d it most innovating that China is superior in many of its way and its technologies that keep us alive today are immense and should be recognized as an act of a strong economic nation, not as a communist death hole. He completely wants the reader to understand that he has no offense on China, but China has an effect on itself from many other critics. Stewart Ross on the other hand, uses China in a horrible sense or criticism. He critiques China after 1945 in almost anyway he can. His tone doesnt sound biased, but after the first 10 pages, the book starts taking a negative effect towards China. He starts the book as if it is the most intriguing country in the world, but soon it his enthusiasm descends to a lower degree. The conclusion that the reader would be able to see is that the actual author isnt biased about China but about Communism, since it affected China in every way after 1945. The writing of the book looks as if it is directed to any American who is interested in Chinas modern history. The book is written by an American author who directs his views to another American. He directs China from Chinese eyes. He doesnt exactly point it out that there is conflict and doesnt show any biased thoughts or actions. He simply just states facts and doesnt try to criticize it through Chinese eyes, but directs his views as if his research team was the one that was having trouble figuring something out. This may be unclear but Ill state an example. The team didnt know how many millions of people died in the Land Reform, but were pretty sure its around 35%. It is explained that the cruelty of the Chinese during land reforms are extremely harsh, for the landlords were taken from their lands, leaving the warlords to take the peons and control the economy. Not 35% died, but about 20% did, by the Grolier Encyclopedia (2000). The author extremely exaggerated the number too highly to show cruelty but obviously and neutral or un-biase...
