Note: This post is about Britain. Feel free to post your opinions about your country too.

By 2015, Britain will be giving £8,500,000,000 ($16 Billion) in aid to various African countries. This money is "supposed" to be going to helping children in Africa have an education, develop infrastructure in some towns and install a water pump here and there. However, I think this is wrong. We should not be giving this money to Africa at all. Before you start shouting at me calling me a racist, read my post.

Britain is meant to be a developed country. (Yes, I know Britain isn't a "country," but I'll refer to it as one because it makes things easier.) Infact, we are the 5th richest country in the world. For our size, that is pretty impressive. Britain has also contributed an awful lot to the world not only Technologically, but also culturally and Militaristically (if that is even a word). Britain once ruled 1/4 of the world's land area during the height of it's empire.

Yet, one could easily mistake 21st Century Britain as a 3rd world country. Recent figures have put poverty in Britain at 1 in 4. Yes, 1 in 4 people in Britain live under the poverty line. That is an enormous figure, around 13 million to be exact. That means that about 8 people in my class at school live in poverty. (Well actually not, because I'm lucky enough to live in a nice area and only 1 person in my class I would describe as below the poverty line.)

Shouldn't we be helping our own citizens instead of helping people thousands of miles away? If I were one of those 13 million people, I would expect my interest to come before those of another country's. After all, it would be my government, elected to look after, my interests and my welfare.

Our health service is about to collapse due to debt and running costs. Our Military is under-funded. Our Police Force is stretched to breaking point. Our schools are failing and our Space Agency is crap. We should create a strong country and then and only then, if we see fit, help others. I'm not being selfish, but my needs are more important than an African's to my government. They run this country, so they should look after it.

Most of the aid we send over goes straight into the pockets of corrupt politicians. That money is going to waste. It could and should be put to better causes. We should look after our own before others.

Personally, I think helping Africa is a good thing. Thousands of people die there daily due to diseases that can't be cured, due to poor living quality, no food, no water, etc. It's hard for people to understand that Africa isn't as developed as other countries are. If we can give money to them, then maybe, just maybe they can grow and develop into a better country as a whole. I mean, try living in their shoes for once. Living in poverty all your life with no water, no food, no health care, eating anything you can find even if it's garbage. You would want all the help you can get. Also having no education whatsoever. We take everything for granted and we don't even realize it. Helping those who are actually in need is a nice thing. I think my country should actually use some of there money and use it for things like this. At least this money would actually be going to a good cause.

Yes, I think Britain should give the money to africa, but why not cut it in half for their own country? Good idea in my opinion.

The wealthier nations on the planet have been giving money to AIDs/war stricken parts of Africa for near a decade now. What do we have now? Still an AIDs and war stricken Africa.

So no.

Be glad Bush isn't your queen. He would be giving hundreds of billions to Africa (Actually, he pretty much does that already).

If it was me being an aid, I would want help. I think it shouldn't just be Britian, It should be the whole world. I was surprised when it said 1 in 4. I've always seen Britian as weathy. Well, it shows how much I know. War should be stopped to do research on our read problem. Global Warming. Poverty to war to global warming, what a topic.

The problem with all aid and charity is that we're merely shoveling money into a black hole. Until we fix the problems inherent in society, we're going to continue to do so. It's all very well alleviating the suffering of some members of society, but their children will still be poor and suffer, regardless of how education "will help". All education has done in places like China and India has created an even greater wealth divide - the ultimate end of a free market society.

This is not to say I do not believe we shouldn't offer aid to countries which require it, but that we should think about the logic of our offers. Sending money to the government in Darfur so that they can destroy the homes of citizens hardly seems like aid.

I kind of agree with you. Helping out other country's is a great and honorable thing to do, but sometimes you have to look at yourself. This is were many large countries such as Britain and the US fail. They're looking outwards, meanwhile, Canada is invading us and Minnesota has been captured, but we're helping Boy Scout Troupe 41 in India.

Nice reasoning, Plant.

Oh no, they've taken the great lakes!

I agree with you on this one Plant. I'm not from Britain, but if my country is planning to send money to another country when we need it in our own I would be pretty pissed.

You make a brillant point Max.

And at Kal

My selection on this one is 'Undecided'.

In theory, perhaps that is just me being pedantic in the sense that this money we donate and this support we give doesn't go a long way and is lost in the process.

Due to the amount of advert's on the internet, television and in various newspaper's it isn't surprising people are somewhat hesitant to give their support. There are real companies out there that are helping, old companies in which people trust and recognise, but there are a fair few who claim to be helping, when they are not. I could easily be proven wrong in this statement, so if you can, please do, however that is my initial thought upon reading this.

