The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Whilst doing homework waiting for friends in the student lounge at college (stay with me)...I heard, what is to me, the dreaded sound of clincking money in a collection cup/bucket/hat/coffee jar. Then it dawned on me, children in need is soon...I quickly turned around and saw somebody walking up to random students saying 'give money for charity' and I thought 'ah don't come up to me'.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not the charity I have the problem with (as i explained to a friend later that day) it's the people who do it. I really don't want to be a stick in the mud but i should at least be able to expect people to do something for my money (baked bean bath??) if it's going to a good cause. As I said, I have no problem giving money to charity but the people who collect it are just idiots. The aforementioned friend, in the chairty discussion, even said that he knew someone who got sponsered to cycle somewhere or other and actually kept the money...i know this is dipping into another matter but I'd really be annoyed if I knew that happened...and whos to say it isn't?! not to be all paranoid or anything.
anywhoo, i just thought i'd say, if your collecting money; at least do something for it!
oh yeah, and about the person collecting in my college, i readyed some money but he didn't come over :)
Now don't get me wrong, it's not the charity I have the problem with (as i explained to a friend later that day) it's the people who do it. I really don't want to be a stick in the mud but i should at least be able to expect people to do something for my money (baked bean bath??) if it's going to a good cause. As I said, I have no problem giving money to charity but the people who collect it are just idiots. The aforementioned friend, in the chairty discussion, even said that he knew someone who got sponsered to cycle somewhere or other and actually kept the money...i know this is dipping into another matter but I'd really be annoyed if I knew that happened...and whos to say it isn't?! not to be all paranoid or anything.
anywhoo, i just thought i'd say, if your collecting money; at least do something for it!
oh yeah, and about the person collecting in my college, i readyed some money but he didn't come over :)
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> Apologies if my earlier posts were a bit heated, but this is something
> that I care quite a lot about. Red mist etc.
No sweat, I'm just the same sometimes and have bashed many a person on here with my views, all part of the fun :)
I won't continue to reply point by point to you replies, not because I can't or because I don't think you have valid points, but because this is a subject where there are different views and that could be discussed endlessly - and all the time that discussion rages on - as it has done for the past 50 years or so - the real problems remain. Poverty, deprivation, disease and so on, and it is the fact that these remain in today's world that has led to the world situation we see today. If the Third World countries had not found themselves in the state they were in the 50's, then many of the terrorist groups seen today could hot have grown so large. But that is past, and can't be changed, only the future can be changed.
~~Belldandy~~
> Apologies if my earlier posts were a bit heated, but this is something
> that I care quite a lot about. Red mist etc.
No sweat, I'm just the same sometimes and have bashed many a person on here with my views, all part of the fun :)
I won't continue to reply point by point to you replies, not because I can't or because I don't think you have valid points, but because this is a subject where there are different views and that could be discussed endlessly - and all the time that discussion rages on - as it has done for the past 50 years or so - the real problems remain. Poverty, deprivation, disease and so on, and it is the fact that these remain in today's world that has led to the world situation we see today. If the Third World countries had not found themselves in the state they were in the 50's, then many of the terrorist groups seen today could hot have grown so large. But that is past, and can't be changed, only the future can be changed.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Tell that to the Third World which has to repay the WB and IMF but not
> charities. Kind of a big difference no ?
What I meant was this: the work of most charities in the developing world does not have conditions attached to it. (Some religious organisations do, and I'm certainly not defending them, but they are the exception rather than the rule.) The work of the IMF and World Bank does have conditions attached to it - trade liberalisation and privatisation of public services. I do know that one gives loans and the other gives aid: I was just comparing how they made their decisions.
> If NGO's continue to constantly step in and provide all services then
> no one is even going to consider using the private ones anyway, and
> the few public ones there are have the staff poached by NGO's as well
> in all but rare cases because the NGO's offer higher wages. As it is,
> under SAP's, or structural adjustment programs :) , the absolutely
> poorest can still access free health care.
