NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/09/14/pupil.un.ap/index.html

Kimani Ng'ang'a waited more than eight decades for his first day of school. The Kenyan villager wants to make sure nobody else has to wait that long.

The 85-year-old Kimani, perhaps the world's oldest elementary-school pupil, toured New York Tuesday to promote a global campaign urging assistance for an estimated 100 million children denied an education because of poverty.

Kimani, a father of 15, was only able to afford schooling once Kenya's government dropped fees for primary schools. His formal education began in January 2004. He came to the United States with his principal, Jane Obinchu, who also served as his interpreter.

"I love being in school," Kimani told reporters. "I always wanted to be a veterinary doctor, because I love animals. That is my goal."

The man from a small Kenyan village is balding, with two hearing aids and a cane. He lives alone in a mud hut, and uses charcoal to start fires for cooking. On school days, he walks about half a mile (a kilometer) to the local elementary school.


This story is a wonderful story.

And it brings up two questions for discussion:

1) Is universal education something worth striving for? Is it worth giving your "hard-earned money" for? Is it enough to help others achieve things in their lives, or do you need personal incentive? Is the incentive that being surrounded by more productive people, in turn, gives you more opportunities enough incentive?

2) This guy has been impoverished all of his life. The moment he could possibly do so, he went to school and is striving towards his goal. This man walks at least a mile every school day - at age 85! One could hardly call him lazy. And yet many will tell you that the impoverished are all poor because they are lazy or on drugs. This doesn't seem to be true, now does it?

1) Hell yeah universal education is something worth striving for. It's value is tremendous to the individual and to society. Give everyone a first-rate education and not only will they be better citizens, they'll be more productive workers and will tend to invent new technologies that create wealth.

2) I'm not one of those who beleives that poverty is simply the result of laziness, so I don't feel the need to comment.

And yet many will tell you that the impoverished are all poor because they are lazy or on drugs. This doesn't seem to be true, now does it?

Lazy, or on drugs, or stupid. You forgot one. This chap is clearly the last option.

Lazy, or on drugs, or stupid. You forgot one. This chap is clearly the last option.
My, what a well thought out argument. Your genius shines through with every word.

I agree with Drunk Commies.

Shocked, aren't you?

My, what a well thought out argument. Your genius shines through with every word.

I thought so too. Thank you.

Lazy, or on drugs, or stupid. You forgot one. This chap is clearly the last option.
So which of the three are you?

Lazy, or on drugs, or stupid. You forgot one. This chap is clearly the last option.

Oh, I see. So you define, a stupid person as being one who goes to school to learn at the first possible opportunity and strives to meet a goal through that learning?

Lazy, or on drugs, or stupid. You forgot one. This chap is clearly the last option.

Either you explain why you think so, or you don't post at all. Making such statements without anything to back yourself up, such as some sort of explanation can be considered trolling.

I think universal education is worth striving for, absolutely. Unfortunately, there are times when it is economically extremely difficult to achieve this goal. Nevertheless, it should be one of the main priorities of any government.

So which of the three are you?

Hehe, good call.

I think the man in the story is just the kind of person I would love to meet and have as a friend. While realitvly uneducated, I'm sure he's a pretty smart guy, and he certainly has the kind of persistence of vision that most people simply don't have. I bet we could all learn a lot from him.

Either you explain why you think so, or you don't post at all. Making such statements without anything to back yourself up, such as some sort of explanation can be considered trolling.
Euro for mod! :rolleyes: If the forums can't take a joke anymore... this is becoming a sad, sad place.

I'm with the Downmarching Void on this one. The guy probably knows a lot about life and whatever he did to keep his family fed in his younger years. A good long discussion with this guy would be absolutely amazing. I have a deep respect for this man and his drive to fulfil his dream.

As for the questions, I have to agree with Drunk Commies. Laziness, drugs and stupidity could lead someone into a life of poverty, but so could things like birth, poor luck, or illness. There are too many factors to just push it off on one or two that focus on the negative parts of the impoverished individual.

One could hardly call him lazy. And yet many will tell you that the impoverished are all poor because they are lazy or on drugs. This doesn't seem to be true, now does it?

This is far more accurate for the first world countries than the third world countries.

This is far more accurate for the first world countries than the third world countries.

So what accidents of birth exist in third world countries that don't exist in first world countries? Are you saying it is impossible to be born into poverty in a first world country? That it is impossible to live in an area where you cannot get a proper education? That it is impossible to live in an area in which you cannot get a job that allows you to improve upon your situation?

What exactly occurs in a third world country that does not occur all over the world? What is inherently different about these countries?

So what accidents of birth exist in third world countries that don't exist in first world countries? Are you saying it is impossible to be born into poverty in a first world country? That it is impossible to live in an area where you cannot get a proper education? That it is impossible to live in an area in which you cannot get a job that allows you to improve upon your situation?

What exactly occurs in a third world country that does not occur all over the world? What is inherently different about these countries?

Are you looking for a definition of Third World, by any chance?

Look, moist developed countries have higher employment rates than third world countries. They also have better education, frequently free education, that makes gaining non-menial, better paying employment easier.

And most of your questions are, frankly, retarded. Why don't you fucking read what I wrote, okay?

1. i think that universal education is nesicary, and that it is one of the few things that should be given to people regardless of how hard they work

2. he's obviously not a poor person :p if he has food shelter and water(which everyone is capable of getting all three) then he is perfectly fine. very honourable man, he seems.

I respect that guy from what I can tell. He worked hard and ended up going to school. But that is a lot different from what goes on in 1st World Countries. Here, there is no excuse for not going to school, when it is free, none the less required. Here (America) I would say a (non-disabled) person in poverty due to not having a job doesn't have an excuse. He or She was given the oppurtunity to get a good education, and if they worked hard enough, to get college paid for. If they didn't take advantage of what the government gives them for free, then it is entirely their fault that they don't have a job. This is a performance based society. If those people don't perform as they could have, it is solely their fault. Now the guy in the 3rd World Country didn't have the oppurtunity for free education. He put in some effort and is now getting an education. For that I respect him.

Are you looking for a definition of Third World, by any chance?

No, not unless your definition answers my question. What is inherent in, say, Kenya that does not exist throughout the rest of the world?

Look, moist developed countries have higher employment rates than third world countries. They also have better education, frequently free education, that makes gaining non-menial, better paying employment easier.

You are arguing numbers here. You haven't presented anything that is inherently different. All you have succeeded in doing is showing that there are more opportunities. Thus, one would expect that there would be less poverty in a first world country than in a third world country. Congratulations, you have just proven the obvious.

You have not, however, demonstrated that the same situations which frequently cause people to be impoverished in third world countries can never and do never occur within 1st world countries - which is what you need to show for your statement to be logical.

And most of your questions are, frankly, retarded. Why don't you fucking read what I wrote, okay?

My questions are absolutely relavent. Overall better and frequently free education hardly means that everyone in a first world country has access to better and free education than someone in a third world country. A higher employment rate in a first world country hardly means that everyone has access to a well-paying job in a first world country.

In fact, you really haven't demonstrated anything at all.

I respect that guy from what I can tell. He worked hard and ended up going to school. But that is a lot different from what goes on in 1st World Countries. Here, there is no excuse for not going to school, when it is free, none the less required. Here (America) I would say a (non-disabled) person in poverty due to not having a job doesn't have an excuse. He or She was given the oppurtunity to get a good education,

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yes, because every public school in the US provides a good education. Wow, you are either very naive, or your definition of a good education is severely lacking.

and if they worked hard enough, to get college paid for.

Again, an incredibly naive statement. If you have to work three jobs just to put food in your mouth, when are you going to find time to go to college? If you went to a shitty public high school, and were forced to drop out when your father lost his job so that you could work a nine-to-five job to help support your family, how exactly are you even supposed to get into college?

If they didn't take advantage of what the government gives them for free, then it is entirely their fault that they don't have a job.

The government hands out jobs for free? This is news to me...

No, not unless your definition answers my question. What is inherent in, say, Kenya that does not exist throughout the rest of the world?



You are arguing numbers here. You haven't presented anything that is inherently different. All you have succeeded in doing is showing that there are more opportunities. Thus, one would expect that there would be less poverty in a first world country than in a third world country. Congratulations, you have just proven the obvious.

You have not, however, demonstrated that the same situations which frequently cause people to be impoverished in third world countries can never and do never occur within 1st world countries - which is what you need to show for your statement to be logical.



My questions are absolutely relavent. Overall better and frequently free education hardly means that everyone in a first world country has access to better and free education than someone in a third world country. A higher employment rate in a first world country hardly means that everyone has access to a well-paying job in a first world country.

In fact, you really haven't demonstrated anything at all.



I don't know if you missed this, but my point was that you're more likely to be intelligent, motivated and poor in a third world country than a first. A greater percentage of first world poverty is self inflicted than third world poverty is.

I don't know if you missed this, but my point was that you're more likely to be intelligent, motivated and poor in a third world country than a first.

Well that's a no shit statement if I ever saw one. You are more likely to be poor in the first place, thus you are more likely to be poor and meet the other requirements. It is like saying, "If most of the flowers in the field are white, each individual flower is more likely to be white and have three leaves on its stalk."

A greater percentage of first world poverty is self inflicted than third world poverty is.

You have provided no support for this. You could support absolute numbers - there are more poor people in third world countries so there must be more intelligent, motivated, and poor people. However, you have provided no support whatsoever that the percentages are any different.

Well that's a no shit statement if I ever saw one. You are more likely to be poor in the first place, thus you are more likely to be poor and meet the other requirements. It is like saying, "If most of the flowers in the field are white, each individual flower is more likely to be white and have three leaves on its stalk."



You have provided no support for this. You could support absolute numbers - there are more poor people in third world countries so there must be more intelligent, motivated, and poor people. However, you have provided no support whatsoever that the percentages are any different.

How about you prove me wrong, since you're a part of the "numbers R gr8" crowd.

How about you prove me wrong, since you're a part of the "numbers R gr8" crowd.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You may or may not be wrong. I am asking for you to support your statement, or admit that you have no backing for it - one or the other.

1. Universal education is important, though not everyone needs to receive basic education for twelve years. Not everyone needs that to fill their niche in the economy. School should probably only be compulsory until sixteen.

2. There will always be poor people. Life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Bad things happen and there is nothing you can do about it.

Maybe a person is poor because they are lazy. Certainly you aren’t saying that nobody is poor because they are lazy. Maybe they are poor because they were born into an impovershed family. That is their lot in life. What entitles them to free money? Is it just because they have less material wealth than me? I was born uncommonly ugly, does that mean I am entitled to more social attention just because I am less good looking than most? I certainly don’t think so.

2. There will always be poor people. Life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Bad things happen and there is nothing you can do about it.

Did I say anything at all to dispute this?

Maybe a person is poor because they are lazy. Certainly you aren’t saying that nobody is poor because they are lazy. Maybe they are poor because they were born into an impovershed family. That is their lot in life. What entitles them to free money?

Who said anything at all about free money? All I did was point out the fallacy stated by those who say that all poor people are poor because they are lazy or addicted to something.