Message from @Jacob
Discord ID: 542228060951543818
But they would take grain from the farmers and give it to say the urban population
If you're talking about the Holodomor, the reason is affected primary Ukraine is because that's where the grain happened to be produced. There's literally zero evidence that it was a genocide.
Kingdom of that $$wagg purple mountain Kush
anime won the Super Bowl?
noice.
Also, a large part of the Holodomor was that the Kulaks were retards who decided to burn their own grain out of spite
WEEBS π RULE π THE π WORLD π
Are we taking about the Rohingya
@VinceChaos Link evidence that Ukrainians were intentionally targeted
Oh god
We have access to Soviet archives, so if there was a genocide against Ukrainians, you'd think there'd be at least *one* document ordering it
I don't even like Stalin, I just don't think bad history is something we should engage in even if it benefits us
What being an early 21st century American is like
>read about bizarre ethnic group one day
>they suddenly start appearing all around you
Itβs like some bizarre Berkeleyan Idealism where whatever ethnic group you read about last starts bleeding into reality because you read about them
A 5th dimensional wave function collapsed from hypersubjectivity into the guy running the shell station by your house
Iβm in the middle of Alabama and the dude running the shell station by my house is Kashmiri
The highest level of woke is realizing that literally every genocide is exaggerated.
Think about it. If you survived a war, are you going to be like, "eh, both sides did a few bad things"? Of course not, you're going to try to get as much sympathy as possible.
I just looked up Frazier Park and apparently it's only 85% white
and it's also 20% "Hispanic of any race"
so it's probably more like 65% white
can you summarize or give me a specific paragraph to look for?
okay so I read the conclusion
the author is basically saying what I was saying
He says that it was largely the result of bad policies plus two bad harvests, and that it *might* be genocide if you use a broad enough interpretation of the word
I don't disagree with his analysis that Stalin's bad policies likely made the famine worse. The only issue I have is that the author doesn't take into account that the Kulaks were burning their own grain out of spite.
page 676
I read the page
doesn't say that Ukrainians were targeted
it also says "I do not argue that Stalin wanted to annihilate the peasants"
he deliberately starved people yes
maybe he did, but that's not the point I'm making
I'm not saying Stalin did nothing wrong, I'm just saying that there's no evidence there was a targeted campaign against Ukrainians
There's plenty of reasons Stalin was bad, we don't need to make stuff up to say he was bad
according to this faulty definition communists could never be said to commit genocide since they saw the world in terms of classes
he did undermine Ukrainian nationalism as well tho
"According to them [Davies and Wheatcroft], only taking an action whose sole objective is to cause deaths among the peasantry counts as intent. Taking an action with some other goal (e.g. exporting grain to import machinery) but which the actor certainly knows will also cause peasants to starve does not count as intentionally starving the peasants. However, this is an interpretation of 'intent' which flies in the face of the general legal interpretation."
the sort of non racial communists of the past could be said to never commit genocide since they would not have wanted that even if they did effectively do that
I think we're kinda talking past each other
thats fine
im going to bed