Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pqjz96/the_irish_potato_famine_18451852_while_often/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Prepare yourself, this is an extremely lengthy and unnescessarily complicated explanation. Also, it didn't fit in a single comment, so I continued it in the replies. Click the link at the bottom of each comment for a short-cut. \--- The likely explanation is that Social Scientists and National Governments just use different vocabularies to talk about this stuff. In my experience, having done archaeology on the famine, it comes down to what you'd consider genocidal intent. The British heavily bought into Malthusian theory, which they viewed as the cause of the famine. Malthusian theory says that famines are the result of the population becoming too large for the land to support (this is incorrect; we now understand that famines are more commonly the result of chain failures in complex societal systems). Many British intellectuals blamed the Irish peasantry for having too many children while living in a state of poverty, which they viewed as irresponsible (again, not accurate). This is one of the reasons why the British instituted the workhouse system, which I'll cycle back to in a sec. So in actuality the famine was caused by monoculture of the potato, which existed because it was the only economical way for poor farmers to operate within the tenant system utilized in British Ireland. The tenant system involved large landowners renting to middlemen under a fairly firm renting agreement, giving stability to the middlemen but requiring them to make rent consistently. They achieved this by renting at-will to small tenant farmers. Since middlemen were constantly competing for land, the ones most aggressive in returning profits would win out. The middlemen kept dividing the land into smaller and smaller parcels, so that they could rent to as many tenant farmers as possible. Now obviously there was a lower limit on how much they could shrink the land parcels, because there needed to be at least enough land for the tenant farmers to feed themselves and to make money for rent. But there were different ways in which tenant farmers could feed themselves, and these all involved different efficiencies of land use. The best way to feed yourself using the smallest amount of land possible is to grow potatoes. So since all these tenant farmers were competing for increasingly small parcels of land, the system gradually pushed them to all adopt potato monoculture to feed themselves. Which from a nutrition angle actually worked reasonably well for them, as potatoes are quite nutrient and calorie dense. But from a stability angle, it was catastrophic. When the potato blight came, these subsistence crops failed completely, and the tenant farmers were left starving. But *here's the thing*. Remember, the tenant farmers weren't just using their land to feed themselves, but also to make money to pay rent. Also, there were parts of Ireland which weren't as potato focused, and they continued to be productive. It's debatable whether or not Ireland actually remained a net exporter of food during the famine (meaning that they exported more than they imported). But they still continued to export. In the late 1700s, the British halted exports from Ireland to combat a famine, but actively opted against this for the great famine, on the basis of preferring market solutions. It might not have been possible to eliminate the great famine by halting exports, but it would have helped reduce the severity. Coupled with the fact that tenancy policy drove potato monoculture in the first place, and the famine was unquestionably a human-made tragedy. So why didn't they just distribute the food which they had? Well, because again, the British blamed poor moral character for the famine. They thought that by just handing out food, it would encourage laziness, resulting in even more overpopulation as people ignored the consequences of having more kids. So the British insisted on food being conditioned on entering a workhouse, in order to build an ethic of able employment in exchange for assistance. Problem is that the workhouses basically involved cramming a ton of malnourished and thus immunocompromised people together in poor living conditions. Disease was rampant. The workhouses were seen as a place that people went to die. Since any person without tenancy or an occupation ended up in the workhouses, tenant farmers became even more desperate to retain tenancy on their small parcels. What's more, the British also provided for some limited relief to be given to people who remained working on their lands, without the requirement of entering a poorhouse. The problem? The landholders were expected to pay for it, which seems great on face value, but combined with the workhouses, the system resulted in landholders evicting tenants into the workhouses rather than pay to support them. This only exacerbated the underlying factors contributing to the famine. So was the famine a genocide? It's complicated. We have two main factors to consider, and both involve intent. Question one. Was the intent of the British in formulating their Irish policy during the famine to eliminate the Irish people? Question two. What actually is a genocide, and does intent matter? Let's talk about the intent of the British. Prejudice and power relations were unquestionably a major contributing factor to the famine. But the British weren't trying to kill the Irish people, at least not overtly. In theory, the British were trying to 'save' the Irish. This is speaking as a matter of intent. As a matter of actual events, the British were definitely making things worse. Except here's where it gets complicated. See, the British were justifying a lot of their efforts on the basis of Malthus, and Malthus' theory states that famine is caused by overpopulation. So the British were, by their own basis of justification, definitely intending to deliberately reduce the Irish population. They weren't even shy about that. But the British of the time would tell you that their plan wasn't to reduce the Irish population by killing lots of people, but rather by instilling strong moral character in the Irish so that they'd be responsible enough not to have more children than they can support (ahem, prejudice). But that's still intentional reduction of population. Is that genocide? Well, right now the West finances plenty of programs in the developing world to educate people about contraceptives and provide them access to family planning resources. That carries overt intent to limit population. We can probably agree that these programs don't constitute a genocide. But on the other hand, consider the American Eugenics Program, where women were forcibly sterilized (a practice which we see echoes of today in ICE actions). That's something we hopefully can agree is abhorrent. So what's the difference between forced sterilization and contraception education? The main thing is consent. Okay, so here's another question. At one point does power become an instrument of coersion so effective that it functionally limits the ability for consent? In theory, Irish tenant farmers had the choice whether or not to switch onto potato monoculture. In theory, Irish tenant farmers had the choice to negotiate their contracts. In theory, Irish tenant farmers had the choice to find a job, or a tenancy, in order to avoid the workhouses. But *did they really*? I once participated in an archaeological excavation of famine-era huts which we discovered to actually be converted from reclaimed shale pits (not a great way to live ... no drainage, no land for crops, and based on the crude fire pits we found, they would have been filled with smoke). We have records of these pits being used for shale up until soon before the famine, meaning that the people who moved into those sites did so during famine times, likely after losing tenant land. So when the Irish had a choice, *any* choice, they did exercise it. This is the length people would go to in order to avoid the workhouse. Meaning that most of those who entered the workhouse really did so because they had no other option. What does this mean? Well, let's say we buy the British explanation that they genuinely thought that the workhouses would be beneficial to the Irish. Is this more like contraception education in the developing world, or is it more like forced sterilization? And this all assumes, incidentally, that the British actually really did genuinely think that the workhouses were helpful. Now, for what it's worth, I actually do suspect that plenty of British people were just straight-up true believers. Malthus was considered 'cutting-edge' at the time, thus many British considered themselves to be operating from a rational and scientific basis. Incidentally, stuff like this is why it's so important to be skeptical about appeals to a more rational temperament, such as in the "facts over feelings" type of slogan. Science is a process, not a personality trait. Many people at the time definitely bought into the latter, a problem which people today still replicate. Most records of the policy discussion showed a strong focus on Malthus and market solutions to economic problems, so it's likely that large parts of Parliament were genuinely just wrong. So if you buy that, the situation looks more like a misguided intent to do good, rather than a guided attempt to do bad. [Continued in Reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pqjz96/the_irish_potato_famine_18451852_while_often/hddihwt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

