The relationship between American business, the U.S. government and China over the past 25 years has made it easier for liberals to think about criticizing Mao, because what he stands for in their eyes is no longer worth much of anything, since his heirs are selling toys, appliances and other items to Wal-Mart, which is akin to consorting with the enemy.

On the other hand, until Cuba becomes a bastion of imported commerce to the United States, an article like Kristof's about Castro will never see the light of day in the Times.

John,

Exactly.

No. There was plenty of information around about Chicom butchery while it was happening. The "We didn't know!" line is lamer than it was for the Germans.

Even Kristoff retreats to a nuanced view of Mao:

Finally, there is Mao's place in history. I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao's legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao's entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world's new economic dragon.

Perhaps the best comparison is with Qinshihuang, the first Qin emperor, who 2,200 years ago unified China, built much of the Great Wall, standardized weights and measures and created a common currency and legal system - but burned books and buried scholars alive. The Qin emperor was as savage and at times as insane as Mao - but his success in integrating and strengthening China laid the groundwork for the next dynasty, the Han, one of the golden eras of Chinese civilization. In the same way, I think, Mao's ruthlessness was a catastrophe at the time, brilliantly captured in this extraordinary book - and yet there's more to the story: Mao also helped lay the groundwork for the rebirth and rise of China after five centuries of slumber.

Of course, the left has never been bothered by dead Asians.

The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea.

Umm, no. A close contest and perhaps interesting in some of the cities, but not true for China overall.

"where women have more equality":

well, those that weren't aborted as a result of the one child (er, one son) policy.

Only a kool-aid drinking leftie could possibly say that Mao's good reputation survived until a biography destroyed it in 2005.

David - That may be a nuanced view of Mao, but it gives us a clear view of Kristoff. He thinks totalitarianism can be beneficial.

"land reform in China"?

And this was accomplished under Mao? I don't think so. The putative stabs of capitalism in China (without even the semblance of property rights) didn't occur until the early to mid-1980s. And in rural China, it hasn't really happened yet.

Good catch, David.

As I argue in my post "Nicholas Kristof Confronts Evil" he is using the old Leninist argument that to make an omelet you have to break eggs. Seventy million eggs is a lot to swallow. Would he be so charitable in discussing the industrial capitalists who created the prosperity the he and others in the West now enjoy? I think not. Kristof, like his colleague John Leonard, is a moral imbecile.

PJ:

Blame the Enlightenment. No matter how willing even the most decent leftists are to confront totalitarian horrors head-on, very few of them can go so far as to say they were worse than what came before. Nobody tries to defend Castro anymore, but they all cling tightly to the view that he is better than Batista. Good old Harry (where did he go?) waffled on Stalin but he was always adamant the tsars were worse. Goodness knows who Pol Pot was better than, but there must have been someone. I suspect many of them believe deep down the Nazis were better than the Kaiser.

It's called progress. Today is better than yesterday by definition. Then you fill it the facts to make it happen.

Peter B. "Nobody tries to defend Castro anymore," except of course, the Hollywood/Democrat coalition of Moonbats.