He suggests watching the video with the sound turned off:
"Did ya notice anything disconcerting? Like the juxtaposition of Sachs (and all the white people) sitting in very nice, even posh settings, but black people are filmed from a car in poverty settings. Does that mean we can take time and get face-to-face with whites, but best to stay in the car and drive by black people quickly?
And how can they speak of disconnected & impoverished while panning across Nairobi's skyline? Or focus on a flashing red light when showing the city? Are they saying we should stop urban growth? Maybe have more kids play with elephants?
Speaking of animals, what's up with the cameos of wild animals? Are they counted in global poverty numbers? Or does the cameraman feel that all of Africa is zebras and giraffes?"
C'mon readers, say it with us now: Africa, Land of....
(Hat Tip: Aid Watch)
Posts
6 comments:
Wow, they've got fish too! Nobody ever told me Africa had fish... fancy that!
I did watch it with the sound off first. The image editing was truly disturbing. I first thought it was a National geographic documentary what with all those giraffes and zebras. Or is Sach the Giraffe among the zebras? And what's with the fish?
Once you listen to him, he is OK. Although it's been more than 4 years since Africans have gotten hold of mobile phones.
You got to admit Jeffrey Sacchs never quit! So if technological availability is such a big factor in development i.e opportunities- how does he explain 25%+ youth unemployment in places where phones, iphones and ipads are just at the tip of our fingers?
The MDG are nowhere near target.
Following the footage, I think another one of his indicators for elimination of extreme poverty by 2025, given that he seriously thinks MDG2 will be achieved, should be 100% of all photogenic school children have a regular pair of well-fitting shoes with no holes in.
And as for universal access to electricity: HA! Come to Bangladesh Geoff and sweat it out with the rest of us.
That link has gone dead now, as Wayan Vota has withdrawn his post, 'finding his words too harsh and annoyance misplaced.' Before he withdrew it, he had updated it stating that it was probably unfair to blame Sachs for what were mainly camera work and video editing flaws. I don't agree generally with Sachs, although here his words seem pretty benign. There were significant flaws (wild animals, the presentation of a white male saviour, general 'Africans' without pasts or personalities filmed through car windows) that I think justified the post and it's contribution to the conversation.
Why people do this? Because of curiosity? Or evil living in their lives.
Post a Comment