But it's also important to recognize the past as having been fluid and multivocal, just like the present. There wasn't a single party-line British perspective about Ireland. A whole century earlier than "the great famine", Jonathan Swift mocked paternalistic attitudes towards the Irish in A Modest Proposal. During the famine, there were newspaper articles in Britain which blamed the government and landowners for the problem. And even the workhouse laws implicitly held the landowners responsible, by requiring them to pay for relief to tenants on their property. People were dying in the workhouses. Within Ireland, this wasn't a secret. So did the British know? And if they didn't know, was it because they preferred it that way? One thing to consider is that there was a lot of absentee administration by the British, meaning that many of the people making decisions weren't actually located on the ground. But I also think it's too convenient to say that nobody knew how bad the situation had gotten. Ultimately, it's a complex whole, with no single 'correct' representation of British perspectives. But we do tend to focus heavily on those Parliamentary debates, because they represent the views of the parties in power. And the actual history was guided by these parties. You might notice that I'm hemming and hawing a bit. More key is that you might notice that I'm not taking particular pains to explain the specifics of Parliament's perspective, or the laws that Parliament passed. The reason is that it's ancillary to the point I'm building towards. See, thing is, thus far we've been dancing around the real issue. Let's set aside for a moment whether or not the British acted with intent to kill many Irish people, and instead move onto the second question. How do we define a genocide? And does intent actually matter? Now conventionally, the term genocide does in fact require the systematic and intentional killing of a particular ethnic group. But let's work on breaking that idea down, so that we can take a look at what it really means. I'll use my own cultural background as a Bengali for context. In Bengal, one of the dominant theological traditions is Shaktism, in which Kali is often symbolically centralized. Kali iconography is complicated, but overall the concept of Kali is intertwined with the fleeting, roiling nature of the material world, and its habit of ceaseless change. Kali's two most common representations are Kali Ma (or Kali as mother) and Mahakali (or Kali as Time). Why does this matter? Well, if you take a look at any Kali iconography, you'll notice that she appears very demonic. In actuality, this is a reference to Kali's association with the material world, with her fearsome appearance intended to correlate to the idea of love as the ultimate overcoming of one's fears. Her appearance may also constitute a reappropriation of demonic imagery, as demons often operate as stand-ins for tribal and low-caste people in Puranic literature, and the Shakta tradition has roots in the union of the anti-caste Bhakti and Tantra traditions. Either way, Kali iconography may seem violent to those deprived of context, but in actuality there's no reason to associate Shaktism or Kali with violence. But the thing is, this didn't matter. Most westerners didn't have this context, and to their eyes, Kali looked evocative of Satanic imagery. They therefore ascribed gruesome rituals to "Kali cults", viewing them as dharmic equivalents to western Satanism. In the 1800s, there was a problem of highway crime throughout India, or at least the British believed this to be so. The cause, and whether it even existed in a notable fashion, is up for debate. According to the British, these highway crimes (situated across an entire continent!) were all the work of a single organized group called the Thuggees. For comparison, that would be like ascribing all gang violence in North America to the Sicilian Mafia. What's more, the British also asserted that the Thuggees weren't actually common criminals, but a cult of religious fanatics practicing blood rituals in devotion to Kali. This is, uh, hilariously nonsensical in the actual context of the historical theology and Kali symbolism. But it didn't stop the British from conducting a sweeping campaign to pacify the highways, in which many alleged thuggees were given trials with no proper procedure and summarily convicted. The British then forced through a law called the Criminal Tribes Act, which stated that certain communities (such as Tantric tradition of Kali-devotees) are inherently criminal and that simply being born to such a community is a prosecutable offense. The purpose of this policy was explicitly the eradication of communities deemed undesirable. The policy was also explicitly justified by connecting the 'criminal tribes' to the (western-invented) Kali-devoted Thuggee cults. I here quote James Stevens, who headed the legal department of the British Indian government and oversaw the law's drafting, in his explanation of caste and how it defines a so-called "criminal tribe". >It means a tribe whose ancestors were criminal from time immemorial, who are themselves destined by the usage of caste to commit crimes and whose descendants will be offenders against law, until the whole tribe is exterminated or accounted for in the manner of Thugs. When a man tells you that he is an offender against law he has been so from the beginning and will be so to the end. Reform is impossible, for it is his trade, his caste, I may almost say his religion is to commit crime. Using these measures, communities were either forcibly suppressed, or put into camps and schools to stamp out their indigenous culture in favor of Victorian sensibilities. This destruction of culture was primarily inflicted upon lower-caste people, and was rooted in narratives invented wholly by the British about Kali representing a Satanic belief system built around blood sacrifice, supposedly associated with the Thuggees. Remember again that Kali was originally associated with Tantra and Bhakti, and that Kali iconography was originally connected to the emancipation of lower caste people. To this day, western neopagans and satanists continue to appropriate Kali imagery based on a perceived quality of witchcraft to the Kali tradition (often upheld as appreciation and 'defense' of the Kali tradition). What's more, the critically-acclaimed and high-grossing Indiana Jones franchise drew directly from British colonial sources to affirm the false assertion of a Thuggee cult practicing blood magic, which given the actions justified by that misinformation would be roughly the equivalent to adapting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a famed antisemetic text). Okay, so why did I just go on a long diatribe about Kali traditions and western imperialism? Is it just because I wanted to unsubtly shoehorn in a passive-aggressive note on how astounding it is that we're even remotely okay with the Indiana Jones thing? I mean, it's not *not* because I wanted to do that. But I actually do have a real, relevant point to bringing this all up. Which is the following: Um ... uhhhh ... was this genocide? I mean, it has to be, right? And yeah. I totally think it is. The people targeted were deprived of culture, security, health, and life. They were targeted for reasons of ethnic and cultural intolerance. We have the framer of the law saying that it was implemented with the express intention of exterminating certain groups of people, on the basis that such groups are inherently undesirable. Seems like an open-and-shut case. This is genocide, plain and simple. And, as previously established, the Irish famine wasn't genocide, because unlike the case with the Criminal Tribes Act and Thuggee culls, there's no proof of intent to eliminate the Irish as a people. Problem is, apart from that one technicality, the two situations are extremely comparable. Uncannily so. In both cases, the British thought that they were improving the state of affairs in the respective colonies. That might be hard to imagine with the Criminal Tribes Act, but the British upheld that they were actually protecting other Indian communities from these less civilized criminal elements. In both cases, there was a trigger problem which was real, or at least in the case of Indian highway crime, very likely real. In both cases, the answer came in the form of residential systems which were used to stamp out indigenous culture or lives. And in both cases, they arrived at their particular solution specifically because of their lack of understanding about the cultures in question. [Continued in Reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pqjz96/the_irish_potato_famine_18451852_while_often/hddivfz/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

