The White Man's Burden

[Argus]

I can't help but note the pressure put on European nations to send thousands of troops into danger in Lebanon over the last few weeks. Now on the one hand, it's put up or shut up. If you were braying loud and strong about the need for peace and peacekeepers then maybe you shouldn't complain when it comes time to ante up at the end of the day.

On the other hand, what possible interest is it of Italians if the Lebanese and Israelis are killing each other? Where are all those Arab nations screaming indignantly at the abuses of their poor Muslim brothers? Where are the thousands of Egyptian and Jordanian and Turkish troops who should make up the bulk of the force? Why is it the only substantial offers from the Muslim world came from countries whose troops are more likely to join Hezbollah then restrain them?

Why is it the West's responsibility to provide AIDS relief and drugs to Africa? Their problem is not that Blacks are more succeptibale to AIDS than anyone else, it's their lifestyle choices, their whoremongering, if you will, their insistence on having unprotected sex with multiple partners despite all advice to the contrary. Why do we have to protect them from their own misbehaviour?

Why is it the West which is at fault for Rwanda? Why is we who have to provide Tsunami relief to Indonesia, a nation larger than the United States, with a very big military?

Why is it our obligation to try and drag the barbarians, kicking and screaming and clawing the whole way - into the light of the twenty first century?

Why do we have to respect other nations as equals when they clearly aren't? Why do we have to treat the big-bellied, swaggering African strongmen and the religious wackos of the Muslim world with respect?

Why shouldn't we just nuke Iran, rather than watching them creep closer and closer to getting their claws on nuclear weapons?

Why is it still the White man's burden to bring civilization to the world?

[Charles Anthony]

Your "white man" is not being forced to do anything. Why do you see it like he is being forced?

You would do well to follow the money.

I look at all of the examples you highlighted and ask: where is the money? For each of the examples, there is surely a "white man" making money.

I could ask: Why does the "white man" make Hollywood movies? or the hoola-hoop? or any other non-essential diversion in life?

The answer is always: because there is an "other white man" who is willing to pay for it and a "middle-white-man" who makes money.

Ask the same question on a smaller scale: stay within Canada.

Why do Canadians feel compelled to handout their hard-earned money in welfare or chimeric make-work programs to other fellow Canadians?

[Riverwind]

Why is it our obligation to try and drag the barbarians, kicking and screaming and clawing the whole way - into the light of the twenty first century?

Trying to help a neighbor in need is a natural human impulse. The ability to empathize with humans who are not immediate family members is one of the reasons humans have been so successful as a species. There are obviously cases where this desire to help is taken to an extreme, however, I do not think the natural desire to help is wrong.

Furthermore, many of the 'barbarians' happen to control access to critical resources that the wealthy countries need or these 'barbarians' are in a position to flood wealthy countries with refugees. In both cases, it is cheaper to promote peace and stability in these societies than ignore the problems and hope they fix themselves.

[Rue]

I have no idea why you have raised the race card and made this a white v.s. non white issue.

For starters, lets talk about AIDs. Your reasoning that it is a lifestyle choice is a coded arguement that is predicated on ignorance as to what free choice is.

Gays have heard that arguement for years. If they get AIDS it is because they engage in unsafe anal sex so its their fault.

Well in the real world, Black people in Africa have unprotected sex because they can not afford nor do they have access to contraceptives. They are also not sex crazed practicing sex crazed practices. They have as many children as possible because they have no social net. The more children they reproduce, the more likely the odds are one survives and can help the family. Its a vicious cycle of poverty that causes the poor to reproduce indiscriminately, not because they are morally weak and give in to their sex needs.

More to the point, gay people don't get aids simply because they are promiscuous or because they choose to. Many gays like straights get aids, because of ignorance, because their partners lie, or because they

are exposed to accidents. Not all gays deserve to die simply because they chose to engage in anal sex. It is far more complicated then that.

So you want to write off all blacks in Africa and use racial context, you open yourself up to this question-why is Africa so destitute. Oh its their fault right? They have corupt leaders and they are ignorant and out of control what with their sex drives? Is that what I am to believe? Or maybe just maybe, can we see that say in the Congo today's current civil war and catastrophe is as a result of organized crime flowing from the diamond trade propped up by caucasians from Belgium, Germany, the UK, Canada, the US, etc.

