12-19-2016, 06:12 AM
It turns out, if you ignore everything on the basis that it disagrees with you because it's "bourgeois," then everything that remains does indeed reinforce your warped view.
Or you could actually read some of the scholarly literature, rather than just parroting ideologically flattering essays. None of your questions have particularly difficult answers.
The evidence that Mao's policies resulted in widespread famines is abundant. The existence of the famine and the key role played by policy decisions is not controversial, not even with the government of China. It can be seen in the agricultural output figures, in the demography, in contemporary accounts of the period, in interviews with people who survived. The birth rate dropped by nearly *half*. What's the alternative hypothesis, that babies became extremely unfashionable for a couple years?
Estimates vary because China is enormous, population data is poor, and counting excess mortality is always tricky business. If you employ conservative methods, you find "only" 15 million or so excess deaths. If you try to estimate the true number, you end up with higher figures, but are forced to rely on less conservative assumptions.
In 1960, the peak of the famine, the population of China does indeed shrink. In an ordinary, non-famine year, there would be rapid population growth. Shrinking population is indicative of a *severe* famine. Look at any population graph of China; the "hole" caused by the famine is obvious.
I've long since lost any interest in hearing your views on most anything, and it is clear you have chosen neither to listen nor to learn. But this nonsense needs to be called out for what it is: the Maoist equivalent of holocaust denial.
-Jester
Or you could actually read some of the scholarly literature, rather than just parroting ideologically flattering essays. None of your questions have particularly difficult answers.
The evidence that Mao's policies resulted in widespread famines is abundant. The existence of the famine and the key role played by policy decisions is not controversial, not even with the government of China. It can be seen in the agricultural output figures, in the demography, in contemporary accounts of the period, in interviews with people who survived. The birth rate dropped by nearly *half*. What's the alternative hypothesis, that babies became extremely unfashionable for a couple years?
Estimates vary because China is enormous, population data is poor, and counting excess mortality is always tricky business. If you employ conservative methods, you find "only" 15 million or so excess deaths. If you try to estimate the true number, you end up with higher figures, but are forced to rely on less conservative assumptions.
In 1960, the peak of the famine, the population of China does indeed shrink. In an ordinary, non-famine year, there would be rapid population growth. Shrinking population is indicative of a *severe* famine. Look at any population graph of China; the "hole" caused by the famine is obvious.
I've long since lost any interest in hearing your views on most anything, and it is clear you have chosen neither to listen nor to learn. But this nonsense needs to be called out for what it is: the Maoist equivalent of holocaust denial.
-Jester