Why Aren't We Giving To Burma and China?

[Athena]

...and "we", in this case, really means you and me, not our government.

We've seen lots of natural disasters in recent years. When many of us see this news, our hearts well with sympathy and we respond the only way we know how - with our pocketbooks. Still, whether the disaster is foreign or domestic, not all of them garner our attention and generosity equally. Why is this?

As this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1807764,00.html) article describes, charities know the dwindling support as "donor fatigue". Apparently, the worse the situation in the world is, the more overwhelmed we become and the less we give. They suggest that, especially when it comes to foreign disasters, if we give to one, we tend to lump the next one in the same "foreign disaster" catagory. We figure, "Hey, I've already given to a foreign disaster this year" and fail to donate to the next one that comes along. This may be why, even though the disasters both happened within a 9 month span, the Tsunami and Katrina disasters both raked in billions of dollars in private aid, while the earthquake in Pakistand that killed 80,000 in October 2005 received only a fraction of donations, comparatively.

But, perhaps there's more to it than that? Some suggest that our level of donation is closely related to media coverage, pictures and our ability to identify with the stricken regions. Naturally, we can identify with NOLA, and even the tsunami stories and pictures were brought back to us by tourists in the area. Obviously, that's not quite the case in Burma or China. My guess is that our lack of ability to identify impacts the amount we give a great deal.

The fact remains, though, that these peoples are in dire need of our support. While some people say grace at the dinner table, I'm an atheist, so this is how I give thanks. I don't wait to donate until I can "afford" to. The truth is, we can almost always afford to...Because our house doesn't look like this:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0805/disaster_fatigue_0519.jpg

...and we've never had to pull a child from a situation like this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080514/i/r2115427040.jpg

http://www.google.com/myanmarcyclone/images/unicef.gifhttp://www.google.com/myanmarcyclone/images/directrelief.gifhttp://www.google.com/chinaearthquake/images/mercycorps.gifhttp://www.google.com/chinaearthquake/images/TCEF.gif


Donate here (http://www.google.com/myanmarcyclone/) to support disaster relief in Myanmar.

Donate here (http://www.google.com/chinaearthquake/) to support disaster relief in China.

By donating at these sites, Google will match your efforts. Turn $5 into $10 or $50 into $100 through an exercise that's no more difficult than online shopping.

Thank you for caring. :)

[gprime]

Why? I think in the cases of these two nations, it is fairly obvious.

The oppressive military regime is blocking much foreign aid (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23723653-23109,00.html) in Burma. And unlike in (as an example), the Sudan, where there are clear rebel groups to back, no such thing exists in Burma, where the Junta's power is absolute. So why give when there is little hope of it going through, or high odds of a corrupt and oppressive regime syphoning funds from foreign donor pools?


In China, it is mostly a case of fear. We hear about American manufacturing jobs being lost to China, about how they control the American economy by buying up our debt, and things of that nature. So there are two natural perceptions that arise from that. First is that China is our enemy, or at least a competitor, whose success is at our expense. Second, their rapid economic growth leaves some with false impressions about the true economic might of China, leading many to believe that they ought not need American money to recover. Thus, it isn't that easy to feel sympathy.

I think that there is alot more soundness to donation choices than most people realize, but it is based enough on subconcious considerations that we don't see it as clearly.

[Morbid]

I still do not understand why anyone, if given the choice between foreign aid and aid here in the US, would choose to give their dollar to any of the two cases you mention above, rather than donate to some people here, on our soil, who need it.

[celtic friend]

I think most people are not sure if the aid would even get to these people.
It has been all over the news that the military is being accused of withholding or stealing Burma's aid.
That all being said, I think the current state of our economy puts people in survival mode not giving mode. With the media talking everyday about rising gas and food prices, not to mention the housing crisis, most people don't really have it to give, or at least they don't think they do. IMO.

[gprime]

I still do not understand why anyone, if given the choice between foreign aid and aid here in the US, would choose to give their dollar to any of the two cases you mention above, rather than donate to some people here, on our soil, who need it.

While I'd never donate to either China or Burma, the notion that one should donate locally (however broadly an area you define that as) is absurd. Why, for instance, do I owe other Americans more than I do anybody else? The fact is, the US has extensive governmental and private offerings designed to help the poor, whose average standard of living is far better than their lower class counterparts in the third world. So, if the choice is between giving a local charity, which already has funding, and is working alongside a well-funded government, the need for aid seems less compelling than some foreign cases. There are many countries where the aid resources are more limited, the issues far bigger, and the standard of living lower. Helping people in those places is perfectly understandable if one feels compelled to perform an act of charity.

[Morbid]

While I'd never donate to either China or Burma, the notion that one should donate locally (however broadly an area you define that as) is absurd. Why, for instance, do I owe other Americans more than I do anybody else?

You don't and I never said they should. I said I don't understand it. If giving 5 dollars to China, or Bumfuk, or wherever, helps you sleep at night knowing you did your part to make the world a better place to live in, then have a coke, shut the fuck up and have a good night sleep.

I, personally, would rather my money go to other Americans, IF I choose to donate at all. Unlike other people, I have no vested interest in any foreign area, and feel more comfortably knowing my dollar went to help some sick kid here, to help build a house torn down by a hurricane here, or did anything to help someone else out here. :neutral:

[celtic friend]

Gprime,
I knew someone was going to say that, that people here can be no where near as poor or in need as abroad, but I have read first hand families that had no insurance for their child that needed open heart surgery, to "get up" 50 grand at least, and then come back for the surgery. I will show you their story if you would like proof. Granted, these people were not in a heavily populated part of the US but still it was the US. My son's OHS was 96,000, I can't imagine someone telling me I had to come back with that for something that is needed for him to survive. Insurance is very hard to get when you have a pre-existing condition that is serious and they might not have been poor enough for aid.
Any child suffering is a child suffering, and at least if you are helping someone locally you can at least know they are getting the aid. In some of these countries where their governments are corrupt you are not even sure they are getting the aid, there are numerous accounts of it being taken and never given out.
Anyone can give to whomever they choose and it is a wonderful thing. Everyone also has a cause dear to them, no less deserving than the next, and there are plenty of causes in America that are true needs.
One thing I would love to do for someone abroad is host a family in Iran/Iraq to come over for OHS or even Chernobyl. I also always wanted to adopt a child from Russian or Bosnia.

[impqueen]

Unfortunately, my personal financial circumstances this year are such that my charitable giving consists of a few select small charities that I have a developed a relationship with - one in Africa, and two local.

Beyond that, I'm doing well to help my neighbors rebuild after tornados ripped their houses apart not two weeks ago - disaster smaller, yes, but for which no foreign country and hardly any domestic charities are helping. It's unfortunate that I'm not wealthy and have to choose my giving carefully if I can give at all. But there it is.

But frankly, i'd way rather donate my time and funds to this site than to any other single cause. Because I believe in what I do here, even if it's small and inconsequential. So while I can't afford to donate to China, I'm okay with that.

[celtic friend]

That's so important Imp, to believe in what you do!
It's the people that really believe in their cause that move mountains for it! Good for you.

[CPL CHUD]

People give by far more money, time, and resources to local charities. On average Americans give more than any other country, but I expect the giving to be lax given the lurching economy, or what people recieve to be a lurching economy, so it doesn't surprise me at all that more people aren't giving to these disasters than, say, Katrina. Local issues always take the forefront, but it'll be nice to see some other nation step up their philanthropy (sp?) a notch.

