对政治人物的评价，尤其是对伟人毛泽东，抛弃个人恩怨，禀持客观立场是至关重要的。张戎的书之所以招来各种立场的历史学家的质疑，是因为她立足于个人恩怨，以至于在书中渗入了太多的主观臆测以及割断历史或与历史事实不符合的东西。
举一例。这里引用某网友的一段文字，她是赞许张戎的 "书中对毛所做的最为严厉的批判却是基本上站得住脚的。比如张戎说，毛对中国的农民并多少无同情，书中有大量例子证明这一点。在瑞金时期，在延安时期，毛领导的中共政权都对农民大规模地征粮、征夫。49年后对农民的剥夺更是严酷，各种政策也对农民充满歧视。"
毛泽东对中国农民没有多少同情心吗？试问：毛泽东是靠什么赢得中国革命胜利的？没有农民的支持，何来 "农村包围城市的道路？" 为什么 "第二次国内革命战争时期" 又被史学家们称为 "土地革命时期？" 那是因为毛泽东和 GCD 带领农民起来造反夺政权。
就凭在瑞金时期，在延安时期，毛领导的中共政权都对农民大规模地征粮征夫来指责毛，那是不公允的。在战争年代，环顾世界历史，哪一个军事政权不是这样做的呢？其实中国农民心里也是很清楚的，跟同一时期的蒋介石国民党比，中国 (至少在最贫穷地区的) 农民是站在毛这一边的。
全国解放以后，中国农民的日子跟解放前相比普遍是转好的 (当然或许可以批评进步太慢)。中国农民还是毛泽东和 GCD 政权可以依赖的根本。除了 "四五运动"，毛泽东还在什么时候用过武力来镇压人民群众造反？毛将知识青年送到农村去，难道说仅仅是为了打发城市待业中学毕业生吗？知识青年插队落户到中国农村，对农村的影响是巨大的。毛泽东对中国农民的感情，只要看毛泽东逝世时，中国农村的悲恸就知道了。中国农村的合作化，无论如何在当时是代表了进步，是当时农村迈向机械化的唯一道路。
张戎书中举的例子不能说明问题，因为别人也可以举大量相反例子。张戎所谓的严厉批判只是在主观臆测，是在割断历史，是根本站不住脚的。
邓小平对毛泽东的评价是 "三七开"，即所谓的三分缺点七分成绩，这里表现出邓大人对伟人毛泽东的崇敬。但邓的评价也不能算是客观和公正的，至少牵扯进了个人的恩怨和政治立场。
我们对历史人物的评价一是需要参照体系，二史不能超出历史范畴，我们不可能奢望秦始皇是一个共和党人。要公正的评价毛泽东，只能将毛泽东跟他同一历史时期的中国和世界的领袖人物作比较。比如，中国革命战争年代里的毛泽东可以跟蒋介石作比较。到底是谁代表了革命的进步力量，是谁代表了民主和清廉，是谁代表了人民的利益，是谁代表了正确的政治和军事政策和方针。
同样的，全国解放后的毛泽东可以跟印度的莫罕达斯·甘地和尼赫鲁作比较。将印度独立时的工农业的规模，人均 GDP 等与中国一九四九年建国时作比较。再将毛泽东去世时，即一九七六年，中国和印度工农业规模，人均 GDP 等作比较。这样的比较还可以包括对领土完整，资源保护，人口增长，社会文化等方面。
这样的比较才是合乎情理的。切忌对历史人物求全责备，包括张戎等人，他们实际上是将毛泽东放到了神的位置上，然后拖下来加以鞭挞。
张戎是站错了立场的。她写这本书的目的，无非是为了博得她的新主子高兴而已。让那些 (英国) 白人殖民者的后裔意淫一番，原来将英国殖民者赶出中国的是那么丑恶的一群人。
中国革命是因为殖民侵略而起来的，中国革命再丑陋，跟万恶的殖民侵略相比较，中国革命要高尚千千万万倍。
看一看今天的津巴布维吧。津巴布维的总统选举之争，实际上就是白人农庄主 (殖民者的后裔) 和农庄主的代理人，跟以穆加贝总统为首的广大贫穷黑人之间的斗争。这就是为什么美国人和英国佬那么起劲的高喊要制裁，要抵制。而非洲联盟却异常低调的寻求妥协的根本原因。
试想一下，如果没有毛泽东和中国 GCD，中国革命没有将殖民主义的势力彻底赶出中国，四九年以后的中国占优势的仍将是殖民者和他们的代理人，今天的中国可能连津巴布维都不如!
