The White Man's Burden

[August1991]

Argus is in fine form on this thread and I have an important point to make. But let me start by replying politely to his post:

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?

I'll take this as a generic rant, Argus.

Africa could be subject to a total embargo (no planes, boats into, out of the continent, no more aid and so on) and no one in the rest of the world would notice. Most in Africa wouldn't notice either.

Stephen Lewis' schtick has to do with his own ego, and domestic politics in places like Canada. I suspect that Stephen Lewis knows this.

So yes on one level a person who smokes and drinks and eats junk food has an individual responsibility for the choice to have smoked, drank and eaten high fat foods which contributed directly to his or her liver disease, cancer, heart disease, etc. No one would argue we all as individuals have a responsibility to look after our bodies.

But the point is, how does Argus know these same people didn't get their disease also as a result of being exposed to the stress of unemployment, air pollution, exposure to lead paint, and as a result of being exposed to crime, violence, despair, and partly as a result of that exposure, turned to drugs, smokes, high fat food as a reaction or coping mechacnism or quite simply because in many inner cities or the third world

there is no access to fresh fruit and vegetables and water, education, work and clearn air, but there is exposure to cigarettes, booze and violence. Or would Argus turn a blind eye and choose to forget that alcohol and tobacco companies and junk food companies deliberately target and market the poor or third

world?

Rue, you need a better editor.

It seems to me that you are saying that sometimes, people are poor because they made bad choices. And sometimes, people are poor because they had no choices. Then, you somehow people blame in rich western countries for this state of affairs. Sorry, I don't accept the blame.

Rue, let me give you a new definition of poverty (that doesn't use money) - please reflect on it. Poor people have few choices. Rich people have many choices. Now then, how have people in rich countries limited the choices available to people in poor countries?

----

I said I had a point, and here it is.

My first response to Argus was that we in the West do nothing for people in poor countries. There's no whiteman's burden because there's no burden.

On reflection, I think that's wrong.

Our education system (and our government, legal system) in large cities is our burden. And it's a good one too. People from around the world come to Canada (and the US) because they know their children will benefit.

A friend in Moscow emigrated to Canada and I had a chat with her later in Toronto. She annouced to me, "You Canadians have somehow created a place where people from all over the world are like you, polite to one another."

To be crude (in Argus style), modern colonialism means the heathens voluntarily come to us rather than sending missionaries to the heathens. It is one thing to see a Hollywood movie of Manhattan and it is another thing to walk in Manhattan.

[Rue]

Yes Rue.

The third world is literally 'maintained' for its peripheral status as 'the' resourse for exploitation by the core nations.

The world economy could not function the way it is now to benefit core nations if it were not set up this way. The whole economy would collapse if every nation was a winner. Third world =fuel/canon fodder to perpetuate the running of first world.

Disease, war, famine are the consequences to a 'rich' economy.

It is sick.

Argus is sick too.

Now hang on a second. He brought up a topic for debate or a discussion. His point is a classic arguement not particular to him but postulated by many governments. He is just presenting the other side of the coin on the debate as to whether we should be looking outword or inword as to foreign policy and aid

So I would prefer if we kept this on a general discussion level and I actually apologize to anyone if I contributed to making it personal. We are just debating classic fundamental positions as to foreign aid.

That said, I do find Argus' comments that he feels he is superior to other people the kind of position that could easily be interperated the wrong way. I am sure Argus meant he feels superior because of

the advantages he has although Argus I think you got some explaining to do on that comment because it can be construed as being "sick" if you really are trying to come across as some superiority freak. I can see where Yam is coming on that one.

That said argus careful what you put in my mouth. When I say Africans may not know how to use contraceptives (rubbers) I never ever said that makes them savages. Ignorance argus from my perspective does not make one inferior. Ignorance is relative. Many an African may not know how to use a robber, but maybe they do know how to use a particular herb to manage a medical problem I would not know. So careful Argus do not generalize for me. I am not apologizing for Africans. They do not need me apologizing for them. I am simply trying to treat them with respect and compassion which is exactly how I would want them to treat me.

That said, in response to another post which said I should do a better job of editing, uh no, I deliberately stated that there are two sides to the coin of arguing peoples' fate. One side is that they have situations and conditions imposed upon them they have no control over, and in such situations yes we need to be compassionate. In other situations where people have direct control over situations and make destructive lifestyle choices they could have presented, well then maybe in such situations we can take a less compassionate approach. I know doctors can be very tough on cancer patients who refuse to quit smoking and society defines who is on a transplant list for livers by disqualifying alcoholics.

My point is because its a bit of both we have to take care not to generalize.

And yes Argus is right when he says I am preaching and I know he did not mean it personally. Its true, the classic liberal arguements I am making in response to his conservative ones also deal with certain moral assumptions as to when to be compassionate and caring. Argus just so you know, while I disagree with your positions, I do not think for a second my arguements are morally superior and I can lecture you. I have strong feelings which I believe should be made, but I do appreciate we could take your side of the position and actually logically argue it is more compassionate to let nature kill people rather then prolong their lives with pain and suffering.

There is a position as to third world relief that argues that in some situations it is hopeless and we should not interfere and let nature run its course. It was presented in a simplistic manner in that movie with Angelica Jolie where she comes across a starving child and insists on taking it back to the camp and the doctor in the camp gets upset with her for bringing it. He is upset because he feels limited resources that could be used elsewhere to help more people will now be used for simply one life.

Again there are two sides to the compassion arguement. Obviously I subscribe to the one that Africa is not hopeless and should not be written off and that poverty is not hopeless.

I also preach my side of the moral compassion coin on this argus because I think if we take your side on it, Darfurs and mass killings like in Rwanda and Burundi more easily happen. I can't for a second think the tragedy in Rwanda/Burdundi or in Darfur or on the Congo now, was not preventable to some extent.

I can not believe everyone born to poverty must be condemned to death and suffering. If I stopped caring and maintaining hope, I would in my personal opinion be dead even if I was still breathing.

Also on a strictly personal subjective note that may not be relevant, my views have been shaped by listenting to people now in Canada who came from Uganda, Tanzania, Zaire, Chad, and Mali. I certainly shoudn't make generalizations but I don't think any of them would mind me saying this-what they all had in common was coming from situations of extreme poverty and violence, but all these people were gentle and compassionate. For me I could not imagine not caring for such people. If after what they went through they can be so gentle and compassionate, surely they are "superior" to me in the sense that maybe they survived precisely to teach me that there is always hope. Its for the people who suffer but surive and take the time to be compassionate with me and explain what happened to them to me without being angry at me for not understanding what to them must seem so obvious, that I think is one reason I would want to argue that yes we should care and get involved.Surely it helps us become better people? (that's a humbe comment not a self-righteous pronouncement Arg)

[myata]

No? Arabs were the primary slave traders. In fact, they have been raiding Black Africa for slaves for centuries. The first Black slaves in Europe and American were simply purchased from Arabs. The Arab world was deeply involved in every aspect of the slave trade, and hung onto it far longer than Europe. Slavery is still practiced, to some extent, in some Muslim nations. As to the Chinese, like the Russians, they have spent an awful lot of money in Africa during the cold war, backing this or that communist group, shipping arms and advisors, etc. All the cold war intercene struggles throughout Africa had either a Chinese or Russian backer trying to overthrow a pro-west government - or in some cases vice versa. What have the Chinese and Russians done to make amends for that?

Inasmuch as it compares to the impact of the Western colonialism (occupation, imposition of colonial administrations, violent suppression of any resistance, exploitation, removal (theft?) of natural resources,

arbitrary creation of border lines, creation of new states, ethnic cleansing, etc, you name it) I agree that others should aslo bear some responsibility. In my estimate, it pales by far in comparison to the West's legacy.

Are you going to state that the British Navy had no right to supress the slave trade, to impound slaves and slave boats wherever they found them on the high seas? It was merely their moral judgement, after all, and it was translated into violence and meddling to stop others, ie, Arabs, for example, from running slaves to America.

British Navy was OK to prevent it's own citizens from participating in slave trade. British crown had no right to occupy other countries, and so on (see above). There's neither moral no ethical justification for that, just the law of brute force. If that's OK with you, stop whining now than the same is applied to you and bear the burden of the white man stoically with grim determination as you ought according to the ancient tradition.

All governmental entities rely on force. Without force, there is no order. Do you believe this to be imoral, that all governments are "domineering, power sick entities"?

No, not all. Specifically when certain goverments go outside of their jurisdiction and try to teach others how they should live (which, for some strange reason, almost never comes by without use of superior military technology - why I wonder, if their moral and ethical superiority should be so obvious to everybody?), those do qualify.

(Edited - quotations)

[Argus]

That said, I do find Argus' comments that he feels he is superior to other people the kind of position that could easily be interperated the wrong way. I am sure Argus meant he feels superior because of

the advantages he has

Well... how can one not be superior due to advanrages one has? I mean, really, of course we're superior, and of course it's due to our advantages, to growing up in the society constructed by our parents and grandparents, a society which is moderate, peaceful and socially, culturally, scientifically and economically advanced? There are still people who believe in witches and burn them at the stake. There are people who cut off little girls clitoris's so they won't be tempted by immorality. There are people who believe adulterers should be buried in the dirt and stoned to death. Few of such people can read or write. Few know anything about history or the world beyond them. OF COURSE I'm superior to them!

That said argus careful what you put in my mouth. When I say Africans may not know how to use contraceptives (rubbers) I never ever said that makes them savages. Ignorance argus from my perspective does not make one inferior.

Ignorance is the difference between barbarism and civilization. Making excuses for nations or ethnic groups almost by definition defines them as inferior. A long time ago, some Foreign Affairs wiener explained to the Toronto Star why we should be outraged at the human rights violations of South Africa, but forgive those by Zambia (including the imprisonment without trial of a Canadian). He said that they were a "young" nation, and so we shouldn't judge them too harshly, but have patience. I translated that as "Well, they're darkies. We can't hold them to the same standards as White people."

Perhaps crude, as August might say, but no less accurate. If people are equal, then we hold them to the same standards.

As to Africa, it's a hole. And it's been getting worse, not better. The only thing to do with is a complete reno, down to the bare bones. Go in, take over, rebuild, shoot anyone who argues. I see no prospect for Africa joining the 20th century (never mind the 21st) through any other plan or means.

[Argus]

Africa could be subject to a total embargo (no planes, boats into, out of the continent, no more aid and so on) and no one in the rest of the world would notice. Most in Africa wouldn't notice either.

Surely you don't believe this? It's utter nonsense.

I said I had a point, and here it is.

My first response to Argus was that we in the West do nothing for people in poor countries. There's no whiteman's burden because there's no burden.

Is this the ignorance is bliss argument? The billions we send in aid don't count? The troops and peacekeeping and aid workers and all are fictitious

To be crude (in Argus style), modern colonialism means the heathens voluntarily come to us rather than sending missionaries to the heathens.

But who is colonizing whom?