[gprime]

Gprime,
I knew someone was going to say that, that people here can be no where near as poor or in need as abroad, but I have read first hand families that had no insurance for their child that needed open heart surgery, to "get up" 50 grand at least, and then come back for the surgery. I will show you their story if you would like proof. Granted, these people were not in a heavily populated part of the US but still it was the US. My son's OHS was 96,000, I can't imagine someone telling me I had to come back with that for something that is needed for him to survive. Insurance is very hard to get when you have a pre-existing condition that is serious and they might not have been poor enough for aid.
Any child suffering is a child suffering, and at least if you are helping someone locally you can at least know they are getting the aid. In some of these countries where their governments are corrupt you are not even sure they are getting the aid, there are numerous accounts of it being taken and never given out.
Anyone can give to whomever they choose and it is a wonderful thing. Everyone also has a cause dear to them, no less deserving than the next, and there are plenty of causes in America that are true needs.
One thing I would love to do for someone abroad is host a family in Iran/Iraq to come over for OHS or even Chernobyl. I also always wanted to adopt a child from Russian or Bosnia.

Yes, but you are talking about reasonably isolated cases when you speak of those kids unable to get surgery. In absolute terms, the average poor American is far better off than are their counterparts in other nations. Look at the Sudan (beyond the genocide and civil war), Tanzania, or the Comoros. There is no true comparison. That is not to say that aiding the American poor is unimporant, but rather that it is less urgent and serious a matter than in other places.

Also, regarding transparency, that is an issue in many countries I grant you, but not all of the most needy. East Timor is one of the poorest countries in the world, and is perfectly safe to donate to. Sames goes for Malawi and the Solomon Islands, which are similarly among the 10 poorest nations on the planet. Not to mention that ground-deployed NGO's can provide further assurance that the money is used properly.

Of course, at the end of the day, charity is a personal matter. If you give, great. If not, that is perfectly within your rights. Whether you want to focus on domestic or foreign charity, there are a range of valid causes. Just as Morbid would rather focus his charity on the US, I tend to focus my giving (admittedly limited by a lack of serious income) to Israel, and to certain advocacy groups in the US.

[Lizard]

I think most people are not sure if the aid would even get to these people.

You can't even be sure of that in the United States. If you read the Robert Arnette thread, you'll see that his sister, who took over the care of his initially-missing-then-found-dead estranged wife's children, is now accused of misusing funds donated for the care of the children. And if you give to an organization like the American Humane Association, don't fool yourself into thinking that your money is saving animals. Organizations like that don't run any shelters, they don't rescue any animals; you won't find their employees in rubber boots cleaning shit out of a dog kennel or wiping a newborn orphaned kitten's anus with a tissue so it will eliminate.

Just sayin'.

[celtic friend]

Lizard, that is why if you are going to just blindly give to something, than you should know the intent was there and that is all that matters. Now if you really want to take the time to research the cause and get involved that it another.
You find what suits your need and your level of involvement, it still is easier to get involved in orgs. here and maybe even donating to hospitals here, you at least see the results. If there is a specific wing of the hospital you donate to, you can see the end result, some even ask for calling cards/toys not just money. It is easy here to give in a way you can see the results.
There are always going to be criminals in the donation/charity business.

[Athena]

You don't and I never said they should. I said I don't understand it. If giving 5 dollars to China, or Bumfuk, or wherever, helps you sleep at night knowing you did your part to make the world a better place to live in, then have a coke, shut the fuck up and have a good night sleep.

I, personally, would rather my money go to other Americans, IF I choose to donate at all. Unlike other people, I have no vested interest in any foreign area, and feel more comfortably knowing my dollar went to help some sick kid here, to help build a house torn down by a hurricane here, or did anything to help someone else out here. :neutral:

I donate a far greater amount locally than I do internationally.

But, as for the reason I bother donating internationally at all, I kind of touched on one motivation above. The fact is, with the exception of a very small minority, the poor here are still doing considerably better than many people in other countries. Here, our government provides health care for people without money. Food banks are all over the place. Our poor are generally not at risk of starvation. Children die at a much slower rate than poor children here.

In short, they need it more and it goes farther.

Of course, that's not the only reason I donate internationally. The truth is, international opinion matters. Politically, the philanthropy of the American people greases the wheels a bit regarding diplomatic matters. No, I'm not of the camp that believes we should bend to the will of other nations, but, when they see how much we donate to causes that don't even affect us, they're a little less worried about how wasteful or arrogant or aggressive we are.

