Diageo Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 I was recently read out an article during Health Psychology class, in the theme of quality of life. I was wondering what other people's opinions are on the subject. Here's the article: No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today. So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count. One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . . Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him. There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and intimate system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this. It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it. But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled. Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts. Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world. This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital joystick as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera. Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa. They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS. Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley. So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country? How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and intimate abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough. For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed. It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating. If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that's an idea.
The Peeps Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 It's never going to be a popular opinion but it has it's points. Is it true though? Is the country in a worse state now than 25 years ago?
Cube Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) The reason the countries have developed like that is also our fault. Our interference - and opening them up to certain technologies - has completely destroyed their development. They've been given all this stuff when they should have developed their own way to utilise what they have - rather than getting used to relying on others. The problem is, now we've given them this stuff, it isn't easy to take it away. Edited April 24, 2012 by Cube
Jonnas Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 I remember reading a similar article before, and I can't help but agree with the most vital point: short-term aid isn't solving these countries' problems, it's actually worsening them. Investing in better education would do wonders for most African countries, in the long run, but most aid programs seem to be, essentially, acting as replacement for hospitals, schools, and other vital services, instead of encouraging the development of local equivalents. The result is a country filled with people who don't/can't work to improve anything around them, be it society, health conditions, or even themselves.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Just giving stuff to Africa won't help. To turn African countries into well-functioning socities will take an enormous effort which, quite frankly, I have no idea how or if we can or should provide.
Yvonne Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 The article is extremely dehumanising. It takes the valid criticism of the "white in shining armour" aid paradigm, but then does violence to valid humanitarian goals with it. Fighting malaria is, according to givewell at least (http://www.givewell.org/) , the most effective pound for pound charitable contribution available, when looking to reduce harm. If you mix this with investment in education and water, you have a society that can stand on its own feet, naturally has lower birth rates, and higher quality of life. Saying malaria is the only thing "keeping us safe from more bloody africans" is chilling. A big problem with the article is it considers african states, african governments, african people, african starving and african militia all as the same homogeneous mass. It tries to hide its racism in plain sight by calling it a fresh as yet unheard of opinion, when in fact its the oldest thing under the sun.
Dan_Dare Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Even if the point is that short term aid efforts are *shock* short term, the article is still a load of fucking racist bullshit.
heroicjanitor Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 I agree with Cube and I agree that it's racist. Especially the bit where it suggests we should let them die of malaria to keep their population under control, lest they give us more AIDS lol. It should instead say we need to give them the tools to help themselves, rather than have them rely on us so much. i.e. education.
Diageo Posted April 24, 2012 Author Posted April 24, 2012 The article says that due to the malnourishment of their developing years. They can't be educated to control their own behaviour.
Frank Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Interesting article. I hope people actually listen to what he is saying first before destroying him with "rascist" remarks etc. I think the problem is people just don't really care enough to actually 'solve' the parts of Africa in need of help.
EddieColeslaw Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Relevant: I read stuff before about how sending teachers over actually does their education harm, because it's so short term unless the volunteers stay there permanently. And it's always different people and organisations dipping in and out, which disrupts their education. But yeah. It's difficult to discuss rather than throw ideas and criticism back and forth...it's a whole big continent they're/we're trying to help, it's not gonna be easy. I don't have any answers because I'm not a genius. That article has a point, but it is also very negative and could do without stuff like "Africa[..] is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS". But points like this are good/thought-provoking (but are they correct? I am no historian): "Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa."
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 The article is worded somewhat negatively, but it seems to me a tool for drawing attention to the issues rather than a reflection of actual opinion. Even if not the case, I still wouldn't call it racist in any way. Cynical, yes, but not racist. And cynical or not, the point raised still stands.
Jamba Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 This was a thought provoking article. As he says not popular or particularly compassionate but he raises some good points. I wonder about the effects of education though really. Take South Africa for instance: a country that has massively benefitted from investment in infrastructure, education, industry and (from what I am told) healthcare from European cultures some of whom have moved there to benefit first hand from being involved. Now we see a situation where attitudes, religion, corruption, dictatorship and retaliation lead to this country slowly tearing itself apart and ruining much of the good work done. My point being that education from an outside culture seems to become resented quickly and even thrown out. Surely the education has to come from within, a slow learning process that changes a societies inherent attitudes and culture over long periods of time.
Yvonne Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 All truly effective aid efforts support the recipients of aid in doing what they would if the resources were available to them, and education is no different in this way. They need books, desks, buildings, water. Everything else follows. If you want to see how education reduces birth rate, look no further than the USA!
The fish Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 It is pretty much universally acknowledged that the key to population control is the education of women. Sadly, to a worryingly large number of people (read: stupid men) the concept is nothing short of satanic.
The Bard Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Complaining that Africa isn't contributing anything to the world at large is pretty much like the schoolyard bully making the observation that the runty kid has a bit of inner turmoil after he spent the last one or two hundred years being robbed of his lunch money and having his head stuck in the toilet
Iun Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Complaining that Africa isn't contributing anything to the world at large is pretty much like the schoolyard bully making the observation that the runty kid has a bit of inner turmoil after he spent the last one or two hundred years being robbed of his lunch money and having his head stuck in the toilet Oh, we're going with colonialism again are we? How simple. It's ENTIRELY the fault of all the colonial powers. All these nations strip-mined, raped, cheated, thieved and stole from the natives and when they finally left, they made sure it was ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for basic law and good governance to emerge. Yes, it is UNQUESTIONABLY the legacy of colonialism that has rendered the human beings there completely powerless to better themselves, in fact, I'm sure I read somewhere that the last act of the colonial powers to spread a neuro toxin that renders the DNA segment responsible for COMMON SENSE to be rendered permanently inert for however long is convenient to keep blaming the white guys. In fact, the early colonisers of Africa had tailor-made a virus that FORCED certain tribes to be complicit in the slave trade as well! It was horrible! Srsly: 1: Enough with colonialism-is-to-blame-for-everything. 2: Fiscally the "debt" has been repaid by governments and civil society. 3: Emotionally it's harder to repay, but most people are suggesting that corrupt governments, mental people like Joseph Kony and the superstitious idiocy of female circumcision are in fact the fault of white coloniser who were shit. Instead of suggesting, well, the people who are doing it are shit. "Aw, you razed a village to the ground and raped all the women.... Did you do it because your ancestors were beaten by white people? Yeah? Aw, you poor thing, we understand and we're sorry that we made you do it because our ancestors were shit. You're absolved of any blame."
The Bard Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) This isn't about some sort of abstract emotional trauma inflicted by colonial powers, it's about a disruption caused - and one that's irreparable through intervention - in the natural development of those countries. In countries where there isn't enough material sustenance for a child's prefrontal cortex to grow beyond adolescence, you're stuck with a cabal perpetually trapped in a juvenile tribe mentality, without the executive functions that keep the surge of our otherwise unnecessarily large adrenal glands in check. Except in this instance, we had fortuitous foresight to provide them with kalashnikovs and landmines, and to estrange them from their own endmic cultures which might have given them some sort of dignity, in the same way that early tribal folklore tends to enshrine virtues such as reciprocity (which in the west, we don't need culture to uphold because we have the good grace of having enough food so that our brain actually manages to grow to the point where we can reason). Also: Do you ever post anything that isn't silly bullshit? "Fiscally the debt has been repaid," doesn't account for the fact that the material wealth was robbed at a time that was actually significant to the development of the continent in question. It's like smashing your little brother's SNES when he's 5 and then buying him a ZX spectrum to make up for it when he's 50. Ok I'm done with the retarded analogies. Edited April 24, 2012 by The Bard
Iun Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Also: Do you ever post anything that isn't silly bullshit? Well now, that was awfully rude. This isn't about some sort of abstract emotional trauma inflicted by colonial powers, it's about a disruption caused - and one that's irreparable through intervention - in the natural development of those countries. So let's just lay back and forget about it then, if it's unfixable through intervention as you so grandly claim. In countries where there isn't enough material sustenance for a child's prefrontal cortex to grow beyond adolescence, you're stuck with a cabal perpetually trapped in a juvenile tribe mentality, without the executive functions that keep the surge of our otherwise unnecessarily large adrenal glands in check. Except in this instance, we had fortuitous foresight to provide them with kalashnikovs and landmines, and to estrange them from their own endmic cultures which might have given them some sort of dignity, in the same way that early tribal folklore tends to enshrine virtues such as reciprocity (which in the west, we don't need culture to uphold because we have the good grace of having enough food so that our brain actually manages to grow to the point where we can reason). And so we can blame the Romans for the Dark Ages? Excellent. This "Using History as a Crutch" really does have legs, doesn't it! You'll pardon the pun, I hope. Fact: Colonialism was bad, but it's over. Fact: No empirical evidence that resources taken would have led to improvement in living conditions. Fact: Help was given, accepted and relied upon as the only means of self-betterment. Fact: Financial aid totalling billions has been lavished, appropriated and wasted. Conclusion: People are shit, wherever they are from, for whatever reason you care to espouse. There is ample evidence for that.
The Bard Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 To disabuse you of certain ridiculous notions: 1. There being no "empirical evidence." Apart from, you know, the fact that precious stones, metals and minerals had and have substantial international exchange value, and around which entire industries are centred. I think it stands to reason that if we hadn't rifled the bowels of the continent, that it might have made use of these things. Now, Africa, to my knowledge, still has substantial calculated gold reserves, for example, but none that are superficially accessible by anything other than a full scale industrial operation. The fact that plantations growing cotton, tobacco and coffee were established across the most fertile land to be found in the colonies. The reason this was a problem was that these crops naturally take a toll on the land ie. their roots dig deep and substantially drain the soil of minerals and nitrogen containing compounds. This is bad enough in itself, since the harvests aren't being used to enrich the continent itself. But then, you have to take into account the fact that agriculture consists of cycles; you reap the harvest of one season, and then the subequent cycle is spent allowing the soil to recuperate. But we didn't care about that: so long as there was another pound and another dollar to make, we kept on truckin. The raw labour power that was, lets say "appropriated," and in the process of this, the infrastructures that had arisen in Africa naturally, were totally fucked. The result: major major parts of the previously fertile land that was counted on to feed and sustain native populations are now inarable. So yeah, by "irreparable" what I mean is that I guess the west can't fix what it's already fucked up, but it can at least attempt to propitiate the symptoms of the disease it's engendered.
Iun Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 That's weird, my last message didn't post, how bizarre. I spent a long time writing it... ah well. Can you just assume that I wrote an eloquent, hard-argued and well-thought-out response to your post that totally cowed you and won you over to my way of thinking? Thank you!
EEVILMURRAY Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Slightly heartless article, but sadly does make some sense.
Iun Posted April 25, 2012 Posted April 25, 2012 Slightly heartless article, but sadly does make some sense. As much as anything else, it's Compassion Fatigue - you've had three decades of help and you're worse off than when you started, we tried and now you can drag yourselves up for a change. Which is heartless, but there's only so much heart to give.
Recommended Posts