(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?
Some of them are still alive they’re just old as fuck. And a lot of people remember their grandparents telling them about it. I include myself in that latter category. It was horrible and how much of it was avoidable or the least worst option is unclear. Ultimately I think it was on par or better than anything a capitalist or feudalist government would have done in that situation given the state of things in Russia at that time.
That’s a smaller point to Ukraine currently being overrun but ultra-right nationalist politics. The “facts” of the Holodomor are entirely dictated by anti-communist rhetoric, where any retrospective look is only viewed in the harshest light.
@MarxDidNothingWrong, this is maybe not a good example to pose, but think about the more recent “genocide” of white farmers in Southern Africa. Many lost their stolen land and cried foul, and I believe some were in fact killed for various reasons. But no one is arguing on their side without ulterior imperial and/or racial motives.
Perhaps there is a better example you can think of to make this point.
Sure, they're not chatting shit about it online though which is fairly critical. The people that are have a fascist agenda behind it or have been led astray on the topic by the fascists. Those that have mostly been led astray don't actually care enough to be actively engaging in discourse about the topic online though, there's better shit to do.
That leaves three groups that discuss it - communists, fascists, and imperialists who find it useful for anti-communism.
My main point is that understanding the current situation in Ukraine is incredibly critical to viewing discourse with the correct lens. Most people in Europe and the US right now are completely uninformed about it. Most are under the impression it is a country not actually very dissimilar to the rest of Europe. They are quite wrong and in a very wrong mindset for any kind of correct analysis. Understanding the conditions changes everything.