Foreign Policy has an interesting article entitled "Haiti Doesn't Need Your Yoga Mat."
What I found more interesting were the narrow-minded comments of the article.
I felt that the main point of the article is that just because it's charity, it doesn't make it any less of SWEDOW (Stuff We Don't Want). Quite frankly, SWEDOW for us may just be SWEDOW for them as well.
Another Foreign Policy article discusses this a little further, but I think there is a serious disconnect in people's minds over what we THINK they need and what they do. One commenter sarcastically says that she's learned that "it would be better for a child to remain shirtless than to have [donated shirts]." But that seems to suggest that this person honestly feels that children (and adults alike?) would be running around naked in impoverished countries were it not for kindly donations of shirts commemorating failed Super Bowl bids.
Another commenter, one that seems to have become the "alpha commenter," asks if it's better then to go without new shoes, new clothes or no bed instead of a yoga mat. But that's a straw man argument -- it implies that it's either these things or nothing. And I seriously doubt if that's true.
The way I read the article, I think the message is that it would be better to instead support developing a local industry instead of bringing in outside goods. The same applies to the US, right? I mean, people all around bemoan cheap Chinese goods being dumped on the market, and rally behind "Buy American!" Why can't the same thing apply to countries or areas in need? Sure, I agree -- some teddy bears would cheer kids up. But instead of donating "gently used items," as one commenter suggests (and seriously, from personal experience, I think we all know that the definition of "gently used" varies from person to person), donate cash wisely (as another commenter suggests) to outfits that will help support local industry and development. Forget donating shoes -- donate to an outfit that will train people to make shoes. If in Tibet there's only cheap Chinese parkas available, donate to outfits that will help train locals to make their own parkas out of local materials.
Sure, those outfits may not always exist. But by NOT donating to outfits that send used panties to third world countries, and by getting involved with responsible outfits, maybe you can help create new, more helpful ventures.
What I found more interesting were the narrow-minded comments of the article.
I felt that the main point of the article is that just because it's charity, it doesn't make it any less of SWEDOW (Stuff We Don't Want). Quite frankly, SWEDOW for us may just be SWEDOW for them as well.
Another Foreign Policy article discusses this a little further, but I think there is a serious disconnect in people's minds over what we THINK they need and what they do. One commenter sarcastically says that she's learned that "it would be better for a child to remain shirtless than to have [donated shirts]." But that seems to suggest that this person honestly feels that children (and adults alike?) would be running around naked in impoverished countries were it not for kindly donations of shirts commemorating failed Super Bowl bids.
Another commenter, one that seems to have become the "alpha commenter," asks if it's better then to go without new shoes, new clothes or no bed instead of a yoga mat. But that's a straw man argument -- it implies that it's either these things or nothing. And I seriously doubt if that's true.
The way I read the article, I think the message is that it would be better to instead support developing a local industry instead of bringing in outside goods. The same applies to the US, right? I mean, people all around bemoan cheap Chinese goods being dumped on the market, and rally behind "Buy American!" Why can't the same thing apply to countries or areas in need? Sure, I agree -- some teddy bears would cheer kids up. But instead of donating "gently used items," as one commenter suggests (and seriously, from personal experience, I think we all know that the definition of "gently used" varies from person to person), donate cash wisely (as another commenter suggests) to outfits that will help support local industry and development. Forget donating shoes -- donate to an outfit that will train people to make shoes. If in Tibet there's only cheap Chinese parkas available, donate to outfits that will help train locals to make their own parkas out of local materials.
Sure, those outfits may not always exist. But by NOT donating to outfits that send used panties to third world countries, and by getting involved with responsible outfits, maybe you can help create new, more helpful ventures.
