Are American Lives Worth More Than African Lives?
December 19th, 2006 by Stephen
I wrote a piece to a correspondent in America with the following snippet:
> The west (U.S. *and* Europe) are
> systematically denying access to our markets from African nations, which
> is why we are causing the crushing poverty on that continet.
>
> How a protectionist can sleep at night eludes me. Do you believe American
> lives are worth more than African lives?
Rather astoundingly I received this response:
> Stephen….do I think American lives are worth more than African
> lives…HELL YES!!!!!
A prime example of what is known as infra-humanisation. The out-group is seen as less than human by members of the in group.
Here was my response:
I am intrigued. How much more is an American worth than an African? Twice
as much? Eight times as much? And why do you think so?
Certainly Americans *cost* much more. The average U.S. income must be in
the region of 50,000 dollars, whereas more than half of the inhabitants
of sub saharan Africa get by on less than a dollar a day. Thus the
American income is over 136 times that of most sub saharan Africans.
Why is this? Ultimately it is down to the insidious policies of the EU
and the USA – protectionist measures that lock third world countries out
of our markets and keep them poor.
So politically it certainly seems that we *do* value western lives more
highly than African ones (or domestic lives more highly than foreign
lives). However, I am surprised to hear you come out and openly admit
this fact, for surely it is a doctrine of the United States that man is
born free, with fundamental rights and freedoms.
It is interesting that ownership of property was dropped from the list,
which otherwise comes straight from Locke, but clearly US capitalism is
predicated on a concept of property ownership as conferring certain human
rights.
That is perhaps part of the problem here. With the concept that one is
almost not human if one owns no property comes justification for slave
ownership and such like. Further, as Europeans stole the land of Africa
and excluded others in the name of their new ownership, all predicated on
the empty land premise, it follows that many people will see the
disinherited of Africa as somehow less than human.
But as a philosophy this is both inconsistent and detestable.
That Locke is inconsistent is not surprising. His philosophy was first
pragmatic, and only occasionally consistent. That the philosophy and
attitudes of Locke and his age have so permeated western society that we
believe it a forgone conclusion that our system is best is perhaps much
more surprising. We call ourselves rational, intelligent and educated –
but we still can make statements (or at least secretly believe) that our
lives are worth more than the lives of those we persecute?
Education is perhaps part of the problem. We *think* we are educated in
the west, but in fact our critical reasoning capacity is impaired
severely. Thus American media spoon feeds the American people stories
about that nasty Sadam Hussein, and we believe every one of them – after
all, he has proven he is a bad guy, so surely all these other stories
*must* be true.
We are spoon fed political claptrap about how the world will be a better
place if only we kill a few more people, and we feel *safer* when in fact
this very thinking should make us tremble and lie awake in our beds.
But are we surprised that there is this uncritical acceptance? Is it
perhaps that schools have been encouraged to teach a curriculum that
goves us a *feeling* of being educated, whilst actually knowing nothing?
How many Americans can even find their own state on a map? let alone the
location of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or any
other of these respectable and sovereign nations that you would so
happily destroy for your own entertainment and sense of well being?
How many people in the US could tell Malaŵi from Botswana on a map? Or
know the new naime for Zaire?
Just so long as it does not affect local jobs, and these people stay well
out of our way, then we are happy. We murder them slowly through trade
restriction, or we do so quickly with bombs. What is the difference? What
does it matter? Apparently not very much, because after all, we can sleep
soundly tonight knowing that American lives are worth more than African
lives.
Snowball, all animals *are* born equal, but some are more equal
than others – or so I hear.
“For there is one law for rich and poor alike that prevents them equally
from sleeping under bridges and begging bread.”
Interesting article. I must confess that as an American I am a bit offended. You seem to be saying that the reason there are poor and starving people in Africa (and let us not forget the Middle East and Indies) is because the Westerners have not given enough to support them.
I think that the main reason we see such discrepancy is because the Western countries are founded on Christ. If you look around you will see quite clearly two things 1: all the countries that are third world and have masses of starving, or dieing, or oppressed people, are not Christian. 2: The western world gives huge amounts to help.
Do I think that we have given enough? NO. Do I think that there is any reason why Americans should be sitting over here eating bon bons and driving a Lexus and wearing Armani when people are starving in Africa? NO. But the problem is a spiritual one, not one of policy. The policy problem is a spiritual problem.
The first spiritual problem is that third world countries do not worship the One True God, and are therefore under the rule and reign of Satan.
The second spiritual problem is in the blessed countries. The countries which are founded on Christ, have numerous people who have forgotten Him. They have forgotten that when they help the bruised and battered, the hungry, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned, they are in actuality helping HIM. Instead they have become like the rich young ruler, who woudl not give up his wealth to follow the Lord.