所以尽管犯了一些错误，但我们站在中国国家利益的立场上，每一个中国人都应当感谢伟人毛泽东。
附文：津巴布维的土地之争 (http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/zimbabwe.html)
Zimbabwe Government and Farmers Locked in Land Reform Dispute
Land possession has been a major area of dispute for whites and blacks in Zimbabwe for decades. In 1965, upon independence from Britain, white Rhodesians seized control of the majority of fertile land within the country and forced blacks to use the poorer, arid, and unproductive ground. After minority rule ended in 1980 through the election of President Robert Gabriel Mugabe and the implementation of the Lancaster House Agreement, white landowners were granted ten years of protection from land distribution policies and reform. In addition, this agreement provided that land would not be seized without compensation.
In 1990, after the government was no longer constrained by provisions of the Lancaster Agreement, the Constitution was amended in order to provide for the redistribution of land within the country. Throughout this time, various amendments have been instituted in order to provide for an adequate redistribution of the land, while allowing for the fair compensation of landowners. In addition, various governments, including Britain, have provided land assistance grants in order to facilitate the process of land redistribution and compensation. By 1997, however, much of the more fertile land remained under control of a few thousand white farmers. Moreover, much of the land that had been distributed, remained in the hands of the black elites, and was not accessible for lower-class Zimbabweans. Throughout this period, the population of lower-class laborers within the "tribal reserves", increased. In 1998, international donor governments that had contributed to financing land reforms, held a conference on increased government enforced acquisition of land. These governments adopted a set of principles in order to guide "Phase II" of land reform in Zimbabwe. These principles included respect for the legal process, transparency, poverty reduction, consistency and ensuring affordability for acquisition and allocation of land grants. Subsequent to these proceedings, however, the relationship between the Zimbabwean government and donor governments faced instability, and Zimbabwe accused these governments of attempting to maintain the colonial distribution of wealth.
Over the last five years, there has been increasing political and social tension in Zimbabwe over land-distribution and compensation. In July 2000, President Mugabe stated that he would adopt a "fast-tracts" land reform process in Zimbabwe where a national committee, the National Land Identification Committee, would identify tracks of land for redistribution. This fast-tracts model consists of two approaches: model A1, to benefit 160,000 of the poor from the general landless population; and model A2 aimed at creating 51,000 black commercial farmers. This process, however, has been noted as an inefficient and inconsistent method of allocating land. Moreover, there were increasing concerns that these methods were not monitored by the judicial system.
In December 2000, the Commercial Farmer's Union (CFU) filed a suit in the Zimbabwe Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the current fast track land reform system. The CFU was successful in obtaining an order from the Court, barring land distribution under the fast-track method because the method was held to be unconstitutional. This interdict was overturned one year later after the government allegedly reformed its policies and procedures. During November 2001, CFU created the Zimbabwe Joint Resettlement Initiative (ZJRI) and proposed redistribution of land with assistance for newly resettled farmers. Since then, there have been reports that the fast-track land measures continue, and that the overall level of distribution and compensation remains ineffective.
请阅读更多我的博客文章>>>
| • | 【科普简讯】地震预测技术取得重大突破 |
| • | 汶川地震时另一位独自逃跑的竟然是名神职人员 |
| • | 幽默笑话集锦 (6) |
| • | 观察北京奥运举办成功与否的几项指标 |
| • | 百度搜索，键入：雷锋月 2008，您可以看到如下结果 |
