...and this is why development is confused. Why does "development" have to happen when situations are so immediately grave and pressing? Doesn't it still count when people are slowly dying, or even not getting well as quickly as they should or could be?
Baffles me.
The language of development is a sure problem. There are key words that are used to cover most issues and not really talk about the people involved. I think the real issue is the distinction between worrying about the "development issues" and the true wellbeing of the individuals. When development gurus get caught up in the language of development, the issues move from being personal but to diagnosis of infection or disease. A mind of a sergion perhaps? Remembering case studies and personal experience as valid research is important (I think) too.
GREAT work and good luck. I'll keep my mind on the subject. I think your CONCRETE solution to the arguably *by who or whoever* non-emergency should be appealing and bargaining power in itself to set up some great partnerships with Unicef.
I was hoping to make the same point... i.e. the " " s
because that language frustrates me and I disagree whoheartedly with the simplicity of boxing people into those statements.
Maybe I should clarify. I don't think "shielding" is a good thing, but rather a statement people can find themselves using. It's funny how language can really change the story we tell about others in trying to understand their experience. Learning various ways to measure "poverty" has been one of the most valuable ideas I've learned (Sen's Development as Freedom as the backbone to my opinions).
Thanks for your comments Catlin!
Your #3 point is poignant. I love it.