I have to agree with you Plant, that Britain should be developing (even though it is said to have developed) rather than giving away, else there is no gain to either countries.

We have to help them. Lives could be lost


sorry for being a man of small words

for 1 person who is healthy in Africa we get like 10 unhealthy in place for him. the money doesnt seem to work. maybe its just not used right. i voted for no.

I take some offence to that. Canada and the U.S. are good neighbors, and I seem to remember the U.S. invading Canada two hundred years ago, BECAUSE Canada stayed loyal to Britain, not the other way around. I know that you're just giving an example, but please think about how other people will think about it before you type it.


Anyways, on the matter of Africa, I agree with several people who have already posted. Britain should keep half the Africa money for Britain, and give the other half for foreign aid.

I agree with you Plant and I think a lot of ppl in the western world are coming to the same conclusion. For me it comes down to this "charity starts at home".

Why on earth are we supporting other counties when we can not look after our citizens?

I honestly think your taking me to seriously.

Sorry Trees, but I'm a proud Canadian =D. I guess I was being a bit harsh, so I apologize.

Foreign aid is not only misplaced it is given for no reason.

Aid is a theatrical way of trying to convince the world you're altruistic.

As both Rob and Plant stated. Donating money to Africa has no effect because it just goes straight into the pockets of the corrupt politicians. If we were to remove such people and try to introduce a real democracy (not that the west seems to be having any luck with that lately) then maybe, just maybe, sending money over might make a difference.

I know that what I stated would be damn near impossible in a place like Africa, hence the reason we should concentrate more on our own interests.

Why should we help people from another country when we don't even bother to help the people who live in our country and are suffering? Andy has a point right over there.

ramos

Yes I believe we should aid Africa, and why everyone (especially Ramos) because. The Europeans explores and even the US never bothered exploring Africa nor its culture and to this day nobody cares all they think of this continent except for its valuable resources and such. That's a brief summary of us and everyone helping this depressing continent. Africa's 66% desert and dry lands and currently 46% of its land area is vulnerable to desertification, with more than 50% of that under high or very high risk. Why? because they're so far behind in technology and especially farming. This effect's big on the rest of the world because most of the rainforest's are located in Africa along with South America, they make up 1/3 of the air we breath. Once their cut down they can't grow back and scientists have been trying to grow them back but they say its close to impossible. Talk about breathing problems... Millions of people suffering there from lack of purified water. Just think about this:

When your sitting at the dinner table complaining and fighting with your parents about wanting a 360 or 160gig ipod think about the people fighting for food and water everyday.

Personally, I belive the issue is not the money they have, just that they go though the money without creating something. They use the money to survive, not that this is a bad thing, but there is no innovation. The goverments of African countries (Most of which are military dictatorships, kleptocracies and general withholders of socialist ideas). are usually not only controlling, but also corrupt. There, it takes forever to start a buisniess, which in turn will create buisnesses for others to become richer, and in turn give money to the country. They money isnt' starting anything; most of it just goes to waste.

Well if I take a look at his I kinda laugh. Africa has turned into the worlds drug addicted cousin that you give money to when they need there fix. Africa has actually taken most of the UN world supply fund and now they are starting to notice. Tbh I think its a waste. If we start handing over our money to other countries then we put our own country in financial stress.
I say we should keep our money in our wallets and bank accounts and only hand out the extra.

To be honest, Africa had existed perfectly well before we went and kidnapped a huge number of people and sold them into slavery. When we've finished paying off that debt then perhaps we could talk about keeping money.

Or else, perhaps after we've paid back the resources that were stolen from Africans during the scramble for Africa. Or perhaps when we pull the last vestiges of white supremacy out of Africa, we can think about keeping out money.

Oh cripes, I knew someone would bring up that slave trade guilt trip rubbish. I know what, why not return all the generations of black people since that slave trade who live very comfortable lives in our countries back to Africa. That way its returning the manpower taken - and then some, also providing a highly educated workforce; and they can take their money with them that they have amassed here. Then the debt would be repaid with lots of extras. But Im sure that no matter how much they complain about us, they dont really want to go back there and you would have a hard time getting them to.

Sorry, but I really cant stand it when people TODAY moan about the slave trade. IM not a slave trader. IM not responsible. Why should I have to pay for other peoples behaviour a couple hundred years ago? Why do people TODAY feel as if THEY have been wronged by something that DIDNT happen to THEM. If anything they have done rather well for a displaced group of people.

