Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Remainder of first world thoughts

(My thoughts in normal type)

Executives from rich countries who communicate with their counterparts in poor countries show that there is no significant intellectual difference.

Actually there often is, people in developing countries who are educated are often the recipients of a superior education due to a culture of embracing education and the fact they had to hustle to get it. This should be reflected in a better result for them but it isn’t. That’s because most people will flash to a safer environment – the well educated can earn a packet in Jamaica, indeed they can be more well off there than in ‘foreign’ but you can’t be well off when you are dead can you? More educated Jamaicans would stay if there was less crime. And that’s up to us.

Race or skin color are also not important: immigrants labeled lazy in their countries of origin are the productive power in rich European countries.


What is the difference then?

The difference is the attitude of the people, framed along the years by the education & the culture.

No, the difference is that the developed world benefited from the fruits of free labour while the underdeveloped world has had to manage with having given away that labour and its fruits. Also, our attitude must involve an acknowledgement of the past but an understanding of what behaviour will work to prosper us. And that means while we ac knowledge the past atrocities, we employ attitudes and actions that prosper us. Too many acknowledge and re-live the past whilst indulging in self destructive practices which they blame on past oppression and don’t indulge in progressive practices in the here and now. Why pay continuous homage to a brutal past only? We must, like the Jews, be knowledgeable about the past and pass this knowledge onto our kids, but along with this they must be taught how we responded in order to produce a better future for them and we can only do this if we do create a better future. Give you an example – Mugabe took the farms back because the land had been stolen but he didn’t prepare his people to manage them so they could benefit from the wealth. His bitterness has led to his people’s destruction. He should have taken back the stolen land in a more systematic and feasible way – and with a time frame for training his people to manage things.

No comments: