Reflection 12

The World Bank speaker brought up some interesting talking points to discuss in terms of world necessity and impoverished nations. I think the point that she hit on a lot was the fact that nations who have been brought out of economic depressions by the World Bank funds hopefully circle back and become a donator for other nations in the same situation, kind of a “pay-it-forward” deal. This discussion involving the financial resources comparatively and internationally fit neatly into our class discussion of poverty on a grander scale. The donations to charity that are made from relatively wealthier nations sometimes stem from a feeling of guilt and shame for having better fortune than others, for no real reason. From a personal point of view, there is no real reason as to why I was born into a family that will never (presumably) have the same fears as a family struggling in a third world country.

Unfortunately, the common American ideal is one of equality and justice for all- but how does that coexist peacefully with the image of a starving child in a nation across the globe? How do we, as those who are privileged, explain the discrepancy between income and opportunity gaps and still promote the same concepts of equality and justice? This is where the question of equality of opportunity. I think the better explanation for why we allow this to continue is because we believe in equality of opportunity- the misguided notion that we are all blessed with the same amounts of opportunity if you really, really try (hard enough, and if it doesn’t work, try harder). The reality is, sometimes you can’t work hard enough to pull yourself out of the societal rut that has plagued generations. The discussion of poverty in third-world countries is often accompanied by the discussion of development and the best course of action to remedy the situation that is often connected to (a lack of) infrastructure. Poverty is not an issue that can be remedied by simple guilt, but rather an entirely new perspective on charity and how giving should not be necessarily associated with guilt.

Reflection 12

The issue of poverty this week was very fascinating. I thought, on Thursday especially, we were able to discuss an issue that I have often wondered about and struggled with: the issue of donating. There are so many different issues that need resources and general support, but are they all valid issues that need our help? Do some necessitate more of our support than other issues? These are all tough issues to work past. However, the one point I always question myself on are the merits of the people who donate money to charities, especially the internationally-focused charities, and the motives of the charities themselves.

A lot of the people in our class felt as if, frequently, the people who donated to these charities were doing so in order to feel better about their own personal wealth (a version of “white guilt”, almost) or to look impressive to their neighbors and community members. To an extent, I had to agree. There are obviously many people who care very deeply about the issues they support and give money to, and it would be very inappropriate to generalize the entire population, but giving to charities seems to be almost a fad among the privileged and affluent members of American society. However, do the motives even matter? As long as they’re giving money to causes that need the support, do the motives of the givers matter?

We also questioned the motives behind the charities, and the actual effects they had on the people they were claiming to help. One of the issues that sprung to mind, personally, was Bono, the lead singer of U2. He established the ONE foundation, which was created to help both alleviate poverty and help the AIDS crisis, and gained a great deal of support. The foundation raised £9.6 million, but news sprung up in September that the foundation used £5 million to pay the salaries of the people working for the foundation. Only 1.2% (£118,000) went toward helping the needy (The Daily Mail).

It is very admirable that people want to give money to causes that need the support and resources. To a certain extent, I could care less if they are only doing it to impress their friends, because the money is still going to people who could use it. However, I wish people would investigate very carefully the organizations they are choosing to give money to, if only to make sure that their money is going to where the organization says it is.

Reflection 12: Cultural Relativity

I was glad to see that the majority of my classmates shared the idea that there is not a unilateral path to development, instead development is completely relative to a state's culture. This was especially apparent when our class discussion turned mainly to Africa. Everyone seemed to remember that Africa is not a country but a continent and furthermore each country is wildly different.

This cultural relativity is expressed in The Conquest of America. When Columbus gave needles to the natives thinking it could be used for the clothes they had also provided, the natives instead used it to pick their teeth and tend to wounds. There were also instances where Columbus traded with the natives receiving something of material gain by Western standards while the natives would receive "meaningless" items or things worth comparatively less but find great worth from them. For example Columbus' men traded gloves for land. Cultural relativity and diversity is also exemplified in the instances where the natives would "offer their homes" to the Christians, meaning they would give the Christians whatever they desired. Yet, when the natives returned this practice, the Christians were angered and considered the natives thieves.

The concept and understanding of cultural relativity is important to identity but vital for the understanding of development. This relativity must be kept in mind so that states or organizations seeking to aid other nations don't look to help other states develop with a one-sided view or with the idea of unilateral development. Global actors must recognize and understand differences in order to ensure peace between states and the achievement of goals (in this case aiding in development).

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.

