Anti-Maidan

[red_elk]

You shouldn't presume I'm right, but not because I have some preconceived opinion that the Soviet Union's bad, but because I don't know a great deal on the subject. The point I'm really trying to get at though is what I said in post 86. To me, given my admittedly faint knowledge on this particular subject, there seems to be a large body of historians, from the West and from former SRs, who consider the Holodomer to be a genocide.

If you admit your faint knowledge on the subject and aware of disagreement among scholars about it, perhaps you should not take sides in this argument? Otherwise it may look like your opinion is influenced by typical prejudices originated from Cold War times.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

(Not speaking either way on the matter of Cheezy and his peculiar brand of awesomeness(no, not sarcasm)) This requires meaningful competence within the field to be at all effective. If I'm reading about the humaneness of different slaughter practices I do not go out and start butchering animals so that I can develop competence at evaluating individual components of academic papers.

The ability to criticize literature can be obtained even without needing to do the methodologies yourself. For your example, one would simply need to know the procedures and measurement protocols usually done in such studies.

The molecular biology analogy doesn't really hold. I don't study molecular biology, so if you told me something pertaining to your major, I would obviously take it at face value, unless what you told me conflicted with what other molecular biology students, or even molecular biology professors told me, in which case I might view your opinion with some skepticism.

It's good to view new additions to the literature with skepticism. Just make sure you actually do take the time to analyze how said additions are wrong, and not just say "well these previous authors say otherwise so your work is garbage". The latter is just lazy and extremely poor scholarship.

 

[Farm Boy]

The ability to criticize literature can be obtained even without needing to do the methodologies yourself. For your example, one would simply need to know the procedures and measurement protocols usually done in such studies.

Not everything is as subject to repeatable, observable, and measurable hard data collection as the fields in the hard sciences.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Yeah except that he's right. The question of Ukrainian identity is a very complex one, with about 40% of the people speaking Russian or Russian-based surzhyk as first language, while ethnic Ukrainians are many more. I attribute it to two causes:
-Passport nationality (which is synonymous with ethnicity) is based on your father's nationality. You hopefully know that ethnicity is not genetically passed down to your children. I myself am officially a Ukrainian even though I identify more as a Russian.
-As Alexey said it's hard to identify strongly as either Russian or Ukrainian because of the situation, though I guess I'm more of an exception and most people identify as Ukrainian anyway.

I was actually agreeing with polandball, in case you were thinking otherwise.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

How long ago did those historians you're referring to write their pieces of scholarship? Again, what are your qualifications for evaluating historical literature? And positions in universities? When I evaluate a molecular biology paper, I actually look at the molecular biology and analyses they did to criticize the paper. I don't look at the positions of the researchers involved hold.

You sound like an undergrad or a green grad student. But since we are in the mood of evaluating Molecular Biology based on the contents as opposed to the authors, here's a little something to throw back at you:

Because he's an expert in said history? This is not a hard concept to grasp. So far I don't have any reason to presume you're right, considering you're probably exposed to the typical American biases against the USSR. History written by the victors, "evil empire", "dirty commie"...you get the idea.

And if you want to engage in discussions in Molecular Biology, I am totally qualified for that too...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Not everything is as subject to repeatable, observable, and measurable hard data collection as the fields in the hard sciences.

Then in this case one should know the basics of historiography, such as analyzing records and synthesizing sources. It's still possible to scrutinize such methods without engaging in it yourself.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

How long ago did those historians you're referring to write their pieces of scholarship? Again, what are your qualifications for evaluating historical literature? And positions in universities? When I evaluate a molecular biology paper, I actually look at the molecular biology and analyses they did to criticize the paper. I don't look at the positions of the researchers involved hold.

You sound like an undergrad or a green grad student. But since we are in the mood of evaluating Molecular Biology based on the contents as opposed to the authors, here's a little something to throw back at you:

Because he's an expert in said history? This is not a hard concept to grasp. So far I don't have any reason to presume you're right, considering you're probably exposed to the typical American biases against the USSR. History written by the victors, "evil empire", "dirty commie"...you get the idea.

