It was on tv the other night, so my family decided to record it and watch it. It's especially relevant to us now because in February my brother is going to Rajasthan with his school to teach some underprivileged children. He's going to teach them about the organs inside their body and they're planning to put on a music show as well.
Anyway, I think Slumdog Millionaire was a great film because it showed you so vividly what life is still like in some parts of the world. It helps with the moral distance problem by bringing it closer to home. But at the same time it's entertaining, so you do not feel like you are being directly told to help the poor. It was brilliantly eye-opening.
However. Oh, there's always a however. I feel quite callous thinking of this however, actually. But, you know, follow the argument wherever it leads and all that. One thing that did strike me was their lack of planning for the future. Whenever they had any money, they spent it immediately. For example, when the kids stole a whole load of money from a rich guy, they immediately went and booked themselves into a posh hotel and drank all of the alcohol in the fridge. This resulted in them having nothing all over again. It seems like they are themselves perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
I know, how can I even think this? These people are poor, we are super rich, how can it possibly be their fault? But perhaps it is. Of course, I can't possibly judge a whole country by what three kids did in a film. I just mean to suggest that perhaps instead of our money, what they really need is an education of a different kind.
There is always lots of talk about how much better it is for us to help people by education, rather than just giving them money. For a start, a lot of the aid we have so far given has gone straight into the pockets of the leaders of the country. Apparently, according to my dad, who usually gets his information from somewhere reasonably reliable, if all the aid we had given to Africa had gone to the right places, instead of the government, they would no longer be in poverty.
Maybe this explains why mum doesn't believe in giving to charity. She argues that they were giving money to Africa when she was a little girl and it hasn't made a difference yet.*
So education is the right way to go, perhaps? We could then teach these people that it is wise to save for the future, when fortune may not be so sweet. Then they may not have to fight so hard to survive and might be able to begin to build a real life. This may take several generations, but it would be worth it.
I also like the idea of microfinance, which I have just seen an advert for on this website. The very lovely baby-hugging Peter Singer introduced me to the idea in his book, "The Life You Can Save". It's like money lending on a tiny scale. The company lends a very small amount of money, in most cases less than $5, which the family are obligated to pay back eventually. This amount of money may seem very small but it is often enough to buy just one batch of really good seeds, for example, which enables the family to then continue to produce quality goods that are both nourishing and fetch high prices. It also means that they don't have to get involved in the corrupt money-lending business in their countries, with impossibly high interest rates. A very good idea all round, I think.
But really, all the money and education in the world will not actually help the poorest countries as they are. The systems of government are just too corrupt and they will always find a way to suck the things that they want out of their people. They need checks and balances, like we have. (Again, apparently, as I don't understand much about politics in the UK. I just know that I like Boris [BoJo] because he is funny and rescues people on his bicycle, like a superhero crossed with a postman and I don't like Gordon [GoBo] because he is a silly idiot who thinks that if he talks about Susan Boyle enough, rather than actually doing politics, he will get some votes. I also know there is no point in voting for the LibDems.)
The problem is, sorting out governments usually involves going to war, which is also bad. It is startling, though, how bad politicians can be. I mean, we thought the expenses scandal was bad. At least we can afford to eat in spite of it. Somebody said that the people that who want to be in charge should never be, for this reason. (I don't know who, but they are famous.) And I think it's true! I think you, B/P JAM, would make a fantastic prime minister.
*She is correcting me now, saying that she doesn't think we should be giving to animals either. She's not a pet person.
No comments:
Post a Comment