The racist double standards of international development(aljazeera.com)
aljazeera.com
The racist double standards of international development
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/racist-double-standards-international-development-200707082924882.html
6 comments
> If Bill Gates saved even one African child's life,how many people can say the same, even in Africa or the "global south"?
While Bill Gates saved numerous people in poor countries (not only Africa) he doesn't do nearly enough to start important conversations on racial issues /s
Really, fuck the guy who wrote this article. Bill Gates is untouchable. But not many are and they can be scared into not getting involved with sensitive issues for the fear of being attacked in this matter. This kind of shit journalism is actively scaring people from making a difference, as small as they can.
While Bill Gates saved numerous people in poor countries (not only Africa) he doesn't do nearly enough to start important conversations on racial issues /s
Really, fuck the guy who wrote this article. Bill Gates is untouchable. But not many are and they can be scared into not getting involved with sensitive issues for the fear of being attacked in this matter. This kind of shit journalism is actively scaring people from making a difference, as small as they can.
The idea is to focus on solving the cause not the symptoms.
Should a philanthropic King that still supports and perpetuates absolute monarchy be honored for his gifts (which themselves ultimately are created by his subjects labour)?
Should a philanthropic King that still supports and perpetuates absolute monarchy be honored for his gifts (which themselves ultimately are created by his subjects labour)?
Yes,yes he should be so long has his gifts feed a starving person and save them from dying. What would you have him do? Fund a rebel movement and start a civil war to overthrow the monarch? Well CIA did plenty of that type of "philantrophy" and I think the result speaks for itself.
> I don't say that in ignorance of history
I can't see how you could write that without ignoring history. Colonialism was only ended ~70 years ago. Since then there's been a debt burden in its place. Add to that the direct coercive influence the global north, especially the US, have applied to the global south and this doesn't exactly paints a good picture of their supposed sovereignty.
I can't see how you could write that without ignoring history. Colonialism was only ended ~70 years ago. Since then there's been a debt burden in its place. Add to that the direct coercive influence the global north, especially the US, have applied to the global south and this doesn't exactly paints a good picture of their supposed sovereignty.
That's what I meant,being fully aware of that history, a sovreign nation is not owed further interference into it's internal affairs because of previous interference. Plenty of aid and interference has already happened in addition to the west cancelling the debt of most african nations.
The ideq that you think you owe them further interference is still colonial in nature,as if your wise interference/debt helps the inferior poor. You should respect their sovreignity and help them be responsible for their own fate. Look at how india is transforming over time,singapore turned into a global commerce hub and a few other success stories that happened because the people made it happen,not because the colonial masters interfered once again.
The ideq that you think you owe them further interference is still colonial in nature,as if your wise interference/debt helps the inferior poor. You should respect their sovreignity and help them be responsible for their own fate. Look at how india is transforming over time,singapore turned into a global commerce hub and a few other success stories that happened because the people made it happen,not because the colonial masters interfered once again.
Reparations is not interference. Debt forgiveness is not interference. An IMF loan that's granted if certain "reforms" are introduced is though.
Depriving a society of the consequences of its decisons is interference. Reparations is to help white guilt not the wronged people. IMF does not owe countries a loan, conditions to remediate risk makes sense.
Wow. That's just ahistorical sociopathy. Are you willfully ignoring that many of the consequences are not caused by their decisions.
> Reparations is to help white guilt not the wronged people
Non-sense. Because you feel it is?
> Reparations is to help white guilt not the wronged people
Non-sense. Because you feel it is?
AIUI, that $1.90 (wasn't it $2? no matter) wasn't intended to be a particularly good number, but was picked because having something was necessary, a lot of desperately poor people had less so it was in the right range, and no other number seemed better at describing desperate poverty. It continues to be used because it permits comparison with older data. I haven't noticed anything that says it's bad — for example, I haven't read that there's a lot of people whose income increases past $1.90 but the upward movement stops shortly above it, so that using $2.50 or $3 would lead to very different graphs.
The article seems to imply that using a much higher number would be substantively different, but I can't really tell why. Is it really just saying that counting desperately poor people is bad, and instead the number of poor people should be counted? Or is it saying that helping most of the desperately poor become merely poor is racist, we rich people would do more for them and faster if they had the Right skin colour?
The article seems to imply that using a much higher number would be substantively different, but I can't really tell why. Is it really just saying that counting desperately poor people is bad, and instead the number of poor people should be counted? Or is it saying that helping most of the desperately poor become merely poor is racist, we rich people would do more for them and faster if they had the Right skin colour?
What's unclear to you? How I read it is that the established way to measure poverty is largely just a way to justify and paint a rosy picture of the status quo, not based on actual on-the-ground facts of what number that actually lifts someone out of poverty.
It does seem like the poverty line is arbitrary, and it does seem low. Is racism the explanation for every small and large thing?
Where does the article mention the constant money printing which is continuously devaluing currencies all around the world? Does a poverty line even make sense in a world where the currency depreciates quickly? How about measuring the poverty line in terms of currencies which do not depreciate in this way, such as precious metals? Why not mention that all governments all over the world are incentivized to overpromise and underdeliver because they own the money printing press? If a person who is supposed to have a background in economics, such as the author of this post, doesn't even mention this, then what hope is there for the lay person?
Where does the article mention the constant money printing which is continuously devaluing currencies all around the world? Does a poverty line even make sense in a world where the currency depreciates quickly? How about measuring the poverty line in terms of currencies which do not depreciate in this way, such as precious metals? Why not mention that all governments all over the world are incentivized to overpromise and underdeliver because they own the money printing press? If a person who is supposed to have a background in economics, such as the author of this post, doesn't even mention this, then what hope is there for the lay person?
> constant money printing which is continuously devaluing currencies all around the world
Printing money does not mean currency devaluation. Keep in mind most of the so called "money" in the world is debt (and by most I mean almost all of it). It's created out of thin air.
I think a lot of people have just generally skewed ideas about how expensive things are because they live in expensive places. I live in Boston where everything is expensive and gentrifying, but it turns out the vast majority of the country is dealing with urban decay and their homes are too cheap to maintain their infrastructure, ect. All of the simple good are still ridiculously cheap. It's like $1.50 for a liter of milk still.
Printing money does not mean currency devaluation. Keep in mind most of the so called "money" in the world is debt (and by most I mean almost all of it). It's created out of thin air.
I think a lot of people have just generally skewed ideas about how expensive things are because they live in expensive places. I live in Boston where everything is expensive and gentrifying, but it turns out the vast majority of the country is dealing with urban decay and their homes are too cheap to maintain their infrastructure, ect. All of the simple good are still ridiculously cheap. It's like $1.50 for a liter of milk still.
One place this is abundantly clear is in the humanitarian sector, which I peeked into for a couple of years for a project.
For all the talk about participatory processes, the entire system is donor-focused. Its an army of well meaning folks from the Global North that are executing on an view set by donors.
There is grumbling about lack of "local capacity" but somehow disregard that expat staff move countries every few years and yet somehow have a strong grasp of local conditions.
Of course the situation isn't as binary and things are a bit more complex in real life - but makes you wonder why/how these structures persist.
For all the talk about participatory processes, the entire system is donor-focused. Its an army of well meaning folks from the Global North that are executing on an view set by donors.
There is grumbling about lack of "local capacity" but somehow disregard that expat staff move countries every few years and yet somehow have a strong grasp of local conditions.
Of course the situation isn't as binary and things are a bit more complex in real life - but makes you wonder why/how these structures persist.
That article is dripping with intersectionalism.
The author misses the point entirely. It's not that wages are good in these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.
It's not racist, unless you take the modern definition that any racial disparity is racist. Racism requires discrimination. Disparities do not always mean there is discrimination.
History has dealt these countries a bad hand. But things are getting better and they are getting better fast.
The author misses the point entirely. It's not that wages are good in these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.
It's not racist, unless you take the modern definition that any racial disparity is racist. Racism requires discrimination. Disparities do not always mean there is discrimination.
History has dealt these countries a bad hand. But things are getting better and they are getting better fast.
What do you mean by "dripping with intersectionalism"?
> these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.
The entire argument is that this is actually not happening. The figures are just doctored instead. Not sure how you can just state the exact opposite to the articles argument without presenting any evidence that the author misses.
> these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.
The entire argument is that this is actually not happening. The figures are just doctored instead. Not sure how you can just state the exact opposite to the articles argument without presenting any evidence that the author misses.
The argument the the poverty line is too low is fair. However most poorer economies are growing fast.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GD...
Yes GDP is not the best metric but it does show a trend. That wealthier countries are developing slower that poorer countries.
It's not happening everywhere but most countries that don't have political problems are doing well.
