Okay, so I am a bit embarrassed to say that I havefallen victim to the traps of “bad-vocacy” in the past. I was raised with the philosophy that “Doing something is better than doing nothing,” and while I am sure that my parents, teachers, girl scout leaders and religious educators all had the most honorable intentions in instilling this idea in my mind, I have opened my mind to an alternate reality and can see where this notion isn’t always an accurate one. I have donated “needed” items to numerous natural disaster relief efforts, bought the colorful rubber bracelets to raise awareness for issues and cleaned out my closets to help those less fortunate. On the flip side, I have donated money to various fundraising initiatives, telethons and radio-thons. Money is what is really needed, so I guess I’m okay, right? Maybe not……. I have to admit that I have always given (money or material goods) without much thought to where the money goes or to whom. This should have helped to assuage my “Catholic guilt,” but after spending the weekend “enlightening” myself by digesting the various articles and videos assigned to cover aid-based and community based approaches to macro work I have a whole new understanding of the differences between the two.
Aid–based approaches, while sometimes deeply rooted in the best of intentions, do not always address what the intended recipients actually need to improve their lives. After reading, "Haiti Doesn’t Need Your Old T-Shirt," by Charles Kenney and watching the brief video, “A Day Without Dignity," the dumping of leftover t-shirts and shoes on the residents of Haiti and Nigeria opened my eyes to the problems with some aid based efforts. Also, the discussion of how the US food aid program has put native rice farmers out of business in Haiti and textile workers out of jobs in other countries were two strong examples that the best intentions do not always result in the intended outcomes, unless the intended outcome was to achieve some misguided notion that what is best for us (Americans. Corporations and the federal government) must also be best for those being “helped.” According to the reading, the intention is all too often to unload our surplus of goods and send our leftovers to less fortunate communities are Pop-Tarts really beneficial to anyone?
Community based efforts are much more far-sighted than their aid based counterparts. The grass-roots types of efforts that were illustrated in our readings and in the videos we watched had a much more long-lasting effect for the communities involved. In addition, the people who were affected by the issues had a vested interest in the process of affecting solutions. In “Pray the Devil Home,” Leymah Gbowee talked about the process the women implemented to achieve the intended effect on their situation. What was especially interesting to me was how the women spent one hour after each peaceful protest to conduct an analysis of the protest. The goal of this hour was, in essence, to see what had worked, what hadn’t and how to improve their efforts. This was truly a community effort conducted by the affected community and it definitely got noticed. The women were able to achieve their goals and so much more. Their efforts became a model and an inspiration for other global efforts in the approach to creating peaceful communities.
When Gbowee made the statement that, “Peace is a process, not an event,” it had a particularly strong impact on me. It helped me to understand the level of her commitment to uniting both Muslim and Christian women in Nigeria to take a stand against the war in their country. It brought a new light to the plight of women living in a war zone. As was discussed in the video, “War Redefined,” the focus of war and its coverage has always been on the man’s story; how to fight, the weapons used and the politics involved. This group of Nigerian women and others like them, have begun to force us to shift this lens with which we view war to also include the impact that war has on women and the impact that women can have on a war. Patrick Cammaert, a former UN Peacekeeping leader stated that, “It is more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in an armed conflict today.” One US initiative that seems to be having a positive effect in the war in the Middle East is the use of female engagement teams in the Afghan countryside. Because it is unacceptable for Afghan women to speak to an unrelated man, the US has begun to use teams of military women to tour the villages and engage the female population in Afghanistan to explore their needs and the needs of their children. Soliciting this information from those directly involved in the conflict should help to ensure that we are providing the correct type and amount of help these women so desperately need.
For me, the blog post “Before You Give, Think” was the most helpful. The seven steps listed provide even the novice explorer (like me) in the field of advocacy, domestic or international, with clear guidelines to follow when embarking on the “mission” to give. Steps two and three; reflecting on your initial emotions and questioning yourself, are especially important to me in the process. They are definitely two things I have not done in the past. I am more of an emotional participant in that I get caught up in my own emotions and have to “do something” right away. This advice also aligned well with the knowledge I gained during LEAD Day at the state house this week. The importance of researching your cause and creating a plan was stressed by all of the panelists that participated in the workshops. They did speak of the need for being passionate about your cause when participating in grass-roots advocacy, but Representative Enriques made a point to explain that being passionate did not necessarily insinuate a need to be emotional. He instead advised that we harness our passion on an issue, learn as much as we can about it, reflect on what we have learned and then take the time to develop a plan that best addresses it. Finally, he stressed the need for constant analysis of our actions, adapting our approach or plan, and remaining true to our passion and cause. All of the information I have been able to gain through this process will assist me in becoming the advocate I now know I was meant to become.
Watch this video for a community-based approach on a domestic level.
Aid–based approaches, while sometimes deeply rooted in the best of intentions, do not always address what the intended recipients actually need to improve their lives. After reading, "Haiti Doesn’t Need Your Old T-Shirt," by Charles Kenney and watching the brief video, “A Day Without Dignity," the dumping of leftover t-shirts and shoes on the residents of Haiti and Nigeria opened my eyes to the problems with some aid based efforts. Also, the discussion of how the US food aid program has put native rice farmers out of business in Haiti and textile workers out of jobs in other countries were two strong examples that the best intentions do not always result in the intended outcomes, unless the intended outcome was to achieve some misguided notion that what is best for us (Americans. Corporations and the federal government) must also be best for those being “helped.” According to the reading, the intention is all too often to unload our surplus of goods and send our leftovers to less fortunate communities are Pop-Tarts really beneficial to anyone? 
No comments:
Post a Comment