posted
Really? It is because of virtrolic hatred of Communist China and Mao on the internets that so woefully clashed with my early highschool history book on the subject that I've taken a similarly hard line.
My history book was very fair, "here is what happened, here is a few explanations of could it happened, here's a few questions the reader can answer and for fun here's some statistics and sources." My apparent fanboyism I assure you is only out of desire to balance a terrible red china bias Ive seen.
IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I think about the most with Mao is that it's sorta surprising — even inexplicable — that he is only a fraction as vilified as people who were less fatally inept than he was. I guess he had a good generational image campaign policy, or sommat.
I mean, seriously? He was responsible for the biggest, most tragic misuse of government power in the history of the modern era. Given the scale involved he may yet be responsible for more deaths than anyone else who has ever lived. Even crazy dynasties like the Kims and brutal little men like Stalin or Pol Pot couldn't replicate the sheer and terrific size of his failure, though like the good little communist utopian morons they were they sure did try.
I mean, you all have studied this pretty significantly. Is there anyone I'm missing with a higher probable killcount than Mao?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes very much so, Jung Chang stats using heavily admitedky politically scewed sourced that the death toll was 40-80 million deaths.
The CPC claims 15-20 million, who we must remember wanted to denounce Mao's economic policies as incorrect under the consistency policy of "70 Right, 30 No" to make it easier to facilite the political support for open market reforms after the arrest of the "gang of four" (you'll remember OSC making a reference to them in Xenocide).
Several things must be cosnidered:
A) There is not a single shred of evidence that any of the mass famines were intentionally orchestrated by Mao, there is considerable records on the subject, what happened was heavy industrial investment at the expense of agricultural investment that happened to coincide with 1) the launch of sputnik and the euphoria of "burying capitalism" 2) overzealous local party leaders being overenthusiastic with Mao's economic policies of "surpasing USSR on the road to Communism" of expanding the rate of collectivization (which on a voluntarily basis was going at a good rate so they decided to make it go faster as Mao got impatient). 3) a series of famines some of the worst recorded famines in the history of China, and finally 4) a period of giddy eating binge by the cities at a time when the information of food stores levels getting perilously low wasn't widely availiable.
Once the extent of the famine was known China began importing foodstuffs from Canada, South America, Austrailia and secretly the USA.
This would imply that yes a famine happened and Mao in his overeagerness was at fault which interestingly he admitted though in a sorta clever face saving way. Another interesting tidbit that even during the supposed high peak of the famine years industrial growth and agricultural growth still increase by a good 10% overall, and the population increased from 450 million to 600 million in this timeframe.
While yes a famine happened and yes there were starvations and it was some bad years due to bad policy and bad weather but the death toll is nowhere near as bad as many people would lead you to believe.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
A Singaporian Prime Minister during the period says it best, "had Mao died in 1950 China would have remembered him as the greatest leader China had ever known and his reputation would have been nearly godlike. Had he died in 1960 the people will remember him as a great man who made tragic mistakes, 1975? Who knows?"
Mao is remembered very fondly by a large portion of China as the one who reunited China and allowed the Chinese nation through his actions to finally "stand up", Chinese culture has it as a given to venerate your ancestors and he very effectively was seen as "father of the nation" and is even moreso fondly remembered by the poor as being the one who stood up for them as many of his policies were aimed at helping the poor aka "bare foot doctors" as an example. When compared to the open market policies of today that have lead to a wealth income disparity never seen before and the cutting of social services to the poor and the decollectivization of the countryside many poor farmers are bitter and remember the "good old days" try it, ask any random farmer or a member of a farming family and they';ll give a favorable opinion of Mao.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oh and to answer Hitler you can consture as having killed 60 million people as being the cause of WWII, this is fair since Mao's 80 million count by Jung also includes casulaties of war. So Hitler with his 50-60 million + intentional extermination of 6 million I am sure beats Mao's confirmed 12-20 million by government negligence.
IP: Logged |
I don't suppose you could focus your fan-boy energies on something like Star Trek vs. Star Wars, a gaming console, a faction in WOW, or something similar.
Your hopelessly one-sided view of things makes me almost feel like I'm a fictional character *by association* if only by virtue of being Chinese. As if you're promoting the Night Elves in WOW and your blind devotion is making me realise that I'm actually *not real.*
quote:While yes a famine happened and yes there were starvations and it was some bad years due to bad policy and bad weather but the death toll is nowhere near as bad as many people would lead you to believe.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Okay. How am I supposed to respond to this, exactly? 'Oh thank god, it turns out mao's incompetence killed a few less tens of millions of people than previously anticipated! Whew, I was really thinking I was going to have to dislike that guy there but just a few tens of millions of people ain't no thang! Let's just mark it off as 'some bad years' and move on' ... ?
quote:This would imply that yes a famine happened and Mao in his overeagerness was at fault which interestingly he admitted though in a sorta clever face saving way.
So, it's never too early to put a positive spin on 'whoops I killed a hojillion people with a very very very incredibly stupid plan, but let's move forward by starting my next most disastrous plan and terrorize the entire nation so I can maintain power.'
quote:Oh and to answer Hitler you can consture as having killed 60 million people as being the cause of WWII, this is fair since Mao's 80 million count by Jung also includes casulaties of war. So Hitler with his 50-60 million + intentional extermination of 6 million I am sure beats Mao's confirmed 12-20 million by government negligence.
So, okaaaaaaay. If it's 'fair' to include casualties of war as mentioned, 80 million is a larger number than 56-66 million.
But also, let's jump forward and say you convince me that Mao isn't responsible for as many reprehensible deaths as Hitler. What's the upside to that. "Mao: Not Quite As Terrible As Hitler" is probably the worst selling point for a cultural icon perhaps ever!
posted
samprimary: I'd answer, but you can understand that I'm very hesitant to answer in a thread like this. How receptive to a nuanced answer would you be given the Blayne Albatross that I'm working with here?
Also, when you say "a fraction as vilified," do you mean among mainland Chinese, overseas China, Taiwanese, average Americans, or Western academics? I believe that your measure of "insufficient vilification" can be quite off the mark depending on which community you're talking about and many of the possible reasons would probably differ a lot between each community, if you're interested in pursuing them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that western academics have done okay with wrapping their head around Mao. The puzzlement for me comes with average people around the world.
I mean, I first thought about it when my friend told me that her mother (my tarot teacher) used to be a big Mao-head. Still occasionally pimped out the red book and everything. And I thought about that and compared it to if someone walked around talking about Stalin or Kim Il-Sung as though they were great men. Of all the pretty patently terrible horrible no-good leaders of contemporary history, right down to Pol Pot and all those half-baked African dictators, nonw of them have established even an inkling of a cult of personality compared to Mao. Response to the little red book is drastically different to the incredulity or hostility that one would receive for hawking Genius of Revolution or Mein Kampf or whatever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I've heard that Romney isn't ceding his delegates. It's very confusing.
Back to your regularly scheduled argument about early 20th century China.
I guess it's not really a huge derailment, since Romney had that bit in his speech about how Asia was going to kick our asses in the not too distant future if we don't wake up.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary: Well, as a start which of those categories I listed would your friends mother fit into?
Alternatively, which of those categories are you most interested in?(I'd be most familiar with the viewpoint of either the overseas or mainland Chinese communities though)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary: Well, as a start which of those categories I listed would your friends mother fit into?
German national, lived most of her life in germany. Pretty sure she picked it up there, or otherwise trapezing around europe.
Probably, I'd be interested in the interest of american lefties who are pro-mao. I imagine there's a lotta crossover with college-age marxism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Now I've heard that Romney isn't ceding his delegates. It's very confusing.
Of course he isn't ceding his delegates. Those are power. He'll give them to whomever will do him the biggest favor. A VP candidacy, if he thinks that's possible, or a say in who get it otherwise. Whoever suggested that he was ceding them? That's the whole reason he's "suspending" his campaign, rather than simply dropping out.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary: Really? Germany? East or West Germany?
I'm very unfamiliar with American fans of Mao. I think its safe to say that I've never even conversed with one.
If I *had* to be pressed to make a guess, I'd guess that there are elements of counter-culture in there. In the same way that some people grow up in the Christian tradition, feel angry/betrayed at it, but never quite leave it behind and become Satanists rather than non-religious, there are probably some anti-capitalists that become attached to Mao simply because there are no other big alternatives to capitalism. Because some people cannot define themselves in opposition to something without finding a specific person to identify themselves with.
There are probably some elements of naivety, "the grass is always greener," in the sense that most people are more familiar with the crimes of Stalin and Hitler and both are very much grounded in the Western tradition. On the other hand, the East is still "mysterious and inscrutable", so you have Hollywood types latching onto the cause of Tibet and on the other side of the spectrum latching onto Maoism.
There are probably other reasons and these are really guesses (since you asked me about one of the the groups I'm actually least familiar with), but I hope that helps.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The difference in tone is that those declaring that Mao is a "mass murderer" are fundamentally flawed in their assertions, it is correct to say that he is at fault but in no way is the excesses of the GLF or CR anywhere near as deserving of such vile and venonous hate as it currently recieves compared to Hitler's intentional extermination of the Jews and the Slavs. They cannot be compared and yet nearly every single time Mao is listed as somehow being equivilent or worse. If anything the mistakes made are to be learned from and so far I think the 4-5th generation of China's leadership today are learning from it.
My fanboyness is currently booked for the Playstation 3 (although I play Halo and would get a 360 for Halo 3), Blood Elves in WoW, PC over Macintosh. Babylon 5, Haloverse, and Stargate as being better then Star Trek overall.
Forgotten Realms over Eberron.
Katana vs Western swords.
Kenjutsu/Iado vs Fencing.
Barack Obama over Hilary CLinton.
And least I forget the AK47 over the M16.
IP: Logged |
quote:If anything the mistakes made are to be learned from and so far I think the 4-5th generation of China's leadership today are learning from it.
I would certainly hope so.
I fail to understand why horrendous, negligent stupidity (which fits Mao, if we accept all of your fanboyism) is to be deemed so much less awful than willful evil in a leader.
Both should be scorned and shunned, utterly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that part of the deaths of those people are laid at his feet because they happened so he could maintain his own personal power. When 60-80 million people have died, but you still have enough to eat and you refuse to accept that your own policies are making the situation worse, there is a problem.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Now I've heard that Romney isn't ceding his delegates. It's very confusing.
Back to your regularly scheduled argument about early 20th century China.
I guess it's not really a huge derailment, since Romney had that bit in his speech about how Asia was going to kick our asses in the not too distant future if we don't wake up.
As long as McCain takes 40% on average, or better, in every state that remains, he'll just barely get the nomination. Huckabee's only hope is that Romney does not swing his votes to McCain, and that he can utterly crush McCain in the remaining states, of which there are still quite a few. If that happens, no one will get enough votes and it'll go to a second ballot, where all of Romney's support flies over to Huckabee, and we see who else jumps ship.
But really, I think Romney and Huckabee are dreaming at this point. Huckabee has a one in a million chance, and Romney holding out to try and broker a deal won't work very well when McCain doesn't even need his delegates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Not to mention that part of the deaths of those people are laid at his feet because they happened so he could maintain his own personal power. When 60-80 million people have died, but you still have enough to eat and you refuse to accept that your own policies are making the situation worse, there is a problem.
Except its not 60-80 thats a lie, a complete fabrication. Also "refuse" is an interesting word as it turns out he did awcknoledge he was to blame and for a time stepped down. Those deaths served nothing to maintain his power they infact weakened it and his standing in the party, they were a byproduct of a economic policy designed to increase economic growth in one massive leap at the dark, literally so as China lacked enough decent economists to give them an informed opinion on what would happen if industry is overly emphasied at agriculture's expense.
quote:In agrarian policy, the failures of food supply during the Great Leap were met by a gradual de-collectivization in the 1960s that foreshadowed further de-collectivization under Deng Xiaoping. Political scientist Meredith Woo-Cumings argues: "Unquestionably the regime failed to respond in time to save the lives of millions of peasants, but when it did respond, it ultimately transformed the livelihoods of several hundred million peasants (modestly in the early 1960s, but permanently after Deng Xiaoping's reforms subsequent to 1978.)"
It is illogical to assign equal vile to both criminal acts and acts of negligence, no government does so, no honest ethicist would, why should random people on the internet? The punishment for murder is not the same as the punishment for a CEO whose polcies and negligence led to someone's death by accident. The former is met by prison at best execution at worst case, the former a fine/lawsuit at best and dismissal at worst.
IP: Logged |
quote:The difference in tone is that those declaring that Mao is a "mass murderer" are fundamentally flawed in their assertions, it is correct to say that he is at fault but in no way is the excesses of the GLF or CR anywhere near as deserving of such vile and venonous hate as it currently recieves compared to Hitler's intentional extermination of the Jews and the Slavs.
There we go again. He's a mass murderer, you concede that he was at fault, but then paradoxically it's also 'fundamentally flawed' to say that he's a mass murderer. And then we get a second pass at you saying 'well gee guys he wasn't as bad as HITLER' as though that were even a remotely redeeming argument.
quote:Also "refuse" is an interesting word as it turns out he did awcknoledge he was to blame and for a time stepped down.
And then came back in a suitably brutal fashion with the cultural revolution, one of the most creepy dystopian periods of 19th century world history. Apparently his little 'oopsie' period just left him redoubled as a bad bad man. None of this is very redeeming at all!
Well, okay, maybe there's something that could redeem Mao a little bit but you are clearly not up to the task of supporting it!
quote:Katana vs Western swords.
Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Strangely of all the things being discussed here, this is the one I'm the most interested in. Weigh in dammit!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as McCain takes 40% on average, or better, in every state that remains, he'll just barely get the nomination.
I thought I read that all three of the Potomac contest are winner take all. I expect Maryland and DC to go McCain, but Virginia could very well go to Huckabee. Well, actually...
This is what I wonder, if Utah is anything to judge by, Mormons are splitting between Obama and Paul. If Mormons in Maryland don't get behind McCain, He might lose here too. Romney all but endorsed McCain, I'm just not really in tune with what Romney supporters think or feel. I gave up on Romney back in November, when Robertson endorsed Giuliani and I saw that evangelicals would vote for a pro-choice candidate rather than a Mormon. People who have persisted in denial of that fact are not people whose behavior I can predict.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Yeah, I don't. (Have enough self-control, that is)
But it's late so I won't go into too much detail, I'll just get the ball rolling.
Blayne, why do you think Japanese swords are superior to European swords?
The most common myth that pops into my head would be folded steel. The idea is that katanas are made by folding the steel over and over and over, and so that makes it super strong!
The fact of the matter is that Japan has lousy iron, especially compared to most of Europe. They folded the steel because it helped gloss over imperfections in the metal. Sort of like Anglo-Saxon pattern welding... or, you know, European folded steel, which also existed.
There are myths of katanas being able to cut through helmets and such things. All the verifiable tests of this resulted in an utterly thrashed blade, totally unusable.
Contrast this to some of the better blades of Europe, which *could* penetrate mail or even heavy plate. The best armor Japan had to offer was... well, not very good. So, of course, their blades were not particularly designed with armor penetration in mind.
The Japanese developed a number of martial styles, and some of these incorporated the use of the katana. But Europeans, too, developed very effective martial styles, close-quarters fighting, and the like. European swords were usually designed with a ricasso, which allowed for even more variation in use and technique.
A lot of information on the martial arts of the middle ages has been lost, whereas most from similar periods in Japan has survived. But fencing, it was not.
Anyway, it's way too late and I need to go to work in a few hours. So, I'll stop now, but I'm sure Samp can fill in all the places I left out.
Edited for clarity.Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still staying out of Chinese arguments for now, but I will say that Mucus is right in that I do think Chiang Kai Shek had serious flaws and that his party lost control of China because they were obscenely corrupt. But because Blayne is determined to play along with the whole, "Mao isn't REALLY as bad as one is lead to think," I end up sounding like a KMT fanboy.