There can be an argument that the rich west is guilty of causing some of those problems. For example Iraq is due to American interface. You could argue most of Africa is still suffering from the power structure left by the British.
But these are the results of past so s not the current system.
By dripping with intersectionalism I mean the author is dropping intersectional buzz words everywhere without making the case for why they apply. This is normally a sign that someone is simply applying an ideology to view a problem rather than any genuine analysis.
Yes GDP is not the best metric but it does show a trend. That wealthier countries are developing slower that poorer countries.
It's not happening everywhere but most countries that don't have political problems are doing well.
There can be an argument that the rich west is guilty of causing some of those problems. For example Iraq is due to American interface. You could argue most of Africa is still suffering from the power structure left by the British.
But these are the results of past so s not the current system.
By dripping with intersectionalism I mean the author is dropping intersectional buzz words everywhere without making the case for why they apply. This is normally a sign that someone is simply applying an ideology to view a problem rather than any genuine analysis.
Not the current system? I recommend reading the author's book "The Divide" if you want information to nuance that.
The act of calling someone intersectional doesn't exactly make you look ideologically unbiased either.
The act of calling someone intersectional doesn't exactly make you look ideologically unbiased either.
Our history seems to celebrate all past conquests as great feats by super-human hero-like figures, when in reality they were sackers, enslavers, and robbers...
heck from the Egyptian Pyramids to Europe's castle's to Abu dhabi's big buildings.
It seems all of them are tainted with being built with a slave workforce...
Same goes for any multinational corporation exerting resources from their low-wage employees and the countries where they operate.
Sad thing is we, as a society, will probably celebrate/admire those who extract more.
Capitalism is a fucked up mindset, it has brought us to here, and that can be said to have some merits by itself, but I'm not sure it will get us much far ahead as it is...
heck from the Egyptian Pyramids to Europe's castle's to Abu dhabi's big buildings.
It seems all of them are tainted with being built with a slave workforce...
Same goes for any multinational corporation exerting resources from their low-wage employees and the countries where they operate.
Sad thing is we, as a society, will probably celebrate/admire those who extract more.
Capitalism is a fucked up mindset, it has brought us to here, and that can be said to have some merits by itself, but I'm not sure it will get us much far ahead as it is...
What's the better alternative to capitalism?
Something that is better at solving inequality. Something that aims towards egalitarianism, not property ownership.
Capitalism have had a couple of hundreds of years or so now, and it still haven't succeeded in this, even with all the technological progress since.
Capitalism have had a couple of hundreds of years or so now, and it still haven't succeeded in this, even with all the technological progress since.
Is egalitarianism and inequality the most desirable outcome of an economic system?
I'd argue it's not. I'd argue prosperity is. That is to say if the poor get far richer than they were and that keeps happening I don't care if the rich get richer faster. Especially if true class mobility is present in the system. That way the poor are trading places with the rich.
I'd argue it's not. I'd argue prosperity is. That is to say if the poor get far richer than they were and that keeps happening I don't care if the rich get richer faster. Especially if true class mobility is present in the system. That way the poor are trading places with the rich.
You rarely see people on the bottom of the ladder argue that inequality isn't that important. Prosperity doesn't say anything about how the resources are shared, so yes, 1890ths England was surely one of the most prosperous countries of the time, but at the same time children lived in Oliver Twist like misery.
The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that Capitalism fails miserably at redistributing resources fairly.
The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that Capitalism fails miserably at redistributing resources fairly.
Capitalism doesn't aim to redistribute resources fairly. It aims to allocate them effectively. Those that find efficient means of production acquire more resources. This cause more effective use of resources available and thus more resources become available for everyone.
Yes pure capitalism fails some people and a mix of small amounts of socialism help those in need. But prosperity does far more to help the poor than equality. Extreme inequality is bad
Yes pure capitalism fails some people and a mix of small amounts of socialism help those in need. But prosperity does far more to help the poor than equality. Extreme inequality is bad
You're just parroting free market propaganda and still have the stomach to dismiss the author as an ideolog.
If Bill Gates and friends owe anyone,it is the people of their own country. Plenty of poverty in the US even if it doesn't compare to Africa.
It isn't right to criticize a well intended act of generosity and call the person racist. Colonialism was racist, bill gates is not. If Bill Gates saved even one African child's life,how many people can say the same, even in Africa or the "global south"? Even if the rich "global north" is being racist, I think I prefer having that in the world than cynical onlookers that are of no help other than to critique those helping.