• 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.