5 ms·

Does that meet the definition of genocide? I'm no expert but, first of all, the peasants who died weren't a different ethnic group or a social class antagonist

Does that meet the definition of genocide? I'm no expert but, first of all, the peasants who died weren't a different ethnic group or a social class antagonistic to Mao, they were the ones who swept him to power. Second, AFAIK Mao didn't intentionally set out to kill people, the famine was the result of cockamamie policies of indigenous industrialization to be made possible by massive planned increases in farm productivity freeing up labor. And the leadership was blinded by ideology and convinced themselves it was working, and the political climate was such that no one dared contradict Mao, everyone reported massive production, so even as people were starving they exported food to get industrial products. They didn't set out to kill people, it just happened due to incompetence, a bad system with bad incentives, and ideological hubris. Mao was a nutty tyrant, and yet he gave the peasants literacy, medical care, and paved the way for modern China. He was preferred by those peasants to Chiang, who conscripted/enslaved peasants, sent them to fight the Japanese, but 40% died of disease and starvation before they saw action. Even with American support (admittedly tepid since they knew him well) Chiang couldn't beat Mao. (Google 'Chiang February 28' for more about what a great guy he was). Estimates of excess deaths in Iraq, are done doing a similar methodology, range from 400,000 to a couple of million. If those were due to bad policies and ideological hubris, do those constitute genocide? Anyway, history is quite complicated, we don't judge the Brits just by the famines in Bengal either, although the 'g' word sometimes comes up. It's a good article about a black American's perspective on China, so of course it's from a very specific point of view, and in order to get a perspective on Mao and blacks, it doesn't need to say he was also responsible for the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

temphn 13y ago
> I'm no expert but, first of all, the peasants who died weren't a different ethnic group or a social class antagonistic to Mao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign The Hundred Flowers Campaign was a period in 1956 in the People's Republic of China during which the Communist Party of China (CPC) encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. After this brief period of liberalization, Mao abruptly changed course. The crackdown continued through 1957 as an Anti- Rightist Campaign against those who were critical of the regime and its ideology. Those targeted were publicly criticized and condemned to prison labor camps. Mao remarked at the time that he had "enticed the snakes out of their caves." > Second, AFAIK Mao didn't intentionally set out to kill people http://laogai.org/our_work/death-penalty-organ-harvesting http://laogai.org/our_work/death-penalty-organ-harvesting In the thirty years following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, there were no clear laws governing executions, which were carried out on a massive scale. In the earliest years, millions of Kuomintang soldiers, landlords, and members of the bourgeois class, seen as threats to the new regime, were killed. In 1950 alone, 2 million people were executed as part of the “Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries” campaign. Throughout the Mao period, the number of executions always peaked during political campaigns. In 1971, 100,000 people were executed during a single campaign, one of many such campaigns during the Cultural Revolution period. During these political campaigns, particularly in the 1950s, regional governments were often tasked with meeting execution quotas, premised on Mao’s belief that a certain percentage of the population was always beyond reform. I can go line by line on the rest - Taiwan's GDP-per-capita was more than 10X the PRC's by 1978; Owen Lattimore and the China Hands gave considerable American support for Mao; and the reason you are repeating "it was just an accident that millions of people died" is that that was the propaganda at the time, also used for the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in the Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor). But really, you should ask yourself why you decided to get into the nasty business of Holocaust Denial. Tens of millions of people died, and they were murdered by Mao, his men, and the communist regime under his total control. Google a bit, read the primary sources from the period. The famine was the same thing that happened in the USSR, and what always happens when farmers have their land stolen by communist regimes. As for the mechanics of how that happened, shooting a farmer in the back of the head or sending him to a prison labor camp wasn't an "accident". Whether you choose to admit these truths or not is up to you, but it gets to the core of why this point needs to be raised and not simply glossed over by the likes of the OP. Mao was not some mere hapless incompetent as you're trying to portray him, some well-meaning guy who f'd up. He was directly responsible for the largest mass murder in history.
- RockyMcNuts 13y ago
  you jumped the shark at 'holocaust denial'. 'apologist' would have been sufficiently hyperbolic. ok...fair enough, no mention of Mao should henceforth be made without detailed discussion of the deaths he was responsible for.
  - temphn 13y ago
    It was a Holocaust - millions died - and you did deny it ("didn't intentionally set out to kill people...a bad system...history is quite complicated"). Zero hyperbole involved. Exactly the same weasely language as you'd find with respect to WW2. What you said here was wrong, factually and ethically. The people Mao murdered should indeed be remembered over Mao himself, and mentioned whenever his name is mentioned. The deaths were denied at the time and they are all-too-frequently elided now. We need to remember them.
    - RockyMcNuts 13y ago
      while we're at it, no one should ever be allowed to mention any pre-Civil War leader without a discourse on slavery, or Columbus without mentioning his murders and barbaric practices. There are enough historical atrocities to go around, no one should have to risk having a discussion without their personal one being overlooked.
      - temphn 13y ago
        You didn't just say that it was not relevant (wrong as that might be). You denied intent, denied that it was purposeful.

