Note use of

December 13, 2004 10:41 AM

The Sudan crisis isn't going away. Darfur is a dead link. This Christmas, I urge you, leave your favorite animal charity in the care of the Western world's army of old ladies, and instead use your money for the immediate saving of those most desperate of human lives.
posted by Pretty_Generic (34 comments total)

And if you can't afford to give, there's always The Hunger Site.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:43 AM on December 13, 2004

The West has been giving Africa millions of dollars, and it always seems to always end up in the hands of the leaders, not the common people.
How can we know where the money is going? Where are the success stories? All I see is more killing.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:02 AM on December 13, 2004

Are you seriously suggesting that any of the charities I've linked give money to the Sudanese government?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:05 AM on December 13, 2004

Thanks for the reminder, PG. These are all excellent causes.

And Mean Mr. Bucket, you're probably thinking of governmental foreign aid.
posted by Mark Doner at 11:12 AM on December 13, 2004

Now there's a man living up to his name.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:15 AM on December 13, 2004

I am concerned about the repetitive occurance of fraud when donating to far away places or causes.

I'd rather give to an obvious cause closer to home... the working family wearing rags at the grocery, employed homeless that sleep near the doorstep of their day job, helping a neighbor to fix thier car, etc.

I like to think of it as low level Reaganomics in action. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.
posted by buzzman at 11:56 AM on December 13, 2004

Generic,

If they weren't, they couldn't get a dime to the people. IOW, either they bribe the government or they line their pockets. Take your pick.
posted by effugas at 11:58 AM on December 13, 2004

Yikes. Their, not thier.
posted by buzzman at 12:04 PM on December 13, 2004

Double yikes. I think people need to read up on what MSF, Oxfam and the ICRC do before they confuse these organizations with government-to-government aid.

And they certainly don't bribe anybody, especially not the Sudanese government. They just help people in places where there is mass starvation, death from preventable diseases, or where there are "common people" pushed out of their homes by genocide. And these volunteers get killed doing it.

You can shelve the cynicism. The Nobel peace prize committee did.

(Though giving clothes, services or cash to people or charities closer to home is noble too.)
posted by owenville at 12:33 PM on December 13, 2004

Also, all those groups are required by US law to publish reports every year explaining where they spent every last dime, so there is no "repetitive occurance of fraud."

The few naysayers here aside, I find it interesting and heartwarming that Americans give the largest percentage of their incomes to charity--by far--of any country.
posted by owenville at 12:38 PM on December 13, 2004

either they bribe the government or they line their pockets

buzzman, this is one hell of an accusation to direct at the non-governmental organizations to which Pretty_Generic linked. Can you provide some supporting documentation for your assertion, please?

Meanwhile, I'll be paging through the four Oxfam America annual reports I helped to edit, paying particular attention to the lack of a line item for "buying off corrupt officials" in the financial statements.
posted by jesourie at 1:32 PM on December 13, 2004

The few naysayers here aside, I find it interesting and heartwarming that Americans give the largest percentage of their incomes to charity--by far--of any country.

owenville - do you have research supporting that statement? I'm not challenging you in an acrimonious sense. I would love, however, to show it to a few people if you can support it.

Thanks.
posted by TeamBilly at 2:35 PM on December 13, 2004

Voices of Iraq had footage of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces - it was full of crates prominently labeled "UNICEF".

I wonder what all the nice people who put change into those cute UNICEF boxes would say if they knew their donations had gone to Saddam Hussein.
posted by exhilaration at 2:35 PM on December 13, 2004

According to this chart, America is #2 in terms of membership in charitable organizations.
posted by chaz at 3:06 PM on December 13, 2004

Great editorial in today's New York Sun about the UN, overall.

I realize disbanding the UN won't help today, but we really need to start somewhere. Let's de-fund the UN NOW, transfer the $ to another organization (or create one).
posted by ParisParamus at 3:19 PM on December 13, 2004

TeamBilly: It's an oft-quoted stat, but I'm afraid I don't have the actual numbers close at hand, and don't have the time to look it up now. If no one else has come up with the actual donations per capita (as opposed to membership in organizations) I'll try to dig it up tomorrow.

It should be said that our (sizable) donations do not include money given to churches, which are not tax deductible. But it should also be said that citizens of other first world countries pay much higher taxes than we do, and have far more social programs to help the underclass. The need for private charities to help the underclass in those places is much less.

Exhilaration: UNICEF = A United Nations program, which is much different from a private charity such as the ones Pretty_Generic cited.
posted by owenville at 3:48 PM on December 13, 2004

Ooops. Realized one of those that Pretty_generic cited WAS a UN program. I don't know anything about the WPF, but the rest of those links are to places I would happily trust to spend my money to save people's lives.
posted by owenville at 3:52 PM on December 13, 2004

So I guess you'll be donating to the Red Cross then Paris? I know you are desperately concerned about the plight of the Sudanese people and all.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:55 PM on December 13, 2004

I'd donate to the Red Cross. But the larger issue is the US government endorsement and financial support given to this rotten ensemble of tyrany on the East Side. I find it offensive that my tax dollars go there; disgraceful.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:00 PM on December 13, 2004

I realize disbanding the UN won't help today, but we really need to start somewhere. Let's de-fund the UN NOW, transfer the $ to another organization (or create one).

In order to de-fund the UN, wouldn't you have to first actually start paying your membership dues? And isn't the US in arrears by about a $1 billion or so? (equivalent to about a year's total budget).

Nice derail of a thread that wasn't about the UN, btw.

I think Exhileration's point partially applies: if Saddam could loot Unicef supplies, there isn't any reason why other dictators couldn't loot supplies from the Red Cross or Medicin Sans Frontiers or Oxfam. But I don't think that means we shouldn't support these organisations. Yes, some of your money might end up in the hands of some pretty unpleasant people, but the rest of it will go towards saving lives.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:00 PM on December 13, 2004

buzzman, this is one hell of an accusation to direct at the non-governmental organizations to which Pretty_Generic linked.

Buzzman didn't write what you are attributing to him. Look at what effugas said.
posted by beth at 4:01 PM on December 13, 2004

The "arrears," which I believe was made up, was a good idea, and I would recommend going that route again. But it doesn't go far enough. Cesspools need to be shut down ASAP.

Derail? Ha!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:08 PM on December 13, 2004

I like the _Heavy Metal_ movie version of the UN, in which the UN building has been converted into low income housing.
posted by buzzman at 4:18 PM on December 13, 2004

Actually, it would probably make decent luxury housing. Which is beside the point (despite the visceral satisfaction of a whole lota corrupt government officials having to leave NYC...).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:25 PM on December 13, 2004

By the way, it's not a derail to bring up a black hole of corruption that is sucking in money and efforts that could be channeled into addressing the world's problems.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:30 PM on December 13, 2004

Paris has a point of sorts. The UN leadership is fucked, with the possible exception of Annan himself. The charities, howevever, are generally speaking quite dissasociated from the main body. But if you have any doubts, please, give your money to the Red Cross or any of the other charities I linked.

As for disbanding the UN: I believe it's better than nothing, and offer the fact that we are discernably nuclear-armageddon-free as proof of this.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:37 PM on December 13, 2004

I have a direct debit to MSF every month. It's not much but apparently its more helpful for them if they know it's coming and can budget accordingly.

They are a great charity and get huge "donations in kind" from the medical personnel who work with them so I feel like my paltry contribution does more there.

They have had a series of programs on UK TV about Darfur, it really is appalling.
posted by fshgrl at 4:44 PM on December 13, 2004

The few naysayers here aside, I find it interesting and heartwarming that Americans give the largest percentage of their incomes to charity--by far--of any country.

The reason for that is that is that other countries have "instutionalized charities," i.e. a larger percentage of their taxes is redistributed to help the needy. This means that in other countries it will take longer until you really become dependant on charities (in some countries you never will), whereas in the U.S. you may sooner be dependant on charities once you lose your job etc. It also means that Americans have more disposable income left over after taxes and thus can afford to give more to charities.


As for donating food or clothes etc., please explain one thing to me P_G, isn't that a big interference with local economies? Let's say, a charity collects clothes in some church activity, which is then sent to Niger or wherever and distributed among the needy. The net effect of that is that the price of clothes will go down in that country and will drive local tailors out of business, thus raising the unemployment rate and possibly wrecking a thriving market in garments. (BTW, I'm not making this up; this is what actually happened, although I forgot which country).

It's even worse when you talk about food. The immediate result of giving away food for free is that it takes away any incentive to harvest crops. Why would you? Nobody will buy them if the UN (or oxfam or whoever) is dishing out rice for free in the next village.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of these charities are just a band aid; they may cure the worst and most immediate symptoms, but they don't solve any problems at all.

On the other hand, there are programs that try to teach the locals to grow better or more crops. For example, there was this Japanese scientist who introduced a new rice strain to Bhutan, which literally revolutionalized agriculture in that country and increased their output by a very significant percentage.

I'll readily confess, though, that I don't know all that much about this subject, and maybe some of the cited organizations do indeed deeper and more lasting aid. But there is no doubt that the equation send food to Africa = rid the world of hunger isn't quite so simple.

I should add that I am roughly familiar with the situation in Sudan, and I am at a loss for words regarding what is happening there. However, the root of the problem is not that people don't have enough to eat, but rather that goverment-sponsored marauding Arabs are killing those black tribes, burning down villiges etc. I do, of course, condone humanitarian help for this catastrophe, but this will not solve the problem. (And no, I don't have a solution for the problem, either).
posted by sour cream at 5:14 AM on December 14, 2004

buzzman, I'm really sorry for misattributing that statement to you. I need to read more closely. beth, thanks for pointing that out.
posted by jesourie at 10:42 AM on December 14, 2004

"The reason for that is that is that other countries have "instutionalized charities," i.e. a larger percentage of their taxes is redistributed to help the needy."

Which is better? To give a larger percentage, or, due to the economic health of one's society, give more in absolute terms?

I oppose institutionalized (i.e., tax revenue-intensive) charity because it attentuates the link between the individual and giving. Moreover, governments are intrinsically inefficient givers.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:25 AM on December 14, 2004

Which is better? To give a larger percentage, or, due to the economic health of one's society, give more in absolute terms?


To give a larger percentage, according to Mark 12:41-44.

I would genuinely say that it is to Americans' credit that they are such generous individual givers (and to their government's discredit that it can spend so much on war on so little on aid).

And I apologise - that wasn't a total derail....though it did seem something of a leap from the original topic (especially so as you then go on to state you oppose institutional giving...)
posted by Infinite Jest at 11:07 PM on December 14, 2004

ParisParamus: This is opening a whole new can of worms. Also note that I was careful not to make a value judgment here; I was just trying to point out that the fact that Americans give more to charities may not be entirely due to their greater charity.

I see where you are coming from and even think that your too much state = inefficient argument has some merit, but if I had to rely on charities/state welfare, and could choose whether to live in the U.S. or in western Europe (as in, say, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands ...), I would choose Europe in a flash. Never mind the inefficiency of state welfare and the charity of Americans; the poor in Europe live pretty decent lives compared to the poor in the U.S.

Dunno about other countries, such as Oz or NZ.
posted by sour cream at 2:27 AM on December 15, 2004

If they weren't, they couldn't get a dime to the people. IOW, either they bribe the government or they line their pockets. Take your pick.

You know, I read some ignorant, stupid things on Metafilter but this has to be a banker for 2004's golden award. Are you really trying to tell me that OXFAM staffers are lining their own pockets with donations? That MSF - they of the no bribery, no ransoms, ever policy - are giving money to the Government of Sudan?

Tell you what, why don't you educate yourself before chipping in with your less than worthless points of view. Have you even heard of the 'first, do no harm' principle which is the guiding - and controversial - principle from which humanitarian aid is rendered?

Mean Mr Bucket, that's a valid question. The successes - in relative terms - are there. You simply have to look to find them. Apologies if this is a bit of a pain in the arse and I know that the Yankees result is probably a bit more compelling.

Buzzman: does acting locally preclude you being able to assist those thousands of miles away? Is your philanthropy really a zero sum game? If so, how sad.

Paris: "I'd donate to the Red Cross. But the larger issue is [the UN]" Really Paris, is purported corruption morally more important than genocide in Sudan? Interesting moral skew...
posted by dmt at 5:09 AM on December 15, 2004

This means that in other countries it will take longer until you really become dependant on charities (in some countries you never will), whereas in the U.S. you may sooner be dependant on charities once you lose your job etc.

You say that like being dependant on government handouts is somehow better than being dependant on NGO handouts. Were I impoverished, my own preference would run the other way -- money gathered through taxation coming with the ethical smudge of being partly from people who would rather not have given it, but were compelled to do so.
posted by Mark Doner at 3:20 PM on December 15, 2004