I agree with most of what you said but I'd like to add a couple follow-up comments.
>Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western influences.
I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.
>I hate to use a straw man here but I could very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.
Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.
Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.
>Helping people by pouring money into Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't compete with "free aid"
Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.
But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.
> I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.
It is complicated. Rwanda is still undeveloped and there are a lot of people who do depend on the land for subsistence. Having said that, the bushmeat issue has gone beyond subsistence farming, there is a systematic plundering of Gorilla families going on (most probably with the connivance of government forces) where the gorilla mothers are taken for bushmeat and the young ones are taken to become pets.
> Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.
Fair enough, you are entitled to your ethical standards. The reason I was pointing out that this is a false dichotomy is that it is not as if people are pouring all money into conservation at the cost of helping the local population. Money, believe me, is not the issue with Africa.
> Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.
I am rather unsympathetic to this viewpoint. Yes, admittedly regional issues 60 + years ago were exacerbated by colonial forces. I frankly think it is time to move on and start treating people like adults and expect them to grow up and solve their problems the mature way. We see the same issues in South Asia where people are engaging in Nuclear brinksmanship over a silly piece of scrap land.
> Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.
I think the "locals" are not a homogenous demographic. Sure there are starving people out there who are trying to get their next meal through hunting in forests. There also are several hungry armies using the forests as their pantry. We also have the "noble savage" (Pygmies) who spend most of the time in the forests and also get discriminated against (by fellow Africans, I might add). Another demographic is a group of poachers who systematically use sophisticated technology to hunt down endangered animals and transport the resultant products to markets in Asia. I think some of these groups definitely deserve sympathy, the others I could care zero fucks about. Also the discussion we are having is due to the complicated nature of the issue: It is extremely hard to try to get a macro perspective broadcast to the lowest common denominator (the Facebook commenter) in a way that easily understandable. Unfortunately, we kind of need to break it down so that conservationists can get money to fund their programs. The problem in doing such an approximation is that abstraction is rather leaky and leads to bike shedding.
> But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.
My personal opinion is that Africa would be fine if people didn't try to fix it every five years or so. Practically speaking, I know this to be a pipe dream considering the amount of weapons flowing in there and the next generation colonialism being perpetrated by China/India there.
>Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western influences.
I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.
>I hate to use a straw man here but I could very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.
Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.
Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.
>Helping people by pouring money into Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't compete with "free aid"
Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.
But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.