I just read this article in the NYTimes. It touched on some things we've talked about on here, and thought it might prompt some discussion.

So, um, read it and discuss.

Good for Bill Gates, and any other millionaire philanthropist that want's to do some good with their money, but I've never been into charity much.
The idle rich have always been into it. When Camilla Parker-Bowles became Charles' official girlfriend, the first thing they had to decide was, what charity she would get involved with. They chose The National Osteoporosis Society, as her mother had died of it.
I have a family member who works in the city and lives in a big house. He and his posh mates are always doing charity events. Sponsored runs and bike rides, and £100 a head dinners. I think they're all just networking.
As for giving money to hospitals so they can buy dialysis machines or whatever - that's what our taxes are for.
When there is a disaster, like Pakistan's big earthquke last year, should people in the west send money to a country with neuclear weapons, and which spends so much of its GDP on the military? (I didn't).

How narrow-minded. Good on any charity who can lever a hundred quid from some networking toff.


What about non-government-funded areas? For example, there is a charity here that's had a great run of publicity this year to raise money to build care facilities for young people - who the government can only place in "old people's homes".

I suspect you and yours haven't been on the receiving end of any charity, Damon, or you might have a more appreciative view of it.

Charity is important. a) Without it, there would be some very unfortunate people, animals and places in very difficult situations. It is a philanthropic act to give to others who are less fortunate than yourself. I can't see anything wrong with that. c) Altruism eases our bourgeois consciences. I'm sure all that giving makes Bill Gates feel better.

The difficulty is that it should never allow us to forget that we must eradicate privilege, the bourgeoisie and, above all right now, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hitlers. Just because someone is a nice person who gives to charity doesn't mean that they are not bourgeois gits who make money on the backs of the working class. If we ate the rich, we would have no need of charity.

Well said Andy.

I do give to charity because I earn more than I need to live a very happy, wealthy and complete life. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the money you earn by spending it on yourself, but there's only so much you need before you start spending on silly things.
So everything you earn above that, give it away to someone or something that has better use for it.

I think there are plenty of people out there that think it's better to spend money on cancer research than on diamond studded dogcollars.

But as Andy said: we should overhaul the system that enables people to earn that kind of silly money

I understand the anti charity argument and agree it's probably cheaper than paying extra tax for the wealthy and taxation is a simpler more cost effective way to fund the services we all need,

BUT,

Tory types hate paying tax and don't vote for parties who put tax up.

I am a trustee of a East London based charity which works with families who have children with Autism (my eldest son is on the autistic spectrum) My charity has to go to a wide variety of sources for funding; The Lottery, Children in Need etc

Needless to say I was hostile to charity per say before my son was born but experience has made me more realistic.

One final point Labour council Barking and Dagenham fund us but Tory Havering won't; so I hope that puts a lie to all those they are all the same comments.

Mick

I was helped out by a charity back in the 80s when my son died.

I have since then given to charity whenever i could, and still do, plus i have taken part in charitable events.

I think it's very important to do so and echo Leontiens and Andys points.

I do hate that whole "holier than thou" and that " vegitarians against the clan" is more important than whatever charity you might support attitude you sometimes come up against, but as long as the money gets raised and people get helped then it's all good.

On the other hand, i know and have worked with people that would rather cut off their own heads than give money to any chartity that helps out Drug users, the poor in other countries or indeed even AIDS and HIV sufferers. Their argument is that charity begins at home and that we should help our own(white) people first.

I must admit that i get an enormous sense of well being whenever i give to charity and they get the money and that's what it's all about.

So if you can afford it (and i think a lot of us can) give your money or your time (or both).

Tim.

About 5 years ago I stopped buying gifts for my sisters and contributed in their names instead. They love it, I love it and hopefully we are doing a bit of good in this world. I mean, how much crap can you have?

I always buy a goat from Heifer - our joke is every year we name it Ed for my father. He would have roared, so it's a nice touchstone as well.

i didn't know that tim.

is my general view but there is always help needed above and beyond and i always admire direct involvement.


we had a bit of an early christlethingy last week and alberr's youngest bought books on our behalf. Very appropriate

It's not something i like to talk about Beryl and the facts of it do not belong here (i'm sure i've mentioned it on some long forgotten thread).

*slips into fagin mode*

"Charity's fine, subscribe to mine, you've got to pick a pocket or two"!



As a committed fence sitter, i've no idea about my bourgeois conscience or what makes up the bourgeoisie but mabye you can explain it to me at tolpuddle. Along with how the workers can control the means of production and wealth re distribution!

Tim.

i have possibly changed my mind about eating the rich. I think eating geoffrey archer would be worse than eating tripe!

maybe we should just use them for fuel


tim.. i'll explain when we've had a hug

You aren't telling us anything new about tories or their councils. The rest of us have to make the tories have it. I couldn't give a toss who they vote for. In the short term, unfortunately, there is not a British political party who will make a stand for those less well off people in the world or represent me. In the meantime, I will continue to vote New (same old) Labour and give to charity. But I will strive to build a fairer society as well. For me, that means that the capitalist system must be replaced.

i have a tale to tell but i am too pissed to type it

This article may not go down that well with some, as it takes a swipe at the outlook of many charities.
The writer works for a charity, but doesn't think much of sending goats and alpaca's for the worlds poor.
I'm not really sure what I think, but some of those links at the bottom do look a bit patronising - like this one.

I think it's a very valid article, although lacking nuance.
(Subsistence) farming is a very poor existence, but a reality for 95% of people in third world countries.
Advocating that charities that focus on improving the lives of these people with a goat or cow is keeping them poor, is just not fair.
Surely good education, proper infrastructure and last but not least: a decent government will do more to improve these peoples lives, but these are things that most charities have no control over.

Using a goat or a cow as a marketing tool is of course just that, a marketing tool. For the poorest having an animal like that really does make a big difference, and earning one themselves is very often really way beyond their means.

So, there's certainly a case for promoting help to farmers. But I agree with the writer of the article that investing in education, infrastructure and best of all: trade, may be a more effective and speedy way forward.

I'm looking forward to that Beryl.

I'm a bit pissed too.

Tim.

Do you think about where the money goes when you buy a CD? I don't. If you don't send goats or alpaca, what are you supposed to send to the world's poor? I don't think it would be all that constructive to send arms to Thailand. However, I do give to charity. There are charities other than Oxfam too. I always buy "Big Issue" but I never buy a poppy. I have never been to Macdonalds but I have been to Pizza Express. If I want to, I can think it's all bullshit and watch Eastenders all day. You see, I am in a position where I can choose.

Most of us do actually care though. We share values about caring for each other and that's why charities exist in the first place. I am aware that some people working for some charities are corrupt but I also know that New (same old) Labour don't represent me in the way I would like to be represented. So what do I do? Keep all my money in my own pocket like the Tories would like and then allow them to form a government that in no way represents me? Do I gingerly take tiny, difficult steps or stand still and sink in the quicksand of capitalism?

There is an awful lot of bullshit about "the true meaning of Christmas" spoken at this time of year. Charities get involved in it, so do politicians and the clergy. It's all hypocrisy but we often fall for it. (Quite how one avoids hypocrisy in the opulent West is a very difficult issue but I do know it would involve much sacrifice. Am I prepared for that? Like how about paying double the price for everything in Tesco?) Let's stop bullshitting and get real. There is no "real meaning" of Christmas. We pay less for commodities because our institutions exploit the poor.

Charities exist within a capitalist system. How can they exist without adopting some of the tactics of other capitalist institutions? The answer is that they can't. So they have to advertise and publicise. It can't be easy for Oxfam or whoever to compete with Coronation Street or Macdonalds but they have to try because they want your quid just like big business wants it. Thing is, they do tend to give the money to deserving poor rather than undeserving rich bastards. It eases our consciences to buy what we at least think of as 'right on' commodities: they are advertised as things that will sort of balance out the opulence of the "season of goodwill to all men."

My kids gave me a gift of trees for the third world and I felt proud that they have those kinds of values, that they at least care about those less fortunate than ourselves. They also gave me a copy of BB's "The Progressive Patriot" and I'm proud that they recognise my left wing credentials. But, before I start clapping myself on the back, I'm not stupid enough to forget that the world is unequal and exploitative. Nor am I daft enough to think that a donation to Oxfam is going to put that right. However, ....... oh I'm fed up of this argument. Do what you think is the right thing. Just don't think you're some kind of hero for what you do.

I swore, this week, never to buy from my particular big issue seller again! He thinks i am a soft touch because when he is outside waitrose i used to give him a little food offering on my way out. Our relationship began to break down when he refused another organic jumbo sausage roll (on special offer so i had given him several ) and kept nagging me for a bloddy booger from macdonalds. Now, he never says thank you when i pay over the odds for the bloddy magazine but just asks for more bloddy money!

'giving' gives a warm glow and if the recipient is ungrateful you feel a bit cheated! it's true.

I found the Monty Don project interesting for that reason.

I never used to buy a poppy but now i do and i tell the seller i hope the troops get home ASAP.

I am a committed socialist and i used to get so angry at people rattling cans in the street for money for 'the blind' etc. People with disabilities have a right to the support they need. Remember the collection box with the child in a caliper? You wouldn't see that nowadays. Marketing has changed the image of charities but are they still just begging bowls and are we letting the state (and society) get away with avoiding responsibilty?

I always give to the lifeboats and to the Sally Army.

I couldn't access the article from the NYTimes, but I find the discussion very interesting.

But I wonder: giving money to an organisation which is classified as being a "charity" is it really the same as giving for an individual who sells Big Issue, or isn't it?
Giving money to a challenging NGO or voluntary association is it the same as giving to a charity which isn't challenging the system but just trying to make it more acceptable both for the poor and the rich, or isn't it? And how can you see whether a NGO is an activist actor pushing for social change or a consensual actor which doesn't pursue a social change objective?

Many NGOs are not classified as charities. Actually, from what I know, "charity" is a very english concept. It comes back to the 19th century and the Victorian England. The concept of "charitable organisations" was then linked to the debate on citizenship. Charity was a social principle, an essential component of a democratic society that helped to regulate it through the establishment of moral objectives and altruistic voluntary commitment. The reluctance or inability of the State to intervene left the way open for the development of charities and voluntary organisations. In the UK, criteria defining "charities" introduced a form of discrimination against mutual-aid activities and restricted them to traditional philanthropy. Some scholars have thus shown that in the UK, the preminence of the individual, of the private sphere and of civil society over the State is vivid.
In France, where the statist tradition contrasted with the UK predominance of individual responsibility, associations and NGOs have not developed the same way. We don't really use the term of "charity" (charité), which carries negative connotations (basically going back to the time when the Church was taking care of the poor, before the French revolution got rid of catholic charities and the Jacobin government declared it social responsibility and stressed its monopoly over the common will).

The concept of charity shops is very weird also for a French person, but I think it's a a very good idea, especially when it gives you the possibility to buy great second-hand books and clothes. I think it's very clever in terms of spending money for a "charitable cause" without a "consumerist attitude".

I don't give to "charities", as most French people I guess, but I give for the Family Planning Association, which is, in France anyway, not a charity but really an activist organisation as well as a service provider (it does get funding from the State but needs it own money to ensure its independence and "activist role"), and which is also so important in many countries across the world.

very intertesting post domino.

You see - another reason for getting rid of the inbred mutants. In France, when they lopped off heads they meant it. In Britain, we ended up apologising and reinstating the bastards. They cause so much damage to our society.

I think it would be charitable to get rid of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Hitlers as soon as possible.

And end up with class acts as Mitterand or Chirac? Doesn't help much I'm afraid.
I dunno if Domino's explanation is correct, but as a matter of etymological fact: charities in Holland are called "good causes"...
So there.

Neither Mitterand nor Chirac were/ are inbred mutants. They did not get their positions by sheer accident of birth. It would be charitable / a good cause to rid the world of them.

I'm not sure that the election of our presidents has anything to do with the place and role of associations and charities in society. I didn't mean to say that one historical model of development of society is better than another. That would be silly. I just explained why charities have a much more important place and role in the UK than in France. BTW, if the French Revolution got rid of catholic charities and monarchy and declared that the State had the monopoly over social responsibility and the "common will", it also made it impossible for voluntary organisations to develop (associations were illegal throughout the 19th century until an 1864 Act afforded the freedom of association and a 1901 Act legalised associations). If I'm in support for a strong Welfare State, I do believe that "counter-powers" are just as important and I don't think that only the State can pretend to represent the "common will". So, just to be clear, I never implied that one model is better than others. But I think it's fascinating to observe the differences between countries when it comes to the place of voluntary groups. I believe that one explanation for the culture of protestation and conflitcs that characterise French associations (with demonstrations, strikes and so on) is actually directly related to the opposition with the State in the last centuries, as they had to fight to exist. On the contrary, voluntary organisations and charities in the UK forged much closer links with public authorities throughout times. Besides, it's very interesting to have a look at the recent report commissioned by the Tories to make policy recommendations on issues of poverty. The last chapter of the report focuses on the "Britain's third sector" (meaning voluntary and community sector) and its crucial role in the fight against poverty. Such a vision of voluntary organisations as key players in the fight against poverty is very unlikely to be defended by political parties in France, both right and left.

I don't know much about charities and voluntary organisations in the Netherlands. As for the UK, I can recommend you a few books and academic articles on that topic (my explanation was a summary and doesn't pretend to be completely exhaustive).
But, overall, the development of voluntary organisations has been closely linked to the development of different types of welfare States in each country. And the UK is characterised by a liberal and dual system of welfare State, when France is characterised by a corporatist one.

As for the term "charity", it actually entered the English language through the French word "charité" which was derived from the Latin "caritas", which means "selfless love". "In Christian theology charity, or love, is the greatest of the three theological virtues. Love, in this sense of an unlimited loving-kindness towards all others, is held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit, because it is said to both glorify and reflect the nature of God". (...) (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29)
This is why, I guess, the connotations of the word in today's France is still very much influenced by this religious meanings, and therefore this word is not very popular...

Only working for part of the year, I don't have much 'spare' money - but what do people think of the chuggers that stop you outside Sainsbury's with their very well worked out patter? Some days there are several different groups out on the high st.
They don't bother me, but I see that some of the more persuasive ones, do throw some people off balance - and you see people signing up for things with direct debit. I'm sure some people would rather they hadn't, after they have done so.

I'm sure there is a lot of good work done by charities in Africa, (Medecines san Frontiers it seems, are a very brave bunch of people), but I read this book by Paul Theroux recently, where he travels across Africa, and he had some less than praiseworthy things to say about some of the large charities that have been there for so many years. (The first customer review mentions this).

I have to say, Paul Theroux is one of the most misanthropic persons I have ever read in my life. I love his books, they are so entertaining, but I live in fear he'll be next to me on a train somewhere and I'll get perfectly skewered in a book.

You can do research on charities before you give. The amount of money that goes to administration before actual charity for instance. You can just drive down to a food bank with a couple cases of canned soup and make a difference, if only for a day. The most important thing you could ever give is time and that's also the hardest.

are you father christmas

nb: we are pissed off with him being called 'santa' everywhere you go nowadays. fuckin' disney takeover

we have stopped/started direct debits a few times over the years as employment has ebbed and flowed. We currently make a small monthly donation to medicine sans frontiers. They are the people i want to throw money at in times of natural disasters and as i may not have any money when needed, a small but regular contribution makes sense.

i always get a bargain in the people's dispensary for sick animals which was my MIL's charity of choice. I have no religion and am not keen on smelly furry things but i feel MIL (who had 'healing' tendancies) looks over me when i shop there

took the words right out of my mouth. Scary.

I'm confused Beryl - I don't think Santa Claus is a Disneyfication, afterall, he's really Saint Nicholas and I'm assuming that Santa comes from Saint in some way.

We can't blame Disney for everything you know...

Sorry completely off topic of me, when I get a sec I'll add my twopenneth worth to this topic.

Father Christmas is a Coca cola merchandising Gimick!



I give money to Shelter every month, And I figure what I give just covers the cost of the mail shots that they bombard me with

from wikipedia

The popular American form Santa Claus originated as a mispronunciation of Dutch Sinterklaas, which is a contracted form of Sint Nicolaas (Saint Nicholas).

Father Christmas is a well-loved figure in many countries and predates the Santa Claus character. Father Christmas is similar in many ways, though the two have quite different origins. Using 'Santa' in places that predominantly call him Father Christmas may be viewed as an Americanism, although they are generally nowadays regarded as the same character. Santa Claus is inexorably tied to Christmas in American culture, but in some cultures, he is not associated with Christmas at all, arriving on a different day (for instance December 6th, Saint Nicholas Day), while baby Jesus brings presents on Christmas Eve.

i said disney so as not to sound as if i am just anti americanisation in general .. which of course i am! what the fuck is trick and treat all about!

actually i'll tell my daughter who was doing the wingeing about it being santa everywhere that she shold tell the trick and treaters to piss off.. not buy them special marshmallows from tescos

oops .. just to get back on topic. Not only do trick and treaters disturb me.. it isn't even for charity

I hadn't noticed that Paul Theroux hated or distrusted humankind. I haven't read his fiction, but have read quite a few of his books about his travels. The Great Railway Bazaar made me want to ride all around India by train - which I did later. And this one, Sunrise with Seamonsters is a collection of short chapters and articles published here and there over the years, going back to when he was avoiding the Vietnam war by being a VSO volunteer in Uganda and Malawi. I like the way that even taking a rowing boat out from Cape Cod one afternoon becomes full of vivid description, and a bit of drama.

His point about the big charities he saw operating in Africa as he went through, was that he thought that they had become part of the landscape and the local economy, and that they hindered self reliance. That also, some of the actual aid workers, in their white Land Rovers, were remote from the people they were supposed to be helping - highlighted by one incident in a remote part of Kenya (I think), when stranded by lack of transport, he saw one of these Land Rovers leave him in its dust, when he tried to hitch a ride to the next town. (When he had a car, driving in Malawi, he picked up the local people as he went along).

We can ask Shay about that, can't we?

Well, I got many a ride from charity workers. There's arseholes everywhere, even among aid workers. Duh.

*Sniggers in a very juvenile manner and makes a note to apologise to Leontien next time I see her*

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/fint-d29.shtml

Has anybody else thrown up over the "Charity News" item in The Observer's "Said and Done" column?

you certainly can sweetheart

i can tell you loads

I agree with that, however, I also think that the assumption that charities are better at "good works" than the state is dangerous: the Right (for example in the Duncan-Smith report on poverty that the Tories recently produced) tend to argue that charities are more efficient, less wasteful and more innovative than government - so the answer to society's ills is more charity and less tax.
I would say that whilst some charities (especially smaller ones) are often very good at turning philanthropic impulses into real benefits, others are just as bureaucratic and wasteful as government, and often less effective in ensuring that the money is targeted on those who need it most.
And the charity laws are difficult to justify, since they provide tax breaks to all sorts of organisations that really don't deserve them. Independent schools are one example, but the most indefensible fact for me is this: whatever your views on, say, hunting, you can choose to donate to a pro- or anti- organisation to lobby on your behalf. You can also choose not to give at all. However, you have no choice in the fact that organisations on both sides of the debate are given tax breaks so that, in effect you subsidise them.
That seems to me to be wrong.

Tonight Channel 4, 7.30pm. The Insider: Get tough with the homeless.

Big Issue founder John Bird asks: ''what can be done to solve the problem of rough sleeping and homelessness?''

I heard him on the radio today, and he seemed to have gone off the idea of giving people money, or giving them a safe hostel bed for the night.

The more serious alcoholics and drug addicts (perhaps) should be sectioned, (he said).

I wouldn't argue against someone like him - who must know what he's talking about.

Nothing to see here folks.

Yes, the rich should give more to charity. And even
if you are poor you can still give to charity-your time.
Many charity shops are short of volunteers, so while
money is always helpful, if they have a lack of staff
they often have to close early.

Roxy641

Someone once told me that Shelter issue reports and raise awareness of homelessness but have never built a house! Is this true?

from the shelter website. which you could have googled yourself mick, unless of course it was a rhetorical question to have a dig at one of the UK's best charities....?

"You have housing rights that are protected by law. Shelter cannot house you, but our specialist advisers can help you get what you are entitled to."

did you think they were like barratt homes for the underpriveleged or something?

Maybe a kind of derailment..

http://www.billybragg.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=371

... but I guess Jail Guitar Doors is a charity of sorts, it's just that I find it a bit of a piss-take to reward criminal behaviour with musical instruments.

I'd love to see the allocation guidelines; Ian Huntley would get an Squire Telecaster and Steven Wright would get a 1958 Gretch Model 6014 Corsair.