Letters - 29 January 2010
Readers' letters and emails
You need to login to view the rest of this article and comment on it
If you don't have an account you can register here
Comments
.png)
Subscribe to The Friend
Many reasons to subscribe:
- Get The Friend first every week
- Become a part of the Quaker community
- Prices start from just £48 per year
- Get a FREE trial of the new website
I am sorry but Audrey Urry’s letter does not sit easily.”(27 Jan 2010, ‘God and Haiti’). The telescoping of resource and social geography:
“The human disaster now being endured in Haiti is the result of the history of the island that has led to the poverty and unsuitable development of the area”, (Who is resposible for the economic exploitation and development of the area in the past?)
do not relate to the geophysical nature of an area, recovering from, at least, 2 major storms 2 years ago, and is part of a major geophysical fault line.
Even ‘developed’ nations like the USA are still recovering from storms like those which destroyed New Orleans - was that an unsuitable development of that area? What about San Francisco, Tokyo and areas on the Pacific ring would the same comments have been made? Remember the Boxing Day tidal wave? Do the same comments apply? If not, why not given the development of Bali etc.?
It feels as if the victims are being blamed here but shouldn’t we be looking wider?
In Friendship
Peter