The Famine and poverty today

Blisterman

Will the current attitude towards poverty in Africa by most westerners really any different to how the British viewed the Irish potato famine?

I always hear people say things like "The British ate well, while the Irish starved" and "They could have easily prevented it."

But all these things could easily be said by Africans towards Americans and Europeans. And many of the excuses people give towards not helping Africans, such as "It's their own fault for having too many children they can't feed" could equally apply to Irish farmers in the famine.

Is there really a big difference?

kerryman12

Yea I think there is a difference, but we'll get to that in a minute!

Will the current attitude towards poverty in Africa by most westerners really any different to how the British viewed the Irish potato famine?

That is a very good point, and probably not is the answer. There were a lot of "smaller" famine's leading up the great one, and I guess apathy for such things is timeless. So I guess in that way it is similar - up to a point, one main difference would be that aid at the time had conditions such as here is some free soup for you to save your family, as long as you convert to our religion.

Is there really a big difference?

Here is where I would see the difference. Ireland produced enough food at the time to supports its population, the thing is it was shipped over seas to feed the British army among others.

IMO a fairer comparison would be the Cromwellian wars/famines, which killed a higher proportion of the Irish population than the great famine.

The reason I mention this is it is IMO more of a parallel to what is happening in Africa to-day than the great famine would be, souther Sudan being a recent example.

Denerick

I think its a pretty good example OP. I don't believe for a minute that the British people were intrinsically bad during the 1840s; the level of private charitable donations were quite high, for example. When we see a famine in an undeveloped country we feel rather sad, but mostly we seem to flick the channel and watch 'America's Got Talent' and get on with our lives. I'm afraid the limits of human compassion are quite stark, unfortunately.

eco2live

The main difference is that whilst the famine was going on we where part of the united kingdom. We where at the time exploited and abandoned by our own government. The poor people of England, Scotland and Wales where not responsible and where treated similarly. The government and the monarchy at the time where to blame and are long dead now.

We should help Africa in as much is possible and do our part in proportion to the size of country that we are.

GarlicBread

Blisterman wrote: »

Will the current attitude towards poverty in Africa by most westerners really any different to how the British viewed the Irish potato famine?

I always hear people say things like "The British ate well, while the Irish starved" and "They could have easily prevented it."

But all these things could easily be said by Africans towards Americans and Europeans. And many of the excuses people give towards not helping Africans, such as "It's their own fault for having too many children they can't feed" could equally apply to Irish farmers in the famine.

Is there really a big difference?

They ate well alright........ OUR DAMN FOOD THAT THEY STOLE AT GUNPOINT.

In comparison, we dont take food out of starving african countries, not that I know of anyhow.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kerryman12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But surely that is an argument to be more cautious about who we give that money too as opposed to just opting out.

There are quite a few reputable NGO's out there doing good work. Would these organisation not be considered a direct root between those who need the aid to survive and those willing to contribute.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kerryman12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

fair point

Rubik.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Myth: Most African countries are run by corrupt dictators.

Fact: Democracy has taken massive strides in the past two decades, replacing a postcolonial era of dictatorship. In the 1980s, only three African countries held multiparty elections: Gambia, Botswana and Mauritius3. By the mid-’90s, 40 countries had held multi-party elections considered free and fair.

Democratisation and space for people to hold governments to account have reduced opportunities for corruption. Africans themselves say that they perceive less corruption today than they did in 20004.

Myth: Donors, such as Irish Aid, pour money into developing countries without monitoring how it is spent.

Fact: All donors, including Irish Aid, have financial management and audit systems to monitor the use of aid. The Irish government works with partner governments to ensure that financial oversight systems are sufficient, for the sake of the Irish taxpayer and, just as importantly, the intended beneficiaries of aid resources.

http://www.dochas.ie/pages/resources/documents/Corruption_Myths_and_Facts.pdf

kerryman12

Myth: It is better to channel aid through NGOs rather than governments,
who might waste it.

Fact: By-passing government systems effectively means undermining those governments’ own efforts to improve planning, budgeting and delivering services that reach all citizens. (Imagine if all the structural funds Ireland received from the EU had been channelled through charities: Would Ireland have had the regulatory framework and long-term strategies in place, and sufficient government capacity, to bring about Ireland’s economic boom?)
A study conducted by the OECD in 20065 found no evidence that aid channelled through developing countries’ governments is any more or less vulnerable to corruption than aid delivered through other channels.
Monitoring and tracking expenditure, providing technical support to government accountability bodies, strengthening parliament’s role in providing oversight, and supporting civil society watchdog groups are all effective ways to ensure that aid reaches those for whom it is intended.


Very interesting point.

Denerick

Rubik. wrote: »

Myth: Most African countries are run by corrupt dictators.

Fact: Democracy has taken massive strides in the past two decades, replacing a postcolonial era of dictatorship. In the 1980s, only three African countries held multiparty elections: Gambia, Botswana and Mauritius3. By the mid-’90s, 40 countries had held multi-party elections considered free and fair.

