Comments on: Painting Pictures of Poverty

By: Technomist

Technomist — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:45:55 +0000

I saw Agitprop.

My wife saw a pair of models. She grew up amid real poverty.

By: TDK

TDK — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:01:15 +0000

I think there’s an element of the “noble savage” in these ideas. A generation has grown up accepting uncritically the ideas of orientalism. They assume that their white predecessors universally viewed the third world as primitive and inferior and in reaction go to the opposite extreme and idealise it or, at the very least, disdain from describing any element as inferior. Universalism is a white European conceit.

By: T. Greer

T. Greer — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:46:26 +0000

Art as a mobilization tool’? Just as both Oxfam and Cecil fail to explain how small adjustments to lifestyles are equivalent to a gift of fertility to the soils tended by the poor, they fail to explain how an image can create a positive engagement with a political idea. Can images do that? How? I am reminded of the satirical blog, Stuff White People Like and their take on such mobilization tools: An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through “awareness.” Meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, and then magically someone else like the government will fix it. This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges. Because, the only challenge of raising awareness is people not being aware. In a worst case scenario, if you fail someone doesn’t know about the problem. End of story. What makes this even more appealing for white people is that you can raise “awareness” through expensive dinners, parties, marathons, selling t-shirts, fashion shows, concerts, eating at restaurants and bracelets. In other words, white people just have to keep doing stuff they like, EXCEPT now they can feel better about making a difference. Raising awareness is also awesome because once you raise awareness to an acceptable, aribtrary level, you can just back off and say “Bam! did my part. Now it’s your turn. Fix it.” So to summarize - you get all the benefits of helping (self satisfaction, telling other people) but no need for difficult decisions or the ensuing criticism (how do you criticize awareness?). Once again, white people find a way to score that sweet double victory. Popular things to be aware of: The Environment, Diseases like Cancer and AIDS, Africa, Poverty, Anorexia, Homophobia, Midde School Field Hockey/Lacrosse teams, Drug Rehab, and political prisoners. Obviously the "White people" reffered to here are not the entire race, but the more specific youngish, liberal, multiculturalist types that are the lifeblood of the environmental movement. ~T. Greer, noting that SWPL also has a funny post on recycling as well.

By: John Galt

John Galt — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:59:06 +0000

I think you’ve all got it wrong. What I see in the painting is third world insecticide application.

By: jabailo

jabailo — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:33:52 +0000

Actually, global warming or not, precipitation in the Sahara is increasing and it’s potentially one gigantic farm with a bit more water.

By: Stefano Mori

Stefano Mori — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:57:52 +0000

In reality the world is a very abundant place, full of resources that we just haven’t figured out how to use yet, like how we turn common sand into microchips.

In the previous thread, Talisker referred to an article on opendemocracy.net which attacked people’s materialistic values, and the need to replace these with something more “caring”.

I think this is why it is so difficult to talk to environmentalists about “sustainability”. If we could demonstrate that resources are not running out, we would still be rejected because we would be implying that it is OK to keep consuming. The typical environmentalists want us to change and give up the materialistic lifestyle, they want us to change and become people who are more interested in other things, like human harmony.

I’ve talked to my enviro friends, and at the end of the discussion, when we’ve got to the point where we can all agree that we are NOT running out of resources, I get the reply, “yes but can’t we just all slow down anyway, to a simpler quieter life of community?”

And my reply is, that’s fine for you dear, if that’s the life you’d like. Go ahead and arrange your own life so that you can have that lifestyle now. Nobody is asking you to be a fatcat businessman, instead find something that suits you, like you could go become a counsellor and work with relationships and care.

But let’s not assume that future generations are all going to feel the same way as you; many of them will be just as interested in acquiring materialistic stuff and technologies–an NMR medical scanner in every clinic, being able to travel round the world at Mach 8, access to and use of 10 times the amount of energy we use today, sophisticated robotics tech in every home–and it is not our call to say they should not have that. How would we have liked it if previous generations had decided that the internet consumed too much power and we should stick with a simpler, slower, quieter pace ? Letters delivered by bicycle?

As Westerners, we’ve done our intensive materialist pursuit for a few centuries, and created reasonably comfortable lives for ourselves. So it is easy to say, well, let’s slow down, let’s look after the trees more, let’s improve the air. The rest of the world has yet gain materialistic satisfaction, and as we see with India, they will not sacrifice development for climate change.

By: Alex Cull

Alex Cull — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:34:04 +0000

All good points. Additionally, I find it unfortunate that Oxfam are expending resources on, and drumming up publicity for, such nebulous and contentious issues as “environmental justice”, when there are rather more pressing matters to address, such as the current dire situation in the Congo. To be fair, they are providing help and scaling up their efforts in eastern Congo, which is commendable, and is what Oxfam and similar agencies do best – disaster relief, basically. But I find it a bit disappointing that with a real emergency on their hands, so much time, money and effort is still being wasted on the fight against “greenhouse gas pollution”. On Oxfam’s American site, click on “Join a Campaign” and what is at the top of the list? Well, naturally – “Climate Change.” I think “Help Stop Destructive Tribal Conflicts” might be more appropriate, given the circumstances.

By: Robert Wood

Robert Wood — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:23:10 +0000

Aaarrgghhh! Sustainability. I hate the word and concept. It’s not clear the universe is sustainable, and certainly the solar system isn’t

Therefore, development of the human race is the only way to spread the Earth life-forms around the galaxy, making it “more sustainable”. That is truly “Saving the Planet”

By: geoff chambers

geoff chambers — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:26:19 +0000

Even worse than the feelgood efforts of Western artists are the clips of third world artists being encouraged by Oxfam to express their opposition to global warming, to be seen on oxfam.org.uk. To me this seems about as enlightened as getting subjects of the British Raj to recite Kipling.
Art of the kind you show is perhaps simply harmless therapy for the mildly deluded. But when Oxfam proudly show clips of third world citizens parroting the global warming litany as examples of the good they’re doing, one sees the real scope for harm. Oxfam are there on the ground, able to influence public opinion. They’re doing the same job as green teachers here, except they’re indoctrinating adults in an environment with less access to alternative news sources. I hope you manage to engage Oxfam in a real dialogue about this.
Incidentally, there’s a nice scene in one of Doris Lessing’s novels about development v. environment. The heroine and her friends, all young white idealists, members of the African Communist Party, are picnicing on the slopes of Kilimanjaro, admiring the idyllic unspoilt landscape, and one of them says: “I suppose if we get our way, one day all this will be covered with council housing”. And the heroine replies “Yes, I suppose it will.”

By: Editors

Editors — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:18:04 +0000

Hi Lee,

The fact that Oxfam’s statements are out of kilter with the science it seemingly cites almost goes without saying. Oxfam are issuing it faster than we can read it. Such are the benefits of having $750,000,000 a year to spend.

We won’t ever catch up.

Previous posts have been about Oxfam’s use of science to make it’s arguments. And we’re working on a bigger one in the near future. This post was intended to answer criticism that we’re not being straightforward about why we are criticising Oxfam. As I’m sure you’ll agree, and can explain better than us, the problem with Oxfam isn’t simply the liberties they are taking with science.