Do you believe that those who are dedicated to "saving" Africa do it because they genuinely care about the continent's welfare? Or do they want to "save" Africa in order to promote an image of themselves as a charitable humanitarian?
This is kind of the same idea I was getting at in my personal comment to this washington post article. I think it's kind of ridiculous we have to use high-profile celebs to raise awareness. I feel like people should have some kind of moral obligation to know things about the world that they live in. Obviously though, people do not do this. I think the whole "save africa" thing is nothing more than a trend that people and retailors use to sell products. Like the (RED) campaign...red iPods, red t-shirts...I guess it makes people feel like they're helping from a distance?? Or maybe it's just a trend like I said. I'm really not sure what people are thinking when they purchase these products.
Certainly there are those in the west who's hearts are in the right place when it comes to "saving Africa" but as for the authors claims about celebrities and those concerned with America's international image I think he has a point. As far as I am concerned the US government should stop "aiding" africa all together. The author seemed to think Africa was doing a jolly good job on its own anyway.
Nope. It's part of an effort to prevent people from looking inward at their own problems. If we're concentrated on saving Africa, we won't look next door or help the homeless 19 year old on Moorpark Road.
Foreign aid the way we disperse it often has the effect of making "poor" countries dependent on us while artfully preventing them from developing their own economy.
As far as I am concerned the US government should stop "aiding" africa all together. The author seemed to think Africa was doing a jolly good job on its own anyway.
Foreign aid the way we disperse it often has the effect of making "poor" countries dependent on us while artfully preventing them from developing their own economy.
To Top