>> i'm afraid i have bad news for you. >> my second question is this. >> do 11 at a time.

>> they have to be very careful about what they study and the depth, the tendency of the study. i just wanted to what extent do you feel you are vulnerable now to these types of archives in the future. do you feel they might be vulnerable to a potential blacklist? >> i have more bad news for you. it was of course very bad when i was there. i think all the good historical scholarship is a little bit hit and miss. if you already know the answer to the questions you have there's no point in carrying out the research. if you can have the material that allows you to answer these questions, no point in doing it either. so, i think as a historian one is always attuned to the discovery of interesting enriched metro that allows one to ask interesting questions. at the keyboard really is that i also thought for a while that

long, that allows the archivist to open up materials that is older than 30 years, would gradually increase the amount of material that is available. but with hindsight i think that was rather naïve innocence that my feeling now is that a lot of these places went a little bit too far in opening material. here's the bad news. since the olympics a lot of that material has been reclassified. so today i would not be able to carry out the research for the book. i was there pretty much at the right time. which is not to say that everything has been reclassified and it's become much tougher, still very interesting material out there that's become a lot tougher. let us just hope that over the coming years, the authorities will adopt the same attitude as

elsewhere, including any excellent union by making it available more systematically. as to the second question, i don't really believe i'm important enough to be banned from the people's republic. you quoted the book, it was very interesting groundwork. there were others that were published on. i'm not really the first. i don't think that something that happened 50, 60 years ago is sufficient to warrant a ban. and, in fact, given the number of e-mails i get from people in the mainland, were very keen to read the translation that will be published, given the translation will become available, given the number of e-mails i get from readers who are very interested in it, maybe i won't even be welcomed.

>> is there any evidence of any, human, and other countries they have food riots or, you know, non-timeless countries, they have food riots in response to something like this. is there any evidence -- is this on? is there any evidence that were revolts among the people? and if so, what happened to them? >> yes. it's a wonderful question. i did talk about strategies of coping, fasting in particular, lying, obstructing, cheating, smuggling. but at some point in these villages it does happen that that passive -- that shield that outsiders, the protective shield to outsiders mistake for submissive is actually breaks down and becomes really

violence. in one county, out of 500, about 30 are attacked in this place of two months alone in 1960. they are even armed rebellions, about 12 of them in 1960 just to the southwest provinces. in one case, for instance, about 100 farmers take weapons, with the support of local village leaders and a number of high ranking party officials, and the army has to be sent in to deal with that incidence. and the further you go, the more rebellions you encounter. some of them extremely violent. others really relying on the sheer strength of numbers of farmers. for instance, in january 1961 there are a reported 500 cases

of assaults on freight trains. in one case, up to 4000 farmers just wait by the side of that railroad. it comes a freight train, they assaulted, remove every three mobile peace from that freight train. a number of them fine -- find military uniforms. they put them on. a couple of days later they approach the state and the doors open magically because of course they mistake them for militia. so there are all sorts of extraordinary acts of resistance that happened, from single farmers who simply can't take it anymore, and the salt officials with cleavers to large gatherings of farmers who use their numbers to get to a train,

get to a granularity, or even a salt and office that represents the communist party. >> if you could stand up. >> howard friedman, united nations. one of the things that i think was most poignant about what your grace was the idea of all the violence which is not things i forget to discuss that much. can you give us an idea of what roughly the percentage of deaths you which they were so sue with our deaths as opposed to starvation? >> yes. i'm glad you raised it. again, on the basis of a whole series of very different types of documentation, one gets a rough sense of how many died in violent conditions, how many were tortured to death, buried alive. why? because some of these investigation teams actually

want to find out for themselves. so they come up with a number of figures, and it ranges from about six to 8%. it could be less, it could be more. but it means that about two to 3 million people were violently killed during this period. as a percentage, that is actually higher than the number of people who were killed deliberately. most of the victims died of deliberate starvation and overwork and in the countries. quite high number. and it even more interesting is of course the use of food as a weapon. white beat somebody, why expend energy when you can simply banned that person from the canteen. if you are to we, too old, too sick to work. wiki speak out during a meeting, or steal some grain, you will be banned from the campaign.

and you will start very quickly. so the deliberate starving of people considered to be unfit or undesirable is one of the key characteristics of this family. and in the number of counties, it is estimated that about 8% of those who died actually die because they were banned, cut off from food supply. very large number. although of course it varies enormously from one place to another. but i think it's fair to say that a good proportion of those who died were actually deliberately starved. the food is in the canteen. there are no pots and pans. there were others, that were taken away during to produce more steel and backyard furnaces to even light a fire. the food is in the hands of the party of the militia, handed out

by the spoonful. one man we interviewed has it a very interested way of looking at it. he said even if you worked hard, even if you got enough work points to be entitled to your goal of food, you are still afraid to enter the canteen. as he said it, the ladle can read people's faces. by that he met the man who use of the ladle would either go very deep into the pot and give you some substantial food, or merely skim the surface to give you some greenish concoction if you didn't like you. -- if he didn't like you. >> martha springer. i would like to ask you about the book, mao, the unknown

story, which are probably familiar with. and i think many of the conclusions at least regarding this period are similar to what is concluded. >> very difficult question. you may have noticed that young actually endorses the book. it's on the cover. it's been very much criticized i have a very simple attitude. i like to see what is good in something. now, andrew nathan in the review i believe for the new york review books describe that particular biography as bits of plastic and bits of jade. well, i would rather focus on the jade and take that, and i have time for a plastic. i'm not one to go and jump up and down because i discovered

another piece of plastic in that book. there's a lot of jade. i would rather take that. the way i look at it, historic rapidly so to speak on is that has actually made it possible for others like myself to write about this period and about mao in a much more critical manner. so, i still believe that book is fundamental from a historical point of view. and they keep on going back to it. i keep on going back to it. i still go back to the chapters, check the footnotes, of course there's plastic, they're still a lot of jade in there. and what else is there to read on that period? not an awful lot. [inaudible]

>> it seems to me, my biggest reservation is as follows, it portrays mao as a monster, which he was. but it doesn't really look at all the others who were there to support mao, all the others who were there at key points to make sure that he got his way. all those who stood behind him and supported him. for instance, during the purge in the summer of 1959, people like the mayor who stood right behind him, and others, like the man who is in charge was very much a gung ho supporter. so, that's also what i've been trying to do with this book, move away from a narrow focus on mao, to look at how this affects

much anybody in the party, but human beings at every level if you wish of the social hierarchy, and how it creates moral degradations all the way through the moral fabric of the society. >> i think we have time for one final question. >> you mentioned before about -- you get e-mails and the mainland who are waiting for the translation of your book. when exactly will be published and will be in taiwan or hong kong and will be censored? >> it will be published in hong kong, and hopefully it will be out by january, february at the latest. so quite soon. within half a year. it will be of course in context characters, but i have no doubt that once it will be published in context characters someone else will copy it, it will be scanned and copied and downloadable from the web.

[laughter] >> i think we can have one last question. >> could you speak a little bit further about the roles of lee and bash him being -- ping, about those having about the loss of life and the fabrications come and also one less thing if you could also mention a little about cannibalism. >> i'll give you, because there's not much time left, but i'll give you a quotation from gushing being. this is what he said when he was fully aware of the facts in his home province, szechuan, eight to 10 main people had died. he said that he admired the szechuan style because when a

command was issued by the center, sichuan province actually deliver the goods. he said that maybe there were some accesses in szechuan, but overall he was proud of szechuan. that's what he said in 1962. fully aware of the amount of deprivation and death, quote, by his man in szechuan. he himself said again in 1962, we are not weaker. we are stronger. he compared it to the long march. he said we have kept the backbone. of that he met all those who died unnecessarily were actually bad elements, slackers, counterrevolutionaries, righteous conservatives. it kept the backbone.

so the beauty of gaining access in a very limited way, a very limited way to some of those minutes of top leadership speeches and conferences to find out that it wasn't just one man's shop so to speak. he got a lot of support from the crucial people at the top. here is someone who really needs to actually implement that plan. once you decided that you're going to have going forward, once you have that vision, but has to be someway to do the paperwork, and zhoe enlai was very good at it. and again, this is something that comes out of the archives. and zhoe enlai is the one who goes around and will make sure

that each province actually contributes the amount of grain that has been mandated. here's a man who will harass people in personal meetings, pressure, push to make sure that the grain is actually delivered. there is a very short chapter on cannibalism. and the beauty of the archives is that there are a number of cases where it's not just a few cases, but very systematic list of how many people committed cannibalism in one particular village. i've only one conclusion about cannibalism. mainly, that most people that seem so much violence and horror and who have managed to survive through it all, or them surely, surely this was not the worst form of disrespect, to beat

somebody who had already died. far greater horror stories were inflicted on human beings by their commanders. >> is there anything that we haven't asked you that you wish, we wish we had asked you? >> i would like to point out that i would like to come back to what i said earlier about people being reduced to mid-numbers. this is not a book of statistics. numbers are important, but it's a vital i think that one should try as a historian to really discover the human faces, the tragedies, the stories behind all of that. and i spent a lot of time trying to make this book as engaging as possible. if only because this book does

far, a topic that is far too important to be reduced to mere theory about state power, it's far too important to be reduced to a mere number about how many people died. it has to be a part of something that people will read in order to gain the same level of knowledge about this great crime against humanity, as they might gain from reading books, for instance, on the holocaust, or other books on the crimes committed on the staff. so please don't be repulsed by numbers, there are very few of them in this book. >> although it was intended that way, that's actually a perfect introduction to invite you all to the back of the room where,

if you like, you can purchase a copy of the book and then ask any other questions you have two professor dikotter. thanks for being such a thoughtful audience. [applause] >> frank dikotter is the chair professor of humanities at the university of hong kong. for more information visit his website, web.mac.com/dkotter.

>> president obama issued a proclamation that this is week across america day. [applause] >> all right, president obama. [cheers and applause] >> and so we are grateful that he did that and we're especially grateful that mrs. obama and secretary are here. so please welcome our special readers. [cheers and applause] >> all right, it sounds like you're pretty excited. what are you excited about? >> reading. >> thank you. we're also excited about reading, right? [cheers and applause] >> in our house we read all the time. the president is a reader. he reads so much he knows facts about everything.

said you guys want to be facts people? >> yes. >> you guys have to read in order to do that. we will start out by reading something fun. secretary duncan and i are big dr. seuss fans. do you want to talk about your reading exploit? >> we both have two children at home who are older than most of you guys, that if we had a nickel for every dr. seuss book we read we would be rich. these are great books. before you guys read for fun at home, turn those tvs off that night, leave the video games alone. just read, don't do homework for pleasure. become lifelong readers, you can do anything you want to do. one quick story, my parents were moving crazy. when i grew up, guess i'm a tvs we had? >> eight? >> we had zero. i had to sneak over to my friends house once in a while to watch tv.

my parents read to me and my brother and sister every single night. we didn't understand that but it was about the love of reading. before you guys just read for pleasure, whatever it might be, stories, mysteries, adventure, comic books, nonfiction, whatever it might be, just read for fun. if you do that you would do very, very well the rest of your lives. are you guys ready to hear a story? >> yes. >> green eggs and ham. ever heard that one before? >> yes. >> i am sam. i am sam. sam i am. that's sam i am. that's sam i am. i do not like that sam i am. do you like green eggs and ham? >> i do not like them, sam i am. i do not like green eggs and ham. >> would you like them here or there? >> i would not like them here or there. i would not like them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am.

>> would you like them in a house? would you like them with a mouse? >> i do not like them in a house. i do not like them with a mouse. i do not like them here or there. i do not like them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am. >> would you eat them in a box? would you eat them with a fox? >> not in a box, not with a fox, not in the house, not with a mouth. i would not eat them here or there. i would not even anywhere. i would not eat green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am. >> would you, could you, in a car, eat them, eat them, here they are. >> i would not could not in a car. >> you mean like them, you will see. you may like them in a tree. >> i would not could not in a tree, not in a car.

you let me be. i do not like them in a box. i do not like them with a fox. i do not like them in the house, i do not like them with a mouse. i do not like this here or there. i do not like them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am. >> a train, train, a train, a train, could you, would you on a train? >> not on a train, not in a tree, not in a car. sam, let me be. i would not could not in a box. i would not could not with a fox. i will not eat them with a mouse. i will not be them in a house. i will not even here. or there. i will not eat them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am. >> say, in the dark come here in the dark? would you could you in the dark? >> i would not could not in the dark. >> would you could you in the rain? >> i would not could not in the rain.

not in the dark. not on the train, not in a tree. i didn't like them, sam to see. not in a house, not in the box, not with a fox. i will not eat them here or there. i do not like them anywhere. >> you do not like green eggs and ham? >> i do not like them, sam i am. >> could you would you what they don't? >> no. >> absolutely. [laughter] >> i would not could not with a goat. >> would you could you on a boat? >> i could not would not on a boat. i will not will not with ago. i will not eat them in the rain. i will not eat them on a train. not in the dark. not in a tree. not in a car. you let me be. i do not like them in a box. i didn't like them with a fox but i will not eat them in a house. i do not like that with a mouse but i will not be them here or there. i do not like them anywhere. >> i do not like green eggs and

ham. i don't like them, sam i am. >> you do not like them so you say? >> i'm trying today this. >> try them, try them. and you may. drive-in and you may. i say. >> sam, if you will let me be i will try them and then you will see. >> are you trying them? >> say, i like green eggs and ham. ideal. i like them, sam i am. and i would eat them in a boat. and i would eat them with a goat. and i will eat them in the rain. and in the dark and on a train. and in a car and in a tree. they are so good, so good you see. so, i will eat them in a box,

and i will eat them with a fox. and i will eat them in the house and i will eat them with a mouse. and i will be thin here and there, and i will eat them everywhere. anywhere. i love them, sam. i do so like green eggs and ham. thank you, thank you, sam i am. >> give her a round of applause. [applause] >> oh, my. i love reading green eggs and ham. i have some other special guest for you. who do you think that might be? know, president obama is not here. but someone even taller than president obama. cat in hat? good cat and a hat be here? where is cat in the hat? >> right there. >> where? >> right there.

>> well, tell him to come out. no, out, cat in the hat. [cheers and applause] >> oh, my. and also cm1 and sing do. oh, my. that tale, look at that tail. all right. now, with cat in the hat and sing-1 and sing-2, all of us together, and his mrs. obama duncan and doctor, we want to do a redisplayed with the. are you ready? then you've got to raise your right hand. your other right hand. >> raise them high. let's see. >> when you hear me say something i want you to repeat after me. so nice and loud. are you ready? are you ready?