 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Sender: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:20:14 -0400 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="windows-1252" |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Prof Perelman,
The primary point of my initial mail was to point up an instance of an
economist (Sen) seeming to ignore important historical facts in the drive to
derive an explanation he found politically palatable.
In response you cite Mukergee, who, in concert with Tauger and Bowbrick, is
defending what Sen called
“The imperial confusion, tying the causation of famines entirely to supply
conditions”
Sen and I are on the same page, in so far as we both have fears that the
official 1945 Famine Inquiry Commission report was something like a whitewash.
Was your intervention planned to support the British Imperial position
contra Sen, or is this a second case of an economist seeming to ignore the
facts in the drive to derive an explanation he finds politically palatable?
Rob Tye, York, UK
|
|
|
