In the comments on my previous posts about charity, a central theme has appeared. Humans, it is argued, are certainly beneficent and in most cases copiously so: it would seem humans are totally preoccupied with concern for their fellow man. But in most cases of charity, apprehension from vague to bordering on paranoia exists, as people note poignant examples of governments either inefficiently using charitable donations, or governments corruptly using the charitable donations as a revenue stream.
Here, it is noted that genocidal maniac (for whom the international police have an arrest warrant) turned Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir has declared that all foreign aid organizations must vacate his country by the end of 2009. Sudan currently has nearly 3 million displaced citizens, and estimates, though vague, credit more than 300,000 ethnic deaths to al-Bashir's government. In equivalent U.S. terms, if Obama were to do the same thing, he would have to wipe out the entire population of Kansas, then require everyone in the states of: North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to vacate the premises immediately and move elsewhere.
Al-Bashir would prefer that humanitarian aid be dropped off at Sudanese seaports so his government can dole the aid out as they see fit. Because, you know, the people that need it will definitely get it that way...
So 1 in 10 Sudanese citizens is either dead or a refugee, and there appears to be nothing the United States is going to do about it. This is barely a bottom of the webpage blip in the news of the day. And now foreign aid is expected to dry up, and media coverage is expected to be blocked. For the Sudanese citizens, this is going from crisis to nightmare.
To me, many of the comments (and a few emails) I have received on this topic have amounted to basically a smorgasbord of "why I don't donate" excuses. I have heard comments like "the U.S. government would waste what I donate" to "foreign government would just pocket my donation" to "educating the poor is more effective than feeding them" to "I only donate out of guilt" to "I am donating less now so I'll be wealthier later and I'll donate more then" to "there are so many charities, I cannot decide where to donate" to my personal favorite "what's the point? The world is f*cked."
All of these beliefs, though I respect the people who wrote them, seem to me to be a lot of shuffling feet. If you want to talk about an overwhelming mass of spending options, just think about cars. There are around 20 major car brands readily available in this country. Each car maker hosts a myriad of different models to suit each personal style preference and required utility. I needed a commuter, so I bought the tiny little Honda Del Sol, which also has enough flash (or it did back when I bought it) and zip to satisfy my machismo. For every person in America, there is a car they can research and test drive, for which they can get financed, and subsequently buy.
Americans typically find car shopping an onerous chore, make no mistake, but the greedy eagerness of a consumerist culture has turned the act of car shopping into a delightful affair, with salespersons ready to help, massive discounts and inflateable gorillas to lure in the timid shopper, and expansive websites with car customization tools to encourage daydreaming. And at the end of the car shopping sojourn, Americans proudly drive home their new "baby" and show it to their friends and neighbors.
Why can't it be the same for charities? Part of the reason is that there is no take-home appeal. You can't send a check to the Boy Scouts of America and then take home a car. Donating your clothes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army nets you less stuff in your home, not more. Buying food at the grocery store and then dropping it at the Food Bank bins at the door as you leave means you have less food at home. Buying a car causes you to spend invisible stuff called credit, and gain tangible stuff called aluminum, steel, and leather. Donating to a charity loses you tangible stuff called cash and nets you invisible stuff called philanthropy. Who wants to get nothing for something?
Further, the act of sending a check to a faceless organization that claims to benefit overseas peoples requires a massive leap of faith, one which most individuals are not willing to take. A charity claims on their website to feed a starving child for a month for $13 bucks, but where is their guarantee? And where is the itemized list of what food the child will eat? Is it possible the food (through the wonder of bulk purchasing) actually only costs $2 a month and the other $11 is pocketed by the organization's fat-cat beaureaucrats? And if they spend your whole donation to feed starving children, where on earth do they get their advertising cash?
And that fear is understandable, as evidenced by a bitingly accurate Southpark episode featuring Sally Struthers. Not all charitable organizations are effectively spending their revenue. Some use part of their revenue for charity, and part to lobby government officials to ban abortions, or to further whatever political agenda they have that may or may not have anything to do with the people they are claiming to aid.
To people who find that fear so crippling that they cannot summon the will to donate to an international organization (or simply do not do so out of perceived pragmatism), I suggest the following: donate local. If you write a check to your local community center, and on the memo line write "for education of the poor" they will in fact use it for that, and that alone. Most small-scale charities, like food banks, community centers, and local churches, are fairly religious about following the memo line to the letter. Or, if like me you are an ardent lover of nature, donate to the local botanical garden or wildlife sanctuary, and use a specific memo line to direct your money where you would like it to go. In my case, because of my profession, I like to write "memo: for new building/renovation use only".
But above all, I suggest you consider the car shopping example above, before you give me more excuses to not donate. In America we find reason after reason to buy, replace, or upgrade, and we find reason after reason not to donate. If we all took charity as seriously as we took car shopping, the amount of giving would go up, and the effectiveness of those dollars would also go up. Make a list of what you like to do, and what you'd like underprivileged to be able to do, then look online for charities that support those causes. Narrow down to the ones that are local, or are represented by a celebrity you know to be a genuine person. Further narrow those down to ones that appear to require your aid immediately. And then write a check and put it in the mail before that little voice in your head starts telling you all the other things on which you should be spending that money.
And as for Sudan, and corrupt leaders all over the world who are pocketing charitable donations meant for their oppressed peoples, though it may seem we are helpless to stop them , we should all consider an old fashioned method for bringing about change: writing your local representative a thoughtful, polite letter demanding they acknowledge there is a problem. I have a nice, open dialogue going with Senator Sam Graves (an alumni of my fraternity chapter whom I have met on several occasions) about the need for natural resource protection in the face of overwhelming and manipulative corn-based biodiesel lobbying, and although he may consider my words and then promptly ignore them, when enough voices shout the same thing at the same person, eventually they take note. Or they lose the next election.
Update: I just want to thank all the commentors for their thoughtful replies; though I disagree to a certain extent with many of you, the dialogue is essential and I appreciate and enjoy your well-written dissent.
_
0 Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen