Sometimes they come on after the news on weekends, their highly contrasted eyes large and bright against their dark skin. They seem unaffected by the flies crawling over their faces, and their malnourished bellies seem to protrude from the television screen and bump against your heart—all the while a voice tells you that you can help, you can make a difference in these children’s lives.
The voice says that for the price of a daily coffee you can feed a child in Africa. He says that if you give so much money a month, you can sponsor a child. Your money will go towards feeding, clothing and housing the poor and hungry orphans of AIDS or the disabled children of conflict.
But how the hell can a sponsor be so sure?
Aid organizations that have a religion in their name blatantly shout out to the followers of that faith to send money, but simultaneously dissuade people from other beliefs from wanting to help. How does a sponsor know if her money is going to feed a child rice or the body of Christ?
Although it is always important to give people hope—especially the young—giving faith before food is a waste of money; but it’s easier to force others to their knees when they are starving.
But it is not only religiously associated organizations that deter potential donations—animal aid societies flip-flop on their positions so much that it is hard to know if your money is going to help or hurt creatures you want to save.
Recently, Greenpeace, an international environmental organization, flipped their stance on the killing of kangaroos in Australia. In a report released to the media they stated the consumption of kangaroos could cut down on the greenhouse gases and land clearing directly related to rearing conventional livestock.
This new “eat roos for the climate” attitude is contrary to the 1986 film Greenpeace released called Goodbye to Joey where they criticized the slaughter of the Aussie marsupials.
This Greenpeace report has obviously caused dismay in animal lovers and those that who enjoy small drumsticks. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the website for Sea Shepherd, an organization created out of Greenpeace rebellion. Founder and president of Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, left Greenpeace after he used physically forceful methods to stop the killing of baby seals.
Since Watson has prior animosity with Greenpeace, it makes sense that Sea Shepherd would jump at the chance to point out Greenpeace’s sudden hypocrisy.
Sea Shepherd portrays themselves as an action-oriented organization that sails around the world fighting evil in the form of unlawful whaling boats and any other illegal offenders; their ships have been known to ram fishing vessels and the crew has been filmed fighting seal hunters. If you love the sea and would like to make a difference, Sea Shepherd seems to be the “real deal”; donating to or volunteering with them sounds like the way to go.
But even Sea Shepherd causes questions to arise when it comes to assisstance; if you want to volunteer on of their “all-vegan” crews, you need to fill out a form—and become a “member” by paying a fee of $100. Paying to even be considered as a volunteer for a dangerous voyage where you will be giving up time, energy and possibly your clean criminal record seems a little much.
But as far as hypocritical tactics and iffy donation results go, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have raised more controversy than all the Jesus-prompted help organizations combined. PETA’s advertising campaigns have compared livestock operations to the Holocaust and displayed nude celebrities endorsing anti-fur; the society has released undercover investigations and even video games to promote their cause.
Then in 2005, two PETA employees were charged with animal cruelty after it was discovered they were euthanizing adoptable pets and throwing the carcasses in dumpsters. Co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, has made several statements that have caused companies, fellow animal-rights groups and the public to be highly offended.
So, as just one person, how do you make a difference once you’ve decided you want to? Who do you trust with your well-intentioned, hard earned donations?
The organizations mentioned above have done incredible things for their causes; but some of their actions cause potential donators to wonder what they might be contributing to. The Canada Revenue Agency is a good resource when deciding what charity to go with, but there is never a guarantee that your money or time is going to the exact person, animal or cause that you intended. Charity is an unconditional force—it should not consider whether a person converts his or her faith before getting food, an animal is cute before getting shelter, or a disease is marketable before being researched.
The voice says that for the price of a daily coffee you can feed a child in Africa. He says that if you give so much money a month, you can sponsor a child. Your money will go towards feeding, clothing and housing the poor and hungry orphans of AIDS or the disabled children of conflict.
But how the hell can a sponsor be so sure?
Aid organizations that have a religion in their name blatantly shout out to the followers of that faith to send money, but simultaneously dissuade people from other beliefs from wanting to help. How does a sponsor know if her money is going to feed a child rice or the body of Christ?
Although it is always important to give people hope—especially the young—giving faith before food is a waste of money; but it’s easier to force others to their knees when they are starving.
But it is not only religiously associated organizations that deter potential donations—animal aid societies flip-flop on their positions so much that it is hard to know if your money is going to help or hurt creatures you want to save.
Recently, Greenpeace, an international environmental organization, flipped their stance on the killing of kangaroos in Australia. In a report released to the media they stated the consumption of kangaroos could cut down on the greenhouse gases and land clearing directly related to rearing conventional livestock.
This new “eat roos for the climate” attitude is contrary to the 1986 film Greenpeace released called Goodbye to Joey where they criticized the slaughter of the Aussie marsupials.
This Greenpeace report has obviously caused dismay in animal lovers and those that who enjoy small drumsticks. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the website for Sea Shepherd, an organization created out of Greenpeace rebellion. Founder and president of Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, left Greenpeace after he used physically forceful methods to stop the killing of baby seals.
Since Watson has prior animosity with Greenpeace, it makes sense that Sea Shepherd would jump at the chance to point out Greenpeace’s sudden hypocrisy.
Sea Shepherd portrays themselves as an action-oriented organization that sails around the world fighting evil in the form of unlawful whaling boats and any other illegal offenders; their ships have been known to ram fishing vessels and the crew has been filmed fighting seal hunters. If you love the sea and would like to make a difference, Sea Shepherd seems to be the “real deal”; donating to or volunteering with them sounds like the way to go.
But even Sea Shepherd causes questions to arise when it comes to assisstance; if you want to volunteer on of their “all-vegan” crews, you need to fill out a form—and become a “member” by paying a fee of $100. Paying to even be considered as a volunteer for a dangerous voyage where you will be giving up time, energy and possibly your clean criminal record seems a little much.
But as far as hypocritical tactics and iffy donation results go, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have raised more controversy than all the Jesus-prompted help organizations combined. PETA’s advertising campaigns have compared livestock operations to the Holocaust and displayed nude celebrities endorsing anti-fur; the society has released undercover investigations and even video games to promote their cause.
Then in 2005, two PETA employees were charged with animal cruelty after it was discovered they were euthanizing adoptable pets and throwing the carcasses in dumpsters. Co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, has made several statements that have caused companies, fellow animal-rights groups and the public to be highly offended.
So, as just one person, how do you make a difference once you’ve decided you want to? Who do you trust with your well-intentioned, hard earned donations?
The organizations mentioned above have done incredible things for their causes; but some of their actions cause potential donators to wonder what they might be contributing to. The Canada Revenue Agency is a good resource when deciding what charity to go with, but there is never a guarantee that your money or time is going to the exact person, animal or cause that you intended. Charity is an unconditional force—it should not consider whether a person converts his or her faith before getting food, an animal is cute before getting shelter, or a disease is marketable before being researched.
1 comment:
Cool writing,
I'm struggeling to get funds for my monkey rescue project because people do not know where their money goes. It's a pitty that there are organisations pretending to care for animals for personal gain. I,m living for my monkeys, and lost all my friends because of al the monkeys here on the farm, but the reward I get from seeing happy free monkeys is worth living in isolation.
Looking forward to new posts on your blog, will visit often.
Louis monkeyrescue.blogspot.com
Post a Comment