Make a post! -
SE relies on your posts for content. If you want SE to be an active community then we need your help
|
Thursday, 8 June 2017
quote [ In February, the United Nations estimated that 100,000 South Sudanese were starving, and that 5 million more — 42 percent of the country’s population — have such limited access to proper food that they don’t know where their next meal is coming from. More recent figures are not available yet, but aid agencies fear the situation could be much worse now.
South Sudan isn’t the only country in the region facing mass starvation. A potentially historic famine is also threatening Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen. Far from Western eyes and far from the headlines, an estimated 20 million people in those four countries are at risk of dying due to a lack of food. ] I'll post this before I get distracted by the next W.H. drunken twitter rambling
|
Comments
 |
papango said[1] @ 3:08am GMT on 9th Jun
[Score:1 Insightful]
Most famines are caused by nature.
No. That's not the case. And the example they give, 1985 famine in Ethiopia, was 100% political - the Government took a 'surrender or starve' approach to dissent in the north, there was plenty of food in the south. All recent famines (since 1750) have been political. |
|
profetscott said @ 5:12am GMT on 9th Jun
That's like the English owned farms in Irland exporting grain during the potato famine, though in more modern times it's mostly a military thing like your example .
|
|
papango said @ 6:38am GMT on 9th Jun
It is exactly that. It is far less acceptable now to let people starve rather than 'interfere with the market', but people are happy enough to starve their enemies.
|
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
