You know how sometimes you just get … browned out to the point where everything you see has some sort of desi connection? Well, it happens to those not of the subcontinent as well. Here’s what happened to Saheli’s friend ToastyKen:
 |
|
Not Aishwarya |
While I was driving, I caught a glimpse of this Gap ad in a bus shelter. “DESI(RED).” I immediately assumed it was pun on the words “desired” and “desi”. I only got a brief look as I sped by, so I figured it was a Desi model in the picture. (“Was that Aishwarya Rai?”)
“Hm,” I thought. “I didn’t realize the word ‘Desi’ was so mainstream now. Maybe they’re trying to project a multicultural marketing message or something?” But I didn’t really think that hard about it. [Link]
<
p>Of course, it’s not Aishwarya, it’s Penelope Cruz. And it’s neither an appeal for brownbucks nor a critique of socialist influences in “I love Lucy”, it’s part of the new (product)red branding exercise / fundraiser “designed to Help Eliminate AIDS in Africa.” It has nothing to do with us, even though we like to imagine that everything does. It’s purely a koinkydink.
<
p>As an aside, while I often find myself defending Bono, in this case I agree with the conservative critic Michael Medved’s opinion of the campaign (assuming he’s correct):
… [Medved] called the campaign a “scam” because, he wrote, it is merely an excuse for companies “to jack up their prices on ordinary merchandise to ridiculous levels, and not all the difference in price is actually going to the charity…” [Link]
I’m afraid I’m too desi (i.e. cheap) to buy in. I’d rather buy the regular gear and send a check for the excess directly to the charity of my choice without having the Gap or whoever skim its percentage. To me, that’s the desi and desi(red) way of donating.
definitely not Aishwarya
It’s funny. I saw the same thing while out walking last week. Desi Red. Oh no, I thought, not another left-leaning gang of South Asians, pinko communists, mutter, mutter.
Then I saw Inspi (Red). What’s an Inspi? Confusion became bewilderment when I came upon Steven Spielberg with a shirt that said Hono (Red). Hono? I’d thought the accepted term was “Jewish.”
Then everything clicked into place. Ah, I see. And it was all rather worse than I had Fea (Red). These weren’t pinkos at all. They were the usual capitalist wing-nuts.
Ennis! I was going to email you about this over the weekend. I was walking by the GAP and saw the same tee in the window and got such a kick out of the whole DESI connection – I too figured they had not intended for that “koinkydink”… I emailed the GAP and told them. I haven’t heard anything back, but will let you know if I do. While I was at it, I actually did buy myself a tee (and wore it on Diwali). Although I don’t often buy into such promotional campaigns, this one struck a chord with me, particularly since these tees are made from African cotton.
The products in the (RED) campaign are not marked up. Theyre the same price as others, but the companies give a % of the profit to charity. The red ipod mini is 199$, same as all the other colors, except 10% of 199$ goes to charity in this case.
rax – the ipod is the only one I would consider getting. Does anybody know if the other goods are marked up? In any case, if the donation is simply a portion of the profits, it’s not clear whether very much money ends up going to charity.
You figure that these campaigns are designed to have a three fold effect. Most obviously, they’re supposed to raise money for a particular cause. Second, they are trying to raise awareness for a particular cause. Third, they are intended to try to convince the public that mult-national corporations actually do have a heart. I guess you can say any donation is better than nothing, so this campaign meets the first goal. However, I’m not sure that it does anything to raise awarness. I mean, just given the confusion described in the comments above, it seems like the ad agency that came up with the logo is just being too cute by half. As for the third goal, it’ll take a lot more than a bunch of t-shirts before the Gap earns my respect.
LOL!
Just to be clear, ToastyKen knows very well the diff btwn Ash and Cruz, I think he was just guessing who the Gap would choose for the nonexistent multicultural series, being unable to really look at the face. 😉
I am on SM so much these days I am prolly gonna get FI(RED)
i for one think that this campaign is a great idea. a lot of young people either don’t know or worse, don’t care about the plights of other countries, and instead of depending on them to seek out information and a way to contribute, the charity comes to them. these shirts are bound to become a style statement that every girl is going to want to get her hands on, and things like the red iPod, a color they’ve never had before, will be in high demand this holiday season. so many people out there lament over the materialism that has taken over the youth, but this campaign isn’t trying to fight the society’s trends (even if the trends are not what we want them to be), it uses the trends to their advantage. i think it’s a win-win situation.
I think the Red campaign is great, its been a huge success in Europe in terms of raising money, and more importantly raising awareness of AIDS. I agree, i rarely trust the corporate “giving” pr campaigns, but I think Bono, as well as American Express are sincere in this one. This, along with the work Clinton is doing with his Global Inititive is vital to bring attention to the abysmal record of western powers in combating AIDS in Africa. Even if it happens to be tied into a consumer buying strategy, at the end of the day, I feel its still better than nothing.
I find that strategies that have to be defended with the idea “it’s better than nothing” are often worse than nothing. If you doubt it, give a nickel to a homeless man and see what reaction you get.
We’ve got such a damaged sense of charity, actually. We think everything can be fun. We think we can buy a pile of poorly-manufactured overpriced crap we don’t need and, hey, we can also “save Africa” at the same time.
Well, AIDS is not fun, and this Gap campaign will do a lot more for you wardrobe (and even then, let’s be frank, not that much) and for the company’s ego (and their bottom-line), than it will to fight AIDS.
But how about changing the awful profit-seeking pharmaceutical policies that deny affordable medication to the millions that need it? What about the simple fact that drug companies intent on making a killing (pardon the pun) is what stands between very many people and the therapies that could save their lives?
Well, that critique is not possible because too many of us are sold on the idea that buying stuff (our end of things) and making profit (the company’s priority, whether it be Gap or Merck) is the only possible approach to this kind of problem.
“Something is better than nothing,” so we can buy the shirt and go home feeling we’ve done “something.” And, our egos salved, the real something that needs to be done will perpetually remain undone.
Yes, I came across all pinko and RED on that one, but bear with me here. The GAP abused me when I was young.
Mind the Gap.
What happened, Mr. K, did you work there?
Beautifully said, Mr. K
Well, yes.
But, more than that, it was that, in the early 90s, I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by khakis, preppy faux stonewash, dragging themselves through the tepid malls looking for 100% brushed-cotton.
I’d like a t-shirt that says: Desi(rable). Or maybe, Desi(rabble). Or both: “Desirable Desi Rabble”. That’s a sepia motto.
Did anyone else laugh themselves silly in Team America, when the hero is performing in a musical based on ‘Rent’, and they sing that song called ‘Everyone has Aids! Aidsaidsaidsaidsaids!’?
That made me laugh so much.
God Bless YouTube
Everyone Has Aids!
Ah yes, another scam involving bo(red) self absorbed celebrities trying to be “socially aware”.
Now I feel bad, I didnÂ’t even make the desi connection when I saw the ad. I suck at being brown. In my defense, I did read about Bono’s quest earlier, so I was familiar with the concept. Personally, you will never get me spending a cent on any charity that ‘claims’ to help people in Africa. I donÂ’t know what villages they target, but I am from Africa, and I have traveled extensively all over Africa, and the people that I see hardly ever get any help. There are villages of just children because all parents/adults have died of aids. The truth is they have a few targeted and highly visible villages and these are the ones that get help not the most destitute. Find some organization that will send books and canned good that you buy to Africa, maybe it will reach the hands of the needy. I am sorry I get a little hyped when it comes to my motherland (motherland cos it is where my mum lives) 🙂
I’m about to step out and get demolished in a few minutes, but #12 made my Monday a little less unbearable. I heart The Kobayashi Bottom Line.
Good old liberal guilt to get us Inspi(red). Few of us have the will to physically help someone suffering from poverty, cancer, AIDS, or whatever calamity the rubber bracelet on our hand benefits. In the end it’s probably not beating oneself up over whether one is doing enough.
At the same time don’t dislocate your shoulder from patting yourself on the back for sporting you One T-shirt ($60 at Nordstroms) to benefit AIDS in Africa while running in the Susan G Koman Race for the cure in your Pink Warriors by Ford dog-tags and LiveStrong bracelet, listening to your Red iPod and drinking your Ethos water.
The truth is painful and ignorance about the plight of the world is bliss at times. We do what we can….
To steal from the Power of One “Even a waterfall begins with a single drop of water.” or to paraphrase from Bull Durham “An ant by himself can do dick, but you get a whole bunch of them together and they’ll build you a cathedral.”
Medved is an idiotic Republican neocon gaandu. He and Dinesh D’Souza need to go off in a corner and put their heads up each others’ bums.
Sorry, Ennis… I know what you’re saying about the typical corporate “charity” machine, but it’s hard to take anything that someone like Medved says seriously, especially when it comes to AIDS relief programs. What’s his cynical neocon alternative: the Almighty Business World should just milk profit out of the consumer audience without giving back or creating awareness campaigns? When you boil it down, any act of “charity” by an individual/corporation with wealth can be criticized a hypocritical act. A lot of “charity” geared toward the “developing” world can be viewed cynically as a no-win situation or an all-or-nothing proposition: but we’re enmired in a “bling bling economy” as Gautam Malkani would say, and maybe (maybe) every little bit of awareness helps (even as we’re decked out in our latest designer Red iPod).
Note to CinamonRani: a professor once pointed out to me that drives for canned goods and books to Africa often spend more money on postage to get things over there that could better be spent on the ground if you just make a monetary donation to a “good” (i.e., well managed) NGO. (and I’ve also lived in Africa)
Mr Kobayashi, without large profits drug companies would have no incentive to help develop new therapies or channel billions of dollars into research…
Me type too fast leave out words No proof read arrgh
“There is such a thing as good grief. Just ask Charlie Brown” – Michael Scott
This is going to sound bad but when I first saw all the posters….Steven Spielberg, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Garner, MJ Blige, Cristy Turlington, Dakota Fanning, Chris Rock, Don Chedele…etc all I could think was WTF…Gap Inc is not doing well financially, how the hell are they paying all these people?
I don’t necessarily know as far as a “message” how effective this is. The so called “role models” they are trying to show do not appeal to the average shopper at Gap.
…
Essactly.
New therapies that will “pay for themselves.” Research that will generate more profits. If you don’t fit that story-line, sucks to be you, sucka.
just because people are celebrities, doesn’t mean they’re automatically self-absorbed and are just doing the “socially aware” act for their image. just like people, you have celebrities that do it for the attention, celebrities that want to make a difference, celebrities trying to do their job, etc. even if you may not agree with the methods of the red campaign, we shouldn’t pass judgement on its supporters. (for all i know, maybe they all are doing it for their image, but that’s all speculation and they should get the benefit of the doubt.)
yea, the pharmaceutical system is messed up. and for every village in africa they show on tv that they’re helping, they’re probably at least five that need it more. but the “something is better than nothing” statement does have merit. sm attracts many articulate, intelligent, socially conscious people, who if they want to help those in need, will look into charities and social activist groups that may be able to use 100% of the money and services they can provide. but the society as a whole isn’t like that. is that a bad thing? yea, i would say so. do i want to see that change? you bet i do. but it’s not going to change overnight, and it needs to be done in baby steps. as someone having been in the spotlight in the entertainment industry, i think bono gets that. making hip looking shirts will bring the people in. i grew up with friends that knew about the horrors going on all over the world, and it truly saddened them, but they were consumers first. my best friend, now a deeply devoted and involved activist for darfur, only got involved after seeing her favorite hollywood actor wearing a shirt about darfur on an awards show. she looks back and is embarrassed that she was so shallow then, but she says that if she hadn’t seen someone considered the “it” guy bringing attention to his cause, she never would have gotten involved in the first place. i think that this is bono’s ultimate dream, and a campaign like red can (and i think will) have the desi(red) effect on the public.
“Inspi” stands for “Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute” “Hono” is a Taiwan-based exporter of golf equipment
So this is how I spent my lunch break.. Apologies if i’ve bothe”red” anyone.. hehe
Yes, GAP is not doing well financially in the last 6 years. Look at the last two months, there is an up tick of 10-15% in the stock price possible after the campaign started.
…that goes towards making more drugs only for people that can afford them (i.e. NOT Africans dying of AIDS). But Mr Kobayashi already said that. No one’s arguing the economics on this. Fine, find your profit incentive. But leave Africa (or wahtever other Third World continent/country you come up with) out of it. Africa is merely a PR campaign, and every time it is used to pull on people’s heartstrings, it takes away a little bit of Africa’s dignity and gives back nothing for the objectification. Drugs going to Africa is always in the news, but the technicalities of intellectual property rights and private agreements are such that the large quantities available to African AIDS patients still have to be purchased, and at prices that are simply out of the question for the vast majority.
My point is, the only reason many of these drugs even exist, is (to a significant extent) based on the current model of research/development. If it was not for that, would there still be drugs to (theoretically) send to Africa (free or otherwise)? If you tamper with that model (and don’t replace it with something else that produces results) then fine, you have the drugs you have right now, but what about future innovations and breakthroughs?
If the present innovations aren’t doing jack for you, why would you be fussed about future innovations? You think the fellow dying in Ahmedabad or in Johannesburg is worried about better therapies in some theoretical future? That fellow wants access to the drugs that have already been made, at a price that isn’t going to put his whole village into indentured servitude just to keep him alive for another few years (before inflation makes the cost totally prohibitive, and he departs this world for the next one).
Also, do you know how many drug patents are given out each year in the US? Several dozen. Do you know how many of those represent, chemically speaking, genuinely new pathways? Two or three. Per year.
The rest of it is, “Oh let’s take this little carbon molecule off from here, so that we can call it a new drug.” Pure marketing. It’s all tylenol. But it’s being sold as tylenol with super-boosters, tylenol with a pink velvet hat, kulfi-flavored tylenol with wings. And it’s all the same drug, but if you don’t change the packaging and pricing, your profits will flatten out.
It’s such a corrupt industry it’s comical. The whole capitalist model, whether of drugs, or of clothes, encourages and thrives on that kind of dissembling. And, as Shruti says, that’s as it is. It’s the system we’re in, and there’s no point pissing against the wind. But they should, at the least, leave hypocritical “charity” talk out of it, and not use the suffering of others to boost their visibility further.
The (RED) campaign will definitely raise awareness. Awareness, that is, of GAP.
So do we just accept the current standard “tamperproof” pharma profit margin as part of the only successful model of R&D without criticizing it? What margin makes the enterprise worthwhile? 40%? 20%? 7%? Plenty of business models in other industries find it possible to be competitive and lucrative to operate with much slimmer margins.
I am just sick of the pharma (and insurance, while we’re at it) industries claiming that the whole system would crumble and we’d be treating maladies with nothing but roots and herbs if we demand that they cut their margins. From a business perspective, if you can dupe people into believing that it’s impossible and unviable otherwise, why wouldn’t you try to maintain your margin at the highest possible rate for as long as possible? I’m not saying that everyone connected with pharma is evil; I’m sure many people are motivated by a desire to help treat disease. I’m just tired of the same old mantra.
Kusala (comment 24) a valid point but you need to contact your professor and let him know that many airlines and courier companies have volunteered to courier many goods to key centers in Africa. Its not only Bono that does good work. I am sure a Google search would find you charities that work in collaboration with these companies. An example would be when I was helping build a water pump in a village in Venda and we needed some equipment that had already been purchased for us by an anonymous benefactor in London, British Airways and its local branch Comair made sure we had it in 3 days, free of charge. And I am all for sending funds for NGOÂ’s, my brother works for one in Malawi and they do great work, just make sure you do your research. Oh and you will find Kusala that there are quite a few Africans on this blog, some more zealous than others, but all very proudly African. What you say KenyanDesi?
Right. But still not for poor people.
Anyway, innovations and breakthroughs are easy. All it takes is some good ol’ fashioned biopiracy and suffocating a few scores of South American indigenous tribes into extinction and Magic Johnson will live forever. That’s why we should protest the logging industry and support liberal environmentalism. I mean, come on people, we need those forests. Can we get a t-shirt for that?
for the record, the red campaign is not just gap’s. apple, motorola and armani exchange are also participating. if people are going to bash the campaign, don’t just pick on one company.
Agree 100%. Kusala (#35) also makes some good points.
this is not technically true… there is actually alot of interest from ‘big’ pharma in developing drugs for neglected diseases, even in the absence of huge profits… it’s just that there is less interest in developing AIDS, malaria, and pneumococal vaccines compared to diabetes, heart disease, cholesterol, etc drugs. It’s unfair to say that there is no interest. Plus, there are alot of initiatives going on right now examining new financing mechnanisms, including AMCs, patent transfers, and other ideas that are looking to correct some of the market ‘failures.’ There are a ton of PDPs out there trying to bridge the gap between public and private procurement and development.
In regards to this current (Red) campaign, I have mixed feelings. I’ve seen alot of people coming out and vilifying it, but many of them are the same people who haven’t lifted a finger to try and do anything substantive to alleviate poverty and suffering in the developing world (many of my friends included), giving excuses about having to pay the mortgage, or not having the personal fortitude to go live in a mud hut. I guess I’m in the camp of “something is better than nothing”. My understanding of the (red) campaign was that it was an attempt to create alternative funding streams, in addition to the traditional one-off donations that most people give. In that regard, I think it’s successful in diversifying the funding base for nonprofits and development organizations.
Laying this at the feet of ‘big pharma’ for wanting profits as a default excuse doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the issue. Pharma companies are businesses, which at the end of the day exist to make money. They are publicly traded companies that answer to the open markets and their shareholders.
Will those of you complaining about pharma profits purchase their shares and invest in a company that isn’t growing anymore because they set a profit ‘ceiling’ to allow expensive drugs to hit the developing world at cheaper prices? Instead of government subsidies or donations to NGOs, you’ll be paying the company directly giving them resources to innovate. It is money being re-routed, but money nonetheless.
Don’t get me wrong, businesses practice several techniques to rig the field in their benefit, which is unethical many times. Pharma isn’t immune to that and things done in the name of quick profits are despicable. But the facts remain that drug development IS expensive, developed world where R&D money exists, is where many new drugs are created.
PBS had an EXCELLENT series on health/medicine/diseases/government programs that was focused on the developing world. Throwing cheap medicine (cure) at societies that lack the infrastructure, educated professionals, and associated framework in health/medicine hasn’t proven all that successful.
Take a basic disease such as Malaria. It is a readily curable disease. However, places where most people DIE from malaria are getting medicines from governments/NGOs, but the ability to consistently deliver the medical services, keeping up with the dosage is a MAJOR problem. This results in the medicine, which was effective for the local population, becoming ineffective due to bug resistence. A similar case was highlighted in Peru for Tuberculosis. Not enough medical care personnel to follow up on people (which the government gave drugs to for free), or the ability to deliver stronger medicines when the dynamic changes (bug resistence). With super bugs around, the future becomes a tougher fight since readily available and effective medicine works no longer.
For those afflicted with HIV/AIDS, the task becomes even more daunting. The program showed Botswana’s approach of dealing with this. It was a multipronged approach that stressed prevention (for the case of HIV), EDUCATION, and set up a system for follow on care, etc.
Solutions that work in the devloped world, producing the greatest change aren’t necessarily the ones that have the most immediate impact in the developing world. One has only so many resources and focus needs to be given where one can have the greatest impact.
The malaria part of the program revealed that simple mosiquto nets with a repellent impregnated in it was far more effective at reducing malaria cases (which reduces the strain on the system and allows infrastructure to grow at a reasonable rate). Wasn’t a recent study on DDT done to show that WITHIN the home, when used, it did not pose a threat.
Education is FUNdamental. As cold as it sounds, reducing the HIV infection rates is far more important for these societies (sub-saharan Africa, South Africa, Botswana, Eastern Europe, etc). Condoms, clean needles, drugs preventing transmission to children (from infected parents) is critical. ALL of this require LOCAL GOVERNMENTS to be stronger and more educated.
There was an old post on SM here awhile ago about simpler therapy solutions, which is another way to go (drug cocktail vs one pill to bite).
Gujudude, thanks for bringing added nuance to the discussion. I agree with you on many points, especially the question of infrastructure in poor countries. Don’t have much time now, just wanted to acknowledge that.
My main point, though, isn’t that charity is ever easy or uncomplicated, but that the assumptions behind the current and altogether too popular capitalist model–as very nicely summarised in your first paragraph–should be questioned and tortured at every opportunity.
(I did see the PBS series you mention, and thought it excellent).
eh, Mr. Kobayashi, I think your response was a bit canned, in terms of not actually looking into what orgs and people associated with campaign RED such as Bono, the Global Fund (UN), Jeff Sachs & Millennium Project, A. Jolie and soon Madonna are actually doing and the actual numbers and strategies involved in this campaign.
Yes, itÂ’s very easy for you to hate on GAP, Motorola, Bono, and such, and compare them to big pharma. But at the end of the day, is your critique of them improving the situation. Should your blanket criticism be applied to all corporate charity ventures?
Spend some time, look into actual details or RED and similar orgs. Then perhaps spend some time thinking of ways to improve them, or hold them responsible to their missions and promises. Time better spent then just blanket criticism
I can understand some of the anti-pharma feelings floating here as I too shared them for a while… but upon learning more about the practical current realities I must say that my initial opinions were naive.
First of all, in terms of the percentage of Gap profits (or any fundraising for that matter) actually reaching villages in Africa… it will never be 100%!… simply due to practical reasons. No matter what the organization that is fundraising or which organization it is going to. LetÂ’s assume that 100% of the proceeds are donated to a NGO in Africa (let’s assume it’s legit and non-corrupt), some of the money will be used for administrative purposes… as a necessity. Printing posters to let people know of clinic sites/timings to get free testing and meds… making billboards or highly visible banners, for example. These are simple things that are required on site… but they will cost money. So to immediately dismiss any charities/ fundraisers is a little naïve. Some will be worse than others in terms of overhead charges (money that does come out of donations), but it will almost never be avoided.
From my (limited) exposure to overseas work and stuff I have heard first hand from those who are working in Africa (Nairobi, Lilongwe-Malawi)… money is not usually wasted when in the hands of NGOs and community based centres… most of them care about the work and are sincere. The problems, when they occur, are mostly with government affiliated organizations/centers… one would think they are more regulated but they are not. That is where people get away with stealing free drugs or novel rapid testing kits etc, because they happen to know ‘someoneÂ’ (who ultimately gets a share of the money made from selling stolen products)… a bit oversimplified, to illustrate a point. Example: a friend of mine was in charge of sending a large shipment of accurate rapid-testing kits to Nairobi when she worked with a small pharma/R&D company. The kits were signed for when delivered and then promptly disappeared with no one to admit to receiving them. A few days later some HIV testing kits from Nairobi showed up on e-bay.
I have also know from personal contacts in pharmaceutical companies (in Ontario, Canada anyway), that a fair amount of free drugs are sent routinely to reliable orgs… local (reliable) orgs and international ones like Doctors without borders. On the other hand I have also heard stories where DWB has given ARVs to people that were false positive (did not actually have HIV) because they were using crappy (maybe old, maybe a bad generic brand, maybe expired?) testing kits… shit happens, sometimes wrong people get blamed. People get frustrated, bridges are burned, work sometimes stops or is stalled.
My point is: ground reality is different from what may appear at first glance. Not all pharmaceutical companies are bad. And I do think there is a big difference between the smaller and the bigger pharmas, and in the way they are operated in Canada vs in the US.
In terms of pharmaceutical companies and trade/ intellectual property rights (TRIPS) I will try to mention more later. Gotto run!
Really, Vik? I’m not actually looking into what they are doing? Are you sure? In any case (whatever critique I might have of them) I don’t believe I talked about Bono or Sachs. I actually have a lot of respect for on-the-ground NGOs. Massive respect. What I’ve been talking about is corporate heart-string-tugging strategies. Like the freakin’ GAP. Very much a fox and henhouse situation.
But since we’re on the subject…Angelina Jolie? Madonna? Gwyneth Paltrow? Don’t make me laugh! I think most Western donors are egotistical bastards who can’t tell their heads from their asses. And I know this for sure because I’m one such egotistical bastard myself. But at least I’m not plastering myself on the front as the savior of Africa.
Don’t believe the hype!
She doesn’t look a thing like Aishwarya.
Mr. K:
To me this isn’t much about capitalism vs socialism, as it is looking at a unique problem (with its own constraints) first then trying to get a solution. Using our pre-defined ideas of what is a problem and browbeating people over it (pharma companies or big corporations doing charity) diverts attention from the more mundane, but far more effective forms of charity/help.
I agree with the idea that big companies, actors, and politicians raising awareness through sexy campaigns collecting money is quick and seductive, but not necessarily the most effective (though a step in the right direction). People get tired of handing out money, when said people promise it will change things, yet nothing happens. The support work, health care professionals, basic understanding of hygiene and medicine, uncorrupt governments, etc – all is taken for granted by people here. Providing cheap medicine is great, but it is a quick way for people in the west to ‘do away’ with a problem requiring far more (not just in charity, but political, diplomatic, and other tools). As the poster said above, local corrupt governments are a significant problem. If your own people won’t do the right thing, it is really hard for outsiders to make much of a dent.
Ugh, this campaign makes me Ti(Red). And also Bo(Red).
I think some are egotistical bastards. Most people simply don’t know enough to make a good decision. Lets not shit on everything and anything western and paint with a broad brush. Most are decent people looking to do the right thing.
Id’ say it’s a step in the wrong direction. We’ll have agree to disagree.
It’s like saying “Oh colonialism was onderful, it taught us to iron our clothes.” Or, “Shell Oil is doing wonderful work since they built a one-room clinic for the villagers.” It’s utter bullshit, actually. Because the whole enterprise is rotten, and the do-goodism only serves to mask that.
(Also “socialism” isn’t the only response to someone who questions the current configuration of capitalist societies. I despise socialism far more than I do this form of capitalism.)
And now, I really must go.