Justification for luxury living

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

People seem to be forgetting that there are beneficial bi products to selfishness.

Sure.

The exploiter makes (say) a million over-and-above what would be fair (i.e. he's greedy), and then gives ten grand back to charity.

Thats a great deal.

m1ke

Many justifications seem to have been trotted out as to why people should and shouldn't live in luxury / why people should give to charity etc...

But it all boils down to this point: why are people so unequal?

Well they are, so get over it... and stop thinking charity is the answer

Earthhorse

There's an interesting review of Robert Calediri's "The Problem with Africa" on Salon today, http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/07/05/caldirisi/, for those interested*.

I do think that aid to Africa works but it is not enough on its own. Social change needs to be part of the solution but it is impossible to manufacture that.

*(You may need to view an ad to read the article but it will be work safe and won't take long).

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote:

I do think that aid to Africa works but it is not enough on its own. Social change needs to be part of the solution but it is impossible to manufacture that.

Sure it works. For the short term. But it doesn't change anything. The African people clasp their tribal cultures close to their chests regardless of what they do in life. Whether they work in factories, offices, in schools, hospitals etc, the African people still look to their tribal leaders to lead them. And more often than not these tribal leaders call for war.

Most countries in the world have gone through the tribal thing already. It developed on its own into organised religion, and people became settled because of it. Africa hasn't. Despite the spread of organised religion, Africans love to kill each other, simply based on some tribal difference, or a religious faith.

I agree that Social change needs to occur. The only people capable of creating, maintaining, and bringing this change to a finish are the African people themselves. All foreign Aid does is delay them from achieving this realisation, because they can continue killing each other funded by the West.

Earthhorse

There are some charities, Self Help for instance - who promote and implement integrated sustainable development programmes in rural Africa, that are focused on the long term. So they do more than help in the short term. I doubt they are the only charity taking such an approach.

People may not want to face up to the fact that social doesn't just happen in big cultural upheavals but can take place on a smaller scale over a longer period of time.

I don't know that African's "love" to kill each other any more than anyone else on the planet nor would I agree with your assertion that aid allows them to continue killing each other funded by the west.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote:

There are some charities, Self Help for instance - who promote and implement integrated sustainable development programmes in rural Africa, that are focused on the long term. So they do more than help in the short term. I doubt they are the only charity taking such an approach.

I haven't said that all aid was ineffective. I said earlier that it was the money being thrown at them that causes more trouble. However the aid that comes in the form of volunteer work, building, and education is excellent. I just don't believe that supplying food will help those people change their cultures.

People may not want to face up to the fact that social doesn't just happen in big cultural upheavals but can take place on a smaller scale over a longer period of time.

I doubt too many people would say that it doesn't happen both ways. Society, any society, changes constantly in minor ways. Our own western Irish society changes minutely all the time. As does the cultures with the continent of Africa.

I don't know that African's "love" to kill each other any more than anyone else on the planet nor would I agree with your assertion that aid allows them to continue killing each other funded by the west.

Well, I'd look to the tribes that seek to wipe each other (man, woman, child) off the face of the planet. Actions like Rwanda spring to mind. Aid that is sent to areas under civil war, trouble with rebels, or famine invariably is siezed by the military or police. Very little actually gets to the civilians, unless its guarded the whole way by foreign troops.

I'm not suggesting that ALL aid ends up this way. I've never said that. Its my belief from reading about these wars for the last two decades, that material aid like food or medicines, rarely reach the civilians in any real measure, and that it instead goes to the very people that helped cause their trouble in the first place.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote:

I haven't said that all aid was ineffective. ...I just don't believe that supplying food will help those people change their cultures.

No, you didn't. But you did say that it "doesn't change anything". I'm saying that in certain cases it does change things.

Deleted User wrote:

Well, I'd look to the tribes that seek to wipe each other (man, woman, child) off the face of the planet. Actions like Rwanda spring to mind. Aid that is sent to areas under civil war, trouble with rebels, or famine invariably is siezed by the military or police. Very little actually gets to the civilians, unless its guarded the whole way by foreign troops.

I'm not suggesting that ALL aid ends up this way. I've never said that. Its my belief from reading about these wars for the last two decades, that material aid like food or medicines, rarely reach the civilians in any real measure, and that it instead goes to the very people that helped cause their trouble in the first place.

I don't know that these tribes or civil wars are different to those that take place anywhere else in the world. It is just your throwaway phrasing, that "Africans love to kill each other", that suggests there is something inherent about Africans that makes peace unachieveable. It's true that a lot of aid will not get through to war torn areas where it is difficult to work but Africa is a big place and there are plenty of agencies working exclusively in peaceful regions. So I think suggesting that aid rarely reaches citizens in any real measure is ignoring this and throwing too much focus on areas that grab the headlines.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote:

No, you didn't. But you did say that it "doesn't change anything". I'm saying that in certain cases it does change things.

Everything has the opportunity to change the cultures involved. A bug flying into a window screen might encourage an African leader to seek peace over trying to murder half his population. Or it might not.

The Aid you speak of may indeed change things in favour of peace and prosperity. Or it may not. It certainly hasn't to date for longer than a few years.

Guess I just wonder should we look to other means to change things, than trying to save them from themselves.

I don't know that these tribes or civil wars are different to those that take place anywhere else in the world. It is just your throwaway phrasing, that "Africans love to kill each other", that suggests there is something inherent about Africans that makes peace unachieveable.

Before Britain and the other European powers cut Africa into domains, the Africans wandered as tribes, and committed their own wars of genocides. During the occupation of the European powers, the Africans retained their tribal beliefs while being shuffled around the continent by european motives. As such tribal beliefs that have for thousands of years hated each other, are immersed forever together.

African peoples have had their own wars for centuries. European/western influence has done very little to influence them away from that. It will only be when they decide that it needs to be ended that this will stop. And that is what i mean by saying that Africans love to kill each other. Look at the nations that suffer civil war, or genocide. In many cases, these were productive countries that turned upon themselves.

It's true that a lot of aid will not get through to war torn areas where it is difficult to work but Africa is a big place and there are plenty of agencies working exclusively in peaceful regions. So I think suggesting that aid rarely reaches citizens in any real measure is ignoring this and throwing too much focus on areas that grab the headlines.

Grab the headlines? I've found that so much in Africa doesn't grab the headlines, because people are more interested in Iraq or in the US. People don't really care about the troubles that happen in Africa, because we've seen it all before, so the media hardly even bothers anymore.

Africa is indeed huge. For every country that has a war, there's one with peace. For every one suffering a famine, there's others that don't. Some countries are highly productive & successful. Others are beyond poor, and sink deeper each year.

If you want to read about Africa, you can find plenty of material. But you won't find that much information through Western Media, unless it directly impacts on our comforts.

But in many cases, I have watched successful countries rip themselves apart due to religion, tribal differences, territorial ambitions, racial tensions, etc. That is why I see that giving aid (material, not knowledge) doesn't help in the long run. The African people (overall) need to learn for themselves before anything will change.

Earthhorse

Okay, I guess I was a little loose in my use of the term "aid", which I extended to charities like Self Help who impart knowledge, as well as materials, to Africa. I believe it is this kind of strategy that will effect real change in Africa, or at least stands a better chance, but you won't read about it because they can't change whole countries at a time.

I think we're actually pretty much agreeing on what's happening and what needs to happen. When you say "should we look to other means to change things, than trying to save them from themselves" do you have anything in mind?

RedPlanet

The Corinthian wrote:

And if you give this aid to the local government/elders/warlords - how much of it do you think will actually get to those that are afflicted?

TBH, that's not really my concern.
Aid distribution is on his(their) conscience, not mine.
I really have no business poking my nose into their affairs.
Besides, where does that type of thing lead?
Aid shouldn't have strings attached, isn't that what the US or World Bank gets up to?
Aid given once said country sign-over rights to water, or oil for example.

The Corinthian

RedPlanet wrote:

TBH, that's not really my concern.
Aid distribution is on his(their) conscience, not mine.

Which returns us to my original point of the motivation being guilt rather than any genuine interest to help, which you’ve just demonstrated rather aptly.

But your conscience is salved as you’ve done your bit, even though you know none of that aid will get to those who need it. Sleep well.

RedPlanet

The Corinthian wrote:

Which returns us to my original point of the motivation being guilt rather than any genuine interest to help, which you’ve just demonstrated rather aptly.

But your conscience is salved as you’ve done your bit, even though you know none of that aid will get to those who need it. Sleep well.

How can i really know that none of my aid gets to those that need it?
Is it because the media say so?
A government?
Why should i trust what they say?

Would you advocate witholding appeals for aid on set of conditions?
Conditions to be arbitrarily made by whom?

It's like the old sanctions regime on Iraq.
After 12 years they accomplished little more than prolonging the suffering of civilians.
Maybe they also prevented Saddam from acquiring more military hardware. But sure, by the time he rolled into Kuwait his buying days were behind him were they not?
The sanctions prevented the people from empowering themselves, in whatever manifestation that would have taken.
And galvanised Saddam's hold on power.

Aid should be given freely.
Once you attach strings it is no longer "aid" but "Leverage".

The Corinthian

RedPlanet wrote:

Aid should be given freely.
Once you attach strings it is no longer "aid" but "Leverage".

I’d hardly consider attaching the string that aid should be employed for the purposes it was meant as leverage. If I give to a charity claiming to help the starving in Africa I’d rather it did that and not end up on administration fees or lining the pockets of some African interior minister. I’d also rather it went to solving the problem rather than funding a refugee camp that would become permanent because it makes more sense to get free grain than grow it.

You appear to be discussing conditions to government aid, and I’ve no doubt that the conditions are often very self-serving, but what’s being discussed is people donating to NGO’s, not them.