[Athena]

On average Americans give more than any other country, but I expect the giving to be lax given the lurching economy, or what people recieve to be a lurching economy, so it doesn't surprise me at all that more people aren't giving to these disasters than, say, Katrina.

I think that may impact it a bit. But, in the OP, I referenced the Pakistani earthquake that killed 80,000. Our economy was strong then, yet we failed to keep pace with our giving, falling very short of goals (in comparison to the tsunami or Katrina).

Of course, that earthquake didn't get nearly the press the tsunami did.

[Morbid]

No, I'm not of the camp that believes we should bend to the will of other nations, but, when they see how much we donate to causes that don't even affect us, they're a little less worried about how wasteful or arrogant or aggressive we are.

I have never seen it matter. It doesn't seem to change public opinion of Americans one way or the other. Americans donate shitloads to relieve victims of foreign disasters and yet they still hate us. They have no issues begging for our money while spitting on us while they take it. Can't say I blame them, though. I mean, if I were in their situation, I don't think I would care too much where the aid was coming from.

In my opinion, no amount of money will change public opinion of our country and it's inhabitants if other nations and their inhabitants do not agree with our foreign policies. So, fuck 'em. Besides, I never give a shit about what people think of me, and I guess I align more closely with liking the thought of a country who felt the same. Not saying it is smart or not, just something I relate to more.

[Athena]

I have never seen it matter. It doesn't seem to change public opinion of Americans one way or the other. Americans donate shitloads to relieve victims of foreign disasters and yet they still hate us. They have no issues begging for our money while spitting on us while they take it. Can't say I blame them, though. I mean, if I were in their situation, I don't think I would care too much where the aid was coming from.

In my opinion, no amount of money will change public opinion of our country and it's inhabitants if other nations and their inhabitants do not agree with our foreign policies. So, fuck 'em. Besides, I never give a shit about what people think of me, and I guess I align more closely with liking the thought of a country who felt the same. Not saying it is smart or not, just something I relate to more.

"Public opinion" and "international opinion" are to entirely different things. I'm not talking about what the average Joe over in Germany or France thinks. I specifically referenced diplomatic matters.

And, just as you like the thought of a country who doesn't give a shit about their image, I feel quite the opposite. I definitely understand your position, but it's just not a luxury we can afford. What other countries think of us does affect us whether we like it or not, just like the way an individual looks affects them. Some individuals are in a position where they don't have to worry about the perception of others. Countries are not in that position. Philanthropy allows for a more positive impression.

[celtic friend]

I think no matter what Athena, these countries will still hate, they will take our money and try and come here, but hate us.

[Athena]

I think no matter what Athena, these countries will still hate, they will take our money and try and come here, but hate us.

To an extent, that's true. But, does that mean we should stop giving? There will always be hunger and war, but does that mean we should not bother, simply because we can never hope to completely eradicate the problem?

Edit: Let's not forget, however, that international diplomacy is a very secondary reason for giving. The primary motivation is the despair these people are experiencing. It's unlike anything most of us have ever seen.

[celtic friend]

Athena, that should not be the reason why give, that's all, to make people like us.
I wish more people would give to Russia and Romania, those kids need help, I rarely see orgs for them like I do for Africa.

[Morbid]

"Public opinion" and "international opinion" are to entirely different things. I'm not talking about what the average Joe over in Germany or France thinks. I specifically referenced diplomatic matters.

Doesn't matter, really. If you can point out a time in the last 25 years where a foreign country "liked" us better because of how much money we donated to that country for some type of aid, then maybe I could.


And, just as you like the thought of a country who doesn't give a shit about their image, I feel quite the opposite. I definitely understand your position, but it's just not a luxury we can afford. What other countries think of us does affect us whether we like it or not, just like the way an individual looks affects them. Some individuals are in a position where they don't have to worry about the perception of others. Countries are not in that position. Philanthropy allows for a more positive impression.

