There are some movies that can only be seen during the Christmas season. We all know that and we all hate them. There are also songs that can be heard almost exclusively at Christmas time, which now comes to the beginning of November. Here, traditionally, our ears and feelings are hurt by Mariah, Wham and a bunch of disguised freaks, Wizzard. There are also the ever-smiling Cliff Richard, old guys from Slade and probably the worst Christmas song in human history, which, for me, is the ultimate proof that in The Beatles it was Lennon, and not the other one, who had talent. But there is something else.
I’m talking here about an unforgettable work of art created by Bob Geldof in 1984 (reportedly one of the best-selling singles of all time!), in which a group of famous British musicians from the 80’s calls to feel and heal the world. A piece of work, although undoubtedly created for good reasons, beautifully described by its creator: "I am responsible for the two worst songs in history" (the latter was supposed to be "We Are the World").¹
The song was refreshed in 1989, 2004 and 2014, which I had a faint idea about as I discovered the version from 2014 only in late 2018, cutting onions in the kitchen, before Christmas Eve. Briefly: the remake involves more contemporary stars (almost unknown to me) and a hundred-year-old Bono, it all sounds very similar and is similarly disturbing.
Well, if you think now, there will be more about Christmas hits, you are wrong. We’ll abandon Geldof's song for a while. It will let us focus on its message, i.e. on the appeal to feed the world. At first glance, this message seems very naive, but at the second glance it is clear, that it is very naive and dangerous at the same time.
The world cannot be fed. And not only that. The world, by all means, should not be fed!
Now, shall we?
First of all, the world cannot be fed. The world is just too big for that. Almost 8 billion people live here. The Chinese and Indians alone are around 2.8 billion, of which probably 2.7 billion are very hungry. You can't feed them all even if you want. Our lovely Mother Earth has neither the resources nor the acreage for this. Simply, it was not made for so many tenants. Modern science and methods of food production could be of help. By producing unnatural food or producing food in an unnatural way, we would have a chance to feed many more people. Problem: food is a business, same as everything else. And business has nothing to do with charity and would never go any distance for free.
Charity was invented to help the poor, and, at the same time, so that the rich would benefit from it. Everyone should know that. Now I can hear those who brand me as a heartless bastard. Well, ladies and gentlemen, charity usually is an organized action, a costly action that raises funds for a predetermined purpose. Charity music events cost a lot and someone has to pay that price in order to raise some “free money”. To be clear: I'm not against charity! I think it is fun, rewarding and very useful to do something for others, but you have to distinguish between useful charity and that which leads nowhere. It is very good that we are raising money for the fight against cancer, for the victims of the tsunami or any other immediate natural disaster. It is very noble to support the British Heart Foundation and give money to children who are losing their eyesight. And if someone does not believe in organized actions, let them bake a cake and take it to the nearest orphanage or give a homeless person a blanket for Christmas. Charitable action must have a well-defined goal. Therefore, it is unwise to exhort someone to feed a hungry world, water it, or save its tormented donkeys. There is no need for such charity. I have been seeing social ads on English television for ten years now, the same ones over and over again, showing places full of hungry, thirsty and sick children. Same ads. So what? Since these children are still thirsty and starving, maybe something is not working here?
We can load containers with chocolate bars or cans of expired chopped tomatoes and we will not feed the world anyway. The world will eat it all and will be hungry again very soon, because it’s just like any of us - and we like to eat something several times a day. Let's think: since no one can afford to feed millions of hungry people every single day, what's the point of feeding them from time to time?
If we want to help, this is not the right way. Because you truly can help the world. It must be taught how to feed itself and how to drink on its own. Everyone knows this old story, which says that if you give a fish to a hungry man, he will eat it and he will still be hungry, and if you give that person a fishing rod, he will catch the fish himself and he will never feel hunger again. All we have to do is to show the hungry how to plant and harvest. How to water the crops. This is not magic or rocket science. People were able to do it several thousand years ago. And it can be done anywhere. Even in the desert.
It is believed, for some reason, that well developed countries have a moral obligation to help those less developed ones. This is obvious nonsense, but if it has to be that way, then let's not pack the containers with used panties or send money to anyone. Let’s educate. We should never go there, to the world, to build another water pump. Instead, we should take a few of its citizens and teach them how to dig wells and install the pumps. We teach them, they develop, they expand infrastructure in their own country and, as a result, become less hungry over time. Why are we not doing this? Because such actions don't pay off. Those not too well developed countries simply do not want to develop, so there is no reason to invest in them either. We used to call those countries the Third World, which is no longer correct now, but, after all those years they still do not want to become the Second World at least. Tough, because in order to develop, you need a will. It takes a lot of work and effort. Development also costs money, and they just don't want to invest in it. You give them a fish and they eat it. You give them a fishing rod and they sell it. They will still be hungry, because they choose to. Why bother? We have already taught them that sooner or later someone will come and give them something for free.
