It so happens that people from these parts of the world are pretty horrible, but that doesn't stop me feeling sorry for their children.
We're pretty horrible too, KIA. What's your point?
I am now pretty old and I cant remember a time when the British public weren't throwing money at this part of the world, and I am sure people from other civilzed countries are the same. Unfortunately very little has changed, and I can't help thinking that perhaps these donations would have been better sent to animal charities where the funds aren't being sucked away by rich and corrupt leaders.
Even animal charities are being run by people who want six-figure salaries and a nice fat pension, with a few perks like cars and bonuses thrown in too. All paid for by the saps-, er, the compassionate donors, of course. Charities are a nice little racket for some people.
Of course, many families will receive a bag of food that will keeping them going for a week or so, but in the grand scheme of things this means absolutely nothing. Regrettably these societies live in a time warp and their advancement has been slow to say the very least. It would appear they have done almost nothing to help themselves, and they still rely on massive handouts from other countries. Perhaps if the money we had given them for so long was spent correctly they could be living in a civilised society.
If we lived in a world without history and without politics, then your criticisms would be valid. But history happened and is real, and politics happens and is real. There are actually very good historical reasons why these nations are the way they are, and it has little to do with their citizens being 'lazy' or 'feckless'. You need to crack open a history book some time.
I should also point out that they have little self control, and are happy to produce child after child, even if they have no food or water.
For most people in developing countries, their children are their pension plan. Popping out the kids is like paying more money into your pension pot - all being well, it'll eventually pay off big time. Assuming the little brats don't up and starve to death on you in the meantime, of course. My point is that it is rational
for people in a developing nation with no state pension to have as many kids as they can. The problem is that the general insecurity of such societies both motivates them to have lots of kids and yet can also lead to those kids starving if there is a sudden natural or political catastrophe.
We have attempted to educate them on contraception, but they chose to ignore us.
Most of these people can't exactly pop down to their local chemist to pick up a packet of Trojans. Aid charities would have to supply them, and American Evangelical Christians (not to mention the RC Church of course) are currently threatening to boycott any charities which do this, for religious reasons. You should take it up with them.
Have a look on the TV, we are shown heartbreaking pictures of starving children, but most of the time Mum and Dad look fine, how strange?
Children are particularly vulnerable to starvation and disease, much more than adults. A full-grown adult can survive for weeks without food, whereas an infant would be dead within a single week or two. And they pass the point of no return more quickly too - often, by the time the adults manage to get to an aid station, it's too late for the children.
I'm sorry, whilst I have a degree of sympathy for their plite, I won't be sending any money !!
Actually that's probably the correct thing to do, though not for the reasons you've outlined. What is happening globally seems to be similar to what happened in the late Roman Republic - the social and economic system had created an underclass of unemployed and starving proletarians, who became a threat to the political stability of the system. They were therefore fed at the public expense, to neutralise that threat. This, of course, locked them into their state of dependency and subjection, and had a corrupting effect on their sense of self-respect and motivation. This served the interests of the Roman elite. In the same way, giving charity to the poor of these developing countries (which correspond to what Mussolini called "proletarian nations") has the effect of reinforcing the subjection of these nations to our dominance, and also locks these people into a cycle of dependency. After all, a sudden influx of free food and goods has a destructive effect on the local economy - the farmers and shopkeepers of the region go bankrupt and become dependent on handouts themselves. The more charity there is, the more poverty there is. What is needed are not handouts from the rich nations, but systemic political and economic change
. The current world order is clearly not sustainable. We must change the system, not throw a handful of pocket change at starving babies.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)