The whole point is that the poorest people *can't* access free health care, because once you privatise then anything unprofitable gets junked pretty quickly. This means that the rural clinics that most people rely on don't just change management, they shut down all together. In some countries there is provision for people who can't pay - but the privatised hospitals are concentrated in urban areas, and the rural poor don't have access, either because of physical distance or financial reasons. Oxfam and company don't set up in competition with private healthcare, but rather fill the vaccuum it has left behind.
> No one is saying that these
> people shouldn't have access to such services, it's just that it does
> undermine governments by handing control of vital services to a non
> elected non governmental body from a foreign country.
I absolutely agree. The trouble is that when the IMF and World Bank make their loans and bail-outs conditional on privatising services, this is exactly what happens. Electricity, water supply, health care - it doesn't get run by local firms, but bought up by multinationals. The same sort of thing happens with direct 'aid' from foreign governments. It usually takes the form of huge contracts for British (or whatever) firms - in return the developing country gets a shiny new motorway, but has the same moribund economy it had before. It seems like we're pumping capital into Africa, but we're pumping it back out with the other hand.
I don't want Oxfam branded hospitals popping up all over Africa, but this isn't what happens. In general NGOs provide capital for local projects that are run by the communities they serve; that done, the NGOs step back and let the projects run themselves. It's not perfect but the general trend is to hand control back to local people - and if their own governments can't provide, then I think this is their perogative.
> I don't like the way they are designed, they're consistently done to
> make people pity people, and they use images of straving children and
> so on - exploitative in other words. Sure, some people may have thier
> heart strings pulled by this, but they'd get more donations with more
> informative adverts.
Yeah, sorry, I don't like them either. Still, it doesn't make charities evil :)
> And the 85% thing, their's two lots of admin charges, of which you're
> identifying the costs for in this country before the money even goes
> into the projects themselves, which have their own administration
> costs.
The reports I looked at were pretty detailed, and seemed to take this into account. I really, honestly think that this statistic is wrong.
Apologies if my earlier posts were a bit heated, but this is something that I care quite a lot about. Red mist etc.
> Tell that to the Third World which has to repay the WB and IMF but not
> charities. Kind of a big difference no ?
What I meant was this: the work of most charities in the developing world does not have conditions attached to it. (Some religious organisations do, and I'm certainly not defending them, but they are the exception rather than the rule.) The work of the IMF and World Bank does have conditions attached to it - trade liberalisation and privatisation of public services. I do know that one gives loans and the other gives aid: I was just comparing how they made their decisions.
> If NGO's continue to constantly step in and provide all services then
> no one is even going to consider using the private ones anyway, and
> the few public ones there are have the staff poached by NGO's as well
> in all but rare cases because the NGO's offer higher wages. As it is,
> under SAP's, or structural adjustment programs :) , the absolutely
> poorest can still access free health care.
The whole point is that the poorest people *can't* access free health care, because once you privatise then anything unprofitable gets junked pretty quickly. This means that the rural clinics that most people rely on don't just change management, they shut down all together. In some countries there is provision for people who can't pay - but the privatised hospitals are concentrated in urban areas, and the rural poor don't have access, either because of physical distance or financial reasons. Oxfam and company don't set up in competition with private healthcare, but rather fill the vaccuum it has left behind.
> No one is saying that these
> people shouldn't have access to such services, it's just that it does
> undermine governments by handing control of vital services to a non
> elected non governmental body from a foreign country.
I absolutely agree. The trouble is that when the IMF and World Bank make their loans and bail-outs conditional on privatising services, this is exactly what happens. Electricity, water supply, health care - it doesn't get run by local firms, but bought up by multinationals. The same sort of thing happens with direct 'aid' from foreign governments. It usually takes the form of huge contracts for British (or whatever) firms - in return the developing country gets a shiny new motorway, but has the same moribund economy it had before. It seems like we're pumping capital into Africa, but we're pumping it back out with the other hand.
