Reviews for Was Make Poverty History useful?

Reviews For: Was Make Poverty History useful? - Reviews: Page 1 of 2

Tiefling 2005-08-31 ch 6,	'And that's why they have been in Mozambique since the mid eighties. Doing what they can I hope.' You asked whether there were ongoing development programs, apparently hoping to find that there weren't. I replied that there are, and you sniping at Oxfam doesn't change that fact. 'By the way, I am a member of my local St Vincent De Paul Society, ' Yep, you said that already. '...where we have people working in poor areas. ' We have St Vinnies over here too. They work with the homeless and poor here. 'It may be the case that it is only when members or targets of these charities are allowed to interact within the charity, that is to say - to actually have some influence in the order - then these operations can be said to really be; charitable.' Members of Oxfam are most certainly 'allowed to interact within the charity'. There are meetings, newsletters and numerous opportunities to make suggestions. If by 'targets' you mean the recipients of charity then they get some say too. When the development programs are set up to produce the items sold through Oxfam shops in Australia, they don't just go to communities and say 'make this', they go and see what kind of work people traditionally do there, help them do it, and create a market for their products to ensure that they are better paid to do it.
Bob 2005-08-29 ch 6,	Can't you take this to e-mail?
Leyman 2005-08-29 ch 5,	In response to Tiefling: I have made my statements concerning this essay topic; Make Poverty History based on results. If it sounds like I have generalised charities then it must be due to the representation, and packaging these NGO/Charity organisations receive, and comply to. Those who really step outside the box would be known for it, otherwise from here in the developed world they are to some extentall considered the same, charity. By the way, I am a member of my local St Vincent De Paul Society, which also has people in poor areas. I know that any charity organisation is a charity organisation, and there are rules to keep it so. It may be the case that it is only when members or targets of these charities are allowed to interact within the charity, that is to say - to actually have some influence in the order - then these operations can be said to really be; charitable. Leyman
Giygas666 2005-08-21 ch 1,	Rock artists playing music and begging warmongering politicians for favors does not cure poverty. Neither does wearing fashionable wristbands. Rather, capitalism and free enterprise are why we in the Western world enjoy such relative prosperity, whereas communist/socialist naitons suffer horrific poverty.Now, if only we could do something about corporate fascists like the G8 and the WTO and the World Bank who felsely call themselves "free market capitalists" but whose actual agenda is to impose extortion, war, and imperialist hegemony on the rest of the world.
Hanoi Jane 2005-08-14 ch 1,	Good points, all.
Tiefling 2005-08-13 ch 5,	'Well, the bigger, and longer-standing a relief organisation becomes, and the more I hear of poverty and disaster from these same countries they are suppose to be aiding,' Charities don't have a magic wand to make all the problems of the world go away. Sometimes there are endemic political problems causing the poverty, and these can be beyond the scope of aid organisations like Oxfam, who just do what they can. Charity alone may not be enough to help a country out of crisis, but that doesn't mean charity isn't valuable. Giving a young woman the opportunity to earn a decent income won't mean that her government isn't corrupt and her country isn't poor, but it will allow her to feed her kids and keep a roof over their heads. 'As I have found that when I e-mail them I get the usual; "we are so overworked," "do you want to help?" "If not, then-we advise you to check other aspects of our site." (They mean ** off!)' If you were asking a question which is clearly answered elsewhere on the website then I consider that an understandable response. Oxfam's admin team are indeed overworked. 'On the other hand, I am talking about the kind of charity objectives you see promoted on World Vision, Oxfam type-of-ads when they say; NO WATER, NO FOOD, IN ONE MINUTE THEY WILL DIE OF DISEASES.' Once again you're talking about different charities as if they were the same. Oxfam doesn't have the same kind of advertising budget World Vision does, so the only TV ads they have had, here in Australia at least, were about specific disaster relief appeals (they had some for the Tsunami appeal). 'After the initial disaster relief eg; food housing etc. what comes next? Development and governance back to the old ways of life right? How does Oxfam deal with this? ' Oxfam work with communities to develop viable local industries (the products from which can be sold through Oxfam shops), and create other programs such as HIV peer education. All of these are ongoing, long term development projects. Read up on it yourself. 'I got the report from the same source I suggested I could e-mail you the link if you like. ' Thanks for the quote. Why didn't you just include that in the first place? Personally I think having a former Oxfam worker in the World Bank could potentially be a good thing.
