The manner in which poor populations are portrayed by media outlets is one of the primary causes of their crippling poverty. Children covered in dirt, living in slums, and reaching for bags of USAid create the picture that people in richer countries envision when they think of the third world, perpetuating the idea that they are impotent, vulnerable, naive, and in desperate need of a greater power, like the U.S., to help and nurture them.
This sort of propaganda supports the idea that poor people are not the same as those living in the first world, not because of their situation but fundamentally as human beings. This constant need for others’ help in order to be whole automatically categorizes them as lesser people that are incapable of being a part of ideas that go beyond the basic human needs of water, shelter, and food. The disparate ‘value’ of poor people that society holds and often disguises as helplessness sparks the disconnection they have with the world, from which stems their state of deprivation.
It’s crucial to create empowering propaganda for those in developing countries in order to truly help them. Being seen as capable by the world will help them get a seat at the table in order to build “partnerships” and stop the chain of “paternalism.” And if they are seen as apt and qualified by the world, they are more likely to believe it themselves and motivated to act in such a way. I liked how at the end of the documentary, they showed all the different protagonists smiling while working on their craft, not smiling with TOMS shoes or reaching for bags of aid.
The documentary emphasized that aid itself is not the cause of poverty, but the duration of it is what results in problems. Haiti was in definite need of aid after the massive destruction left by the 2010 earthquake, but there are several examples that demonstrate that the prolonged provision of aid destroys local businesses, spikes unemployment, and promotes the ideology of dependency. The man who made a business out of building solar panels for street lights suffered from the aid, as people preferred the free panels that were brought from abroad as opposed to the ones produced in the country. The same obstacle is seen with rice and clothing.
People donate food, clothes, and money to charities and NGOs with pure intentions, but in a sense, it’s sending the message to impoverished people that they are not obligated to find a way to produce their own resources. At the same time, it puts those who do want to find a way to be productive out of business. The theme of responsibility has been constant throughout the course, and the topic of poverty is not an exception to the rule: it is in the best interest of people to bear the responsibility of the life they want, as it is self-destructive to wait for somebody else to give that life to them.
One of the protagonists of the documentary points out Bono’s contradictory statements where he admits that aid is harmful, yet he still thinks is necessary. Why?
I think that the best aid that can be given to poor countries, like funding local businesses, education, or a way to provide value, are not immediately observable solutions. A person can give a starving family a sack of rice and they know they won’t die of starvation at least for a couple of days. Because hunger is more visible and has faster solutions than funding businesses or attending classes, it is deemed as more important and imperative. However, it is through businesses and education that poor countries can start building connections and help families not starve in the long run, not that sack of rice.
In addition, I infer Bono thinks aid is still necessary because it makes him feel good. A person can directly see how a T-shirt or a sac of rice helps a family in need, and playing a part in “saving” other people in such an immediate way is gratifying and addictive. This shies away from the true purpose of aid by not being designed to help others, but to make oneself feel good.
For these reasons, I think that the traditional food, water, and clothing forms of aid should slowly start to disappear from developing countries if they truly want to help, and only intervene in situations of crisis.
In places where the government works for NGOs as opposed to their citizens, where there’s a lack of transparent rulers or democracy, and where laws only favor the few, how are the poor going to gain the power to make a change? The solution stands in education and the development of skills to provide something of value to the rest of the world. I think one of the best ways to help developing countries is to fund NGOs that establish access to the internet and technology. Not only would this connect impoverished people to the world, but it could also serve as a way to get an education through MOOCs.
Another way is to invest in companies that in turn invest and help local entrepreneurs and businesses. At the beginning of the semester, we read an article about how micro-financing helped poor women create businesses to sustain themselves in the long run, and I think that is a great way to positively contribute to the situation.