I don't want Oxfam branded hospitals popping up all over Africa, but this isn't what happens. In general NGOs provide capital for local projects that are run by the communities they serve; that done, the NGOs step back and let the projects run themselves. It's not perfect but the general trend is to hand control back to local people - and if their own governments can't provide, then I think this is their perogative.
> I don't like the way they are designed, they're consistently done to
> make people pity people, and they use images of straving children and
> so on - exploitative in other words. Sure, some people may have thier
> heart strings pulled by this, but they'd get more donations with more
> informative adverts.
Yeah, sorry, I don't like them either. Still, it doesn't make charities evil :)
> And the 85% thing, their's two lots of admin charges, of which you're
> identifying the costs for in this country before the money even goes
> into the projects themselves, which have their own administration
> costs.
The reports I looked at were pretty detailed, and seemed to take this into account. I really, honestly think that this statistic is wrong.
Apologies if my earlier posts were a bit heated, but this is something that I care quite a lot about. Red mist etc.
unknown kernel wrote:
> For me, this thread pretty much sums up what I find irritating about
> your posting style; and once again I've been sucked into a slanging
> match.
Right, I'm completely fed up with people saying this. If you, and anyone else, doesn't like it then I'm afraid that's tough luck. If you post something then be prepared to back it up. If you don't want replies then go make your own webpage and put your stuff on there.
> This is semantics, as per.
Tell that to the Third World which has to repay the WB and IMF but not charities. Kind of a big difference no ?
> As I understand it, you are arguing that NGOs provide services
> previously provided by the government - water, electricity, health
> care, education. You also argued that SAPs (again with the acronyms?)
What is this thing some of you have with acronyms ? do you enjoy repeatedly typing out long words or something ? You said you'd worked for Oxfam and you obviously understood what I meant so whats the problem ? If someone doesnt know what SAP's are then they're probably no wiser about structural adjustment programs either, the two kinda go together.
> are neccessary and desirable. And yet as a *result* of these programs
> third world governments have had to privatise these services; now you
> can only get health care etc if you can pay for it. So NGOs are
> helping people to provide themselves with services that governments no
> longer provide; and I don't have a problem with this. Is this
> undermining governments, or have these governments already been
> undermined?
If NGO's continue to constantly step in and provide all services then no one is even going to consider using the private ones anyway, and the few public ones there are have the staff poached by NGO's as well in all but rare cases because the NGO's offer higher wages. As it is, under SAP's, or structural adjustment programs :) , the absolutely poorest can still access free health care. No one is saying that these people shouldn't have access to such services, it's just that it does undermine governments by handing control of vital services to a non elected non governmental body from a foreign country.
>
> Your last point seems to be that you don't like charity adverts. I
> can't help you with this.
I don't like the way they are designed, they're consistently done to make people pity people, and they use images of straving children and so on - exploitative in other words. Sure, some people may have thier heart strings pulled by this, but they'd get more donations with more informative adverts.
And the 85% thing, their's two lots of admin charges, of which you're identifying the costs for in this country before the money even goes into the projects themselves, which have their own administration costs.
As for fluffing African history, maybe mine's a less sanitised version than your idea of it... though I'm only interested in it from about the first western explorers going there - but seeing as this was the catalyst for much of the development problems seen today - especially the drawing of boundaries carving Africa up - then I don't see the problem.
Apologies to all if by posting anyting you hadn't heard of I have offended you in any way. Please post a list of your knowledge and I'll make sure I don't post anything you don't know, and we'll all be happy, and incredibly bored as well I guess, but happy none the less.
~~Belldandy~~
> For me, this thread pretty much sums up what I find irritating about
> your posting style; and once again I've been sucked into a slanging
> match.
