A banned MTV ad

[Larry_OHF]

That's a great point, Azred. I have read something somewhere about motivational methods...and the guilt trip was mentioned as a no-no.

[Dreamer128]

I don't think it is about guilt per-se. I think MTV (or whoever made it) tried to create an image Americans could relate to. Few people in the West lose sleep over the millions dying in the Third World because it is hard to relate to people who live so far away and have such a radically different culture. By comparing the casualties there to those in our own back yard, we may get a better idea of the magnetude of the suffering there. After all, the '800 million' people dying of famine are just numbers, but we are made to see the almost three thousand people that died at 9/11 as individuals. Dreaming, breathing, thinking people with families and jobs. When we realise that people in the Third World are much the same, it might give us a whole new perspective on their problems.

[ 09-21-2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Melcheor: All these adverts do is show just how narrowminded people are. The issue isn't the "sickening" exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy, the issue is that these adverts show american* people how wrong their priorities are, and they dont like it; hence the ban. You like to think that the people who are suffering are the ones who are to blame, because that absolves you from the guilt you have not being able to help them. Most humanitarian problems happen because of natural disaster coupled with corrupt government. These adverts are not just a political scam, they are meant to create political pressure.

Actually, it just reflects one of our specific morality distinctions. Our government is supposed to protect us from being molested by tragedy and war and strife. Ergo, it is the proper place for our government to come in and put an end to a military/warlike threat, such as terrorist attacks, or to help in a time of disaster, Katrina being a fine example of a tragedy where the government should have helped (how good a job they did is another topic, sadly).

But, we do not see it as the purview of our government to feed every hungry mouth and care for every sick person. Here or abroad. It's a government, it's not Jesus Christ. And, to be fair, we like to think that people who are suffering *from certain things, such as hunger or poverty* are the ones to blame because lots of times it's true. We have too many self-made people here who have worked their ass off to want to dole stuff out for free. Free-riders are an injustice, and no less culpable than others who are unjust.

For a personal take on this: As a kid, my father had a dirt floor in his house in Appalaicha. He had no opportunity for college despite good grades, so he went to work at the lowest of the jobs in his company and worked himself up the ladder to an engineer position. From the trailer in a holler he lived in, he sent his son (me) to the best education he could afford, which wasn't much, and he bested his father's income by age 30. It took me until age 31 to best my father's income. We worked through 3 generations to overcome poverty. We don't like giving shit away to those who were too lazy to do what we did.

[Link]

Did you get a chance to best poverty because of the institutions available, or because of you and your ancestors working their asses off?

[Dreamer128]

I don't think African poverty is the sole result of laziness. It's mostly due to lack of infrastructure (schools, roads) and unfair trade laws from our side. (Europe at any rate, not sure about the U.S) People who are forced to live under the worst possible circumstances, in poverty and war, and work from dawn to dusk to provide for their (often rather large) families deserve better then a life with no hope at all for a better future. Many people are prepared to give everything, but when there are no jobs or schools (and your country is either to poor to provide them, or your government is so corrupt all the money vanishes into the pockets of a rich elite), your options are rather limited.

[ 09-21-2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Link: Did you get a chance to best poverty because of the institutions available, or because of you and your ancestors working their asses off?

Um.... both, of course. I had no better institutions available than any American, worse than most, but better than most Africans (meaning: in Africa), I suspect.

Regarding trade laws, while Europe is still pretty vehemently protectionist, we in the US are suffering under the world's most open trade policy. It's taking our jobs, but our bankers and companies don't care because their business in Asia is booming. Their investments give them a return, wherever the investments are located, so they don't give 2 farts about the job losses "in Peoria" afflicting most US communities. So, African companies benefit much more than they suffer based on trade. Asian companies benefit, benefit, and benefit some more.

Now, there can be little doubt laziness alone is not the reason for starvation in Africa. That's why I didn't speak in terms of universals. But, with our open trade policy, and with our foreign aid, we are doing something to help there -- as are most 1st world countries. Is it enough? You may say "no." I say, well, since there is no affirmative obligation to do anything to begin with, then it's a subjective question at best. It depends on your morality, and the degree of morality (meaning: not only the question of whether to give charity, but also the question of how much charity to give). But, what is sure is that trade modernization has Asia on the rise, and Africa will inevitably follow, though it is frustrating how hard it has been for it to do so thus far.

But, with Africa, it's not like there are no rich people. Africa's starvation and other problems are more attributable to the continuing cycle of revolutions and dictatorships than to our failure to send over boats of grain, wouldn't you think?

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: ...unfair trade laws from our side. (Europe at any rate, not sure about the U.S)

To be honest, I think we're both about as bad as each other. Historically it's perhaps been South America shafted by the US (as opposed to Africa which has been mostly shafted by Europe) - this is one of the reasons for a real swing away from the US and towards Europe by such countries in recent years.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, you saw my comments regarding the trade laws. Whether or not S. Am. has been shafted by the US, we recently approved CAFTA, which will create a sucking sound much greater than the sucking sound created by NAFTA, which was heretofore our suckiest suck.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: I don't think African poverty is the sole result of laziness. It's mostly due to lack of infrastructure (schools, roads) and unfair trade laws from our side. (Europe at any rate, not sure about the U.S) People who are forced to live under the worst possible circumstances, in poverty and war, and work from dawn to dusk to provide for their (often rather large) families deserve better then a life with no hope at all for a better future. Many people are prepared to give everything, but when there are no jobs or schools (and your country is either to poor to provide them, or your government is so corrupt all the money vanishes into the pockets of a rich elite), your options are rather limited.

Then perhaps when enough people over there get tired of being broomhandled (thank you, Timber) by their governments, which have some of the most notorious human-rights abuse records and widespread corruption problems in the modern world, they might make some headway towards improving the quality of life.
If popular revolt doesn't work, then a group of nations (or only the US if others don't wish to join in) should tell each government "you have 6 months to improve or we will implement regime change here"...and then follow through on that statement.

[Dreamer128]

Timber: although many individual European countries can still be considered to be extremely protectionistic (Italy, for example), the Union as a whole has slowly been opening up during the last few years. Although, judging by the speed at which the European Union typically works when handling such controversial issues, I'll probably have to get back to you in a few decades.
Azred: how do you suggest they improve their quality of life? Obviously, the democratic process doesn't function in many such countries, as all major political parties are typically extremely corrupt. Also, I doubt the average oppressed-African has the acces to independent media or education needed to even realise there is an alternative to the corrupt dictatorships they have known all their life.

[ 09-21-2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]