Humanitarian Aid - the myths!

farfromglorified wrote:

My suggestion is that America (along with many other nations) did not need aid or charity to become what it is today. America, Ireland, and many other nations became what they are not because of what other nations did or did not do, but rather because of what the people of that country did for themselves.

You don't think it might be a bit of both? You don't think it comes from within AND without?

It fills me with disgust to see Paris Hilton, P Diddy giving million dollar parties and at the same time people are starving to death.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Some people simply don't HAVE the abilities or the resources...

Very true, yes. There was a time when no one knew how to build a fire, or knew how to build a bridge, or knew how to build a railroad, or knew how to go to the moon. Yet they were done, because people needed those things and figured out how to get them.

we were lucky that Britain were preoccupied by another much BIGGER war when we finally got rid of them. Also, quite a lot of our riches came from our returned emigrants. Should we overlook the fact that they HAD to leave in the first place... it took hundredS of years for us to get our act together. Should we make those other nations also suffer for hundreds of years? There really is no need for it.

There is often a need for it, though not in the way you're thinking.

Suffering is typically not needless. When someone suffers, they suffer for a reason. The reason begets the sufferring -- it is a direct result needed by its cause. The question should not be "is this suffering needless?". The question should be "is the cause of this suffering needless?".

farfromglorified wrote:

Very true, yes. There was a time when no one knew how to build a fire, or knew how to build a bridge, or knew how to build a railroad, or knew how to go to the moon. Yet they were done, because people needed those things and figured out how to get them.

The immigrants that came to the US already had that knowledge. Well not going to the moon.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe....is your disgust more about Paris Hilton or more about people starving or more about you?

What do you mean with 'about me'?

Heineken Helen wrote:

But the resources were there. How are they going to manage to build a skyscraper in ethopia when they have to walk 20 miles every day just for water?

They should build a wagon before they build a skyscraper.

Or whatever it is. Priorities change when you're starving. Those people in America could grow their own food or whatever... the land isn't QUITE the same in Africa.

The land is often QUITE the same in Africa. Today, you have many people starving to death in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is more fit for edible agriculture than where I live here in America. Conversely, in lands like Ethiopia, you will find areas that cannot support agriculture. Yet throughout history, other people have lived and thrived on those lands. Your billions were not needed then, and your billions accomplish little now. It's very important to ask why.

Well THAT'S the conversation I want to have... about where the money's going. Also, you said you give 10% of your income to charity. Can I ask why if you have this opinion?

My opinion is not that charity is bad or unnecessary. My opinion is that charity is often bad or unnecessary. I would never give a charitable donation to someone who told me my charity will serve to absolve them or me of something.

Do you not think those people should help themselves WITHOUT your money?

No. I think these people should help themselves, period. My money, there or otherwise, is secondary. Do you understand what I mean by that?

Besides I've never been to Ethopia so I can't comment but I'd imagine it takes a couple of generations to get rid of the hunger and the loss that your family have suffered.

It can take one day to get rid of the hunger and loss you have suffered. Sometimes it can take generations. On the current path Ethiopia is on, it will take forever because the suffering there will not be cured by money.

How so? I think it has everything to do with it.

No. The fact that I "have" doesn't lead me to being smug over those who "have not". I am simply proud that my achievements led to me having things. The fact that I "have" is completely untied to the fact that someone does not.

What you're looking for here is to link the simple fact of having to an obligation to those who do not have. That's commonly referred to as guilt, and as a good Irishperson you're probably quite familiar with that

Now, here's the fundamental problem with foreign aid. When foreign aid is motivated by guilt, it takes on the primary purpose of absolution. This is the problem that plagues foreign aid and leads to the thinking of those "braggarts" you speak of. If, tomorrow, the United States flushed an additional $50B down a toilet and filed that under the "foreign aid" category on a balance sheet, this thread wouldn't be possible. Yet no good would have come from the act.

Charity, true charity, is never about absolution or guilt. Charity is about recognizing the path from sufferring to happiness within one man. In essence, charity is fundamentally about self-recognition. A meal granted does not accomplish much for the man who is starving, yet it can absolve you of your guilt. A dollar to the poor man does not accomplish much for the man who has no money, yet it can absolve you of your guilt. But reconizing, in your own efforts, where that meal or that dollar came from, and imparting that onto that starving man or poor man, is true charity.

beemster wrote:

Then why is most of the post post about how little the US gives?

That's not what most posts are about.

beemster wrote:

It's about humanitarian aid, and then it turns into how the US does not give more, and for the record I am totally against foreign aid, because it never helps the people its intended to help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan