Reflection #12

"To propagate the faith presupposes that the Indians are considered his equals (before God). But what if they are unwilling to give their wealth? Then they must be subdued, in military and political terms, so that it may be taken from them by force..." (Todorov 45)

This quote taken from our reading of The Conquest of America, though its context belongs to centuries-old circumstances, is entirely relevant to our discussion of poverty and the subsequent dynamic between the First World and the Global South. During class on Thursday, we generally accepted the efforts of international aid organizations such as World Vision as honorable in intention, though doubtful in execution. Yet I couldn't stop myself from thinking about the inadvertent hypocrisy in these do-gooder actions. Groups such as World Vision and Heifer International cater to the materially-driven, "socially cognizant", typically Christian First World citizen; this demographic clings desperately to the notions of social activism and world citizenry and believe that they positively contribute to these objectives because they have the capacity to charge their credit cards to buy a few chickens or t-shirts whose partial profits benefit Darfur. It is my belief that these aid initiatives, though honorable in intent, actually exacerbate the divide between the First World and the Global South. The current international aid system allows the First World to know about issues within the Global South and "help" from a safe distance: behind their expensive computer screens or within the cheery ambience of their local mall. Absolutely no emotional, personal, human connection is formed. The idea of "us" and "them", of the inherent existence of "The Other" is perpetuated.

When I consider the numerous international aid organizations that emphasize our common humanity or the moral obligation to help the impoverished, and then when I examine the actual status quo within the Global South, there is no doubt in my mind that the current system of international aid contains inexcusable flaws. It seems to me that citizens within the First World are only willing to give back and adhere to their moral compass when they themselves will benefit. We discussed the spiritual/religion appeal of donating to the less fortunate. However, as the quote above demonstrates, we are not willing to redeem our souls if it equates to sacrificing our comfortable standard of living. The best example of this that I can offer is the lack of response to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the deplorable, undeniable facts of rape, murder, and child slavery, the world seems content to allow the deadliest conflict since World War II to wage on because their suffering results in our benefit. "The UN Refugee Agency says the war killed 2.5 million people, directly or indirectly, since August 1998, and later a UN panel says the warring parties deliberately prolonged the conflict to plunder gold, diamonds, timber, and coltan in the regions." (http://www.fallingwhistles.com/timeline/) The war in the DRC, though riddled with injustice and atrocities, is too valuable to the First World to be put to an end by international intervention. Moral obligation dissolves in the face of dollar signs. This opinion was true in Columbus' time, and it remains to be so today. The question is when humanity will recognize its dishonor.