The idea of looking at this problem from all points of views came to me this morning as I was furiously typing a comment (I would never actually end up posting as usual). Sorry for a few grammar errors in the screenshot below, it was five in the morning.
Some of the aftermath includes nations that are now in constant zones of violence (Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc.) due to the implementation of the "blood diamond" trade, the apartheid, making the African soldiers subject themselves to foreign rulers lest they wanted to end up like the people they were forced to cut the hands off of. The violence we see today depicted in popular movies and more are due to the 19th century Europeans, who in their "Scramble for Africa" clumped together various tribe groups. (It's almost as if we one day decided to clump The U.K, France, Germany, and Italy into one country today, imagine the problems that would create.
Yet the Europeans also brought modern technology to Africa and began integrating it with the rest of the developed world.
These are facts most people won't deny. The problem is, what do we do now about places that due to violence have not been able to achieve development? Whose governments are still unstable and whose economies are rickety? Whose people are still oppressed? What do we do?
There are generally three points of view on this issue as I've observed: The, "It's not my problem" attitude (as seen above), the "Let's just give more charity!!", and the "Lets teach them how to do things our way/assets and deficiencies" school of thought. And yes, sometimes these thoughts may blend in and mix with each other. In this blog post I'm going to conduct a thought experiment and imagine myself in each of these persons thought positions. Note that they will be analytical and will cover each main point
The "It's not my problem attitude":
Usually this is due to the idea that the Africans should learn how to "Help themselves" and become independent through that. Many people believe that this is the only way that they can repair themselves. Information used to back this up includes examples of other civilizations which built themselves up (as seen above). Many people refer back to the old empires of Sub-Saharan Africa such as those in Mozambique in which they built themselves up out of a warring period which had lasted for years. It was an extremely stable and long lasting empire: Until it was ruined by outside influences. Once they are stable, they will be unstoppable and smarter in everything they do (whether in trade, government, etc.) My only problem with this is that there will be more lives and generations that will suffer due to this until they get their acts together. Besides, the modern and early modern/renaissance ages of Europe were only possible due to globalization in the form of the Crusades in which the Islamic Empires relayed information and knowledge from the past and from the east to the north west. They say that we have given too much aid as well. Which makes sense, how will people of another country become independent if they continuously survive off the charity of other countries?
The "Let's Just Give More Charity" attitude:
My world history teacher, Mr. Williams once told us that "American's have big hearts, but they're just really lazy". this might be the point with the rest of the world. I've observed from my surroundings that whenever people talk of Africa it's often in terms of charity work. "We should send more clothes to Africa", "We should send more food to Africa", etc. The first flaw I'd like to point out in this is the fact that AFRICA IS A CONTINENT. Please refer specifically to where you want to send your stuff. Giving charity is very thoughtful and well wished indeed, but as mentioned before in the previous paragraph, how will they become independent if people are continuously relying on stuff from other countries? That just depletes their economies and lives! This attitude generally stems from the fact that people consider Africa just to be a poor place with starving children dying of malnutrition. Not to say that this is false but for the most part, that's not all that "Africa" is. In general it's people reaching out to help, but in my opinion: it's not in the right way.
Assets vs. Deficiencies attitude:
Assets vs. Deficiencies is probably the thought group that I support the most solely due to the fact that it makes the most sense to me. The idea behind it is that foreign assistance is needed, but not in the form of charity. It's pretty much formulated around the idea of: "If you feed a man a fish he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." If you teach them to have sustainable economic systems (as opposed to the raggedly broken fragmentation it is at now due to colonization, etc.) and rather than leaving them to themselves, help them find the right way. You can slowly help them become independent.
Charity organizations such as Heifer International have reformed themselves to do exactly this. They give pregnant animals (most notably cows) to rural areas in need of money, and teach them farming techniques and business, etc. This allows the people they are helping to have jurisdiction over what they want to do and helps them grow as a business, as a farm, or even in the market place.
So now that you've heard all sides of this issue, what do you support and why?
