Racist black baby thief thwarted.

[Lucy.]

As usual my view is probably pretty controversial but I wish people would concentrate on themselves and their countries primarily and if there is money/resources spare then help out others.

For instance, so many national charity events in Britain such as Red nose day, Live aid etc. send the funding to help underprivileged children in Africa. Its a nice cause sure.

But then look at Great Ormond Street. Or the orphanages. Or childline UK or people like little Kirsty.

We have our own good causes here. If Bob Geldof, Madonna and all the others want to donate their money abroad then fine, but to run events and expect the general public to do the same is not good in my opinion.

I know many people who didn't give to red nose day this year and the newspapers were all against it, saying we should. I don't want to say who cares about African Children, but I honestly don't see why we should fund them and be looked down at for not funding them at least when we have people in this country that need aid.

And after this country we should help our European counterparts, such as relief for Italy. And then perhaps Africa, but even then I doubt we'll ever be out of tragedies here. Africa should look after Africa and quite frankly its their own mess. Bob Geldof may think me uncharitable, but I think him unpatriotic.

Charity begins at home in my opinion.

[pervipete]

I totally agree Lucy.

We need to get Africa on its feet, even if this means teaching them more modern farming methods, allow them to feed themselves, and then each African nation can maybe help each other.

But of course, to suggest this would bring down howls of racism, and accustations of white people trying to destroy traditional Africa culture. If this culture is leading to the needless deaths of millions, then maybe the problem lies there.

[Lucy.]

Exactly, if we're going to help them which we seem to have signed up to do, then we should do it in the most effective way possible which allows us to stop helping them as fast as possible. Its similar to the situation in the middle east.

You could give a civilisation 100 houses every year, or you can give them the bricks for 1000 houses and show them how to make the houses. Whether they think its breaching their culture or not, charity is charity. You take what you are given.

Personally I would rather the national charity televised events like children in need and live aid went to causes that affected the nation such as breast cancer, child abuse etc. Of all the people (including myself) I know who reguarly give to charity, we give to causes like this, not Africa, and I think its wrong to hold the nation hostage to something a lot of us don't actually agree with.

For instance these "pay £5 and dress up at work on red nose day" events. If you do not dress up you feel like an outcast. If you do your donating to something that you don't particular want to donate to.

I'm not against helping Africa in any way shape or form but I can just think of causes that better relate to me and the people around me and don't see this as our problem as UK citizens.

[pervipete]

To be honest I can't stand either of these events, I can't stand the 'hit the nation over the head until they give in' attitude of it all.

The only part of this years Comic Relief I watched, and had some admiration for was the celebs that climbed mount Killimanjaro, mainty cause this was something that I couldn't do.

[doggystylethatgirl]

im color blind

[pervipete]

fair enough doggy

[sparks]

cant see what you said doggy ??

it seems at least to me this thread got onto who is and a what is a racist

the real point was modumma adoptathingy a new toy

cheers

[MARADONA]

Originally Posted by pervipete

The trouble is, a lot of this 'must maintain their culture' comes from white folks.

Most Africans I have met have come to the UK, and go to over western nations, to learn better, more upto date, methods of living.

Now I not saying, to do a Stalin and dump them on collective farms. Just show them more productive methods of farming so that they can maintain their dignity and feed their own families and people.

This has a precedent with medicine, and the inprovement of water and sanitation in these villages.

Upto a a couple of years ago Zimbabwean farms used moden methods, farmed by people who knew what they were doing, and they were the bread basket of African, now the farms have been given to people without the knowledge, skills and the desire to farn and look what you have. Crisis, famine, deaths on a massive scale.

So if we was to export these methods to other lands, even if there were just the more fertile parts of the continent, then maybe there could act as a food source for african nations that are going through the tragedy of drought.

We will never end the need for charity in Africa, but we can maybe make it so that African is in the position of helping African.

So let me see if i was black it will be ok? It's their world..and yes it's up to them to maintain their culture. Not to us.
This is not a critic to you or to other members...is just a fact...and if the Africa is under this condition is also because of us.
We are using that country for our benefits, all the charity you see in tv is just a big lie, try to take a trip there then tell me what you see.

[doggystylethatgirl]

Originally Posted by FuckingRotter

Madonnas latest ethnic cleansing operation in Malawi has been stamped on by the courts there, British news channels are reporting. Malawian courts have denied Madonnas application to adopt another child living at an orphanage run by her charity.

Quite right too.

Back to where or why this was started -

"Bump"

[cryptic]

Originally Posted by Lucy.

As usual my view is probably pretty controversial but I wish people would concentrate on themselves and their countries primarily and if there is money/resources spare then help out others.

For instance, so many national charity events in Britain such as Red nose day, Live aid etc. send the funding to help underprivileged children in Africa. Its a nice cause sure.

But then look at Great Ormond Street. Or the orphanages. Or childline UK or people like little Kirsty.

We have our own good causes here. If Bob Geldof, Madonna and all the others want to donate their money abroad then fine, but to run events and expect the general public to do the same is not good in my opinion.

I know many people who didn't give to red nose day this year and the newspapers were all against it, saying we should. I don't want to say who cares about African Children, but I honestly don't see why we should fund them and be looked down at for not funding them at least when we have people in this country that need aid.

And after this country we should help our European counterparts, such as relief for Italy. And then perhaps Africa, but even then I doubt we'll ever be out of tragedies here. Africa should look after Africa and quite frankly its their own mess. Bob Geldof may think me uncharitable, but I think him unpatriotic.

Charity begins at home in my opinion.

As unpopular is this point of view is, it does seem more sensible in the long term.

You know how when they're reviewing emergency flight procedures, they say, "Always put your own life jacket on first, even before that of your own child"?
That way, you remain alive long enough to actually help your child.

In other words, there needs to be at least one place in the world which is financially "safe" and self-sustaining.
Once that country (or countries) is/are able to support itself with no need for charity, then maybe it's time to work on building up some extra resources to help the places which are in trouble.

This might look selfish - and yeah, it's downright heartbreaking to "look after number one" on a national scale when you are constantly aware of starving kids, slavery, disease, poverty and oppression on a scale that us "Westerners" are mostly unable to even fully comprehend...
...but taking a step back and looking at it logically, it seems the only practical thing to do, at least for now.

I read somewhere that two-thirds of the world's population is living in below first-world conditions.
So those World Vision ads; those starving little kids in poverty-stricken villages, with distended bellies and a knowledge that they will die if nobody comes to help?
That is most of the world.
That is the norm, not our nice cosy living-spaces.
Even in America, England, Australia etc, some of the extremely blessed countries, there are way too many people starving in the midst of paradise itself.

But if the one-third of the population who has enough to sustain itself shares its resources with the two-thirds who need it, what do you think will happen?
Paradise?
...Not quite.

Tearing a life jacket in half to save two people at once is a beautiful gesture.
But then who the hell is left to save the two drowning people with only a broken life jacket between them?

Having said that...if there are small instances where Government or even individuals can help out - without ruining our own economic stability - then we should.
At the end of the day, an individual starving child doesn't give a damn about the politics it represents.
You wouldn't either, if you were stuck in that situation.
So, for example, if somebody wants a child (and is mature enough to look after it properly, not menioning any names, Britney) and has the financial resources to give that child a better chance, then yes, adopt someone who needs their life saved.

I'm perfectly capable of having children, but I still intend to adopt one day (when I'm done misbehaving/being broke), rather than have my own.

But it would be foolish to give two-thirds of my income to third-world countries now, or most likely ever. (Unless I get insanely rich. *dreams*)
I would end up homeless, become too busy looking for my next meal to concentrate on study, lose my income, and then join the ranks of those who need charity, thus increasing the problem.

It's quite possible that my logic is really flawed. I know as much about economics as a termite knows about quantum physics.
But isn't it kind of the same principle?
Shouldn't we only give as much as we're able to without jeapordising ourselves?
And even then...shouldn't we try to give in ways that enable other countries to sustain themselves...like creating jobs?

*runs away before saying more foolish things*