Africa's real problem

[HumanTorch]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Jul 4 2005, 04:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Jul 4 2005, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Regehr Fan@Jul 4 2005, 03:38 PM
Their real problem is sex. They have too much of it without thinking.

Actually, the problem there is education. They don't understand the hazards of unprotected sex and don't realize that there is (of have access to) protection. [/b][/quote]
I understand that. But perhaps part of what people should be doing them is teaching them about sex and the dangers of it. I'm sure if they understood, they wouldn't be having sex thus not to bring a child into that kind of enviorment. No parent wants to see their kids starve.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Regehr Fan+Jul 4 2005, 11:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Regehr Fan @ Jul 4 2005, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, the problem there is education. They don't understand the hazards of unprotected sex and don't realize that there is (of have access to) protection.

I understand that. But perhaps part of what people should be doing them is teaching them about sex and the dangers of it. I'm sure if they understood, they wouldn't be having sex thus not to bring a child into that kind of enviorment. No parent wants to see their kids starve. [/b][/quote]
I'm honestly confused by this post.

Are you suggesting that we teach them about the dangers of sex (those being HIV and other diseases)

or

Are you suggesting that we teach them not to want to bring a child into their environment?

The first of your post suggesets the former, the last part the latter. But they are two very very different things.

Clarification?

[HumanTorch]

I'm suggesting we should teach them about the dangers. I'm sure if they understood they would not want to bring children into that type of world.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Regehr Fan@Jul 5 2005, 12:09 AM
I'm suggesting we should teach them about the dangers. I'm sure if they understood they would not want to bring children into that type of world.

OK...i'm still confused. Do you think they are not aware of the dangers of the society they are living in whether it be famine, poverty, disease and what not? Or are you talking more about the dangers of sex itself?

[badnarik]

i think africa should fix africa's problems

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by badnarik@Jul 5 2005, 11:38 AM
i think africa should fix africa's problems

I think whoever helped break it should help fix it.

[WCE]

Originally posted by badnarik@Jul 5 2005, 04:38 AM
i think africa should fix africa's problems

Fine...

Just tell that guy with the funny hat sitting in the Vatican to bugger off and keep his nose out of other people's business. The Church's ridiculous stance on contraceptives has been a key problem.

No doubt inudstrialization and urbanization are playing a key role as well. Young African men are moving away from their social saftey nets in villiages and into large cities where they often feel isolated. It's here that they meet up with women whose only means of supporting themselves is selling there bodies. Bad combination.

Then you toss in the World Bank, IMF and the rest of the western world meddling in government affairs of African nations...


WB/IMF: We want this much money

AFRICA: Oh shinguard, we don't have that much

WB/IMF: Ya, well you need to pay back all that debt, so we want it right now

AFRICA: Ok then...Well we still don't see how this can work.

WB/IMF: Here let us help you. First, how about the western world uses you as a personal toilet and you let them dump garbage, refuse and all other types of chemical waste on your continent?

AFRICA: That doesn't seem so great

WB/IMF: Well you are doing it anyway. Here is another way we can help you; we can sell you lots of chemicals from these western companies for your farming. And no we aren't just doing this to provide a market for our products. You need to produce more goods to meet our quotas.

AFRICAN: Ok

WB/IMF: The other thing we need you to do is start spending more on your original debt payments

AFRICAN: WTF? We need that money to build schools, roads, infrastructure, and provide relief for the poor and sick.

WB/IMF: Oh really? Here let me talk to the western world...


(whisper, bzzzzzzzz, whisper)

WB/IMF: Ok, there are a couple of countries that have agreed to provide you with more aid.

AFRICA: Holy cow, finally/

WB/IMF: There's a catch though. You need to change your political stance on such and such an issue. As well, we want to set up a few military bases there.

AFRICA: That doesn't seem like a good idea. There could be a lot of uprising/tension over this, that could lead to a lot of rebellion.

WB/IMF: Lets call it tough love.

[WCE]

Another important point is that we need to help provide for the education of women in Africa.

History has proven over and over again that as the average women obtains more education, the chances of her having a large family go down significantly. As well, the trend usually moves people into living in a more fair and egalitarian society.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by WCE@Jul 5 2005, 09:15 AM
WB/IMF: The other thing we need you to do is start spending more on your original debt payments

AFRICAN: WTF? We need that money to build schools, roads, infrastructure, and provide relief for the poor and sick.

Let's not forget their palaces, weapons, and gold chains/rings for the leaders. (and no, not all places in Africa do it, but to deny it happens at all?)

WB/IMF: There's a catch though. You need to change your political stance on such and such an issue. As well, we want to set up a few military bases there.

AFRICA: That doesn't seem like a good idea. There could be a lot of uprising/tension over this, that could lead to a lot of rebellion.

