Philanthropic Colonialism
By Albert B. Kelly
Recently, I came across the
phrase “Philanthropic Colonialism” in a book written by Howard G. Buffet, called
“Forty Chances-Finding Hope in a Hungry World”. Without bogging you down with
too many details, Buffet heads up the “Howard G. Buffet Foundation”, an
organization working to alleviate food insecurity around the globe; which is
basically the subject of his book.
The phrase caught my
attention. The word “philanthropy” basically means an act or gift done for
humanitarian purposes; while the word “colonialism” means control by one power over
a dependent area or people. So bringing the two together; you essentially come
out with the idea of a humanitarian gift being a way to control people; whether
intended or not.
What does “philanthropic
colonialism” look like? In his book (Forty Chances), Buffet talks at length
about charitable organizations, including NGO’s or Non-Governmental
Organizations, involved with providing aid to third world countries in Africa
and how these efforts are so often ineffective or outright failures.
For example, he describes
containers shipped in the guise of aid to Thailand after a devastating tsunami
that contained outdated medicine, broken toys, and winter clothes. Aside from
the broken toys and expired medicine, Thailand is a tropical climate and people
don’t wear winter clothes. No matter though, the whole effort was framed as a
success and donors got their “good feelings” that came with “giving” even
though the stuff was worthless.
Donors and organizations
often undertake projects without ever consulting the people they are supposedly
trying to help. Whether it’s building indoor bathrooms in African villages (even
though the people don’t want that set-up), providing a second floor on new
houses in Thailand (even though occupants don’t want or use a second story), or
bringing modern farm equipment to the Ivory Coast with no thought as to how
third world farmers are going to get diesel or replacement parts; “givers”
often impose the terms of the giving regardless of what the needy actually
need.
In the big picture of
charity and donating, it’s true that nobody gets warm and fuzzy over seeing
their donation used to cover administrative overhead, feasibility studies, or environmental
impact statements; yet these things are critical to proper planning and
long-term success. As a result, money and resources get poured into one-shot
projects that are quick, clean, and obvious.
Let’s face it, in the
charity universe, it’s quicker and easier to just give a man the darned fish
for dinner then to spend a lot of time teaching him how to bait the line, cast
it out, reel it in, clean and gut the fish, set up a long-term storage system
to keep the fish he caught, and sell to market. Those doing the giving prefer
to see instant accomplishment so it becomes all about generating a metric with
the number of people fed, clothed, housed, etc., regardless of whether the
thing really has a positive impact or not.
What does that look like
on the local level? As a pleasant surprise (or maybe not such a surprise), when
it comes to Code Blue, we’ve seen some amazing generosity; people providing
monetary help to a dedicated fund that’s been set up so the partners involved
can purchase exactly what’s needed and that tells me that those who’ve given to
Code Blue are way ahead of the curve and they understand what it means to
support a program on the local level.
It can become difficult,
because you don’t want to send a message of ingratitude but at the same time,
the focus has to be on helping those in their specific needs and not about the sensibilities
of the giver. I don’t point that out that lightly, but there’s a difference
between helping the needy in their specific need and just giving to feel good
about giving. Over the years I’ve learned that giving what’s convenient is not
necessarily sacrificial giving; it’s “easy giving” and sometimes it’s just a
way for me to clean out the garage or the basement, get some “warm fuzzies”, and
avoid tipping fees at the dump.
I say all of that because
if our giving is going to do some serious good and if we’re going to have the
type of impact we need to have; then maybe the thinking has to change. In the
world of philanthropy, charity and donors; there’s the actual need on the
ground and then there’s what donors want to contribute to and the two are not
always the same.
But the power is always
with those doing the giving because they have options; they’re not desperate
and they can choose to walk away from something and it really won’t cost
them…so they call the shots. Meanwhile, the recipients-the needy-they have no
power and they have no options so they have to take whatever is being offered; all
part of the “beggars can’t be choosers” philosophy.
That said, sometimes the
greatest gift that donors can give is a willingness not to impose their
priorities on a situation, but to deal with what actually exists.