[eDebate] Hunger just is....
Wed Apr 15 11:46:21 CDT 2009
Can't go a whole spring without disagreeing with Jackie about something:
"There are studies that show how the term "malnourished" has been used to
justify outside intervention, that was not really hooked to need of food,
but desire to bring the green revolution to other areas. Once hooked on the
tractor, they needed fuel, once they needed to buy fuel to grow, they needed
capitalism. Locked in, then when out of money and indigenous techniques to
grow their own food like the previous generations they starve, kind like
what you say is hunger."
Those "studies" would be an interesting read given that indigenous
techinques and non-fertilizer based agriculture have NO chance to produce
either the amount of food needed to make sure people meet minimum levels of
food intake OR deal with climate change induced famine.
One of my former students Kenda Cunningham now works for Oxfam and I am
pretty sure she would find the notion that people would be fine but for
getting rid of capitalism and high yield agriculture sadly funny.
This is, however, a perfect example of a K argument that drives more policy
based people insane....Jackie's argument is a very good one about how we
should not use hunger as an advertisement, about how we should leave
indiginous folks alone if they are self-sufficient, and about how not all
people classified as hungry are hungry....This does not make it a reason not
to feed or attempt to feed hungry people....or help farmers in arid areas
get better technology so they can farm more efficiently....or to build a
better system for helping the hungry in weather based or oil spikes based
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Massey, Jackie B. <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
> Hey Jud,
> First, Obviously people are hungry.
> Second, I only roll with baby kritiks that are hungry for attention
> Third, I bet there were people that did get it. By defining what hunger
> is, narrowly or broadly, we can create the statistics need to justify the
> various results. There are studies that show how the term "malnourished"
> has been used to justify outside intervention, that was not really hooked to
> need of food, but desire to bring the green revolution to other areas. Once
> hooked on the tractor, they needed fuel, once they needed to buy fuel to
> grow, they needed capitalism. Locked in, then when out of money and
> indigenous techniques to grow their own food like the previous generations
> they starve, kind like what you say is hunger.
> There was no clear claim rather than the term "hunger" is culturally
> subjective and can be manipulative. Indian people weren't hungry, according
> to my ancestors, until white people and the plow showed up.
> I say this with the utmost respect, but I'm really not feeling you on this
> one. I think maybe its better to use the word malnutrition, meaning protien
> energy malnutrition, the ultimate result of which is death. It is a physical
> state of being. No one created it by use of language and regardless what you
> or anyone calls it, it has existed for thousands of years. Some of our
> earliest recorded history deals with the subject of famine. We know from
> anthropolgy and paleo-pathology that even before recorded history people
> suffered from malnutrition. No one who "thought they knew what 'nutrition'
> was" caused it. It is jsut what happenes when you don't take in enough
> calories to provide the energy the body needs to survive.
> P.S. Your post made me think of a little baby kritik before it grows up, so
> cute as it tries to reach out with its little links for anything to grab on
> to. Maybe as it matures it will find something better to link to than
> someone who, as you say, "wanted to help". If it gets enough to eat that is
> : )
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman