No, Crunchy, not all Genocide (or Democide) is caused by armed governmental thugs:
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation Killing by hunger) was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933. During the famine, which is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine", millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.8 to 12 million ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 7.5 million. The exact number of deaths is hard to determine, due to a lack of records, but the number increases significantly when the deaths inside heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included. The demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million. Older estimates are still often cited in political commentary.
Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the degree to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Joseph Stalin.Scholars and politicians using the word Holodomor emphasize the man-made aspects of the famine, arguing that it was genocide; some consider the resultant loss of life comparable to the Holocaust. They argue that the Soviet policies were an attack on the rise of Ukrainian nationalism and therefore fall under the legal definition of genocide. Other scholars argue that the Holodomor was a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.
See also:
Point well made Laci, as the originator of the concept of democide himself cites this event on his website referencing genocide and democide.
ReplyDeleteBad economic policy is not death by firearm.
I'm afraid a new idea - new to him - like Democide is like a shiny object that fascinates Crunchy without his understanding it properly.
And thank you for the excellent post about Matthew White, a librarian who still manages to engage in excellent history writing that stands up well to challenges and critiques by people like you and I - and real historians too.
Proving that sound understanding of an intellectual concept is NOT predicated on elitism.
I would venture that quite a few of the gun nuts are getting their first exposure to the term and the specifics of the Holodomor here. I'm sure that because some of them obsess over the minutiae of WWII weapons or similar trivia that they fancy themselves knowledgeable on the larger topic, when they are not.
The fear that someone is going to rise up as another Hitler as the basis for gun ownership is ludicrous. It represents a really poor understanding and faux interpretation of the facts of history.
"Bad economic policy is not death by firearm."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. However economic policy is enforced by government. Government = Force = Point of a gun
No.
DeleteGovernment has many methods of enforcement of economic policy - taxation, fines, etc.
You cannot make the claim that the link between economic policy and guns for purposes of democide or for purposes of this post. There were plenty of people for example who supported the economic plan who suffered as well, who believed sincerely that the plan was fine, if they could just stay the course longer. You focus on one aspect of government while leaving out so many more aspects of government, as well as aspects out of the control of government that contributed to the outcome.
Your point fails, it is simplistic and it is inaccurate.
You are wrong biggest randy. Try to keep up, and do your homework better, and bring an adult appreciation of complexity and nuance to the discussion. That was a childish attempt to link things you want to see linked, without validity.
The one note/ one trick pony arguments of the gun nuts get tedious.
Randy, those things are backed up by the rule of law. To take it to the extreme and say they're backed up by force or by guns is extremist rhetoric.
DeleteMike - Why is it such a stretch to say that if you don't do what the government says, then the government can imprison you, they can take away your property, and ultimately, they can even take away your life?
DeleteHow many cases exist where if someone has a certain amount of plant substance that they choose to inhale the smoke from burning then that person, if caught by the government, goes to jail, or has his property taken from him?
Yes, our civil society in some of the more primitive parts of the U.S. do have the death penalty. (Interstingly, it is applied most in the same states that used to lynch people the most, which I think says something about the conservative mind set.)
DeleteThe more developed and civilized states in the U.S., ditto the more developed and civilized nations in the world, don't tend to execute people. Interestingly, those tend to correlate to the nations that also often have the most stringent gun-related laws, that limit civilians killing each other.
One of the things which most intrigued me about the Holodomor is that not all of the enfocement was governmental; a surprisingly large amount of it seems to have derived as well from people who were ideologically passionate, including teens who roamed in gangs terrorizing the Ukranian farmers.
Yes, government has the authority of force. So? Would you prefer it didn't? And how do you think that would work?
As to your comment on Pot, unlike say FOOD, Pot is an optional choice except for those who have a meical need for it. I think our current laws on marijuana are not only foolish they are self defeating. But the alternative is NOT to remove the authority of government.
The distinction is that you have the right to challenge the government in court, to fight your imprisonment on logical and objective grounds.
To return to the argument at hand, people dying of starvation are not dying from guns. Guns may (or may not depending on the individual instance) be a secondary factor, but they are not dying from being shot. When that application of guns is theoretical - the government COULD shoot, but don't actually shot, it becomes even more problematic.
But to use either war, or civil war, or genocide half way round the world as the justification for owning a hand gun is stupid. And our Founding Fathers - INCLUDING JEFFERSON - believed that Insurrection and rebellion would only occur from the ill informed and not very bright or well educated.
We have had a lively discussion about genocide, politicide, democide, but it has been hampered by the "I read a book once" or worse, I saw it on a web site, much shorter than a book" thinking, which is shallow and not very good at integrating and applying concepts.
I find it particularly regrettable that the majority of the pro-gun crowd fit that description, and their arguments are therefore badly flawed, superficial and shallow, and poorly informed and badly reasoned.
It takes more than reading a book once (or a web site) to understand a concept, and how to apply it to the myriad facts and events of history.
I strongly doubt that the originator of the concept of democide would find it desirable that his creation is being used to support the gun culture. It would seem from the brief amount I have read that he would reject that application and interpretation as NOT reflecting his concept.
"Yes, government has the authority of force."
DeleteWow, a concession on your part dog gone. At least you are being intellectually honest.
"So? Would you prefer it didn't?"
Well yes, that would be what is called a voluntary society or a free society.
"And how do you think that would work?"
We've seen the alternative where central planning and government force is used. We've seen where people, when left to their own devices, can prosper. Freedom is much better.
"Pot is an optional choice except for those who have a meical need for it. I think our current laws on marijuana are not only foolish they are self defeating. But the alternative is NOT to remove the authority of government."
Why not? What is so terrifying about getting rid of the drug war? If the laws were removed saying it was illegal to do cocaine, are you going to go do cocaine? Is that it?
I don't see anything terrifying about getting rid of the drug war. I think we should legalize at least a good part of it, and tax hell out of it.
DeleteWe've seen the alternative where central planning and government force is used. We've seen where people, when left to their own devices, can prosper. Freedom is much better.
No. We haven't. That is silly fantasy that has no solid grounding in reality. Tell me, how long do you think this nation would exist without a military? How long before absolute chaos and anarchy would be the order of the day without any legitimately recognized and empowered authority?
I'm a realist. I recognize and appreciate how people actually function versus the fanciful but unrealistic attributions of how they function.
You ignore an entire body of research that seeks to understand our reality, in favor of philosophical fantasy.
I'm on board with eliminating the war on drugs, but I don't go for all the government hate/fear talk.
DeleteOf course government is force, why would you argue differently? It's almost self-evident.
ReplyDeleteBut let me spell it out for you: Taxation and fines are all backed up by the guns of the government. If a citizen decided he wasn't going to pay taxes, ultimately, the government reserves the right to sieze that citizens property (in other words, take it by force) and possibly send that citizen to jail.
Wow, I'm not sure whether to call you Cunnusmaximus or Cūlusmaximus for that bizarre, off topic rant.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Taxes are the cost of civilisation. In other words, if you want to have governmental services, you pays your taxes.
And I am sure that you must use governmental services, whether it's roads. I point you to 102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes.
You are a real leech if you do use any of those services and aren't willing to pay your fair share.
Despite your pretentious name, which I have found some more appropriate versions, you needn't look to classical times to see the effect of people not paying their taxes--just look at Modern Greece.
That is something which make take down the world economy.
I think this sums up Cunnusmaximus' or Cūlusmaximus' comment:
ReplyDeleteSed nemo potuit tangere: merda fuit.
Ok, you guys are purposely being obtuse, right?
ReplyDeleteDid you even watch the video that was linked in the original post? Because if you didn't, here's a hint on what happens for about 8 minutes of the 9 minute and 15 second clip: GOVERNMENT POLICY IS ENFORCED AT THE POINT OF A GUN, LITERALLY.
At 3:02 here's the text from the video: "In 1931, Red Guards began to seize harvests, destroy villages, and massacre peasants to enforce collectivization."
The kulaks appear to be the farming class or middle class in the Ukraine and were the primary producers of food for the region. They were also the primary targets of enforcement of collectivization, which started in 1931. The Holodomor went from 1932-1933. Is it possible that killing off/imprisoning the producers of the food would lead to famine a year later? So here we have yet another example of the government making a bad decision, enforcing it at the point of a gun, and killing its own population. Those bodies are on the Stalin.
"Wow, I'm not sure whether to call you Cunnusmaximus or Cūlusmaximus"
That would be Mr. Cūlus Maximus to you. Big Pussy was already taken. Can I call you poopie-head?
Nothing like selective vision, right before the bit you mention it says:
Delete"Ukrainian Peasants retaliated against Soviet coercion by destroying portions of their own crops and livestock." (@4.00)
But, anyway, you can take it how you want, Soviet Policies led to starvation and there is a lot of controversy about the Holodomor, but it looks more like people starved than were shot from the video.
I reiterate my comment--yours is bizarre and out of place given the term Holodomor comes from the Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation "Killing by hunger".
DeletePeople starved,
They were not shot.
Is that in simple enough terms for you to understand?
"People starved,
ReplyDeleteThey were not shot.
Is that in simple enough terms for you to understand?"
Poopie-head: People starved because the Kulaks who could grow the food were killed because they went against the government. It was a man-made famine.
Randiose maximus wrote:
ReplyDeletePoopie-head: People starved because the Kulaks who could grow the food were killed because they went against the government. It was a man-made famine.