Right, I'm completely fed up with people saying this. If you, and anyone else, doesn't like it then I'm afraid that's tough luck. If you post something then be prepared to back it up. If you don't want replies then go make your own webpage and put your stuff on there.
> This is semantics, as per.
Tell that to the Third World which has to repay the WB and IMF but not charities. Kind of a big difference no ?
> As I understand it, you are arguing that NGOs provide services
> previously provided by the government - water, electricity, health
> care, education. You also argued that SAPs (again with the acronyms?)
What is this thing some of you have with acronyms ? do you enjoy repeatedly typing out long words or something ? You said you'd worked for Oxfam and you obviously understood what I meant so whats the problem ? If someone doesnt know what SAP's are then they're probably no wiser about structural adjustment programs either, the two kinda go together.
> are neccessary and desirable. And yet as a *result* of these programs
> third world governments have had to privatise these services; now you
> can only get health care etc if you can pay for it. So NGOs are
> helping people to provide themselves with services that governments no
> longer provide; and I don't have a problem with this. Is this
> undermining governments, or have these governments already been
> undermined?
If NGO's continue to constantly step in and provide all services then no one is even going to consider using the private ones anyway, and the few public ones there are have the staff poached by NGO's as well in all but rare cases because the NGO's offer higher wages. As it is, under SAP's, or structural adjustment programs :) , the absolutely poorest can still access free health care. No one is saying that these people shouldn't have access to such services, it's just that it does undermine governments by handing control of vital services to a non elected non governmental body from a foreign country.
>
> Your last point seems to be that you don't like charity adverts. I
> can't help you with this.
I don't like the way they are designed, they're consistently done to make people pity people, and they use images of straving children and so on - exploitative in other words. Sure, some people may have thier heart strings pulled by this, but they'd get more donations with more informative adverts.
And the 85% thing, their's two lots of admin charges, of which you're identifying the costs for in this country before the money even goes into the projects themselves, which have their own administration costs.
As for fluffing African history, maybe mine's a less sanitised version than your idea of it... though I'm only interested in it from about the first western explorers going there - but seeing as this was the catalyst for much of the development problems seen today - especially the drawing of boundaries carving Africa up - then I don't see the problem.
Apologies to all if by posting anyting you hadn't heard of I have offended you in any way. Please post a list of your knowledge and I'll make sure I don't post anything you don't know, and we'll all be happy, and incredibly bored as well I guess, but happy none the less.
~~Belldandy~~
For me, this thread pretty much sums up what I find irritating about your posting style; and once again I've been sucked into a slanging match. If you had just said 'I don't believe in charity' then fine. But you didn't: in a single sentence you denounced charity as pointless, and told anyone who ever gave to charity that only 15% of their money did any good. I'm not saying that everyone has to give to charity - what I am saying is that your statistic is simply not true. But you then start attacking the charities themselves, and going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the matter at hand, but everything to do with making you seem infinitely knowledgable and therefore unchallengable.
Belldandy wrote:
> To be quite honest, just because you say you worked for Oxfam doesn't
> exactly fill me with confidence that you know anything about African
> history or development either...
How much I know about African history, and why I know it, is beside the point. I didn't begin lecturing about the one true interpretation of everything about Africa, past, present and future. You did: and I think it was a case of flexing your intellectual muscles to distract from the weakness of your argument. I know enough about African history and development to know when someone is bluffing it; and that is *exactly* what you were doing
> especialy with ideas that the IMF and
> WB give charity with conditions, they give loans with conditions.
This is semantics, as per.
> Long term solutions are needed, and care to reply about the
> criticisms of NGO's I mentioned ?
As I understand it, you are arguing that NGOs provide services previously provided by the government - water, electricity, health care, education. You also argued that SAPs (again with the acronyms?) are neccessary and desirable. And yet as a *result* of these programs third world governments have had to privatise these services; now you can only get health care etc if you can pay for it. So NGOs are helping people to provide themselves with services that governments no longer provide; and I don't have a problem with this. Is this undermining governments, or have these governments already been undermined?
