@OmolewaAbraham I find it disingenuous too. They both have “unfalsifiable axioms”, okay? But both fields sure don’t treat or approach that the same way.
I have been thinking about how best to express this same thing for a while and it comforting to see someone else do justice to it. Everything to the last period is the correct diagnosis of this issue.
@falowo_ebun, remember our last episode about this.
Well, this is exactly why I don’t rate many of these people who carry philanthropy on their head like a moral crown.
You have zero interest in Nigerian politics? Very convenient.
If bad politics had not destroyed our education system, how many of these children would be depending on your philanthropy in the first place? If governance was working, how many “saviours” would still have this much relevance?
You say you care about the development of the south east, but you have no interest in the same politics that controls education, roads, jobs, security, infrastructure, business growth, and public policy in the south east.
So what exactly do you want to develop? The symptoms, while avoiding the disease?
This is the same model Nigerian pastors use. Keep people suffering, then appear with charity, prayers, scholarships, food packs, and motivational speeches. The broken system gives them relevance, so they never truly fight the system that keeps producing the victims they claim to help.
There is no difference between this type of philanthropy and Oga chess lord’s style of saviour complex. Bad governance creates the suffering, then some people build their brand from “helping” the victims of that same bad governance.
You cannot claim to love society while staying neutral about the politics destroying it.
You cannot claim to care about education while pretending politics has nothing to do with why education is dead.
You cannot claim to want the south east developed while refusing to confront the political failure that has kept it underdeveloped.
Neutrality in a collapsing country is not wisdom. It is self-preservation. And sometimes, it is business strategy.
Oga, you do not want the south east to develop. You want the south east to remain broken enough for your philanthropy to keep looking important.
@Jaydon225 It changes the meaning nah. I’m not singling it out, like a scapegoat so to speak. It’s little, maybe, but it does speak to a different thing, compared to this one, which can then be (and been partly) addressed separately.
@Jaydon225 The beneficiary was class, not gender. My position is that the dominant gender of the class (if we are to pay attention to that) doesn’t make it the subject or designer of the institution as purported.
@Jaydon225 Even within patriarchal systems, the agrarian property-rights story you cited was specifically about propertied men. A landless man paying bride price and taking on household obligations wasn’t extracting patriarchal dividends, he was entering a subsistence arrangement.
@Jaydon225 “Antiquated transactional institution DESIGNED to benefit, mostly, men” — this does assume intent tbh. Maybe a better phrasing would have been better.
Again, I believe that phrasing too simplistic, given our complex history. It ignores all the other nuances.