This could be a bit wrong, but I was wondering about attitudes toward charity.
I have often heard it said (by ordinary plebs like us, and concerned celebrities and politicians) that the two-thirds world must have access to clean water and sufficient food. We must wake up and respond to this charity bash, to this appeal, and be like them: crusading concerned people of conscience. And when we have done so, we will have helped them.
And yet, whilst stating righteously that these are the things they need, we also know we would never settle for these ourselves. Here in the West we would never vote for a government that promised only clean water and sufficient food. Those are invisible givens: we also want tax breaks, mortgage relief, private healthcare, motorways and multiple vehicles, spare cash for gadgets, fripperies and booze...and on and on. These are our needs.
So whilst we virtuously demand basics for the developing world, we retain our basics at a massively inflated level. Why? Presumably because we are more important than them, so our basic needs are much greater.
So even in charity, we can patronise the poor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah, it's a bit like the demand for China and India to cut-down on greenhouse gases. Why do they produce so much of them? Because they're making the cheap goods that we have an insatiable appetite for. If we didn't buy them, they wouldn't produce all that CO2. etc. Right on, Badger. Wanna buy a cheap phone, btw?
Well written post Badger. I totally agree with you and perhaps we should do something about it.
Good to see your own work.
Post a Comment