3 ms·

Your perception I think (I'd say largely because of the focus from the silver screen) https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg Adolf only i

by PMan74 11y ago

Your perception I think (I'd say largely because of the focus from the silver screen) https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eyUnc.jpg Adolf only in third place, almost pipped by Leopold (also colonial as it happens) but no where near Mao.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago
There's a difference between responsibility for death and genocide. Mao looked to uplift his country, but through horrendously bad policy caused a famine that took the lives of tens of millions of Chinese. Partly that was due to ignorance, and yes partly due to willingly sacrificing lives of people for a 'greater good' by shifting resources away from agriculture towards industrialisation knowing it would lead to starvation, that leans towards genocide heavily but is not the same. It's different from planning and executing, deliberately, to kill large groups of people for the sake of removing them from the planet, or ethnic cleansing, doing the same but to a particular ethnic group. I'm not saying Mao's consequences are any less bad or deserve less attention, not at all, but generally Mao's actions aren't considered genocide. That's purely a semantical argument, not a moral one. Mao reduced resources going towards the affected population, shifting the resources to a different economic priority, leading to a man made catastrophe and loss of life. Hitler expanded resources to the affected population to exterminate them specifically. The results are not much different but the definition is. If OP had asked about responsibility for death rather than genocides, your post would be quite fitting. Other terms have been thought up since the Armenian genocide like democide (probably most fitting for Mao's famine) and mortacide.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Right. And many other deaths are overlooked. For example millions of Indians died in horrible famines which happened regularly under British rule. That stopped after Indian independence.

by PMan74 11y ago

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

There's a difference between responsibility for death and genocide. Mao looked to uplift his country, but through horrendously bad policy caused a famine that took the lives of tens of millions of Chinese. Partly that was due to ignorance, and yes partly due to willingly sacrificing lives of people for a 'greater good' by shifting resources away from agriculture towards industrialisation knowing it would lead to starvation, that leans towards genocide heavily but is not the same. It's different from planning and executing, deliberately, to kill large groups of people for the sake of removing them from the planet, or ethnic cleansing, doing the same but to a particular ethnic group. I'm not saying Mao's consequences are any less bad or deserve less attention, not at all, but generally Mao's actions aren't considered genocide. That's purely a semantical argument, not a moral one. Mao reduced resources going towards the affected population, shifting the resources to a different economic priority, leading to a man made catastrophe and loss of life. Hitler expanded resources to the affected population to exterminate them specifically. The results are not much different but the definition is. If OP had asked about responsibility for death rather than genocides, your post would be quite fitting. Other terms have been thought up since the Armenian genocide like democide (probably most fitting for Mao's famine) and mortacide.

Synaesthesia 11y ago
Right. And many other deaths are overlooked. For example millions of Indians died in horrible famines which happened regularly under British rule. That stopped after Indian independence.