Saturday, November 10, 2007

Poverty in the world

I have a quick story that I just remembered about a moment when I encountered poverty and was quite affected by it. Last summer while I was in Peru, I took a bus ride from Cuzco to Lima, which is supposed to take 18 hours. Instead, the ride took 30 hours in a bus with no heat/air conditioning and no food. This was caused by professors across the nation who were on strike, and as a result, camping on the highways all night, burning trees and throwing boulders into the road. We ended up sleeping 6 hours on the side of the road and the next morning, yelling face-to-face with professors. It is amazing that this is how the 'intellectual' crowd deals with problems. There were many elderly and babies on the bus, but no option for help, food, etc.. Upon arrival at the destination around 3 AM, it was rainy and cold and the streets of Lima, a fairly dangerous city, were dark. An elderly woman who only spoke Quechua, the native language of Peru, was being taken care of by a younger woman and her small daughter. The woman, crying was very angry because the elderly woman could have died, she was sick, and no one took care of her... plus she had no blanket and we had to wait outside in the cold until the sun rose. Meanwhile, the young daughter needed to use the bathroom with cost 50 cents, about 20 American cents, yet the mother told her she did not have enough money. This is where you realize the dirt bottom and you feel incredibly guilty for no particular reason. The fact that people live like this is a disgusting feeling especially when you see it directly in front of you... and I knew that I would always be the white one who probably had no idea what they were talking about. My time in Peru has definetely changed my view on poverty.

Unlike most of the topics that we have discussed in class, poverty is something that most of us have background knowledge on. I felt like I could finally state an opinion on something that I was sure on; I am very secure with my opinion on poverty and really enjoy studying and discussing poverty.
I am happy that there were many voices raised, as in volume, during class. By the fact that there are so many opinions on this subject, it is obvious what a large part of our world poverty is.
When leaving class, I and a few other people continued the discussion about education. The argument that general education (in our simulation using the complete budget), is essential in ending poverty, I believe shows the view of an American, specifically a view of America and how perhaps HERE, education is the basis to pull out of poverty. We are speaking of world poverty, however, which means that the basic on which decisions should be made, is at a third world level, because poverty in the United States and poverty in Haiti have two incredibly different definitions. If we want to look specifically at ending poverty in the U.S., then yes, education would definetely raise the number of people living above the poverty line. However, consider much of the world that lives without an infrastructure, something that we take for granted here, and that allows us to skip to the education step. How would introducing education help these people who do not have clean water, a method to even get to hospitals, much less read and write their own language? This is why my group chose literacy over education because with literacy, the people can read and speak their native language. They speak this language, so learning to read and write only develops the ability to understand health pamphlets, methods of agriculture (which brings food), and methods of transport. Without roads, aqueducts, bridges, electricity, and irrigation, as were included in the infrastructure section, trade is reduced and there is very little interaction between people.
We must also remember that we are speaking of education as in education how we view it in the United States. Do we need to teach rural farmers of Peru about chemical reactions in chemistry class, or trigonometry? How is this at all relevant to their survival which is threatened by pollution, health risks, and almost no contact with large cities and trade? These people work every day, from sunset to sundown, perhaps in the fields, and they may not care about topics that seem important to us here. Their goal is survival; producing food and perhaps an occasional visit to the doctor or dentist, and if anything is left over, a child might go to the university. With literacy, native people will be able to understand how they can better their own lives. With the ability to read, many opportunities open up and the hope is that people will be inspired to pursue further education.

I also really enjoyed this week's trip to Bread for the City and feel that it was a necessary trip for a World Politics class. After all, we are learning about IR theories, economies, and poverty has played an incredible part in determining the strengths, weaknesses, finances, and responsibilities of states. As someone who would like to spend my life in international social work, I am especially interested in people who do this as a career, whether internationally or within the U.S.

6 comments:

Liz said...

I was on of the people that you continued the discussion with, and though I understand your point I still disagree. I think giving water and literacy are more tangible results. I feel that these aspects have already been done to an extent and poverty has not been solved nor truly dealt with.

The world can continue to give water and teach words but education is a goal that may seem impractical and not relatable at first but in the long run will have the best benefits. I can give a person water but if I teach them how to get water or where to go to retrieve it they have that education and knowledge. Besides literal teaching a basic education would help. Teaching someone knowledge I personally think would motivate a person to reach higher, and know that their position of poverty can be changed (because I do believe that poverty can change and end with determination and a drastic movement). I am literate, but do I know every word in the English language? No. I can read them, but they do not hold value to me. That is the point I was trying to say in class. For a person who is being taught to read and then given a pamphlet on a disease could read the words like I possibly could as well, but they hold no merit. A person needs to be able to not only read but understand critically, and learn the merit and importance or words.
I am not saying that basic needs like water and the ability to read are not important but lack of knowledge is a lack of motivation. Short term needs are important but for long term goals to be accomplished, long term ideas that may seem irrelevant and questionable are the ones that are going to pay off in the end. If demanding education costs lives but as a result saves lives in the future than so be it.

We disagree. It's okay. I just wanted to respond anyways.

Emily Jennings said...