How about Zimbabwe. Oh yes on the one had we can say Robert Mugabe, is crazy with final stage syphilis of the brain and ruined a great country and he is black but I would also remind you that for years, Britain, Canada and the Commonwealth worshipped this man and kissed his butt. When it was convenient he was wonderful. So sorry it aint that easy.

If Africa is a mess, yes its partially because its an internal problem but its also as a result of artificial borders sliced out by Europeans that ignored natural tribal population patterns and set the stafe for permanent civil wars and instability my mixing tribes that did not get along.

It's also as a result of Europeans making billions off of propping up corupt regimes in Africa.

It's also as a result of the West draining Africa of its entire intelligentsia and turning them into our

taxi drivers and orderlies and janitors.

More to the point, you don't think it is a collective responsibility, fine. But as you allow all these blacks to die in Africa, don't kid yourself. Some of them will come out and have sex with one of your white neighbours and before you know it, oopsy one of your relatives will have it or when they go to the hospital might be exposed to it. So don't kid yourself.

As for the Middle East why not just let them Jews and Arabs kill themselves? Well I got news for you...your worst nightmare is if the Jews and Muslims of the Middle East ever smarten up and form an alliance. Pray that never happens. Pray the West and its need for oil continues to pit these 2 Cain and Abels against each other, because if they ever find peace, what do you think happens to the Western economy if there is no war and a way to justify trading oil for weapons?

More to the point what is in it if Italy or France or anyone else stops a civil war or contains terrorism? Take a good look at their populations. You think France is not full of Muslims? You think Italy and Spain do not have Muslims in their population or are close to Muslim populated countries? You don't think terrorism spreads?

You really think if you stick your head in the sand, and ignore it, these nasty Jews adn Arabs simply kill each other and go away or them there blacks in Africa will just die out? Oh if it were that simple.

In summary what bugs me about the above question ( and not you...I know you simply raised it for discussion, its the issues I am talking about not you) is that a lot of people truly believe that when humanity suffers it isn't their concern. That is precisely why there were killing fields in Cambodia, genocide in Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Sudan, and there have been horrors such as the holocaust, mass starvation of Ukrainians by Stalin, massacre of the Armanians, etc., it is precisely because if we people collectively look the other way, it makes it possible for these things to spread.

The holocaust happened precisely because, average every day people said, it wasn't their concern and when their neighbourhoods emptied out they continued to look the other way. In the end, it did make a difference because the lack of opposition kep Hitler going and enabled him to kill not just Jews, but these isolationists fellow countrymen other then them there Jews or Gypsies.

[Argus]

Your "white man" is not being forced to do anything. Why do you see it like he is being forced?

It seems to be our responsibility to look after and resolve every disaster, man-made or otherwise.

You would do well to follow the money.

I look at all of the examples you highlighted and ask: where is the money? For each of the examples, there is surely a "white man" making money.

Isn't that a racist assumption? Aren't there brown men and black men and yellow men making money? Where are the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans? Aren't they making money? Some idiot Swedish general is in my newspaper blaming Europe for the renewed fighting in Sri Lanka. Why? Because the EU declared the Tamil Tigers a terrorist organization. And so it's apparently their fault. Not the Tigers fault. Not the Sri Lankan government's fault, the white man's fault. Well it's not white men blowing up children in Sri Lanka.

Ask the same question on a smaller scale: stay within Canada.

Why do Canadians feel compelled to handout their hard-earned money in welfare or chimeric make-work programs to other fellow Canadians?

It is one thing to help your neighbour and your society, and another to help generally hostile foreigners a world away. And a lot of Canadians aren't too charitable with each other either, not when they believe the problem is self-inflicted.

[Argus]

I have no idea why you have raised the race card and made this a white v.s. non white issue.

it's not a "vs" anything issue. It's an issue of responsibility, who has it, and why.

For starters, lets talk about AIDs. Your reasoning that it is a lifestyle choice is a coded arguement that is predicated on ignorance as to what free choice is.

Gays have heard that arguement for years. If they get AIDS it is because they engage in unsafe anal sex so its their fault.

Generally speaking - it IS their fault for engaging in unsafe and wildly promiscuous sex.

Well in the real world, Black people in Africa have unprotected sex because they can not afford nor do they have access to contraceptives. They are also not sex crazed practicing sex crazed practices. They have as many children as possible because they have no social net. The more children they reproduce, the more likely the odds are one survives and can help the family.

That's only a very small part of it. AIDS spreads through promiscuity. It doesn't matter if a man and wife engage in sex without a condom as long as neither one of them is having sex with other people. But African men are promiscuous to a degree European society would never contemplate.