And if you want to engage in discussions in Molecular Biology, I am totally qualified for that too...

 

[Goodfella]

It's good to view new additions to the literature with skepticism. Just make sure you actually do take the time to analyze how said additions are wrong, and not just say "well these previous authors say otherwise so your work is garbage". The latter is just lazy and extremely poor scholarship.

Several things. For one, whether I analyzed it or not was never really relevant to my response to Cheezy because he basically just said "I'm a scholar, take my word for it" and all subsequent responses have been targeting that particular attitude. Secondly, by this point I've read through the entire wiki page on whether the Holodomor was a genocide or not and skimmed some of their sources. I'm sure that constitutes that independent analysis you consider to be good scholarship. Sadly for Cheezy though, I think it was a man made famine even after reading about it, I just don't feel like arguing with you guys that it was. The only reason I've been responding is to explain why I wouldn't just "yield to [Cheezy's] expertise."

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why do you think I've got a position on whether the Holodomor was a man-made famine or not? All I'm arguing is that Cheezy is up-to-date on the literature regarding early USSR history so it's not a good idea to just brush off his assertions.

 

[Goodfella]

Well, what is your opinion on the Holodomor?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The man-made causes involved are probably due to incompetence and callousness, but not a deliberate attempt to kill millions. Same view I have for the Great Irish Famine.

 

[Farm Boy]

Then in this case one should know the basics of historiography, such as analyzing records and synthesizing sources. It's still possible to scrutinize such methods without engaging in it yourself.

Yet it's probably unreasonable to expect people to have such basic knowledge. And somebody knowing at least enough to attempt to find reasonable and accredited sources is so much better than the all too common, "I don't do history." That's how, in another field, you wind up with anti-vaccers.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Why do you think I've got a position on whether the Holodomor was a man-made famine or not? All I'm arguing is that Cheezy is up-to-date on the literature regarding early USSR history so it's not a good idea to just brush off his assertions.

Being a self-proclaimed expert or a scholar in the field doesn't mean he's right.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yet it's probably unreasonable to expect people to have such basic knowledge. And somebody knowing at least enough to attempt to find reasonable and accredited sources is so much better than the all too common, "I don't do history." That's how, in another field, you wind up with anti-vaccers.

That's fine if they want to know the mainstream position on a matter. If they want to debunk some new piece of research that disagrees with that position, then they have to do the work. They can disagree, but they can't definitively say that the new piece of research is wrong unless they actually show it is wrong.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

SIMFEROPOL

The Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. People put the Russian flag there.

Link to video.

***

LVOV

Lvov redidents start a flashmob: they will speak Russian at job, at home, at streets this day to protest against the anti-Russian language laws. A purely Ukrainophone publisher is going to publish a book in Russian.

***

***

An appeal in Ukrainian and Russian language telling they were after the authority changes not language speculations.

***

Lvov residents appeal to the people of the Southeast.


Link to video.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

ODESSA

The City Council building. People drive away Maidanists and Pravy Sektor.


Link to video.

***

LUGANSK

22 February. Lugansk Oblast Regional Administration.

He shows the people who are there to defend the Administration building from capture. Most of those people wear white arm-band. He tells they do not care of Yanukovich but they care of their city and order. He shows Berkut at the entrance of the building.

The man at 2:00 says he represents the "guards of Lugansk". He tells how the extremists of the Klitschko's party, about 80 guys, armed and equipped have rushed the streets (they had traumatic weapons and an automatic gun). Guards of Lugansk retreated because they are not armed/equipped. Extrimists messed an improvised memorial devoted to dead Berkuts, they made a video of what they do in Lugansk claiming Maidan captured the city. The guy also tells that mass media misleadingly reported that this crowd (which is anti-Maidanist) is Maidanist. He says this kind of things are done to intimidate people of the city.


Link to video.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

KHARKOV

City Council.

***


Link to video.

***

Yesterday. People around the statue of Lenin.