We pay for the violence of our ancestors because people want to feel rightous and use any excuse to get ahead, to sue, to make others feel bad. I think its ridiculous. My ancestors where repressed, butchered and attacked by the English for centuries, far longer than black slaves. Yet you don't see me complaining or moaning about the past. I wish people would put things in perspective.

Throwing money at the situation wont help it either.

(And that rant wasnt aimed specifically at anyone, just the view)

Africa is a 'sink hole' in Aid terms, as the money will either go into the pockets of corrupt individuals or be spent on tools and food from MEDCs. The money is therefore put back into the MEDC and is in a way benefitting the MEDC because it keeps its industries running and creates an area of demand for products. Effectively, Aid creates a market for MEDCs - turning the LEDCs into buyers.

If the money is spent on food, then its a stop gap solution that is only temporary. MEDCs sell over produced items that are subsidised (see the CAP policy) in bulk, cheaply, to LEDCs. This floods the LEDC market with cheap goods that out-competes native farmers. So the tools bought are useless as they cant use them. The LEDC becomes like an addictive buyer that cant work for itself because what it giving it life is also crippling it. Africa has lots of natural resources, it is extremely rich in them - its just that because they are out-competed, they cant use them.

If you want to help Africa, sponser children, buy Fair Trade, demand that MEDC governments stop selling surplus goods to LEDCs and also reduce the debt owed by the LEDCs.

Then, things should get better.

Fisher my good sir you are right. It seems no matter what we do we cant make anything better. I forgot to look at the market value of it all. The thing is, these days rape is an extremely common occurrence, and this sky rockets aids and of course the population. Meaning that surplus market has room to grow and as population grows more money will be needed.

I dont see this as a good idea but I also see us all forking money over no matter what cause we will be asked to help support our fellow man.

So, Fisher, you're suggesting that every person who's a descendant of former slaves is well off? Because out of the ones I know, most of them aren't.

But you're completely right. We're not slave traders. Infact, most people at the time were living in squalor often worse than the slaves, had no voting rights and no welfare. But the same act is perpetrated against new groups every day; we just sit and do nothing while great evils are visited on new people. We've gone through slavery to genocide to razing cities in a heartbeat. The Edmund Burke quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing" is incorrect. For such acts as these you require everyone to avoid the atrocities we commit - a feat we manage so easily. And unless we do actively avoid the evils of the past, then the sons could so easily repeat the sins of the fathers - even now we actively persecute people on the grounds of appearance or religion. How long until we progress to repatriation or eugenics?

As for your suggestion of how to fix the economy in Africa, it's rather naive to say the least. Currently Africa is not just a sink hole for aid, but it - along with China and several other Eastern Asian Countries - is also the plug on western world economies. If Africa were to develop, it would not cause a wealth equalisation but merely a wealth displacement. So long as we're so concerned with amassing wealth for ourselves, there will be countries and groups left in poverty.

In general, referring to decendants of blacks in the UK. Im not talking about slaves from other countries, like people captured in south America by modern day pirates and press ganged. Look at the topic title. Im sure you'll see AFRICA in it. And for that reason, I am speaking about Africa and Africans.
Maybe those unlucky few who you apparently 'know' are unable to work because somewhere down the line their ancestors didnt take advantage of the situation or they live in a run down area.. maybe they cant pass exam and go into further education? Refer to survival of the fittest. Im sure youll see lots of white/tan people in the same situation.


Im sorry, but trying to make me feel guilty because somewhere - out there in the wide world - someone is getting raped/tortured/shot/beat while I eat my cornflakes is not going to work. I know my limits - I cant be everywhere, I have no political powers, Im not a one man army. Ill leave saving the world to you if you think you're up to it.

Do you go out to these countries and try to stop the events? or do you stay at home and tell people on the internet that they should and quote philosophers? - I reckon you do the latter, and therefore you're avoiding the conflicts and letting them happen. I reckon it's a case of pot calling the kettle black.



Naive to suggest what the every-day person who doesnt hold a position in government can do to help?
Once again, read the debate title: AFRICA. I am well aware that other countries are sink-holes for aid. I even said that the money given as aid ends up back at the MEDCs and helps MEDCs more than than the LEDCs. So I suggest you read what people type as you basically said what I said - just including other counties.

The one thing you have said that I agree with, and which I was hoping people would come to the conclusion of is this:
''So long as we're so concerned with amassing wealth for ourselves, there will be countries and groups left in poverty''

Survival of the fittest was invented by fascists and Social Darwinists. I'm just as happy not referring to it.

