* This post has been revised and updated as of November 29, 2012*
Some interesting topics were brought up in my WMST class today...
We were going through our end of semester project presentations and one woman mentioned UNICEF and UNICEF's attempts to eradicate female genital cutting in Egypt. This led to a conversation about the practice in class and how charity organizations operate and the framework they work within.
We were going through our end of semester project presentations and one woman mentioned UNICEF and UNICEF's attempts to eradicate female genital cutting in Egypt. This led to a conversation about the practice in class and how charity organizations operate and the framework they work within.
It became clear that oppression, inequality etc was not being properly addressed due to many organizations' adherence to a westernized, colonialist agenda.
When I think of UNICEF, I often think of a Christian group that is similar to say, World Vision. I have just learned, however, that UNICEF stemmed from the UN, although. Nevertheless, as many of you may remember, some Christian groups would often send out their children to gather money for UNICEF during Halloween, usually done by their church. This seems to happen with a lot of so-called 'neutral' or 'secular' organizations.
So, what I began to ponder is how are these so-called 'secular' organizations operating from such a white Judeo-Christian perspective (i.e. Church-based organizations receiving funds for children around the world) to deal with poverty that has REAL causes that are being blatantly ignored, offering real hope or change? What is change if it comes at the cost of having to discord one's own culture and belief systems in order to receive assistance from white-dominated Western organizations.
When I think of UNICEF, I often think of a Christian group that is similar to say, World Vision. I have just learned, however, that UNICEF stemmed from the UN, although. Nevertheless, as many of you may remember, some Christian groups would often send out their children to gather money for UNICEF during Halloween, usually done by their church. This seems to happen with a lot of so-called 'neutral' or 'secular' organizations.
So, what I began to ponder is how are these so-called 'secular' organizations operating from such a white Judeo-Christian perspective (i.e. Church-based organizations receiving funds for children around the world) to deal with poverty that has REAL causes that are being blatantly ignored, offering real hope or change? What is change if it comes at the cost of having to discord one's own culture and belief systems in order to receive assistance from white-dominated Western organizations.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the folks at World Vision are malicious in fact, i'm positive they are doing what they think is right and have their hearts in the right place for the most part. However, their conditional and often gendered policies based on Christian beliefs, political motives and impacts on local communities is problematic.
photo from here
But I digress, one of the women in this class, who I am quite fond of, brought up the point that it is difficult to give money to many large charities because one does not know if there are any strings attached or conditions in place.
And so, it is important to ponder: 1) is the money actually getting to the people who need it and is it being used by those people alone? 2) Does the organization earn any money from the donations? 3) Does the money get used exactly how it was intended? And 4) Does the group of people needing the charity have to take part in particular activities or adopt similar religious, spiritual and cultural beliefs in order to receive funding from these organizations?
The problem with asking these questions though, is that you'll never be able to find an honest answer because many of these organizations are large, transnational entities and many do have strings-attached.
World Vision, is probably one of the most popular and well-known charities around the world, but particularly in North America. It is clear from both the advertising they circulate and their website that they are operating from a particularly religious framework.
And now, many of you may be asking "So, what's wrong with a Christian group spreading charity to other countries?"
Well, nothing is wrong per say with the people who want to help out others and ally with World Vision but there are problems with charities that give funds while taking part in a kind of neo-colonialism. This neo-colonialism stems from attaching conditions regarding religion and culture, onto those funds. World Vision is a large-scale charity that often tries to “develop" non-Western nations (fund them, build schools and teach their children European, white curriculum, build them roads etc.) by spreading the word of Jesus Christ through communities with diverse religious and spiritual beliefs.
The problem with asking these questions though, is that you'll never be able to find an honest answer because many of these organizations are large, transnational entities and many do have strings-attached.
World Vision, is probably one of the most popular and well-known charities around the world, but particularly in North America. It is clear from both the advertising they circulate and their website that they are operating from a particularly religious framework.
And now, many of you may be asking "So, what's wrong with a Christian group spreading charity to other countries?"
Well, nothing is wrong per say with the people who want to help out others and ally with World Vision but there are problems with charities that give funds while taking part in a kind of neo-colonialism. This neo-colonialism stems from attaching conditions regarding religion and culture, onto those funds. World Vision is a large-scale charity that often tries to “develop" non-Western nations (fund them, build schools and teach their children European, white curriculum, build them roads etc.) by spreading the word of Jesus Christ through communities with diverse religious and spiritual beliefs.
According to their website, World Vision’s stated goal is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God." This group works on six continents and has total revenue of 2.6 billion dollars.
It is important, firstly, to unpack the mission statement of World Vision,
"To follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."[3]
I will list various problems with this statement,
1) It attaches condition to the charity being given– one must accept a Christian spirituality and Western, Christian values to receive aid.
2) Since the charity is based on one notion of spirituality, it restricts the choices of the people living in the communities assisted by World Vision.
3) Christianity, evangelical Christianity especially, has many beliefs based in westernized, white-dominated, patriarchal and hetero-normative frameworks. It thus poses a danger to women's rights, particularly women's labour and land rights as well as their reproductive rights and access to appropriate healthcare.
4) This idea of “human transformation” under evangelical Christianity is only one notion of “being human” and is thus horribly restrictive to individuals who do not deem Christianity as the “correct” way one's life, especially people who likely already have their own cultural spiritual beliefs.
The language of “poor” and “oppressed”however, is by far the most disturbing and unfortunately the most common. The notion of “poor” is often defined differently in the West and may not apply to everyone. In the West, we base poverty on how little money and access to resources someone has.
Why is our definition of poor the correct definition? Why does our reality have to apply to everyone else?
The Trobriand Islanders, for example, do not rely on a money-based economy and yet, manage to supply everyone in the community with what they need. Here, there is less gender stratification, if any, and you become "rich" not by gaining for yourself, but by giving to others. Social capital trumps money in this community and yet, most Westerners would consider these people "poor."
It is really quite demeaning to call these people “poor” based on our narrow definitions and our own worldview.
5) “Justice” is used by World Vision, but I’m not sure in what context. Do they mean justice as in ‘following the rules of our religious beliefs and thus altering the way one lives their life to fit the Christian way of life?’ Why do other cultures need wealthy, white Christian groups to give them justice? What is this idea of justice, anyway?
6) The kingdom of God is mentioned again - an essentialist view of the afterlife provided to us by White Christian groups like World Vision. How dare they tell other cultures that their beliefs are incorrect and their way of life will not get them in the “kingdom of God”? The only thing different from old school colonialism and World Vision’s approach is that World Vision is willing to give money in return for another non-Western nation to disregard their own heritage, beliefs and culture.
Also, and very importantly, there is an obvious power struggle between the charity groups like World Vision and those receiving the charity. This is a fundamental problem with many of these groups as they are often dominated by white, western males. These groups have millions of dollars and a very Westernized perception of reality and they claim these people are all victims of this ‘unknown’ oppression caused by ‘unknown’ things (or possibly ‘god’s wrath’). The "poor people" shown on World Vision commercials just are poor...because...they're poor...The discourse of World Vision ignores colonialism, globalization and neo-liberal capitalist policies and their role in inequalities and poverty all over the globe.
In their advertisements, a famous, almost always white man or woman sits next to a non-white/non-Western child and tells the camera about how awful that child’s life is. They speak over the child, as if the child is not even there. Of course, the 6 year old was likely unable to give informed consent. Then, they tell the audience that the child has lost his or her mother or father and now has to take care of his or her brothers and sisters. They talk about this child’s parent as if the child is not even in the same vicinity as the speaker. How would they feel if some stranger was talking about their life and their experiences in a way that showcased them as ‘poor’ or ‘oppressed’ to the rest of the world? How dare they define these experiences for them and in front of them? Often the World Vision folks will have a camera on a child as he or she cries, they will zoom in on the tears. It is likely that this child has no idea what these people are saying as language was probably a barrier. After the speaker tells about how awful the child’s life is, they let the audience know how adopting a child (by adopt, they mean send money to a child over several years) will make the audience members feel good about themselves and better the world. They say that you will feel great about yourself but really, you merely continue to live a life of unsustainable abundance off the backs of exploited workers who work on less than 2$ a day.
Bottom line: We need to be far more critical of organizations and groups that are discussed in the mainstream media as being moral, concerned and most importantly, politically-neutral. If they want to help, they must stop denying the reasons why the poverty and inequality exists in the first place.
