![]() |
Should we remove all aid from Africa?
Preamble:
I have to start this off with a couple very very preliminary concepts that most likely won't enlighten anyone here because they already know. It's a necessary caution from my experience though. Please forgive me if you read this and already know these things though!
Now that's over with we can move on... I want to hear your honest opinions about one of these "sides", or both of them... or why you stand somewhere in the middle of them. I have opened up this discussion to be a bit "black and white" but you're welcome to discuss your opinions freely as well as take it on as though it's a debate and give some real citations. The reason I am doing this is because I believe this discussion can be conducted either way and I don't want to discourage anyone from simply stating their personal opinion on the topic. The question at hand here is Should we remove all aid from Africa?. This would consist of removing any "Make a well", "Adopt a children", "Save the Elephants", "Assist in Medical facilities" and "Assist in orphanages" programs. The list could go on, but it essentially includes both "volunteer" aide and financial aid given to the continent of Africa. It is up to you to decide if you consider assistance with natural disasters and other complex issues such as the Ebola outbreak. You may consider that sort of assistance in the same category as hurricane relief that we deliver, of you may lump it in with the rest of the aid we provide. Some may see it as different, others will not. Here is an article discussing this topic to get your though going if you wish to learn a bit more about it before stating your opinion: http://www.academia.edu/202805/Foreign_aid_and_development_in_Africa_What_the_literature_says_and_what_the_reality_is Here is an interesting excerpt from this: Quote:
The following questions are meant to get you thinking, you may answer all, or none, or some of them in your reply. It's up to you! Is all aid good? Can "every little bit help"? Or could we be creating problems as well? Some well building programs have resulted in abandoned wells that are invested with bacteria, creating unsafe drinking water due to the lack of maintenance and up keep as the workers and foundations that provided them did not keep up with maintaining the well nor teach someone(s) to do so. Not all well programs work in this way, however. Is catering our aid to what they can use a better alternative to halting completely? Should we leave them to establish their own self sustaining nature? Should we only intervene when substantial issues are occurring that may impact the rest of the world and/or are a question of human rights? A Word of Caution: I have provided articles and readings that I believe will help people learn more, these may appear biased but that wasn't my intention. I am truly unsure of where I stand on this on a personal level and hope to hear your thoughts. If anyone has more articles they believe should be added to the OP I will happily add them. ___________ Further reading: If interested. Dambisa Moyo, author of Dead Aid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambisa_Moyo, http://www.dambisamoyo.com/ |
Quote:
Quote:
And, of course, we all know people in developed countries always had an average birth rate of 1.5%, and there is no correlation whasoever between underdevelopment and birth rate, what are you talking about. We all know that if a formerly underdeveloped country increases its wealth, the birth rate will always and forever stay at 6%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#mediaviewer/File:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG Oh, and why not make a "starvation cull" of population around Europe, China, Australia, Japan and North America? Why only in African and Asian countries? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also a tiny little thing: South Africa is not the most developed country in Africa- it's the 9th, behind Libya (¡!), Botswana or Egypt. And please do not tell me you think it's okay to treat a large share of humans as fourth-rate walking animals in return for money. |
I don't feel like giving a long drawn out response currently so I'll summarize my views with this: Assistance towards an outside country should be minimal unless your country is currently not suffering from any major problems. If there are people starving in YOUR OWN COUNTRY, make sure that THEY GET FOOD before you try to feed the people of another country. The only exceptions I see to this rule are emergency situations such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks. I wouldn't classify the ongoing hunger/aids/etc issues in Africa as an emergency situation because they did not suddenly arise from nowhere and there are many factors contributing to the longevity of these problems.