And now I will admit to being a liar and ask Blayne.
Is intentionally killing millions really worse then being indifferent towards the millions you are killing indirectly?
Hitler simply played the angle that the Jews are less than human. Mao's angle, (and this is still said by many Chinese today) was "what's one Chinese death when we have millions here?"
Your wonderful Western scholars still agree that the Cultural Revolution was designed by Mao to keep himself in power in the wake of his disastrous Great Leap Forward.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't need economists, they just needed to ask people who knew how to make the things in question and find out if it was feasible for untrained villagers to do them.
Such people were available. Was Mao making decisions about the entire course of his nation without consulting people with the most basic abilities in the things he was going to force people to do?
And, of course, even when it was proved that it was not possible for the plan to work (by trying it, and seeing it fail catastrophically), Mao kept it in place for quite a while.
Many of those millions upon millions are dead due to willful acts of Mao that he could foresee would lead to millions of deaths at no particular gain. He was one of the most brutal, callous, and morally bankrupt political leaders of the twentieth century.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Romney said he is "suspending" his campaign for a legal reason--so he can still receive the already promised federal funds to pay the bills of his campaign. Those funds would be cut off immediately if a candidate said his campaign was ended. Every other candidate who has dropped out has said the same thing, for the same reason. Business types like Romney, and lawyer types like John Edwards, are no fools when it comes to money.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Japanese developed a number of martial styles, and some of these incorporated the use of the katana. But Europeans, too, developed very effective martial styles, close-quarters fighting, and the like."
Umm, comparing European swordplay skill level to Japanese is like comparing good Greco-Roman wrestlers to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Morihei Ueshiba (O Sensei) or Chow Yun Fat.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Umm, comparing European swordplay skill level to Japanese is like comparing good Greco-Roman wrestlers to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Morihei Ueshiba (O Sensei) or Chow Yun Fat.
If you mean that the 'two' (not that there are really two, 'European' is hardly a set) are wildly different, you're right.
If you mean that the latter is drastically superior to the former, I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.
Why should feudal Japanese people be better at killing each other with sharpened metal sticks than European feudal people?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one thing, the training is lifelong. Even today, Japanese boys start training in iaido, the art of swordfighting, at age 4. That's right, 4. They take it very, very seriously. It's the discipline aspect, I would say, right offhand.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you expressing doubt as to what I'm saying, or are you looking for an explanation as to why it's true? Because if it's the former, I hardly know where to start.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm expressing doubt about is the idea (if that's what you meant) that feudal Japanese were much better with swords than feudal Europeans. The one 'point' you've advanced is hardly in your favor; European men had very high discipline in their swordplay, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Find yourself an Olympic-level fencer. Take him to Beijing or another large city in China. Pit him against some balding, slightly paunchy Chinese martial artist in his 50s using either European of Japanese-style swords. You could probably also do this with some of the better swordfighting teachers in Japan, and still get a similar result.
I've wrestled, I've boxed, and I've seen fencing, though not done it myself. I've also practiced Asian martial arts for years, with and without weapons. At the highest level, the sword or weapon is incidental. The very same principles (of leverage, of movement, of psychology, etc.) that are part and parcel of unarmed combat are the same for close-quarters armed combat. You move pretty much the same way.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Are you expressing doubt as to what I'm saying, or are you looking for an explanation as to why it's true? Because if it's the former, I hardly know where to start.
European boys trained as pages, squires, and then knights as well, (with very few making the knight tier.)
I must admit until recently I took it as a given that katanas were better then anything Europeans came up with because of the folding technique, and that, even with the knowledge that Japanese iron was relatively poor in quality.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Find yourself an Olympic-level fencer. Take him to Beijing or another large city in China. Pit him against some balding, slightly paunchy Chinese martial artist in his 50s using either European of Japanese-style swords. You could probably also do this with some of the better swordfighting teachers in Japan, and still get a similar result.