Leyman 2005-08-13 ch 4,	@Tiefling: 'I find it a little hard to follow your chapters sometimes as you don't seem to bother to proofread them or make sure that everything you want to say is put into coherent sentences.' From one writer on FP to another, point this out when seen! Thank you. 'Correct. They don't get given money, they get given food, emergency housing, clean water, medicines etc. A wad of cash wouldn't be much use to someone wading through the mud in the ruins of what was once their village after it's been levelled by a Tsunami. Instead they get given something they can actually use right away' This is long as there are long-term goals in view, which will involve charities seeing that the (African of Indian) governments of their projects participate in getting the people living their proper ways of life, and not just depending on hand outs right? 'The charity you give the money to, obviously. If you don't trust them to distribute it properly, give it to someone else.' Well, the bigger, and longer-standing a relief organisation becomes, and the more I hear of poverty and disaster from these same countries they are suppose to be aiding, the more sceptical I become of these larger organisations. And I think it is only sensible think so. So I might find myself doing just what you suggested. Though if I were in Australia that would be a different matter, as you clearly stated their gift-shop scheme, which to me sounds more beneficial to the poor. 'Is the money spent for them?' 'Yes. If you want to read up on how it's spent, you can.' I will, and have a little. Though, I am sure their explanation will be as ambiguous as the situation is. And if you are talking about visiting their web-sites I wouldn't be so optimistic of getting solid information. As I have found that when I e-mail them I get the usual; "we are so overworked," "do you want to help?" "If not, then-we advise you to check other aspects of our site." (They mean ** off!) 'Correct. They don't get given money, they get given food, emergency housing, clean water, medicines etc. A wad of cash wouldn't be much use to someone wading through the mud in the ruins of what was once their village after it's been levelled by a tsunami. Instead they get given something they can actually use right away.' So noted! It seems that you are talking about disaster relief in which case you would be correct. On the other hand, I am talking about the kind of charity objectives you see promoted on World Vision, Oxfam type-of-ads when they say; NO WATER, NO FOOD, IN ONE MINUTE THEY WILL DIE OF DISEASES. What they call poverty reduction or development schemes is what I am referring to. Here is where I ask are the what long-term good/goals from giving hand-outs in these regions? I hope I am not on one of my fragmented comments again. After the initial disaster relief eg; food housing etc. what comes next? Development and governance back to the old ways of life right? How does Oxfam deal with this? Or are they constantly moving about the region only to help those who need initial supply? ‘Why do you keep posting your responses as reviews as well as chapters?’ For you guys of course! To make sense I should think. For those who only read the reviews it is here. Those who read only chapters there it is. I thought it was the easiest way to read my replies as they get updated in the essay list. If you have another way of doing it let me know. Besides it's easier on the eyes I should think.
Leyman 2005-08-13 ch 5,	@punkpig: Oh of course it was all about the bands. The line-up was mainly advertised before the event, and after the show, it was pretty much all that was discussed between those who were there, and those who saw it on TV satellite. It was only some voices in the wilderness -the odd comment- that reminded us peps of what the night was suppose to be about, but most didn’t seem to have it. I am not sure about you, but I notice that we don’t hear what most of these same popstars are saying about Poverty, and the dropping-of-debt some weeks after the event. I would have thought that by Geldof, and other organisers the some popstars would have been converted to the cause like Geldof or Bono and make it a long-term cause in their career. Instead! ‘in some ways i wonder if the campaign has worsened the situation - the population is now aware of the situation but believes it solved’ Precisely. I think this needs to be said by national reporters and such because it is just too important to be overlooked. Though some predicted it, but now it seems almost self-evident that this is the case. I am grateful someone else sees this as a possibility. By the way, I must say having checked your bio-page that you seem to have an esteemed taste in musical bands. Both new, and old. Anyone on here who likes PJ HARVERY next to Hendrix, and RATM I say; yeah what’s up?Whether I am into some of those bands or not, they seem to make sense aligned to each other. Rock on! Leyman
the naked civil servant 2005-08-09 ch 1,	some really good points raised here - i think the general mentality seemed to be "hey, we've got our bands, everything's got to be ok now". in some ways i wonder if the campaign has worsened the situation - the population is now aware of the situation but believes it solved.
