4 ms·
Yeah, that didn't get much exposure in the west. I've never even heard of it. Also, this isn't to say that the rest of the world was doing great either; lots
by Arizhel 10y ago
Yeah, that didn't get much exposure in the west. I've never even heard of it.
Also, this isn't to say that the rest of the world was doing great either; lots of other 3rd-world places were surely having a hard time too. But the question is, were they having an unusually hard time during the 90s, or was that normal for them? In former Yugoslavia, it was abnormal: before that they had stability behind the Iron Curtain, and after the war they had peace and stability too for the most part (though still some troubles with Kosovo). The war they went through in the 90s, and all that stuff with Milosevic, was an abnormal time for them.
- Arizhel 10y agoI guess one big one I did forget to mention here is Rwanda in 1994. Anyway, if you focus mainly on the western world, I think my point stands. For the West, the 90s were a great time, better than now overall IMO.
- bzbarsky 10y agoThe death toll numbering in the millions was pretty abnormal for the region, yes.
- Arizhel 10y agoHuh? According to Wikipedia, only roughly 140,000 people died during that 10-year period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars Still a horrific number, but one or two orders of magnitude fewer than "millions". There were millions displaced though. Edit: I'll also add that that number (140k) is far less than the number of Rwandans killed during their 1994 genocide, and in Rwanda's case that happened in just a few days IIRC, not over a multi-year period.