Why do people criticize Mao for people dying when the American Revolutionary War killed 90,000 people?

If you have two people on a boat, and you kill one of them, is that equivalent to wiping out half of Europe's population?

>(proportionally*) a million people dying in an 8 year conflict=at the very least, 15 million (actual number) dying from massacres and starvation during peace time

>*=there is nothing backing up this claim

China didn't have millions of people massacred at any point of peace time tho.

> People actually parroting this funny anecdote as source of knowledge on the period

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong

People's tribunals weren't indiscriminate, hard to classify as a massacre as opposed to extermination

>autistic hair spiting on different types of mass murder

There being two wrongs wouldn’t make them both right though

...not if they're slavs.

Bait: The thread

Just butthurt burgermutts afraid to realize that China was founded on similar grounds to themselves despite the anti-communist propaganda

I don't see the problem. Serious question: have you ever dealt with a landlord before?

Because Washington didn't set out to deliberately murder 50 million Americans

>murders 30 million Americans (native)

>Why do people criticize Mao for people dying when the American Revolutionary War killed 90,000 people?

1) Lemkin effectively sold "Genocide" to the "Captive nations," CIA, and American elite.
2) "Death toll" genocide studies were highly funded, and for a time seen as legitimate. _The Black Book_ put paid to this.
3) Guilt by association with nationalist / racialist extermination. The moral reaction against nationalist / racialist extermination is a key part of contemporary dominant ideology in US capitalism.
4) Most Americans don't know their own revolutionary history from a cultural or social perspective, particularly in terms of the white free proletariat and the black unfree proletariat. This leads them to viewing their revolution as "clean," and "bloodless."
5) Effectively, pop history and dominant ideology have avoided theorising "revolution" in the United States. I'd suggest there's a fair bit of "city on a hill" thinking here.

tl;dr: Shoot yourself if you can't read a few numbered paragraphs, this is Veeky Forums

Debatable. And, even if true, not the same. There's a difference in murdering another people or your own, which is why the Khmer Rouge are so abhorred

Dude what's even bait lol.

>ugh I don’t like paying rent
>LANDLORDS DESERVE TO BE MURDERED

Yes but accusing someone of being a hypocrite doesn’t invalidate their point. Doesn’t make them right though.

>implying

Reddit: the response

Not an argument

>Why do people criticize Mao for people dying when the American Revolutionary War killed 90,000 people?

This is a political question, not a historical question, fuck off to .

The historical question is "Why did Chinese peasants, workers, intellectuals, party cadre and nomenklatura decide to try and kill landlords for newly invented crimes?; what meaning did this have for the aforementioned coalition, and for landlords?; how did landlordism in China function before and after the trials and executions?; why did the trials take the form they did?"

>natives
>american citizens
umm sweetie, no :)

Veeky Forums

>Why did Chinese peasants, workers, intellectuals, party cadre and nomenklatura decide to try and kill landlords
Because landlords were/are human waste who live off the labor of others without doing any labor themselves. If there has ever been a universally hated group of people in history, it's landlords

>bait
I dont think you fully understand just how retarded leftypol is user. all those harmones have rotted their brains

Firstly, landlords don't hate landlords. Parliament certainly didn't hate the landlords who brutally enclosed England. The Mandarins didn't hate landlords. Bailiffs, sheriffs, etc. didn't hate landlords.

You're taking a political position, rather than explaining a historical position held by a group of people.

Also, cadre and nomenklatura were motivated by attempts to control the peasantry.

Because OP, people on here have white privilege and they tend to treat non-white people, POC as just a statistic. Losing 90,000 white men is a tragedy to them but losing millions of non-white POC that's just a statistic for these bigots on Veeky Forums. Mao wasn't even a communist to begin with. He wasn't even a Marxist either. Just because you call yourself communist doesn't mean that you are one. Mao's China was state capitalist so therefore he was an anti-communist. True communism has never been tried and I would put Mao, Lenin and Stalin on the far-right because they were actually fascists who had nothing to do with communism. I know I might be called a redditer for this but the truth is that, Mao was never a communist. Communism has never been tried in history, it is always fascism and right-wing nationalism that takes place in these so called "communist regimes". This is why I call Mao a fascist and an anti-communist as well. So the reason why people criticize Mao but not white privilege for losing 90,000 people is because they want to treat Mao like he was a communist and in comparison to capitalism, he killed more allegedly but if you think about it, Mao killed probably 400,000 people and that was under capitalism.

Shitty bait

All communist scum belong in front of firing squads. This thread proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's not bait. Communism has never been tried before and I'm simply stating that it's white privilege to see 90,000 as a tragic number but not the millions of POC killed by capitalism. It wasn't communist under Mao. It wasn't even socialism. Socialism is supposed to be liberal and democratic. Mao was a fascist and a right winger.
Not the first time I heard alt-right/fascists threaten communists. Besides you fascists only killed state capitalists not communists.

>90,000 VOLENTARY TROOPS
>millions of civilians
>the same thing

reminder that mao is popular in china
globaltimes.cn/content/834000.shtml

Reminder the Kim Jong Un is popular in North Korea

Mao wasn't totally incompetent. Sure, he had no understanding of economics, but he was an outstanding politician, who rose from a mere book shop clerk for the communists to its undisputed master. He navigated the waters expertly, eliminating rivals along the way. His magnus opus, the Long March, was the tool he used to consolidate power and to delay a more powerful rival in chengdu, which he destroyed through trickery and misdirection.

Mao's whole goal was to cement his power, whatever the cost. If any anons are interested, Mao: the unknown story is a fucking marvelous book on the subject and puts Mao into a new, sinister but ingenious light.

medium-tier bait. you're using too many buzzwords. even the dumbest of modern ancoms wouldn't say this.

Chinese have no critical thinking skills. When I see you people in the street they appear only as pigeons to me. Shoo Shoo

>Mao: the unknown story
this board is for discussing history, not ahistorical, ideological watertrash

Mao is the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The revolution led by him and the foundation he created for the country is gaining increasing respect from Chinese people over time. Of course, all great men have shortcomings. The mistakes Mao made in his later years keep reminding China to keep a cool head in politics.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) led by Mao changed the fate of China. His achievements bear great historical significance. Yet his mistakes caused misery for some at the time, leading to some negative sentiments toward him. Objective and correct evaluation of Mao is hence a historic task for Chinese society. After the Cultural Revolution, some people have focused on Mao's errors in his twilight years and completely repudiated his accomplishments. Yet the sentiment has not influenced mainstream China's positive appraisal of him. In Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China, the CPC highly affirmed Mao's great accomplishments, stressing his achievements far outweigh his false steps.

In the internet era, public opinions easily polarize. Attitudes to Mao have gradually emerged as one of the most prominent signs of different political preferences. However, the mainstream evaluation by Chinese society is growing increasingly rational.

Most importantly, the PRC he founded is now rising sharply, proving what Mao created was correct and sustainable. The revolution he led rewrote Chinese history and is even rewriting world history. Since Mao's revolution, tremendous changes have taken place both in China and the world. China has emerged from a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country which used to be bullied by other nations into one of the most crucial powers worldwide. Facing the Western world, Chinese people have won back their dignity.

>Mao's whole goal was to cement his power, whatever the cost.
Yeah, nah. (Chang & Halliday). I suck dick in my sleep too.

cf: Ðilas, M.

Mao's last revolution is also pretty good about the Cultural Revolution and how he managed to trick the general polpulation into eliminating his political rivals at the cost of plugging China into near Anarchy

Will Amerimutts ever realize that George Washington was no better than Mao?

>implying Veeky Forums is in anyway better
Well maybe except for a little bit of self-awareness in sometimes about a sense of crippling brokenness and shame.
Nobody thinks Mao was bad at playing politics. They just think he was a monster.
>the CPC highly affirmed Mao's great accomplishments
No shit. If it came from some other political party I'd care. Of course, that would necessitate the existence of other political parties in the first place.

Didn't know chinks get so salty.

How are those two even related?
I’ll bite. Explain how?

>all those smiles

Just realized I've never seen a chinese person smile irl

You do know that the PRC has continuously had multiple legal political parties, right? And that they win seats in elections?

Jews are exempt from all human morality. See youre not allowed to question it.