> > Well, I'm not advocating Colonial Rule with this article--I leave that
> > to you--but I say CHARITY IS NO GOOD either. The real solution would
> > be tribal-cooperative micromanagement, not big government
> > bureaucracy--often fed by international interests.
> So why don't the locals do something about there problems,
> surely digging wells is within the recourses of most villages. If
> it is not then maybe Darwin's laws should be allowed to take their
> natural coarse.
The problem is the lions use camouflage to prey on them. Remember
Blair's "We got to work together." They may not even see it, and it's
our duty to "call lion." I'm sure that, if even if they don't rebel,
they would run...
Sure, the "water well" is within the possibilities of the village, but
they also need the education, the healthcare and the environmental
care that go with it. How about promoting these?
Otherwise the "water" may as well be used to quench the thirst of some
fat cats in far away places.
> We mustn't forget it's much easier to sit on our fat arses and
> moan about our human and civil rights, than it is to actually
> do something ourselves to improve our lot.
That happens everywhere, no? They are not the only victims, I'm sure.
Right in the heart of America we got some people living worse than in
a village in Africa.
> > Charities
> > Are charities killing Africans?
> No but corrupt and inept governance is
Which works beautifully for the West, right? Say corporations buy key
officials, and get "special treatment" and so on. Isn't that the way
> Charities and Aid programmes do a lot of good, there is an Indian
> general dealer in Northern Botswana that sells maize at rediculously
> low prices. The bags are marked "Aid Relief not for Sale", so at
> least someone is getting fat on aid, and they'll be many more doing
> the same all over Africa.
> A few years ago driving through Malawi I noticed hundreds of locals
> sitting on the side of the roads selling cooking oil, provided by Aid
> agencies. When I enquired why they were selling it, they informed me
> that they didn't have any food to cook, so therefore it was useless to
Not only is good for some "entrepreneurs" but also good PR for artists
doing charity in Africa. I wonder if any of them favors FIXING THE
> > What we do know, is for the last sixty years interfering do-gooders
> > have poked their noses into a continent that neither wanted or asked
> > for their help. And in no small part, it's this interference which has
> > generated the problems Africa faces today: poverty, social
> > deprivation, malmutrition, disease and any prospect of recovering
> > their status to an acceptable standard of living. Quite simply, it's
> > the over indulgence of western liberals - often motoivated more by
> > greed than conscience, that have engineered a system of irrevocable
> > extents. More often than not, the need of the average African has
> > played second fiddle to the exceptional arrogance of the western
> > sycophant
> I,ve gotta agree with you here, the problem is Westerners in general
> don't understand Africa or it's people.
Perhaps they don't care or perhaps they think it's too far. But it's
not, my friend. Poverty is a cause of instability, and what goes
around comes around.
> > Before the second world war, Africa retained a level of economic
> > independence, especially those countries controlled, run and
> > maintained under the British empire. Take an example. Under the
> > British Empire Rhodesia was known as the Bread Basket Of Africa, a
> > prosperous well managed country with every attribute of the modern
> > western world. But when Independence came, motivated mainly by
> > liberals, it changed its name to Zimbabwe, Mugabwe was placed in
> > power, and within twenty years of self-rule Rodesia went from being
> > the second richest country in the African block, to the second
> > poorest. Today, six million people face starvation. What is the world
> > doing. Nothing! Before independence the good people of Rodesia hardly
> > ever starved, most had some form of employment and the majority of the
> > children in this impoverished region received a basic standard of
> > education. Medical treatment was also available to those who needed
> > it. Most bleeding heart liberals will say that's not true, but the sad
> > fact is, it is true. What is also true is most African nations before
> > the second world war also had an element of self-respect. They didn't
> > have much, but at least they could hold their heads high and proud.
> > Yet after the second world war all that changed. A culture of so
> > called caring emerged from an over enthusiastic middle-class breed of
> > left wing politicos and self appointed pressure groups who believe,
> > rather naievly that they could do a better job than nature. These
> > radical, dope smoking, rock playing hippies became active primarily in
> > the late sixities, and then conveiniently built-up a steady head of
> > steam throughout the seventies, eighties and nineties. The money
> > poured in. Yet in pursuit of such blinded action Africans were seduced
> > from their land. They abandonded their small farms and moved
> > lethargically away from their traditional farming techniques to find
> > bountiful aid stations packed with rations. Rather than offer the
> > Africans a hand-up, cynical aid agencies offered them a hand-out. It
> > was this which undoubtedly created a culture of dependency.
> Agreed, but they're so very skilled at being dependant.
Even the pigeons of Trafalgar Square grow that way. Or the thousands
of homeless who roam America's streets. Feeding them makes them
"DON'T GIVE THEM THE FISH, TEACH THEM HOW TO FISH."
Unless, of course, you want to promote some "big fish" in Africa...