Fairness of Economic Success or Failure

I find this economic success/failure to be unfair, especially for developing nations, because there is the misconception of unilateral development. There seems to be a preconceived notion that every state develops along a single path (in the mind of a Western power). The first step is preindustrialziation, that is the state is organized in a way of the past such as a tribe. Then there is a stage of industrialization or development where the state sees technological and societal developments, riding of the "old", and a creation of a stable government. The final state postindustrialization. All of this is done under the current Western definition of development; the state becomes a capitalist democracy. Any form of development that does not fit the Western mold is deemed "backward", "third world", or the "global south".

These "third world" states are on an entirely different playing field and should not be subject to the same expectations as other states. States that have developed in the wake of the colonial era such as Rwanda or South Africa have had to deal with state development, and arguably continue to do so. This puts states at a disadvantage for economic success because they are dealign with stability issues on a grand scale, and are therefore unable to focus on economic prosperity as more "developed" states. Furthermore it is these "developed" states that have put these developing states at a disadvantages. States like Great Britain, arguably the greatest colonial power, instilled western principles into its colonies leaving developmental issues in it's wake. The African states are still trying to battle their African identity and custom while working to develop. Furthermore, to have the same expectations for economic success would mean that all cultures and states are organized homogeneously. This notion lacks respect for the diversity of cultural norms and values amongst different states. For instance, in precolonial Africa many tribes were centralized and worked in a communal form of organization. This value of centralization and community is still, arguably, inherently part of the "African" identity. Western nations, although there is a communal aspect to society, respects the individuals and means of wealth such as private land ownership. Therefore the division of labor and various other capitalist ideals havent fully permeated every state. This means that states are competing on different "scale" on different "fields".

Is the economic failure or success of a state under unequal preparatory conditions a fair outcome? If so, why? If not, what should be done?

The fact that states do not perform equally within the global economic system should not come as a surprise to the international community. Our globalized world praises the institution of free market capitalism; every nation-state is encouraged to participate within the market in order to augment the general level of competition. Yet participation does not equate to equal gains for all. Global economic competition guarantees the emergence of winners and losers, a struggle for the survival of the fittest in international industry. In many ways, this concept mimics our discussion of the college admissions process. As applicants, we could choose to do the best with what we were given in terms of opportunities and resources, or we could seek for supplementary materials that made our candidacy all the more appealing. While applying to universities throughout the country, we faced disheartening acceptance rates and terrifying price tags; we were aware of the inequity that stalked our grandiose dreams of College A. We clung to the words "options" and "safety school," just in case. States take similar precautions when faced with a fiercely competitive global market. They exploit their domestic natural resources, or pursue symbiotic trade agreements as a means of accessing vital materials that can be found beyond their borders. Yet when every state enters the global market, and when every prospective student's application lies in the hands of a selection committee, everything once again revolves around relative competition: how does the output of Nation A compare to that of Nation B? What is the difference in value between the laundry list of extracurriculars of Applicant A and that of Applicant B? From a purely technical perspective, the success or failure of a state merits the blame of that state only.

However, because our world is increasingly interdependent, the question of who's to blame becomes exceedingly tricky. State concerns are no longer purely their own; the perfect topical example of this is the overwhelming foreign criticism of the Fed's $600 billion expansion of the money supply. As an article in today's issue of the New York Times states, government officials abroad are openly criticizing the Fed's recent change in monetary policy. Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble was quoted in the magazine Der Spiegel: "It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money." The article goes on to say, "Privately, American officials say they were miffed by Mr. Schaeuble's comments, saying it was a breach of protocol for the foreign minister of one country to criticize the central banker of another." This segment of the article reminded me of our conversations pertaining to state sovereignty. Is America's sovereignty at risk because of this "breach of protocol"? Should commentary like this be tolerated within the international community? These are questions that become progressively difficult to answer as our interconnectedness intensifies. Nation-states must be willing to recognize their inherent effects upon one another in order to adequately confront the repercussions of those effects.

Is the economic success or failure of a state a fair outcome? If so, why? If not, what should be done?

To evaluate whether something is fair or unfair, we usually have to look whether or not something is deserved. In this case, it is a country’s success in the global economy. Does any country have an inherent “right” to be successful? True, some states are much more prepared than others to compete in the global economy. Does this mean that, when a country fails because they do not have adequate preparation for this global competition, that it is unfair?

Ultimately, I think no. This is simply because success in the global economy is not about what is fair or unfair. I don’t know if there is anything that can be classified as fair or unfair about a state's success – or lack thereof. Is it fair that the United States, rich in resources and holding a very beneficial geographic location, has had immense success? Is it fair that post-colonial countries, like those in sub-Saharan Africa, have not? Or, that many other states have defied the odds and succeeded when they have not been expected to? It would be fair or unfair if any state had an inherent “right” to success and wealth. But no state does. Thus, “fairness” cannot be adequately applied to this situation.