I was only discussing slaves of African descent. I live in one of the most casually racist areas of England and I'm well aware that anyone who's not white is not treated anything like fairly around here. As for your other reasoning; the entire examination system is ridiculous to begin with. It's pathetic than I can do no work for my whole life and come out with better marks than people who work hard, just because I was born more than two standard deviations outside of the average intelligence.

To be honest, you do have political powers. Everyone does. All it takes is bothering to actually exercise them. What happened when people rioted against the poll tax? The whole idea was scrapped and Thatcher was forced out of power. Alternatively - if you choose that path - any person can stand for parliament. You yourself even used the imperative "demand" in your post - suggesting that you know full well you could do something.

I fully intend to spend the majority of my life trying to save the world. I know that it won't happen in my lifetime and that any good I do will be interred with my bones upon death, yet I still intend to try. I however will never be running for any parliamentary seats. I believe that by their very nature governments are required to promote inequality and corruption.

Of course, with the wealth part, even being in government wouldn't help. So long as you have bodies such as the world bank and the IMF who exist outside of any control without any sanctions upon them, there is no stopping such practices.

Give a hungry homeless drug addict money for food, he'll buy drugs. Give the hungry homeless drug addict food, and he'll have one less problem. Give mere selective items that can be used in raw form, not items that give chance to corruptable possibilities. Thats why there are charities where you BUY animals, supplies, equipment and water. And, how about the Governments encourage or campaign for families to contribute to charities that buy these items, instead of governments sending taxpayer's dollars that can be used for its own countries purposes that merely make ill for their original, though considerate,idea.

IMHO, I'de rather not send massive amounts of money to Africa. Unless the money is delivered directly as well as the food, it is supposedly used to keep fueling the genocide. Ontop of that, I don't mean to sound assy or anything, but there is no real benefit from Africa! Last I read about Africa I never heard anything about precious oil thingies or copious amounts of natural resources. Of course you could correct me if I'm wrong or convince me otherwise (please do?). Btw, I'm not interested in any flaming and if you do I will choose to ignore .

that is a very good point you bring up there, but for now i am still undecided on that....

before i read ur post i was almost going to instantly click yes, but then decided to look at your reasonings

Well, duh, they shouldnt even have standardized health care in the first place. and people in Britan complain about taxes.....Hello, the standardized healthcare comes from your pocket anyways, most of the time paying for the healthcare of poor people on the street to lazy to get a job.

Standardized? You mean there shouldn't be uniform guidelines set out for the rules and regulations of hospitals? Good shout.

Personally I think the NHS is a brilliant thing. I have no problem paying for people living on the street to be treated. I also think you should try getting a job with no fixed abode. It's impossible from both a legal and social aspect. Therefore if you're on the street, you can't get a job. It's a fairly difficult vicious cycle.

And of course Communists who suppress religion would also follow, create or support a socialogical and scientific view! If you dislike that view, then you are neither fascist, darwinist, communist ect, you are a spiritualist. Glad I'm not one of them!


People are not equal physically of mentally. Thinking that is ridiculous. Examinations are merely a method of separating people of different ability. Its not perfect, but it does its job within an acceptable degree of inaccuracy. And of course, exams are not the end-all, they are merely an indicator. Im sorry, but if you think that everyone is physically and mentally equal, then you have lost your common sense.


When I said I did not have political powers, I meant serious political powers, such as those that allow me to mae fundamental changes in government on my own. Didnt you find it strange that I would say that I have no political powers and then later say that everyone should vote and potest to get things changed? thats because large groups of people do.


Good for you. Tell me how saving the planet goes on your one man Crusade. But may I ask: How do you expect to make a difference if you act externally? You wil need serious governmental backing or organisational backing (but you don't like governments or organisations because in your pro-anarchy stance, you wouldnt use them!). Your intentions are good, but you have no clue how to use the system to benefit others. Im sorry, but anarchism is ridiculous.


The WB and IMF are within control, of every country. You get leaders of a few countries to sway these organisations. Of course, why would you need the WB anf IMF to help fund you? Why not use your own country?

And now about later posts:
I'm no bleeding heart as you all know, but I agree with Rob that the NHS is a good thing to have. I have no problem paying to help save anyones life. The only qualm I have is with people from other countries coming in to have free medical attention that they could of afforded in their home country - well, that and how poorly the NHS is run/funded. If anything I Think 2 versions of the NHS should be created, the NHS for English people, and a new INHS (International Health Service) that works for people who come here seeking medical aid. (Breaking it down into sections with separate people in chare of operations would improve effiency and lesson the burden on a single organisation. It would also provide more jobs. Both would have to be funded individually as well, and so could press for more money individually)

I do also agree with Plant that services such as this are horribly underfunded. For this reason, I believe that money should'nt be thrown at other countries such as those in Africa. How are we to help others when we are lame ourselves?

Just one question for Rob though, you state that you fully endorse/support the NHS and willingly pay money to keep it Yet it is an organisation created by the government and kept running by the government through taxes and regulation. Yet you said 'I believe that by their very nature governments are required to promote inequality and corruption'.. why do you support something created out of inequality and corruption? You must either agree that governments do some good, or you must say that both are bad and should not be supported. If you choose neither then you are hypocritical. Something like the NHS could not have come out of anarchy.



Africa is extremely rich in resources. It has vast areas of farmable land, it has gigantic gold/diamond/platinum/iron/coal/oil/wood/land deposits/resources. It has the capeability of out competing the USA and Europe resource-wise. What it does lack however is the technology and the educated workforce to mine/take advantage of the resources. The final thing which the continant lacks is nough money to substantially invest in technology/equipment/staff to make the best use of its resources. As Africa is in soo much debt to other countries, the continent in general is unable to put money into it's economy.
You won't read about Africas resources unless you read journals or reports on them specifically, as most generaistic reports such as those in newspapers focus only on Africas debt and warfares over the few easily attainable resources (those that dont require high-end technology such as digging equipment and ore processing plants - such as mineral veins that only need guys with picaxes to chip away).

Well there you have it. I believe that we must sort out our systems first and that no good comes out of anarchy.

Anarchy doesn't say there should be no organisation. Well, not left wing anarchy anyway. If you were to support Stirner's egoism then yes, he's against organisation. Infact, Stirner supported people effectively living like hermits, but that's neither here nor there. Anarchy doesn't mean no organisation any more than it means no law. It simply means the sum of the Greek words it's derived from: an (without) archy (rule). I just don't believe others should be making decisions for me any more than I should be making decisions for others. For the most part, left wing anarchism is Marxism without the dictatorship of the proletariat. I would support something like that but for the fact that it's simply impossible - hence most people viewing collectivist anarchists as hopelessly naive. That and the fact that Marx was opposed to any kind of feminism.

Personally, the entire basis of my thinking is upon organisations. I would advocate communes effectively working similarly to Jewish Kibbutz although specialised to suit the needs of similar individuals. Of course, the difficulty here is in these gaining the political power to be accepted but not allowing space for them to become corrupted. Effectively it requires complete democracy, which can only really be achieved easily on a small scale such as in communes. Eventually I would hope for enough of a change of mind set that most people would voluntarily join. At this point you then have to account for those who do not wish to join such communes as there will most likely not be enough services to cover their basic living and this must be provided for. There must be the ability to live outside of communes if people wish to do so, otherwise you're simply creating hundreds of small scale cases of China.

Anyway, rebutting your points. I don't believe people are equal yet I do feel that education is not fit for purpose. Not only is there no opportunity for vocational education before 16 but education does not suit different learning styles. Because I can read something through once and remember it more or less word for word I can get top marks across the board. Does that make me better at science than someone with a natural affinity for the subject? I can assure you it does not; I have no interest in the subject and therefore do no more than the bare minimum whereas someone with an affinity will often learn things outside of the examination syllabus. They will be far better at Science but I could well come out with better grades.

No-one controls the IMF and World bank. The bodies are unelected and unappointed. All countries are too far in debt to them both to actually be able to exercise any control over them. If they cause any trouble then the world bank will just call in debts and put a huge squeeze on the offending country's economy causing the problematic government to be voted out of power at the next elections. As a general rule, people vote for their wallets rather than their ideals.

And as for the origins of the NHS; it's a counterweight against revolt. As Benjamin Disraeli stated, two nations were forming after the ideas of Marx and Engels between the rich and the poor. The rich lords in government had to adopt certain socialist ideals simply to stop a revolution. A government without the means to change is without the means of it's own conservation.

I support the NHS on the grounds that it protects the lives of those unable to do so themselves. But no-one should have to pay for their well-being. No-one should be forced to choose between their health and striving for a better world, reliant on the "benevolence" of their rulers.

No rob. Not what im saying. Standardized healthcare is when the gov takes tax payers money and gives it to people who need operations. Then people have to wait 18mon for a cat scan.

That's nationalised.

If something is standardised that just means that all of them are the same. For instance all plug sockets in Britain are standardised because they're of a routine size.

I agree with both of them. So I nulled because it would be good and bad but I wasn't undecided, just confused.