China sure doesn't seem to give a shit what anyone thinks. Sure doesn't seem to hurt their growth in population, advancement and power. You state that what other countries think of us does affect us. I agree with that, I am just not going to say that currently, what they think of us hurts or helps us. I will say though, that a country making decisions purely to make other countries like us...to be accepted...also affects us and can do so both negatively as well as positively. The things we may do to make a foreign country "like us" may not benefit our country as a whole.

But again, you are for the kindler, gentler type of country as I like the "carry the bigger stick" mentality I grew up with during the Cold War and the country that dropped a couple of big bombs on a couple of cities. From the off-set, we have had a Wild-West mentality and because of that, and only that, do I feel is how we got to where we are today. IMO, of course.

[CPL CHUD]

Is it really still philanthropy if you begin justifying its reasoning as being for the good of foreign policy or is it bribery? Its kind of a rhetorical question, of course, I'm just mulling over the idea that charity isn't truly charity if something is expected, in some degree, in return. And then the next obvious question would be if we should continue to help other countries if they continue to return generosity with hate.

Are we greasing the wheels of democracy? I think of it more as helping stabilize a nation, by helping individual people, which in turn stabilizes government, at least in theory. Sometimes that isn't the case.

[Athena]

Doesn't matter, really. If you can point out a time in the last 25 years where a foreign country "liked" us better because of how much money we donated to that country for some type of aid, then maybe I could.

Nothing is that simple in terms of diplomacy. Our philanthropy is just one of a number of factors that influences our international standing. That being said - Have you never heard foreigners say something like, "It's the American government I don't like. The people are good..." Hell, Ahmadinejad sent a letter specifically addressing the American people, rather than the government. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-29-iran-letter_x.htm) Sure, it was a ploy, but it speaks to the fact that our government and out populace are often regarded to be separate entities, and the public often garders more appeal. I don't think it unreasonable at all to think this is, in part, due to the American public's well-known generosity.


China sure doesn't seem to give a shit what anyone thinks. Sure doesn't seem to hurt their growth in population, advancement and power. You state that what other countries think of us does affect us. I agree with that, I am just not going to say that currently, what they think of us hurts or helps us. I will say though, that a country making decisions purely to make other countries like us...to be accepted...also affects us and can do so both negatively as well as positively. The things we may do to make a foreign country "like us" may not benefit our country as a whole.

But again, you are for the kindler, gentler type of country as I like the "carry the bigger stick" mentality I grew up with during the Cold War and the country that dropped a couple of big bombs on a couple of cities. From the off-set, we have had a Wild-West mentality and because of that, and only that, do I feel is how we got to where we are today. IMO, of course.

China sure as fuck does care. Why do you think they bent over backwards to bid for the Olympics? The tread very carefully in a lot of areas, including Tibet, Taiwan, trade agreements and environmental considerations, and they DO make concessions. Just not as many as WE might like, right now. Furthermore, they are investing heavily in Africa - partially for a return, of course - but the fact remains that they are providing water, power and roads to African nations (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may16/crgp-051607.html), and developing strong diplomatic bonds as they go.

As for our bomb-dropping goes, it is short-sighted to think that our success stopped at destruction. It was out reconstruction efforts in these countries that made us heroes from an international perspective.

No country should do things solely for the sake of public opinion. Actions need to make sense to us. In my opinion, as globalization grows and we become increasingly intertwined with the other countries on the planet, foreign aid (both public and private) makes sense.

[Athena]

Is it really still philanthropy if you begin justifying its reasoning as being for the good of foreign policy or is it bribery? Its kind of a rhetorical question, of course, I'm just mulling over the idea that charity isn't truly charity if something is expected, in some degree, in return. And then the next obvious question would be if we should continue to help other countries if they continue to return generosity with hate.

Are we greasing the wheels of democracy? I think of it more as helping stabilize a nation, by helping individual people, which in turn stabilizes government, at least in theory. Sometimes that isn't the case.