It was not particularly a man made famine exactly; crop yields were low, but there are some indications they did not precisely fail.
To understand the nature of the famine you have to look not so much at the killing - there definitely was some -- but at the requistioning of food sources. There were exports of food stuffs, leaving people to starve as a result.
You oversimplify AGAIN, and still fail to understand correctly apparently the application of the word democide to this historic event.
So Laci is correct; this was far more complex than Stalinist power shooting people. People did not starve directly because Kulaks were shot, for the most part.
You need to have a greater depth of understanding of the subject. Laci does; in fact he surprised me recently in a conversation we had about Ukranian literature just how much about the culture of that nation he knows - and the accompanying history. See his recent post, Something lite.
Look fucking major areshole,
ReplyDeleteWhat is abstruse about:
"Ukrainian Peasants retaliated against Soviet coercion by destroying portions of their own crops and livestock." (@4.00)
????????????????
In any war or struggle where there is resistance, there will be some hardship caused to the local civilian population.
Let's say it was only the Kulaks who could have saved the people through their knowledge.
The problem is that they refused to grow food, which led to further action by the Red Army.
So, resistance ended up harming the general populace rather than helping it.
I doubt that armed resistance would have fared any better. You may want to learn about the period of Soviet history called "War Communism". The Holodomor was part of the end of that period.
At issue in this discussion are two problems on the gunners side.
DeleteThe first problem is that they appear to have a lack of factual information on their side in any depth; what they know is the thinnest of thin factually. I doubt most of them had ever heard of the Holodomor before you brought it to their attention (hey, at least we are educcating and informing the readership here - a validation for the writing we do here).
You are arguing Laci with people who haven't read a book, much less more than one good well researched book on this topic.
The argument on their side has less depth of knowledge behind it than the most superficial wikipedia article. They can't argue facts, because they don't know any.
The problem is that they lack understanding of the events. They rely solely on bits and pieces from your video apparently for their source of informtion.
Perhaps it is in part because in the age of the soundbyte people have become accustomed to the superficial and extremely short bit predigested information as a substitute for thinking and knowing what they need to know. I am appalled at how little concentration and focus many of the people I know bring to any topic, every topic.
They are unable and unwilling to handle greaer complexity. They want and need everything simplified.
That was not the quality of education that our Founding Fathers received; by the standards of the right wingers that would be an 'elitist' education. In some respects they would be correct - our Founding Fathers tended to be very well educated. Elitists (gasp).
Thank goodness for us they were.
But in addition to not being at all conversant with the facts of the Holodomor, which was consistent not only with the brutish mass murdering actions of Stalin, but consistent with the brutish and mass murdering style of government of Russia before the Soviet Union, where human beings were often cruelly treated as expendable throughout their entire history -- see WW II -- and where starvation was not a novelty unique to Stalin, the gun nuts are single focused.
They see everything, every issue, every discussion only in the context of trying to find some pretext, some justification for their attitudes about guns. They want their guns, and everything else in the world must be forced to fit what they want.
You could tell them that rightly or wrongly, government told the Ukrainians what crops to grow, using a better hybrid wheat and the farmers refused because they were unfamiliar with it. Resistance to change, especially the rapid change that Stalin demanded often has such resistance.
Some of the greatest resistance in Iran that ever occurred was when the brutal totalitarian puppet dictator we put in power, overthrowing a legitimate democracy in that country, came resisting modernization, and westernization such as beard cutting.
People resist unfmiliar things, new ideas. Real changes happen more slowly when they are not forced.
The simplistic - and clearly frustrating -- argument being made here boils down to : Stalin was bad (yes), Stalin's government had guns (yes), therefore all government is bad or about to go bad (no), so we have to have guns to fight government (no).
The gun nuts are trying to justify why it is they have to have their guns, no matter how bad the argument. They will dishonestly, although perhaps sincerely, even desperately distort everything to fit that outcome.
They are wrong. But prying them out of a bad argument and a lack of facts takes a strong crowbar and persistence.
So let's review what we agree on so far in this thread:
DeleteGovernment = force, right?
Look fucking major areshole,
ReplyDeleteWhat is abstruse about:
"Ukrainian Peasants retaliated against Soviet coercion by destroying portions of their own crops and livestock." (@4.00)
????????????????
Poopie-head: The above quote would indicate that since the Ukrainian Peasants were subject to Soviet aggression, the way they resisted that aggression was by destroying what, presumably, the Soviets were after. In other words, they were performing acts of sabotage.
"Let's say it was only the Kulaks who could have saved the people through their knowledge.
The problem is that they refused to grow food, which led to further action by the Red Army."
The government was taking everything they grew anyway, what incentive was there for the kulaks to produce anything? And this is where the failure of central planning is so glaringly obvious.