We Were Human

[[V] Silverblade]

its cute what some people write here...

the wealth of the western world is to a certain extend based on colonialism and exploitation of what is the 3rd world today. therefore we sure have a responisbility.

...but i guess that goes to far back to be taught in american schools.

[tasty]

Alright abe, I'm glad to see that despite our bickering we actually generally agree. Colonialism isn't good for 3rd world countries, cruel despots need to be held responsible for their actions. These leaders grab power by taking advantage of the lack of concrete government and instability within their respective countries.

Btw I still disagree on one thing, I do think living a certain lifestyle lets me off the hook more than others.

[Cossack]

Here is something from economics 101. The poorer countries are not able to prosper not because of corrupt dictatorships. They are down the shit because they never had any money start off with. The US didnt have to pay for much when it was a colony nor was the populous particularly poor. Zaire has to pay for social services, debt to world bank, develope infastructure, and fight a few wars all at the same time. All their resources (ie diamonds) are owned by foreign companies. At the end of the year they loose money from the cost of living as a country. They are not able to purchase or develope any capital. They are not able to get out of this spiral of debt, and thus not able to prosper.

[safari abe]

kami: i was talking about colonialism, not the cold war. and so what if those scumbags are in power because of coldwar politics......it doesnt excuse anything. A lot of countrys were on one side of the cold war or the other and didnt murder half their populations, while starving the rest. dont cut these guys slack because the US or USSR helped them out at some point. they are still responsible.

slingblade: shut up and get back to your vocational school. moron. everytime you have a comment its about how stupid americans are when you behave exactly like the dumbest redneck in alabama.

tasty: thank you. i just felt that your other comment put the whole blame on colonial powers, which is a little too easy, imo. yes, colonialism destroyed the traditional fabric of just about every 3rd world society, but the ones that don't have psychotic or kleptocratic rulers tend to do alright.
btw: have you ever considered that for some ppl in certain countries, the paycheck from the sweatshop is the only source of income?

cossack: nice example. and mobutu had nothing to do with zaire being a shithole. its not like he and his family lived in luxury, while the rest of zaire sat hungry in diamond mines?? yes, the US put him in power, but does that completely absolve him?? just think about iraq: it used to be a quite modern middle-income country, until saddam began lining his pockets with oil and spending exorbitant sums of money to build wmds....but hey, its the US', err USSR's, err UK's fault, right???

[The Ghost of Bondo]

btw: have you ever considered that for some ppl in certain countries, the paycheck from the sweatshop is the only source of income?

This is one reason I don't pay attention to the news about sweatshop made clothes.  The quality of life in China is much improved over a few decades ago, specifically because of the abundance of jobs from American companies, even if those jobs seem horrible to us, the life of the people in those factories tends to be better than it would be without the job.

The downside is that Americans are losing the jobs that the Chinese are getting so it is in some regard lowering the American quality of life.  On the other hand, the products we buy at the store are cheaper thanks to this so that mitigates the cost from lost jobs.

[Cossack]

I kind of used Zaire (Congo for you geographical sticklers) as a random example, any third world country can take the place of it. The issue remains the same. Third World countries are not able to produce any capital because the cost of being independent is too high.

Even if Mobutu were to live in poverty, it would not be enough to develope mining and infastructure in the back country, and keep repairing them after rebel attacks to produce a surplus.

[jn.loudnotes]

A little off topic, but here goes:

Every time I see an example of someone criticizing a dictator for living in wealth while their country suffers, I have to wonder what's the big deal.  Sure, it's selfish, rude perhaps, although a leader should expect some perks.

But what's the terrible issue of a few people having a lot of wealth?  It's not as if, were Hussein or Mobutu, or anyone's wealth distributed equally - that the net standard of living would be any better.  That's like saying that because the queen of england has millions of pounds, every englishman that's a pauper should be upset and demand their share.

Likewise, I find it bizarre to hear Republicans noting the prosperity of Hussein's palaces in Iraq - as though his money belonged to the people.  Are they communists now?  There will always be those more prosperous than others, and it's no secret that a capitalist society encourages that prosperity to be built off exploitation.  It seems outrageous for the US of all places to criticize Hussein for extravagance of wealth.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

After all, the President here gets a mansion, two jets, a mountain retreat, limos, helicopters, bodyguards, cooks, choffers, etc.  Not exactly ruffing it.  I'm sure those on welfare or those who are homeless really appreciate that (especially when they whine about not getting paid enough...when they keep many benefits for life).

Oh and Cossack, Zaire is an ok naming...it is probably for the best when talking to a non-Geographer or political crowd.  Saying Congo is too vague because there is the Republic of Congo (Zaire) or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

[tasty]

Likewise, I find it bizarre to hear Republicans noting the prosperity of Hussein's palaces in Iraq - as though his money belonged to the people.  Are they communists now?  

I can only hope they've made the switch   Maybe when they revolt against the oppressive capitalist system they will rip down all the Ronald McDonald statues so the Chinese, Scandinavian, and Cuban press can take pictures of it.

As for that thing about the substandard paystubs improving people's quality of life in Malaysia and whatnot, I don't think this provides a very good justification. Look beyond the numerical wage they earn. What about the cruel tactics employed by management to keep workers in line and destroy any sort of unionization or intercommunication? What about the way many of them are tricked into working in a modern version of indentured servitude? Also, it's not as if Nike and Gap couldn't afford to pay a decent wage, so why do we need to go around justifying their ridiculously low wages. If a company can't survive without paying slave wages, than it isn't a good business plan and doesn't deserve to exist in the first place. Just look at the human rights violations made by Coca-Cola in Columbia. I think you can read about it on Amnesty International's website, and I can guarantee you will find it disgusting.

[kami]

I really don't care about what Coca-Cola did in Columbia, I'm too much of a Coke fanboy/addict

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Tasty, there are certainly cases where it is inhuman.  But much of the low wage labor in Chinese is done by companies that don't ignore human rights.  They may work long hours at low pay, but they make sure to provide quality housing for the workers along with health care, food, etc.  I think the minority that don't put out this effort make the impression on the whole worse than it is.

[tasty]

Bondo, if your definition of "quality" is housing, healthcare, and food that would be considered below the level of poverty, than yes they do provide quality surroundings for workers. Think about how little freedom those workers have too; just because they are getting paid doesn't mean they aren't slaves. What companies do you know of that are helping workers in China? I've read very bad things about Nike, Gap, and Reebok.