[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Nigeria, which is very close to the 3 main infected countries, declared its self Ebola free mid October.

If they can do this and they are in West Africa and the most populous country then what does that tell you about urgency?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/...tober-2014/en/

Interesting article - especially;

"Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and its newest economic powerhouse."

Probably all the trillions of pounds Nigerians rake in every year from all their pathetic internet scamming.

In any event, just because Nigeria has its house in order does not mean that there is not great urgency to combat this virus - such a suggestion is totally preposterous.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Interesting article - especially;

"Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and its newest economic powerhouse."

Probably all the trillions of pounds Nigerians rake in every year from all their pathetic internet scamming.

In any event, just because Nigeria has its house in order does not mean that there is not great urgency to combat this virus - such a suggestion is totally preposterous.

why

[Vanessa]

So nice to see some old faces on Band Aid 30 : Sinead and U2.

[user104658]

You know what would be interesting? Someone should do a huge random word association survey in the streets, thousands of people, just one question...

"I say one thing, you tell me the first thing that pops into your head:

Band Aid"


... Then compare the number of people who say "Bob Geldoff" with the number who say anything at all to do with Ebola, anything at all to do with Africa or world hunger, or even charity.

I bet Ganondorf would get most mentions...

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/med...bollocks-twice

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

http://www.theguardian.com/media/med...bollocks-twice

Geldof’s rant during the original Live Aid broadcast in 1985 made television history. “Get your money out now,” he shouted at viewers. “There are people dying now, so give me the money.” Geldof swears at one point in the broadcast, saying “**** the address, let’s get the numbers,” but he is often misquoted as having said “give me your ****ing money”.

Give 'me' the money isb a pretty odd turn of phrase given what band aid was meant to be about I didnt know this

[kirklancaster]

So Bob Geldorf says; "“There are people dying now, so give me the money” and swears at one point in the broadcast of the original Live Aid.

For Fecks Sake!!! The guy was a 34 year old pop star in 1985 who was a product of the 'punk' era - as were most of the audience - and not only was it 'cool' to talk in such a fashion, the event was mega, historically ground-breaking, and a phenomenal success, so everyone present was emotionally hyper charged

As for saying bollocks twice during a Sky News broadcast?-- Ooooh I'm shocked. It's reprehensible. Outrageous. Letter to the Times at least.

Oh p--l--e--a--s--e do me a favour. The words; 'Nit' and 'Picking' combined, and 'over-reaction' spring to mind.

[Vicky.]

I do believe that a lot of the time these charity things are self-serving. Especially in Bobs case tbh. However...it does raise awareness and cash for good causes, so I dont see the need to get worked up about it.

[GypsyGoth]

More money is going to be there to fight this virus thanks to the charity single. Geldolf comes across as a bit of a crusader, but the end result is that there will be more resources to fight this problem that is facing a part of the world.

What's better? Doing nothing, him behaving like most of the rest of us who don't t give a damn about ebola. Or him trying his best to help, devoting his time, energy and influence.

Even if his efforts just save one person, isn't that enough to justify his actions.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

More money is going to be there to fight this virus thanks to the charity single. Geldolf comes across as a bit of a crusader, but the end result is that there will be more resources to fight this problem that is facing a part of the world.

What's better? Doing nothing, him behaving like most of the rest of us who don't t give a damn about ebola. Or him trying his best to help, devoting his time, energy and influence.

Even if his efforts just save one person, isn't that enough to justify his actions.

But it's getting his face on the TV and newspapers. Doing good for the world pales into comparison when it gives him some fame.

[user104658]

At the same time it contributes to the negative stereotypes about Africa (the whole continent, not just the few affected countries ) and these stereotypes are part of what keeps these countries POOR and their people DYING. It is impossible for them to climb whilst westerners happily paint them as the world's poor cousins.

Like I keep saying - might save lives tomorrow, will kill millions more over the decades.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

[user104658]

I am not disputing Band Aid’s good intentions. But the shock-factor strategy they have used since the 1980s has sparked a whole wave of “good cause” organisations that have been irresponsible with regard to the images shown to the rest of the world. It’s been totally one-sided. That’s understandable in part, as they wouldn’t raise much money if they showed the affluence, wealth, and happy lifestyles that exist in the continent. But in the process of doing all this “good work” a huge imbalance has been created.

Advertisement

That image of poverty and famine is extremely powerful psychologically. With decades of such imagery being pumped out, the average westerner is likely to donate £2 a month or buy a charity single that gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling; but they are much less likely to want to go on holiday to, or invest in, Africa. If you are reading this and haven’t been to Africa, ask yourself why.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-odg?CMP=fb_gu


Worth a read.

