Open letter to Kevin Myers

Myers rant is a bit more virulent than the German ambassadors excoriating rant about the Irish proclivity to yummy mummyism, cronyism, clientelism etc. etc. and I'm not fully convinced Myers is a writer who has a consistent history of racism who has attempted to provoke violence against black Africans and that the way he has presented it was half a gamble to get debate going which it has, it seems.

On the post of the month, we should definitely make some list of threads of the month and put them on a panel in the portal.

Kevin Myers' article does not propose genocide in Africa. All it does is examine the paradox of giving aid to Africa. The paradox being that the more help you give, the worse you make the overall situation. As an example he chose Ethiopia where, a generation ago, millions were starving to death. The world rallied round and the rest is history. But by giving short-term aid we didn't solve the underlying problem, that parts of Ethiopia cannot sustain human life, we just solved the immediate crisis. By not addressing the problem the door has been left open to another crisis but this time it's worse because there are more people in danger of starvation. And we'll all rally round again, including Kevin Myers who admits that his conscience will over-ride his logic. I've been rallying round since the mid-60s when I started National School and my teacher dictated that everybody in the class must bring in a penny every Friday for the little black babies. 40 odd years later they are still looking for pennies for the little black babies. Only we're gone beyond pennies now. The last chugger that called to my door was looking for €30 a month, if I'd just sign the direct debit slip there. Right Ted.

So we did a good thing 23 years ago when we fed the world didn't we? All the little Ethiopians we saved grew up to be brain surgeons, teachers and good people didn't they? We'd like to think so but unfortunately logic dictates that one or two of those cute 10 year olds are now bad boys of 33 or so. So here's another paradox from Kevin, by doing a good deed and saving the life of a child you may also have saved a monster who will grow up to commit rape and murder. You'll never know so you just have to hope for the brain surgeon.

The bottom line is that the Aid industry is a failure. Billions have been pumped into Africa without solving any real problem. All we are really doing is increasing the personal fortunes of a plethora of dictators and financing lots of wars. Just one example is poor old starving Ethiopia in the mid 80s which couldn't feew it's own people but could fight a war with Eritrea.

No actually Myers has informed us that they're all, these nasty Ethiopians, gun-toting savages to a man and will continue to be so, so it's best for all if they just die in childhood.

slartibuckfast wrote:

No actually Myers has informed us that they're all, these nasty Ethiopians, gun-toting savages to a man and will continue to be so, so it's best for all if they just die in childhood.

As far as I can see he mentions just one Ethiopian becoming a nasty gun-toting savage.

Quote :

The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

which is a fair assumption.

He refers to Ethiopians generally as victims.

Quote :

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them?

You will also note that he doesn't state that they should all die in childhood. He asks whether they would be better off dying in childhood rather than surviving to a life of misery.

slartibuckfast wrote:

Aw on go then

I usually can laugh at Myers' rants, but by feck I can't laugh at that one. Actually, and he did, spewing that tens of millions of people should be allowed to die of starvation or disease because they're, in his own diseased mind, too subhuman to live simply by vice of being (black) African... If this isn't the end of him as a commentator and if he is still after this accepted as some sort of authority on things, well then this country is on a very slippery slope indeed.

Your post has been drawn to the attention of Myers and Dep. Ed Frank Coughlan. Maybe others have passed it on too. Perfect. Second Cactus Flower's nomination.

Lestat wrote:

As far as I can see he mentions just one Ethiopian becoming a nasty gun-toting savage.

Quote :

The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

which is a fair assumption.

I got the impression he was referring to the entire continent.

Quote :

Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually
hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world ... How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them?

He aseems to think that Somalia is a country entirely consisting of maniacs, which is an enormous generalisastion. And Somalia hasn't had a functioning government since 1991, unlike Ethiopia. And we are to assume that the children we save today will turn out to be little sex monsters themselves. And his assumption that the only thing to emerge from Africa is AIDS is contemptuous beyond belief.

