Are we scared of the Third World?

Post Reply New Topic

This is something I am beginning to wonder about are we as individuals in the Western world afraid of discussing life in impoverished poor countries?

I am beginning to wonder about this since as of late I have taken to reading a book about the Congo, which talks about the country from colonization all the way to the present day. However when people ask me what I am reading and I show them the book, They pull a face which says that is a grim topic and don't talk much about it, as was the case with my history teacher and multiple people. On the other hand if I am reading about say, US politics, their is a lot of interest, we mostly always exclusively discuss the Western World at the expense of elsewhere. I get that wars and atrocities are not going to be someone's cup of tea, but why is conversation on some of these countries, Chad, South Africa and the Central African Republic almost non-existent. It seems odd. And then those same people like my Sociology teacher discuss other grim topics like Domestic Violence openly in class. It strikes me as being very strange, if people are not afraid of talking about grim topics why don't they speak about the Third world more?

Many people I see are okay with talking about very serious issues yet not what goes on in the Congo?

Everything seems to be about Trump, Kellyanne and Spicer. I get sick of it can we just stop?
Its like following politics is similar to gossip its all about tweets and what this person has just said. I feel we don't always look at things of importance.

Perhaps because America is a superpower, and it'll make more impact on the world than the Congo?

Another thing is that sometimes when people see how ugly poverty is, they'd rather ignore it than confront it. Almost as if they hope it'll cease to exist if they put it out of mind.

The "Third World" actually fascinates me. I've read about both Congos, and even go on YouTube to hear people talking about life there.

I think it ultimately comes down to how relevant the topic is to the individual. A Westerner is more likely to be interested in something like domestic violence because they feel the issue is more relevant to them than the state of the Third Word.

Also, people would probably rather believe such distant topics are "too grim" for them, as this makes them feel less guilty and selfish about not being interested.

I think it's unfair to condemn anyone for this mindset, I mean is it really surprising to see people caring more about themselves and those closer to them than people they feel less connected to?

That IS puzzling to me that even history teachers cringe at the sight of your book about the Congo.

For what its worth: I encourage you to keep reading it!

That was what was great about Al Jazeera (when it used to be available on cable, and even on broadcast-in either of its two English language versions). It treated the Third World as if it were part of the same planet we live on and gave a lot of coverage to subsaharan Africa, and Latin America.

Folks have limited attention spans, and certain parts of the world come into "vogue" as subjects.

The Islamic Middle East is part of the third world, but it IS in vogue as a subject of both fiction and nonfiction.
Long before 9-11 Sahlman Rushdie writes a book related to the subject of the Prophet Mohammed, and it instantly becomes both a best sellar, and the target of a Fatwa.

The problem with the Congo is that we are NOT "afraid" of the place. Folks might be suffering there but they dont send out terrorists to attack us like they do in the Muslim Arab middle east/north africa. So who cares about 'em?

Arabs might be brown skinned wogs, but we are all afraid of them. So we all watch "Homeland" on cable and are willing to read scholarly books about the Arab world when we wouldnt touch a similar book about the nonmuslim subsaharan Black part of Africa.Thats my guess. The lack of seeming relevence, and lack of proximity (closeness to home) that Black Africa seems to have for Americans.

America doesn't always have a massive impact on the World. When is looking at Kellyanne's statements or Coulter's rants going to be useful in the long term. The answer is simple it is not.

It happens but its sort of rare and the videos that do don't receive much views. You remember the Second Congo War, the worst war since WW2 passed completely beneath the Western World's radar all because it was in Africa.

What is the smaller Congo like?


People do have a social conscience, just look at the outcry following the Muslim ban or Black Lives Matter protests. But when we look at the Third World that conscience disappears and people don't confront it as often.

And the issues in the Third World are just as pressing as say anything like BLM is, if anything more.

Coltan mining in the Congo is a crisis which has led to foul child labor, extenuated armed conflict and has in part been caused by us. Why don't we discuss it more?

On the other hand we rarely hear anyone discuss the third world to try think of ways we can help solve the problems there. I think it would be better if we did.

But people also have a social conscience about issues that don't directly relate to them. If so why do they not care so much about the Congo?

In my experience at least, many people have a habit of thinking mostly about the present and near-future, instead of the long-term impacts.

The "second Congo"---known as the Republic of the Congo, is slightly mellower than what used to be known as Zaire (The Democratic Republic of the Congo). Sometimes, the "second Congo" is referred to as "Congo-Brazzaville."

I remember when it became Zaire around 1973 or so; and I remember when it became the DRC again. I listened to Muhammad Ali knock out George Foreman in Kinshasa in 1974.

There's lots more notorious history in the DRC, which used to be called the Belgian Congo. Look up King Leopold. The Republic of the Congo was a French colony. It is sometimes, nowadays, referred to as "Congo-Kinshasa."

Brazzaville is the capital of the Republic of the Congo, and is right across the river from Kinshasa, the capital of the DRC. They've had civil wars, etc...just not on the scale as the DRC.

For tourism, people tend to go to Pointe-Noire, which is a beach resort. There's some nice things in Brazzaville; but, in general, the tourism infrastructure is pretty poor.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 17 Apr 2017, 8:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

To summerize it:

There were two European colonies named "Congo" (both named after the river).

The bigger one, that most folks meant when they said the word "the Congo" was the Belgian colony (aka "the Belgian Congo"). The smaller "French Congo" was a subdivision of the larger territory called "French Equatorial Africa". Both Congos are next to each other, and across from the Congo river from each other.

In the post war era when the European powers began allow their African colonies independence, both Congos became independent republics. And confusingly both were called "the Republic of the Congo".

The smaller former French colony had as its capital the city of Brazzaville, and the bigger former Belgian colony had has its capital the city of Leopoldsville (named after the Belgian king Leopold who carved out the congo as a Belgian colony). So to alleviate the confusion the smaller Congo became known as "The Congo Brazzaville", and the bigger one as "The Congo Leopoldsville".

Later the big Congo changed the names of all European named cities to African names, and the capital of Leopoldsville became "Kinshasa". So naturally the Country became "the Congo Kinshasa".

Then still later the big Congo changed its name to "Zaire" ( each native tribe had its own name for its section of the Congo river, some tribe called in "Zaire". So its probably as legit a name as "Congo"). So for a while the main big Congo was called "Zaire", and only the smaller and lesser known Congo was called "Congo". So at least it was no longer confusing. Except it was confusing because it was the bigger Congo that was better known by that name,so it was confusing that only the lesser known Congo was now called "The Congo".

But then after some years "Zaire" was reversed in name back to "the Congo". So the big former Belgian Congo is once again "the Congo Kinshasa", and the smaller former French Congo is again called "the Congo Brazzaville" to distinquish it from the other bigger Congo.

What about the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota?
Native Americans ... Oglala Lakota Sioux.

"Life expectancy on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the lowest anywhere in the western hemisphere, except for Haiti. A recent study found the life expectancy for men to be 48 years, and for women it is 52 years."

https://www.redcloudschool.org/reservation

And here's a photo of the reservation.



...

I know quite a bit about Zaire and the DRC however not very much about the other Congo.

Do you know much about the history of Congo Brazzaville. It would be interesting if you did, it is probably the most ignored country on the planet.

Congo-Brazzaville is less densely forested than Congo-Kinshasa (except towards the south of Congo-Kinshasa, where plains start to replace the forest).

The main language for both places is Lingala. The European language is French in both places.

Shouldn't the state government of South Dakota be providing for them?

What is life like their?