[user104658]

The message is, that for the sake of a few million raised by charity every few years helping a few towns and people, the tourism industry in Africa is decimated, and few want to invest in African businesses or enterprises costing the continent billions, robbing them of the chance to properly grow their own economies.

I hope that people can start to get to grips with this. I know it's difficult to understand that raising charity money can end up having the opposite effect. But at least give it some thought.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The message is, that for the sake of a few million raised by charity every few years helping a few towns and people, the tourism industry in Africa is decimated, and few want to invest in African businesses or enterprises costing the continent billions, robbing them of the chance to properly grow their own economies.

I hope that people can start to get to grips with this. I know it's difficult to understand that raising charity money can end up having the opposite effect. But at least give it some thought.

No that is not difficult to understand at all, and I don't know why you think it would be, if Africa can go it alone by all means feel free to go ahead, I don't see Liberia or Sierra Leone turning away the Army or the NHS staff or any other countries staff though, neither do I hear of more economically sound African countries stepping in to help, maybe if they were seen to be actually doing anything the charities might back off? To my mind this is about preventing this disease spreading to other counties and stopping it in its tracks, it has nothing to do with the African economy or lack of

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No that is not difficult to understand at all, and I don't know why you think it would be, if Africa can go it alone by all means feel free to go ahead, I don't see Liberia or Sierra Leone turning away the Army or the NHS staff or any other countries staff though, neither do I hear of more economically sound African countries stepping in to help, maybe if they were seen to be actually doing anything the charities might back off? To my mind this is about preventing this disease spreading to other counties and stopping it in its tracks, it has nothing to do with the African economy or lack of

Would it not have been better to sing to other African countries a song that says

stop spending on military and start helping your poorer neighbours?

maybe if top celebs started that narrative it may help more?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Would it not have been better to sing to other African countries a song that says

stop spending on military and start helping your poorer neighbours?

maybe if top celebs started that narrative it may help more?

I agree! Maybe if the more economically sound African economies stood up to the plate, Europe and America could stand down, coming out with Smug Ebola free statements seem to be the extent of their contribution

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No that is not difficult to understand at all, and I don't know why you think it would be, if Africa can go it alone by all means feel free to go ahead, I don't see Liberia or Sierra Leone turning away the Army or the NHS staff or any other countries staff though, neither do I hear of more economically sound African countries stepping in to help, maybe if they were seen to be actually doing anything the charities might back off? To my mind this is about preventing this disease spreading to other counties and stopping it in its tracks, it has nothing to do with the African economy or lack of

It has everything to do with the lack of African economy because parts of Africa have been kept under a boot-heel, a boot heel that things like Band Aid inadvertently add weight to. Again, it's not "all Bob's fault lol", they just further the perceptions with their ham-fisted messages - they provide charity but damage the prospects of any real economy developing.

If these countries had had proper sanitation and healthcare systems in place a year ago, Ebola would never have spread beyond a few isolated cases. Even if we do "stop Ebola in it's tracks", the further damage done to these economies ensures that nothing is going to improve any time soon, and it's only a matter of time before there's some other viral outbreak or disaster.

It's not that anyone should just "do nothing" but these are complex, intricate issues that need to be addressed, properly, to stop things like this from happening anywhere in the world. It's not OK to just let it happen over and over and then release a knee-jerk charity song and say "Everything's going to be OK! We're sending you some lovely money to help you, as you must need help to survive in your putrid hell-pit of a continent!". It's clumsy, and the good done in the short term is outweighed massively by the long term damage to these countries' images.

Like I said; it's like a bull in a china shop. It's trying to perform an appendectomy with a claw hammer.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It has everything to do with the lack of African economy because parts of Africa have been kept under a boot-heel, a boot heel that things like Band Aid inadvertently add weight to. Again, it's not "all Bob's fault lol", they just further the perceptions with their ham-fisted messages - they provide charity but damage the prospects of any real economy developing.

If I understand what you are saying T.S. - then isn't a logical extension of this argument, that we should stop all benefits to the needy in this country because it's a 'short term' fix which only exacerbates the underlying causes of that need, and is encouraging the recipients of such benefits never to do anything for themselves which will make them self-sufficient?

Why can't the countries receiving Bob's millions still develop their economy independently of, and extra to these millions?

Why are such vast amounts of charity monies actually harming such independent economic development?

Surely, then, the real truth is, that the ruling authorities of these countries would still be as impotent and inert in developing any kind of self-sustaining economy even without Bob's millions? Therefore, no type of funding at all would be available for dealing with this terrible virus, it's causes and effects?

I admit to being confused by your contention.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

If I understand what you are saying T.S. - then isn't a logical extension of this argument, that we should stop all benefits to the needy in this country because it's a 'short term' fix which only exacerbates the underlying causes of that need, and is encouraging the recipients of such benefits never to do anything for themselves which will make them self-sufficient?

Why can't the countries receiving Bob's millions still develop their economy independently of, and extra to these millions?

Why are such vast amounts of charity monies actually harming such independent economic development?

Surely, then, the real truth is, that the ruling authorities of these countries would still be as impotent and inert in developing any kind of self-sustaining economy even without Bob's millions? Therefore, no type of funding at all would be available for dealing with this terrible virus, it's causes and effects?

I admit to being confused by your contention.

No - although there is indeed a problem with benefits recipients being demonised - it's not the same thing. I'm not saying that these countries don't help themselves because they receive charity. I'm saying that this specific type of charity, that hammers home the message that Africa is poor / dirty / helpless, inadvertently gives people a certain image of these countries that is damaging to them and COSTS them more than what charity they get. Like I said, tourism is all but destroyed (no one wants to go to these countries, we've seen how awful they are, right?) and people with real money don't want to invest in countries that are seen to be "failing".

If a charity drive that raises millions ends up costing their economy ten times that in lost revenue because of the "bad press", then it will have been a complete failure. And yet it will be hailed as a success.

I'm not necessarily talking about the Ebola issue here, it's understandable that people want to avoid countries when there is disease, but the original band aid and follow ups... Yes, they did a lot of good in the short term in 1984,but how much has their message about poor, starving Africa actually harmed Africans in the three decades since then? I would argue, more than any of us can imagine. Exponentially more than can be raised with yet another song release.


The article I linked to explains the effect much more succinctly than I have I think.

[user104658]

I agree again Dezzy, on it being fine if it was to highlight the organisations that are and have been working hard (and quietly) in these areas, working WITH the local people, for years. No one is saying that Charity is a bad thing or that no one should donate. Just that there are better people to send that money to and this siphons money away from those.

The world has changed a lot in 30 years and they should be having a modern, progressive charity drive to tackle this. Not a tired old relic (the song itself, as well as Sir Bob) wheeled out to rehash ideas from decades ago. As you say, this wrong headed idea that if you throw a block of money at a problem it will go away.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree again Dezzy, on it being fine if it was to highlight the organisations that are and have been working hard (and quietly) in these areas, working WITH the local people, for years. No one is saying that Charity is a bad thing or that no one should donate. Just that there are better people to send that money to and this siphons money away from those.

The world has changed a lot in 30 years and they should be having a modern, progressive charity drive to tackle this. Not a tired old relic (the song itself, as well as Sir Bob) wheeled out to rehash ideas from decades ago. As you say, this wrong headed idea that if you throw a block of money at a problem it will go away.

I agree with you that throwing money at Africa doesn't solve the problem which is why I rarely support any African charity. However in this situation I would hope we can actually see results ie infrastructure being built,training etc, research into a vaccine so I can't see how it compares to previous efforts

[Jamesy]

I think the main problem with Band Aid is that it is made out as the ONLY way to donate to fight Ebola. It almost gives the image across "if you do not buy this single you're a bad person and want people to die".

The whole basis of Band Aid is a good one. It's there to help ultimately. Although this is dampened by the generalisation of Africa, the artists using it as a money spinner and the fact that Bob Geldof is probably one of the worst spokesmen to have. I know he's the pulling power behind it although really the way he has handled things since Saturday has made me think someone else should have been at the forefront of it all.

[Benjamin]

This "cause" disrespects Africa as a continent. There are by far bigger disasters in the whole of Africa that are ignored yet this tiny "outbreak" is now given more focus and puts such a negative outlook on most of the countries that are actually not effected. Bob doing his usual self-righteuous ****.

I'd like to see him match from his own money every penny raised to see how concerned he really is.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Bob Geldof is a rich man. According to the Sunday Times rich list he is worth £32 million and like most rich people he is understandably keen to hang on to his fortune. That's why, very sensibly, he gives no more of his money away to the Government than he has to. As a registered non-dom he is legally entitled to avoid income and capital gains tax on international earnings. Those of us without non-dom status may envy him the privilege, but we can hardly blame him for it: after all we most of us know that we'd do a much better job of spending (and saving) our money than ever the poltroons in the various agencies of government do.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...es-bob-geldof/

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Bob Geldof is a rich man. According to the Sunday Times rich list he is worth £32 million and like most rich people he is understandably keen to hang on to his fortune. That's why, very sensibly, he gives no more of his money away to the Government than he has to. As a registered non-dom he is legally entitled to avoid income and capital gains tax on international earnings. Those of us without non-dom status may envy him the privilege, but we can hardly blame him for it: after all we most of us know that we'd do a much better job of spending (and saving) our money than ever the poltroons in the various agencies of government do.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...es-bob-geldof/