James, I am sure that you would agree that someone's merely saying they are doing good may not in fact be true - no matter how much they might believe it. Too many people think that they know what the "good" is and stop there, when the ways in which "good" is pursued can have serious negative consequences. Given our daily experience of the circumstances and spin-offs of the current effort to help Iraq toward the good of democracy and the pretty rhetoric that got us into this mess we shouldn't even be having an argument.
I am quite bothered by your call of "case closed" when considering the example of sending drugs to Iraq. You appear to leap to the conclusion that there are only two options: either send drugs any which way and never mind the potential consequences or don't send the drugs (you frame the issue even more starkly: black market drugs or no drugs). The dichotomy is false because limiting the choice to these two options is false.
If the question is how to get drugs to Iraqi hospitals and clinics (as the request on AnySoldier suggests), there are, in fact, several options of how to do this. Some, however, will be more effective than others and will get the drugs to the people who truly need them at prices they can afford. And some options will lead to drugs going into the black market where they may not reach the people in need and will surely cost more.
I've recently returned from Sudan where one of the issues raised was about drugs passing on to the black market (coincidence? no. stolen humanitarian supplies are quite common). A programme, which is providing drugs to community health workers and clinics, had found that at some clinics the vast majority (70%) of drugs were vanishing (we also found that we could walk a short distance down the road from the NGO office and buy those same drugs - still with the packaging that said "Not for sale. To be distributed for free."). Given that the theft was not happening at all the clinics, we asked both what the systems were which prevented theft and what circumstances seemed to promote theft. We then discussed strategies for stopping theft at the clinics where it was common. I should add that this was not simply a process of picking something that worked in one place and transferring it without modification to another - we wanted to be effective, not just to sign off that we'd "done something".
Refusing to explore options to actually do good may in fact cause harm. Closing the case before examining whether or not an option is effective is irresponsible.
The book Do No Harm reflects the actual experience of assistance workers, those people on the ground trying to do good, who found that in some cases they were worsening the situation. (I mentioned that the author was a friend in the interest of disclosure. In case anyone was tempted to purchase it, they should know that the recommendation comes from someone who might have an interest. The book is written for humanitarian professionals and not really for the layperson, but anybody here could follow the argument.)
In general, my experience has been that militaries do not do a particularly good job of distributing relief supplies in situations of conflict. They do not have the experience or training in how to analyze a local situation from a development or humanitarian perspective: they don't have the experience (or the manpower) to tell a good project from a bad one, a good set of partners from bad ones, best practice from bad. I offer a caution about using your opportunities to support the troops to encourage them to do things for which they are unprepared, no matter how much they might think they are and no matter how good their - and your - intentions.
There are several organizations working on and in hospitals and clinics in Iraq. UNICEF could use your contribution, as could any of the organizations on this list. And by all means continue to send things to the troops. Americans abroad (more often NGO workers, but I do meet soldiers too) tell me they really miss peanut butter, good coffee, and, these days, they are always complaining about the batteries in their MP3 players running down.
"Doing good is doing good."
No, it isn't. Sometimes trying to do good does harm instead. There is a growing literature about the unintended negative consequences of humanitarian assistance. Good intentions don't cut it, especially in conflict zones.
Unfortunately, most of the literature is written in an effort to demonstrate that assistance is just bad, so we should stop and give everybody a tax break (hey, 2 cents! now I can write Teresa . . .). Some of it, though, says, "hey, we can do better!"
Do No Harm by Mary Anderson is the classic (1999, not the different book with the similar name published in 1996). She's a friend and an inspiration, but I'm serious about the book. If there turns out to be interest in the topic, I'd be happy to direct people to ancillary documents.
Anysoldier's list is mostly harmless, especially the things you know are for the use of the soldiers or are clearly toys. Sending drugs is dicey given that they are often a major black market item in conflict zones.
Looked like a kidnapping/theft of helmet to me. Pondered deeply the signifigance of the "seal". Expected the rest of the comic book to consist of heroic samurai tracking down stolen love object.
So much of the information in an image is set by context, much of it cultural. I couldn't imagine trying to explain some of the more gruesome images commonplance to Catholicism to someone with no real Western cultural exposure.
I just got back from Afghanistan (working with NGOs). In Kabul there are many shops selling DVDs: The Passion of the Christ, Kill Bill, Freaky Friday, Sex in the City, The Simpsons, the box set of Alien movies. Wow.
Do I only get a thousand words?
how do people from other cultures react to iconography that we take for granted (including subcultural) [oh,cruel snip!]
Judging by Afghanistan, they buy it anyway. What they make of it is another conversation that was repeatedly submerged under politics.
I read P Brite's single post as two unrelated ones. The first post wonders about "childfree", while the second is responding to a comment about the book "THE VALUE OF X". I think, based upon her comments, that this is also how Brite intended her post to be read: as containing two distinct points.
Unfortunately, reading the two together, it is all too easy to take the commentary on the book as also referring to the childfree community concept. In particular, the last sentence, "Not that there's anything wrong with parading one's differences, but I don't care for communities where it is a requirement", read in that light happens to come across as quite rude.
While I did not "read" the post as rude, I have some sympathy for the members of the community. The mysterious kwobtchan, no matter how we might feel about her response, is interpreting the offered text. The reason the text comes across as rude is because the word "communities" in that last sentence, appears to refer back to the question about community self-definition in the previous paragraph.
Hasty and incautious writing combined with hasty and chip-on-the-shoulder reading reminds me of nothing so much as 90% of internet interaction. Apologies are probably due all around and a new start between the players called for.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 5 |
| 2003 | 2 |
Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Martial:
Show all comments by Martial.