The debate "Charity can heal people from misery but it can't cure" was started by
May 30, 2015, 11:43 am.
37 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
WordSpeller posted 13 arguments, soullesschicken posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
amanofprogress posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 10 arguments to the disagreers part.
WordSpeller, toughgamerjerry, soullesschicken, I_Voyager, Maxx_Royy, Damn3d, bearunter, KimUri, sdiop, raz, DanielleR123, drama, JMP9940, thatmathewguy, WesleySr, sabrina, TransPanTeen, Trance, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx and 18 visitors agree.
amanofprogress, PsychDave, Hanif_abdat, thatjonathanguy, Mathew and 11 visitors disagree.
Sorry, I should have clarified, I was saying that no, a Coke won't help at the beginning of my response, not denying everything you had said. You are right, relief is not a cure, it is triage.
Relief aid is short term treatment of the symptoms. Food, water and medicine are needed to keep people from dying before longer term solutions can be found. Ideally longer term solutions (seeds for food for next year, Wells to supply clean water, local clinics set up and supplied) can be implemented so that this kind of relief is no longer needed, which is step one of a cure.
Step two is going beyond just keeping people from dying and improving quality of life. This is where microlending to start businesses, building schools and other projects come in that help people become more self sufficient and better equipped to succeed.
Step zero is to not have people (either local government, foreign governments, or corporations) interfere and sabotage the process. No matter how good the intentions, no matter how solid the plan to help, it cannot survive corruption and opposition from powerful people.
No, but if donations provided food, they wouldn't have to sell their children. If they also provided seed crops, they wouldn't be dependent on donations in the future. Microlending through sites like Kiva helps people do just that.
Fair enough. When people donate they hope their donations will really relieve someone else's pain, but this relief is not the cure, can you see? If people fought for the end of this global manipulation, then they would be really helping miserable people.
Parents sell their children to buy food. I can't see how a bottle of Coca-Cola could help these people.
I think the difference is that I see the charity helping, and the governments and corporations countering that influence. There are many people who want to help, and by choosing the right ways they could do lasting good, but not if powerful people have other agendas that run in different directions. The charities could help, if governments and powerful people would stop being such greedy leaches.
I can understand why the information would be Portuguese, I just don't have time to learn it in the near future (I'm working on Japanese and French when I have time at the moment).
In the defense of the US, it seems like they were concerned about a military threat from a communist nation being born just to the south. In the mentality of the day, this would be akin to if ISIS was taking over a South American nation. The US military and intelligence agencies would try to prevent that. I strongly disagree with what they did, and am in no way excusing the damage they did. By acting on their fears, whatever they intended, they did hurt the people of Brazil.
I would like to believe that this kind of action was independent of charity work though. When people give to charities, I believe they honestly mean to do real, lasting good, not just temporary aid. I understand if your experiences do not support that, I I didn't see where you are coming from, but if people didn't believe that they were doing good, they wouldn't be likely to give to charities.
I understand you're concerned about not being arrogant and simply ignore my posts, but the message I'm trying to pass here is that all this poverty and misery that runs in Third World's veins could be eradicated if First World countries stopped using these nations as cattle. Most poor countries have plenty of natural resources such as fertile grounds or precious metals, so they'll naturally grow.
When I'm studying national History all I can feel about my country is deception. Deception for being usurped for centuries by Portugal, and then for Spain, and then for England, and then for America, and almost nothing of we have stays in our hands. Everything is taken away from us.
What I can see is that the only ones who could protect their resources from western claws were the Arabians. They never let anyone touch their wealth and then they became very rich, building cities like Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Latin America, however, trusted always in human being's good side and this contributed for evil people to steal everything we have.
they did attack**
Ambassador Lincoln Gordon said once that if the US allowed Brazil to advance even further in the intentional scenario, they wouldn't have another Cuba close to them, but another China. It's obvious that America was more interested to protect itself from communist threats than pushing Brazil's economy and the whole South America to ruin, but the fact is that to accomplish their goals they did attacked other countries and this is evil and unforgivable. Look for September 11, not the terrorist attack in America, but the American terrorist attack in Chile. A scene dign of Stalin himself.
If you wanted a Brazilian version about the facts, you'd have to understand Portuguese, sorry. Most content isn't translated and the only institution that researches for top secret files from that period is the Commission of Truth, extension of Brazil's diplomatic body.