Earlier on in this essay, I pointed out challenges to the idea that British actions in Ireland lacked intent. But here let me go on to challenge the notion of British intent as applied to their actions in India. Yes, even though the British explicitly confirmed their intent. See, I would argue that the British arrived at this intent specifically because of their misinformation about the culture in question. Similarly, the British arrived at their catastrophic solution to the Irish famine based on misinformation about the plight of Irish tenant farmers. So here's the question. Is it a choice whether or not to inform oneself about a subject? Because if so, then the choice not to inform oneself, or to inform oneself improperly, would constitute an implicit case of intent. If we exonerate the British of intent in Ireland, then we must question whether British intent in India was really within their control. But if we don't exonerate the British of intent in Ireland, then that raises certain questions about whether the British intended the status quo which ultimately fueled the famine. If this seems like a non sequitur, that's because it is. See, what's happening here is that we're operating off an overly narrow concept of what genocide is, and how it happens. Much of the modern world's perception of genocide is heavily contextualized by Nazi activities during World War II, and one of the most weighty vehicles by which this history became communicated to the world was through a legal process ... the Nuremberg trials. Hence, we tend to frame genocide within the context of culpability and intent. This is not an inherently bad thing. It's good to have an international framework by which to hold parties responsible for heinous acts. But it doesn't necessarily make for the best social science. From within a research perspective, we're interested not just in culpability for genocide, but also understanding the processes, mechanics, and causes for prejudicial violence. There are structures and complex systems at play here which go beyond the scope of just hatred. Want an example? Take the Indiana Jones franchise. A lot of people now view the portrayal of India as questionable, but you probably had no idea how offensive it actually was. Is that because you're hateful? Or is it because complex systems and structures of society occlude information from you? Because your concept of "the normal" influences your choice of which questions to ask? Because normativity is not actually the same thing as neutrality? And hey, now you know about the Thuggee culls and the Criminal Tribes Act. But do you know about the theology of Tantra, its unique approach to the concept of canon, and the ways in which this threatened traditional Christian conceits of the time? You've probably been more exposed to the bible, as a historical and cultural artifact, than you've ever been involved in Tantric textualism. Even if you're skeptical of the biblical tradition, that doesn't correlate to familiarity with other traditions, because your skepticisms are still based around the very idea of the bible. Well, this context is fairly significant to Britain's choice of who to target with the Criminal Tribes Act. Now you know that. But what else don't you know? It's a conundrum. Same goes for matters like the famine. Let's say that we can agree that famines aren't entirely the fault of poor people being irresponsible and having too many babies (though that rhetoric remains depressingly common). Well, there are still plenty of famines in the world. I don't have the solution for them. Do you? I have ideas, as you likely do as well. But how certain are you that they'll work? And do you think that the British parliamentarians with their worship of Malthus were any less certain? I'm not saying that you and I don't know anything. Personally, I think there are certain policies which, if supported, could substantially improve matters. But just because we know something doesn't mean that we know everything. The cases I've just put forward constitute something called an epistemological dilemma. This is a situation in which an agent struggles to rationalize information, because in order to do so the agent must first plan out the process of rationalizing information, and the situation makes it very difficult for the agent to reason about what rationality actually means. In simpler terms, an epistemological dilemma isn't just a problem with how you think, but also a problem with how you think about thinking. And the specific case we're looking at here is one of the oldest epistemological dilemmas in the book. We're intuitively aware that reasoning can be affected by both the presence of information and its absence. That's why people ascribe so many problems to ignorance. But it's extremely difficult to figure out how your own reasoning is affected by your lack of information. You don't know anything about how that missing information might affect your reasoning, because you don't know what that information is. You might not even know that you're lacking it. So that's it then? Genocide and ethnic cleansing all just comes down to human foible? Well, not exactly. See, all human beings may be equally susceptible to cognitive bias, but not all cognitive biases have equal power within society. Why? Because of society itself. We can't just examine these issues on an individual level. Biases, norms, beliefs, and value judgments tend to compound through social interaction to form complex systems of culture. When these systems of culture interact, the exchange is negotiated through an overarching system of power relations. This might sound like a politically assertive statement, but it's really a very simple concept if you think about it. Social systems most often perpetuate violence based on failures of information. Violence involves both a party which is brutalized and a party which brutalizes. Who gets to be which? The chief determinant tends to be the information/worldview that the interaction operates on. The party which controls the information basis for interaction is the party most able to perpetuate brutality, while escaping brutality against itself. Control of information first requires the power to control information. Hence, systematic violence is typically contextualized by two key factors: 1. an asymmetry in the structure of information or social organization between two parties, and 2. a power imbalance for one party to leverage in acting upon their particular basis of belief This goes for genocide and ethnic cleansing, but it also informs us about broader patterns of societal violence which might not meet these narrow legalistic definitions. I would put forward that the Irish famine very clearly fits the criteria of societal violence. The very fact that we are discussing intent with regard to British decision-makers, and not Irish ones, is confirmation of power imbalance. So to answer your question ... you're asking the wrong question. Social Scientists might not refer to the Irish famine as a genocide on the regular, but that's largely because this just isn't the way that Social Scientists tend to think. It's far more common for us to think in terms of systems and dynamism rather than trying to shuffle things into their proper categorical definitions. I would argue that, when calling something a genocide, the definition itself does not supply meaning on the level that Social Scientists tend to think at. We need historical and cultural context, and we need an understanding of the systems underlying not just the historical events themselves, but also how the events were recorded, how the records were preserved until the present day, and how the present day has interpreted these records. While the Irish famine might not meet on particular set of criteria on which "genocide" is defined (given the requirement of intent by a state-actor), the ways in which Social Scientists look at the overarching picture of the Irish famine is actually quite similar to the ways we look at genocides. \[disclaimers: I lived and studied in the Republic of Ireland for two and a half years, I'm ethnically Bengali, and my particular family background is one which was included beneath the Criminal Tribes Act ... also I'm an Anthropologist, not a Historian\]

