Oh, I know you're well-informed. You speak too well on this subject to be anything but. Your interest and caring does show, never you fear.
I guess the problem comes down to a matter of privilege first and foremost. Too many organizations just have paternalist/patronizing attitudes towards their relief activities, and this is a distinctly American failing as much as it is anything else. We expect to be lauded for work that should be its own reward. Witness the rest of the world thumbing their noses at us for the paltry sum we offered the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia and look at the offended reaction of some Americans. Now, some went "Well, what a bunch of ingrates," but the true humanists went "Our government is ridiculously low-balling on much needed relief, so we will open our own purses." That's charity I can get behind.
Basically, the more rules that you impose on your gift--things like the global gag rule come to mind--the less genuine it is as an effort to help the disadvantaged. Alas, a lot of religious institutionalization comes with extra rules of that sort. (Some of the BYU missionary work, for example, is extremely restrictive, but so helpful to the indigenous communities that it cannot be turned away for all that.) When it comes down to it, all charity should be about helping the poor sustain themselves--teaching them to fish, to misquote an old aphorism, rather than giving them fish. Insisting that they only fish a certain way is a good way to leave them dependent on your sea-food market.
And that's all I should say on that because I'm reduced to fish analogies. Alas.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 09:48 pm (UTC)I guess the problem comes down to a matter of privilege first and foremost. Too many organizations just have paternalist/patronizing attitudes towards their relief activities, and this is a distinctly American failing as much as it is anything else. We expect to be lauded for work that should be its own reward. Witness the rest of the world thumbing their noses at us for the paltry sum we offered the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia and look at the offended reaction of some Americans. Now, some went "Well, what a bunch of ingrates," but the true humanists went "Our government is ridiculously low-balling on much needed relief, so we will open our own purses." That's charity I can get behind.
Basically, the more rules that you impose on your gift--things like the global gag rule come to mind--the less genuine it is as an effort to help the disadvantaged. Alas, a lot of religious institutionalization comes with extra rules of that sort. (Some of the BYU missionary work, for example, is extremely restrictive, but so helpful to the indigenous communities that it cannot be turned away for all that.) When it comes down to it, all charity should be about helping the poor sustain themselves--teaching them to fish, to misquote an old aphorism, rather than giving them fish. Insisting that they only fish a certain way is a good way to leave them dependent on your sea-food market.
And that's all I should say on that because I'm reduced to fish analogies. Alas.