"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." In Marc Gustafson's article, Rethinking Darfur, he certainly reminds us of that adage. Gustafson goes into detail of how the Darfur activists have mischaracterized the conflict, mainly in the fact that activists, most of whom I presume lean to the Left, made it seem as if the rebels were downtrodden altruists. It turns out that both sides are guilty of atrocities. Furthermore, more people have died from malnutrition issues rather than the violence itself. The fact that there was a peace agreement on the table before the activists tried to shift funding priorities from humanitarian aid to "peacemaking forces" put off any hope of ceasefire back in 2006.
As Gustafson points out, what should have been an "open and shut" incident has been prolonged by misinformation by activists who were solely motivated by "good intentions," rather than basing their good intentions of sound fact-finding. Their ignorance of how to handle international affairs caused much more suffering to occur. But I'm sure that the activists will still sleep soundly because they're idiotic enough to think that their good intentions mitigate any actual prolongment of civil war for which they are responsible. And to think I was actually duped into donating tzedakah money to the Save Darfur Coalition! That sure will make me think twice before I give tzedakah in the future.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about "good intentions." But, don't limit that idea to one side of the political spectrum since there many historical example of "good intentions" being used by both sides. The worst part is that there people on both sides who use these "good intentions" as excuses to promote their agenda and themselves.
Valuable point about good intentions used as a denial device. It may explain why liberals continue in the face of all the obvious pain they cause. By the way, have you seen the "Robin Hood Oath?"
ReplyDeletehttp://constitutionparti.blogspot.com/