Your last point seems to be that you don't like charity adverts. I can't help you with this.
Belldandy wrote:
> To be quite honest, just because you say you worked for Oxfam doesn't
> exactly fill me with confidence that you know anything about African
> history or development either...
How much I know about African history, and why I know it, is beside the point. I didn't begin lecturing about the one true interpretation of everything about Africa, past, present and future. You did: and I think it was a case of flexing your intellectual muscles to distract from the weakness of your argument. I know enough about African history and development to know when someone is bluffing it; and that is *exactly* what you were doing
> especialy with ideas that the IMF and
> WB give charity with conditions, they give loans with conditions.
This is semantics, as per.
> Long term solutions are needed, and care to reply about the
> criticisms of NGO's I mentioned ?
As I understand it, you are arguing that NGOs provide services previously provided by the government - water, electricity, health care, education. You also argued that SAPs (again with the acronyms?) are neccessary and desirable. And yet as a *result* of these programs third world governments have had to privatise these services; now you can only get health care etc if you can pay for it. So NGOs are helping people to provide themselves with services that governments no longer provide; and I don't have a problem with this. Is this undermining governments, or have these governments already been undermined?
Your last point seems to be that you don't like charity adverts. I can't help you with this.
Belldandy wrote:
> And if a number is an average you'd
> expect to find most numbers coming within a close range of it with
> possibley several extremes of that number. It's also pointless using
> the stats groups give out themselves as these can be adapted by them,
> independent surveys and groups are more reliable.
It isn't pointless using charities own figures, because any charity has to publish its accounts by law. And unless they are cooking their books in a way that would make Enron blush, then your statistic doesn't hold water.
This is a quote from the British Council (I'm guessing that they are independent enough) website:
"Together the international development charities in the UK had a total income in excess of £484 million in 1995/6."
So if your statistic of 15% is true then only £73 million of that was actually used for charitable projects.
Now, I looked at the websites of the biggest development charities I could think of: ActionAid, Oxfam, Christian Aid, World Vision, CARE and Save The Children. By a bit of a coincidence the total income of all these charities for 2000/01 was almost the same as the 1995/6 total for ALL development charities: about £490m. Of this, £385m, or 77%, was spent 'doing some good'. The rest was spent on fundraising, campaigning and administration.
So, at a bare minimum, £385m was used by development charities for charitable projects in 2000/01. If we assume that your statistic is true, and also assume the worst case scenario of other development charities spending ALL their income on administrative costs, then £385m is only 15% of what development charities raised in 2000/01. This adds up to £2.5 billion in donations - £2 billion more than the big charities received. If any of these crooked charities managed to hand over some of their cash to good causes then this figure becomes higher still. So, either the British public have upped their charitable donations by 500% in five years (and, furthermore, have given to charities not mentioned above) - or your statistic is wrong.
If you can locate this missing two billion pounds or name these fraudulent organisations (without a similar rise in funds used charitably, of course) then I will apologise. After that you can tell people that donate to charity that they are doing no good whatsoever without fear of contradiction.
> And if a number is an average you'd
> expect to find most numbers coming within a close range of it with
> possibley several extremes of that number. It's also pointless using
> the stats groups give out themselves as these can be adapted by them,
> independent surveys and groups are more reliable.
It isn't pointless using charities own figures, because any charity has to publish its accounts by law. And unless they are cooking their books in a way that would make Enron blush, then your statistic doesn't hold water.
This is a quote from the British Council (I'm guessing that they are independent enough) website:
"Together the international development charities in the UK had a total income in excess of £484 million in 1995/6."
So if your statistic of 15% is true then only £73 million of that was actually used for charitable projects.
