This is exactly the argument made in the Industrial Revolution to keep children in the mines and mills. Higher up the chain owners were living in luxury and crying out against the greed of the masses. It takes goodwill, hard work and pressure to effect change, not charity. The West is supremely fitted to assist in this change, especially in the reduction of corruption, but we don't do it because we want cheap imports and high sales of armaments. If we really regret our colonial past, this would be a worthwhile reparation.
Poverty is ugly and heart-breaking from our point of view but I think we forget that it is the natural/default state of things. You would need a lot of work and technological progress to lift a society from poverty. They are hardworking people and technologies exist but still, there is a cultural part to it (or is it some "ism", saying this?). Would you want to force our culture on them? Hasn't this been disastrous in past, together with all sorts of interventionism into their politics? Maybe we can help with corruption but it won't do much - take everything from their corrupt leaders and give it to people and they will still be poor.
I am sorry but the turn this thread has taken is starting to make me feel physically sick. I know I don't have to read it, but fascinated by what people might think is acceptable. Breaking limestone with a hammer acceptable, because it prevents poverty, whilst others in the same society plunder aid from the west? Acceptable?
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
@punkdoc It makes me very uncomfortable too but I still haven't heard any viable idea how to stop it without making it even worse for those people. Us calling it unacceptable won't stop it. I am a somewhat cold logical person but I am not a psychopath. Breaking limestone with a hammer doesn't prevent poverty, it is poverty, one of the worst kind of poverty. It does prevent even worse alternatives (like death).
I don't agree for one moment that poverty and exploitation are a cultural choice, especially for the impoverished and exploited. If it IS then I am fairly relaxed about imposing our culture, just as I am in favour of imposing regulations on those here, who would like to engage in a bit of exploitation themselves. It is one of the human race's great achievements that we can conceive of a better world, but just wishing for it isn't enough. Obviously, increasing poverty by stopping child labour or slavery isn't the answer. You have to increase wages, improve working conditions, police regulations, limit corruption and control profiteering.
The irony of 'Americans', that generally means white skinned rednecks, complaining about immigrants is totally lost on most of them. North America as it is today, has been created by generation after generation of immigration.
I am the world's worst for this as I know this 'stuff' happens, but I'm ok because I'm in my bubble and all is well in the world. So wrong eh? But it does frustrate me no end when 'ists' and 'isms' are used when describing something like Samira Ahmed not being paid the same as Jeremy Vine (or whoever she was compared to), when we are all aware of the inequalities around that are not seen as 'ist' and an 'ism'.
When I worked in Nigeria back in the 70s, I lived in an affluent part of Lagos (Victoria Island) with my own steward and guards and travelled to and from work in a driven car. On the way, over the Dutch built motorway, the roads were thronged with child beggars - mostly maimed. I was told that they were maimed intentionally to beg, as they got more money - who knows?
There's something fundamentally wrong with the world isn't there?
I know though that we should treat people the same in this country - but we seem to use emotive 'ist' and 'ism' terms for the smaller issues and then are left with nothing to describe the major inequalities.
I know I shouldn't drag other things in, but bear with me as it's how my brain works - I tend to see links and connections all over the show. Bit of a butterfly brain. One of the reasons I liked Europe was because of the equality issue. It seemed that Europe had tried to elevate the people within its confines to the same level - working regulations and equalities. And to me, instead of coming out of Europe, the concept needed to be spread to the world. How can it ever be right to trade where there AREN'T level playing fields or else aren't you just condoning forcing labour down.
Apologies for banging on. Obelixx is right about me flogging dead horses.
..before I b****r off and put up me deccies, here's another one.
Do you think that sexism is a recent thing? I know society has been male dominated in way of power (Salic Law, religious law) but (and I'm not excusing this) life was different. We tend to back project and forget that Magna Carta was nothing to do with people like me. It was the wealthy pressurising the King. Men didn't vote either - no one voted - and as for rights and equality...hmmmm.. We can't forget that Britain hasn't always been a beacon of light. And then throw into that the Industrial Revolution and how that fundamentally changed the distribution of labour. Before families worked together (they each had their roles)on the land or had certain trades. It was a physical time so the trades and work tended to be split on physical lines. Kids went up chimneys because they were small. Now, we are adapting to the post Industrial Revolution. Hard labour has been replaced by machines and now robots. Work is more academic in nature. It is always hard for those who have power to give it up (I swear that is what has driven Brexit) - but it took, what, 700 years after Magna Carter to even concede votes to the majority of men. So did 'sexism' really appear as a thing after labour switched from physical to mental? And what will it be called in 20 years time when AI comes along and replaces both men and women?
Posts
I know I don't have to read it, but fascinated by what people might think is acceptable.
Breaking limestone with a hammer acceptable, because it prevents poverty, whilst others in the same society plunder aid from the west? Acceptable?
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Breaking limestone with a hammer doesn't prevent poverty, it is poverty, one of the worst kind of poverty. It does prevent even worse alternatives (like death).
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
It is one of the human race's great achievements that we can conceive of a better world, but just wishing for it isn't enough.
Obviously, increasing poverty by stopping child labour or slavery isn't the answer. You have to increase wages, improve working conditions, police regulations, limit corruption and control profiteering.