Democratisation and space for people to hold governments to account have reduced opportunities for corruption. Africans themselves say that they perceive less corruption today than they did in 20004.

Myth: Donors, such as Irish Aid, pour money into developing countries without monitoring how it is spent.

Fact: All donors, including Irish Aid, have financial management and audit systems to monitor the use of aid. The Irish government works with partner governments to ensure that financial oversight systems are sufficient, for the sake of the Irish taxpayer and, just as importantly, the intended beneficiaries of aid resources.

http://www.dochas.ie/pages/resources/documents/Corruption_Myths_and_Facts.pdf

That is complete and utter propaganda. As the experience in countries from Nigeria to Zimbabwe testifies, having an election doesn't make your country democratic (Its easy to have an election and then ensure your guy ends up winning.)

As for the aid issue; that deserves a thread of its own, but I'd be of the opinion that development aid is mostly a sham and a crutch for poor countries. Remove it (Maybe not overnight) and these countries willl need to start looking seriously at improving infrastructure and productivity, the key to genuine economic development.

Rubik.

Denerick wrote: »

That is complete and utter propaganda. As the experience in countries from Nigeria to Zimbabwe testifies, having an election doesn't make your country democratic (Its easy to have an election and then ensure your guy ends up winning.)

As for the aid issue; that deserves a thread of its own, but I'd be of the opinion that development aid is mostly a sham and a crutch for poor countries. Remove it (Maybe not overnight) and these countries willl need to start looking seriously at improving infrastructure and productivity, the key to genuine economic development.

There are 54 countries in Africa and they are saying that by the mid-90's 40 of them had held 'fair and free' elections, I don't see why that should be so hard to believe. Whether you think it is progaganda are not is up to you, but I'm going on the assumption that Dochas know more about the topic than you or I.

Denerick

Rubik. wrote: »

There are 54 countries in Africa and they are saying that by the mid-90's 40 of them had held 'fair and free' elections, I don't see why that should be so hard to believe. Whether you think it is progaganda are not is up to you, but I'm going on the assumption that Dochas know more about the topic than you or I.

Elections are one thing, democratic institutions are another. There are some democracies in Africa that have been reasonably succesful in some regards, but you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone even remotely knowledgable of the continent.

Rubik.

Denerick wrote: »

Elections are one thing, democratic institutions are another. There are some democracies in Africa that have been reasonably succesful in some regards, but you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone even remotely knowledgable of the continent.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I simply provided a link and would have have no problem if some of the claims made in that link could be proved to be unfounded. As long as that proof was based on facts and not just opinion. For example, can someone show that Irish foregin aid is, in fact, being siphoned off by dictators and the checks and balance that Dochos say are in place to ensure this doesn't happen are not working.

Denerick

The link you provided has an agenda so blatant that I had to avert my eyes for a moment. Don't talk about 'fact and fiction' when you're providing propaganda websites.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In your op you made two points, the first regarding the dominance of tin-pot socialist/communist dictatorships in Africa - but the majority of the continent's 54 countries or not socialist, communist or dictatorships. I'm not holding these countries up as models of democracy, I just don't share your belief that socialism and communism is a significant factor in Africa's problems.

The Department of Foreign Affairs Evaluation and Audit Unit's mission is to ensure that Irish foreign aid is being used for the purpose it was intended. If large portions of this aid was being redirected by corrupt governments it would come to light, be it from the Controller and Auditor General or the media.

bath handle

The so called famine in Ireland was not a famine at all. There was plenty of food in the country, people just wouldn't buy it.

brianthelion

you mean people could,nt buy it.

brianthelion

What about the people of North Korea

Logical Fallacy

Blisterman wrote: »

"The British ate well, while the Irish starved"

People who say that also tend to ignore the fact that huge numbers of the population of Britain also starved and suffered and lived in abject poverty.

kerryman12

bath handle wrote: »

The so called famine in Ireland was not a famine at all. There was plenty of food in the country, people just wouldn't buy it.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Logical Fallacy

bath handle wrote: »

The so called famine in Ireland was not a famine at all. There was plenty of food in the country, people just couldn't buy it.

Fixed your post.

OS119

Rubik. wrote: »

...For example, can someone show that Irish foregin aid is, in fact, being siphoned off by dictators and the checks and balance that Dochos say are in place to ensure this doesn't happen are not working.

its pretty obvious - if foriegn aid provides a clinic, or immunisation programme, or infrastructure, the government in place doesn't have to - it can do other things with the resources it would otherwise have to devote to such projects in order to keep the local polulation satisfied(ish).

propping up dodgy regimes or putting money in their pockets doesn't have to mean doing it directly, or even having any of the money going on 'commissions', or 'local taxes', its as simple as spending money that they don't have to.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm surprised at well Ireland is rated. I'd have thought we'd rank worse than most European countries. Incidentally Russia ranked even worse than I expected.