I've wrestled, I've boxed, and I've seen fencing, though not done it myself. I've also practiced Asian martial arts for years, with and without weapons. At the highest level, the sword or weapon is incidental. The very same principles (of leverage, of movement, of psychology, etc.) that are part and parcel of unarmed combat are the same for close-quarters armed combat. You move pretty much the same way.
I have to admit, your comparison is strange. Fencing has very specific rules, and uses a weapon and a style drastically different from other weapons, such as (for example) a katana or a broadsword.
posted
Iaido and kendo involve advanced kicking and sweeping techniques, often performed simultaneously with slices and stabs. Fencers are like boxers, the y are relatively unskilled at this. Who do you think would win in a fight, a good boxer, or an equally-good MMA/thai boxer/shootfighter? Simultaneous action from legs and hands, or legs and swords, is clearly harder to deal with, all other things being equal.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Katana vs Western swords.
Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Yeah, I don't. (Have enough self-control, that is)
But it's late so I won't go into too much detail, I'll just get the ball rolling.
Blayne, why do you think Japanese swords are superior to European swords?
The most common myth that pops into my head would be folded steel. The idea is that katanas are made by folding the steel over and over and over, and so that makes it super strong!
The fact of the matter is that Japan has lousy iron, especially compared to most of Europe. They folded the steel because it helped gloss over imperfections in the metal. Sort of like Anglo-Saxon pattern welding... or, you know, European folded steel, which also existed.
There are myths of katanas being able to cut through helmets and such things. All the verifiable tests of this resulted in an utterly thrashed blade, totally unusable.
Contrast this to some of the better blades of Europe, which *could* penetrate mail or even heavy plate. The best armor Japan had to offer was... well, not very good. So, of course, their blades were not particularly designed with armor penetration in mind.
The Japanese developed a number of martial styles, and some of these incorporated the use of the katana. But Europeans, too, developed very effective martial styles, close-quarters fighting, and the like. European swords were usually designed with a ricasso, which allowed for even more variation in use and technique.
A lot of information on the martial arts of the middle ages has been lost, whereas most from similar periods in Japan has survived. But fencing, it was not.
Anyway, it's way too late and I need to go to work in a few hours. So, I'll stop now, but I'm sure Samp can fill in all the places I left out.
Edited for clarity.
I actually much prefer Japanese and Chinese sword styles as being much more pleasing to the eye and inellectually due to that they tend to favour speed and agility over strength and impegnable defences. Take a Olympic fencer vs a Kensei and the Kensei would win merely because a Samurai is also trained to resist pain for the sake of that final blow. As for whether a masterwork Katana could slice through platemail I do not know, but if you have a Japanese swordsman unarmoured vs a European swordsman unarmoured I am fairly sure I know where to put my money.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: They didn't need economists, they just needed to ask people who knew how to make the things in question and find out if it was feasible for untrained villagers to do them.
Such people were available. Was Mao making decisions about the entire course of his nation without consulting people with the most basic abilities in the things he was going to force people to do?
And, of course, even when it was proved that it was not possible for the plan to work (by trying it, and seeing it fail catastrophically), Mao kept it in place for quite a while.
Many of those millions upon millions are dead due to willful acts of Mao that he could foresee would lead to millions of deaths at no particular gain. He was one of the most brutal, callous, and morally bankrupt political leaders of the twentieth century.
From what I read the program with the backyard furnaces were allowed to quietly die out rather then disappoint the revolutionary enthusism of the masses once Mao saw for himself in Manchuria that good quality steel could only be made in large furnaces.
Also this was after the 100 Flowers Campaign, there werent many intellectuals eager to stick their necks out, with a better more entrenched history of educational institutions and favoruing trained eningeers and professional opinions it would have been easier to trust expert opinion and seek it out.
quote:Well, okay, maybe there's something that could redeem Mao a little bit but you are clearly not up to the task of supporting it!
Other then the leadership who took over afterwards saying to themselves "okay these works, these others didnt work, lets go with the ideas that worked" and learning from the mistakes of the past pray tell what in your mind would redeem Mao in your view. As I see it, he was instrumental in preserving the Communist party in the face of adversity, rallying millions of Chinese to resist the Japanese, and reunited China as a single stable nation once more. Severe mistakes were made but that shouldn't call into question his role in the founding of a modern China.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... one of the most creepy dystopian periods of 19th century world history.
For the record, 20th century
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But because Blayne is determined to play along with the whole, "Mao isn't REALLY as bad as one is lead to think," I end up sounding like a KMT fanboy.
And now I will admit to being a liar and ask Blayne.
Thank you. I appreciate that. I would also add that I never accused you of intentionally lying.*
My main concern was actually that someone less in the know such as Ron Lambert might walk in, read over the main thrusts of your posts and draw the simple conclusion "KMT good, Reds incompetent and bad, if only the US had pushed the KMT into power with overwhelming force, China would be a garden utopia by now"
*(although I did start to have doubts about a particular source)
The truth is far more complex than that and deserves a far more nuanced take (although I totally emphasize that it is hard to work under these kinds of conditions)
quote: Is intentionally killing millions really worse then being indifferent towards the millions you are killing indirectly?
Unfortunately (and depending on your metric of "worse"), I'd have to be contrary here and answer "yes." As Blayne notes, our legal system is predicated on this basis, manslaughter for killing without intent and murder for killing with intent.
Intent is important. When we compare something like the Rape of Nanking and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both probably killed roughly the same number of people but instinctively the first argument most people would bring up when drawing that comparison is intent. What did one hope to accomplish by doing such an act?
The tricky question comes up not when you compare something like 1 unintentional death with 1 intentional death but when you compare that to 10 million unintentional deaths to 5 million intentional deaths. At this juncture, I submit that it is probably beyond the capability of *anyone* to judge which is "worse" and that it is sufficient to say that both are severe crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, I see no benefit in debating which is "worse" because neither are things that we wish to repeat anyways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:ask Blayne.
I do not in all honesty understand this sentence, what are you asking me? Perfectly honest hear, I do not know your intention.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Umm, comparing European swordplay skill level to Japanese is like comparing good Greco-Roman wrestlers to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Morihei Ueshiba (O Sensei) or Chow Yun Fat.
I'm honestly puzzled as to what point you were trying to make here. What was it?
Also, I would quickly point out that Chow Yun Fat has very little in common with Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan aside from being Cantonese and successes via the Hong Kong film industry.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Iaido and kendo involve advanced kicking and sweeping techniques, often performed simultaneously with slices and stabs. Fencers are like boxers, the y are relatively unskilled at this. Who do you think would win in a fight, a good boxer, or an equally-good MMA/thai boxer/shootfighter? Simultaneous action from legs and hands, or legs and swords, is clearly harder to deal with, all other things being equal.
Well, duh. But dude, the comparison with European fencing is totally misleading. Fencing is a sport; it's done for fun. You might as well pit tennis players against target-pistol champions. The relevant comparison is European knights of the feudal period versus samurai.
We'd better have two categories, also: One is the individual duel, tournament-style (although here is a problem: Lances from horseback, or swords on foot?) and combat, 100 men on each side. The dynamics are very different. I think the European would win the duel just because his armour is so much better; I'm not sure about the battle.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You forget. Steven also thinks that martial arts masters can do magic.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
100 Samurai could win vs 100 Knights, as the military discipline and tactical knowledge of Samurai are superior to the average tactical skill and discipline of 100 knights regardless of time period, the Samurai lived for war, Bushido born out of war, the Knights of Europe war was more of a sport to gain the grace of god not a militerized tradition aimed for the conquest of europe.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I ki strike Tom for 1d8 from 10 feet away.
IP: Logged |
posted
Um, yeah, whatevs. And emacs is clearly superior to vi. Also Macs suck, Linux rules, C++ is better than Java because it's faster, and DirectX is a tool of Micro$oft to make us all into two-dimensional peasants.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we please get back to the relevant topic? Now that Romney is out, who will the extra-auto canine placement vote go to?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that the "samurai vs. European knights" argument predates "ninja vs. pirates," actually. It goes back to the earliest origins of fantasy wargaming, at the very least.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
