Sponsor a Child (Non White One)

I'm sure by now everyone has seen an ad on TV asking for you to send money to help poor starving children all over the globe. In every one of these commercials the children are of Non White heritage! You see lots of African and Indian looking kids living in deplorable conditions.

Have a look at 2 major Child welfare websites for yourself.

Here

Here

Lots of Non White faces.

Seems to me that White people somehow manage to build their society's in a manner that prevents children from suffering life in the deplorable conditions shown on the TV and internet ads, even the Non White ones!

Why is this so?

The United States sends BILLIONS to lesser developed nations each and every year!

Yet it is not enough. The suffering of these Non White children is ever present...

An easy out would be to blame the "Greedy Corporations" or "White People" themselves for the plight of these Non White children. But this argument is full of hole's...

Surely ANY society that would allow its children to live in such squalor is destine to fail.

Where are you going with this? I'm confused.
Please, elaborate.

I mean, if you're implying that racial equality is a fallacy or that Whites really need to start looking out for their own, then understand that I agree whole-heartedly. But your OP is just a bit too inscrutable.

Um you know that a lot of people also adopt white kids too from Russia so what's your point?

reply to post by AngryOne


I, too am confused. OP, is there any data on the subject?

reply to post by Niccawhois


The majority of people in poverty are of non-white heritage so I don't really see the problem with the majority of aid going to them.

reply to post by Nosred


If Blacks and Browns are indeed just as capable as Whites, then they should be able to deal with their own damned problems. Correct? I think it's really just that simple.

Originally posted by AngryOne
reply to post by Nosred

 

If Blacks and Browns are indeed just as capable as Whites, then they should be able to deal with their own damned problems. Correct? I think it's really just that simple.

Or is it that the organizations that are making an appeal for your Dollars are betting that you would be more inclined to donate for Non White children?

reply to post by Niccawhois


So, would you like a dissertation on colonialism and its after-effects? Or would you settle for an analysis of how IMF policy towards third-world nations works very hard to keep those nations eternally in debt?

Those starving little brown kids are starving because your white ass wants $30 sneakers at wal-mart, and the ability to play "Angry Birds" on your phone while driving your hummer to the mailbox.

reply to post by Niccawhois

(?) Please explain your position, as I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to say.



reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Okay, now as for you......please, knock off the "bleeding heart" rubbish. Do you really still insist on blaming Whitey for everything?

reply to post by AngryOne


Well, it's kind of hard to deal with your own problems when you're a small orphan in Ethiopia who hasn't eaten in days. What are you trying to say?

I really don't want to say anything that offends anyone but in my opinion if a child is suffering in a impoverished nation...well then I could really care what color, national origin, make, model, etc...does not matter at all! It is not my place to decide if they are the right color to be worthy of help, it is my human duty to protect and serve the children who are unable to do for themselves. It's a child, a small defenseless human being..and human beings just happen to come in all colors...if an ad appealing for my dollars happens to use a child that is "non-white" it only shows where my heart and intent is if I can only see their color IMHO...but that is just me.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Okay, now as for you......please, knock off the "bleeding heart" rubbish. Do you really still insist on blaming Whitey for everything?

I don't blame white people. It's just that the people who are to blame do happen to be white. Like I asked, do you want an explanation? 'Cause it'll take a bit of time to type up and I don't want to waste my effort on some doofus who's not going to bother reading a lick of it.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I don't blame white people. It's just that the people who are to blame do happen to be white.

Correlation does not mean causation!

reply to post by Nosred

I'm referring to the group as a whole. Do you understand?



reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I suppose I would like an explanation. Be concise.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Niccawhois

 

So, would you like a dissertation on colonialism and its after-effects? Or would you settle for an analysis of how IMF policy towards third-world nations works very hard to keep those nations eternally in debt?

Those starving little brown kids are starving because your white ass wants $30 sneakers at wal-mart, and the ability to play "Angry Birds" on your phone while driving your hummer to the mailbox.

The IMF has made every effort to help impoverished nations by eliminating massive quantity's of BOGUS DEBT wracked up by 3rd world nations!

Your going to have to try hard to stop inventing "facts" to prove your pov...

reply to post by AngryOne


Yeah I understood that part, what I don't get is what you meant by it. Are you saying people in impoverished countries are somehow inferior mentally or physically?

Hey...I have even a better idea...why don't all of those 'whites' of European decent go back to Europe. Stop globalizing the world markets and then surely these 'browns' and 'blacks' as you call them will be forced to deal with their own problems. Oh wait..that's never going to happen....because the international banking systems are run primarily by 'whites'...Not to mention, the corporate conglomerate, nor religious enterprises in the U.S. would see the benefit of deglobalization either.

Originally posted by Niccawhois
The IMF has made every effort to help impoverished nations by eliminating massive quantity's of BOGUS DEBT wracked up by 3rd world nations!

Your going to have to try hard to stop inventing "facts" to prove your pov...

I'm quoting you, because, well, that's probably the silliest post I've ever seen in my time here on ATS. However, I'm trying to cover both you and AngryOne.

Chapter one: Colonialism.

Now, as we all know, Europe was not colonized by Indians and Africans; it went the other way. I'm just going to jump over an attempt at explaining why (Jared Diamond wrote a lovely 600-page book about it, if you're really interested). Colonialism wasn't about poor folks trying to make nice little mom and pop homesteads, despite the sound of the name. Sure some of them showed up, but primarily it was a governmental effort to claim a territory and collude with companies from the colonizing nation to pump as much wealth and resources out of this acquired territory as possible. That is, it was about meeting the bottom line, and most definitely not, as some Victorian and early 20th-century writers proposed, "readying the savages for civilization" (after all, they were getting by fine before colonization)

Now the net effect of this sort of system is impoverishment of the locals. Native economic systems were uprooted and destroyed (often literally, as most were agrarian in nature) and replaced with systems that were highly profitable for the colonizer in the short term, but unsustainable in the long term. The local power structures were also destroyed, replaced with political designs more to the liking of the colonizing power. In the case of the British, this usually meant giving some minority group total authority, while the Belgians just moved their own people in, and the French tended to just bribe authorities, etc.

When these colonies became no longer economically sustainable - either due to their resources being stripped or the colonizing power being unable to afford them (whether due to popular uprising or simply money problems) these colonies were, to put it simply, abandoned.

Well, maybe not "abandoned." Almost every former colony had to accept the debts accrued by the former regime as a condition of independence. In some cases, these debts were enormous. Tack that onto an already broken or unsustainable economy, and you've got problems, obviously.

Haiti's a good example of this. Formerly a gigantic slave plantation owned by the french empire, Haiti declared its independence after a slave revolt. Good for them, right? Well, the problem was, France would only agree to not unload every cannon it owned on Haiti, if the Haitians agreed to pay the debts of their former owners, as well as all property damages caused by the revolt - with interest. The perverse thing? "property damages" included the monetary worth of the former slaves, themselves. France was backed in this by Spain, which did not want a slave revolt to spread to Cuba, and by the United States, for the same reason. And since Haiti's economy at the time was bound around sugar cane... and all the buyers of sugar decided they liked Cuban sugar better than Hatian right after this revolt... Well... Did you know Haiti is still trying to pay off this debt, that France STILL demands of them, that the United States STILL backs? basically every cent generated in Haiti is still going towards buying the freedom of their own great-great-grandparents.

Which brings us to the IMF.

Chapter 2: the International Monetary Fund.

Originally, the IMF was set up to help nations broken down in World War 2 bring themselves back up to snuff. The idea was they would borrow from member states, rebuild, and then pay back the loan. Honestly not a bad idea, on paper it makes a nice shock absorber and could prevent the sort of economic spirals that led to the rise of Fascist and Leninist movements in Europe.

One feature of the IMF is that the nations that contribute more money have more voting power; For instance, the United States, with the most money in the IMF, has 371,743 votes, while Venezuela only has 26,841. Another feature is that IMF decisions require an 85% supermajority; this will become important in a moment.

Now, the trouble starts with the plain fact; the IMF is basically an investment bank, not a charity. As such it seeks to make a return on its investment in the form of interest. Now, perhaps this is not a problem when you're providing loans to a nation that already has a very strong and diverse economic base and political system (Actually it can fail there, too; see Argentina and Chile)

But what happens when you apply this standard to a nation that has just thrown off a hundred and fifty years of colonialism? A debt spiral happens.

Let's say you're Mozambique. You just threw out the Portuguese. Out of spite, they basically tore up all the infrastructure in the country; dynamited the airport runways, filled the sewer systems with concrete, that sort of thing. Additionally, most of your nation's wealth was invested into Portuguese companies and banks, leaving the treasury of your nation absolutely bone-dry. Now if you're at all active in the market, you know having no credit is just as bad as having bad credit, so Mozambique can't rely on drawing foreign trade to boost its economy on a simple "trust me." So they turn to the only place they can, the IMF, which of course, is there supposedly fpr just such an occasion.

Simple enough, right? Well, no. You can't just take the loan and build. Since the loaner wants their return ASAP, you have to basically use your loan to pay back the loan, plus interest; you can't invest that money into social or political infrastructure, you have to spend it all developing enough fast profit to cover your increasing debt. Part of doing this requires - usually mandated as a condition of the loan - to make your nation "business friendly" - no corporate taxation or obligations, willingness to sell off what public infrastructure you have, no worker organization allowed, etc. Of course this just means that all of your nation's wealth is, once again, being funneled into foreign hands, leaving you with MAYBE enough to meet your IMF payment. often not though, in which case you have to buy an extension on the loan... which makes your debt bigger... and bigger... and bigger.

Essentially where developing economies are concerned, the IMF is as much of a loan shark as any mafia boss. And it's just as friendly to those who do not pay. for instance, South Africa, after Apartheid, found itself in exactly this position; the white power structure of South Africa moved all their money out, after writing several clauses into the new economic charter that would prevent the new government from doing ANYTHING about it... and then also saddled the Apartheid government's debt onto the new government's shoulders. This debt included a last-minute purchase of billions and billions of dollars worth of military hardware from the United States; the US didn't deliver the gear, since it could not be certain of the new government, but since the new government had been coerced into taking on the debts of the old, it got saddled with the bill anyway. South Africa sought help from the IMF to make up some of its shortfalls... and was told to basically privatize EVERYTHING. The availability of electricity in South Africa has fallen greatly because of this, for instance; the electrical companies were previously state-owned, but had to be privatized as per the IMF's bargain; and many areas were immediately shut down because they weren't generating enough profit for the new owners.

So in short. You start out with an empty bank and no prospects. You have to borrow to get those prospects. Your loan includes interest and a deadline. In order to generate the short-term cash needed to pay this, you have to engage in policy that is outright harmful to your own economic development... leaving you deeper in the hole, and needing to borrow again, and again, and again. if you default, the nations you conduct trade with will cease to conduct trade with you, because they're the people you borrowed from in the first place. In some cases, they will even slap sanctions on you, or even find some way to wage war, stage a coup, what have you (Chile, for example)

Now, I mentioned earlier that the number of votes the US gets, and the supermajority needed for IMF votes was going to be important. Well, the United States' 371,743 votes on the IMF board give it 16.74% of the total votes. This means, with the 85% supermajority needed, the IMF is effectively set by United States policy; any decision the IMF members come to can be completely vetoed by the United States alone. And of course, the United States has a very deeply-ingrained "bottom line" culture. So even if, in some flight pf fancy, the rest of the IMF decided to grant debt forgiveness to its many dependent nations, the United States - with profit on hte mind - can just say 'nuh uh" and that's that. And when United States policy currently involves a form of neo-colonialism, well...

So, that's why these nations are dirt-eating poor. They're trapped in a debt spiral created by the organization they thought was there to help them out, that really exists as a profit-generating tool for a nation that is seeking all the financial benefits of empire with none of the political obligations. But you may be asking yourself, "What does this have to do with white people"?

Well, like Is aid, it doesn't have anything to do with white people per se. It's just that the people responsible are, themselves, white.
Here's a picture of the current IMF board;

Now you've got that one brown guy in the front center left. I imagine that there's probably a Japanese fellow somewhere in the back. But, aside from that? Also, as IMF policy is basically directed by US policy... well, the US members of the board are Timothy F. Geithner and Ben S. Bernanke. And who's responsible for the initial problems of these post-colonial nations? Well, the colonial governments, obviously. Who was in charge of them?

So, yes. These problems were caused by people who are white. Not white people in general, and not because they are white. But they are white, and they are the cause of the problems. And frankly if you guys are honestly arguing that these places are poor because brown people live there, you have absolutely no room to get your knickers in a bunch when I point this out.

i feel bad when i see those commercials. but the gov'ts in those countries need to step up the birth control to prevent it from happening. why is it that the one's us and abroad that can least afford it have the most children?

don't read too much into this folks

Those "charity organizations" have been around (and on TV) since I was a kid (1970s) spouting the same old message.

I look at it this way..
Those TV ads aren't free
Those magazine ads aren't free
That "aid" doesn't get there for free
I'm sure the people that work for these organizations don't do it for free

Get the picture?

Regarding the IMF - yes some of these countries receive money from the IMF/World Bank yet they still starve. You'll also notice that these same countries have no shortage of small arms and violence.
You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, or in other words -
(Arms manufacturer) - Hey IMF - give these dumb bastards money so they can buy our stuffs!
(IMF) - Here , have some money to help your society
(3rd world dictatorship) ...buys weapons....
(Arms manufacturer) - IMF - these guys need more money for democracy
RINSE---REPEAT