abcnews.go.com
Sierra Leone's Amputees: Farming for Survival Amidst Unfulfilled Promises
In Sierra Leone, the civil war left 28,000 amputees, and high rates persist due to accidents and poor healthcare; a farming initiative trains amputees, but many still face discrimination and unfulfilled government promises for reparations.
- How does the Farming on Crutches initiative address the systemic issues faced by amputees, and what are its limitations in achieving broader societal change?
- The Farming on Crutches initiative, while impactful, highlights the broader systemic issues faced by Sierra Leone's amputees. Despite government pledges for reparations and a 2011 Disability Act, many amputees, like Alimany Kani, remain unemployed and face discrimination, receiving little support beyond the initiative's efforts. The government's agricultural investment of over $600 million appears to prioritize large-scale farming, potentially overlooking smallholder farmers like the Farming on Crutches trainees.
- What is the immediate impact of the civil war on amputee livelihoods in Sierra Leone, and what are the current challenges faced by amputees beyond the immediate aftermath?
- In Sierra Leone, the civil war (1991-2002) resulted in approximately 28,000 amputees, and high amputation rates persist due to accidents and inadequate healthcare. A Farming on Crutches initiative trains amputees in farming, providing economic independence and restoring confidence, as seen in Lahai Makieu's success.
- What are the long-term implications of unfulfilled government promises for amputee reparations and the lack of inclusive agricultural support for Sierra Leone's economic development and social justice?
- The future success of amputee integration in Sierra Leone hinges on government action. The unfulfilled promises of reparations, coupled with the lack of inclusive agricultural support, hinder progress. While initiatives like Farming on Crutches demonstrate the potential for amputee empowerment, sustainable impact necessitates governmental commitment to inclusive policies and resource allocation, ensuring that the benefits of economic growth reach all citizens, including the disabled.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing is largely positive, focusing on the resilience and success stories of amputees involved in Farming on Crutches. While this offers a hopeful perspective, it might inadvertently downplay the extent of the challenges faced by most amputees in Sierra Leone. The headline (not provided, but inferable from the content) likely emphasized the positive aspects of the program, potentially overshadowing the larger context of widespread disability and discrimination. The opening anecdote of Makieu's fall and recovery sets a positive tone, emphasizing resilience over systemic issues.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective, aiming for a factual tone. However, phrases like "No one cares about you as an amputee in Sierra Leone" (a direct quote), while accurate to Makieu's experience, carry strong emotional weight and might be perceived as slightly inflammatory. Similarly, descriptions like 'dense grass' and 'strenuous day' could be seen as slightly loaded, though this seems unintentional and may be attributed to descriptive writing rather than biased framing. Overall, the language is mostly neutral and impactful; some strong emotional quotes were used and are necessary to show the real impact.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the success stories of Farming on Crutches, while giving less attention to the broader struggles faced by the vast majority of amputees in Sierra Leone who don't have access to such programs. The lack of detail on government initiatives beyond the mentioned reparations program and Disability Act, and the absence of diverse perspectives from government officials beyond a brief statement from the National Commission for Persons with Disability, leaves the reader with an incomplete picture of the systemic issues. While acknowledging the limitations of space, the omission of more comprehensive data on the scale of the problem and the full range of government responses creates a potentially misleading narrative.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between the success of Farming on Crutches and the lack of support from the Sierra Leonean government. While this contrast highlights the need for governmental intervention, it overlooks the complexities of the situation, such as the potential for other NGOs or community-based initiatives to play a role, or the internal challenges the government might face in implementing large-scale support programs. The narrative implicitly suggests that the government's inaction is the sole barrier to solving the problem, which oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.
Gender Bias
The article doesn't exhibit overt gender bias. Both men and women amputees are represented, and their experiences are presented without reinforcing gender stereotypes. However, the article could benefit from further analysis of the gendered impact of the war and the subsequent discrimination. For instance, were women amputees disproportionately affected by certain aspects of the conflict or subsequent societal challenges?
Sustainable Development Goals
The Farming on Crutches initiative directly addresses poverty among amputees in Sierra Leone by providing vocational training and resources to establish sustainable farming businesses. This empowers them to generate income, improve their livelihoods, and escape the cycle of poverty and destitution. The program also fosters self-reliance and reduces dependence on begging or charity.