The major hole in your entire argument is the assumption that a) The people of Africa are fully capable of fixing their situation all alone and that b) We, as lavish and luxurious countries of minimal worries have done all we can do to help.
Neither of those really stand up to much debate. For A, it is clear from an understanding of how much of Africa works. For sub-saharan Africa, there exists a vast schism along ethnic, cultural and racial boundaries. Many tribes within nations operate fully on their own, with little to no outside contact. What you are suggesting is that these loose, primitive collectives somehow form a coalition to combat armed and rich warlords. Beyond simple technological problems, the logistics of herding these innumerable groups is unthinkable. They are not only outgunned, but out-organized. Not only that, but the way that these warlords work is by exploiting this division that already exists. Through many methods of intimidation, warlords enlist and grow. This has a perpetual, snowballing effect and amplifies the problem.
Now, to issue B. I will not spend much time explaining this because I think it is obvious. Our involvement in black Africa has been very minimal. The genocide in Rwanda was ignored largely because we have no interests there. There is no oil, there are no Americans, there isn't any money to be found. When Rwanda was colonized, there was an artificial segmentation of the Tutsis and the Hutus enforced arbitrarily - and based upon, of all things, the amount of goats one had. Not only was it our fault that these problems began in the first place, but when they began to get out of control, we (the international community) wouldn't lift a finger. Hotel Rwanda does a great job of showing this, but it was worse in reality. It is the same everywhere else too. The United Nations Peacekeepers are hilariously undertrained, underprepared and underutilized. Even when they are sent to an area, they are not really allowed to do anything. They are barely given a chance to enforce the peace. Off Duty police officers here in America typically have more power than UN Peacekeepers do in foreign nations. That's all well and good, but we also, as civilians, aren't doing enough. Above the necessities of life, we spend an enormous amount of money. On trash. On junk. On luxuries. We 'live the good life', while others starve due to situations completely outside of their control. Peter Singer wrote up a very interesting argument about the morality of donating to charity. Basically, he used the common train track example that we see in a lot of ethical arguments. It goes a little something like this:
A man owns a very expensive car, a Bugatti. He has worked a long, fruitful life, and the car is in wonderful shape. He will be able to retire soon and has only saved up enough money for the necessities - food, water, shelter. On the money he could make by selling it, he could potentially live very well. On a drive one day, he has has parked his Bugatti on some train tracks. There's a child on a nearby train track, and when a train comes, if the man does nothing the kid will be killed -- but the man has the option of throwing a switch, which will divert the train to the tracks the Bugatti is on, saving the child but destroying the car.
Now, no rational person says that we are to let the kid die to save the car. However, that is because the kid is very immediate, very personal to us. The fact that we could see him die in front of our eyes is very disturbing, and most people would not think twice about throwing the switch. However, that is exactly the opposite of what we do every single day. 5,000 die every single day from malnutrition, while we gorge ourselves. We refuse to throw the switch every time we choose to live above our necessities. When you have the option to have the car or save the child, it is hard to justify taking the car.
I don't want to get into all of the problems with the example, and I know they are plenty. The point is, we are not doing everything we possibly could to help the situation. As the richest (and most resource-hogging) nation on the planet, we are in a unique position of being looked up to by every person on earth (in a figurative sense). I think it very unfair and arrogant to tell Africa to sort it out. A lot of their problems come from the industrial, colonial powers. While Bush plays his games in Iraq ($1.2 trillion so far), our foreign/humanitarian aid only amounts to $10 billion annually - for the entire PLANET. What are we doing to fix our mistakes?
Good lord Matt... I think i just got schooled...but i haven't read past the first sentence yet. But i'm gonna. And what the fuck are you up to these days!? I haven't seen you in a minute.
So yeah. We should discuss sometime. Me you and Chris...and it mattrudes comes back from Ga.(y) sometime, him too. I'd be interested in it. I haven't had a discussion in some time.
Neither of those really stand up to much debate. For A, it is clear from an understanding of how much of Africa works. For sub-saharan Africa, there exists a vast schism along ethnic, cultural and racial boundaries. Many tribes within nations operate fully on their own, with little to no outside contact. What you are suggesting is that these loose, primitive collectives somehow form a coalition to combat armed and rich warlords. Beyond simple technological problems, the logistics of herding these innumerable groups is unthinkable. They are not only outgunned, but out-organized. Not only that, but the way that these warlords work is by exploiting this division that already exists. Through many methods of intimidation, warlords enlist and grow. This has a perpetual, snowballing effect and amplifies the problem.
Now, to issue B. I will not spend much time explaining this because I think it is obvious. Our involvement in black Africa has been very minimal. The genocide in Rwanda was ignored largely because we have no interests there. There is no oil, there are no Americans, there isn't any money to be found. When Rwanda was colonized, there was an artificial segmentation of the Tutsis and the Hutus enforced arbitrarily - and based upon, of all things, the amount of goats one had. Not only was it our fault that these problems began in the first place, but when they began to get out of control, we (the international community) wouldn't lift a finger. Hotel Rwanda does a great job of showing this, but it was worse in reality. It is the same everywhere else too. The United Nations Peacekeepers are hilariously undertrained, underprepared and underutilized. Even when they are sent to an area, they are not really allowed to do anything. They are barely given a chance to enforce the peace. Off Duty police officers here in America typically have more power than UN Peacekeepers do in foreign nations. That's all well and good, but we also, as civilians, aren't doing enough. Above the necessities of life, we spend an enormous amount of money. On trash. On junk. On luxuries. We 'live the good life', while others starve due to situations completely outside of their control. Peter Singer wrote up a very interesting argument about the morality of donating to charity. Basically, he used the common train track example that we see in a lot of ethical arguments. It goes a little something like this:
A man owns a very expensive car, a Bugatti. He has worked a long, fruitful life, and the car is in wonderful shape. He will be able to retire soon and has only saved up enough money for the necessities - food, water, shelter. On the money he could make by selling it, he could potentially live very well. On a drive one day, he has has parked his Bugatti on some train tracks. There's a child on a nearby train track, and when a train comes, if the man does nothing the kid will be killed -- but the man has the option of throwing a switch, which will divert the train to the tracks the Bugatti is on, saving the child but destroying the car.
Reply
I don't want to get into all of the problems with the example, and I know they are plenty. The point is, we are not doing everything we possibly could to help the situation. As the richest (and most resource-hogging) nation on the planet, we are in a unique position of being looked up to by every person on earth (in a figurative sense). I think it very unfair and arrogant to tell Africa to sort it out. A lot of their problems come from the industrial, colonial powers. While Bush plays his games in Iraq ($1.2 trillion so far), our foreign/humanitarian aid only amounts to $10 billion annually - for the entire PLANET. What are we doing to fix our mistakes?
What's up man?
Reply
I think i just got schooled...but i haven't read past the first sentence yet.
But i'm gonna.
And what the fuck are you up to these days!? I haven't seen you in a minute.
Reply
Me you and Chris...and it mattrudes comes back from Ga.(y) sometime, him too.
I'd be interested in it. I haven't had a discussion in some time.
Reply
Leave a comment