Responsibilty or Choice?

Pandemic: My Country on it's Knees Lewis Stephens

     After reading Stephen Lewis’ Pandemic I was shocked at how a country so vibrant and full of life, song and dance could so quickly degenerate into one ravished by AIDS, famine and poverty. While Lewis employs a number of personal stories and descriptions of the appalling state Africa has fallen into, the overall message is still one of hope “because it’s the images of hope, however fragile, however intermittent, that keep the countries going”, and I can think of nowhere where this applies more than in Africa. Even after all these years, Nelson Mandela is still regarded as a beacon of hope for Africa, and this speaks volumes about how the country relies on incidences such as these to keep going, and not be crushed under the weight of the immense challenges they face.

     Even though Africa still has some hope, shouldn’t wealthy countries, such as Canada and the United States, be doing more to help? There are many NGO’s and Government Organizations, as well as U.N. presence in Africa, but it is simply not enough. As the Swaziland Minister of Labour said, “Forget about this policy stuff, don’t you understand we’re a nation of orphans?” The problem of sibling households is not even the biggest concern in Africa, even though 15% of the population was predicted to be orphans by this year, 2010. No, the biggest problem in Africa is food, or the lack of it. I think this is an atrocity when about 65% of Americans are overweight or obese (Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends).

     Canada, the U.S. and other wealthier countries should help developing countries and under-developed countries because we have the means to. Developed countries use far more of their share of the world’s resources than they need. For example, the U.S. who makes up about 5% of the global population, uses up about a quarter of the world’s resources (Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends); while as many as 2.8 billion people survive on less than 2 dollars a day, and more than 1 billion do not have access to safe drinking water. If wealthy countries have the means and the finances to support these countries, or at least help them to get on the right track to industrialization and having a stable economy, why don’t they?

     Helping these less fortunate countries should not be done just because we have the extra money and food and water to do so, but it has huge potential to be beneficial to us as well. If Canada took steps to help Africa become a stable united nation, with a stable economy, little threat of poverty, etcetera, in the future, Africa would make a valuable ally, both militarily and economically. Furthermore, if Africa got back on its feet, and (with help from developed countries) eradicated the HIV/AIDS virus, there would be little risk for anyone in the world to contract the disease in developed countries. Finally, people in these afflicted countries would have an immensely improved quality of life.

     The main reason these developed countries should help less fortunate countries is because it is morally right. Impoverished African girls shouldn’t have to be the head of their households because their parents have died of AIDS or hunger, and their grandparents have died of the same. Especially while wealthy Americans and wealthy Canadians are able to basically throw money away on 1.2, 4.75 million dollar houses. It’s not right, it’s not fair, and frankly, I can’t believe it’s been happening for so long.

     Basically, the three biggest reasons wealthy countries should be helping these poorer countries are because we have the means, it would benefit countless people in the long run, and because it’s morally right. So, do you think it’s the responsibility of wealthy countries to help poor countries, or should it be up to the country to decide?

Works Cited:

"The State of Consumption Today | Worldwatch Institute." Worldwatch Institute | Vision for a Sustainable World. Web. 23 Sept. 2010. .

"WHO | 3. Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends." WHO. Web. 23 Sept. 2010. .
Website

Balancing Act

A Letter to America (Margaret Atwood) 

Confused and saddened is Margaret Atwood’s attitude towards our southern brother in her essay “A Letter to America”. Atwood remembers an era gone by as she reminisces about the days of her childhood, and later, her years as a young adult with many references to her favourite parts of American culture.  Atwood segues to her political views of America’s involvement in Iraq and her feelings on the US’ disintegrating culture. Overall, Atwood summarizes her uniquely Canadian point of view by saying that she is dissatisfied with the changes America has undergone since her childhood and young adult years.

The purpose of this beautiful piece of writing is to discuss the massive changes America went through from about the 1940’s to the 2000’s. Atwood sees many of these changes as negative. When she presents questions to Americans (such as “when did you become so scared?”) and by comparing the America she knew in her childhood to the America of today, she really paints a picture of how America’s values have drastically declined. With Canada being so closely tied to America, through our historical ties, and geographical proximity and cultural similarities, could it be said that we too have changed for the worse?

An interesting point concerning this article is how Atwood relates the years of her youth so closely to American culture, and with no reference to Canadian culture, that of her homeland. This is especially evident in the line “We're like Romanized Gauls -- look like Romans, dress like Romans, but aren't Romans -- peering over the wall at the real Romans. What are they doing? Why? What are they doing now?” The truth of this statement hits home, even today. Canadians strive to balance on a precarious line between being Canadian and not being American. With American culture so evident in everything we do, it is hard to remain Canadian. However, we strive to be like the Americans. We are constantly looking at them; questioning what they are doing and asking why, still we do not want to be them, only to be like them. With this balancing act a constant in daily life for many Canadians, I would not be surprised if we lost a true definition of what it is to be Canadian, at least culturally.

While Canada and America are almost identical culturally, we have had decidedly different ways of dealing with very similar problems. Atwood makes mention of how Americans are “torching their economy” and running scared, while Canada really hasn’t had such drastic problems. However, if America continues down this road, and like “Marley’s Ghost” figure out too late that mankind should be everyone’s business, who’s to say that Canadians won’t suffer a joint fate with Americans? Atwood says “people around the world will stop admiring the good things about you. They'll decide that your city upon the hill is a slum and your democracy is a sham, and therefore you have no business trying to impose your sullied vision on them. They'll think you've abandoned the rule of law. They'll think you've fouled your own nest.” Canada and Canadians alike are so closely tied to America and her fate. If America goes “down the drain” so to speak, do you think Canada will go with her?