Yesterday I posted about how compassion can be problematic in philanthropy. The “don’t donate to Japan” clusterfuck is a great example.
It started with Good Intentions Are Not Enough suggesting that people wait to donate to Japan, to see if and how much is needed and for a clearer picture to emerge. GiveWell (another great charity analysis site) posted that there doesn’t seem to be room for more funding for the tsunami response at this stage and recommended that if you still want to donate, best to give to a general emergency fund. Good Intentions also wrote a post on why Japan doesn’t need as much aid as you might think given media reports.
Amid this backdrop of more tempered and academic posts, the one that went viral was Felix Salmon’s Don’t Donate Money to Japan. It was more sensationalist (as you can see from the title) and I think he made a few blunders (no, Japan can’t just print more money) but he said mostly the same thing. Here are some quotes to give a taste:
Individuals are doing it, banks are doing it – faced with the horrific news and pictures from Japan, everybody wants to do something, and the obvious thing to do is to donate money to some relief fund or other.
Please don’t.
[…]
Earmarking funds is a really good way of hobbling relief organizations and ensuring that they have to leave large piles of
money unspent in one place while facing urgent needs in other places. And as Matthew Bishop and Michael Green said last year, we are all better at responding to human suffering caused by dramatic, telegenic emergencies than to the much greater loss of life from ongoing hunger, disease and conflict. That often results in a mess of uncoordinated NGOs parachuting in to emergency areas with lots of good intentions, where a strategic official sector response would be much more effective. Meanwhile, the smaller and less visible emergencies where NGOs can do the most good are left unfunded.
[…]
I’ve just donated $400 in unrestricted funds to MSF. Some of it might go to Japan; all of it will go to areas where it’s sorely needed. I’d urge you to do the same, rather than try to target money at whichever disaster might be in the news today.
The response was 250+ comments and many more on Facebook, most of which made me lose my faith in humanity. It is true that his post was a bit sloppy (so some of the critical comments were great). But generally, people were calling him a fuck, demanding he’s fired immediately and so on. Just a few categories of outraged response. Firstly, the straight-out ad-hominem, or being offended while saying something a million times more offensive than the post:
9600 of my country’s people haven’t eaten anything since Friday meanwhile you are drinking Starbucks coffee and rich fat food…You disgust me.
I don’t care what you write in the article, anyone at this time who titles an article “Don’t Donate To Japan”? should be fired
You sir are a arrogant Western overindulgent douche-bag
Dear Mr Salmon, you insensitive smart ass piece of crap, I hope you suffer some similar personal tragedy that effects your immediate shelter and livelihood.
This article is beyond offensive. Don’t give money to starving, freezing, homeless people who have been hit by tsunami. Give money instead to the global poverty pimps and their endless cycle of dependency. This person should be fired ASAP.
Then there are people who just know that Japan needs money now, and seem to quite openly admit they’re not open to actual evidence.
The nerve of this blowhard to say the farmers, fisherman and elderly from one of the poorest parts of Japan who have also lost everything don’t need socks, food or any help from others.
It is absurd to say that Japan does not need money right now. That money turns directly into food, water, and supplies. If you do not think Japan needs money, you have not grasped the magnitute of this disaster.
Fuck You. What an asshole you must be, writer of this article…I can assure you that there are THOUSANDS of people who need direct help in Japan.
i don’t care about what evidence you have supporting your opinion. giving an article such title at such time is absolutely unacceptable. YOU SHOULD BE FIRED!!
Finally, the worst response of all, the compassion talk. These are people who basically agree that a logical approach would save more lives but STILL find this offensive. They seem to be (again, openly) saying that charity SHOULD be about the giver feeling good (or whether or not the giver was in an appropriately “sacred” or “spiritual” frame of mind). Maximising actual results is secondary.
Absolutely disgusting. Cold logic applied at a time of real tradgedy. First an apology. Then a resignation if not fired first.
The simple truth is, good Samaritans do not check the income level of their neighbors before helping.
Sorry Mr. Salmon, I’m still donating. Despite your venom, philanthropy is alive and well with many of us. Anyone who could view the reports of the pain and suffering in Japan and not want to help, is not someone of integrity or compassion.
Donating money is NOT investing. We don’t always want (nor will likely ever get) the most bang for your buck. We donate to a cause because it had a strong personal effect on us and we feel we can help that cause.
The point of charity is to GIVE. If you give expecting thanks or with the intention of following the money around to make sure it’s spent the way YOU intend, you are NOT giving”¦you are lending with expectations of getting something back.
So what if people would rather earmark donated funds for a specific cause, at least they are trying to help.
If you ever doubt that humans are animals or that we’re woefully irrational or that humans suck or that compassion should be carefully controlled in order to help people, just consult the quotes above.
0 Comments