(Forgive me if this isn't the right community for this.)

So, yeah, my gf and I are presently having strained conversations with each other because we have differences of opinion over the Holodomor. I'm not denying the Ukrainian famine happened nor the number of deaths involved. We can set aside the historiography and the Kulak memes, but at the end of the day, I'm a monster because I'm somehow denying justice to the survivors because they call their experience a genocide and I'm more hesitant to do so. It's less about "who's right" or "what really happened" but more about the larger implications that come from genocide denial: she says if survivors say they experienced a genocide, it's important to acknowledge that. She's very uncomfortable that my sympathy to their suffering isn't enough. I'm somehow suggesting the survivors are bad faith actors or dupes (I don't think that's what I'm doing), and because the waters are so muddy on this issue (her words), I ought to consider the other side of the debate instead of reading the preface to Davies and Wheatcroft's The Years of Hunger (which she doesn't want to read).

I feel like even if I were to say "I admit there's a possibility the Holodomor was a genocide," I'd still find myself in the doghouse. This is an impasse we're going to have to navigate before our relationship can return to normal. While we're not big on labels, I'd say I lean more toward ML and she's more anarchist. Maybe that's part of our disagreement? No idea. I'm completely vexed and don't know how to move forward.

I can't imagine anyone's been in this exact position before, but maybe something similar? I wish I could compartmentalize it and move on, but I don't think she can. Any advice, comrades? How can I do justice to the famine survivors while not calling said famine a genocide?

  • Bobdooka [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Too late now, but sometimes carefully mentioning the Nayirah testimony and other situations in which the state lies and manipulates with tears, can help people question their sources. I’m still trying to figure this out when explaining the Uighur situation to some friends.

    • bort_simp_son [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Even if every detail of Adrien Zens's account was true, it still wouldn't be as bad as what Capitalist countries have done to Muslims for the past several decades. Let me know when China's carpet bombing them by the thousands, let me know when China's blowing up Uigher schools and hospitals with civilians still inside.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        it still wouldn’t be as bad as what Capitalist countries have done to Muslims

        In my experience, you really have to follow this up with "this is how you know that the elected officials handwringing over this are full of shit; if they actually cared they'd stop the harm they control."

      • Bobdooka [they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I mostly like this breakdown of the BBC doc on xinjiang. The woman in the middle of it describing her experience is what made me think of OP. These completely unverified emotional accounts are CONSTANT and people eat it up unquestionably

      • MarxMadness [comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        inspired those concentration camps (Jim Crow)

        Another awful slice of American history:

        Laughlin saw the need to create a "Model Law" which could withstand a test of constitutional scrutiny, clearing the way for future sterilization operations. Adolf Hitler closely modeled his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring on Laughlin's "Model Law". The Third Reich held Laughlin in such regard that they arranged for him to receive an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. At the Subsequent Nuremberg trials after World War II, counsel for SS functionary Otto Hofmann explicitly cited Holmes's opinion in Buck v. Bell in his defense.

      • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        “actually we invaded germany and closed down their concentration camps, and that was a good thing, so we should do it to China”

        Huh? Isn't this a circular argument? If invading countries to close down concentration camps is a good thing then who gets to invade the US and close Guantanamo and ICE camps? Doubt you'll get them to admit :xi-plz:

        Anyway I wouldn't call that savvy lol.