8 ms·
> 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/
by 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 agoyou 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 agoIt 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 agowhile 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 agoYou didn't just say that it was not relevant (wrong as that might be). You denied intent, denied that it was purposeful.