temphn 13y ago

> I'm no expert but, first of all, the peasants who died weren't a different ethnic group or a social class antagonistic to Mao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign The Hundred Flowers Campaign was a period in 1956 in the People's Republic of China during which the Communist Party of China (CPC) encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. After this brief period of liberalization, Mao abruptly changed course. The crackdown continued through 1957 as an Anti- Rightist Campaign against those who were critical of the regime and its ideology. Those targeted were publicly criticized and condemned to prison labor camps. Mao remarked at the time that he had "enticed the snakes out of their caves." > Second, AFAIK Mao didn't intentionally set out to kill people http://laogai.org/our_work/death-penalty-organ-harvesting http://laogai.org/our_work/death-penalty-organ-harvesting In the thirty years following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, there were no clear laws governing executions, which were carried out on a massive scale. In the earliest years, millions of Kuomintang soldiers, landlords, and members of the bourgeois class, seen as threats to the new regime, were killed. In 1950 alone, 2 million people were executed as part of the “Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries” campaign. Throughout the Mao period, the number of executions always peaked during political campaigns. In 1971, 100,000 people were executed during a single campaign, one of many such campaigns during the Cultural Revolution period. During these political campaigns, particularly in the 1950s, regional governments were often tasked with meeting execution quotas, premised on Mao’s belief that a certain percentage of the population was always beyond reform. I can go line by line on the rest - Taiwan's GDP-per-capita was more than 10X the PRC's by 1978; Owen Lattimore and the China Hands gave considerable American support for Mao; and the reason you are repeating "it was just an accident that millions of people died" is that that was the propaganda at the time, also used for the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in the Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor). But really, you should ask yourself why you decided to get into the nasty business of Holocaust Denial. Tens of millions of people died, and they were murdered by Mao, his men, and the communist regime under his total control. Google a bit, read the primary sources from the period. The famine was the same thing that happened in the USSR, and what always happens when farmers have their land stolen by communist regimes. As for the mechanics of how that happened, shooting a farmer in the back of the head or sending him to a prison labor camp wasn't an "accident". Whether you choose to admit these truths or not is up to you, but it gets to the core of why this point needs to be raised and not simply glossed over by the likes of the OP. Mao was not some mere hapless incompetent as you're trying to portray him, some well-meaning guy who f'd up. He was directly responsible for the largest mass murder in history.

RockyMcNuts 13y ago
you jumped the shark at 'holocaust denial'. 'apologist' would have been sufficiently hyperbolic. ok...fair enough, no mention of Mao should henceforth be made without detailed discussion of the deaths he was responsible for.
- temphn 13y ago
  It was a Holocaust - millions died - and you did deny it ("didn't intentionally set out to kill people...a bad system...history is quite complicated"). Zero hyperbole involved. Exactly the same weasely language as you'd find with respect to WW2. What you said here was wrong, factually and ethically. The people Mao murdered should indeed be remembered over Mao himself, and mentioned whenever his name is mentioned. The deaths were denied at the time and they are all-too-frequently elided now. We need to remember them.
  - RockyMcNuts 13y ago
    while we're at it, no one should ever be allowed to mention any pre-Civil War leader without a discourse on slavery, or Columbus without mentioning his murders and barbaric practices. There are enough historical atrocities to go around, no one should have to risk having a discussion without their personal one being overlooked.
    - temphn 13y ago
      You didn't just say that it was not relevant (wrong as that might be). You denied intent, denied that it was purposeful.