The Economist explains.
To be fair to Mao, he founded the company. If he hadn’t found it, it would have been a wholly owned subsidiary of some other countries.
Fair enough. If I were a judge and the accused said: “Yes, I starved and killed millions of people, but I also ensured that my country did not get taken over by a foreign power.” I would reduce my sentence from “To be tortured every day of his natural life till he died” to “To be tortured every day of his natural life till he died.”
To be tortured every day of his natural life till he died
It must suck to be an atheist. I mean why settle for only natural life for Mao when you can have a really painful eternity π
One could use the same torture/killing analogies against the Western countries that you guys celebrate. They just kill other people. I guess killing other people is less cause for “sentencing”.
The West supported Chiang Kai-Shek was so great since he didn’t mind Western countries occupying large areas of southern China and running them as their own fiefdoms.
Mao freed China from foreign powers. That is why the West hates him so much.
I checked with my wife. I asked her if it was okay to beat her up and justify it on the grounds that other people, elsewhere in the world are beating up their wives.
She said “No”.
I then asked her if it made sense to take revenge on a person who assaulted my wife by beating up my wife.
She said “No” once again.
I asked her if the hypocrisy of the judge who is trying me would make me less of a scumbag.
She said “No” yet again.
Lets see when you start honestly and equally criticizing the West. Until then your bias is clear.
And here, folks we have the classic moral equivalizer. X kills people. Y kills people. Therefore X == Y. Doesnt matter who was killed, for what reason, what was the background, history, etc. no, X == Y.
Mao – the greatest mass murderer in the history of the entire world EVERRR (yes i know thats redundant). Even criticizing the Chairman will bring out this some pathetic troll saying “Lets see when you start honestly and equally criticizing the West. Until then your bias is clear.”
Oh and the phrase “To be fair to Mao..” takes the cake for idiotic statement beginnings everywhere.
To be fair to Hitler..
To be fair to Stalin..
To be fair to Aurangzeb..
To be fair to Kissinger..
(Admittedly all are not in same league)
To be fair to Tushar, well he fairer than some of his “libertarian” brethren. π
If I have planted any seed of doubt in your brain, don’t get angry with me. All ideologies crumble in front of realities. Yours too.
Mao laid the foundation for a truly independent China like no Chinese leader before him in modern times. He even made sure that it was independent of the USSR. For the Chinese he is a hero. Hitler is no hero to the Germans nor is Stalin to the Russians. Analogies don’t always work perfectly π (something you admitted yourself)
Of course, even Mao was not perfect. I never claimed so π
how is your argument different from
Let’s see when the pseudo-secularists start honestly and equally criticising the displacement of the Kashmiri Pundits. Until then their bias is clear. ?
Aadisht, its no different. It is a tragedy that in our country we apply different standards to different people.
I think I was a little unfair to Ravikiran. He is writing in this blog under his own name ready to bear all the consequences of what he writes while I am the anonymous coward. I thought about it for a while. So I apologize for being snarky.
The argument is no different, but why does it need to be different (unless I am missing some history here)? I don’t agree with it (because of multiple reasons, but thats besides the point), but am curious why being analogous to that particular argument reduces its validity.
Be honest, how many of you have ever argued with Jagadguru ?
Never mind, I know the answer.
I will write a post about that.
Ritwik, the validity of the argument depends on what you set out to prove. In this case, HiAgain’s argument goes:
1) Ravikiran criticises Mao, but not Kissinger/the British Raj/Colonists sending smallpox infected blankets.
2) Therefore Ravikiran is a hypocrite and is biased.
3) Therefore Mao is a great man.
If I were to admire someone, my citation for him would consist of something better than “He killed fewer people than Hitler”.
No Ravikiran, you changed the issue when I responded the first time. You brought in a different point that is regularly used to demonize third world leaders. Of course you are right but that doesn’t take away the fact that he did actually build an independent China.
And your last citation is neither the correct analogy nor something I agree with. I didn’t say someone killed fewer people and somebody else killed more. There are massacres where only 8 to 10 people have died. But they are still massacres. All I am saying is if you can celebrate the good things about the West and their leaders without being held back by the bad things they have done, you could do the same for Mao or China.
Mao freed China and built it up as an independent country. That is something the Chinese are eternally grateful to him for. His Greap Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are considered mistakes by even the Chinese establishment. There is good and bad about him just as there are good and bad about the West and their leaders.
Btw, Kissinger is a dove compared to the psycho neo-cons. He was a man of realpolitik and not led by any fanatical ideology.
It can be debated whether Mao really laid the path for whatever you say he did.
However, I’m curious. How can anyone anywhere defend the kind of massive genocide that he pertetrated unprecedented in history simply to enforce “land collectivization” How is that not sufficient to condemn someone to the ranks of monsters in history? What more does one have to do to truly deserve the term “evil” attached to one’s name?
Like someone said, kill someone you go to jail, kill ten you get hanged and kill a few million you live to an 80.
and sorry to break Godwin’s Law, but how on earth do you call The Great Leap Forward simply “a mistake”.
Tad bit like saying the holocaust was such a mistake. And this exceeded the holocaust by magnitudes in numbers alone. And Mao did not free anyone. He simply wrested power from Chiang Kai Shek who was relegated to Taiwan (look at the contrast between the mainland and the island).
Well Tushar, its always about numbers for you.
Also you have got your history all mixed up. You need to expand your reading beyond the libertarian pantheon.
Here’s wishing you new things in this brand new year.
Hello,Mao was the best!!! leftism is am amazing ideology and you haters of humanity and haters of fairness will never get that
Comments are closed.
Bad Behavior has blocked 246 access attempts in the last 7 days.