4 ms·

The people don't deserve it, however. And the article isn't about the leader deserving anything, it is about the culture deserving what it gets, and using the

The people don't deserve it, however. And the article isn't about the leader deserving anything, it is about the culture deserving what it gets, and using the leader as an excuse to talk about it. And maybe it is a good excuse to talk about dangerous behavior and the consequences thereof, but talking about people "deserving" an epidemic like AIDS is pretty insensitive and counter productive. Whatever good message you had (behavior needs to change) is going to be drowned out by that stupid generalization (no, a third wife who got AIDS from her philandering husband did not deserve it, and vice versa).

mseebach 17y ago
There's a personal "deserves" and a systemic "deserves". I think the purpose of the article was indeed to provoke and to get the point across that HIV in these areas aren't just about getting condoms and information in the hands of people, it's systemic. Combine that with white guilt (white Christian Europeans don't really get to tell Africans how to lead their lives), that's a recipe for, if not disaster, then really inefficient programs.
rbanffy 17y ago
If culture doesn't change, the population will be pushed into extinction. Or will evolve to become immune to HIV. It has less to do with promiscuity than with unprotected sex. If the promiscuous population engages only in safe sex, then it's very unlikely HIV and other STDs will spread. No individuals deserve blame for collective actions, but the collectivity may deserve what comes from collective behaviour.
musiciangames 17y ago
The author's use of the word 'deserve' is perhaps unfortunate, if taken to mean the people rather than the leaders. In her book, she is certainly scathing about the leadership of southern African countries, and particularly South Africa itself. "You don't need to dream up complex economic formulae to explain why HIV prevention in Africa is failing. Look at the leadership. HIV would fall if fewer people had several sex partners at once, and if there were less intergenerational sex. But in Swaziland, which tops the world charts in terms of HIV prevalence, the thirty-eight-year-old king marries his thirteenth bride in 2007, after she became pregnant. His new wife is younger than his eldest daughter. Look at the leadership on condoms. Men certainly won't use them to prevent AIDS if they think they don't work, or believe condoms cause AIDS. South Africa's leader* conceded that condoms stop HIV, but since he hasn't conceded that HIV causes AIDS, condoms are worthless against AIDS. Kenya's religious leaders have burned condoms in public. In Mozambique and Zimbabwe, opinion leaders have spoken on the radio about how white people were pushing condoms laced with AIDS to wipe out Africans. When bishops, presidents and the media poke holes in condoms, they become ineffective". In contrast, she heaps praise on the leadership of countries like Uganda and Senegal, who acknowledged their cultural traits and encouraged open discussion and practical advice on risk reduction, successfully tackling the health problem. *(Thabo Mbeki)

mseebach 17y ago

There's a personal "deserves" and a systemic "deserves". I think the purpose of the article was indeed to provoke and to get the point across that HIV in these areas aren't just about getting condoms and information in the hands of people, it's systemic. Combine that with white guilt (white Christian Europeans don't really get to tell Africans how to lead their lives), that's a recipe for, if not disaster, then really inefficient programs.

rbanffy 17y ago

If culture doesn't change, the population will be pushed into extinction. Or will evolve to become immune to HIV. It has less to do with promiscuity than with unprotected sex. If the promiscuous population engages only in safe sex, then it's very unlikely HIV and other STDs will spread. No individuals deserve blame for collective actions, but the collectivity may deserve what comes from collective behaviour.

musiciangames 17y ago

The author's use of the word 'deserve' is perhaps unfortunate, if taken to mean the people rather than the leaders. In her book, she is certainly scathing about the leadership of southern African countries, and particularly South Africa itself. "You don't need to dream up complex economic formulae to explain why HIV prevention in Africa is failing. Look at the leadership. HIV would fall if fewer people had several sex partners at once, and if there were less intergenerational sex. But in Swaziland, which tops the world charts in terms of HIV prevalence, the thirty-eight-year-old king marries his thirteenth bride in 2007, after she became pregnant. His new wife is younger than his eldest daughter. Look at the leadership on condoms. Men certainly won't use them to prevent AIDS if they think they don't work, or believe condoms cause AIDS. South Africa's leader* conceded that condoms stop HIV, but since he hasn't conceded that HIV causes AIDS, condoms are worthless against AIDS. Kenya's religious leaders have burned condoms in public. In Mozambique and Zimbabwe, opinion leaders have spoken on the radio about how white people were pushing condoms laced with AIDS to wipe out Africans. When bishops, presidents and the media poke holes in condoms, they become ineffective". In contrast, she heaps praise on the leadership of countries like Uganda and Senegal, who acknowledged their cultural traits and encouraged open discussion and practical advice on risk reduction, successfully tackling the health problem. *(Thabo Mbeki)