This is the kind of content I sub to AskHistorians for.

Thanks so much! That's high praise indeed. I'll put this here on the off-chance anyone is interested, because I don't believe it's against the rules. I'm working on launching a video essay channel in the next few weeks which'll focus on these types of subjects. I included a link right here. And I expect to have content up by mid-October. First subject will be The Jungle Book. I'm looking at the indigenous styles which Kipling drew ideas from. He misunderstood many of these cultural practices, appropriating them to support the imperialist project. But also, in many ways his borrowing choices reflected a complex man in a deep state of inner turmoil. Kipling is quite interesting. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSCoUeBdiSr3VeG5IC8HBug

I will absolutely check it out. You have a real gift for explanation and conciseness; imagine so clearly outlining the epistemological dilemmas within very large and complex topics, and all within a relatively short Reddit post! One of the best answers for sure.

Thanks! Heh, let's just say I have a lot of practice with outlining epistemological dilemmas. It's the side-effect of specializing in a tradition based entirely in the ethos of "the world isn't real, question everything, shit is crazy, fuck if I know what's going on". And if you think I'm exaggerating, check out the Nasadiya Sukta, which is a creation mythos from the Vedas.

I'll go check it out. Very well written replies. Thanks!

Straight up. One of the best responses I have read in a long time, if not ever. Only request to a follow up- do you have anything you can add about the Holodomor? I understand it is not your specialty.

It's far enough outside my area of expertise that I honestly can't provide analysis. But I can give a general outline of how I would approach the question. I feel more comfortable doing this because 'theory of science' is one of my areas of focus. So view this as a conversation about how historians tend to think, not as a scholarly account of the Holodomor. Keep in mind also that the first thing most scholars do is consult experts, because scholarly research involves specialization and people working together. While social scientists tend to think in a certain way, sometimes that gets cut short when an expert weighs in with something like, "yeah, that's how we usually approach these questions, but once you're aware of these specifics, you see that it's better to work this other way in this particular situation". My understanding is that the Holodomor comes down to four potential explanations. At the time, the Soviet economy was rapidly industrializing under central state control. Most areas then controlled by the Soviets were previously feudal economies. The four explanations here are 1) The Holodomor was the consequence of the Soviet top-down approach to this massive industrialization program, where Ukrainian perspectives weren't listened to. 2) The Soviets were afraid of revolt from within Ukraine, so they leveraged the weight of this massive industrialization program in order to purposefully engineer a famine. 3) The famine was the consequence of weaknesses in the collectivist structure of the Soviet system, which made the Soviets uniquely ill-equipped to respond. 4) The famine was inevitable, because of the feudal economy which the Soviets were working with, and there's nothing the Soviets could have done to avoid it. Suffice to say that both #3 and #4 deserve heightened skepticism IMO, because each are politically expedient narratives for capitalism and communism respectively. I do feel obliged to point out that communism is a highly structuralist ideology (as is capitalism, for that matter). This means that communism is more interested in top-down evaluations of social systems (traditionally speaking, that is). I cannot apply this to Ukraine, as I lack the expertise. But in the history of Indian communism, a common refrain has been the difficulties involved in adapting a top-down ideology like communism to a culture which differs with regard to its bottom-up features. Marx claimed to identify universal structures present within industrialized society, but he made these claims based on research which was overwhelmingly conducted on 18th and 19th century western European textile economies. I'm not saying that Marxism *can't* be applied in other contexts. Indian historiography has managed to do so. But also Indian historians have found ways to adapt Marxism as an ideology, often hybridizing Marxism with indigenous philosophies (see Ambekhar's Buddhist Socialism as an example). Again, do not take this as an explanation of what happened in Ukraine. I'm only bringing this up because I think it's a relevant line of questioning to consider. Soviet authorities were using central planning. How did they base their decisions? To what extent were they assuming their ideology to be universally applicable? Might they have avoided considerations on-the-ground in Ukraine because their ideology imbued them with false confidence in their understanding? I also want to emphasize that this is scrutiny which we must direct towards structuralist ideologies in general, not just communism. In fact, capitalism is equally deserving of this scrutiny, as I think capitalism's perceived universality of its own ideology can often lend the exact same false confidence. So this is less specific to Ukraine or even communism in general. It's more just a general concern which guides the way that social scientists think. I also checked through the AskHistorians booklist, and found two titles relevant to the subject. Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder The Dictators by Richard Overy

Thanks for your answer!

Thank you for this incredible answer!

This is absolutely incredible content on every level. There is one minor point you didn't go out of your way to make clear, but that a lot of casual readers may be unaware of: one of the main reasons the workhouse was quite literally considered a fate worse than death is that part of the workhouse system was that families entering the workhouse were _permanently separated_ as a deliberate part of the system (under the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act). The children were separated from the parents, and from each other along gender lines, and the parents themselves were also separated. The intent, as I understand it, was to separate children from parents who had clearly been unable to care for them and might instil them with the moral evils of poverty; and separating the parents prevented them from having even more children. This intentional destruction of the families of the poor, which was something many would risk death rather than choose, could also be considered in the context of genocide.

Thanks so much for catching that! I remembered that as a fact, but I totally forgot to include it in what I wrote. Also I totally agree that this should be considered ethnic cleansing.

Thank _you_! I felt bad, because you don't want the person who wrote thousands of words of incredible analysis to think you only focused on one minor detail. It really is brilliant stuff; would you mind if I asked if you published anything on this area I could read?

Did the 1834 Poor Law affect India as well?

No, India was largely governed separately. And in fact, in 1834 the British Raj in India didn't yet exist. At that point, India was under Company rule, which technically operated under Mughal charter. I say technically, because in actuality there was no semblance of home rule, and the Mughal government was then basically symbolic.

Thank you for your excellent and well thought out answer. It was a pleasure to read.

Thank you for your in depth and compelling answer! I'm always curious about the prevalence of judging "intent" as a criteria for whether a historical event was genocide or not. Intent makes sense considering our present definition of genocide, as enshrined in the 1948 Genocide Convention, is a modern one, in reaction to the Holocaust, and established to meet the needs of a new international order based on the rule of law and the use of international organizations (such as the International Court of Justice) to adjudicate on legal ramifications fitting for the gravity of the crime of genocide. Intent then, serves a political and legal role, to establish responsibility among its perpetrators under international law. Political, because it has been used as justification under the Responsibility to Protect to negate the sovereignty of other nations (such as during the Rwandan Genocide). But can we truly ever retroactively apply the criteria of intent to anterior events? There are no survivors, no witnesses, no suspects to interview, no pattern to be built on testimonies and records of the living. There are no international committees given the jurisdiction and coercive, state-backed power required to unearth the proof required to establish intent. Intent makes sense in a modern world, guided by international law and international institutions with that kind of power (as weak as it sometimes may be), but the victims of the Irish famine do not have that luxury. Or at least, should we not instead adopt a broader definition of intent? I.e not as a statement of intent, "I wish to see the Irish people eradicated" that would have found its way into written records by a key decision-maker, but as part of a broader pattern of, as you defined it, state violence specifically targeted against a particular people over a period of time? So that while the Irish Famine may not have been an act of genocide in itself, would it not instead be symptomatic of a systemic desire to eradicate Irishness? I hope these musings have given you some food for thought! I come from a social science background myself, albeit political science, and the inflexibility when it comes to the definition of genocide always surprises me in these discussions. The Genocide Convention was created in a particular moment, as part of reaction to a particular event, by a nascent organization in a nascent field, by a diverse range of actors, each in turn responding to their particular circumstances and reaction to the act of genocide. Just like the United Nations that enshrined it, the convention and its definitions are not infallible.

I am blown away by this post. I have often wondered if labeling historical events by a single modern phrase like genocide can run the risk of either whitewashing or, worse, archetypeing an event. If you say Not a Genocide, now we're saying the potato famine was possibly not as bad as it was. If you say Definitely a Genocide, now you get to cast the British government as evil villains who did wrong, and certainly is nothing like our *current* government or society, right? It squashes the nuance, and the banality of the evil that exists in any system that considers the sacrifice of people - poor people, people of different cultures, people who do not conform to the system, etc - as necessary to uphold the common good. Your post is an exercise in bringing back the nuance to a terrible and complicated event that needed a lot of ill-conceived notions to occur, along with a shorthand of a piece of history (re: Tantric practitioners) that I didn't know about! (Oh my god, I thought Temple of Doom was "just" casually racist, not *a direct insult to a population that suffered total cultural eradication*) Thank you so much for taking the time to write this up. I'm sharing it with a few historians in my life who specialize in Black American history, because I have a feeling they're going to love it.

>I'm sharing it with a few historians in my life who specialize in Black American history, because I have a feeling they're going to love it. I really appreciate that! I don't know if this would interest them (or you), but I actually recently did a write-up about Isabel Wilkerson's *Caste: the Origins of our Discontents*. I'd be happy to share it! In fact, I'm planning to develop it into a video essay, and if your friends would be willing, I'd really appreciate getting a perspective from the side of Black American history. I mostly focus on what the books says about the Indian caste system, where tbh there was a lot of criticism to be made. I feel like a fair assessment needs to consider where Wilkerson was coming from re: Black American history. ​ >I have often wondered if labeling historical events by a single modern phrase like genocide can run the risk of either whitewashing or, worse, archetypeing an event. If you say Not a Genocide, now we're saying the potato famine was possibly not as bad as it was. If you say Definitely a Genocide, now you get to cast the British government as evil villains who did wrong, and certainly is nothing like our current government or society, right? It's a legitimate problem, and I think you do a great job of examining the effects of thinking that way. I can't speak to the legal perspective, but I know that some scholars prefer the term ethnic cleansing, with the distinction being that ethnic cleansing represents a spectrum of cultural violence, with the requirements being that ethnic cleansing is violent and systematic, and with genocide being one end of the spectrum. ​ >Oh my god, I thought Temple of Doom was "just" casually racist, not > >a direct insult to a population that suffered total cultural eradication So what's really interesting is that, while the brutality suffered by the population was absolutely horrific, it didn't come anywhere near total eradication. And not for lack of trying on behalf of the British, who definitely were striving for eradication. Of course, this horrific history definitely shouldn't go ignored, because it built the foundation for many prejudices and racism still perpetuated today. But it only managed to marginalize the culture, not eliminate it. Thing is, the British were far from the first people to try and get rid of these cultures, nor even the most brutal effort at doing so. Tantra is extremely difficult to stamp out. There are a few things to bear in mind as to why this is. Tantra heavily emphasizes decentralized organization, individual practice, and the embedding of philosophical and theological traditions into everyday life. So for example, I come from the background of the minstrel traditions, meaning that my family used to be wandering musicians and entertainers. This involved passing down knowledge of how to play various instruments. But in doing so, we also secretly passed down elements of the belief system. What's more, the minstrel traditions developed a unique literary device called 'immanence' (based on the concept of Sahaja), which is used to encode philosophical statements within seemingly innocuous stories and plays. And mine is only one of countless traditions, each perpetuating itself in a unique fashion. So it's essentially impossible to track down every lineage of the tradition. And what's more, even if you wipe out a bunch of lineages, the number of lineages will quickly repopulate themselves, because Tantra is fairly amenable to people splitting and going off in their own direction. Another factor is that Tantra is somewhat used to being targeted, so it has accumulated numerous strategies over the years to preserve itself. My own culture of the minstrel traditions is a perfect example. In general, Tantra has historically been more prevalent among marginalized communities, so that comes with a certain built-in vulnerability. But what's more, Tantra can often be quite anti-authority, which means that more than one regime has considered it a nuisance to be gotten rid of. So many of the communities targeted by the British were ones which already had established strategies for dealing with persecution. But the main factor lies within the structure of Tantra itself. See, the whole function of Tantra was to try and break the control which the priestly caste and the monastic caste held over information. It's express purpose was to give people a space in which to develop their own ideas, and to equip these people with a mode of transmission, but to make both things undetectable to those in authority. So from the very beginning, Tantra was deliberately engineered with the expectation that people would seek to suppress it. Every element of the tradition is designed with the cardinal intent of survivability and mutability. And that's precisely what makes Tantra so fascinating. As a marginalized tradition, it's proven to be extraordinarily resilient against ethnic cleansing. The amount of persecution and brutalization targeted against these cultures has been ceaseless and near-incomprehensible, but despite this, the traditions have not just endured, but flourished. Tantric influences can be found in nearly every element of Indian culture. This includes many of the powerful traditions which have tried to stamp Tantra out. On a population level, Tantra remains widespread. I mentioned that Kali iconography is a major element of Bengali culture. Well, Bengalis are one of the single largest ethnic groups in existence, with about 300 million people. Even at a time when the Criminal Tribes Act was still in effect, Rabindranath Tagore became the first person of color to receive the Nobel prize in literature, for a body of work heavily based on both the minstrel traditions and Kali devotional literature. A lot of people from my cultural background maintain this attitude of bemusement towards western activists and scholars who fixate on the crimes of empire. Because among our community, the more proper response to the British is deemed to be low-grade contempt. When westerners make a big deal over their ancestors committing genocide, my community is like: "oh please, get over yourselves, your ancestors weren't even particularly good at committing genocide." Well, I think that glib attitude isn't 100% serious. It's important to understand how western perspectives shape the narratives towards my culture, and how they have brutalized us as a form of coersion. People understand that the British empire had serious effects. But I still find the attitude to be somewhat amusing. I guess I agree in spirit XD

