It was hard for me mostly because of the manipulation that I saw take place. Grown men took all the money I had on me at the time, and knowing they took all of my money told the boy (this I learned much later) that if he took me through the pyramids (which was really the grown men's job) that I would pay him for his work. I would have much rather they robbed me of all my money at least there would have been some degree of honesty in that case. My heart aches that I cannot give that boy what he truly earned. Maybe I'll see him again, at least I hope so. I'm not sure if this makes sense, I'm not sure if I really communicated it very well. This situation may be harder for me to bear considering the book that I am currently reading called Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen. He speaks often that people in the developing world often choose money first and freedoms second. They choose to have the money so that they are taken care of in the short-run (maybe a few hours to a few weeks), what they don't realize is that they give-up certain freedoms in the short-run they may also be giving-up longevity, sustainability, and even profitability in the long-run. I realize that many of these people have to eat and drink and that it can be a matter of survival, but this doesn't necessarily rest with them, it rests with those who often choose their destiny. Amartya Sen explains:
In the freedom-oriented perspective the liberty of all to participate in deciding what traditions to observe cannot be ruled out by the national or local "guardians"--neither by the ayatollahs, political rulers, nor by cultural "experts". The pointer to any real confilct between the preservation of tradition and the advantages of modernity calls for a particpatory reslution, not for a unilateral rejection of modernity in favor of tradition by political rulers, or religious authorities, or anthropological admirers of the legacy of the past. The question is not only not closed, it must be wide open for people in the society to address and join in deciding. An attempt to choke off particapatory freedom on grounds of traditonal values simply misses the issue of legitimacy and the need for the people affected to particpate in deciding what they want and what they have reason to accept.
In short Amartya is talking about democracy and the power that democracy brings. When certain officials choose in behalf of people, cultures, and countries progression can be halted. Just like the free market can pave the way for the strongest and sturdiest economy, democracy can also do the same for progression and social mobility. The people know what they want and what will truly set them free so that they to can experience the blessings of progression. Another key component is education, but I will have to save that for another day--Insha Allah.