Now, I looked at the websites of the biggest development charities I could think of: ActionAid, Oxfam, Christian Aid, World Vision, CARE and Save The Children. By a bit of a coincidence the total income of all these charities for 2000/01 was almost the same as the 1995/6 total for ALL development charities: about £490m. Of this, £385m, or 77%, was spent 'doing some good'. The rest was spent on fundraising, campaigning and administration.
So, at a bare minimum, £385m was used by development charities for charitable projects in 2000/01. If we assume that your statistic is true, and also assume the worst case scenario of other development charities spending ALL their income on administrative costs, then £385m is only 15% of what development charities raised in 2000/01. This adds up to £2.5 billion in donations - £2 billion more than the big charities received. If any of these crooked charities managed to hand over some of their cash to good causes then this figure becomes higher still. So, either the British public have upped their charitable donations by 500% in five years (and, furthermore, have given to charities not mentioned above) - or your statistic is wrong.
If you can locate this missing two billion pounds or name these fraudulent organisations (without a similar rise in funds used charitably, of course) then I will apologise. After that you can tell people that donate to charity that they are doing no good whatsoever without fear of contradiction.
unknown kernel wrote:
> And I have to say that regurgitating your lecture notes and copying
> out the accompanying bibliography isn't going to convince me that you
> know very much about African history or development at all.
I'm sorry, but if you regurgitate your lecture notes for essays you ge crap marks,no higher than 50% ish. And if a number is an average you'd expect to find most numbers coming within a close range of it with possibley several extremes of that number. It's also pointless using the stats groups give out themselves as these can be adapted by them, independent surveys and groups are more reliable.
To be quite honest, just because you say you worked for Oxfam doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that you know anything about African history or development either... especialy with ideas that the IMF and WB give charity with conditions, they give loans with conditions. Excuse me if I'm wrong but when I applied for a credit card my credit worthiness was checked, and when I spend money there are certain conditons - such as how much I repay, interest e.t.c. I have to stick to those or it means trouble. Why is it that NGO's like Oxfam seem to think that debt cancellation is the beall and endall of the Third World's problemss ? Cancel the debt today it'll be back by the end of the year. Long term solutions are needed, and care to reply about the criticisms of NGO's I mentioned ?
~~Belldandy~~
> And I have to say that regurgitating your lecture notes and copying
> out the accompanying bibliography isn't going to convince me that you
> know very much about African history or development at all.
I'm sorry, but if you regurgitate your lecture notes for essays you ge crap marks,no higher than 50% ish. And if a number is an average you'd expect to find most numbers coming within a close range of it with possibley several extremes of that number. It's also pointless using the stats groups give out themselves as these can be adapted by them, independent surveys and groups are more reliable.
To be quite honest, just because you say you worked for Oxfam doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that you know anything about African history or development either... especialy with ideas that the IMF and WB give charity with conditions, they give loans with conditions. Excuse me if I'm wrong but when I applied for a credit card my credit worthiness was checked, and when I spend money there are certain conditons - such as how much I repay, interest e.t.c. I have to stick to those or it means trouble. Why is it that NGO's like Oxfam seem to think that debt cancellation is the beall and endall of the Third World's problemss ? Cancel the debt today it'll be back by the end of the year. Long term solutions are needed, and care to reply about the criticisms of NGO's I mentioned ?
~~Belldandy~~
And I have to say that regurgitating your lecture notes and copying out the accompanying bibliography isn't going to convince me that you know very much about African history or development at all.
Belldandy wrote:
> It's a waste of time quoting individual organisation percentages at me
> when I made clear to you that 85% is an AVERAGE as of end of year
> 2001.
If, as you say, this is an average then you should have no trouble finding organisations for which this is true. So far you have just tried to pass this off as a fact with no proof whatsoever.
> It's a waste of time quoting individual organisation percentages at me
> when I made clear to you that 85% is an AVERAGE as of end of year
> 2001.
If, as you say, this is an average then you should have no trouble finding organisations for which this is true. So far you have just tried to pass this off as a fact with no proof whatsoever.