This battle is won not in policy, but in prayer. When the nations repent of their idolatry, and people turn back to their God in earnest, then we will see that policy changes. But, as these are likely the Last Days, I do not see much chance that there will be a great revival like that. I think it is far more likely that things will continue to get worse. The only reason the Lord spares the Western countries is because He can find a few yet who are still righteous. Thank the Lord for His longsuffering and mercy! We may yet see a revival and a national repentance. Or, we may first see the rapture of the righteous, which will empty the cities and countries of righteous men and women, and God’s wrath will be poured out in those days. (Just review Sodom and Gomorrah to see what happens when there is not enough righteous people to spare the city. They were wasted not only because of sexual perversion, but pride, hoarding, idolatry among other sins.)
Mrs. Meg Logan
Dear Meg,
No offence was meant to Americans per se. Whilst the response was to an American (in Florida), I noted several times that both US and European nations are equally responsible.
I don’t accept that the difference between Africa and the West is that our nations are founded in Christ. There are several points to make:
1. Whilst immigrants to America carried with them the puritan hope, and believed they were founding a Christian nation, in 1776 that all changed when the US was born and specifically separated Church and state. That may not have been a bad thing in many ways – but it is questionable (and often questioned) to what extent the US can be considered a Christian nation.
2. The UK, whilst a Christian nation in that the head of state is also head of the Anglican church, is not as Christianised as many countries, including many in Africa.
3. All of Africa is being kept poor. Christian nations included. Angola, for instance, is about 85% Christian. Gabon is 95% Christian. Others such as Botswana are at least 50% Christian, and yet they are all suffering from being locked out of our markets (and health crises such as AIDS). Obviously there are issues of nominalism in these statistics, but I was good friends with a Botswanan Christian, and in terms of spirituality I would say that what we have in the West falls far short.
As for international aid – there are two aspects here. Governmental international aid is far short of what is promised and what should be expected. As a proportion of GDP, US international aid is well down the list of aid giving countries, and in absolute terms the USA is usually not top giver either. Only a few countries give what the UN recommends (mostly in Scandinavia).
On personal giving, American Christians do much better – but relatively small amounts of aid are channelled to Africa. In any case, whilst emergency aid is important, what is really needed is the ability for African nations to trade fairly with the west, so that they will no longer need the aid.
Thanks for your comments,
Stephen
I concede that you MAY be right regarding policy. Well, I will continue to think on it. I hope you will too.
Mrs. Meg Logan
Dear Meg,
Thanks for your reply. I’m always willing to think on the issues, and thanks for doing the same. Nice to hear from you.
Stephen
I’m with you on the fact that all men, regardless of their location of residence, were created equal, but I don’t know that I can take the next leap and say that the inequality is caused by a lack of letting African’s enter into European and American markets.
First, I have to say that there is inequality because of sin– created equal, but destined to have rights usurped. That’s why, I feel, God created a lot of policy in His commands for how to deal justly– but as we’ve seen, whether it’s the US or Ancient Israel, laws can be great in theory, but abused and misused in practice.
Second, while I can’t totally speak to the availability of markets, I can say that I have read that support given from the US to African countries has been squandered on the ruling leadership instead of going to the people. The most recent and glaring instance (though not Africa) was Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq– but from my reading I believe that this is much more prevalent in Africa. The very nature of these governments that keep their own people in poverty is far greater of a problem (in my mind) than whether or not the average African has the ability to reach our markets.
Lastly, how does comparing money necessary for the average African and American make for a good comparison? Since Africa is not one country, where America is, the situation cannot be the same across the board. To even get a close comparison, you would probably have to include North and at least Central America (and perhaps some of the south since all are Americans)– and there I think that you’d find that the numbers would be far different.
Even then, you’d have to factor in what is necessary for survival or even to get by in each of these places.
In any case, I’ve said enough. Thanks for the great post which has made me think.
Hi Min,
I agree that inequality is because of sin. But whose sin? Not, I think, the sin of those who are treated unequally.
Corporate governance has been an issue in many African countries – but this is not a reason to treat the nations unequally. Indeed, if African nations had free access into our markets, they would be less dependent on the aid that has, in the past, been so easily squandered. But just as you point out that Africa is a continent of many nations, it is worth noting that the issues of corporate governance do not affect all African nations, and whilst some African governments keep their own people in poverty – many more would prefer not to do so, but are prevented.
Now you make the point that Africa is not one nation, but the issue is that a policy (or a lack of a policy perhaps) that locks nations across the whole continent out of our markets is causing hardship across the entire continent. Because the continent is being treated (almost) as a unit, what is bad for Botswana is bad for Sierra Leone.
It is a good point though that Africa is not one nation. Indeed, the strongest economy in Africa is Mauritias, which has an annual growth rate in excess of 5% and per capita GDP of $3,600 (very high for Africa, but way below OECD countries).
Why does Mauritias buck the trend? With an economy based largely in the sugar and textile industries, much of Mauritius’s more recent growth is attributed to its penetration of the EU market under the Small Island Provisions and the US market through the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) initiatives. Both allow unilateral quota-free, duty-free market access to textile exports.
Mauritias also has stable government, but it is not unique in Africa on this point. It is access to markets that allows Mauritias to trade its goods, and buck the African trend.
Hopefully I’ll write a fuller post on this at some point soon.
Thanks for the comment.
Stephen