( snip )

Another important point is that we need to help provide for the education of women in Africa.

History has proven over and over again that as the average women obtains more education, the chances of her having a large family go down significantly. As well, the trend usually moves people into living in a more fair and egalitarian society.

So let me get this straight...

On political and economic issues, trying to guide their philosophies is bad and imperialistic.... but on social issues, it's a good thing?

[HumanTorch]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina+Jul 5 2005, 12:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JiriHrdina @ Jul 5 2005, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Regehr Fan@Jul 5 2005, 12:09 AM
I'm suggesting we should teach them about the dangers. I'm sure if they understood they would not want to bring children into that type of world.

OK...i'm still confused. Do you think they are not aware of the dangers of the society they are living in whether it be famine, poverty, disease and what not? Or are you talking more about the dangers of sex itself? [/b][/quote]
Like already mentioned, they are uneducated. I'm sure they are aware that their living conditions are not the best, but they clearly do not realize the dangers of having unprotected sex, ie AIDS and of course bringing children into such a poor life. Thus the reason I think perhaps if we are going to help them, we should also be educating them more and teaching them these types of things.

[Bingo]

interesting string ...

funny to see people so entrenched in their beliefs that the logical, common road seems to be almost ignored.

Corruption exists, AND so does poverty ... it's really that simple. Either way it's a problem that needs to be tackled and it's why I added my and my wife's name to the live8live list on the net.

Does it mean more money? Likely, and I'm fine with that. But it also means more control over how the money gets there, and what it's used for, and how it's distributed.

Why not take 20% of increased funds pledged by the G8 countries and use that money to devise a more systematic delivery process. It's a real shame how much money is spent on this planet in an attempt to look like a country is doing it's part when no real care is put into how it is actually being used.

Someone guessed for Canada to hit the Geldof/Bono targets we'd have to give something like an additional 42 billion over the next 10 years ... that's 4.2 billion a year. That's $131/yr for every single Canadian. For my family that's just under $600 a year and I'm fine with that if it goes to the right spot and not into some drug lords hands and then used for small arms to further genocide.

Lets just do this right for once ... fix it.

Maybe even get the UN involved actually doing something.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Jul 5 2005, 09:43 PM
interesting string ...

funny to see people so entrenched in their beliefs that the logical, common road seems to be almost ignored.

Corruption exists, AND so does poverty ... it's really that simple. Either way it's a problem that needs to be tackled and it's why I added my and my wife's name to the live8live list on the net.

Does it mean more money? Likely, and I'm fine with that. But it also means more control over how the money gets there, and what it's used for, and how it's distributed.

Why not take 20% of increased funds pledged by the G8 countries and use that money to devise a more systematic delivery process. It's a real shame how much money is spent on this planet in an attempt to look like a country is doing it's part when no real care is put into how it is actually being used.

Someone guessed for Canada to hit the Geldof/Bono targets we'd have to give something like an additional 42 billion over the next 10 years ... that's 4.2 billion a year. That's $131/yr for every single Canadian. For my family that's just under $600 a year and I'm fine with that if it goes to the right spot and not into some drug lords hands and then used for small arms to further genocide.

Lets just do this right for once ... fix it.

Maybe even get the UN involved actually doing something.

Agree with basically everything you said, except the UN bit. Their website seems to claim they do a whole mess of stuff, so I'm not sure where Maybe even get the UN involved actually doing something comes from... unless it's just a straight up shot at the UN, in which case... oh.

http://www.un.org/english/

It sounds like you're in favour of a more proactive form of humanitarian aid (which is probably the only way to really get 'most' of the aid to the people who need it). I'm all in favour of this too. The only issue is, we're bound to run into Somalia-like situations. How much, exactly, are we willing to give to ensure the aid gets to the right place? 1,000 troops lives? 10,000? Clinton buckled at just under 2 dozen, so the prospect of 'humanitarian intervention' becoming prevalent seems, at the moment, poor.

[WCE]

Originally posted by calculoso+Jul 5 2005, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Jul 5 2005, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-WCE@Jul 5 2005, 09:15 AM
WB/IMF: The other thing we need you to do is start spending more on your original debt payments

AFRICAN: WTF? We need that money to build schools, roads, infrastructure, and provide relief for the poor and sick.

Let's not forget their palaces, weapons, and gold chains/rings for the leaders. (and no, not all places in Africa do it, but to deny it happens at all?)

WB/IMF: There's a catch though. You need to change your political stance on such and such an issue. As well, we want to set up a few military bases there.

AFRICA: That doesn't seem like a good idea. There could be a lot of uprising/tension over this, that could lead to a lot of rebellion.

( snip )

Another important point is that we need to help provide for the education of women in Africa.