More to the point, gay people don't get aids simply because they are promiscuous or because they choose to. Many gays like straights get aids, because of ignorance, because their partners lie, or because they are exposed to accidents.

All of that is a smoke screen. It's promiscuity which is at fault. And virtually all gay men know this, and yet substantial numbers risk it anyway with unsafe sex with multiple partners.

So you want to write off all blacks in Africa and use racial context, you open yourself up to this question-why is Africa so destitute. Oh its their fault right? They have corupt leaders and they are ignorant and out of control what with their sex drives? Is that what I am to believe?

Yup.

Or maybe just maybe, can we see that say in the Congo today's current civil war and catastrophe is as a result of organized crime flowing from the diamond trade propped up by caucasians from Belgium, Germany, the UK, Canada, the US, etc.

Organized crime is everywhere. So?

If Africa is a mess, yes its partially because its an internal problem but its also as a result of artificial borders sliced out by Europeans that ignored natural tribal population patterns and set the stafe for permanent civil wars and instability my mixing tribes that did not get along.

Then change the borders. Because what's going on no is NOT working.

It's also as a result of Europeans making billions off of propping up corupt regimes in Africa.

That's so much nonsense. Corruption is not a problem unique to Africa. All governments, all nations, all societies face the problem of what to do about the wealthy who are willing to buy off police, bureacrats and politicians to the detriment of society. The Africans have simply never dealt with their problems of corruption. Whether that's cultural or whatever is beside the point.

It's also as a result of the West draining Africa of its entire intelligentsia and turning them into our

taxi drivers and orderlies and janitors.

A very good reason to ban all third world immigration!

As for the Middle East why not just let them Jews and Arabs kill themselves? Well I got news for you...your worst nightmare is if the Jews and Muslims of the Middle East ever smarten up and form an alliance. Pray that never happens. Pray the West and its need for oil continues to pit these 2 Cain and Abels against each other, because if they ever find peace, what do you think happens to the Western economy if there is no war and a way to justify trading oil for weapons?

I don't believe it for a second. First off, Israel not at war with the Arabs is hardly going to make them form an "alliance" with them against the West. Why would they? Are you saying Jews aren't trustworthy, Rue? That given half a chance they'll turn on anyone who has previously aided them in order to make a profit? Second, what alliiance do you think the Arabs would want to form in order to attack the West? An Islamic alliance, perhaps? The first goal of such a thing would be to take out the Jews. Third, the only thing the middle east has going for it is oil. We discover it, drill it, and operate the oil fields for them - because they are incapable of doing so, despite generations of oil wealth. They build nothing. They are not even capable of maintaining or repairing the complex systems we sell them. Whatever they want they need to get from us, be it weapons, cars, aircraft, drugs, food or clock radios. It makes no difference to western economies whether they buy fighters or Fords, bombs or BMWs.

They're not about to turn off the taps, and if they ever did we'd simply take it anyway. And when the oil runs out in however many years, and becomes too pricey, we'll wind up using something else, that's all.

You really think if you stick your head in the sand, and ignore it, these nasty Jews adn Arabs simply kill each other and go away or them there blacks in Africa will just die out? Oh if it were that simple.

Maybe it really IS that simple. Did you ever consider that?

In summary what bugs me about the above question ( and not you...I know you simply raised it for discussion, its the issues I am talking about not you) is that a lot of people truly believe that when humanity suffers it isn't their concern.

That is not the position I'm taking, at least, not entirely. You might be aware I support Canadian troops in Afghanistan, for example. What I resent is the assumption that it is our responsibility, we in the West, that we have to solve all the third-world's problems COMBINED with the irresponsible behaviour, the endemic corruption and incompetence of third world govenrments, and their nearly universal proclamation that they're every bit our equals, bear little responsibility for their problems, and in fact, all their problems are our fault. If we're in charge, fine. Then why do we have to tolerate the Syrias and Irans? Why can't we just crush them to make life easier on everyone? If we're in charge of putting things right then let's put them right. Let's redraw the borders of Africa - whether their illegitimate, corrupt governments agree or not. Let's nuke Iran and Syria and anyone else who revels in causing trouble all over the world - the world it's apparently our job to safeguard.