905 wrote:

I got the impression he was referring to the entire continent.

You're obviously not alone, however if you look at what slartibuckfast wrote and I wrote we are talking about Ethiopia.

slartibuckfast wrote:

No actually Myers has informed us that they're all, these nasty Ethiopians, gun-toting savages to a man and will continue to be so, so it's best for all if they just die in childhood.

Lestat wrote:

As far as I can see he mentions just one Ethiopian becoming a nasty gun-toting savage.

Quote :

Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually
hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world ... How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them?

905 wrote:

He aseems to think that Somalia is a country entirely consisting of maniacs, which is an enormous generalisastion. And Somalia hasn't had a functioning government since 1991, unlike Ethiopia. And we are to assume that the children we save today will turn out to be little sex monsters themselves. And his assumption that the only thing to emerge from Africa is AIDS is contemptuous beyond belief.

Do you suppose he meant that article to be taken literally? Hyperbole is a valid literary technique.

Aragon wrote:

slartibuckfast wrote:

Aw on go then

I usually can laugh at Myers' rants, but by feck I can't laugh at that one. Actually, and he did, spewing that tens of millions of people should be allowed to die of starvation or disease because they're, in his own diseased mind, too subhuman to live simply by vice of being (black) African... If this isn't the end of him as a commentator and if he is still after this accepted as some sort of authority on things, well then this country is on a very slippery slope indeed.

Your post has been drawn to the attention of Myers and Dep. Ed Frank Coughlan. Maybe others have passed it on too. Perfect. Second Cactus Flower's nomination.

Pretty cool mate, pretty cool.

I posted a link on Myers' page after doing this Indo/Sindo Easter proclamtion (this at a time Myers used to let people post comments to his vomit) but he soon took it off. Nice to know it annoyed him though:

http://www.5wwwww5.com/theshankillmoan/viewtopic.php?t=83&mforum=theshankillmoan

Lestat wrote:

slartibuckfast wrote:

No actually Myers has informed us that they're all, these nasty Ethiopians, gun-toting savages to a man and will continue to be so, so it's best for all if they just die in childhood.

As far as I can see he mentions just one Ethiopian becoming a nasty gun-toting savage.

Quote :

The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

which is a fair assumption.

He refers to Ethiopians generally as victims.

Quote :

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them?

You will also note that he doesn't state that they should all die in childhood. He asks whether they would be better off dying in childhood rather than surviving to a life of misery.

Oh, you think he wants millions of people to be wiped out by hunger and disease (he does more than merely ask, he clearly implies they should be, them being too subhuman to live) just because he thinks one of them might grow up to be a no-good?

White children in Europe and America sometimes grow up to become gun-toting savages too. I suppose Myers' column calling for all medical care to be withdrawn for expectant mothers on those continents because one or two of their as yet unborn children will one day become thugs is being written at this very moment.

I mean he obviously lumps everyone in Ethiopia as savages unworthy of compassion. Just because he also says they are savages with lives filled with pain doesn't somehow cancel out the fact that he has said, quite clearly, that they are, one and all, savages with no hope of any of them being anything else.

Sorry, but your claim that Myers was talking about one child in particular is too ridiculous to argue with any more to put it bluntly. Open your eyes to what he was saying.

At risk of very seriously repeating myself, the little black babies charity thing I think is part of Myer's racist outlook. The level he is at would have all Inuit living in igloos. The racism isn't just in the "let them all die" but in the whole perception of Africa and Africans as either indigent and helpless or savage and violent. On one level it is childish thinking but on another level it is very, very convenient as it obscures any chance of an informed understanding of Africa and excuses anything we choose to do or not do.

I watched France 24 news today and they had a report on the oil industry in Chad. A guy called Roger Betalum, a farmer, had found oil on his land - 40,000 barrels a week/year ( ? I didn't quite catch it). He was paid with 2 oxen ( yes, 2 whole oxen). The Chad government were passing the oil on to Esso who have 3,000 wells in the area. The government spokesman said it wasn't true that all the money was being spent on the military - 5% was going on regional development. The Déby regime (categorised as being as corrupt as Zimbabwe) has been kept in power with military assistance from France, who were the former colonial rulers of Chad. Even Déby's own brother is opposed to him he is such a sh1t.

Every time we fill up a tank from an Esso pump we may be contributing towards those 2 oxen.

On the other hand, some African countries are doing well economically with stronger growth rates than our own.

Myers' monodimensional view is like something from Boys Own 1905.

Any connection between Myers article and the announcement of 45 million overseas aid cuts by the government, do you think?

slartibuckfast wrote:

I posted a link on Myers' page after doing this Indo/Sindo Easter proclamtion (this at a time Myers used to let people post comments to his vomit) but he soon took it off. Nice to know it annoyed him though

I doubt it was Kevin's decision. Commentary on all Independent articles stopped a few weeks ago.

slartibuckfast wrote:

Oh, you think he wants millions of people to be wiped out by hunger and disease (he does more than merely ask, he clearly implies they should be, them being too subhuman to live) just because he thinks one of them might grow up to be a no-good?

No actually. That seems to be what you think.

slartibuckfast wrote:

I mean he obviously lumps everyone in Ethiopia as savages unworthy of compassion.

It isn't obvious to me.

slartibuckfast wrote:

Just because he also says they are savages with lives filled with pain doesn't somehow cancel out the fact that he has said, quite clearly, that they are, one and all, savages with no hope of any of them being anything else.

You cannot be a victim and a perpetrator at the same time.

slartibuckfast wrote:

Sorry, but your claim that Myers was talking about one child in particular is too ridiculous to argue with any more to put it bluntly. Open your eyes to what he was saying.

That's OK. I think you should try and get over your Kevin Myers fixation.

Come on Lestat. It isn't about poor old Myers as an individual. Printing that kind of horse manure takes an editorial decision.

The Independent mystifies me. You never meet anyone who admits to liking it, but still it sells. I guess Mr. Myers is just trying to earn his keep in that miry environment and doesn't give a damn what he toxic rubbish says in order to do that.

I'm off to grill a few Indo readers, if I can find any, and see if they can explain themselves.

cactus flower wrote:

At risk of very seriously repeating myself, the little black babies charity thing I think is part of Myer's racist outlook.

The Penny for the Little Black Babies isn't an invention of Kevin Myers.

cactus flower wrote:

I watched France 24 news today and they had a report on the oil industry in Chad. A guy called Roger Betalum, a farmer, had found oil on his land - 40,000 barrels a week/year ( ? I didn't quite catch it). He was paid with 2 oxen ( yes, 2 whole oxen). The Chad government were passing the oil on to Esso who have 3,000 wells in the area. The government spokesman said it wasn't true that all the money was being spent on the military - 5% was going on regional development. The Déby regime (categorised as being as corrupt as Zimbabwe) has been kept in power with military assistance from France, who were the former colonial rulers of Chad. Even Déby's own brother is opposed to him he is such a sh1t.

cactus flower wrote:

Any connection between Myers article and the announcement of 45 million overseas aid cuts by the government, do you think?

I would say the connection is with the AU's telling the west to stay out of Africa's business.

Unless we are giving them money of course.

cactus flower wrote:

Come on Lestat. It isn't about poor old Myers as an individual.

Really?

cactus flower wrote:

Printing that kind of horse manure takes an editorial decision.

I doubt it. Anyway there's no such thing as bad publicity as we are in the process of proving.

cactus flower wrote:

The Independent mystifies me. You never meet anyone who admits to liking it, but still it sells.

You can read it free online so why would you buy it.

cactus flower wrote:

I guess Mr. Myers is just trying to earn his keep in that miry environment and doesn't give a damn what he toxic rubbish says in order to do that.

