How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving in Developing countries?

[Wannabe Yogi]

I don't think all neocolonialism is exploitative necessarily, I don't see why a foreign government is going to be more exploitative than a native one. I don't see why the British rule over SA was any worse than the terribly corrupt ANC which piflers SA today. I think whatever is best for the average person of those countries should trump any ideology about "imperialism". If you disagree, look no further than what happened to the "Breadbasket of Africa", Rhodesia, which is now Zimbabwe.

I could use the same argument for communism. Yugoslavia was much better under Tito then what came later. You know genocide and rape camps and all.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Uganda is doing great with this in recent years.

This has a lot to do with the Ugandan Government working with donor countries to cancel substantial portions of the country's external debts. It was governments polices that made this possible.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

the British example (exploitative but where the average citizen is in far better shape than today and has more access to the economic opprotunities)

India was one of the richest place in the world when the British showed up. Both wealth and life expectancy decreased under the British rule of India.

Few of the things the British did in India:

-Forced famine of Bengal in 1943. The British took food out of the state while up to 10 million starved. This was just one of many famines under the British.

- Amritsar massacre were 1302 men, women and children slaughtered by the orders by Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer.

-In 1857 the British Raj had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favor of British textile imports.

There are many more stories.

 

[Shermana]

India was one of the richest place in the world when the British showed up. Both wealth and life expectancy decreased under the British rule of India.

Few of the things the British did in India:

-Forced famine of Bengal in 1943. The British took food out of the state while up to 10 million starved. This was just one of many famines under the British.

- Amritsar massacre were 1302 men, women and children slaughtered by the orders by Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer.

-In 1857 the British Raj had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favor of British textile imports.

There are many more stories.

I'll admit I am not familiar with the atrocities under British rule of India, so I should be more careful with such statements. I should look that up. The Amritsar massacre sounds familiar. But can you show that India was richer before British colonization with a link? I'd be very interested in that.

 

[Shermana]

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless Im mistaken, the sources this article cites seems to make it not so much an act of British forced starvation ala Stalin with the Ukraine but a collective economic disaster brought by incompetence and lack of foresight and failed internal policies, more about mistakes than cruelty, and there's a talk section of course, can you provide a site that you feel more objectively places the blame on the British? The Wikipedia seems if anything that the British did try to alleviate the situation and there was bureaucratic red tape problems involved more than anything else, so I'd like to see a counterview.

 

[dust1n]

What is "Citizenship" exactly? Is "Citizenship" in a corrupt ANC government better than having a more equitable spread of wealth and economic opportunity? Is some little title more important than the actual food and economy?
With all this "Citizenship", SA has gone to hell. MANY of them say that the Apartheid days were better. The country wasn't the world's worst on the rape stats either. Maybe you want to tell the many South Africans who say things are worse now and that the system was better back then that they're better off and to stop whining?

Do you always start with false delimmas in an argument, or only when you need to?

Needless to say, citizenship is the basic indication that retain the right to participate with your government. If a government is inefficient of corrupt, that doesn't mean you get to strip away the rights of people based of skin color, and justify it with a few billionaires who profit.

Maybe you'd rather engage in an actual discussion instead of Fallacy Hour 101.

Not at all. Let me help, I was implying it's the lesser of two evils.

So when you said that neocolonial wasn't exploitive 'necessarily', what you really meant was it might be considered slightly less exploitive? Maybe instead of implying, you should stick to diction.

When the Portugeuse landed there was little to no settlement in many areas like Johannesburg. And then there's the question of why Africans are allowed to push each other out of each other's land and take over and why Europeans aren't? Racism? Only Blacks can conquer blacks' land?

No, I support democratic rights for all people, regardless of color or social standing. Anything else in my mind is racist. And if you're painting the portrait of Africa as some backward place until foreigners arrived and incapable of bettering themselves without economic dictatorships backed by Western financial powers, that would be racist.

It's 2012; no one should be conquering anyone's land.

People like you who put more emphasis on ideology than economic reality caused the pressure to make them give in, which ultimately led to a poorer life for the South Africans.

Source? Didn't think so... You're attempt to pretend like South Africa is some easily topic that could could be approached by assuming the minds of South Africans with widespread blanket statements and facading to know South African politics or economics is a bit embarassing.

Everywhere in the world has a reduction in the quality of life at the moment... maybe that has something to do with it, amongst millions of other factors?

Nice side step from my question though, "How did that turn out for Britian [to the colonial overlords of SA]?"

Please give a list of some of these western-backed propped up dictators other than the ones in Western African Franc sphere.

I didn't mean to imply that the West propped up this or that dictator. Read again carefully. The dictators are propped (by someone, not specifically the west), and that these dictators play the role of 'western colonialist' when Western countries failed to uphold control of their colonies. This was not meant to insinuate that the West propped up any dictators.

As far as SA is concerned, dictator, and American-industry backed.

American Chamber of Commerce - South Africa

"THE AMCHAM STORY

AmCham was founded in 1977 as a non-profit association and operates without financial assistance from any government. There are over 105 AmChams operating in 100 countries.

AmCham is the collective voice of US investment in South Africa. Through its elective board of directors and committees it serves as a representative voice for US business and South African/ American commerce and industry.

Its focus remains primarily on US investment in South Africa. AmCham maintains an open dialogue with the SA Government on topical business issues whilst representing the needs of members.


AMCHAM’s OBJECTIVES

To establish productive dialogue between the South African government and US business to facilitate growth of US business in SA and thereby the South African economy.

To assist AmCham members by collectively addressing challenging business issues.

To promote an awareness of the issues facing US investors in South Africa and to communicate their viewpoints to the US and South African Governments.

To organise networking forums and workshops that assist members and US business in
general.

To provide relevant and timely information on new legislation that could impact the business operations of members.

To arrange economic and political briefings to provide members with an understanding of local socio-economic needs.

To provide advocacy on a range of issues that confront members."

I guess you don't actually care about economic realities in favor of your ideologies. I was expecting this kind of response, thank you for summarizing the opposing view so nicely. Better to live under a fascist, racist system where you can actually have a chance at economic opprotunity compared to the ANC. Like I said, NUMEROUS South Africans agree. Maybe you want to tell them what's better for them.

Still hanging on to that false delimma are we?

Also, you're propagating a misuse of the word "Fascist", which is quite common with leftist idealists.

I'm not a 'leftist'.

"Fascism" is when the government and corporations are basically linked hand in hand.

I know what fascist means, and just because you read a Mussolini quote doesn't mean much to me, because we aren't in 1930 Italy.

The USA can be called "Fascist".

Not in the sense I meant it.

Fascism (

/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics.[3][4]

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If anything, the current corrupt ANC is far more fascist in basic definition. Now as for "Disgusting", that's a personal opinion. Many South Africans are absolutely disgusted with how the ANC runs the country.

Generally after revolutions against foreign dictators, you encounter periods of reactionary dictatorships. But besides that, someone else being more fascist doesn't make you less fascist.

 

[dust1n]

Cont.

As for "racist", no qualm with that label, but it's not necessarily a bad thing if it's giving the people a far better life than their own people in charge are.

"Those who defended slavery rose to the challenge set forth by the Abolitionists. The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments.

Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable.

Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society..."

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

Familiar sentiments ring through time....

Thus the point of my argument: It's the lesser of two evils. It's not the same kind of racism as say the Hutus slaughtering the Tutsis.

The one based in myth created by Dutch colonialists? Yea, they aren't the same eh.

There is more than two evils in the world. Why you keep picking racism by setting yourself up false delimmas for what is possible for the South African people is beyond me...

 

[Shermana]

Do you always start with false delimmas in an argument, or only when you need to?

For someone who accuses me of Fallacies 101, you think you can just call something a "False Dilemma" without providing an alternative.

Needless to say, citizenship is the basic indication that retain the right to participate with your government. If a government is inefficient of corrupt, that doesn't mean you get to strip away the rights of people based of skin color, and justify it with a few billionaires who profit.

What rights exactly were stripped that were pertinent to day to day economic life as opposed to just the right to vote out the Whites? In detail. Please state more than just "political voting rights" and define which rights you think are more important than a better overall economic environment and opprotunity. And when there are more Millionaires among the natives, that means the wealth is more available to them in general.

Maybe you'd rather engage in an actual discussion instead of Fallacy Hour 101.

Maybe you would?

So when you said that neocolonial wasn't exploitive 'necessarily', what you really meant was it might be considered slightly less exploitive? Maybe instead of implying, you should stick to diction.

Slightly? Significantly. Have you actually defeated anything I said or did you do exactly what I said which was putting idealism (i.e. voting rights) over facts on the ground (feeding rights).

No, I support democratic rights for all people, regardless of color or social standing. Anything else in my mind is racist. And if you're painting the portrait of Africa as some backward place until foreigners arrived and incapable of bettering themselves without economic dictatorships backed by Western financial powers, that would be racist.

Okay, well that's some nice ideology. I'm sure those people who are suffering terribly under the SA are so much happier there's no racism now at least. Oh my , I guess that's a "False Dilemma", right?

It's 2012; no one should be conquering anyone's land.

Ah, because it's 2012. That answers it.

Source? Didn't think so... You're attempt to pretend like South Africa is some easily topic that could could be approached by assuming the minds of South Africans with widespread blanket statements and facading to know South African politics or economics is a bit embarassing.

What do you mean source? South Africa had huge pressure from liberals on all sides of the world. Why are you not just as guilty of reductionism all the same? If you want to tell all the South Africans that they should shut up and stop complaining and be happy they don't have those racist Apartheiders giving them more access to food and opprotunity than their non-racist ANC, go for it. But you have yet to actually counter anything I said with something that's not just idealistic whining.

Everywhere in the world has a reduction in the quality of life at the moment... maybe that has something to do with it, amongst millions of other factors?

At the moment? Umm, it's been that way since Apartheid ended. So I'm assuming you're not even familiar with the history of SA?

Nice side step from my question though, "How did that turn out for Britian [to the colonial overlords of SA]?"

What do you mean how did that turn out? How did it turn out socially? What's the point of this question? Did you not sidestep my own questions with just idealistic rhetoric?

I didn't mean to imply that the West propped up this or that dictator. Read again carefully. The dictators are propped (by someone, not specifically the west), and that these dictators play the role of 'western colonialist' when Western countries failed to uphold control of their colonies. This was not meant to insinuate that the West propped up any dictators.

Who are they propped by exactly? In detail. Examples please!

As far as SA is concerned, dictator, and American-industry backed.

SA is run by dictators and American industry? Source please! Wait, is that your source below?

American Chamber of Commerce - South Africa

"THE AMCHAM STORY

AmCham was founded in 1977 as a non-profit association and operates without financial assistance from any government. There are over 105 AmChams operating in 100 countries.

AmCham is the collective voice of US investment in South Africa. Through its elective board of directors and committees it serves as a representative voice for US business and South African/ American commerce and industry.

Its focus remains primarily on US investment in South Africa. AmCham maintains an open dialogue with the SA Government on topical business issues whilst representing the needs of members.

Can you provide a link that shows that Amcham is running the SA through puppet dictators as you seemingly claim?

AMCHAM’s OBJECTIVES

To establish productive dialogue between the South African government and US business to facilitate growth of US business in SA and thereby the South African economy.

To assist AmCham members by collectively addressing challenging business issues.

To promote an awareness of the issues facing US investors in South Africa and to communicate their viewpoints to the US and South African Governments.

To organise networking forums and workshops that assist members and US business in
general.

To provide relevant and timely information on new legislation that could impact the business operations of members.

To arrange economic and political briefings to provide members with an understanding of local socio-economic needs.

To provide advocacy on a range of issues that confront members."

So yeah, please present some sources. I'd like to see it specifically from a SA point of view that Amchams are in fact the ones telling the corrupt ANC what to do through "dictators". I don't doubt the ANC is dictatorial and ultimately rubber stamps whatever the leaders want done, but I'd like to see an actual source proving its the Amchams running the strings as you seem to claim.

Still hanging on to that false delimma are we?

You must think all you have to do is call something a false dilemma and that excuses you from explaining what the alternative is.

I'm not a 'leftist'.

Centrist? Rightist? If not, what label do you identify with in this regard?

I know what fascist means, and just because you read a Mussolini quote doesn't mean much to me, because we aren't in 1930 Italy.

Ah, so you get to redefine the term "Fascist" as its misused by liberals? At what point did the word "Fascism" change its definition?

Not in the sense I meant it.

Fascism (

/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics.[3][4]

Sounds like SA under the ANC is extremerly fascist.

 

[dust1n]

For someone who accuses me of Fallacies 101, you think you can just call something a "False Dilemma" without providing an alternative.

Sorry, I just assumed you were able to see one from the myriad of possibilities.

False Delimma:

1. South Africans can exist under the dictorial rule of the ANC.
2. South Africans can prevent blacks from voting, have more millionaires under the dictorial rule of apartheid.

Because alternatives:

1. South Africans can engage in a system of reforms to help liberalize certain trades to gain wealth in a country that needs it, while retaining certain regulations to keep SA for exploitation from foreign compeitors.

2. South Africans could revolt, redraft a constitution and start with a third form of government.


Those are two obvious ones.

What rights exactly were stripped that were pertinent to day to day economic life as opposed to just the right to vote out the Whites? In detail. Please state more than just "political voting rights" and define which rights you think are more important than a better overall economic environment and opprotunity.

"With the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of "white-only'' jobs. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or colored (of mixed decent). The coloured category included major subgroups of Indians and Asians. Classification into these categories was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, a white person was defined as "in appearance obviously a white person or generally accepted as a white person.'' A person could not be considered white if one of his or her parents were non-white. The determination that a person was ``obviously white'' would take into account "his habits, education, and speech and deportment and demeanor.'' A black person would be of or accepted as a member of an African tribe or race, and a colored person is one that is not black or white. The Department of Home Affairs (a government bureau) was responsible for the classification of the citizenry. Non-compliance with the race laws were dealt with harshly. All blacks were required to carry ``pass books'' containing fingerprints, photo and information on access to non-black areas.


In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as "homelands.'' These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. The idea was that they would be citizens of the homeland, losing their citizenship in South Africa and any right of involvement with the South African Parliament which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalizing nine million South Africans. The homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa: aliens in their own country.
In 1953, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed, which empowered the government to declare stringent states of emergency and increased penalties for protesting against or supporting the repeal of a law. The penalties included fines, imprisonment and whippings. In 1960, a large group of blacks in Sharpeville refused to carry their passes; the government declared a state of emergency. The emergency lasted for 156 days, leaving 69 people dead and 187 people wounded. Wielding the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the white regime had no intention of changing the unjust laws of apartheid."

The History of Apartheid in South Africa

And when there are more Millionaires among the natives, that means the wealth is more available to them in general.

Not necessarily, it could be indication of rising inequality. If it's only millionaires who benefit from some round of government regulation, and no one else does, that doesn't speak much about the general economic wellbeing of the people residing in the country.

Maybe you would?

I haven't made a logical argument from anew, only referred to yours.

Slightly? Significantly. Have you actually defeated anything I said or did you do exactly what I said which was putting idealism (i.e. voting rights) over facts on the ground (feeding rights).

Actually, I have. You stated, neo-colonionalism wasn't exploitive necessarily. Than you stated it was exploitive, just not as much as the current regime. If by changing your opinion of the situation means I've defeated something you said, than yes.

Putting idealism over the facts of the ground? You basically ignored the instituionalized injustice of the apartheid, and now you are making me do your homework for you.

Okay, well that's some nice ideology. I'm sure those people who are suffering terribly under the SA are so much happier there's no racism now at least. Oh my , I guess that's a "False Dilemma", right?

I guess it is a nice ideology. Keep talking about how racism is okay because blacks suffer from their own freedom. That's a tune that rings familiar in these parts.

Ah, because it's 2012. That answers it.

It just assumes more than barbarism. I don't support anyone country's exploitation of anyone else. You seem to use it as a justification for exploiting the country ourselves. "Damn if you do, damned if you don't" isn't a very productive way for looking at global trade and SA.

What do you mean source?

For

more emphasis on ideology than economic reality caused the pressure to make them give in, which ultimately led to a poorer life for the South Africans.

South Africa had huge pressure from liberals on all sides of the world. Why are you not just as guilty of reductionism all the same? If you want to tell all the South Africans that they should shut up and stop complaining and be happy they don't have those racist Apartheiders giving them more access to food and opprotunity than their non-racist ANC, go for it.

When did I say South Africans should 'shut up and stop complaining and be happy they don't have those racist Apartheiders'. Where are your sources that the average "African" person had more access to food and oppourtunity, btw? You keep saying it as it was empirical fact.

But you have yet to actually counter anything I said with something that's not just idealistic whining.

Of course I have. Idealistic whining must equal concern for the freedom and equality of peoples. Call it what you want.

At the moment? Umm, it's been that way since Apartheid ended. So I'm assuming you're not even familiar with the history of SA?

LOL. At the moment holds for about 6 years at the current time, when no's economy has been exactly functional. Put that was just over a decade of the change of governments, which most leave some transition time for effectiveness in a new government. When a new government comes into play in a country, economies do not boom wildly in the process. Just because the economy hasn't improved doesn't not necessitate what you wish it meant. There could be millions of factors regarding the benefit of people, and I'm sure there is plenty I'm unaware about.

What do you mean how did that turn out? How did it turn out socially? What's the point of this question? Did you not sidestep my own questions with just idealistic rhetoric?

Nope, you were spounting the virtues of British imperialism for certain South Africa in your first post. I asked how that turned out for Britain.

What do I mean when I asked how it turned out? What was the result for Britian as the history of the apartheid progressed? Socially, economically, etc. The point to this question is to show a little flaw in your first post. IF British imperialism was so effective and great, why did it fail and get overthrown? Sidestep your questions? What questions, I've responded to every point. It's one who picks and chooses from my replies what you will respond to. I respond to every point.

Speaking of side-stepping questions. Attempt 3: How did colonialism in South Africa turn out for Britain in the long run?

 

[dust1n]

cont.

Who are they propped by exactly? In detail. Examples please!

The political elite of SA. The rich of SA whose interests will be supported by legislation introduced by the SA. Like anyone running for president almost anywhere, they obviously have people supporting them...

SA is run by dictators and American industry? Source please! Wait, is that your source below?

Stop convulating what I say. SA is run by essentially a dictator. We seem to agree on this. The current party uses the government for the purposes of supporting its own party.

American industry doesn't RUN SA, it backs its official leader, and has influence. American industry would love to see more liberalization of SA's borders. I guess I worded that confusingly. Again, I didn't mean to imply that Westerners roles SA, but that the government of SA stepped up and played the role of "Western colonialist".

It's not a black/white issue. How much interference and influence of public policy does another country have to do before it is determined that that country 'runs' something. I dunno. America has a lot of influence in South Africa. I probably couldn't source the exact extent of that.

Can you provide a link that shows that Amcham is running the SA through puppet dictators as you seemingly claim?

I didn't claim that, only that Western powers are officially okay with SA leaders (backed) and in so do deals with them. AmCham is just example of a lobbyist group who helps its business clients. AmCham info would be really hard to find, I'd imagine.

So yeah, please present some sources. I'd like to see it specifically from a SA point of view that Amchams are in fact the ones telling the corrupt ANC what to do through "dictators".

Huh? When did I say AmCham ran the country like 'dictators'. The AmCham link was just to show the American support....

I don't doubt the ANC is dictatorial and ultimately rubber stamps whatever the leaders want done, but I'd like to see an actual source proving its the Amchams running the strings as you seem to claim.

Well, at least you keep saying 'seem to claim.'

You must think all you have to do is call something a false dilemma and that excuses you from explaining what the alternative is.

It's simple. NONE of the economic realities of SA would have to be tied into whether or not blacks and 'mixed races' have certain rights within their government. Just because the ANC is bad doesn't mean it's okay to go back to the Apartheid. You could literally use every exact economic detail from that time period and apply it to the modern government, but that isn't reverting back to the Apartheid, or what the Apartheid means to exist.

The case is not "Africans will exist in their own worse, and brutal dictatorship" or "Africans will exist under the rule of neo-colonialists, much like the Aparethid" and that the latter is somehow better for the people of the country because it is less evil.

Centrist? Rightist? If not, what label do you identify with in this regard?

I don't see why I would really need one. I'm actually more 'right' about SA than I am other places. It has a corrupt government, and that power should be more distributed to the people, naturally.

That does not mean I support the apartheid. You don't have to support one of the two. You don't have to instigate any race based legislation to handle economics...

Ah, so you get to redefine the term "Fascist" as its misused by liberals? At what point did the word "Fascism" change its definition?

I guess the moment that we stopped looking to Mussolini for definitions. "Fascism" is a loaded word, could mean a number of things. IMO, if a state has instigated race-based citizenship, that's a completely fascist move. People who support bigotry of race are fascist in my mind.

Sounds like SA under the ANC is extremerly fascist.

Much like it was before, ya.

But at least all people have an option to vote in SA now, which gives them that much more power in determining the outcomes of their destinies, whether it be economic issues or not. Exploiting Africans and justifying that action by pointing to the exploitation of africans by other africans is not a very sturdy argument for economically controlling someone else's country.



EVEN is the SA was the worst thing to happen to the world, I still fail to see why that is a justification for rasist policies which exploited and disenfranchised many and many Africans. Which is why I called false delimma in the first place.

Your first post is just working of the premise/assumption that there is two choices. ANC or previous Apartheid. Everything else follows from that, including all of your 'neocolonialism' isn't 'exploitive, necessarily' because there are more exploitive forms of neocolonialism in existence, to the best thing for any one in a third world country is to accept a helping hand for a foreigner (where are the cries from millions of SA's for a helping hand from foreigner's) all the way to the necessity of racial citizenship as part of SA's reforms to a better state...

 

[dust1n]

India was one of the richest place in the world when the British showed up. Both wealth and life expectancy decreased under the British rule of India.

Few of the things the British did in India:

-Forced famine of Bengal in 1943. The British took food out of the state while up to 10 million starved. This was just one of many famines under the British.

- Amritsar massacre were 1302 men, women and children slaughtered by the orders by Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer.

-In 1857 the British Raj had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favor of British textile imports.

There are many more stories.

But haven't you seen all of the corruption in the national India state?!?! It only makes since to reinstigate British rule... or at least assume it...

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless Im mistaken, the sources this article cites seems to make it not so much an act of British forced starvation ala Stalin with the Ukraine but a collective economic disaster brought by incompetence and lack of foresight and failed internal policies, more about mistakes than cruelty, and there's a talk section of course, can you provide a site that you feel more objectively places the blame on the British? The Wikipedia seems if anything that the British did try to alleviate the situation and there was bureaucratic red tape problems involved more than anything else, so I'd like to see a counterview.

Yes, thats true, the British was not like Stalin or nearly as bad. Still they were incompetent at handing famines and they still removed food from the area during the disaster. Also the large numbers of famines under British rule in comparison to the rest of Indian History is a damming statistic.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But can you show that India was richer before British colonization with a link? I'd be very interested in that.

Lots of stuff about this. Here is some.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...lBG6xV&sig=AHIEtbQdBtd4OfcLle6cJW46W_UNpXhPCg

Even Adam Smith said India was richer the Europe.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But haven't you seen all of the corruption in the national India state?!?! It only makes since to reinstigate British rule... or at least assume it...

I am surprised that you would post something like this.

