[alanmzifa]

Originally Posted by Rockn

This is the reason for the concerts in general...to play on peoples feelings of guilt or to make them feel guilty about living well. Just like any charity event I have ever been to, it is just a bunch of rich snobs handing out fistfulls of money to make themselves look better.

I'm not sure what you're talking about . you know the purpose of this event is not to raise money directly from donations from the public ( as in the original liveaid ) but to have OUR governments cancel debts to third world , especially african , countries ? perhaps not . take a look at the links I posted earlier in the thread .

[lighthouse]

I think the emphasis this time is public awareness and government response rather than fundraising.

[lighthouse]

Y'know, Ziggy Marley doing a soulful rendition of "The redemption song" by his late father would be so evocative. Most of the Marley discography is very much about Africa and the relationship with the Carribean, but the Redemption song is a simple ballad played on an acoustic. Lyrically it's about people trafficking during the dark days of the slave trade. Ziggy performing it like this could become as legendary as Ritchie Havens playing "Freedom" at Woodstock - maybe even more so. It'd certainly put a lot of the other stuff in some sort of perspective/proportion!

[DiSaidSo]

Originally Posted by jcroix2002

someone pointed out to me that the lineup in Britain are all white performers. that's interesting,considering they are doing this for Africa.
jcroix2002

It is 2005 and we're still worried about what color people are? WHO CARES??? It's freakin Britain for cripes sakes.

Last night while I was watching that Brad Pitt interview with Diane Sawyer, I couldn't help this sneaking feeling I had. They kept throwing all of these numbers out. The US doesn't even give 1% of their GDP (even though it dwarfs all other nations in dollar amounts). The cost of me purchasing a Coke could supply something to someone for six months. I couldn't help but think, "Huh. This coming from a newswoman who no doubt makes 7, if not 8 digits a year talking to a man who makes at least $20 million per film." I'm supposed to feel guilty? My "awareness" is supposed to be raised? I think we're all aware of poverty and its ill effects. I don't need a movie star to point it out to me.

So this concert.... I wonder how much money it's gonna take to put on? I wonder how much money it's gonna take to broadcast it to wherever?

Listen, poverty is a catalyst to some of the worst long term human disasters in the world. It causes famine, disease, wars. What really needs to happen is some sustainable development. Is cancelling their debt sustainable? Not in my opinion. Will it be like someone filing bankruptcy? Because from what I can tell, if you file bankruptcy, you have a hard time getting any loans for what... 7 years? What I'm trying to say is that if we cancel their debt, won't they just rack up more? Are we supposed to cancel it over and over again while our money flies out the proverbial window? Where does it end? I think we should take 1% of these rock stars' and movie stars' paychecks for their next project and send aid workers over there to guide these people in how to sustain their lives. Teach them to fish instead of buying them a fish, so to speak.

There will always be poverty. It's not a pretty thought, but I'm afraid it's true.

[moonmist]

I had a V-8 once.............I needed that!

[alanmzifa]

from some of the posts on this thread some people just don't understand how international debt works and how increasing interest repayments cripples the infrastructure of a country and therefore it's ability to develop . it's not their fault , but clearly a lot of education is needed or a refresher .

people need to go back to how these countries ended up being indebted . we ( the rich countries ) lent them money ( either directly or through a body such as the world bank ) , in most cases knowing much would be spent on arms or some project that the contract for would end up coming to our country ( so we get the money back + loan + the interest i.e. more than twice the loan amount + the multiplier effect of the money cascading through the levels of our economy ) . we ( our governments ) didn't mind what happened as long as a non-communist influence was exerted and we stopped africa from turning red . as one nation armed we needed to arm it's neighbour etc , etc . remember much of this was happening when white ruled africa ( affiliated to the west ) was becoming black ruled africa ( affiliated to ussr ) and libya had a certain colonel in charge . meanwhile africans starved , their leaders became hugely wealthy and the whole region de-stabilised .


this is obviously an over simplification of both the politics and the economics but i wanted to keep it light and jog people's memories .

to create the problem and then walk away from it would be the 2nd time we'd failed africa . by getting our governments to sort out the debt issue will mean africa will have less dependence on individual donations and break the vicious circle of debt .


the $ 20m a film actors are only being rolled out because the tv staions won't give me or you airtime but they will give celebrities airtime . the celebrities aren't asking ME for money , they're trying to explain what i've just tried to - that we should urge our governments to cancel debt etc. . a voice that gets airtime puts a lot of pressure on a government , gets heard by a lot of people .

hopefully this makes sense . it's late here . off to bed .

[lighthouse]

Maybe we need to examine the Floyd lyric a little closer here! "We don't need no education" could be interpretted as as we all need some education about stuff like this.

Yep - the developed countries get the money through their companies, and the banks are indirectly reimbursed because those same companies are clients of the same financial institutions. The developing world loses out because the money goes in one door and out of the other - while they have to pay the whole lot back along with billions of $,£ and Euros interest! (Have a look at my posts in the "Make poverty history" thread).

The fact that superannuated stars are involved might irk some people - they are in many ways another symptom of the same problem in that they represent the rich part of the world exactly in terms of lifestyle and spending power. But who else could discuss the problem and have a sufficient audience? In his book Geldof spoke about "Pragmatism" when he put the line up for the 1985 event together, getting the big names of the moment to play, or accepting their offer to. The Glastonbury festival is a Greenpeace, Oxfam and Water aid event, but would 110,000 people stay in a field in Somerset for 4 days to hear a bunch of speakers from these organisations talk earnestly about their particular programmes? No they wouldn't, which is why you get all those bands. Though I have to agree with you on the "Sustainable development" issue DSS - if the entire population (6 Billion) suddenly - or not so suddenly - had the same lifestyle that the developed world has had, how long would the earths resources last? Not very, and this means that at some point the west has to surrender some of its more indulgent aspects of life for the benefit of the entire planet. Otherwise the whole ecosystem will collapse as 6 Billion peoples worth of daily consumerism devours every natural resource we have.

Perhaps this is one area where the likes of Brad Pitt could begin to set some sort of example and set a precedent by politely declining the vast paycheque for something a bit more modest. Though I doubt there's much chance of that!

[lighthouse]

Well - Live 8 was ineveitably going to invoke criticism as well as support. Here's one person who's in the former - Damon Albarn

Source: Ananova.

Albarn slams Live 8 view of Africa

Singer Damon Albarn has said he will not perform at Live 8, attacking the concert series for portraying Africa as a distant "failing" place.

The Blur and Gorillaz star criticised the lack of black stars on the bill.

He also called on the performers to prove they were not in it for themselves by pressuring their record labels to give cash from increased sales to the cause.

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he would be taking part, he said: "No. I am not. I haven't even been asked.

"I don't want to take part in an event that is so exclusive. Is this the most effective way to help Africa?"

He said the lack of black artists was "the greatest oversight" and undermined the whole project.

"This country is incredibly diverse. More than ever, black culture is an integral part of society, so why is the bill so damn Anglo-Saxon?

"If you are holding a party on behalf of people, then surely you don't shut the door on them. It's insensitive and it also perpetuates this idea that Africa is separated in some way.

"In a way Live 8 does that: it doesn't make you feel closer to Africa, it treats it like it's a failing, ill, sick, tired place.

"My personal experience of Africa is that yes, I have witnessed all those things there, but it's incredibly sophisticated - the society and the structure of people's lives is as sophisticated, if not more sophisticated in some ways, than in the West."

He's made some very valid points here - but he suffers from the fact that his career is rooted in the decade where shallowness emerged as the dominant factor - the 90s. In some ways it's the celebratocracy criticising the celebratocracy! He might not be playing it but his northern equivavlent of 90s repro faux 'cor blimey' ironic britness - Robbie Williams is - though I'd rather he wasn't.

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by lighthouse

He's made some very valid points here - but he suffers from the fact that his career is rooted in the decade where shallowness emerged as the dominant factor - the 90s. In some ways it's the celebratocracy criticizing the celebratocracy! He might not be playing it but his northern equivalent of 90s repro faux 'cor blimey' ironic britness - Robbie Williams is - though I'd rather he wasn't.

Hang on... if the celebratocracy isn't fit to criticize the celebratocracy, what makes you think they are fit to criticize international fiscal policy?

Alex

[lighthouse]

Damon points out what he sees as a culture of exclusivity surrounding the event. He has a valid point and musically he has engaged in a project to bring African music to the 90s audience via his "Mali music" album. This is a very important contribution to the multi-cultural nature of the UK, but I was alluding to his part in the celebratising of our society in the 90s and how that in itself has an air of exclusivity about it. The britpop years in the UK were - on retrospect - a pretty awful time in some respects (re; Jingoism), and unfortunately he was very much a part of that.

Since then he has gone through a process of reinvention and dispensed with the mockney laddishness, opting for a much more open approach to music. Culturally some of his non-blur stuff is a lot more relevant to the issue Live 8 is addressing then a few of the others who are playing. A "Mali music" ensemble would be brilliantly enjoyable as well as allowing the music of the continent the same international audience some of the white rock and roll stars have had for years. A good way to engender self-determination with the people it's designed to help - surely?

The difference between this and Live aid one in 1985 is that the 80s event was about Geldof and Midge Ure seeing the news coverage of the famine in Ethiopia and realising that a lot of money had to made very quickly to send vast amounts of food and other supplies to the worst affected areas. It was an immediate assistance to a very immediate problem. This one is about long term sustainable economics that includes not excludes those suffering negative effects from the current financial system. An important part of that is promotion of the culture of the region which presents the people involved in a more positive light and allows that culture the audience it needs to be able to sustain itself. Geldof talks about record sales among those who are playing, but these are careers that exist within the current economic climate. You could say that the roster is full of todays stars but what about those of tommorrow? Inclusion of some African artistes and/or people who have an approach to music involving such people can only help make that happen.

Billions of people are gonna see this so by all means have U2, Madonna, McCartney etc but while that audience tune in to see their fave bands they'd also get the chance to see some stuff they might not be as familiar with - but pleasantly surprised enough buy some of their records too!

[lighthouse]

I thought putting Ziggy Marley on might be a good idea because not only was his father the most famous reggae star of all time, with the kudos and credibility to match, he was also from one of the poorest parts of the urban world - Trenchtown. It would be a very poignant gesture morally and musically!

[TROYtheBOY]

How Can Anyone Say That This Event Is Not Needed You Should All Be Ashamed Of Your Self!! It Is The 1 Time That We As A Country Have The Chance For A Mass Demonstration Towards The 8 Most Powerfull!!! Countrys So Get Off Your Arses And Get To Edinbough On The "nd Of July For The Sake Of The Children In Africa!!!!!!

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by TROYtheBOY

How Can Anyone Say That This Event Is Not Needed You Should All Be Ashamed Of Your Self!! It Is The 1 Time That We As A Country Have The Chance For A Mass Demonstration Towards The 8 Most Powerfull!!! Countrys So Get Off Your Arses And Get To Edinbough On The "nd Of July For The Sake Of The Children In Africa!!!!!!

How can I dream of competing with such a well written response?

Troy: You are insulting people for not supporting what you incorrectly identify as a demonstration against the 8 most powerful countries. These countries already provide aid and cancel some of the debts (which the poor countries presumably were capable of paying back, or I can't see how either side would have agreed to any loan). So don't start calling for demonstrations because they didn't give Africa a big enough crutch.

Alex

[DiSaidSo]

Alex...

PS Hi! Haven't seen you in a while... always good to see you around

[lighthouse]

Originally posted by Alex holker

"(which the poor countries presumably were capable of paying back, or I can't see how either side would have agreed to any loan)"

Sorry Alex but I disagree totally with you there. The financial institutions lend to people in the developed world who might very well have problems reinmbursing it! I see by you DOB that you're around 20ish and might well be still at home with your parents, be warned the world out there can be very harsh - and the financial one even more so!