It's easy to find someone who hates America when leading with theses evidences, though. We're living hard times, my father had to sell his car and a good part of our furniture to pay his debts and I'm afraid he won't be able to pay my University till the end. I'm already looking for a job, things are not easy and when we read the news we discover that our coin has been recently manipulated by external economic coalitions.
We Brazilians don't like so much our motherland, but it's not cool to see the place where you live diving into chaos and crisis. There have been happening strikes every week since the beginning of the year and we are so disappointed with our government's failure that most of us think only about abandoning the country.
I may have come across reputable Brazilian sources, but as I don't know Portuguese I couldn't use them. I am not trying to shift the burden of proof to you, and I cannot contradict you as you would have access to far more information on the subject than I, I just don't want you to think of am just disregarding your post.
I have run into several problems trying to research. First is that resources tend to fall into one of two categories. Either the author has an obvious axe to grind with the USA, and so the reliability of their information is suspect, or they are supporting the official story, which again is suspect since the government has a vested interest in not being seen to behave unethically.
The second problem is that both groups primarily explain the US involvement to be because the policies of the day were hurting US interests, not to push Brazil into poverty. That is still a terrible reason for them to intervene, but I don't see anyone saying that the US did it to stop people from prospering.
Finally, most of the resources I found are from US sources. If you could suggest somewhere I could get a Brazilian view of events, it would help me get a more balanced view of events.
Ok. A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. I believe your research will be very constructive to the understanding of the world that surrounds us.
These terms may shorten your research:
Operation Brother Sam
Ambassador Lincoln Gordon
President John Kennedy
Brazil coup d'etat
I understand your posts, but I will have to do some research before I respond. I don't have enough background knowledge to reply right now, so I am going to do some research so that I can properly do so. I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring your response if it took me a while to frame my next post.
Sorry for the long, long text. Please, read it till the end otherwise you won't understand my anguish :(
Now, we're in 2015 and after Brazil decided to cooperate with BRICS, USA is bombarding our banks with enormous amounts of debts, corruption scandals are coming out in multiple segments of society, media have been attacking government uninterruptedly and the party that raised Brazil's economy's and provided tons of job opportunities in the last 12 years is now seen as an evil force that must be vanished away from the contry, under the same accusation of Communism. Sadly we see Paraguay, Argentina and Venezuela passing by the same troubles.
That's what I'm talking about. You don't want to take poor countries out of poverty. You just want to help them enough for them to stop complaining, but when they finally grow and become a threat to your own economy, all you wanna do is break their legs again.
However, it happened in 1963 and this period was remarked by the conflict between Capitalism and Communism. Nothing could ever be more appropriate than accusing Goulart of Communism, since he was ruling almost entirely to the poor. And then the opposition finally sounded convincing, once Communism was "Devil's masterpiece" for people in that time.
His party was withered. Opposition grew up quickly and his popularity was scaping through his fingers. Brazilian people didn't become intelligent in one year, they still believed that the Red Flag was a plague they should vanish away.
In 1964, the US drew its final card. Its army. Rio de Janeiro cost was invaded and people were warned that the United States had arrive to free them from the "evil and dictatorial hands" of Communism. Many people believed the story Americans were telling and saw them as saviors. Nobody could realize that the original plan was to stop Brazil's progress.
Unfortunately, the wrong segment of society believe this story: the army. Brazilian troops joint American forces and marched to the capital Brasilia to take out the president and with him "his communist legacy".
In the end of the day, Jango was deposed and a truly evil and dictatorial capitalist government was established. The same generals who supported America's coup ruled the country for the following 20 years, spreading a legacy of death and terror.
CIA trained elite Brazilian troops to hunt people like animals, torture them and show them as an advice for all of those who still supported Jango and his populist government. Communism instantly exploded inside the Universities because of students who still believed in freedom and decided to face the repression. Spies were spread all over society and many innocent people were accused of subversive ideologies and they were all arrested, tortured, killed and some are still missing until nowadays. Even children were trained to spy other children in classrooms around the country. People were living under constant fear and hate. And of course, Brazil's economy regressed. The main goal was accomplished.
Furthermore, the US expanded this dictatorial system to almost all countries of South America.
Meanwhile all this was happening, America still providing financial support to almost all countries of South America. A support Americans threatened to withdraw whenever local authorities took a decision they didn't approve.
Let me tell you a short long story about my country.
(Please, read until the end)
In 1962 a president called John Goulart was elected and he promised to make a revolution in Brazil's economy, leading the poor to the middle class by giving him more power and autonomy before the industries. He also promised to provide the common laborer with the dignity of good life conditions, such as access to knowledge, cultural life and many other things, not only basic necessities.
