Why i think it's useless to help Africa the way we do it..
July 26th 2007 14:52
Hey all,
so, continuing the matter started in this post. I wanted to explain and separate the formation of governments following the education of their people.
First of all, i have to split the analisys in 2: one for the "free developed contries", another one for the "influented developing countries". What's the main difference between these 2? The first is the group of countries which were able to develop themselves without the external influence of other nations in their internal matters. I mean, France and England have undoubtely influented each other, but the relation between them is completely different than Spain/Latin America, or France/Africa. I think you understand what i mean...
So, in the case of these "free" countries, the education of it's people is the most important thing that defines it's government. Even for non democratic ones (in this case you can imagine that education is something missing for these ones..). I mean, you can even see how this happens around the world: Venezuela have a populist president, thinking he can save it's country this way (i think he really believes it..). It shows that the people started to develop a counciousness that they can define the direction the country is heading...and populist solutions are the first think they can imagine for a legitim government.
The main difference comes when talking about "influented" countries. In these ones you try to create a kind of government for people that are not prepared for it. Most countries in Africa are not even prepared for populist governments, and occident is forcing them to create democracies when the people there do not even understand the term...
I mean, we can think that this is a sweet idea..we're trying to help these poor countries to have good structures for their development. But this is not gonna work, since each president elected starts killing their oponents and ravaging the countrie's economies...
In the same case of Venezuela, we can see what happens when we try to influence a country. The US is now paying the price of having "helped" the venezuelans stay out of communism...
The best way to change a country is changing it's education, not it's government. Soon or later the government becomes the reflex of the education of the people. Or at least the majority...
So, here we get to the title: it is useless to help Africa sending them doctors and money. Just by your side there is Colt and the old russian KGBs to provide them guns...The best thing we can do for them is maybe giving education...even better, the ideal would be to completely quit their countries, and leave them evolve without us to "guide" them...
Rgs, Uula.
so, continuing the matter started in this post. I wanted to explain and separate the formation of governments following the education of their people.
First of all, i have to split the analisys in 2: one for the "free developed contries", another one for the "influented developing countries". What's the main difference between these 2? The first is the group of countries which were able to develop themselves without the external influence of other nations in their internal matters. I mean, France and England have undoubtely influented each other, but the relation between them is completely different than Spain/Latin America, or France/Africa. I think you understand what i mean...
So, in the case of these "free" countries, the education of it's people is the most important thing that defines it's government. Even for non democratic ones (in this case you can imagine that education is something missing for these ones..). I mean, you can even see how this happens around the world: Venezuela have a populist president, thinking he can save it's country this way (i think he really believes it..). It shows that the people started to develop a counciousness that they can define the direction the country is heading...and populist solutions are the first think they can imagine for a legitim government.
The main difference comes when talking about "influented" countries. In these ones you try to create a kind of government for people that are not prepared for it. Most countries in Africa are not even prepared for populist governments, and occident is forcing them to create democracies when the people there do not even understand the term...
I mean, we can think that this is a sweet idea..we're trying to help these poor countries to have good structures for their development. But this is not gonna work, since each president elected starts killing their oponents and ravaging the countrie's economies...
In the same case of Venezuela, we can see what happens when we try to influence a country. The US is now paying the price of having "helped" the venezuelans stay out of communism...
The best way to change a country is changing it's education, not it's government. Soon or later the government becomes the reflex of the education of the people. Or at least the majority...
So, here we get to the title: it is useless to help Africa sending them doctors and money. Just by your side there is Colt and the old russian KGBs to provide them guns...The best thing we can do for them is maybe giving education...even better, the ideal would be to completely quit their countries, and leave them evolve without us to "guide" them...
Rgs, Uula.
| 55 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I do realize that a post of this size cannot address all realities in Africa or any other developing country for that matter.
My cousin was a doctor working in Africa for many years as part of an NGO UN aid unit. Ih ave not seen him for some time but it is his habit to go from NGO role to NGO role rather than chasing money. Last I heard he went to Mongolia.
One thing I have come to realise is the value of a doctor when life is on the edge. The first people needed after any disaster is doctors and nurses. Immediate and emergency help for an immediate crisis. So I would never undevalue the role that doctors play.
Yet he he said that what was interesting was when the US had a go at taking over the project. The first thing they did was import large V8 American cars and set themselves up in airconditioned offices. Suddenly much of the budget was not getting through to those that needed it. However fighting against the mindset that USA knows best is absolutely pointless. The honestly believe that they know better than anyone about everything. (enough said about that)
Health education and a job are the basics and when you have those most countries tend to stay quiet. Agitation is usually only possible where their is large gaps between rich and poor. Unfortunately the Cold War was using small poor nations as pawns in a great world conquest. The supply of guns and weapons often took priority over support and help. Dictators would be supported as long as they opposed the other side. Smart dictators played their role and reaped person benefits beyond their imagination. This legacy still effect many nations today. just a Colonialism help build many of the unequal structures in societies.
Comment by Uula Limanski
Thinking The World
i understand your point of view concerning doctors in the short term help. The thing is that after talking to some people that spend some time doing humanitarian help, i got a picture that their help was useful for little time, but no big change could be done. unless the people change their minds.
It's simple, the guy the doc just saved will be killing his opponents in a couple of months for revenge..
well, its a tuff subject.. i think sometimes there are people who really spend their time trying to do their best for the world, and there are others that do the other way round and don't think at all about this...tell this to the people who get their money by making or selling rifles around...it would be so much better if they've spent their time selling beer..
cheers.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Don' get me started on the weapons traders. They have ruined my wife's country as much as anything.