On 2-8-2013 10:01, scott wrote:

> Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they
> would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only
> considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know
> because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now
> just saving that money instead.
>

How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend? 
Except for the very small upper layers of society? It is mostly survival 
with the little you have got.

My brother was a Roman Catholic missionary (died in Africa). 90% of his 
work was about learning people about health, hygiene, making better use 
of water, natural resources, education, etc and just 1% about religion. 
They did not distribute stuff for free precisely in order not to upset 
the local economy, instead learning people to be self sufficient in a 
harsh environment and trying to survive and growing towards better 
living conditions in a sustainable way. I am talking about the sixties 
here and I know for a fact that all his work has (probably) come to 
naught because of greed and corruption of the upper levels of society in 
the country spending their money on weapons and luxury goods and finally 
bringing the country into civil war. This was not Congo, but another 
country but the scheme has been repetitively identical.

I have become rather sceptical (and cynical I am sorry to say) about all 
that easy talk about /helping/ the Third World. In most cases the rich 
countries get most out of it.

Thomas

Thomas

Post a reply to this message