It's a waste of time quoting individual organisation percentages at me when I made clear to you that 85% is an AVERAGE as of end of year 2001.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I don't really understand the argument that aid or charity undermines
> local
> cultures or governments either. Charity by itself doesn't undermine
> anything, only charity with *conditions* does. Unlike the IMF or
> World Bank - privatise, liberalize or else - Oxfam et al don't impose
> conditions on aid, but rather support projects that are usually
> locally instigated and always locally controlled. And rather than
> making people dependent on further aid these projects tend to be
> self-sustaining.
The argument is that, in some cases NGO projects undermine Government by providing facilities and services traditionally given by the government. In addition, NGO's pay far better than most governments can hope to offer in countries like Rwanda, Ghana and others, and they poach the best staff for their own projects. Also, whilst the projects are local, they still require labour and using this takes labour away from already existing sectors - the assumption generally is that people aren't already doing anything. Lastly, much development literature criticises Western NGO's for using exploitative and demeaning/misleading imagery to attract donations for themselves. I'm talking here about the images of starving near dead children, people building huts, kids with flies on their faces e.t.c. I can't be bothered to go into it in full detail but this is not just one of my crackpot ideas, or of my lecturer, it's in all new development texts such as; "Poverty And Development into the 21st Century" by Allent & Thomas, "Culture and global change" by Tracey Skelton, "Companion to development studies" by Desai and Potter and a fair few others.
>African culture survived several hundred years of
> colonialism pretty well intact - do you really think it is now so weak
> and helpless that it is going to be destroyed by Oxfam saying
> "Here's fifteen pounds to build you a well"?
Whilst no one can deny that African culture was impacted upon by colonialism, it's pretty hard to argue it survived intact. Many arguments now say that if it had not been for colonialism then Africa could actually be in a worse state than it is now, generally. Again, this is a massive, detailed argument, but http:www.afbis.com/analysis/globalisation.htm is just one of these that argues Africa needs to face up to reality, and in 2000, as quoted in William Shawcross's Deliver Us From Evil, Kofi Annan himself called upon African leaders to stop blaming all their problem on colonialism. The IMF and WB are constantly being depicted as the bad guys in this, but the real problems began in 1973, as I'm sure you probably know anyway, with the oil crisis and the large loans taken out by Third World countries at the time. SAP's became necessary and, despite their evil portrayal by many such as www.znet.org , the only aim of them is to bring about prosperity and better economies. Many countries badly effected by them are those that took up socialist ideals and methods which required the state to have plenty of capital, but when the loans this capital came from needed paying back the problems began. Many many people spen the latter part of the 20th century arguing that socialism was not the answer for the Third World, but were ignored in the light of the solutions it seemed to offer.
Right, going to stop now because it's way too early, and hardly anybody reads this stuff anyway, and I've just finished an essay last night for Uni about tis kind of topic. I'll post it on here this coming Friday once the deadline for handing it in has passed :)
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> I don't really understand the argument that aid or charity undermines
> local
> cultures or governments either. Charity by itself doesn't undermine
> anything, only charity with *conditions* does. Unlike the IMF or
> World Bank - privatise, liberalize or else - Oxfam et al don't impose
> conditions on aid, but rather support projects that are usually
> locally instigated and always locally controlled. And rather than
> making people dependent on further aid these projects tend to be
> self-sustaining.
The argument is that, in some cases NGO projects undermine Government by providing facilities and services traditionally given by the government. In addition, NGO's pay far better than most governments can hope to offer in countries like Rwanda, Ghana and others, and they poach the best staff for their own projects. Also, whilst the projects are local, they still require labour and using this takes labour away from already existing sectors - the assumption generally is that people aren't already doing anything. Lastly, much development literature criticises Western NGO's for using exploitative and demeaning/misleading imagery to attract donations for themselves. I'm talking here about the images of starving near dead children, people building huts, kids with flies on their faces e.t.c. I can't be bothered to go into it in full detail but this is not just one of my crackpot ideas, or of my lecturer, it's in all new development texts such as; "Poverty And Development into the 21st Century" by Allent & Thomas, "Culture and global change" by Tracey Skelton, "Companion to development studies" by Desai and Potter and a fair few others.