I don't know. Does altruism really exist? Doing things to better the lives of others may be our primary reason for giving, but does it fail to qualify as altruistic because feeling good about our efforts tends to be a natural biproduct? Similarly, a more favorable international opinion is a biproduct of charitable giving. I don't think it fails to qualify as philanthropy simply because we recognize this. The fact is, I donate whether it betters international opinion or not. But I can't ignore the benefits of philanthropy in terms of potentially bettering opinion.

[CPL CHUD]

Doing things to better the lives of others may be our primary reason for giving, but does it fail to qualify as altruistic because feeling good about our efforts tends to be a natural biproduct?
Sure. The release of endorphins from doing something charitable is dependent on the task itself, not the person whom recieves the charity, so nothing is expected from the person him or herself. It's reliant on the act and nothing more, therefore altruism exists, and more importantly, must exist in some form for us to even have begun working together as a society. Even to begin working as a pack some form of true charity must exist, if only momentarily. Prolonged charity strains the expectancy of the giver, thus I don't think it really exists, outside extremities of course.

[Athena]

Sure. The release of endorphins from doing something charitable is dependent on the task itself, not the person whom recieves the charity, so nothing is expected from the person him or herself. It's reliant on the act and nothing more, therefore altruism exists, and more importantly, must exist in some form for us to even have begun working together as a society. Even to begin working as a pack some form of true charity must exist, if only momentarily. Prolonged charity strains the expectancy of the giver, thus I don't think it really exists, outside extremities of course.

Fair enough. Although, I would contend that the benefit of positive international opinion is not reliant on the person receiving the charity.

I just don't think the difference between, "Besides, it'll make you feel good," and "Besides, it'll better international opinion," is so vast that the latter should fail to qualify as charity. An expected return is not the primary motivation.

[Pete Bondurant]

Why Aren't We Giving To Burma and China?

These Burmese have suffered under this junta for how long now? Until these people do to their goverment, what the Romanians did to Ceausescu, they should get nothing. The only thing we should be air-dropping are firearms, handgrenades and ammunition, if they cannot save themselves after that, then to hell with them!

Don't we already owe Chinese banks billions/trillions of dollars?

[Athena]

These Burmese have suffered under this junta for how long now? Until these people do to their goverment, what the Romanians did to Ceausescu, they should get nothing. The only thing we should be air-dropping are firearms, handgrenades and ammunition, if they cannot save themselves after that, then to hell with them!

Don't we already owe Chinese banks billions/trillions of dollars?

I don't own the Chinese banks a red cent (*wink, wink*), personally, nor do I care about the state of the Burmese government in the fact of more immediate disaster.

I was talking about charity on the individual level, Mr. Bondurant.

[impqueen]

I don't own the Chinese banks a red cent (*wink, wink*), personally, nor do I care about the state of the Burmese government in the fact of more immediate disaster.

I was talking about charity on the individual level, Mr. Bondurant.

Ah, but if you pay taxes in America, you do. Because where do you think our government is going to get the money to pay that debt?
From its taxpayers, that's where.

You probably owe China in the neighborhood of ten bucks or so. If I can get the IRS to let loose of my cash, I'll send twenty to the disaster victims, just to be on the safe side.

So Athena, are you kicking in for the tornado victims here? If not, why not? Is it because it makes you feel that you're doing more important work by sending your dollars overseas, or do you feel that Americans who are suffering are somehow less important or less in need? I know of several farmers who were underinsured - one who was uninsured after the death of her husband. She lost everything, including a son.

She's staying in one of our family's houses that was less damaged right now. It isn't much, but it'll give her a place to live. If I had a house in China, I would certainly donate its use without a second thought.

For me, giving is not about obligation or about making other people like me or about fixing the clusterfuck of our nation's foreign policy. It's about helping people I know and care for personally or causes that are close to my heart. My dad spends months a year in China. He likes it there, he likes the people. They don't really like us, to be perfectly honest. They like my dad because he's the boss, but as a country, they'd just as soon we kiss their collective ass until it comes time to ring up the sale.

While I do not need to explain to anyone where my money goes or why, I will say this. My family supports one Chinese artist, Sun Jing. My father has over 200 pieces of her work and she is amazing. If we found out that she needed help, we'd send it, no questions asked, foreign policy be damned. Beyond that, meh.

[Athena]

Ah, but if you pay taxes in America, you do. Because where do you think our government is going to get the money to pay that debt?
From its taxpayers, that's where.

You probably owe China in the neighborhood of ten bucks or so. If I can get the IRS to let loose of my cash, I'll send twenty to the disaster victims, just to be on the safe side.

My point was that I was not talking about federal foreign aid. The rest is details. :p


So Athena, are you kicking in for the tornado victims here? If not, why not? Is it because it makes you feel that you're doing more important work by sending your dollars overseas, or do you feel that Americans who are suffering are somehow less important or less in need?

I haven't specifically, although the American Red Cross is one charity I support at the beginning of the year, when I make my standard donations.

I wouldn't attach the word "important" to this. All suffering is important, and I reject the idea that some suffering is less important than other suffering. I tend to focus donations I make (outside of the ones I make every year) on high death tolls and limited resources. That's what makes sense to me. I need to pick and choose because I simply don't make enough to donate to every cause that I run across.


For me, giving is not about obligation or about making other people like me or about fixing the clusterfuck of our nation's foreign policy. It's about helping people I know and care for personally or causes that are close to my heart. My dad spends months a year in China. He likes it there, he likes the people. They don't really like us, to be perfectly honest. They like my dad because he's the boss, but as a country, they'd just as soon we kiss their collective ass until it comes time to ring up the sale.

My donations are certainly not "about" foreign policy. It is, however, a secondary consideration; an added benefit that I shouldn't feel guilty for recognizing. It's not like I've ever said, "Ooh, I'm going to donate to China because it'll make us look especially good!"

I'm glad that I don't personally know anyone in need or have any causes that affect me personally. But, as a result, I have to use a more formulaic means of determining where my money should go.


While I do not need to explain to anyone where my money goes or why, I will say this. My family supports one Chinese artist, Sun Jing. My father has over 200 pieces of her work and she is amazing. If we found out that she needed help, we'd send it, no questions asked, foreign policy be damned. Beyond that, meh.

No, you don't need to explain. The purpose of this thread was not to examine individual charitable practices, it was to note the difference in donation trends from one disaster to another and to discuss what influences the disparity. I thought it would be an ideal opportunity to link to donation sites for the Burmese and Chinese disasters, as they are currently the most significant (in terms of death tolls). That you give at all is what's important - why you give or to whom are private matters, as far as I'm concerned, which is why I didn't ask.

[celtic friend]

Thinking of Burma here, just saw on the news that one of our ships has been patiently waiting to give aid. Burma military will not allow them in, so they can only wait and then the aid will have to be returned and the ship will have to turn around.
This is one of the reasons people aren't giving to Burma, it won't get to them anyway. I say give the Aid to the food banks here. Some places have seen a 60 percent increase need at food banks, with rising food prices the middle class that used to donate, are now visiting for food.

[Dr. Salvador]

Bondurant hit it on the head. the Burmese government is the problem, and at some point if the people have made the choice to live as slaves rather than die fighting, then fuck em. if anything, we would be doing better deposing(sp) the burmese government rather than iraq. but in the end, if the people themselves dont make that first move, then i would rather we not even have ships close-by with aid, as gas is far too expensive. but if they do decide to throw down, send them MRE's and lots of ammunition i say. it is reprehensible that their own government fights against aid to its own people.

but................perhaps the people would fight if only they knew there would be some support, in which case, i say just flat out airdrop mre's and guns and shit and maybe even send in the troops to see that they get some help. it seems far more worthwhile to help them than the shitty afghanis/iraqis by a long sight. at least the burmese, in their "after american help" ingratitude, most likely wont actually try to wage some religious war against us, eh.:yo:

[celtic friend]

Just an FYI the ship is turning around and was not let in