|
Wow, mind if I step in and interrupt this anti-humanitarian circle-jerk for a second?
Firstly - and I'm basing this on the article in the OP and the endless succession of disparaging editorials I've had to read in the Australian media - I really do not understand the antipathy directed against Geldoff, Bono and the others who participated in the Live 8 concerts. Even if we assume the worst case scenario - that the debt-relief they're asking for will make no difference whatsoever - why the unabashed antipathy? They're trying to make a difference, they've put on free concerts to raise awareness for a cause that is both worthwhile and easily forgotten in western societies and they've caused no-one any harm by doing so. What, exactly, are you people trying to prove by slating them in such a way? Haven't they succeeded in raising awareness for the plight of people in Africa? Aren't individuals of all political creeds now publicly discussing the best possible solutions to alleviate this crisis? How, exactly, given this, are they deserving of the vitriol directed towards them by the self-righteous, right-wing fucks who, with all due respect, have done absolutely nothing themselves to help the situation?
Secondly - and this is what really shits me about the negativity of those who seem to have an inherent moral opposition to those who make an an effort to alleviate the plight of starving people - there is a ridiculous, completely unjustifiable naivety about the solution these people offer as an alternative. "What they need is democracy and responsible government", I hear, "anything else is just a band-aid solution". Well shit guys, that's all it takes is it? Any idea about how we'd go about installing responsible, democratic governments in about 50 largely war-torn countries though? I mean we've committed about 200,000 troops and $200 billion towards installing responsible, democratic governments in just two countries and even with that sort of commitment we haven't even come close to securing their medium-long term political futures - how the fuck, exactly, would we go about democratising a continent as large as Africa?
I mean, yes - having a responsible, democratic government in power in each of these nations would obviously greatly benefit their plight, but what are we to do in the meantime? Should we just sit around and watch people starve while we condescendingly espouse the merits of a certain political theory, as though the people who suffer the most have any fucking say in the political state of their country? I'm sure that the people of Ethiopia will be greatly encouraged to hear that the 300,000 of them who will starve to death this year, are only starving due to their lack of political freedoms. I know, for one, that if I were starving to death right now, I'd be greatly encouraged by the recent speight of op-eds lending their support to the potential democratisation of my country! Fuck, why would I need food when I have right-wing think tanks exploiting my plight to further advance their sickeningly didactic ideologies?
And this is my point: fine, we would all like to see democracy in African nations right now, but that is no excuse to do nothing in the meantime. Even if chunks of the $40 billion promised via this debt relief are funnelled into corrupt governmental coffers, so long as the poor bastards who are starving to death get some respite, then it's worth it. If some of this money is spent on the construction of infrastructure and sustainable, long-term agricultural programs instead of paying off unstainable debts, then it's worth it. If lives are saved, then, fuck me, it's worth it. If you don't agree that the lives of African people - most of whom will not live to see the democratic African paradise you dream of - are worth saving, then fine. Feel free to continue with your current policy of doing absolutely nothing while lecturing the rest of us about the merits of political freedoms (which you often seem to have a lukewarm commitment to preverving in your own homelands) because that attitude has really gone a long way to solving Africa's problems so far. If you do agree, however, that the lives of the African people are worth saving, then you're just going to have to suck it up and admit - although it might mean conceding some of the moral highground you so desperately crave to the humanitarians you hold an inexplicable hatred towards - that, at the moment, aid donations and debt cancellations are the only hope these people have - however slight that hope might be - of staying alive.
If you think there's a better, more realistic solution, let's hear it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Hell, look at, "Live AID". Almost 20 YEARS AGO when we first started seeing poor, malnurished kids and where are they now?
Square one. |
And if they're still here at all today as a result of "Live Aid" then it was worth it, wasn't it? Oh no, that's right: the Africans are a nebulous people completely devoid of any hint personality or individuality that might be worth preserving. Statistics tell us that people in Africa are still starving, therefore the lives of the people who have been saved don't count. Africans are just statistics afterall, so even if the lives of individuals such as the "poor, malnurished kids" you speak of have been saved through humanitarian effort it doesn't matter because that homogenous mass of organic matter known as "the Africans" are still starving in large numbers, right? Maybe we should start packing liberal quantities of "democracy" and "freedom" into those aid packages with the food and drinking water to help things along, huh?
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Renegade on Jul-20-2005 at 18:57
|