
The racist double standards of international development - jahaja
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/racist-double-standards-international-development-200707082924882.html
======
badrabbit
Counterpoint: while on a human level it is right and moral to care and
empathize for those in poor conditions, in no way do the "barons" of the
global north or their countries owe the "global south" improvement of living
conditions. I don't say that in ignorance of history or out of apathy but
solely because countries are sovreign and the right for self determination of
people in a soveign country means those people decide and take upon the
responsibility of their fate. You can throw money,education or people at 3rd
world countries but ultimately, political change and security is what they
need to make their country friendly to global commerce which will enable them
to escape poverty. This means they have to get past internal divisions and get
rid of corruption no matter the cost. Democracy does not work for every
country, especially for poorly educated and majority illiterate countries, so
they need to resist western pressure until they mature a bit more. But no
matter what, those people must decide their fate. Yes, the north/west should
help them with humanitarian needs and where it makes sense invest in them. No,
the west/north should not interfere in their politics or accept responsibiltiy
for their fate.

If Bill Gates and friends owe anyone,it is the people of their own country.
Plenty of poverty in the US even if it doesn't compare to Africa.

It isn't right to criticize a well intended act of generosity and call the
person racist. Colonialism was racist, bill gates is not. If Bill Gates saved
even one African child's life,how many people can say the same, even in Africa
or the "global south"? Even if the rich "global north" is being racist, I
think I prefer having that in the world than cynical onlookers that are of no
help other than to critique those helping.

~~~
trabant00
> If Bill Gates saved even one African child's life,how many people can say
> the same, even in Africa or the "global south"?

While Bill Gates saved numerous people in poor countries (not only Africa) he
doesn't do nearly enough to start important conversations on racial issues /s

Really, fuck the guy who wrote this article. Bill Gates is untouchable. But
not many are and they can be scared into not getting involved with sensitive
issues for the fear of being attacked in this matter. This kind of shit
journalism is actively scaring people from making a difference, as small as
they can.

~~~
jahaja
The idea is to focus on solving the _cause_ not the symptoms.

Should a philanthropic King that still supports and perpetuates absolute
monarchy be honored for his gifts (which themselves ultimately are created by
his subjects labour)?

~~~
badrabbit
Yes,yes he should be so long has his gifts feed a starving person and save
them from dying. What would you have him do? Fund a rebel movement and start a
civil war to overthrow the monarch? Well CIA did plenty of that type of
"philantrophy" and I think the result speaks for itself.

~~~
jahaja
You can't see how superficial that is?

~~~
badrabbit
No, i cannot see how being glad there is less suffering and death is
superficial

~~~
jahaja
The King is the _cause_ of the suffering. To partly alleviate it is not a
noble act.

------
Arnt
AIUI, that $1.90 (wasn't it $2? no matter) wasn't intended to be a
particularly good number, but was picked because having something was
necessary, a lot of desperately poor people had less so it was in the right
range, and no other number seemed better at describing desperate poverty. It
continues to be used because it permits comparison with older data. I haven't
noticed anything that says it's _bad_ — for example, I haven't read that
there's a lot of people whose income increases past $1.90 but the upward
movement stops shortly above it, so that using $2.50 or $3 would lead to very
different graphs.

The article seems to imply that using a much higher number would be
substantively different, but I can't really tell why. Is it really just saying
that counting desperately poor people is bad, and instead the number of poor
people should be counted? Or is it saying that helping most of the desperately
poor become merely poor is racist, we rich people would do more for them and
faster if they had the Right skin colour?

~~~
jahaja
What's unclear to you? How I read it is that the established way to measure
poverty is largely just a way to justify and paint a rosy picture of the
status quo, not based on actual on-the-ground facts of what number that
actually lifts someone out of poverty.

------
sowellecho
It does seem like the poverty line is arbitrary, and it does seem low. Is
racism the explanation for every small and large thing?

Where does the article mention the constant money printing which is
continuously devaluing currencies all around the world? Does a poverty line
even make sense in a world where the currency depreciates quickly? How about
measuring the poverty line in terms of currencies which do not depreciate in
this way, such as precious metals? Why not mention that all governments all
over the world are incentivized to overpromise and underdeliver because they
own the money printing press? If a person who is supposed to have a background
in economics, such as the author of this post, doesn't even mention this, then
what hope is there for the lay person?

~~~
rjkennedy98
> constant money printing which is continuously devaluing currencies all
> around the world

Printing money does not mean currency devaluation. Keep in mind most of the so
called "money" in the world is debt (and by most I mean almost all of it).
It's created out of thin air.

I think a lot of people have just generally skewed ideas about how expensive
things are because they live in expensive places. I live in Boston where
everything is expensive and gentrifying, but it turns out the vast majority of
the country is dealing with urban decay and their homes are too cheap to
maintain their infrastructure, ect. All of the simple good are still
ridiculously cheap. It's like $1.50 for a liter of milk still.

------
rahulnair23
One place this is abundantly clear is in the humanitarian sector, which I
peeked into for a couple of years for a project.

For all the talk about participatory processes, the entire system is donor-
focused. Its an army of well meaning folks from the Global North that are
executing on an view set by donors.

There is grumbling about lack of "local capacity" but somehow disregard that
expat staff move countries every few years and yet somehow have a strong grasp
of local conditions.

Of course the situation isn't as binary and things are a bit more complex in
real life - but makes you wonder why/how these structures persist.

------
xupybd
That article is dripping with intersectionalism.

The author misses the point entirely. It's not that wages are good in these
countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.

It's not racist, unless you take the modern definition that any racial
disparity is racist. Racism requires discrimination. Disparities do not always
mean there is discrimination.

History has dealt these countries a bad hand. But things are getting better
and they are getting better fast.

~~~
jahaja
What do you mean by "dripping with intersectionalism"?

> these countries it's that they are improving and improving rapidly.

The entire argument is that this is actually not happening. The figures are
just doctored instead. Not sure how you can just state the exact opposite to
the articles argument without presenting any evidence that the author misses.

~~~
xupybd
The argument the the poverty line is too low is fair. However most poorer
economies are growing fast.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GD...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate)

Yes GDP is not the best metric but it does show a trend. That wealthier
countries are developing slower that poorer countries.

It's not happening everywhere but most countries that don't have political
problems are doing well.

There can be an argument that the rich west is guilty of causing some of those
problems. For example Iraq is due to American interface. You could argue most
of Africa is still suffering from the power structure left by the British.

But these are the results of past so s not the current system.

By dripping with intersectionalism I mean the author is dropping
intersectional buzz words everywhere without making the case for why they
apply. This is normally a sign that someone is simply applying an ideology to
view a problem rather than any genuine analysis.

~~~
jahaja
Not the current system? I recommend reading the author's book "The Divide" if
you want information to nuance that.

The act of calling someone intersectional doesn't exactly make you look
ideologically unbiased either.

------
agustif
Our history seems to celebrate all past conquests as great feats by super-
human hero-like figures, when in reality they were sackers, enslavers, and
robbers...

heck from the Egyptian Pyramids to Europe's castle's to Abu dhabi's big
buildings.

It seems all of them are tainted with being built with a slave workforce...

Same goes for any multinational corporation exerting resources from their low-
wage employees and the countries where they operate.

Sad thing is we, as a society, will probably celebrate/admire those who
extract more.

Capitalism is a fucked up mindset, it has brought us to here, and that can be
said to have some merits by itself, but I'm not sure it will get us much far
ahead as it is...

~~~
xupybd
What's the better alternative to capitalism?

~~~
jahaja
Something that is better at solving inequality. Something that aims towards
egalitarianism, not property ownership.

Capitalism have had a couple of hundreds of years or so now, and it still
haven't succeeded in this, even with all the technological progress since.

~~~
xupybd
Is egalitarianism and inequality the most desirable outcome of an economic
system?

I'd argue it's not. I'd argue prosperity is. That is to say if the poor get
far richer than they were and that keeps happening I don't care if the rich
get richer faster. Especially if true class mobility is present in the system.
That way the poor are trading places with the rich.

~~~
jahaja
You rarely see people on the bottom of the ladder argue that inequality isn't
that important. Prosperity doesn't say anything about how the resources are
shared, so yes, 1890ths England was surely one of the most prosperous
countries of the time, but at the same time children lived in Oliver Twist
like misery.

The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that Capitalism fails
miserably at redistributing resources fairly.

~~~
xupybd
Capitalism doesn't aim to redistribute resources fairly. It aims to allocate
them effectively. Those that find efficient means of production acquire more
resources. This cause more effective use of resources available and thus more
resources become available for everyone.

Yes pure capitalism fails some people and a mix of small amounts of socialism
help those in need. But prosperity does far more to help the poor than
equality. Extreme inequality is bad

~~~
jahaja
You're just parroting free market propaganda and still have the stomach to
dismiss the author as an ideolog.

~~~
xupybd
Ok so do you have a better system than capitalism?

I'm saying that absolute wealth is more important than equality. Do you have a
counter to that or a system that can promote prosperity and more even wealth
distribution?

~~~
jahaja
Yes, to extend democracy to the economic sphere.