Tiefling 2005-08-08 ch 4,	I find it a little hard to follow your chapters sometimes as you don't seem to bother to proofread them or make sure that everything you want to say is put into coherent sentences. 'Whenone donatesto a disaster appeal like a famine that involves tens if not hundreds of thousands of victims who selects whom to be given the money?' The charity you give the money to, obviously. If you don't trust them to distribute it properly, give it to someone else. 'Is the money spent for them? 'Yes. If you want to read up on how it's spent, you can. 'Most importantly, does the individual of this disaster whom is getting some money have a say or choose how their money should go? As would be the situation of someone on welfare where they claim their money and spent it as they chose to.' Nope. Charity from people overseas and welfare payments from your own government are two different things. 'If the answer is no, if the individual victim of a disaster does not have a say or choose how his/her donated money is to be spent, then that money donated is not theirs as far as I see.' Correct. They don't get given money, they get given food, emergency housing, clean water, medicines etc. A wad of cash wouldn't be much use to someone wading through the mud in the ruins of what was once their village after it's been levelled by a tsunami. Instead they get given something they can actually use right away. I am suprised that you would have had any other expectations as to what the money was used for. It's logical, and it's not as if the information is hidden, at least not by Oxfam. They have never claimed that they send people in need sacks of cash. Think about it, if you donated money to a cancer research charity, would you have expected them to give the money directly to cancer patients? 'I don't see how Oxfam AUS spends, and distributes their funds would differ from how Oxfam UK does it, if they are under one HQ. Where is the order in that?' It spends funds in basically the same way, but sometimes on different specific causes, and the fund raising side of things works differently in the two countries. Unlike the UK Oxfam shops, the ones here aren't secondhand stores, but instead gift shops selling new products sourced from developing countries, as I mentioned in a previous review. Their purpose here is not so much for fundraising (which is also done here by other means) but to raise awareness of the organisation and to create a market for the fairly traded goods. There are some differences between Oxfam Australia and the umbrella organisation, but it doesn't seem to pose any problem to 'order'. When I keep talking about Oxfam Australia in particular, it's because that's the part of Oxfam I know most about since I work there. 'but it is also reported that a certain World Bank official was formerly working for Oxfam.' Interesting. Who was that? It's perfectly believable, but I'm dubious about your 'it was reported'. Cite your source. Okay...skimming through that rambling couple of paragraphs and sentence fragments to find the question/s you were talking about... 'So I ask of you in whose interest would this Commission bemade?' Well, if you ask Oxfam they'll tell you the Africans, but I suspect that's not what you want to hear. As to whether it's the truth, I don't know. I could read up it, but if you want to know I suggest that you do so yourself. 'While it is possible to take and use government money progressively while being critical of the donor's policies, such large amounts of government funding inevitably influence how far Oxfam will stick its neck out politically and risk future funding cuts.' Well, interesting as that is, it's really a criticism rather than a question. The question would be someting like 'Will Oxfam take and use government money progressively while being critical of the donor's policies?' Oxfam would probably say 'yes', so what would be the point of asking them? Nope, I haven't read the other article yet, since I haven't had time to go looking for it. Why do you keep posting your responses as reviews as well as chapters?
Leyman 2005-08-08 ch 4,	When one donates to a disaster appeal like a famine that involves tens if not hundreds of thousands of victims who selects whom to be given the money? Is the money given to the individual in their name, like a pledge made out to them? Is the money spent for them? Most importantly, does the individual of this disaster whom is getting some money have a say or choose how their money should go? This would be the situation of someone on welfare where they claim their money and spent it as they chose to. If the answer is no, if the individual victim of a disaster does not have a say or choose how his/her donated money is to be spent, then that money donated is not theirs as far as I see. An Oxfam organisation is an Oxfam organisation wherever it goes. The principle of higher or more responsible order remains the same though individual attitudes and approaches may differ on a local level. I don't see how Oxfam AUS spends, and distributes their funds would differ from how Oxfam UK does it, if they are under one HQ. "What questions would you have me ask?" Because you ask, if I were in your position as I do have ties with my local St Vincent de Paul, some questions I would like to know is; Oxfam's increasing involvement with Anglicised/Western national governments. Their key position in the decision making process for the Geldof and British PM Blair approved Commission for Africa. The Commission is suppose to be a development plan on trade, debt and the like made for Africans, not by Africans. So I ask of you in whose interest would this Commission bemade? Their key position in the decision-making, and further strategic involvement with the IMF, and World Bank. Not only is an organisation like Oxfam looked to for their knowledge of the African regions through their developments, but it is also reported that a certain World Bank official was formerly working for Oxfam. Hence presenting us with their close ties. International Monetary Fund, acts as a creditor to most African nations, and keeps them indebted. As many reports have claimed. By the way did you read that article? What are your thoughts on it? LEYMAN
Chris Redfield 2005-08-07 ch 1,	I'm Rick James!
Tiefling 2005-08-05 ch 3,	'However it was also while I was studying in Australia where I learnt for the first time that when you donate your money to a charity who promotes the victim of a disaster or need, the money does not go directly or wholly to the victimwill,but to the organisation for investment training and other facilities. Which would then provide help to those who need it en-mass, and not as individuals as the donators are led to believe.' Actually, in the case of Oxfam Australia at least, you're wrong.If you make a general donation to Oxfam, then it goes to the organisation. If you make a donation to a specific appeal, then it is noted as such and the money is used for that appeal (eg. the Tsunami appeal or the Sudan appeal) for the individuals affected. With something like the Tsunami appeal 70 cents in every dollar you donate goes to the victims of the Tsunami. The other 30 cents covers the cost of sending it. Oxfam tells people this when they donate. 'As for the defaming of a charity by me that was not meant. I was to apologise, but then I realised that I had said an "Oxfam or such like charity personnel" said this and that about making money off the campaign. Meaning charity personnel in the manner of Oxfam, and not Oxfam in particular.' I know. That's actually what I took exception to, your tying the name of Oxfam to an unsubstantiated claim that probably has nothing to do with them. 'Has for the retailers or volunteers getting paid next to nothing, is exactly what a company does to save money. You do know of course that there are permanent positions in the organisation you work for that have fixed salaries, and that these salaries are probably set in comparison to the fixed positions of the same posts in other non-government organisations?' Of course I know that. Don't patronise me. I personally know some people who work for the organisation on fixed salaries very well. Staff at all levels of the organisation are paid fairly (it would be hypocritical if they were not), but not excessively. No one gets rich working for Oxfam. What questions would you have me ask?
Leyman 2005-08-04 ch 3,	Oi, Oi, Tiefling! (did I spell that right?) I did live in Australia for five years. That was during the 90's and so I witnessed what you folks did for the Rwandan people. I deeply respected that. However it was also while I was studying in Australia where I learnt for the first time that when you donate your money to a charity who promotes the victim of a disaster or need, the money does not go directly or wholly to the victim's will,but to the organisation for investment training and other facilities. Which would then provide help to those who need it en-mass, and not as individuals as the donators are led to believe. 'But I will not be lying to you if I said that an Oxfam or such like charity personnel was reported to have said that thanks to the Make Poverty History campaign his salary would be covered for the next three to five years.' "Who said that, and when? Do you have anything to back that up? I'm interested as I work for Oxfam myself, and have not heard about any such thing." As for the defaming of a charity by me that was not meant. I was to apologise, but then I realised that I had said an "Oxfam or such like charity personnel" said this and that about making money off the campaign. Meaning charity personnel in the manner of Oxfam, and not Oxfam in particular. Oxfam is or was the leading organisation behind the whole campaign anyway. One thing I do is to make sure that I know why I say what I do. Anyway if this is of any help to you as back up here is the quote: "Although we hate the message and the corporate branding, some NGOs are making thousands of pounds through the wristbands," one arch critic admitted. "We have loads of new people on our database interested in our campaigns, and because the issues of trade, debt and aid are now suddenly sexy again, we have new funding bodies approaching us to do projects and research. MPH is paying for my job for the next three years." Your comment encouraged me to go back to the particular source where I got that quote of moneymaking I cited earlier. Now after reading I realise that it did not say who said what, or which organisation they were a part of, only that they were a part of a Make Poverty History organisation. To see the article yourself try google: "Indymedia uk inside the murky world", and you will find it. Now when I mentioned the rich making the rich richer what did I mean? I was not talking about Oxfam, but the musicians they attracted for the cause. These musicians were of course seen by what was said to be a billion people. Which would and has revived careers of dying bands, given others more promotion, which leads to the buying of their products like cds albums t-shirts in turn generation money for the band and the bands label. Why don't you check out my previous piece: Dawn of the Boomerang. It is about racial opinions, and culture clashes set in a Sydney airport of all places. Based around the National Sorry Day initiative. As an Australian you may appreciate it.
Tiefling 2005-08-02 ch 2,	I'm in Australia, and here the two more Make Poverty History days this year are: September 10 and December 10. Check out the Oxfam Australia website if you like: http: // w. oxfam . org . au/ campaigns/ mtf/ povertyhistory/ index . html If the bombings have screwed up the campaign in the UK, that's a shame, though understandable. It's certainly still going on over here, and the wristbands are still selling like hotcakes. 'But I will not be lying to you if I said that an Oxfam or such like charity personnel was reported to have said that thanks to the Make Poverty History campaign his salary would be covered for the next three to five years.' Who said that, and when? Do you have anything to back that up? I'm interested as I work for Oxfam myself, and have not heard about any such thing. I can say for sure that the retail side of things does not pay well. In fact it is run almost entirely by volunteers. How exactly do you think the campaign has 'helped make the rich richer and the poor poorer?' The campaign hasn't oppressed the poor in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact. Here in Australia at least I know the wristbands have helped raise awareness of the organisation and brought many new customers into Oxfam shops, where many of them also bought other products produced through Oxfam's numerous community development programs in developing countries (fair trade coffee, chocolate, skincare products, jewellery, furniture etc.). The proceeds from the sales of these products allow workers to feed their families, afford clean drinking water and send their children to school. Oxfam helps a lot of people, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't go around defaming the organisation when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Return to Top