Confessions of a politically correct journalist

This reminds me of a situation with which I deal every day, and was in my mind due to some discussion on another thread: homeless people.

Here in Philadelphia there is a cyclic (as in, when some major event is due to come to town) raising of concern over this problem. When it comes up, there is a recurring message embedded in it: do not give money to homeless/panhandlers on the street.

The logic is simple: they are there because of a complex breakdown in our society. Giving them money will only serve to aid them in their "desire" to live on the street, and in too many cases will be spent on alcohol and/or drugs instead of food or anything that resembles a path off the street.

I don't buy into buzz words. I'm not talking or even thinking about "tough love", and I am certainly rejecting (with contempt) the notion that my refusal to give money to a homeless/panhandler is harsh or cruel. On the contrary, the best spent money (and time!) is with organizations whose mandated goal is to resolve the root causes of homelessness.

I submit that Myers is on the same logical path. Yes, there are immediate problems, children and others at risk of starvation. But the longer view must be taken, it must be addressed, because even with a bottomless well of money the children will still starve, the women will still be slaves, and the men will still see that their only path to "success" is participating in the perpetuation of all of that.

Rod,

Without going to great depths, let me begin by saying that I my professional life focuses entirely on Africa. I was born and raised in Africa. My graduates studies focused on Africa. I am currently typing this little blurb from a hotel in Goma, DRC.
It is way to messy and 'grey' to articulate succinctly in a cornbox. Some broad brushstrokes: Africans have what they want - just look at SADC and Mugabe. Elites are outward looking and have no incentive to look inward. NGOs and AID are big business. Refugee and IDP camps have created generations of semi-educated, at best, dependent populations with no connection to land or economically viable skills. Few African states are states - Chad is run by the Zagawha rebel faction of the day; we do not know how to deal with non-state actors. The international community decries horrid disasters then uses Africa as a dumping ground for toxic material. The list goes on.

Yes, Africans need to be responsible for their own future. Yes, we've only aided and abetted a culture of dependence. We also have to stop meddling and insisting on intrinsically unfair deals; demanding access to West African markets but subsidizing our cotton farmers undermining West African cotton in the process. More importantly, until the fundamentals change and elite incentives force them to look inward and 're-connect' with their population, nothing is going to change. Remember, even though 90% + of the population suffers, 10% live like a king and have no incentive to see the system change. These are the same people who operate the mechanism of the 'state.' This would in turn lead us to a discussion as to the actual nature of the state and there simply isn't enough time.

As an aside, I often ask elites why I should invest in their country when they do not. Specifically, most of their gains go into real estate in turn rented to expats at exorbitant rates. Few, if any elites, dare invest in the future due to long term insecurity and instability.

Radical solution: forgive all debt, stop all aid, watch it burn and see what rises from the ashes - perhaps more Somalilands? This is a pipe dream...we much rather see constant bleeding over time than short term hemorrhaging followed by healthy states where elites are connected and accountable to their populations.

I could go on but my Internet connecting is intermittent and I wanted to get this out.

In Christ,
-jp

I recently (last several months) lost my (Catholic) faith. There were a variety of causes, but one of the biggest ones was the conviction that catholicism - and christianity more generally - was a (perhaps unwitting) force for evil in the world. I read Rod as saying "yes, rationally Myers is right, and giving more aid to Africa will increase the amount of suffering and death there - but as a Christian I believe we have to give them aid anyway, and hope that by some miracle the aid causes good rather than prolonging evil". The one thing that would really help Africa - I think all economists agree - would be its integration into global markets. But most of the commentators on this blog seem to think that trade is evil - especially with other countries. I believe that the amount of evil caused by christians voting for and supporting left-wing anti-free-trade policies more than counterbalances the real good done by missionaries working to try to change the culture in these god-forsaken places. It is a real shame.

Since feminists worldwide have been condemning female genital mutilation for decades, I'm curious why he believes PC feminists would have been outraged if he reported what was happening. They would have been overjoyed. I remember stories about female genital mutilation in Africa beginning in the mid-1980s in the feminist press.

Arguably, it is Anglo colonial impulses--not feminist critiques--that burden the reporting on Africa coming from the UK and Ireland. There's something cowardly about blaming PC for ones own journalistic offenses.

When Christ commanded His followers to help the poor in various ways, I wonder what He really had in mind. Was the purpose of Christians helping the poor to unpoor the poor? Or was the purpose of Christians helping the poor to detach the hearts ofChristians from their own possessions even if their possessions were few?

I suspect that we need to unhinge the idea of Christian charity from any hope of unpooring the poor. If we want to open our hearts to God's love and mercy and forgiveness to us, then give to the poor. But if we want to unpoor the world's poor to make the world a safer and happier place for everyone, ourselves included, then we have to approach it pragmatically. Whatever works, works. What doesn't work, drop it.

But if we do Christian charity in the hope of unpooring the poor
we are going to miss the point of Christian charity, be forever frustrated, and end up with spurious reasons for omitting Christian charity,

Its good to have an honest discussion of these issues, and I wouldn't disagree that serious consideration has to be made about Africa's own role in its problems, but a few corrective points need to be included here.

As its been said, Africa is not a monolithic state/culture. There is a plurality of peoples on the continent whose culture/religion/politics cover a broad spectrum. Any discussion should take account of this (e.g.- let us not assume that the anamistic tribes of Ethiopia are indicative of what happens in Christian circles in Sub-sahara).

Secondly, while it might be overly PC to blame "white men" for the problems of Africa-- any honest account of history has to concede that 5+ centuries of colonialism have left deep scares on the continent that cannot be ignored as if the state of war/death/poverty there is just an issue of "personal responsibility". Not to mention that if indeed we're suffering an enviornmental catastrophe like global warming (save me the skepticism for now, I've heard all the arguments against-- I'm just proposing what is a likely situation) then the southern hemisphere has and will suffer more the sting of it.

But back to the Christian tradition and its response to Africa. It seems that when you read the gospels, Jesus is not really so much interested in setting up conditions for how to give charitably-- but more a radical idea of giving without thought of benefit, "if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5.40-42) Or this from Luke, "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." (Luke 6.30). The New Testament is pretty clear that followers of Christ ought to give generously and unconditionally. On a personal level, I struggle with this as I encounter "panhandlers" daily and I question whether a handout will go to drugs/alcohol; but if I were to take the commands of Christ seriously that should probably be inconsequential to my decision.

Where all this gets a little muddy is what role a secular government like the U.S. has in African Aid. If giving to Africa is a discipline of Christian charity, should federal dollars supplied by the taxes of non-Christians fund $30 billion in federal aid? I'm of the belief that it is in the interest of democracy and freedom that Africa is spared complete distruction--but its worthwhile of our government to figure out if we're just "doing charity" or if we're really helping the continent reform and thrive as it should.

Here in Philadelphia there is a cyclic (as in, when some major event is due to come to town) raising of concern over this problem.

Franklin,

I was living in Philadelphia 20 years ago when the homeless population just exploded. City authorities were trying to figure out why they suddenly had such an increase in the homeless population. According to an article I read at the time in the Philadephia Inquirer, they discovered that other cities in eastern Pennsylvania (Allentown, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, etc.) were dealing with their homeless population by giving their homeless people one-way bus tickets to Philadelphia! Sort of like the Simpson's episode where Homer gets a catapult and disposes of his trash by catapulting it into Ned Flanders' yard. Dump your problems on someone else.

After awhile I stopped noticing the men (mostly men) sleeping on the grates. And it really started to bother me that I didn't notice them anymore.

What kind of stewardship is it when the Master's monies are flushed down a toilet, as aid to Africa is flushed down into a sink of corruption?

How is it moral to take from another via taxation to satisfy one's interpretation of "charity?"

The problems of Africa are not soluble in money and not solvable by anyone other than Africans.

"The British had an excellent system for helping the poor, and the most successful African states are former British colonies." Umm, who was running Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia? The Chinese?

AIDS falls on the rich and the poor, the gay and the straight, the African and the American. It is deadly dangerous and for that reason it doesn't do to isolate one category from another, for the very real risk that people who don't fall into the most dangerous category expose themselves and contract it. While rooted in individual behavior, this disease transcends it. It will spread along any of its vectors whether "high risk" or "low risk" behavior. If ANY individual carries it, the disease becomes a risk in a given society. We must focus on preventing its spread for our own safety. And morally, we must be sure that the poor and the gay and the African have access to treatment they can afford. In the case of Africa, recent evidence suggests that the same genetic adaption to malaria which often is expressed in anemia, may also greatly increase the risk of contracting AIDS if exposed to the virus. Perhaps there is also a genetic quirk shared by many gay men - I'm not saying there is, but if there were it could explain any statistical difference we have blamed heretofore on homosexual acts. I am not trying to judge the rightness of such behavior here. I am simply pointing out that until recently we were looking for some behavior difference among Africans to point to the epidemic levels of HIV and AIDS in many of their countries, when it turns out it is genetics that was the culprit all along.

As far as the people of Africa - I do not excuse the behavior of drug-crazed war lords. But the women and young children need help, the war lords are not their fault.

Aid to Africa needs a great big rethink. Clearly throwing money at them has not worked. A better model has been micro loans for small cottage businesses like handcrafts. A better model still, I think, is small-scale agriculture - fish farms, small flocks of goats, as well as vegetable gardens and chickens. Bicycles should be distributed so men and women can ride to market, to work, and children can ride to school. Bicycle repair should be taught as a small business and to support the fleets of bicycles. The fact is, our aid usually goes to "efficient" monoculture cash crops. Little thought is given to how these crops will be sold with little to no infrastructure, or how the money will return to the people with the endemic corruption, or the consequences to the local ecological balance. People should grow enough food to eat, have the means to sell the excess to market, have the means to educate their children. They should be given the know-how, and the basic items they need to get started. After that, they take the lead.

Straight food aid - handing out cups of milk to children - will have to continue in the absolute crisis refugee camps where people have been driven from arable land. And war will continue to disrupt and displace people from such land. To that problem I have no answer. But limits on small arms trafficking is a start. And the U.S. is among the biggest small arms dealers.

Because I wanted to write much-acclaimed, tear-jerkingly purple prose about wide-eyed, fly-infested children -- not cold, unpopular and even "racist" accusations about African male culpability.

So basically, by his own admission, he'd rather write tear-jerking stories that would sell and get him awards, rather than an 'unpopular', cold-eyed, and possibly controversial assessment of the causes of the poverty and starvation of these children. That isn't PC. That is selfish and self-serving.

PS -- OK, obviously the mere fact that Zimbabwe is now run by blacks is not responsible for its current predicament. There are many former British African colonies -- Ghana comes to mind -- that have been run by the black population since independence and which are doing fine. But they were willing to use and work with the institutions that the British left behind, and adapt them to their own circumstances as necessary. Whatever their faults as a colonial power, the British at least felt some sense of responsiblity to leave behind functioning goverments and institutions. Ian Smith and the white goverment of Rhodesia felt an obligation at least to try to continue that legacy. Mugabe has gradually thrown all of these out the window, with the result that we see.

The real problem seems to be in countries where constitutional governments were replaced by "Big Men".

Granted, their idea of civilized was provincial, but still, it is no coincidence that the only former colonies which are remotely functioning today are former British colonies.

The people of Algeria, Morocco, Angola, Tunisia, and Cameroon may disagree. They all have some of the largest economies in Africa, as may the people in Gabon and Mauritius, Cape Verde, and the Seychelles.

In the 70's I went to a college that had a nationally ranked soccer team, with most of the players from recently former British colony Rhodesia (and all of them white). They equated the then-rebel Mugabe with a Communist takeover, and were pretty breathtakingly racist around campus. Better for whites, you betcha. But also for Blacks, compared to the current chaos.

However, better to condescend in order to help someone gain the moral stature needed to be worthy of respect than pretend to respect someone who will never deserve to be treated as your equal

How about not respecting or condescending to them? I do recall something about not throwing pearls after swine. At what point do you recognize the utter futility in attempting to impose your culture on a culture that does not want to be imposed on. The only way to do it is by force. And once you reach the level of force required to maintain it you have effectively become the new colonizers. It would have been better to have just urged the Brits to stay instead of supporting the decolonization of those countries.

jp in Goma is right on. Nothing like living in the basket case of basket cases to get a clear picture!

There is something to be said for Star Trek's Prime Directive. Let alone the intended consequences, the unintended consequences of interference, especially aid, can be nasty.

Africa's in a mess for various reasons. Africa wasn't doing very well before colonization, but colonization seems to have resulted in a clash of cultures that has caused great damage.

A bit like what's happened to the native peoples in the Americas. On the face of it, they should be fully recovered from the damage of colonization. Today, in Canada, the feds spend billions on native communities, but to no avail. It seems that exposure to the West has given their culture an almost incurable disease (cultural smallpox?!).

We don't know why. Most Asian cultures seem to have been unaffected. Don't know what it is with Africa, America, and Polynesia.

The non-interference idea does clash with my Orthodox Christian beliefs. After all, I do want to evangelize! But not on the coattails of colonizers.

AIDS wasn't brought by Gay promiscuity, it was brought on by HIV. You're a nut.

As a Christian, I cannot agree with him. But at the same time, I do wish our discussion of charity, and our moral obligation to the poor in Africa, and the poor anywhere, would factor in the kind of thing Myers brings up: the role of culture and morality among the recipients of charity in perpetuating the conditions that impoverish and immiserate them.

Perhaps you should have stopped at "As a Christian" and reflected that the entire rest of your statement is almost blasphemously, sickeningly, wrong for any kid of Christian. Leaving people to die--for whatever reasons of convenience and thrift--would not be the thing Jesus or one of your sainted staaretz's would advocate. If they did, they would *not be christian* because christians prize life over death since this life is the time individuals encounter the christian god. The idea that it would have been better, according to this Irish Journalist, for little babies to starve *so that* they could be genitally mutilated later and die off that at low cost to white people is just stunning in its evil from any point of view. But especially from a so called christian point of view which would regard that time of suffering in those girls lives as a time during which they might encounter jesus and be "saved."

CS:

The passage is usually translated as throwing pearls BEFORE swine. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you are talking about.

Nice misreading of your holy book.

You raise some interesting points, and I think many of your detractors have never been to Africa. I would love to see a thoughtful and honest discussion about poverty, its causes and avoidance, and an appropriate response to it by the affluent West.