Prior to reading this blog post, I ask that you watch this TED talk which I will discuss towards the end of my post. (3 mins, 51 seconds – 11mins, 38 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yiq_H_iOtM
As it was brought up in class with Peter, how would it play into account if all organizations had the same issue at hand? Specifically, if they were all cancer based would it make it easier or harder? I wanted to utilize my blog post to analyze this point and several others on a deeper level. I spoke in my reflection paper about the notions of humanity and the value of tikkun olam. For those of you who do not know, tikkun olam is a Jewish value that can be viewed in a universal context, directly translated “repairing the world”. I value tikkun olam because I value humanity. In other words, I believe that it is our job as human beings to leave this earth in a better position than which we received it in. In doing so, I think it is important to see humans on a baseline level; meaning that people are people regardless of color, race, or anything else. In order to repair our world, we must first repair the people within it. We as humans are flawed and have flaws. But that is okay, flaws are something we can work with. One must value human beings as a collective entity, recognize our flaws, and work towards addressing them rather than eliminating them in order to best help our world.
Having this in mind, I want to revisit Peter’s questions now. In class I said that it would be much easier to choose an organization in the charity pitches if they were all based on the same thing. In this example, I articulated that in having three pitches on cancer organizations, I would be able to exclusively make this decision with my head. I would be able to see that some cancers are not given the same attention as others and act accordingly. Upon reflecting, I retract my previous statement. The vastness of the charity pitch topics has often made it easier for me to make my decisions in class. By having three presentations on completely different issues, everyone has the ability to apply their different life experiences and select one that he or she can closely relate to. I am not arguing that this is the case every time, but I am stating that having variety can open up the doors of charity for many students on both a head and heart level. Similarly, there were some comments after my charity pitch vote that have stuck with me. By having charities in the same vote that are global and local, it allows students to define their priorities. Aside from my personal connection, I went international with my pitch at large because most of the work we do in class is more local. In applying my belief of tikkun olam to my choice of charity pitch, both the local community and the international need philanthropic attention.
Lastly, I want to draw our attention to another point established in Tuesday’s class – that of proximity in terms of time, closeness, and personal experience. I ask that you take a deeper look on proximity in terms of closeness with me. In doing some research on global vs. local, I came across this TED talk. Originally, I found what Phyllis was saying to be extremely problematic. She speaks of international aid as often based in volunteer-tourism. This may be a large basis of how individuals can help the global world, but it does not stop there. Then, she uses the example of donating used clothes when cleaning out her family’s closets. This is a task I have done countless times under the impression that it will help my local community and elevate some economic hardships. Phyllis challenges this preconceived notion by explaining that this does not provide as much aid as I thought it did. She explains that a vast majority of globally used clothes go to Kenya, a fact that I had no idea about. It does not deeply bother me that my local intentions can be turned globally. What does bother me is when she continues to explain the negative effect this has on employment in Kenya.
Accordingly, I do not feel that proximity as a form of closeness plays as important of a role as one can be quick to think it does. Like Phyllis states, it is pertinent to do homework on what or to whom you will be donating, even if you have good intentions. This is a concept we have all become familiar with through this course. Though she does not explicitly state whether or not closeness is a factor in giving, she states some road bumps that I think are important to consider. It is not necessarily the location of the issue that may be the most important, rather what impact your actions or donations may have. There can be just as many problems with giving locally as there are giving globally, you just have to know where to look. Intentionality is a great thing to have, but we must investigate our actions to best repair our world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yiq_H_iOtM
As it was brought up in class with Peter, how would it play into account if all organizations had the same issue at hand? Specifically, if they were all cancer based would it make it easier or harder? I wanted to utilize my blog post to analyze this point and several others on a deeper level. I spoke in my reflection paper about the notions of humanity and the value of tikkun olam. For those of you who do not know, tikkun olam is a Jewish value that can be viewed in a universal context, directly translated “repairing the world”. I value tikkun olam because I value humanity. In other words, I believe that it is our job as human beings to leave this earth in a better position than which we received it in. In doing so, I think it is important to see humans on a baseline level; meaning that people are people regardless of color, race, or anything else. In order to repair our world, we must first repair the people within it. We as humans are flawed and have flaws. But that is okay, flaws are something we can work with. One must value human beings as a collective entity, recognize our flaws, and work towards addressing them rather than eliminating them in order to best help our world.
Having this in mind, I want to revisit Peter’s questions now. In class I said that it would be much easier to choose an organization in the charity pitches if they were all based on the same thing. In this example, I articulated that in having three pitches on cancer organizations, I would be able to exclusively make this decision with my head. I would be able to see that some cancers are not given the same attention as others and act accordingly. Upon reflecting, I retract my previous statement. The vastness of the charity pitch topics has often made it easier for me to make my decisions in class. By having three presentations on completely different issues, everyone has the ability to apply their different life experiences and select one that he or she can closely relate to. I am not arguing that this is the case every time, but I am stating that having variety can open up the doors of charity for many students on both a head and heart level. Similarly, there were some comments after my charity pitch vote that have stuck with me. By having charities in the same vote that are global and local, it allows students to define their priorities. Aside from my personal connection, I went international with my pitch at large because most of the work we do in class is more local. In applying my belief of tikkun olam to my choice of charity pitch, both the local community and the international need philanthropic attention.
Lastly, I want to draw our attention to another point established in Tuesday’s class – that of proximity in terms of time, closeness, and personal experience. I ask that you take a deeper look on proximity in terms of closeness with me. In doing some research on global vs. local, I came across this TED talk. Originally, I found what Phyllis was saying to be extremely problematic. She speaks of international aid as often based in volunteer-tourism. This may be a large basis of how individuals can help the global world, but it does not stop there. Then, she uses the example of donating used clothes when cleaning out her family’s closets. This is a task I have done countless times under the impression that it will help my local community and elevate some economic hardships. Phyllis challenges this preconceived notion by explaining that this does not provide as much aid as I thought it did. She explains that a vast majority of globally used clothes go to Kenya, a fact that I had no idea about. It does not deeply bother me that my local intentions can be turned globally. What does bother me is when she continues to explain the negative effect this has on employment in Kenya.
Accordingly, I do not feel that proximity as a form of closeness plays as important of a role as one can be quick to think it does. Like Phyllis states, it is pertinent to do homework on what or to whom you will be donating, even if you have good intentions. This is a concept we have all become familiar with through this course. Though she does not explicitly state whether or not closeness is a factor in giving, she states some road bumps that I think are important to consider. It is not necessarily the location of the issue that may be the most important, rather what impact your actions or donations may have. There can be just as many problems with giving locally as there are giving globally, you just have to know where to look. Intentionality is a great thing to have, but we must investigate our actions to best repair our world.
Hi Lillie!
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that you have not received any comments yet, because your post was very well-written and offers much for discussion. I think that you brought up a fantastic point about the flaws in humans and what our job as humans is. I completely agree with the idea that we have an obligation to make the world a better place for future generations. Humans are fundamentally flawed, but it is important to see these flaws not as a challenge, but rather a key to success. We must learn to work with our flaws, not to try and fix them. We are not going to fix all the bad in a day, nor completely change the world in an instant. However, I think philanthropy is a great way of addressing some of these flaws, and allows people to contribute to creating a better world.
I think that the worthiest donations are the ones that utilize both “head” and “heart,” but that is because there is such a wide array of charities. If we look toward a specific sector of charities, such as ones that deal with breast cancer awareness, it becomes much easier to choose where to donate. All we have to do is look and see which organization has been the most effective in addressing its goals. However, every person is different, and as such holds vastly different values. Not everyone will agree on where to donate. That is not a bad thing though, as it opens up a much more diverse pool of donations. If the organizations are different in the sense of being local or international, how do we decide where to donate? I appreciate that you went international for your charity pitch because that provided a change of pace in what we were doing in class. I believe that the more impactful donations are the ones that go to local charities for two main reasons: you can much more easily see the impact of your donation, and local help can expand into global help. I don’t see how helping in a foreign country could trickle down into helping a local charity, but I can most definitely see it the other way around.
Lastly, I want to touch on the TED Talk you provided. It was a great video, and truly showcased the monstrous nature of voluntourism. I am completely against voluntourism and believe that it provides very little good to foreign countries. I think the main problem that stems from voluntourism is that people going to another country don’t know what it needs. They may think that building more orphanages is the best course of action, but in many cases, it is not. I read an article from Huffington post that described volunteers creating orphanages as a way for entrepreneurs to make money and treat children as commodities. The article also goes on to describe these orphanages as becoming centers of abuse and neglect for these children. It’s crazy to realize that what we think is helping foreign countries is hurting them. As the TED Talk said, the number of orphanages in Cambodia has doubled, but 77 percent of children in Cambodia are not even orphans. So how do we fix this? We should do our research, and make sure that we are providing necessary aid. What good is an orphanage going to do if foreign countries lack clean water, or food, or education? It won’t.
I apologize, I forgot to attach the article I referenced.
Deletehttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgette-mulheir/-voluntourism-harms-not-h_b_11653292.html