Sorry Liz, but I have to back Rebecca on this one. You simply cannot compare poverty in America and poverty in third world countries - they're not the same. In America we have laid the foundation for success with infrastructure, clean drinking water, housing, and food. Although access to these resources is not always guaranteed, they are there. In America, education is a tool that everyone can use and the government has a responsiblity to provide a solid education for all of its people. It's not that people who live in third world countries don't have a right to an education, it's just that their countries have not yet laid the foundations of things like basic infrastructure. Schools that teach reading, writing, math, science, and history must take a back seat while the country puts its limited resources towards infrastructure, clean drinking water, food, and housing - since these are the basic necessities a person needs in order to survive.

While I completely agree with you that teaching someone a trade is more beneficial than giving them the product, I wouldn't consider that to be part of "global education." Mike Tidwell was able to teach the people in Kalambayi even though they had not attended school.

Also, if people are, in fact, literate and the things they are reading and writing are in their own langauge then they would understand them because it's their own vocabulary, which means they have grown up using these words so they clearly have meaning to them. If, say, a pamphlet it handed out that is intended to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and it includes tons of scientific terms then no they probably won't understand, and that would just be the fault of whoever made the pamphlets. However, if the pamphlet states, in their native language, "don't have sex while you are unprotected" and then goes on to explain what it means to have unprotected sex...I think they'd get the picture. Also, there are tons of ways to give information to people that doesn't rely on reading and writing.

Ultimately, it should be the goal of all countries to improve their system of education, but for countries without safe roads, clean drinking water, and housing, lack of education is not the most prevalent concern.

Rebecca said...

Another response to this because I have found myself discussing this subject quite a bit in the last few days...
Something that interests me quite a bit is perspective; I really like to analyze perspective as in how we view things here in the U.S. and how it they are viewed from other countries such as motivation and knowledge.

Global education, when speaking in a universal sense, almost seems ridiculous and laughable. Should we teach geometry and history to miners who live in poverty in rural South America? HOw is this in any way beneficial to them? I completely agree with you that it is important to teach people a trade rather than give them objects, yet this, as Emily mentioned, is not part of 'global education' as we were discussing it in class.
In order to institute global education, it would need to be on the level of the U.S. or Europe, which is too drastic for third-world countries to manage. This type of education does not teach people if they have no basis with which to live, no method of transportation within their own country, no electricity, and the list goes on. They need to be given options such as clean water, a method of reaching hospitals... these basics do not exist!!!

And, who's to say that people without an education like our system are not motivated? Aren't we judging from our perspective, a capitalist society where education is a main concern? People are motivated by many things other than money such as a family, children, living life...they do not know how our life is and have no means to compare, therefore I do not think it is fair to say that they are not motivated because of a lack of knowledge.

Sure, methods of teaching people about HIV spread, diseases in dirty water and food, proper methods to cure illnesses, etc... are essential which is why the basis of a state must begin with infrastructure, developing methods for people to circulate which eventually could lead to a higher level of education, as we consider it.

Liz said...

Hey ladies-

I know you were both assuming that I was referring to American poverty, but I was not. I still think that education is key no matter where. I know the basic needs are important but as I said before, by just handing them to people is not the answer. I should have been more clear but a basic education could vary but every person in every single country is in need of one, it doesn't matter where. Perhaps in a third world country education isn't even offered on a basic level. The world has tried to give the basic needs before and it has not succeeded long term. How can we know that global education in any basic way cannot work if the world has never tried?


It is so obvious that we don't agree and are not going to convince the other, but yeah. I completely understand your points...but we just can't agree.

I still love you ladies. :)

Caitlin said...

I believe that to catch the root of the problem requires an education that can include any skill the population in poverty needs to learn so they can begin to help themselves. While immediate resources such as water and shelter keep the people afloat, only education can help the people build an effective infastructure that allows further prosperity. Sorry to harp on the subject, but I agree with you Liz!

jo7950a said...

OK so I was in Rebecca's group, so as a starting point I agree with her. But Nate just brought up a very interesting point to me. In third world countries, people will give up what little money they have to educate their children. The reason they do this is because of their view of the West. They think that, as we know, in America, if you can get an education, that is the basis for getting ahead. This, unfortunately, only serves to make these people worse off. Parents will go without food to send children to schools that usually don't go past middle school. In Uganda, they don't have high school education available to many people simply because they know the people cannot get that far. The reason they can't get that far is because they need other things first. But because of their view f the West, they can't seem to get out. If they were to save their money and forego school for some time, they could have enough money to spend on more seed to plant for food. Then, through the excess food, they could make more money, and once they had a surplus, then schooling might be appropriate because they were able to get ahead first. I agree with Liz that education is essential; I just don't think it can come first, especially when there is cost involved.

Just as another side note that may explain why a lot of us can't agree is this: global poverty is a tremendous generalization. Poverty I so different everywhere that to say that it's simply global will mean there will never be agreement on how to solve it. Rebecca made the point of perspectives and how we look at things. I was talking to Nate and we tried analyzing it form a Western and a non-Western perspective and it's very different. So, just food for thought.

Peace and love,
James