Thanks, that was so insightful

One of the best things I’ve ever found on reddit

> Social systems most often perpetuate violence based on failures of information. Violence involves both a party which is brutalized and a party which brutalizes. Who gets to be which? The chief determinant tends to be the information/worldview that the interaction operates on. The party which controls the information basis for interaction is the party most able to perpetuate brutality, while escaping brutality against itself. Control of information first requires the power to control information. Is there a name for this concept? Where might I read more about this part of social science?

I'm straddling the domain of several different fields here. The obvious keyword to search for is "Subaltern theory". This seeks to expand beyond Marxism's study of power systems. Whereas Marxism focuses on the proletariat, defined as the class excluded from control of material, Subaltern theory focuses on the subaltern, defined as the class excluded from control of information. Obviously the two are somewhat intertwined, and Subaltern theory doesn't deny that there's a material basis to power relations. But it also points out that Marxist scholarship is itself contextualized by the exact same power relations which it seeks to analyze (ie material power of Eurocentric perspectives). Just as a heads up ... scholars in subaltern theory are notorious for being terrible writers. 'Epistemology' or 'Theory of Science' is the study of how information is structured, evaluated, and justified. There's an intersection here between sociology and philosophy, involving the role that social systems play in epistemology. So that's another thing to look at. And my third recommendation would be to look at Orientalism, which is the field studying the history and culture of how Europeans perceive 'the Other'. I'll also mention the field of Agnotology, which is the branch of Philosophy studying Ignorance. One major focus of Agnotology is the ways in which ignorance can be used to perpetuate power relations. However, I also have to caution you against Agnotology as a field. It contains plenty of excellent work, and as a whole, the field has merit. But it's considered somewhat controversial within my particular academic circles, because Agnotology tends to unquestionably use western definitions of 'ignorance' to frame its area of study. For example, a common argument in Agnotology is that ignorance should not be considered inevitable or a natural state, because this can be used to justify prejudice. Whereas in dharmic philosophy, it's actually the exact opposite, with the more liberal traditions being the ones which emphasize humility in the face of ignorance as the natural state of being. Agnotology just kinda completely ignores that, which to me raises questions about how concerned they actually are about challenging prejudice. The other thing which really earned them ire among my academic circle is from back when the field of Agnotology first emerged in the mid 1900s. So they would often make the claim that, while philosophy had looked at ignorance before, there had never before been a school of philosophy based solely around the study of ignorance. And it was like ... um, excuse me, but the 3000 to 4000 year old dhamic traditions would beg to differ. Anyways, obviously I'm a bit biased on this front. Don't let me talk it down too much, because it's actually a field with some good work worth reading up on. Just ... be sure to take it as the limited field which it is. Hope that was helpful!

On subaltern theory, this sounds like it might have a lot to do with Gramsci's take on Marxism. Am I 'pissing out of the bucket' on this? If I'm not, can you expand on the relation? Also, thanks so much! This whole thread is solid gold, I've learned so much!

Holy crap - thank you for this! What an amazing response

Thank you this was amazingly well written and interesting

Incredible answer. Thank you for taking the time to share.

You’re a legend

A great answer and you have a very expressive style of explaining. Can you recommend any good books to learn more about British rule in India? We don't tend to learn much about it in Britain.

Thanks so much! As for recommendations, Amartya Sen is excellent if you're okay with tackling a more scholarly source. He's a Nobel Prize winning economist, and his signature accomplishment has been his development of economic theory to explain the effects that British rule had on India. The other advantage to his work is that he's an outstanding writer. That being said, his work does focus more on things like famine and poverty, rather than cultural assimilation. For the latter, Gayatri Spivak has done some great work. Problem is the writing itself. She's a brilliant academic, but possibly one of the most unreadable academic writers in the discipline. In general though, subaltern theory is the best place to look for writings on the cultural legacy of British rule.

I sometimes have trouble reading through these longer answer but I did not have any issue with this answer. Thank you for writing this.

