Thursday, July 07, 2005

Matt's latest AgapePress column

African aid? Let's not. It is hardly compassionate.
Let's not give any more money to Africa -- regardless of what our Live8 rock stars are saying and the guilt they are trying to lay on us at the current G8 summit. We will look scrooges in the eyes of the government-drunk of the world, but it will be the right thing to do.


At 5:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "Live8 rockers" aren't asking anyone for money except our government which blows billions on useless stuff every day. I don't understand how you can say that starving people don't need money. Live8 asks for people's voices, not people's money, so awareness can be raised about poverty and disease in Africa. Just because we can't solve all their problems doesn't mean we should not help who, how, and what we can.

At 8:02 PM, Anonymous Thinking in Ohio said...

I agree and I agree with both of the above comments. Both points are valid, but quote that Matt included in his article is compelling. I think the point is we should be doing something... if not sending aid, then what? We shouldn't ignore the plight of millions of people... throwing money at the problem may not be the best solution. I certainly do not support the financil support of militant regimes.

At 11:39 PM, Anonymous Open Your Mind said...

I agree with the Kenyan expert. The problem with Africa is one created by the nations that have colonized and subjugated that continent for hundreds of years. The Dutch send chickens to countries in Africa rather than helping the countries receiving the "aid" to improve their electrical power systems thereby allowing them to process their own flocks. The Africans can purchase chicken from a foreign government cheaper than they can produce it themselves locally.

This creates a dependency on foreigners for goods and services. The Dutch aren't the only ones that practice this. Great Brittian and the US do much of the same. The question is "why". Perhaps the "powers that be" are concerned that Africa, with its multitude of natural resources and diamond mines, will unite and modernize themselves and give the world's producers a run for their money.

How do you keep a nation down? Create dependency. Why work when everything is handed to you? (Reminds me of 80% of the population of south Alabama.) Why strive to improve agriculture in your nation when you can purchase imports cheaper than you can produce you own food?.... or have it given to you. We are essentially keeping the nation down by forcing them to remain dependent on us for a handout.

It is like birds... if you feed birds through the winter every year they will not migrate south. More and more birds will remain each winter as long as you continue to feed them. If you decide to stop feeding them one winter they will not make it through. They are dependent on you for their winter survival. You have CAUSED them to become dependent. They no longer care for themselves; they await a handout.

Another thought... if we can go to war to remove a bloodthirsty dictator like Saddam Hussein, why can't we do the same with the petty dictators in various African countries? It would take much less effort. They have committed atrocities far greater than Saddam, killed more of their own people, raped, pillaged, and burned hundreds of villages. They've cut the breasts off of mothers so that they can't nurse their babies. Why do we continue to provide the funds for them to remain in power?

The twofold ANSWER... 1.) Africa offers no threat to the balance of power if they remain divided AND 2.) They don't have oil fields that we can take over and use for our own benefit. It's economically benefical to the US, EU, UK, etc. to keep that continent divided and dependent. Simple matter of self-preservation. The nations on top wish to remain on top.

At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should it really matter whether or not the Live8 celebs are giving their money to Africa? Or whether the citizens of Africa would be doing better if their government hadn't siphoned off a lot of money given to them? No, it shouldn't. The issue is that we are called to love people, and to give...there are hurting, starving people over there who have done NOTHING to deserve it. We're not being asked to give money (although we should). What if it was your child, or your mother, or your sister? What would you want done for her?

At 11:44 AM, Blogger Matt Friedeman said...


As to your last question I wrote in the article that this is what I think should be done - to me or my children or my mother or brother or sister:

"...personal relationship, serious accountability that springs from first-hand knowledge of the recipient's plight, and the application of spiritual and moral principles so necessary to the advancement of hurting and disenfranchised people."

Thanks for writing.



Post a Comment

<< Home