Certainly. But feeding people is an industry and a significant part of trade. Canada, USA and Australia are number 1, 2, and 3 among global wheat exporters. If trade is the answer, surely feeding people is part of that equation? And has been since Joseph was made chief under Pharaoh.
You know that the British forced them onto those small plots, right? And that the high yields of potatoes made them the only crop that would fend off starvation in a normal times with those small plots?
Itâs pretty rare for someone to make such a slam-dunk argument against themselves as defending the British role in the potato famine
Do me a favor really quick. Go back and read the rest of your post. Just to be clear, Iâm talking about the part where you say âthe famine wasnât caused by Britainâ. Thatâs the part I quoted, and thatâs the defense of British policy that impressed me so much.
Sure, without the blight there wouldnât have been a famine, but without the English-imposed system of tenant farming that led to an export-based agricultural system with poverty-stricken workers there wouldnât have been one either.
Good. We agree that Britain didnât CAUSE the famine.
Perhaps. But the tenant farmers system wasnât necessarily a British âpolicyâ imposed by a government. It was just the way things were. It existed in many places throughout the world and still does. The landlords tended to be English because they had the money but there were rich Irish landlords doing the same thing.
Iâm not taking the British side. I was simply replying to a comment to the effect that this was more or less done deliberately by the British. It harmed them too and the government changed significant laws as a result, but too late to save the starving.
No, we donât agree. Proximate and ultimate causes donât invalidate each other. If I set a pan of gasoline in a shop and a stray spark ignites it, Iâm still a cause of that fire.
As for your argument that it wasnât a deliberate policy, the English expropriated over 3 million acres of Irish land in the seventeen century alone. That didnât happen on accident. And neither did the legal system set up to legitimize and enforce the arrangement.
How much land got expropriated in the Americas? Australia? China? Africa? Europe? It was the way it was. Thatâs all. Weâve all learnt since then ⌠I hope.
How about giving them for farm equipment, irrigation equipment, and ways to clean water?
Most importantly, how about banning the export of Monsanto seed thatâs been genetically modified to no reproduce?
Nobodyâs arguing that emergency food is bad but the world food program does as much to support big agricultural interests as it does to support hungry people which creates a huge dependence on crappy food.
Itâs the fact that not even 50% gets to the people in need. And the money that is donated via ridiculous music festivals goes directly to bribes and Swiss bank accounts.
Very little gets to the people in need. When what little arrives to help, there is always a camera crew filming the event, making it seem that itâs more than it really is.
Yes and the huge amounts of grain we shipped to Russia via the world food program was used as collateral for big banks to give loans to the Russian defense contractors who were supplying Vietcong.
Iâm all for helping hungry people and the world food program would deserve the peace price if they had done that without lining the pockets of bankers and big agricultural companies that sell harsh chemicals and seeds genetically modified so they canât reproduce.
I presume you are referring to âThe Great Grain Robberyâ of 1972?:
Nothing said about WFP being involved, nor that this had any connection to Soviet weapons sale to North Vietnam. (Or to Viet Cong. They got a lot of their weapons and ammo from ARVN deserter and corrupt US supply line personnel)
Are WFP responsible for this?? They buy much of the food that is distributed locally, or it is donated by countries that have a surplus due to subsidies paid to farmers:
As to the harsh chemicals that is used in industrial high-intensive farming in the developed world and the companies that manipulate seeds and plants, you can check where they are from and who profit from their activity.
Hint: It is NOT WFP or any of the developing nations. (AKA âsh*thole countriesâ)
Just about everything you touch or use daily cause harm to human beings somehow, somewhere., but mainly in developing countries.
Main consumers of âstuffâ lives in the developed world.
The main reason for WFP is hunger, while main cause of hunger is wars and civil conflicts, which again is caused by big power rivalry and weapons sales.
From your link â WFP is the worldâs largest humanitarian agency, assisting 100 million people in 88 countries. Each day we have up to 5,600 trucks, 30 ships and 100 planes on the move, delivering food and other assistance in some of the most remote and challenging parts of the world.â there arenât 88 countries at war.
Your right but agricultural is still done âmainlyâ in first world countries. Factories are bad but we donât force the world to eat cheap electronics.
Of course the WFP does not profit, but the companies they buy the food from profit immensely!
Oh so because wikipedia mentions it itâs not true. Look at the date of that. 1972. What else happened in 1972? We started pulling out of vietnam and the vietcong stopped buying russian shit and Russia stopped getting secret grain shipments and stopped distributing them for profit to run weapons factories.
Did you read that book I suggested or are you just assuming I am wrong?
Yeah from big businesses that compete with local farmers.
Yet the agency has met with criticism that its food sourcing methods hamper already weak local food markets. The organization buys most supplies on the global market, and development experts have criticized it for offering contracts to major donors â like the United States â in what has come to be known as âtied aid,â or the practice of tying humanitarian donations to purchasing contracts. In response, it has pledged to eventually 10 percent of its supplies from smaller local farms.