The Life expectancy has increased and the green revolution has stopped famines. You can't really believe this. I am sure that if British soldiers cut off your fingers to stop your family textile industry you would have a different view.

 

[Shermana]

I am surprised that you would post something like this.

The Life expectancy has increased and the green revolution has stopped famines. You can't really believe this. I am sure that if British soldiers cut off your fingers to stop your family textile industry you would have a different view.

I do believe he was being sarcastic.

He has a point, we can't look at every case with a one-size fits all. India may be better off, but no one in their right mind would say Zimbabwe or South Africa are.

 

[cablescavenger]

How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving?

This was a question asked to me recently in another thread.

Here, it is referring to 3rd World nations.

I see that there are three main options.


1. Encourage revolution in said nations in order to remove corrupt governments.

2. Prop up corrupt governments with aid money.

3. Leave said nations to 'survival of the fittest'

All of these 3 options would likely lead to dictatorship and tyranny and thus worse conditions for the poor.

Option 4. - Neo-colonialism , this is generally what is happening in many places these days.

Perhaps better than options 1 to 3 but perhaps not.


Is there a 5th option, or does anyone disagree with the other scenarios?

Population control.

 

[cablescavenger]

But of course there is a 5th solution, and probably a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. I don't see why you have to limit everything to such overly-simplified and under-thought solutions.

How about this as a general approach - governments should do more to negotiate on behalf of charities and other organizations, or at least use their connections to put heads of charities in better positions to open greater dialogue with representatives of the in-need country's government. What the country's really need is education, tools and various other know-how. Doesn't even have to be about charity - the government can help connect private enterprises with foreign governments to arrange exchange of knowledge and expertise.

It's the classic "teach a man to fish" approach - if you can help other countries update their agriculture, set up more food processing capabilities, improve access to water, that's the foundation for the improvement of the quality of life for people. It's all rooted in education. Most important is opening dialogue between the governments of those countries and those of developed nations and/or charities.

I believe that most countries would welcome heads of charities in to discuss programs like school-building, well-digging, home reconstruction, medical assistance etc. But in fact there are exceptions to the rule - North Korea is notorious for not letting aid flow to where it is needed the most. They run on a principal of whoever is the most productive gets fed first - so most aid flows right into areas that are already sufficiently stocked.

Anway, so yeah, that's my overview on the approach that needs to be taken.

Charity won't do it. It needs to be something more sustainable.

 

[Shermana]

Population control.

And how do you plan on doing that? Telling them to stop making babies and hope they listen?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I do believe he was being sarcastic.

My bad !

 

[Penumbra]

I have a lot of concern for people in other countries, but it seems to me that when external entities try to help, it often makes it worse.

-I'm wary of helping with all sorts of food and such, because it feels like treating the symptoms rather than the causes, and I have concerns that it could worsen the causes down the road. I recall a widely reported example where a bunch of shirts made for a losing superbowl team were donated to poor regions, and it put local clothing businesses out of business.

-I'm wary of engineering solutions to an extent, though I think this might be the way to go. Like little portable equipment and such. One thing I worry about, not having visited places personally, is whether external groups providing solutions could damage local self-esteem, promote dependence, and so forth.

-I'm wary of promoting foreign investment in some areas because I can't be sure if the money will actually go to the poor, or will be used by the rich to screw the poor over. If industry develops quickly from external means, the resulting imbalance could heavily pollute and damage things. A place rich in natural resources can sometimes find that to be a curse. And as soon as infrastructure is in place, Coca Cola can come in and start selling everyone sugary crap in plastic bottles.

-I'm wary of most types of political involvement, like propping up certain leaders, selling arms to groups that seem better than other groups, etc. This seems like it sets up problems decades later.

Therefore, I try to focus on reducing harm rather than promoting active solutions. Rather than help a situation, I try to make sure that first I'm not partially contributing to the problem. For active solutions, I prefer focusing on more local problems, since I feel I understand the situation better.

It does seem that certain things are definitely useful, like eradicating a disease, promoting birth control, empowering women, spreading education.