Printable View
Because some believe it hurts more than it helps. You essentially have a revolving door of aid workers, some who are only there to feel good about what they are doing, then get the hell out of dodge.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
I split the thread because this is an issue that bears talking about, but is derailing the original conversation
I can understand that point of view, and I'm sure that it happens. Even that, however, sounds better to me than aid organizations soliciting donations and just throwing buckets of money into the third-world countries. Living in those conditions and understanding the issues there from seeing them first-hand leaves a far more lasting effect than a simple donation. Volunteer work there will end up accomplishing more, provided it is done properly, than any amount of money poured in.
I can understand the reasoning behind that, though. Still, it's more beneficial getting even dud people into the problem zone to see and talk about it.
Its the whole, give a man a fish and he can feed himself for a day, give him a fishing rod and he can feed his family for life, or until the fishing rod breaks.....Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
Some people are worried that they may get dependant on aid workers, and to be honest some of them probably are, but because their current situation means they cant do anything for themselves.
It's not just that. It's also cultural assimilation that people are usually so against, but that's to be expected when only white kids are coming to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach 5
It's a relationship thing too. Some volunteer contracts last maybe 1 year. A year is probably how long it takes solely to become acquainted with a community, become accepted and begin to get your hands dirty. That's why the PeaceCorp is a 2-year commitment.
Dependency is probably very subjective. For example, in the project I am currently working on (Building a Nicaraguan Health Clinic) the community is getting very ancy as to why we have not returned to build the health clinic. In truth during our last visit we admitted that it would take time because America has some red-tape and we must ensure that the building is structurally sound. There is a tendency that they would begin to expect things of us even though we constantly strive to make no promises on what we can do. Regardless of dependency, though you are still changing the lives of those that couldn't given current circumstance.
Naturally I'm inclined to believe what I and others do in a similar manner truly does do a greater good.. but there are certainly things to be argued on either side.
But this is straying from the point.
Just as an addendum my entire last post; I ABSOLUTELY HATE--WITH A FUCKING PASSION--EVANGELIZING VOLUNTEER GROUPS.
It's essentially everything I'm against. You go to a poor country but disregard the culture and religion just to convert them. It's like you're disallowing aid unless they mark an "x" under "Christian?" Fuck that shit gets me angry.
I can totally understand this. When I volunteered in Katimavik, we spent three months in three communities for the program, and what disturbed me most was by the time 3 months had gone by, you were just starting to get wholly absorbed in the community you were working in. It takes time for groups of people to get to know each other, and by the time I would be comfortable with the job I was doing and really starting to get to know the people who lived in the towns where we stayed, we got pulled out and sent to the next rotation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
On another note, I can see the issues with the whole foreign aid thing, but it still kind of goes back to the proverb that Mach 5 pointed out - if you teach them how to do it for themselves, that is how they get truly enriched.
Part of the problem with this is the level of technology and infrastructure that would need to be built in order to allow some of these things in the smaller towns, and that would need to be supplied by the aid organization. Still, we should mostly be imparting the values of creative application necessary to make complicated systems run effectively when there is little material to be had. It's not like they don't have that already, but values like that will have a stronger impact on the people there than doing some dirty work for them for a few months.
Also, I totally agree about the evangelical aspect of this issue. It's just as bad as the "Your $1 a day will help this child" and suddenly one child in a village of 100 gets all this foreign attention while the others get nothing.
There's also this one thing that my very politically conservative but razor-sharp friend at work told me. I can't remember the subtleties of it, but I'll boil it down.
If people in undeveloped countries go hungry, they will starve or die of disease early on and their numbers will not increase too quickly.
If we give them some aid but not enough, they will live long enough to multiply in greater numbers, doing nothing but creating many more mouths we cannot feed (or are not feeding).
Essentially, by aiding them, we allow more of them to come into existence to a) suffer and die and b) destroy any of the benefits of the aid we have been giving.
I've tried to find a way around this, unsuccessfully. The issue seems to come down to this: if you can't provide enough aid to create a liveable infrastructure, provide nothing.
Of course, that's horrible, so I don't know what to think.
No no. It's far worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
Your "razor-sharp" friend sounds like a social Darwinist doucebag. Aid surpasses vaccinations and food. Much of the best aid is about proper cooking/stove/ventilation methods, irrigation/agricultural approaches, and health practices. Our medical clinic provides no direct relief but it does provide an affordable and available facet for relief.
It's generally well known that sponsoring a child is simply a false front for people to make their donations more "personal" when in reality it does much worse.
Uh huh...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
I don't believe it's a "Feel good" kind of involvement. If you help dig a well, people have water. If you help construct a building, they have a place to sleep. You're not getting them hooked on foreign aid, and you've helped people in the immediate sense. Sure, you might not save a life like a doctor or surgeon, but people are grateful all the same.
Who are you replying to?Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
It's necessary to understand that people want to do good because they want to feel good. It's so they can check it off their list of things they did and then brag about it at dinner parties.
The people that truly do good are the ones you never see or hear about. They do what they do because the love doing it and are there to truly make a difference, not be noted for it.
That's a little naive, I feel. If people want to be noted for doing good, they've still "truly done good" (providing they haven't lied about it or whatnot, but we're not talking about that).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
Also, there's a lot to be said for the power of "celebrity philanthropy"; becoming noted for doing good might encourage or inspire others to do good too. Thus it might be said that doing good and becoming famous for it may well be even better than doing good and never have it be heard about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
I was replying to this. The way I see it, good is good no matter the motivation behind the intent. Some billionaire wants to donate to the unfortunate to get a tax break is still money going towards a good purpose right? Even if you go to help just so you can brag and claim you have an interest in humanitarian movements, you will still be doing the right thing if you roll up your sleeves and do something that needs to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
yes, but the money doesn't necessarily get used for the right purpose. Along the way, it changes hands a few times, losing a little each time, and if the destination is bad enough, it's all just going to get taken by the local warlord in charge as his right. Suddenly, a philanthropic payment has turned into terrorist funding. Even if the broken red cross method* is used, the warlord will still claim everything that comes in and use it to further his own ends, which pushes back the peace agenda.
There is a simple analogy that describes it, and it's what I do when I encounter a homeless person (on occasion). If they ask me for money for a coffee, I offer to take them to a coffee shop and buy one for them. I'll chat with them about their life story and what led to them being wear they are, and I've met some truly... unique people this way. There are a few, however, who get insulted by the fact that I wouldn't fork over any cash and bad mouth me for being selfish. The key difference here is that I'm not willing to just hand over money that's going to get used for purposes I don't approve of - I will offer the service personally. If they want the money for crack, they can get it somewhere else, but if they really need it for a coffee and muffin, then they aren't going to begrudge having a conversation with me about it.
*When I refer to the broken red cross method, I mean that there are a couple prominent US-based aid organizations whose mandate requires that all food and supplies that are to be used in Africa must originate in the US. This is a really shitty idea, because giving industry to the economy you're trying to relieve is going to help the problem, and insisting that the work stay at home is only hurting the people who are there, by removing potential jobs and learning opportunities for independance and reinforcing the notion that these people should just sit back and wait for a handout rather than working and earning it.
My money analogy wasn't meant too literally. I just meant that good is good, even in short dosages by people who might be less then sincere. I mean, no one can work miracles, but if enough people do something to help just a little bit, the world does become a better place.
Yes, there is nothing at all wrong with that sentiment, and the idea of contributing is still a good one. Every good act, no matter the size, is still beneficial. The real issue here is people doing something thinking they are giving a positive contribution and not realizing that their good intentions are being abused and are in fact making the problem worse than it was before. It is not enough to feel bad about an issue, want to help them and then just throw money at it. Learn about the situation and make sure that the impact you have is going to be beneficial.
Otherwise, all you're doing is paying for an unburdened conscience, oblivious to whatever harm you may bring.