Third World Favouritism

[Grrrl]

I am probably not the only person who has noticed but so far it seems like I am the only one who cares. Earlier this year, there was an earthquake in Haiti which i am more than sure everyone here will know about, as it was plastered all over the papers and news, shops and supermarkets all had the help Haiti donation boxes, there were TV programmes specifically about the disaster all over the show, celebrities and everyone else were talking about it and trying to do their bit to help. A few months later another natural disaster occurs, this time in Pakistan. Floods wiping out a large chunk of their infostructure, killing a large amount of people and continuing to get worse as the days go by and the rain seems endless. It has recieved hardly any press whatsoever, it gets a few mins mention on the news here and there, its rarely on the front page of the papers, and I have spoke with people who didnt even know there was a flood. The British Goverment commited over £20million to aid Haiti, but only around £12million to help Pakistan. Why is there such a difference in attitude between the two disasters. Innocent people suffered / are still suffering in equally horrific ways at the hand of mother nature. Why did Haiti deserve more coverage in the press and more aid (financially and in man power) and more attention from the general public than Pakistan? Even in the forums no one has mentioned the floods in Pakistan, its like no one really cares. You can go ahead and say 'oh it doesnt affect me' but neither did Haiti and that still got people talking. To me this seems grossly unfair. Its just third world favouritism.

[wgToonces]

Hmmmmmmm... Maybe it was because everyone had cleared out their pockets for Haiti so the press never bothered to go to all the trouble for Pakistan? Who knows, maybe there's a different more sinister reason for it.

[Weedguru_Fire_Inside]

could it have anything to do with the 40% spending cut we're trying to take within the UK? 12 Million is 60% of 20 Million, is it not? Even if that's not the real reason, i expect that to be their justification. The UN have provided 900 Million according to the BBC. I wouldn't know about the papers and the publicity they've given it, but it's been front page on the BBC News website for the last week or so.

I care though, i haven't donated or made a topic, but i do care.

[andriaSRH]

Sorry to say but most Americans don't get a fuck about Pakistan because we associate that part of the world with terrorism. Not saying that's a good thing, but that's the way it is. With Haiti the disaster was plastered all over the television. I'm sure if there was more media coveaged for Pakistan things would be different.

To say that an entire forum of people don't care about the lost of innocent life is total bullshit.

[cutthecashflow]

Sure there is third wolrd favoritism. Different countries are going to place different media/public relations to which country they see fit. While people around the world should be treated in an equal manner, politics and special interests groups will never allow this. Considering the "world" problems that occur in this day and age I doubt any country from the middle east (or relative area) would receive the same humanitarian efforts as other third world countries. While only a very small percentage of people in these countries commit hanoues acts of terrorism it still attaches a label to them as being of less importance than say a country that would never pose a threat to a global power such as the US or GB.

However unjust this situation is it will never change, unless the human psyche can be molded into something a little less bent on money, politics, and power. Which in effect cannot happen without a global conflict. Perhaps if Pakistan had massive oil or mineral fields than maybe other more powerful countries would show an interest in this country so they could get their fingers sticky. Sad as it is, money makes the world go round and as long as Pakistan has no mutual benifits toward the host country then no incentives shall be received. Is it right? No. Is this how it works? Yes.

Does Haiti have resources that either of these countries could use? Probably not. However in the global perspective of what constitutes morality they receive the aid because of the limited threat they pose to other nations. It is unfortunate, but there is not much we as individuals can do to change this. There needs to be a group consensus and in this situation there is none and the media and public relations paints a picture of doing good by helping out countries that suffer from a natural disaster that we as a nation do not currently have altercations with.

[wgToonces]

Sure there is third wolrd favoritism. Different countries are going to place different media/public relations to which country they see fit. While people around the world should be treated in an equal manner, politics and special interests groups will never allow this. Considering the "world" problems that occur in this day and age I doubt any country from the middle east (or relative area) would receive the same humanitarian efforts as other third world countries. While only a very small percentage of people in these countries commit hanoues acts of terrorism it still attaches a label to them as being of less importance than say a country that would never pose a threat to a global power such as the US or GB.

However unjust this situation is it will never change, unless the human psyche can be molded into something a little less bent on money, politics, and power. Which in effect cannot happen without a global conflict. Perhaps if Pakistan had massive oil or mineral fields than maybe other more powerful countries would show an interest in this country so they could get their fingers sticky. Sad as it is, money makes the world go round and as long as Pakistan has no mutual benifits toward the host country then no incentives shall be received. Is it right? No. Is this how it works? Yes.

Does Haiti have resources that either of these countries could use? Probably not. However in the global perspective of what constitutes morality they receive the aid because of the limited threat they pose to other nations. It is unfortunate, but there is not much we as individuals can do to change this. There needs to be a group consensus and in this situation there is none and the media and public relations paints a picture of doing good by helping out countries that suffer from a natural disaster that we as a nation do not currently have altercations with.

Dude you should soooo watch Kymatica.

[Weedguru Higher]

Cause it's Pakistan..that's all

[Bubbles]

my personal philosophy about this is.. dont get worried if it doesnt affect you directly, it causes un-needed stress.

[wgToonces]

It worries me that millions of people die every year and it can all be prevented but isn't because of special interests, greed and power.

[Grrrl]

It worries me that millions of people die every year and it can all be prevented but isn't because of special interests, greed and power.

Ditto what Toonces said

[Weedguru_Fire_Inside]

Cause it's Pakistan..that's all

meaning?

[Weedguru_Fire_Inside]

While only a very small percentage of people in these countries commit hanoues acts of terrorism it still attaches a label to them as being of less importance than say a country that would never pose a threat to a global power such as the US or GB.

Not trying to pick or anything but US or UK never pose a threat to global power? We cannot because we are the global powers. And we got there by committing the most hanous acts in history.

(aside from the holocaust, that is.)

I agree with everything else you said dude.

[andriaSRH]

Cause it's Pakistan..that's all

meaning?

Sorry to say but most people don't get a fuck about Pakistan because we associate that part of the world with terrorism. Not saying that's a good thing, but that's the way it is.

[cutthecashflow]

While only a very small percentage of people in these countries commit hanoues acts of terrorism it still attaches a label to them as being of less importance than say a country that would never pose a threat to a global power such as the US or GB.

Not trying to pick or anything but US or UK never pose a threat to global power? We cannot because we are the global powers. And we got there by committing the most hanous acts in history.

(aside from the holocaust, that is.)

I agree with everything else you said dude.

Very good point, I guess I was in tunnel vision with respect to terrorism when I wrote this piece, but yes we are capabale of posing threats to any country in the world. Then again, what we see as terrorism, other people probably see as something else entirely and vice versa.

[wgToonces]

^"Terrorism" to the west seems to be any group against the NWO.

And just incase some people don't think this NWO thing isn't happening...