A columnist for The New York Times by the name of Nicholas
Kristof uses his refined journalistic sensitivities to plead the case of the
poor and downtrodden in third world countries. He’s written a book
in which he urges readers to donate money and/or time to help improve the lives
of these people. He often works on your sense of shame to be more proactive to
his pet causes.
Certainly his heart is in the right place and there is
endless misery in the world that must be addressed, but Mr. Kristof and spouse
seem to home in the most hopeless and most desperate. As a reader, I sympathize
for the plight of the less fortunate, but where does one begin?
For the most part, the greatest misery is found in the
regions of the world with the most dysfunctional leadership, which leads me to conclude
that without addressing that underlying situation, our charity will be wasted
or otherwise usurped by the power structure.
Mr. Kristof is an intrepid traveler and visits and meets
with the most afflicted populations in the world, so naturally he is greatly
moved and inspired to call the first world’s attention to the most horrific
situations. But again, with the need so great, how can our pittance of support
make much of a difference?
I hate to say it, but charity should begin at home. It
begins by providing education and other opportunities to the next generation,
your kids for instance, before you can adjust your sights outward to volunteer
time and money for the community. I believe in local first. Help bootstrap the
less fortunate in your town or in less affluent areas where your contribution
can make the most impact.
Yes, I’d love to provide a roof and an education to the
masses of unspeakably poor and abused in the Sudan and Congo, but my humble
efforts are little more than spitting into the ocean. When the system is so
broken, how can we know that our dollars are well spent—or spent as well as they
could be if we take a more local approach?
No comments:
Post a Comment