• orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
    ·
    1 year ago

    Famines are not genocides lol. Though I suppose you could make the case that the embargo on the USSR caused a lot of excess deaths. Famines were extremely common before the USSR took power because it was a pre-industrial society, the USSR ended that. Also, the USSR is a completely different government from the Russian Federation.

    How do you feel about the Irish Famine?

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should've clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

      I'll note that your own source says in the introduction:

      While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

      Likewise, the article on the Kazakh famine:

      Some historians describe the famine as legally recognizable as a genocide perpetrated by the Soviet state, under the definition outlined by the United Nations; however, some argue otherwise.

      And

      The de-Cossackization is sometimes described as a genocide of the Cossacks, although this view is disputed, with some historians asserting that this label is an exaggeration.

      The last one I didn't see any mention of genocide though it might be buried deeper in the article, it's pretty long.

      • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should’ve clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

        I’ll note that your own source says in the very first line:

        While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

        Here's a quote from the Irish Famine (same source: wikipedia)

        Virtually all historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide, their position is partially based on the fact that with regard to famine related deaths, there was a lack of intent to commit genocide.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Genocide_question

        So you have two options:

        1. You either accept both as a genocide

        2. Or you basically pick-and-choose based on whichever country was responsible for the genocide.

        My guess is that you'll take the second option.

          • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or I could… not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?

            So... first you believe Wikipedia, now you don't, based on whichever articles suit your views?

            • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don't think you understand how this works. You cited Wikipedia asking me to accept it as a source. That means that you accept it as a source, and I may or may not accept it as a source. Given that Wikipedia says that your claims of genocide are disputed, you have to accept that. I don't have to accept Wikipedia as authoritative, because I never claimed it was, I'm just saying that if you accept it, then you have to accept that all your claims are disputed. That's just how citing sources works.