History has proven over and over again that as the average women obtains more education, the chances of her having a large family go down significantly. As well, the trend usually moves people into living in a more fair and egalitarian society.

So let me get this straight...

On political and economic issues, trying to guide their philosophies is bad and imperialistic.... but on social issues, it's a good thing? [/b][/quote]
I don't deny that there is horrific corruption there...Not in the least. However, I think it's important to remember who treated the continent as a strip mine, and who drew the magical borders on the maps we all look at today.


On political and economic issues, trying to guide their philosophies is bad and imperialistic.... but on social issues, it's a good thing?

Is there not a clear distinction between political posturing (ex. we give you money and you join our coalition on such and such an issue) and the promotion of universally accepted human rights, such as equality of the sexes and the right to education?

The latent function of what I proposed (the promotion of basic human rights) happens to limit family size, as young women gain the freedom and the option to move towards a career outside of the house. Subsequently, women (who previously played the role of baby-maker) on the whole will have less time to stay at home and raise 10 kids. They most likely even produce children later in their lives. This pattern has been repeated throughout history, and the theory behind it is widely accpeted in the sociological world.


Does this answer your question?

Please let me know if it didn't, i'm curious to see your response.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by WCE@Jul 5 2005, 08:50 PM
On political and economic issues, trying to guide their philosophies is bad and imperialistic.... but on social issues, it's a good thing?

Is there not a clear distinction between political posturing (ex. we give you money and you join our coalition on such and such an issue) and the promotion of universally accepted human rights, such as equality of the sexes and the right to education?

I agree whole-heartedly that women should have equal rights to men. You'll have no argument from me on that.

The point I'm picking is that we, the western/modern world, universally accept those human rights, but those not in the western/modern world (eg: Afganistan, Iraq, Africa, etc) may not think the same way that we do. We heard regularly during the Gulf War II that the Middle East did not hold men and women to the same plateau. Africa may be very similar.

As I'm sure you well know, rightly or wrongly, Bush has been viewed as being on a "pushing Democracy" spree right now. While I agree that "pushing Education" would have a much better impact on the world than "pushing Democracy", where does the distinction lie?

When does promoting human rights, such as gender equality, stop being promoting and start being pushing our morals/beliefs onto others? How much of a difference is there between promoting gender equality (UN right #2), democracy (UN right #21), and education (UN right #26)? (UN rights found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Bingo@Jul 5 2005, 02:43 PM
interesting string ...

funny to see people so entrenched in their beliefs that the logical, common road seems to be almost ignored.

Corruption exists, AND so does poverty ... it's really that simple. Either way it's a problem that needs to be tackled and it's why I added my and my wife's name to the live8live list on the net.

Does it mean more money? Likely, and I'm fine with that. But it also means more control over how the money gets there, and what it's used for, and how it's distributed.

Why not take 20% of increased funds pledged by the G8 countries and use that money to devise a more systematic delivery process. It's a real shame how much money is spent on this planet in an attempt to look like a country is doing it's part when no real care is put into how it is actually being used.

Someone guessed for Canada to hit the Geldof/Bono targets we'd have to give something like an additional 42 billion over the next 10 years ... that's 4.2 billion a year. That's $131/yr for every single Canadian. For my family that's just under $600 a year and I'm fine with that if it goes to the right spot and not into some drug lords hands and then used for small arms to further genocide.

Lets just do this right for once ... fix it.

Maybe even get the UN involved actually doing something.

Kind of agree.

It's hard to argue with aid. Judging by their website the live8 idea is driven as much by politics than aid, so that I won't sign, but whatever.

The tough part is deciding the right amount and where does the money come from.

If Canada hit the .7% GDP target I've heard kicked about, then the feds would actually send about as much aid abroad as they send to AB, SK, and MB each year - combined.

Or another way, if we've got an extra 4 billion kicking around that'd pretty much double what the Maritimes gets to spend on health care.

This is hardly couch cushion money.

It's easy for all of us to say 'spend more', but what are we gonna give up. $600 a year may not be much for some families, but for a lot of families $50 a month is a pretty big deal. To ask for the money is fine, to impose it on every single family in the country...man I dunno.

[transplant99]

A small example of why some in the developed/Western world have such a problem just pumpming money at problems, without having a say in where it is spent and what it is spent on.

Nigeria, which just won international debt relief thanks to its poverty, gave members of its under-20 national soccer team $112,000 US for finishing second at the World Youth championship. The 500 naira for each player represents more than a decade of wages for most of the country's 130 million people. With government decisions like that, no wonder Live 8 wasn't universally supported.

Maybe not "typical" of all African nations, but there is enough of this kind of ridiculous spending for one to stop and truly reconsider opening their wallet all willy-nilly.