>African culture survived several hundred years of
> colonialism pretty well intact - do you really think it is now so weak
> and helpless that it is going to be destroyed by Oxfam saying
> "Here's fifteen pounds to build you a well"?
Whilst no one can deny that African culture was impacted upon by colonialism, it's pretty hard to argue it survived intact. Many arguments now say that if it had not been for colonialism then Africa could actually be in a worse state than it is now, generally. Again, this is a massive, detailed argument, but http:www.afbis.com/analysis/globalisation.htm is just one of these that argues Africa needs to face up to reality, and in 2000, as quoted in William Shawcross's Deliver Us From Evil, Kofi Annan himself called upon African leaders to stop blaming all their problem on colonialism. The IMF and WB are constantly being depicted as the bad guys in this, but the real problems began in 1973, as I'm sure you probably know anyway, with the oil crisis and the large loans taken out by Third World countries at the time. SAP's became necessary and, despite their evil portrayal by many such as www.znet.org , the only aim of them is to bring about prosperity and better economies. Many countries badly effected by them are those that took up socialist ideals and methods which required the state to have plenty of capital, but when the loans this capital came from needed paying back the problems began. Many many people spen the latter part of the 20th century arguing that socialism was not the answer for the Third World, but were ignored in the light of the solutions it seemed to offer.
Right, going to stop now because it's way too early, and hardly anybody reads this stuff anyway, and I've just finished an essay last night for Uni about tis kind of topic. I'll post it on here this coming Friday once the deadline for handing it in has passed :)
~~Belldandy~~
I don't really understand the argument that aid or charity undermines local
cultures or governments either. Charity by itself doesn't undermine anything, only charity with *conditions* does. Unlike the IMF or World Bank - privatise, liberalize or else - Oxfam et al don't impose conditions on aid, but rather support projects that are usually locally instigated and always locally controlled. And rather than making people dependent on further aid these projects tend to be self-sustaining. African culture survived several hundred years of colonialism pretty well intact - do you really think it is now so weak and helpless that it is going to be destroyed by Oxfam saying "Here's fifteen pounds to build you a well"?
In my opinion these two arguments - your money never gets there, and what little arrives does more harm than good - are used by people who are either too apathetic to do more than complain about how terrible the world is, or who have a vested interest in keeping the developing world poor.
I'm sorry if these posts are long and boring, but there is a lot of talk on these forums that posting here is pointless and doesn't change anything. Well charitable organisations, and the people who volunteer and donate to them *are* doing more than talk - they are trying to change the world for the better. I think they should be applauded rather than sneered at.
cultures or governments either. Charity by itself doesn't undermine anything, only charity with *conditions* does. Unlike the IMF or World Bank - privatise, liberalize or else - Oxfam et al don't impose conditions on aid, but rather support projects that are usually locally instigated and always locally controlled. And rather than making people dependent on further aid these projects tend to be self-sustaining. African culture survived several hundred years of colonialism pretty well intact - do you really think it is now so weak and helpless that it is going to be destroyed by Oxfam saying "Here's fifteen pounds to build you a well"?
In my opinion these two arguments - your money never gets there, and what little arrives does more harm than good - are used by people who are either too apathetic to do more than complain about how terrible the world is, or who have a vested interest in keeping the developing world poor.
I'm sorry if these posts are long and boring, but there is a lot of talk on these forums that posting here is pointless and doesn't change anything. Well charitable organisations, and the people who volunteer and donate to them *are* doing more than talk - they are trying to change the world for the better. I think they should be applauded rather than sneered at.
Page: