Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

[MaskedOne]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

as a general rule, the amount of support personnel required by modern day US forces (and probably most developed militaries) is immense. Building is very much part of the job for a number of units.

[AL!CE]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

I don't feel guilty for what my ancestors did. If anything I wish Britain still had an Empire. Quite a few countries were better off under British rule. Just like England was better off under the Romans than in the period shortly after.

I don't have a problem with countries giving other countries aid in the case of natural disasters such as earthquakes because then the problem can be fixed but giving money over and over to a country that just doesn't get better, why bother? When it comes to Africa I'd rather save the big cats and the elephants and the rhinos and so on.. than the people.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

The idea that people were better off under the Romans was a total myth, one that has been used ever since to justify colonialism by Europeans over Third World Countries (including the British Empire).

For example, the Romans basically conquered in order to profit. Even North Africa - which produced enough grain to feed most of the empire single handedly - was actually more prosperous and better developed BEFORE the Romans came. There is archaeological evidence showing, for example, that olive oil manufacturing was better run, and produced more, before the Romans stepped in and took over. That's not progress.

Not did the Romans bring civilisation. Read Tacitus, The Agricola, Book 1 paragraph 21 for what was really going on - and there are similar parallels today and throughout history.

In fact, one reason why Britain fell to the Anglo-Saxon invasions shortly after the Roman Empire abandoned it in the early 5th century CE was because of the Roman insistence that the people could no longer make or bear arms. They were then unable to defend themselves.

That's not progress. That's servitude.

[AL!CE]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

What happened after the Romans left is besides the point. Some countries have done really well after the British left (India for example) others have done badly.

The only comparison that matters is the before the romans vs during the roman occupation. The fact that the population of Britain went up from 1 million to 1.5 million due to the Romans. Indicates that things were better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/launch_ani_population.shtml

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

What happened after the Romans left is besides the point. Some countries have done really well after the British left (India for example) others have done badly.

The only comparison that matters is the before the romans vs during the roman occupation. The fact that the population of Britain went up from 1 million to 1.5 million due to the Romans. Indicates that things were better.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...pulation.shtml

Al!ce, you actually brought the Romans into it, so it wasn't beside the point then.

Plus an increase of 50% in the population does not actually indicate that things were better... the Romans brought in many legions from around their empire into Britain, while exporting men as soldiers and slaves from Britain to other provinces. It was ethnic manipulation on a grand scale.

As for India doing really well - parts of it yes, but other parts are not so good. India is a massive country and it's unwise to generalise too freely.

My biggest problem with foreign aid in general is when it is given to the people causing the problems, rather than the people suffering them.

[AL!CE]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

Al!ce, you actually brought the Romans into it, so it wasn't beside the point then.

Don't be dumb. I didn't say that the Romans were besides the point. I said that what happened after they left was besides the point. They didn't invade with the intention of leaving.

Plus an increase of 50% in the population does not actually indicate that things were better... the Romans brought in many legions from around their empire into Britain, while exporting men as soldiers and slaves from Britain to other provinces. It was ethnic manipulation on a grand scale.

An increase of 50% indicates better farming methods and greater life expectancy due to various factors including better housing, helping to keep the cold out.

As for India doing really well - parts of it yes, but other parts are not so good. India is a massive country and it's unwise to generalise too freely.

That is an internal problem. The Rich of India could help their poor more if they wanted to.

- - - Updated - - -

I might like Boudicea more than I like the Romans but I probably wouldn't be here if British History was different. So we shouldn't feel guilty or angry about history, it is what it is. I know for a fact I wouldn't be here if World War One hadn't happened because the first husband of one of my ancestors died in the Great War and I am decended from her and her second husband.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

Don't be dumb.
[COLOR="silver"]-

Alice, I am happy to discuss this further, but that was uncalled for. Your arguments aren't watertight (are anyone's?).

[AL!CE]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

Point taken.

I'm also waiting for someone to tell me off for calling westwoden a racist (in another thread) in a "even if he/she is, you shouldn't say so" way. I tend to call a spade a spade. I told you not to be dumb because I know you're not normally.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

I can call a spade a spade with the best of them, Alice. The reason I don't isn't because I am too fearful, or too polite even, it's because once we go down that road the argument/discussion goes to hell in a handcart.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

As for India doing really well - parts of it yes, but other parts are not so good. India is a massive country and it's unwise to generalise too freely.

I wonder if India would be in the position it is today - ready to take off and become a superpower - if the British hadn't build up the infrastructure, established communications, modern industry, orderly government and rule of law, and unified the place.

I'm not saying that as a colonial power they weren't abusive, but on the other hand, it would be odd if nothing good came out of complex events...

I would suspect that the same is true of the Roman occupation.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

Then again, there's a lot of instability also related to colonial rule in India.

India is actually an interesting example, because, for parts of its history, it was quite the power in its own right. I kind of feel that it's pure speculation as to whether industrialization only happened because of colonial powers. It's not like these countries have never had scientific minds or technology in their own rights.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

Then again, there's a lot of instability also related to colonial rule in India.

India is actually an interesting example, because, for parts of its history, it was quite the power in its own right. I kind of feel that it's pure speculation as to whether industrialization only happened because of colonial powers. It's not like these countries have never had scientific minds or technology in their own rights.

But would it have happened as quickly?

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

India was extremely powerful and extremely wealthy long before the British got there. That's why they wanted to rule it in the first place.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

India was extremely powerful and extremely wealthy long before the British got there. That's why they wanted to rule it in the first place.

I'd also like to add that if the British hadn't colonized places like India, would the BRITISH have been in the financial position to industrialize as they did? I don't think it's exactly fair to look at this as a "look what we did for you" sort of thing...Stealing from other countries put Britain in that position in the first place.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Should Developed Countries Give Aid to Developing Countries?

India was extremely powerful and extremely wealthy long before the British got there. That's why they wanted to rule it in the first place.

Yes - and it was divided into small kingdoms in a near continuous state of warfare....

Please understand - I am not suggesting the India was better off under, or even after, British rule. However, British rule did have an effect, and the effect was not entirely bad. That's all.