The horrible disaster of Africa
The government of Angola is flush with oil revenues, reports the New York Times, but the people of its capital city Luanda live surrounded by mountains of garbage and human waste. A cholera epidemic has sickened 43,000 people since February and killed 1,600. “Of course,” says VFR reader Rhona N., characterizing the Times’ view of the story, “this isn’t based on IQ and sensibility—it’s because of corrupt governments who have too much money.”
As I’ve said before, given the objective African disaster on one hand and the way liberal solutions make everything worse on the other, I see only two rational and moral alternatives for how the Western world should deal with sub-Saharan Africa: either leave it alone completely, or re-colonize it, for the benefit of its own people. But such neo-colonization must not be done on a liberal, PC, white-guilt basis, which would only worsen the disaster for the Africans and further demoralize the already guilt-ridden West. It must be done based on the acknowledged understanding by all parties that the Africans are unable at present to organize their societies in a humanly acceptable way and that they therefore need our guidance and leadership.
My vote: leave it alone completely. Greater involvement is a recipe for disaster because their concerns will become our concerns. The left’s power will increase and we will become caretakers and nurses of the low. On the other hand, if we “neglect” Africa, you will see a continent that will return to a balance in line with the capabilities of Africans. The result will be a much smaller population and protection of the remaining animals and resources. After all, Western intervention, particularly of the medical type, has greatly caused much of this disaster. If we could establish the prerequisite of strict birth control, I might be persuaded to reward them with some technical and financial aid. However, if you don’t have distance, then you will not have clarity as to how to make hard decisions based upon historical necessity.
Meanwhile, I just heard this morning from a correspondent: “Warren Buffet has announced he will give away $34 billion, mostly to the Bill Gates charity foundation. The foundation intends to devote most of its money to helping Black Africa.”
I knew a fellow who did some missionary work in central Russia. His mother sent him a care package. The Russian post being what it is, the box—and only the box—got there.LA writes:
There was a big campaign in the late 1980s, led by Tom Brokaw, to relieve starvation in some African country, I think it was Ethiopia. I forget the specifics, but the food became a weapon in the civil war that was going on that country. One side got control of the food and used it to control the movements of people on the other side.LA continues:
Here is more on the Warren Buffett gift of $31 billion to the Gates Foundation. It really is a problem when you think about it. If you had that much money, what would you do with it, without spending it in ways that would cause more harm than good? Buffett finessed the issue by handing it over to someone else to figure out; now it’s the Gates’ problem. Think of all the middle men lusting to get their hands on a piece of $31 billion intended for all the disadvantaged people in the world.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 26, 2006 12:22 PM | Send