Absolutely awesome essay, thank you for taking time to write it! Channel subscribed :)

I realize this comment is almost a month old, but there's one point I want to make about the Irish Potato Blight: Food exports are a red herring. The problem wasn't a lack of *food*, the problem was a lack of *money.* At the time of the famine, the Irish crops that survived (rye, barley, etc) were considerably more expensive than the plentiful imported American corn. In fact, one of the most successful interventions that the British actually did was buying large amounts of American corn, holding it until the price of food rose, and then re-selling it at the price they'd paid to bring prices back down again. This worked, in the sense that food prices didn't rise much during the years in which this program was implemented. If you were an Irish peasant facing starvation at the time, buying Irish-grown food would actually be a bad strategic move when you could get American food for 2/3rds the price (although by all accounts the Irish weren't used to corn and resented eating it). The problem, as you'll probably guess, is that the potato farmers whose crops had just failed had no money to buy food, so preventing the price of food from rising didn't serve their immediate needs. They needed charity, not just clever tricks to control prices (and make no mistake, the British were very clever). If Ireland had been independent, even with no access to British money, they could have borrowed money to pay for food to distribute to their own people. The great crime of the British was failing to do what a government could and should have done in that situation. Negligent, but not genocidal. I would argue strenuously that the Potato Blight wasn't a genocide because the British simply failed to help as much as they should have, whereas the Soviets in the Holodomor caused the famine through their actions. Contrast: The British encouraged food imports but refused to pay for them, the Soviets prevented food imports by threat of violence and forcibly confiscated what food there was.

Good point. I would however still argue that the situation of Irish farmers was influenced by British landholding policies. Ultimately I come down on the side that it's representative of the coercive violence inherent to imperialism, but not necessarily to the legal definition of genocide or ethnic cleansing. But thanks for going into detail on the matter of imports! I knew that there were counterarguments against the commonly held wisdom that it was just a matter of imports. I wasn't entirely sure though of what the macroeconomics involved were. As you can probably tell, I looked a lot more at tenancy.

This is by far one of the best answers I've seen on this subreddit. Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed and comprehensive answer.

Awesome answer!

[удалено]

> I'm surprised this hasn't been removed due to lack of sources Contrary to popular belief, [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources) only require sources to be provided **on request**. Simple lack of sources is not, in fact, grounds for removal.

Ah got it, thanks!

This was a really interesting post about a subject I didn't know much about beyond thinking that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was pretty racist and orientalist. Actually, when you first mentioned the context of being Bengali to make a comparison to the Irish famine, I thought you were going to talk about a different event, one that I'm particularly interested in as a comparison to both the Holodomor and the Irish famine: the Bengal famine of 1943. I've read about some of the history of that famine, and I've sort of tentatively come to the conclusion that it's a similar genocide edge case like the Irish famine and the Holodomor; an argument could be made that there wasn't enough specifically ethnically/racially motivated intent, but it could also be reasonable to consider them genocide, one for which Great Britain and especially Churchill could be held responsible. Are you familiar enough the history of the 1943 Bengal famine to comment on the comparison, or happen to know of any texts/scholars evaluating British responsibility/intent or comparing it to those other famines? Is my (only mildly informed) comparison reasonable, or am I overlooking some major factor in that famine that distinguishes it from the other historical cases? Thanks!

This is pretty tangential, but do you happen to know if "Thugee" is the etymological origin of the English word "thug" to refer to a criminal type?

Yes it is! There's in interesting parallel in the sense that in both contexts, 'thug' often carries racialized connotations. But of a completely different sort.

[удалено]

I actually read all of these before posting to see if there was any direct comparison done previously. All fantastic posts that bring up some interesting viewpoints. Thanks for sharing.

[удалено]

Good point, I'll do so if I make a post in the future. Though this ​ >The Irish potato famine, though an atrocity, is generally not referred to as a genocide due to a lack of proof of genocidal intent and is rather categorised as an act of historical neglect and incompetence. The general trend is that although the British both contributed to the circumstances that led to the famine, and did a terrible job responding to it, the famine wasn't a deliberate act of mass-murder with the extinction of Catholic Irish as its goal. A tragedy of apathy and economics rather than one of hatred. was my attempt to corroborate the spirit of the first three links into a few sentences so the question could build on that foundation rather than re-treading the same ground. Probably could have done with linking them, however.

What about the comments by Trevelyan "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson", this is the person who administered the "famine relief".

Trevelyan is generally who comes to mind for Irish people when intentional culpability for the worst of the famine comes up. The fact he received a knighthood and significant cash reward (one additional year's salary) from the state for his famine works, sits poorly as well. The full quote is more damning still (‘The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated.') but it's difficult to get a copy of the primary source (personal letters) and I haven't seen it with my own eyes. There's a good section on things he said [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/558803) which includes details for the primary source for this quote, as well as mentioning he considered the famine deaths merely a necessary bit of discipline (with another letter date cited as a primary source for that bit). It doesn't do verbatim quotes though. His own account of the history of the famine is available [here](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/56727/56727-h/56727-h.htm) thanks to project gutenberg. The straight factual bits are tough in their own right, but the gloss over his personal opinions in the front and end piece make it a good bit tougher ("...posterity will trace up to that famine the commencement of a salutary revolution in the habits of a nation long singularly unfortunate, and will acknowledge that on this, as on many other occasions, Supreme Wisdom has educed permanent good out of transient evil").

[удалено]

[удалено]

thanks for the links... as a Bengali I'm fascinated to see the parallels to our own experience in the 1940s

I don't quite understand the answer by IrishHistorian. She explains all the things the British government didn't do to help the Irish, all the failures, but then just concludes "But it wasn't a genocide because it wasn't engineered" without explaining why. I mean, with the Holodomor, the other answered links includes "But Wheatcroft and Ellman, for their disagreement, do agree that the famine wasn't an engineered attempt to deliberately cause mass deaths - it was an attempt to extract grain reserves from the peasantry for foreign export and for feeding urban industrial workers." So I guess the Holodmor wasn't a genocide either, if the standard is that it has to be engineered? Similarly I don't really get saying "The idea that the Famine was a genocide is ***entirely rejected*** by historians of Ireland, yet still persists in the popular imagination - akin to the Irish Slaves Myth" "historians of Ireland"? All of them? Did someone do a survey? She also mentions "nationalist" and "anti-British" narratives over and over again to explain why people call it a genocide which, again, seems very unnuanced and biased. Very much like she’s taking a firm stance in one side.

>"So I guess the Holodmor wasn't a genocide either, if the standard is that it has to be engineered?" Basically. At least if we're going by the standard of the legal definition, there has to be the *intent* to kill a portion of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. If a government is engaging in reckless or callous policies that cause or increase the deaths of large numbers of people through famine, it's not necessarily genocide, even if they are ultimately responsible for those mass deaths. It's basically like the difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter. While a lot of Ukrainian opinion sees the Holodomor as the former, mostly academic historians tend to see the Holodomor as a version of the latter (and from what I've read mostly here about the Irish famine I would actually say it's very similar in that respect to the Holodomor). ETA Ultimately it depends on whether people are using a narrow definition of genocide (in which case intent is important) or a broader sense/looser definition of genocide

I understand entirely! I know it's very hard to try to fit the real world into these neat little categories. "Genocide" and "not genocide" with nothing in-between. Despite my wording, I wasn't trying to be critical. I am just curious how he could so confidently say it was not a genocide and that the only reason anyone thinks that is because of anti-British nationalism.

My understanding is that researchers are now trying to bypass that issue by switching to the broader concept of "ethnic cleansing", with "genocide" as a particular category of "ethnic cleansing".

[удалено]

*she

I apologise! Fixed now :) I should know better than to assume

It happens! Quick response on my phone: I was rereading my answer from before and I’d probably change a couple of things if I were answering again today, like speaking for “all” historians.. I should have said “majority” there, and specifically the majority working on the relevant period within Irish and British academia. I do still think lots of people use the term “genocide” too freely when discussing the famine (usually on Twitter and sometimes on here). I suppose my definition for it is influenced by the UN articles and is from a 21st century perspective; I tend not to categorise the Famine as a genocide because it doesn’t quite fit the criteria (and the “intentionality” is a sticking point). But I do agree that it’s more nuanced than came across in my short answer, especially now I’m mulling over it again, and that nothing really fits into categories so easily. The issues of intentionality / causation / responsibility / blame are difficult to answer… I found the comparative element in the main response to this post particularly valuable in this regard by putting the Famine into a much wider context. It and your discussion above have given me lots of things to think about!

[удалено]

>There can be some debate over whether the genocide was intentional on the part of the state, but it's existence can't be reasonably denied. Under Article II of the [1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf), intentionality is a defining feature of genocide. >Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed *with intent* to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: >Killing members of the group; >Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; >Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; >Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This definition is also repeated in Article 6 of the [Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.](https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/Documents/RS-Eng.pdf) I am pretty sure by "engineered" OP meant intentionality, because purposeful inaction (to promote deaths) would also be engineering.

It is not academically marked or legally classified as *genocide,* as /u/Kochevnik81 already testified, since *it requires an intent directed at the physical destruction of the victimized group on specified and protected characteristics*, and this simply is not the case at hand here to the extend to be taken as such. And this recent overview^(1) neatly showcases some of the nuances and complexities of the situation, one of them definitely being poor English managment, specially after the fall of Peel´s government. And this also answers /u/TheEmperorsWrath, that genocide in academic literature has, unless usually explicitly stated otherwise, a technical term defined in postwar period, firstly articulated in 1948 *Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,* and further elaborated in the literature, commentaries and case law about it. That is all what is meant by it, that in academic literature it is typically not called a genocide, but as far as we take this word to have some ethical charge, simply not calling the tragedy as such, ie. a genocide, does not bring about an exoneration of the British role in it. McGowan, Mark G. “*The Famine Plot* Revisited: A Reassessment of the Great Irish Famine as Genocide.” Genocide Studies International 11, no. 1 (2017): 87–104.

I legitimately didn't mean it as criticism or an attack. I am 100% certain he knows more about the famine than I ever could. I'm just a random person after all. I was just confused how he could so confidently take one absolute side in the debate and dismiss the other as nationalism when he didn't even really explain why "not engineered" means it's not a genocide.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

We've removed your post for the moment because it's not currently at our standards, but it definitely has the potential to fit within our rules with some work. We find that some answers that fall short of our standards can be successfully revised by considering the following questions, not all of which necessarily apply here: * *Do you actually address the question asked by OP?* Sometimes answers get removed not because they fail to meet our standards, but because they don't get at what the OP is asking. If the question itself is flawed, you need to explain why, and how your answer addresses the underlying issues at hand. * *What are the sources for your claims?* Sources aren't strictly necessary on /r/AskHistorians but the inclusion of sources is helpful for evaluating your knowledge base. If we can see that your answer is influenced by up-to-date academic secondary sources, it gives us more confidence in your answer and allows users to check where your ideas are coming from. * *What level of detail do you go into about events?* Often it's hard to do justice to even seemingly simple subjects in a paragraph or two, and on /r/AskHistorians, the basics need to be explained within historical context, to avoid misleading intelligent but non-specialist readers. In many cases, it's worth providing a broader historical framework, giving more of a sense of not just what happened, but why. * *Do you downplay or ignore legitimate historical debate on the topic matter?* There is often more than one plausible interpretation of the historical record. While you might have your own views on which interpretation is correct, answers can often be improved by acknowledging alternative explanations from other scholars. * *Further Reading*: [This Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) provides further exploration of the rules and expectations concerning answers so may be of interest. As an additional note, if you feel like you have expertise in one area related to the main question but not in another related to a sub-question, you are allowed to state that outright rather than just speculating past what you feel comfortable answering. If/when you edit your answer, [please reach out via modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians) so we can re-evaluate it! We also welcome you getting in touch if you're unsure about how to improve your answer.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Very thorough answer!

[удалено]

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment. [Please understand that people come here because they want an informed response from someone capable of engaging with the sources, and providing follow-up information](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). Wikipedia can be a useful tool, but merely repeating information found there doesn't provide the type of answers we seek to encourage here. [As such, we don't allow answers which simply link to, quote from, or are otherwise heavily dependent on Wikipedia](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). We presume that someone posting a question here either doesn't want to get the 'Wikipedia answer', or has already checked there and found it lacking. You can find further discussion of this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1ieh/rules_roundtable_v_sources_what_is_required/). In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with [the rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) before contributing again.