Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Daniel Hoang

Ms. Chawkat
Independent Research GT
3 February 2015
(Daniel Hoang interviewing Mr. Garner)
So, what is your definition of poverty?
Um, thats a tough question in terms of defining poverty. I guess poverty, by the worldly
definition is usually related to income but Id say poverty is not having consistently enough
income to meet your basic needs. So like, housing, clothing, food, water for yourself and your
family, if you have a family. And then [there is] sanitation. You could have toilets so you dont
have waste going to places and that you can clean yourself so you dont end up with diseases or
other things because things arent clean enough. So having enough money to cover at least those.
But [also,] I think that poverty varies by country because [different] countries kind of have
different standards of living. The American standard of poverty tends to be different from other
countries that are less developed than we are.
Although I think the higher standard of living is better to go for because we want to bring people
kind of above the industrialized countries higher standards, like Americas standard or Europes
standard for poverty.
So basically poverty is not having enough money to meet your bare essentials?
Yea, or just at that you are worried from day to day about being able to meet those things and
you can survive. Not just that there is enough food to survive but like enough food that you can
sustain yourself, be healthy, and consistently be able to do everyday tasks. So you shouldnt be
undernourished because you can have enough food to be undernourished and that could be your
bare essentials but you should have enough food to be healthy, and then all of those other things.
I think there are other standards for poverty like having a cell phone to communicate with other
people and be connected in society is an extra expense, but in this society it is a very necessary
expense to be able to be integrated, be able to get jobs, and communicate, and be part of the
social structure of society. So if you want to stretch the definition [of poverty], you could add

those things as well because the goal of eradicating poverty would be the goal of making sure
people were integrated into the normal functions of society
From your experiences traveling the world, would you say that you have encountered
poverty? (Or what instances of poverty have you encountered poverty from your
experiences traveling the world?)
Yea, I mean there is [even] poverty in the U.S. In situations of poverty, like I have had students
that were homeless, or had parents that barely got by paycheck to paycheck, whose parents had
to get federal aid in order to be able to get enough food for the family, so meaning they get free
breakfast and free lunch at school, because they cant afford to pay for that on their own, so
meaning they are in poverty.
So not even out of the United States?
Not even out of the United States [there is poverty]. And like I said, there are different definitions
of poverty depending on the country and culture you're in. In less developed countries, I have
seen even more extreme levels of that poverty like living in a hut where there is no bathroom, but
maybe a hole outside the village and you are undernourished and you dont have food, and there
is no sanitation; theres no way to have clean running water to drink, theres no way to shower
and clean yourself regularly. Theres not education that is consistently coming. So I have seen the
even farther end of poverty, to just, you know, just people living out on the street, trying to get
enough money just to get from one day to the next, some days they dont eat, some days they do.
So yea, I have seen that in all levels.
What do you think is most responsible for the underdeveloped and conflicted nations that
we have today?
Whats most responsible?
Yea
To an extent, poverty has always existed since society had begun there has always been different
classes of people and there has people who have not been part of society. Obviously it's always
been around because theres always been a scarcity of resources, so theres distribution of
resources based on who is in power. I think that persists throughout history, just whos in power
decides who gets resources. Modern poverty to an extent has a lot to do with imperialism from
the 1800s to the 1900s and racism I think. If you look at who is impoverished, on a larger scale
in the world, people with darker skin, who are not European. Whether they are in Africa, India,

Southeast Asia, or in developed countries it's more likely to be minorities [to be impoverished],
because for the last 300 or so years they have been oppressed to get the resources that they had to
give to people that were in power, and the people in power have typically been white Europeans
or people of white european descent. That doesnt mean that there arent white people in poverty
in America, but like I said, that has to do with who is in power and who doesnt get certain
resources, or if there is a scarcity of resources in the area. But I think that where you see poverty
in modern times, is shaped largely by the last 300 years of history. But then again, poverty has
always been around.
So poverty is inevitable?
It doesnt have to be inevitable necessarily. Theres always going to be inequality but there is a
difference between there being inequality and there being high levels of poverty. I think well
always have issues with the distribution of resources, and some areas are not going to have
access to resources because the geography of that place, means that resources are scarce, so it
could ebb and flow based on the environment. But we have abilities in the world now to move
resources to different places if we need to. But to an extent there is always going to be some
poverty. If people chose to use their power more wisely instead of selfishly, I would say that it
would become less of an issue.
Alright, so this next question kind of ties into that last question; In your World History AP
class you have taught us a lot about how various regions and empires have been prosperous
at different times. How does that lend itself to the underdevelopment of certain regions
today?
We just talked about southernization in class and how at one point, South Asia was the richest
part of the world for, say, a thousand years. They were wealthier and giving wealth to other parts
of the world, and then that shifts to another part of the world, and then it shifts again to another
part of the world. Its gradual and it takes several hundred years to happen. But depending on
how different regions use the resources they have, use the different technologies they have, or
develop new technologies, at any one time, can determine if that region is more wealthy or less
wealthy. And obviously for one period of time it is a different part of the world than what it is
today. And so, today you have, like i said, imperialism from the 17, 18, 19 hundreds got
significantly where we are in terms of poverty today, who has been oppressed, who hasnt been
oppressed. And obviously that has not always been the case, because for almost a thousand years

before that Europe was terribly impoverished and America [referring to the great ancient
civilizations of the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs], were not as populated and probably not as
impoverished because you had much smaller groups competing for much more resources so you
didnt have the same problems that exist today. So just in terms of how populations have shifted
and to whom the shift of power has gone to, causes what types of poverty we see and where.
Do you think that population is a factor for poverty?
Yea, definity. You cant have more people in one area than the resources you have in that one
area. If the population ends up growing too big youre going to end up having more poverty
unless you can get resources from another area and use them for wherever you are. So like in
India, one of the most populated areas on the earth, China also, very populated there, the
percentage of their people in poverty there is also very high. Now they are both doing a good job
of trying to lift people out of poverty, but when you have billions of people in both countries that
are densely populated, it is much more difficult, because of the amount of resources you can get
there. And I dont mean just like food resources but like the ability to build infrastructure, to
build toilets, to deal with waste, to deal with garbage, to clean things up and keep your cities
clean. All of that stuff is much more difficult when there is a lot of people in one place and much
easier when you have less. Population density wise, America is not very dense. We have tons and
tons of space in our country. Some of it's used wisely and some of it isnt but we dont
necessarily have a population density problem. Our poverty is not a result of that, but I think it in
other countries.
Do you believe that poverty can ever be eliminated from our world?
Completely? I feel like it would be difficult to eliminate it completely because like in history. In
history we dont just eliminate [poverty] and it stays that way forever. So even if we got to a
point where we felt like at this one small period of time we eliminated or minimized poverty, that
doesnt mean that maybe some natural disaster or some change in resources, or like climate
change, on a big scale, that would change what resources we have and how we can use them.
Can we reduce it significantly and can we do a better job allocating our resources? Yes. Could
we just eliminate it forever? Probably not, unless everytime someone became impoverished we
kill them off but I dont think that would be a moral thing to do. We could do much better, if we
choose to, but we tend not to choose to because those of us who have resources, enjoy our status
in life. And Im as guilty of this as anybody. I forget that I have a lot of things that I take for

granted and complain that I want more. And so, that is very easy when you live in your own
bubble of not being impoverished. But most of us that live pretty affluently in the U.S. have
much more than we need, and we could do a better job allocating those things.
What do you believe is necessary to eliminate or alleviate poverty?
The willingness of people to care about a community that is outside of themselves [and put that
community over themselves. Its motivation.
So, in a word, empathy?
I think empathy is a big part of it. And empathy is hard because we cant be empathizing with
[every single] person in pain, every second of every day and possibly survive. But either
collectively as a society, like American society, or actively as a world society, we would have to
care more and I dont think that we do. And even those of us that care the most, probably still are
guilty of not caring all the time because it's difficult. And I dont know if its possible to care
more or for everybody to care at the level necessary. Ive read some papers where some
philosophers and economists got together and wrote if everyone just did this little step it would
make this much difference in poverty and it had several formulas, something like if everyone
who had enough money donated ten percent of their income a year, thats the minimum that I
heard, if everyone donated about ten percent of their income, and there were effective programs
to distribute that money out to people that needed it, we could significantly reduce or may even
come close to ending world poverty. Like ten percent isnt that much to give, thats the idea if
that would work.
But do you think there is any more tangible means of eliminating or alleviating poverty?
Like developing economies or providing infrastructure to alleviate poverty?
It depends on the economy. For example, China is tangibly is doing a good job with things even
though we might find the fact that they are not democratic, and that theyre very authoritarian,
[distasteful]. But their goal was to get [as much of] their population out of poverty, [and they did
so] forcibly. And, in one sense, it is on terms with limiting peoples rights, which is frustrating,
but in another sense, their government generally has the best interest of their whole population in
their mind in terms of we need to build these things, we have to have these policies and have a
long term plan structurally for our economy to give people jobs and give people money and give
them housing to work. So having a government where [the peoples best interest] is their goal is
crucial rather than having a government that is corrupt and selfish is probably problematic. So

Chinas government and their structure may be a good example of what should a government
look like and what should their goals be if the want to lift a country out of poverty, which is
actually caring about lifting people out of poverty. That would be the best answer I could give for
that one.
Alright. Thank you for taking your time to let me interview you.
Youre welcome.
Reflective paragraph:
After interviewing Mr. Garner on the topic of poverty and what can be done to minimize its
effects, I have gained insight into the extent of poverty. Poverty has many meanings in different
places and has varying levels of intensity. To aim to eliminate all of poverty forever in one fell
swoop would be impractical and most likely impossible. In reality, to eliminate poverty, one must
go through the tedious process of minimizing the effects of poverty one by one. Sadly, only so
little could be done through people's sense of charity. In China, they take advantage of their
authoritative government power to lift their citizens out of poverty. Although that is a quick and
easy solution, it is not the most ethical or sustainable solution. There does need to be regulation
from the government but sustainable development can happen through incentivized in my
opinion. Through encouraging entrepreneurship I believe that poverty can be lowered and that is
what I plan to research this year.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen