revenues from opium and slave-labor tin mines made him anything but a model ally for the national revolution. . . . He had invited a rebellious general with whom he had reached a peace agreement to a luncheon banquet in a tent. At the end of the meal, a swordsman behind the guest chopped off his head, which was then hung from a telegraph pole at the entry to the capital . . .\n\nIt did not help that Chiang himself was distinctly a product of that very backwardness. His governing style was imperial-Confucian: "Tremble and obey!" He could not be bothered much with consultation, and resented disagreement. By Fenby's account, he was not such a military duffer as I had previously
481552
Most likely what you are referring to was the exile of Chaing Kai-Shek's Nationalist forces to Formosa after fighting the communists under Mao, around 1947-1949.  You'd have to say that Chaing Kai-shek was the man who lost China.
251825
Rule of law from the weakest person to the strongest should be a goal of every country, unfortunately, the Chinese communist party is threatened by the "spiritual" movement Falung Gong, so it's possible these acts are condoned tacitly to "scare "citizens back into the communist fold. Any acts like these, if true, would be signs of desperation. The Chinese government will be on it's best behavior until the Olympics in '08, then I believe there may be great confrontation in China. Their economy is more and more capitalist, the people want and are getting, to a certain degree, a more free and materialistic lifestyle, yet the Communist party still holds sole political power. At some point one will have to give way to the other.
744909
Old history, but if the Chinese was not challenged in Korea, you would be living the a very communistic world.  Of course since democracy stood up and faced communism, now even communism has almost disappeared and replaced by capitalism.
431536
India. It is a democracy and China is a dictatorship. Simple as that.
317168
because his actions affected the world and because he killed millions of people.\nstalin and mao were both evil and killed millions too but their actions were only felt in their own countries
13630
another communist leader...
941050
Dear $$$$,\n\nOne of the first things the Communists did in China after taking power in 1949 was to reform family law. Polygamous marriages (previously a strong tradition in Chinese culture) were outlawed and divorce was made available to women as well as men. The Communists also promoted the advancement of women in every area of society. In that regard, the Communists can indeed be argued to have dealt positively with some of the more unsavoury realities of traditional Chinese culture, which was often extremely unfavourable towards women.\n\nFor the rest, however, their record is frankly dismal. From the very beginning the Communists launched a massive attack on most aspects of Chinese culture, cracking down on religious practice and the millennia-old tradition of ancestor worship, which were dismissed as "bourgeois superstitions". Spiritual figures such as Buddhist monks and shamans, previously an integral part of Chinese culture, were imprisoned. Cultural festivals were abolished - even Chinese New Year was considered to be part of the "old superstitions", and the Communists replaced it by the politically correct appelation of "spring festival" (which is still in use today).\n\nIn the 1970s, Mao's wife Jiang Qing initiated a "criticise Confucius" campaign, seeking to cast shame and discredit on one of China's greatest cultural influences. There was even a plan at some point to abolish the Chinese writing system altogether and replace it with the Roman alphabet. Thankfully this plan proved to be unworkable and was quickly scrapped.\n\nBut nothing compares with the catastrophe unleashed upon Chinese culture by the Communists during the infamous Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). During that fanatical time, all icons of traditional culture were decreed to be "reactionary" and violently attacked. Classical Chinese literature was banned. Thousands of temples and churches across the country were ransacked, looted or destroyed and millions of priceless cultural artefacts were lost. \n\nThis is without even mentioning, of course, the millions of people who were brutally killed, tortured, or removed from their jobs and sent to undergo hard labour in the countryside for somehow becoming associated with "old ways of thinking". This was a huge trauma for Chinese society, and the country still has not finished recovering from it. All in all, the Communists have been very bad news for Chinese culture.\n\nBut it is also important to note that things have changed, and nowadays the Communist authorities have advocated a revival of Chinese culture. It is fine to read Confucius again, temples have reopened and the government has openly espoused a traditional Chinese architectural style for many of its buildings (and encouraged this trend in the private sector too). The Cultural Revolution has been cautiously condemned as a mistake.\n\nHope this helped,
871772
Sun Zhongsan is also known as Sun Yat-sen or the father of modern China. Read up the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat-sen ) on him to get the information you want.\n\nAlso try searching "Sun Yat-sen" using the InfoFries Information Finder (http://infofries.freehostia.com/infofinder/ ) for extra reference sources.
213284
My hero is the one who considers himself as a hero.Confidence is the only capital which makes one real hero
505874
China. India is the world's biggest democracy. Population wise. So the US has been working with the Indian Government. But China is still under Communist rule and still hates Capitalists.