Thank you. I assumed the nuance there would be nitpicked (as the thread proves) which is why I didn’t post this but I’m glad you did. This famine is the expec

Thank you. I assumed the nuance there would be nitpicked (as the thread proves) which is why I didn’t post this but I’m glad you did. This famine is the expected result of 20 years of post-colonialist civil war, which the article goes on to explain lightly. The economist is a capitalist magazine, so they of course are going to choose terms which resonate with capitalists. The majority in this thread look at this situation as a failure of “valid liberal government” rather than the results of capitalist colonialism, which is what it is. Colonialist resource extraction by Western powers, exemplified by companies like Chevron, exacerbated ethnic and regional tensions in Sudan and Darfur by prioritizing profits over local communities. Specifically Chevron's involvement in Sudan's oil industry during the 1970s and 80s led to the displacement of populations and the allocation of resources to specific ethnic groups, heightening grievances and competition over land and wealth. The infrastructure and political systems left by colonial powers were designed to facilitate such extraction, rather than fostering equitable development, creating a legacy of economic disparity and weak governance. This upended centuries of pastoral farming, and created conditions for this massive civil war, as marginalized groups rebelled against a state that was perceived as both complicit in and shaped by foreign exploitation.