I still see the same little girl on the TV. Walking, far away, across a hostile landscape, carrying a water container on her back. Then she fills that container with a brown, dirty liquid and goes back. It touches me because I also have a heart, you know. In the background the narrator says that if we don't help her, she will carry water like this for the rest of her life. Which counts, taking the local hygiene conditions into consideration, for another fifty years. So, we already assume that probably nothing will change over the next half a century. And that's when I start to dig deeper. After all, we're not talking about a girl or bunch of people hanging around in the desert. These people live in some country. They are its citizens. This country has some kind of government, some structures, offices, military, police and so on. Why doesn't this country care about its people? Why do we have to intervene because this country is unable to provide its people with water pumps? Doesn't care its children starve to death? Why do I have to worry that that girl would drink poisoned water year after year? What do her parents say? Are they not worried?
When I watch these social ads, I can’t stop thinking these people have been drinking water from the same source probably for the last thousand years. It never occurred to them to maybe, I don’t know, fence it off, to protect it from animals, to take care of it somehow... And they still don't care, because it's easier to wait for someone to come, do or build. Unfortunately, this is what false charity teaches. It blocks people's initiative and kills the will to develop. And the effect? We will build a water pump for the world, and because it does not really care about it, as it’s been given for free, the very same evening someone will steal the tap, and the pipe will be lost overnight. The flowing water will create a picturesque puddle in which: a) the animals pee, b) a local idiot would wash his feet.² Yet they are still surprised the soup has a weird taste...
That was the second reason. When we feed the world, we're essentially spoiling it and taking it back. We kill the will to self-improvement in it. We make the world simply cease to care: it will only wait with its beak wide open for someone to put food in it. This way, feeding will never stop, therefore, it is not worth it. For the world’s own good we should never do it.
Now, for the third and final reason.
When we feed it, the world becomes lazy and gets used to it. It loses perspective and begins to think that it deserves to be fed. The world likes to eat - like everyone else - several times a day. Appetite, as it’s known, increases with every meal. Over time, a bread roll with cheese may not be enough and there will be desire for a sausage. And one day, when we do not feed the world in the morning, it will huff and puff and will start to be indignant. Why am I hungry, it would ask? Where's my food? It's just impossible I’ve been fed only once, my stomach is rumbling again!
The anger will come next. Hate for those who have not fed, because they have to feed as feeding is their sole responsibility.
We should always think twice before we invite this hungry world to us as well. It will not come to develop or adapt, to work and pay taxes. It's coming here to sit with its hands ready to grab, its mouth open, full of old resentments and completely incomprehensible grievances. It wants to be fed. And when we forget to do it, it will bite us mercilessly on the hand. Or it would stab us with a knife. At this point it will be too late for us. We will not be able to kick out this world anymore, because it would be already settled and at home. Next, we won’t be here at home anymore, and we will not be allowed to talk about what we see, because it is not appropriate.
I will finish in two steps.
First step, optimistic.
My wife and I pay so much tax every month that we probably support two families of those who do not disgrace themselves with effort, but have a lot of time for the gym, hairdresser, designer clothes and the latest iPhone. Every month we give a lot to those who are poor, hungry, lazy, stupid or just smart enough to live comfortable life getting money from council, a free apartment, free nursery and a child benefit. If it's not a charity with a capital C, then I don't know how to call it.
Now, for a fun part.
Bob Geldof's song, that mentioned earlier, raised around 8 million pounds to help starving Ethiopia, and it’s only for the first 12 months. Song was criticized for many things. Among others, for what has been described as a colonial, western-centric viewpoint and condescending stereotypical descriptions of Africa. African activists and Twitter users have complained that the song disregarded the diversity of the African continent and ultimately did more harm than good for the people.³
1. McCabe, Kathy (27 November 2010). "Sir Bob Geldof's tacky curse of Christmas". Daily Telegraph. Sydney, Australia: Nationwide News.
2. Authentic examples from social ads in UK TV.
3. Malone, Barry. "'We got this, Bob Geldof, so back off'". www.aljazeera.com, 18 November 2014
Comments
Post a Comment