***

I sympathize with the mayor, Kernes. He looks like an able leader and good person.

He defends a tough position: anti-Maidan and anti-separatist.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Several things. For one, whether I analyzed it or not was never really relevant to my response to Cheezy because he basically just said "I'm a scholar, take my word for it" and all subsequent responses have been targeting that particular attitude. Secondly, by this point I've read through the entire wiki page on whether the Holodomor was a genocide or not and skimmed some of their sources. I'm sure that constitutes that independent analysis you consider to be good scholarship. Sadly for Cheezy though, I think it was a man made famine even after reading about it, I just don't feel like arguing with you guys that it was. The only reason I've been responding is to explain why I wouldn't just "yield to [Cheezy's] expertise."

All you had to do was ask for my sources.

The man-made causes involved are probably due to incompetence and callousness, but not a deliberate attempt to kill millions. Same view I have for the Great Irish Famine.

This is, ironically, the exact same position I articulated earlier in the thread.

Being a self-proclaimed expert or a scholar in the field doesn't mean he's right.

My degrees proclaim me to be an expert as well. Of course it doesn't make me right, argument from authority is itself not sufficient proof of anything. But it does make someone entitled to more than a cursory brush aside by an amateur in the subject.

As has been correctly deduced by others in this thread (whose vindication I greatly appreciate!), I am up to date on the scholarship and historiography of the issue. Even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread will demonstrate that my position is not ideologically-driven, the conclusion that it is has been wholly grounded upon the fact that it disagrees with the popular opinion of the circumstances of the event, and therefore my conclusions must be tinged with bias. However, I did note many key failings of the Soviet administration in the issue, and did implicate them in exacerbating the problem, which is why the accusation of pro-communist bias is in this case particularly puzzling. And, as I said, my conclusion mirrors the status of present scholarship on the subject, which I would have readily provided to anyone who bothered to ask.

The popular version of the man-made "terror-famine" was first articulated by Robert Conquest in The Harvest of Sorrow. However, his conclusions were based largely upon extrapolation and speculation based upon a very small amount of source material. R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft overturned those conclusions with The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933. If you wish to see further discussion on the topic, see Mark Tauger's article "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933," as well as the series of articles in the debate between Davies and Wheatcroft against really the only non-Ukrainian scholar still defending the terror-famine position: Michael Ellman. They address point by point his challenge to their conclusions in The Years of Hunger, proving essentially what I have articulated in this thread. If you wish to see the Ukrainian side of the debate (which, as I said, Western historians won't even touch, not even the anti-Soviet ones) , see Roman Serbyn's article "The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 as Genocide in the Light of the UN Convention of 1948." It makes many outlandish claims, which ignore the conclusive scholarship by people like Tauger, Davies & Wheatcroft, and even Conquest's revised edition of Harvest of Sorrow, which he was forced to make after D&W destroyed his original conclusions. It's not an entirely clean picture, as there are still questions that need to be answered about the precise nature of the passport system and the orders given (and behavior practiced) by border stations, particularly the border with Belorussian SSR, which may indicate a slight amplification of the problem such as it existed in certain parts of the Ukraine, but overall the vast, vast majority of the theory of the orchestrated terror-famine has been reduced to myth, and even that of opportunism by the Soviets after the onset of the famine has been seriously challenged.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

My degrees proclaim me to be an expert as well. Of course it doesn't make me right, argument from authority is itself not sufficient proof of anything. But it does make someone entitled to more than a cursory brush aside by an amateur in the subject.

I mentioned self-proclaimed because we are all under aliases here and can claim whatever we want about ourselves. This is not to imply you lie about the credentials you claim to have but that there is much more uncertainty involved than say meeting a Professor so and so in a conference in real life, which justifies a fair bit of skepticism.

 

[Kyriakos]

I sympathise with Cheezy, cause i too often thought how distasteful it is to have all those non-philosophy degree holders/ plebs here try to argue issues of philosophy when my clear authority is around.
But it happens, and we just have to make-do with this situation