If you're honest with yourself you'll admit that there's a grain of truth in what he says.

cactus flower wrote:

I'm off to grill a few Indo readers, if I can find any, and see if they can explain themselves.

I read it every day. Kevin Myers and Ian O'Doherty are unmissable.

Lestat said

Quote :

there's a grain of truth in what he says

Well I don't buy it myself and I've already made it clear that I think that what Myers' wrote its the opposite of the truth.

Who is Ian O'Doherty?

cactus flower wrote:

Lestat said

Quote :

there's a grain of truth in what he says

Well I don't buy it myself and I've already made it clear that I think that what Myers' wrote its the opposite of the truth. ?

So there are no bad lads in Africa. It's a haven of peace and tranquility with no famine and no disease.

cactus flower wrote:

Who is Ian O'Doherty?

Someone you don't want to read if you can't handle Kevin Myers.

Lestat wrote:

Do you suppose he meant that article to be taken literally? Hyperbole is a valid literary technique.

You said it - this is the substance of this thread - that he is using a valid literary device which is an expression of exasperation - in this case the frustrated wave of the arm across a continent and a massive generalisation that they are all the same - a generalisation that any of us can make out of anger or at least exasperation when our charity efforts in the case of Africa just seem to be ineffective.

I really don't think there is any malicious design in the article.

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Lestat said

Quote :

there's a grain of truth in what he says

Well I don't buy it myself and I've already made it clear that I think that what Myers' wrote its the opposite of the truth. ?

So there are no bad lads in Africa. It's a haven of peace and tranquility with no famine and no disease.

cactus flower wrote:

Who is Ian O'Doherty?

Someone you don't want to read if you can't handle Kevin Myers.

I assure you Lestat, I've met the man and I have no wish to handle him in any way at all.

Mr. Myers doesn't want the Irish Famine waived at him (delicate sensibilities?).

Quote :

The Irish population was officially 8.1 million in 1845. Some 1.5 million human beings died of starvation and disease in Ireland in four years, while more than one million attempted to emigrate; of these, about 500,000 died--usually of typhus--in passage or in quarantine camps in Canada and New England. The Montreal Board of Health stated of those in the camps in 1847, ``It may well be supposed that few of the survivors could reach any other than an early grave." In that period, among the Irish emigrant population of Massachusetts, average life expectancy was estimated by Lemuel Shattuck at 13.4 years, with 60 percent dying by the age of 5: a level characteristic of Stone Age human societies.

When it was "over," the British officials directly in charge of "Irish famine relief," particularly acting Treasury Minister Sir Charles Trevelyan, congratulated themselves and were decorated as Queen Victoria made her gala 1848 visit to Ireland. As 1847 ended, Trevelyan wrote: ``It is my opinion that too much has been done for the people. Under such treatment the people have grown worse instead of better, and we must now try what independent exertion, and the operation of natural causes, can do.... I shall rest after two years of such continuous hard work in public service, as I have never had in my life."

Then, having vacationed in France, he added: "[The] problem of Irish overpopulation being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure had been supplied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence."

The British historian Charles Kingsley, who accompanied the Queen on her gracious and glorious visit, wrote:


"I am daunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that 100 miles of horrible country. I don't believe they are our fault. I believe that there are not only many more of them than of old, but that they are happier, better and more comfortably fed and lodged under our rule than they ever were. But to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much."
However, Lord Clarendon, the British viceroy in Ireland during the famine, saw the situation more clearly. He wrote to Prime Minister Lord John Russell: "I don't think there is another legislature in Europe [other than the British] that would coldly persist in this policy of extermination."

Auditor #9 wrote:

Lestat wrote:

Do you suppose he meant that article to be taken literally? Hyperbole is a valid literary technique.

You said it - this is the substance of this thread - that he is using a valid literary device which is an expression of exasperation - in this case the frustrated wave of the arm across a continent and a massive generalisation that they are all the same - a generalisation that any of us can make out of anger or at least exasperation when our charity efforts in the case of Africa just seem to be ineffective.

I really don't think there is any malicious design in the article.

Really????

'An entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents'? That's not malicious??? Or is that just funny to you? Jeezus Audi, what would he have to do to convince you - murder some African people in cold blood? Your standard is pretty low. If we spoke about each other in such terms on this forum you'd lock the thread and tell us to go private with it. But because it's the 'respected' Myers in the 'respected' Independent different rules should apply??? Why? Why is it clever/funny in that instance? You don't seem to have any empathy for what it must be like to be an African person reading something like this and then, worse again, having to read this sort of apology for it. On what authority do you get to decide for them that it is ok to speak about them like this? You'd hate to be spoken of in these terms and would strongly object to the ignorance and provocation of it, I'm pretty sure. The only thing this stupid article has accomplished is to draw out and encourage the latent racism of Irish people - as this thread has made very clear in some cases. Myers is just obediently doing his bit to encourage people to support the cut in the aid budget recently announced. That's all. And all the lemmings are running over the cliff after him.

Aragon wrote:

'An entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents'? That's not malicious??? Or is that just funny to you? Jeezus Audi, what would he have to do to convince you - murder some African people in cold blood? Your standard is pretty low. If we spoke about each other in such terms on this forum you'd lock the thread and tell us to go private with it.

Fair point - I'd tried to picture the implications of that scenario before I wrote it - i.e. someone coming here and calling us a bunch of whatever but I didn't take the implication to its conclusion. This place is not the independent and yes we try to be more responsible here than Myers has been in his article (which I've characterised as dangerous already).

We are talking about a media issue though which is why I think it's important to see it in certain terms; has the African debate gone stale and has the man tried to wake it up is still my question. Is he using a valid device/should he be allowed to use it are the questions I'd ask and I'd also ask if he's a racist or if he has propounded racist ideas in the past. You are unwilling to back up your claim that he is racist - I know I'm not racist so I'm interpreting his article with my personal non-racist frame of reference. Surely you appreciate that.

Quote :

But because it's the 'respected' Myers in the 'respected' Independent different rules should apply??? Why? Why is it clever/funny in that instance?

Valid point. We can tend to see the printed news as Gospel and in this there is a danger that it is taken as Gospel and this is partly due to some 'celebrity status' that remove these characters from us. Funnily enough I think Myers might be shooting his own foot as a celebrity via his own pedestrian style in this article. Does he cultivate a bit of iconoclasm or is the man just taking a risk and speaking his mind on this?

I don't think it's clever at all either - it's a Jerry Springer style ejaculation which he is taking a risk with but again I come back to the question of whether it can be a valid device or not to awaken a dormant debate... Can you address that one?

Quote :

You don't seem to have any empathy for what it must be like to be an African person reading something like this and then, worse again, having to read this sort of apology for it. On what authority do you get to decide for them that it is ok to speak about them like this? You'd hate to be spoken of in these terms and would strongly object to the ignorance and provocation of it, I'm pretty sure.

You're right. Given the social class I'm from, yes, I would and have been utterly indignant whenever I find I'm spoken about in prejudicial terms, then on that level I can feel the repulsion you're probably feeling yourself, if that is indeed the thrust of the article. It may well be. However, I involuntarily interpret it more in terms of how the German ambassador attacked the irish at one stage recently - more of a cultural criticism which I feel might be useful. Not long-established culture either but the momentary cultures which have sprung up in our societies lately and are based on materialism. Isn't it possible that powerful Africans are abusing power, money and people the way people here also are? And if they are then aren't we complicit in it if indeed our donations are going to the wrong ends?

Quote :

The only thing this stupid article has accomplished is to draw out and encourage the latent racism of Irish people - as this thread has made very clear in some cases. Myers is just obediently doing his bit to encourage people to support the cut in the aid budget recently announced. That's all. And all the lemmings are running over the cliff after him.

I've given my view of his article from a limited perspective of having read little of him or to be frank, from a limited knowledge of what Africa is truly like, where the donated money goes, who or what might be responsible for the tragedies we see there and what the solutions might be.

Recently I attended a fund-raising gig organised by two young people who had been travelling not in Africa but another beleagured continent and their method was to raise that money directly and help the children directly with the raised money. People trust them that they will do this faithfully as they are part of the community and appear to be quite genuine in their intentions. There was the general belief going around that registered charities are obliged to only give 5% of what their donations are. Is this true does anyone know? (there was no talk of the Myers article either by the way)

Why can't projects be more above board like the one above where you know the donation goes directly to the cause? I'd like to know that most of my money goes directly to that person in the receiving community and that that person or group generally decide on what is needed in their community and I get a receipt for my donation as well as evidence that it was used for purposes that will have an impact on their society.

There is the fear that your donation will be pocketed and worse, that it will be used Lord of War style to purchase bullets of repression for local people.

Auditor wrote

Quote :

There was the general belief going around that registered charities are obliged to only give 5% of what their donations are. Is this true does anyone know? (there was no talk of the Myers article either by the way)

This isn't true in most cases -certainly not in the case of Concern and trocaire and other organisations which publish their annual accounts. You'll see that the vast majority of the money goes directly to those in need.

When I was teaching I ran Concern debates for years and still adjudicate them. There is one topic that regularly rears its head which is that 'Overseas Aid does more Harm than Good' and it's always a great debate - in other words, there are two valid sides to it. Something that some posters on this thread are unwilling to engage with as they persist in shooting the messenger.

A few thoughts on this from Africa. The song of the summer:



Three out of the top ten countries for economic growth are African.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate

There are ten with growth rates of over 10%. The top ten largest have GDPs between 55 and 500 billion

http://www.clickafrique.com/Magazine/ST014/CP0000000251.aspx

Charity is a nominal sticking plaster that distracts from the real issues. Africa needs to be let develop its solutions and develop itself without being given stupid instructions by the World Bank and IMF, and without being ripped off by Western companies. How much of rising commodity prices are being kept in Africa and how much is being pocketed by the corporations and their local friendly henchmen? Should highly polluting countries that have caused global warming have to compensate countries that have lost agricutural land? What is being decided today on the Doha round of trade agreements that will give fairer or less fair conditions for developing countries?

Islamic style contract banking might be the thing to help develop the economies. If I had any money I'd be investing it in Africa. The Chinese are building factories there. We may see the jobs go from Donegal to Chad yet - in fact, didn't some textile plants move to Morocco?

Myers goes way beyond a debate on whether charity works or not - he denigrates the whole continent as a bunch of over-sexed beggars who should be let die. imho if we let Myers set the level of debate on Africa we will need to go back in time to the 19th century.

cactus flower wrote:

Myers goes way beyond a debate on whether charity works or not - he denigrates the whole continent as a bunch of over-sexed beggars who should be let die..

On the other side of the coin doesn't the charity industry denigrate the whole continent as a bunch of plain beggars.

Myers is very pally in his piece with the Charity honchos. He's not against charity in principle, just tired/bored with it. Charities constantly purvey negative images of Africa. I was providing pictures to the BBC once of an impending famine area and was told the children in the photos weren't thin enough to use.
Is it easier to deal with dehumanised images perhaps?

imo taking off people with one hand and then giving back handouts with the other is a bad game. I'm not against emergency aid for unforeseen disasters, that's something different altogether to tying economies up the way the IMF, the World Bank, the corporations and the NGOs do.

These are still very young states that are illogical territories with imposed boundaries and that have been messed around with a lot. They must need time to sort themselves out.