To no longer give a stuff about the third world

[Flashman]

We face an Avalanche of info about the third world that we should give them x amount each month - but now I find myself not being able to give a stuff. I know that one death is tragic but 100,000 is just a number. It seems to me that any money sent does not go to the right place anyway, and just encourages a dependency. I am sure that I read the only thing keeping Robert Mugabe with any foreign reserves is the fact that people living outside Zim send money in.

I'm sorry but if you're quoting "countries" and "Facts" in an OP debate such as this it DOES matter.

Yes I hate to see all against one. Mind you, it's the one I am objecting to.

What I'd like to see is Mr 100,000-is-only-a-Statistic and his family suffering from drought, famine, beri-beri, fistulas and piles. We could throw in a civil war or two.

Then we could all post about how irrelevant he was and how we're all suffering from donor-fatigue and can't quite be bothered to care. After all what's the point in giving? It'd probably only go to Mugabe. Or some other third world dictator. Anyway we just can't be bovvered anymore. What's on TV?

uhhh where to begin
will keep it short

worked in a hospital in malawi. on average 3 kids died a night of malaria/HIV /malnutrition. totally devastating. parents in total and utter despair. yes they see death a lot but didn't make it any easier when their lo died. they experienced the same raw pain we would

there were some fab fab NGOs working there that really made a differnce. one in nutrition - trying to educate villagers about planting the right sort of crops that would last through the yearly drought, instead of the maize which they thought they had to plant (various reasons)... the difference between the villagers who were following this project was astounding, much less malnutrition and illness. can you imagine a child dying of starvation???

another NGo promoting and educating about HIV prevention, tackling myths...they made a difference.

free HIV testing so that people could be started on antiretrovirals. 5 years ago the adult wards used to be full of dying AIDS patients, 2 to a bed etc. now they are half empty. becasue of the drugs and because of funding from overseas.

also experiences from kenya in education - kids who were doomed to be subsitence farmers were getting into colleges to become nurses etc

sorry this is a rant and prob not a very coherent one as should be in bed and have taken my contacts our so can't see shit. but couldn't not post.

thanks god not everyone thinks like you

ok so its not short
must go to bed

Well there are many, many charities, (nearly) all of whom are doing good ethical work, but hardly anyone has enough spare cash to donate to them all. So I wouldn't necessarily want to stone a person who decided that the £5 they can spare per month they will send to (for instance) Great Ormond St Hospital/Battersea Dogs Home instead of Oxfam. And some people seem to think that 'caring' (ie whining) about the plight of people is not only sufficient (as opposed to going out there to build houses or feed the starving) but the more you can whine, blubber or sport the right wristband the better a human being you are. The OP might be burned out about Third World suffering because he/she spends her/his working days tending to AIDS-infected child crack whores on the streets of Edinburgh, and just hasn't got any extra compassion left.

I somehow doubt the OP isn't in any of the categories you mention, madamez. And compassion isn't a quantity, it's a quality.

No idea why Flashy started this thread. It's really dumb and ill-informed I'm afraid.

He might indeed madamez

Or of course he might be a revolting specimen

You choose

that may be true madamez but from the way the OP is worded i doubt it
"to no longer give a stuff about the third world"

lucky him

Er, I don't really give a wet one. No evidence can be offered as to whether OP is a) an arse
b) a totally burned out charity worker
c) a hack trying to test out the much touted super compassionateness of MN

So I am going to bed

Well I would say yes it's obviously unreasonable not to give a stuff about the Third World. But that's easy to say.

I think it's not unreasonable to raise the issue of the value of aid in a non-bleeding heart way.

Have any of you looked at social lending ?

I'll tell you upfront.

You - as the lender - receive no interest. The recipient pays a high rate of interest. (I think about 16-20%, for those of you worried about your mortgages).

The difference - paid by the poorest - pays for the field examinations and so forth. Which is the same as here...

It's not perfect, by any means, but I've been "investing" for over 18 months, with all loans repaid. It's not sooooo long ago that I "borrowed" from home/partyplan selling operations to set up a home business...

Flashman on Mon 02-Jun-08 20:01:04
"But I think while we do give there is no incentive for the country to chance - would it not be better to try some tough love??"

Tough love is not likely to hit the rulers of the country- whatever money they have, they will still spend on themselves. But charities working on the ground have a chance of getting some of the money past them to the people who really need it. As long as there is this chance, I for one am happy to carry on giving.

And I don't see the point of getting annoyed with people if they ask for money when I don't happen to be able to give; I've never known a charity collector refuse to accept this as an explanation.

Nor do I see a conflict between helping at home and helping abroad, either- I quite enjoyed selecting a couple of very different charities to give a small sum each to.

Some charities work in both places anyway: the Red Cross are collecting for Myanmar, but they were also the only ones who helped us when the NHS let us down.

oldlady that doesn't sound right to me

the recipient you mean the deprived person pays a high rate of interest? and the poorest pay the difference?

I must have got the wrong end of the stick, would you explain it a bit more as it sounds interesting

FLashman to some extent i can see where you are coming from

your op was worded badly, but there is some truth in the fact that the news etc from other countries is so depressing and you become 'immune' to the numbers used

however in no way shape or form does this mean you should no onger care

Some might say it's a shame your ancestors made it over.

I can't agree about not giving a stuff about the third world, it breaks my heart to see pictures of the poverty in these countries but it breaks my heart even more to walk along our streets and see kids living in poverty. I don't mean to undermine the need of the people in the third world and its maybe not to the same degree whereby they are starving but maybe our government should be plying money into those kids living on our streets and sorting out our countries before or even on top of giving to third world. Charity begins at home?

Anyone who does not 'give a stuff' is BU in my book. A child dying every 3 seconds of hunger or disease. 1.8 million child prostitutes worldwide (mostly in the 2/3 world). These might be statistics but are more than that to me.

I think you are looking for an excuse not to care.

I think that we don't live in the 'first' world, so much as in the 'me first' world. We choose not to care, because it costs us too much - effort (finding fair trade products/thinking about our consumption) time (ditto) money (giving/as above).

We look for reasons to detach. But we can't, if we are authentic. Because our lifestyles cause the poverty and maintain it, and we can't realistically claim ignorance - we KNOW we do it, but we carry on anyway.

Life in the 2/3 world sucks for many people. We have the power to change it, but we choose not to.

A lot of African poverty is caused by the tribal system (Darfur, Rwanda, etc) and by lack of education. And also by the fact that it is legally very difficult to register land and start small businessesthe best way out of poverty for many familiesin some African countries.

Anyone who wants to stop poverty in Africa should realistically put money into vaccination programmes and education and helping WOMEN start small businesses.

If you put money into vaccination programmes, fewer children die of diseases like measles. But then they die of starvation instead - same amount of food to go around more children. Money donated to education, clean/more water projects and agri-projects has to go hand in hand with vaccination projects.

In the short-term, but not in the medium term because women (especially if better educated) will want/need fewer children.

I think Oprah is right to create her school in South Africa. I know she got a lot of flack but I think that creating a cadre of highly-educated, ballsy women could be a real force for good.

Well it depends what you mean by 'caring' anyway. A lot of people think that 'caring' is all that matters. If you don;t do anything but 'have feelings', then it doesn;t make any difference to anyone and is of no interest to anyone. If you work out that you can give so much money per month to charity and perhaps so much time/practical action, and then decide which charitable causes you are going to give the time and money to, then why should you be epxected to devote thought to every single other needy group in the world?

Starlight, it is true that money and donations don't help everytime, and can be counterproductive if misdirected.

There have been many suggestions of encouraging trade and start ups and opening markets, much better for the long term imo which of course doesn't mean aid is redundant -- just that it's not always the best way.

op hasn't come back to say whether he's disillusioned or really doesn't care -- perhaps shocked by the reaction