432

Russian Anti-War Activist Sentenced To Six Years In Prison For Internet Posts (www.rferl.org)

submitted 1 year ago by SeaJ@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

208 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 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@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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:

You either accept both as a genocide
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.

[-] Zuzak@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago

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

[-] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 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@hexbear.net 36 points 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.