(Fun fact: John Goulart was popularly know as Jango, as a mix of his name Joao (pt-BR) and Goulart)
It was his plan to Brazil since he was a child. His master's thesis in economy was about how to lead the country to a solid economic growth. His idea, however, looked always to the poor. The main focus was taking millions of poor Brazilians out of this miserable condition.
In 1963 his plan was working fine. Actually it could never be better. People had their rights defended by the state, companies finally stopped abusing their employees, barons that used to rule isolated regions as a parallel government had their lands divided and equally distributed among people and many social problems involving slavery itself were definitely extincted. Brazil was exporting far more than importing and its citizens could live according to "the American way of life". Not even Europeans had so many cars on the streets.
The United States of America could never be more bothered with a second economic power raising right underneath its nose.
In the end of 63, the US set a geography and statistics institution in Brazil's territory that started a secret plan to unstabilize Goulart's government. Almost all politicians were paid to join the position and criticize his government. Suddenly, every TV channel, radio station, newspaper and magazine began to attack him politically and personally day and night. It's said that there wasn't a single hour of the day when there wasn't someone condemning his government.
How do you call that? Corruption? Keep reading.
Most politicians who were paid to join the opposition went to media to reveal that scheme and reaffirm their support to the president. People never cared about the negative propaganda that was made against him and he remained as a popular president.
You have completely changed your argument again. First you argued that curing terminal diseases was not curing misery, then that helping provide basic necessities and schooling was not curing poverty it was an investment, then since it was charity due to the lack of return because natural disasters and global conspiracies would push them back down into poverty since the first world doesn't really want to help third world countries.
What is the position you were actually trying to make with this topic? It feels like with every rebuttal you move the goalposts.
Finally, while I'm sure there are people and corporations who have a vested interest in keeping impoverished nations poor, the vast majority of people who donate to charity don't do it to build them up, just to crush them again. Natural disasters happen, that is beyond anyone's control and cannot be blamed on a lack of assistance from charity. Corruption and political scandal happen everywhere to varying degrees. They are internal things that are not brought about by charitable donations but by human failings like greed. Corrupt leaders are not first world nations sabotaging third world, they are internal power struggles that we have no right to interfere with (look at what happened in the middle east when one nation decided who should and should not run another sovereign nation). As to economic boycott, I'm curious where this is coming from. Blood diamonds are banned on humanitarian grounds, so I doubt you would be referring to them. What sanctions has the first world placed on developing nations to push them into poverty?
But it's too easy to say that basic necessities can take people out of misery.
I wonder if one day they'll have their own football team to cheer for in a modern stadium, if they'll go shopping in an outlet or go to the movies, if they'll ever see their children grow up and become engineers working in spatial programs and leading their nation to glory.
It's never gonna happen because in the end of the day, first world countries don't want third world countries to develop themselves. Always when a poor country is finally evolving to at least a state of dignity in the intentional scenario, it's instantly unstabilized in corruption schemes, natural catastrophes, political scandals, economic boycott or social disorder.
If a. Donate to an organization that digs wells to provide clean water to communities, it is charity. Once those communities have fresh water, how does that not help cure their misery? If I donate to help provide seeds so that they can fees their families not just immediately, but for years to come, that goes a long way to helping them cure the problem.
These charities are just that, they are not investments. There is no expectation of a return, and the one donating will not receive the benefit.
But you got to understand the difference between charity and investment. If you're donating funds to research a cure for AIDS, sending canned food or used clothes to Africa, you're just relieving their anguish, but you're not eradicating their misery.
When you start setting industries, expanding urban zones, raising poor countries' economies and providing them with education of quality, then you're investing on them, and investments bring a return.
Donations to research a cure for AIDS is still charity, and could potentially find a cure.
With regards to your comment about providing for and water, it depends on what form the donations take. If you are supplying canned food and bottled water, you are taking care of the immediate needs. If you are donating seeds to plant and labor to dig wells and provide irrigation, you are helping with the long term problems and can eventually cure the problem at the root. Donations for education are the same. The more education people receive, the more they are able to help themselves get out of poverty, and the more they can help those around them as well.
Freeing people from AIDS is not the same as taking them out of poverty.
well no, if you donate to a charity for AIDS research, that AIDS cure could vey well be found, cureing people with aids.
Agreed here. I mean, unrealistic but possible charity could. But I'd rather agree and not be annoying.
Humanitarian help can provide food and water to people in critical conditions, but it can't take them out of that scenario.