I'm not saying we should outright ignore them, merely that in order to provide them with the best aid possible, we need to be secure ourselves. And we just aren't. As a result, it is sort of a lost cause until we can develop methods that are going to increase stability and create an environment where they can begin to provide for themselves. The old adage "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and eats for life" is never more true than it is in this situation. By providing emergency supplies when it is a non-emergency situation we are merely enabling them to continue living in this manner--and that's unacceptable. |
I am not going to answer the question because I simply do not have the expertise or experience to reach an objective conclusion. However I will raise some points I feel:
Firstly many African Aid programs have distorted our view of Africa (That we often think of it as a land full of poverty, starvation and AIDs), for starters why do we always say Africa and not individual nations. Africa is a very diverse continent Arabs in the Far North, as indeed most of the northern African are Islamic and the more South you go the nations are Christian (Ethiopia even has a sizable Jewish population) and in some Southern and Eastern Nations there are many Hindu and Sikhs. Many different languages are spoken and many different cultures exist. Secondly nowadays the charity industry (yes in many respects its an industry) make large amounts of cash which they pay staff (working in the charitable sector is quite desirable and some charity chairmen/woman get a lot of money). Not all charity's are like this but many big ones are, the money may be better used. Thirdly Corrupt governments are an Issue taking lots of Aid and using the money for their own ends rather than improving their countries economy. Fourthly many aid projects miss the point just giving food or supplies, rather than educating in sustainable agriculture, industry, health and infrastructure etc. Finally many aid projects are obsessed about the environment/global warming/climate change so don't introduce productive agriculture method (pesticides, Intensive farming, Tractors, GM foods even) and focus on (currently) less productive energy generation such as solar power rather than coal power/oil power etc. |
Eugh, I need to sleep, so for now I will keep this short and sweet, and divulge on my points later.
I have studied this previously, so I will come back to hopefully put my knowledge into an argument that can help stimulate this debate. Feel free to discuss these points, but as I said, I will detail my reasoning and understanding later. |
Colonialism has been speculated to be the cause of both the Biafran War and the Rwandan genocide. I think it's fair game that the western world pays reparations to the continent.
|
I had to take a double take at the title of this thread, and all I can say is: "Really? We're going to be discussing this? Really? Seriously?"
Sometimes. . . |
The ignored elephant in the room, China, is a big part of this discussion on how much aid Western nations should provide (particularly the US) and how that aid is dispersed among African countries.
Economically, there is a huge stake in African-US relations. Further, the China-Africa relationship, is a form of colonialism, which impacts culture and attitudes. This debate is framed as "should we (western countries) forgo African aid?" Unless, "we" is vaguely expressing that no country ought to provide aid, including China. Which can be confusing in taking a policy position and maximizing outcomes when we have no subject to advocate on behalf of. Is it, what's best for the world, a particular country(countries), or Africa? In either case, countries are rational actors, and there is investment potential both diplomatic/political and economic (resource, trade, and industry) in African development/aid. For countries that do provide aid, and are not overextended financially, are striving toward investing in diplomacy and economy. (Thus, US and other foreign entanglement with oil producing nations) My personal, nationalistic stake in this would tend to favor continuing African investment, though, seeking ways of developing long-term solutions and increasing economic development, which may lend itself for better living conditions and ability to support stable democratic government. An indebted trade partner with tons of resources in addition to being a diplomatic ally (and perhaps foothold), may serve the US (myself) beneficially. Though, in theory that is how it ought to play out, there are always risks incurred with foreign entanglement. Though, is allowing for China to maintain that strong economic and cultural foothold more risky? (especially to democratic and westernized states) |
Quote:
|
I think we should continue giving aid to Africa as long as evil dictators like Mugabe don't steal the money.
One think they should stop is having stupid super groups singing insincere Christmas songs every 10 years thinking it's gonna help impoverished Africans. (I'm talking about those social justice warriors Bob Geldof and Bono.) |
^Yeah, I pretty much agree with the above.
Aid should definitely continue, but we need to be aware and regulate that it goes to the right people and that it actually helps with the development of the nations. |
Quote:
All of the statistics you shared are far worse for both feral, endangered, and non-endangered animals so it leads back into my original question of how we’re so much more deserving of help than some other sentient beings with just as much emotion and livelihood as our own. That’s bullshit. As far as the OP’s Africa goes, it’s a lost cause. There’s too much turmoil that’s socially impenetrable to justify aid that we can have confidence in - ergo, it won’t get stolen or wasted; or, as Limerent mentioned, jacked through mass murder or other hideous human shit going on in Africa that no one on the pity-party boat wants to mention. |
I think if our motivation is truly to do good, we need to look at both the short-term and long-term implications of our actions and move forward in a way that allows those we aid to grow strong on their own without fostering dependency. As the line goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
I do not presume to have the best answer as to how to accomplish this. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:03 PM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.