• orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
    31·
    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
        41·
        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]@hexbear.netEnglish
          404·
          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.