Of course, one of the major problems is so many elements in the West are so wrapped up in guilt and self-loathing they can't bring themselves to say boo to a brown skinned man. Maybe we could schluff off the job of safeguarding the world to them and them alone. We could have special army units solely made up of leftists who would step into the breech in all third-world conflagrations and sooth everyone with respect, negotiations and platitudes. That'll work reaaall well.

[myata]

Maybe, because white man has created (or was responsible, in large degree) for this, and many other problems of the kind, originating from the white man's late desire to civilize other people, and is now pursued by guilt and sense of responsibility? Just a thought.

It's a deja vu all right. But far from learning from old mistakes, the neoCon company is starting it all over again (sigh).

[geoffrey]

Maybe, because white man has created (or was responsible, in large degree) for this, and many other problems of the kind, originating from the white man's late desire to civilize other people, and is now pursued by guilt and sense of responsibility? Just a thought.

It's a deja vu all right. But far from learning from old mistakes, the neoCon company is starting it all over again (sigh).

Let's just let them all kill each other then??

What do you propose we do if we don't help??

[myata]

I propose to leave them alone (for real). Stop selling them arms (e.g. casset bombs). Stop supporting unpopular but friendly to West regimes. Bring back troops. Wait a while (maybe as long as took to

create the mess?). And then, if they ask for your help, give what is asked.

[Slavik44]

Let's just let them all kill each other then??

You now it is tough to gauge how positive the influence of western nations has been on other countries up to this point. I do believe that within western society there is a standard of living and an excellence of life that cannot be parralleled anywhere and has not been parralleled at any time pervious. Unfortunately in our actions to spread the good news, we have certainly caused alot of pain and suffering, and ignited may conflicts we have at this point certainly helped them kill each other at an alarming rate. Not that they were not doing it before, but an AK-47 is a fair sized improvement over a spear.

so I guess the question is,

What do you propose we do?

Great question. I chopped off the end for a reason though. Because we can help, and we should help, when we are wanted. In almost anything I have ever done with other individuals, I have always needed their permission before I involved them. I believe Sex with out permission is called rape. As much fun as it may be, sometimes you just have to sit back play the field and wait for a willing partner. Such a scenario presents the best case for success and enjoyment. If they want our help, and our willing to work with us, then we can help them and we stand a far better chance for success and a smaller chance for backlash.

Rue made an interesting post, a post that claimed that Africans were not responsible for the situation they are currently in. I will take that at face value and not debate it. But I have a question, If I poinsoned you, assaulted you, robbed you, enslaved you, harrased you, and murdered your friends and family, how receptive would you be for me to return to help you all the while treating you like a second class citizen? A number of our current offers of help have a poor track record, and I believe they will continue to have a poor track record.

What we need to do, is start equiping Africans, Arabs, and everyone else with the ability to help themselves, when they ask for it. It has been said that if you give a man a fish he has food for a day, if you teach a man to fish he has food for a lifetime, or the ability to collect welfare in Newfoundland. Anyways I believe the same applies for help. If we help a person then they have help only so long as we our helping them, but if we assist them in assisting themselves, then I would hope that they gain the neccasary ability to deal with problems that arise in the future on their own.

We tried helping Africans in the 1800's, Joseph Chamberlain said that in carrying out this work of civilisation we are fullfilling what I believe to be our national mission. Unfortunately when it came to Africa this was an abysmal failure. I believe it is only fair to ask, to what extent are we making the creation of a civilised Africa/middle east the mission of western society, the White mans burden part two.

I have no problem with helping third world countries, when they ask, but when they ask. we must ask ourselves a few questions. We must ask if we are going to be helpers or generals, we must ask if we are going to be teachers or commanders, we must ask wether we are going to be bankers or loan sharks, we must ask wether we are going to be friends or foes. Because handcuffs and a whip have no place in a helping hand.

I notice the topic of AIDS was brought up and it reminded me of an article I saw in a newspaper recently, this artcile basicaly implied that we should force circumsicion on African males because it appears to decrease susceptability to being infected by HIV.

It is not a matter of not being concerned about the third world, it is a matter of finding the best way to help the third world, and the best way is to have willing parties on both sides, working towards the same goal, working with each other, and working towards the benifiet of hundreds and millions of suffering people. I believe forcing and imposing this help are only justified when our own security is threatened and at risk.

[yam]

The biggest problem with so called help is its competitive edge.

The notion of giving help through government is intricately linked with emotive strategies to benefit the helper. Often its a kind of investment. To create the necessary infrastructure in the country as a foundation (commonly percieved as help), which thus serves as the very launch pad from which to exploit the resourses as in the countries outlined above and cheap labour such as that in the Maquiladoras.

Africa was conquered, divided up and re-divided up through civil wars created by the conquerers dont forget. The land to this day still lines the pockets of its first world investors. Peace and harmony, aid and whatnot are necessary but in order for it to work the country must not be simultaneously drained of its resourses - human and otherwise.

[Argus]

Great question. I chopped off the end for a reason though. Because we can help, and we should help, when we are wanted. In almost anything I have ever done with other individuals, I have always needed their permission before I involved them. I believe Sex with out permission is called rape. As much fun as it may be, sometimes you just have to sit back play the field and wait for a willing partner. Such a scenario presents the best case for success and enjoyment. If they want our help, and our willing to work with us, then we can help them and we stand a far better chance for success and a smaller chance for backlash.

But who is "they"? If the government asks you to come in and help, but some rebel group hates you and starts attacking you and exhorting the people to rise up against you and your evil works - is that help or interference? Given almost no third-world govenrment has any real legitimacy who do you deal with?

The Saudis asked the Americans to come to their land to protect them from Iraq. This is what inspired Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

What we need to do, is start equiping Africans, Arabs, and everyone else with the ability to help themselves, when they ask for it.

They have NEVER asked for it, not in that way. They will ask for money, but want to spend it as they choose, meaning half of it will be wasted and half will wind up in Swiss banks. Aid agencies, either government or private, all know that if they want aid to get to the people they have to bypass corrupt governments. So who do you deal with for a large scale redevelopment scheme in this world where nothing is done without mutual consent?

[Argus]

I propose to leave them alone (for real). Stop selling them arms (e.g. casset bombs). Stop supporting unpopular but friendly to West regimes. Bring back troops. Wait a while (maybe as long as took to

create the mess?). And then, if they ask for your help, give what is asked.

Not realistic. They have resources we need. Those resources bring wealth. Wealth brings power. And that leads to fighting and social upheaval. Such is the story of the third world. Here we have negotiations about how to spread the loot around. There they reach for the Ak-47s.

As for not sellling weapons - money will find a way. It always has.

[August1991]

Argus, your whole opening post is based on the assumption that we in the West actually do anything in poor foreign countries. The fact is, we don't. At present, Canada's foreign aid is about 0.28% of GDP.

When we sent aid workers to help after the tsunami disaster, that was largely to assuage the sense of guilt of a portion of the population. Most aid organizations will state that they receive their largest contributions after some disaster.

We have troops in Afghanistan as part of a specific operation to respond to a direct threat of terrorism.

As to AIDS in Africa, pharmaceutical companies are practicing a form of price discrimination when they sell products at different prices in different countries. It's not aid at all.

I suppose Bill Gates can do what he wants with his money but I think he has been well-advised to choose to fund basic medical research.

Italians are being asked to send a few thousand troops to the Middle East. You can consider that to be a cheap premium on an insurance policy. On the other hand, it would not be the first time that governments spend other people's money foolishly.

I'm intrigued by your argument that Egyptians should do the job instead of Italians. I didn't know you were a pan-Arabist.

You ask, "why don't we just nuke Iran?" Well, why should we? If the Iranian government is a threat, there are surely better ways to deal with it.

In the case of Rwanda, the west didn't do anything - I think that's the point many have made.

----

It is true that we hear alot about Rwanda, AIDS, natural disasters, the Middle East, African poverty. But we just hear about them. Nobody really does anything about it except wear bracelets that say "End poverty now". A few odd do-gooders go to a South American country and learn Spanish while working in co-op programme of some sort. They come home after six months, fascinated and invigorated by the experience. Compare the practical results of their efforts with the efforts of the many millions more who stay and work in Europe and North America.

My point is that all the issues you raise above are intellectual games fought between Western left and right. It is like a husband and wife arguing over a 28 cent purchase in a $100 food bill. The argument is purely symbolic - it has no impact on anything in the real world.

Bush Snr's intervention in Somalia might be an exception to my point but US politicians learned a lesson there.

If the whiteman bears a burden, the burden is no more than a feather.

Why do we have to respect other nations as equals when they clearly aren't? Why do we have to treat the big-bellied, swaggering African strongmen and the religious wackos of the Muslim world with respect?

If you think Jacques Chirac or George Bush Jnr thinks of Joseph Kabila as an equal, you're not as cynical as I thought you were.

OTOH, I would hope Argus that you are civilized in your dealings with people different from yourself.

------

Lastly, it is in the nature of western thought to leave a space for doubt. We question always. We have learned that ideas once held firmly as true (the earth at the centre of the universe) sometimes to turn out to be false.

Argus, it is unWestern of you to believe that we in the West have a monopoly on truth or have found the secrets to existence.

[Argus]

Argus, your whole opening post is based on the assumption that we in the West actually do anything in poor foreign countries. The fact is, we don't. At present, Canada's foreign aid is about 0.28% of GDP.

That's a chunk of change, nonetheless. The West collectively gives billions, if not tens of billions in foreign aid.

When we sent aid workers to help after the tsunami disaster, that was largely to assuage the sense of guilt of a portion of the population. Most aid organizations will state that they receive their largest contributions after some disaster.

But why should we? Indonesia is a nation of well over two hundred million people. They can't take care of a few swamped islands? Do you think the people of Yemen or Zambia were so aghast they were stuffing pennies into envelopes? Were there massive supplies of military and civilian aid from China, Iran and Bolivia? Where were the Chinese, Japanese and Phillipine navies?

As to AIDS in Africa, pharmaceutical companies are practicing a form of price discrimination when they sell products at different prices in different countries. It's not aid at all.

But why are we being told we have to take care of it? Why do we have the likes of Steven Lewis and his legions of media admirers condemning Canada for not doing enough? Why would we even be expected to do more?

Italians are being asked to send a few thousand troops to the Middle East.

Why Europeans? What's wrong with Chinese or Turkish or Japanese troops?

I'm intrigued by your argument that Egyptians should do the job instead of Italians. I didn't know you were a pan-Arabist.

Well wasn't it the Arab world that was horrified at the "massacres" going on in Lebanon? Shouldn't the Arab world thus provide the intervention troops?

You ask, "why don't we just nuke Iran?" Well, why should we? If the Iranian government is a threat, there are surely better ways to deal with it.

Name one.

In the case of Rwanda, the west didn't do anything - I think that's the point many have made.

Yes, to our everlasting shame, it's said. By why didn't African countries do anything?

My point is that all the issues you raise above are intellectual games fought between Western left and right. It is like a husband and wife arguing over a 28 cent purchase in a $100 food bill. The argument is purely symbolic - it has no impact on anything in the real world.

You don't think all that foreign aid, and all our meddling has any influence?

[Canuck E Stan]

You don't think all that foreign aid, and all our meddling has any influence?

The only influence the meddling has done, has been a greater hatred for anyone that is white,western and democratic.

[gc1765]

Why is it still the White man's burden to bring civilization to the world?

Your title is misleading, if not completely racist. I think what you are trying to argue is that it's the rich man's burden to care for the poor, not that it's the white man's burden to help non-whites, at least that is what I gather from your examples. You do realize that there are people from other races (black, arab, asian etc.) that pay taxes in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, and that their tax money is also helping the less fortunate. You should also remember that there are white people on welfare here in Canada (and the U.S.), so the issue isn't really about race, it's about money.

When we sent aid workers to help after the tsunami disaster, that was largely to assuage the sense of guilt of a portion of the population. Most aid organizations will state that they receive their largest contributions after some disaster.

But why should we? Indonesia is a nation of well over two hundred million people. They can't take care of a few swamped islands? Do you think the people of Yemen or Zambia were so aghast they were stuffing pennies into envelopes? Were there massive supplies of military and civilian aid from China, Iran and Bolivia? Where were the Chinese, Japanese and Phillipine navies?

We also helped the U.S. (along with many other countries) after hurricane Katrina. They are a country of 300 million people who could easily have taken care of the aftermath (moreso than indonesia), yet we still helped anyways...and guess what, most of the U.S. is WHITE.

[gc1765]

But why should we? Indonesia is a nation of well over two hundred million people. They can't take care of a few swamped islands? Do you think the people of Yemen or Zambia were so aghast they were stuffing pennies into envelopes? Were there massive supplies of military and civilian aid from China, Iran and Bolivia? Where were the Chinese, Japanese and Phillipine navies?

Look at this list: Link

The U.S. is 18th on the list, behind the likes of Hong Kong, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and the United Arab emirates.

or this, in response to Hurricane Katrina: Link

Over seventy countries pledged monetary donations or other assistance. Kuwait made the largest single pledge, $500 million; other large donations were made by Qatar ($100 million), South Korea ($30 million), India, China (both $5 million), Pakistan ($1.5 million),[71] and Bangladesh ($1 million).[72]

Countries like Sri Lanka, which was still recovering from the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Cuba and Venezuela (despite their differences with the United States), also offered to help. Countries including Canada, Mexico, Singapore, and Germany sent supplies, relief personnel, troops, ships and water pumps to aid in the disaster recovery. Britain's donation of 350,000 emergency meals did not reach victims due to laws regarding mad cow disease[73]. Russia's initial offer of two jets was declined by the U.S. State Department but accepted later. The French offer was also declined and requested later.

[myata]

Not realistic. They have resources we need. Those resources bring wealth. Wealth brings power. And that leads to fighting and social upheaval. Such is the story of the third world. Here we have negotiations about how to spread the loot around. There they reach for the Ak-47s.

As for not sellling weapons - money will find a way. It always has.

Well, then the mess, and hatred for the West will continue no matter what do-goodies we turn up once in a while, and it's as simple as the second law of Newton. No reason to complain about uncivilized character of some and intolerant religions of others either. Just understand. They are the way they are. And they did not ask us there. So, either try to change your ways (and you're right, the prospects of that do not seem to be very promising even now) or continue to carry the burden of the white man without complain - till the hard truth finally dawns.

[kimmy]

I have no idea why you have raised the race card and made this a white v.s. non white issue.

"The White Man's Burden" is the title of one of Rudyard Kipling's most famous works, a poem about the western world's duty to introduce knowledge and our concepts of civilization to people who are less technologically advanced and have different cultures and customs. Depending how you read the poem, Kipling might be advocating colonialism... or he might be warning of its consequences. Either way, the reference is very apt for the subject of this thread. I would think that Argus's choice of title was intended to reference all of the historical debate symbolized and embodied in Kipling's poem, not an effort to make this a "race" issue.

-k

[Riverwind]

I would think that Argus's choice of title was intended to reference all of the historical debate symbolized and embodied in Kipling's poem, not an effort to make this a "race" issue.

Never-the-less. Today, we are talking about is a rich vs. poor issue and many non-white societies (Japanese and the Koreans come immediately to mind) are now as rich as any "white" society. The Japanese donate huge sums of money in foreign aid that goes largely unnoticed in the rest of the world because of the Japanese aversion to having "boots on the ground".

That said, I suspect that you will see that the Japanese etc are less willing to police the world than non-European societies because there is something deep in the European/Anglo Saxon psyche that makes those societies push out into the wider world. It is worthwhile remembering that the Chinese had the technology to get to America in the 1300s - they just couldn't be bothered and left it to Europeans to find 200 or years later.

In other words, I am thinking that I agree with Argus: why do we bother?

[myata]

Could it be though, that we actually do need something from them (i.e. resources, oil), as Argus has pointed out? And much of that "civilization", "democratization", etc activity is actually driven by plain and simple capital interest (aka greed)? Gold and spice in the middle ages, wood and furs 18-1900, oil more recently?

And all that do-good thing just an attempt to mask that (to ourselves more than to everybody else)?

[Black Dog]

Q

Why is it still the White man's burden to bring civilization to the world?

-Argus, August 26, 2006

A?

We are better, we do know what is best, and they should just do what we tell them until they learn how to be like us.

-Argus, June 27, 2005

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have no idea why you have raised the race card and made this a white v.s. non white issue.

"The White Man's Burden" is the title of one of Rudyard Kipling's most famous works, a poem about the western world's duty to introduce knowledge and our concepts of civilization to people who are less technologically advanced and have different cultures and customs. Depending how you read the poem, Kipling might be advocating colonialism... or he might be warning of its consequences. Either way, the reference is very apt for the subject of this thread. I would think that Argus's choice of title was intended to reference all of the historical debate symbolized and embodied in Kipling's poem, not an effort to make this a "race" issue.

-k

Good on you Kimmy.

My two bits on the white man's burden is this:

We make a list of Arab countries that allow gang-raping of women, or those that don't let women vote, or those that don't allow women to feel the sun shine on their face...ever.

Then we go in there and blow the sh*t out of those a**holes and start fresh.

Islamofascists who treat women like beasts deserve the harshest form of colonization until they get it right.

[Black Dog]

Kimmy makes a thoughtful post on how this isn't a race issue, and then someone comes along and makes it a race issue.