This is a guest post by Julie Ulbricht, an Australian singer/songwriter who also writes about international policy, poverty and power struggles. To read the original article click here.
Do we see those who live in abject poverty as 'needy'? Or do we see them as having their human rights – access to food, shelter, education, etc – denied?
That is, is our collective solution to alleviate poverty merely a token charitable action? Or is it an acknowledgment of another's right to live free from extreme poverty?
Because the two perspectives result in two very different approaches. Consider the 80s, when Sting and Simon Le Bron cranked out the following lines from the Band Aid classic, Do They Know It's Christmas?
And it's a world of dreaded fear
Where the only water flowing is a bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom.
The choir then proceeds to educate us all on how:
There won't be snow in Africa this Christmas time
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life
Where nothing ever grows
No rain or rivers flow…
Do they know it's Christmas time at all?
Wow. Nothing ever grows. Ever. Instantly, one has a sense that there is a lot of need throughout all of Africa. All of it. This statement, although a catchy emotional hook, is not indicative of the nuances of Africa at all. You only need to cast your eye to Ghana to witness monumental economic growth. Granted, there are places in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly the Horn, where growth is non-existent and going into deficit to the point of widespread famine. And even with the food crisis in the Horn (still happening by the way despite the media juggernaut rolling on), there are different issues within the region. This situation is largely to do with the fact that our global food system disadvantages small-scale farming.
 This article, however is not so much about solutions to say, food production, but more so about the importance of our perspective of poverty.
Buying a goat or other such useful gift, changes our focus on who the beneficiary of the aid is. Think about the images bombarding us when it comes to appeals from agencies. The ambassador of a particular community within these destitute communities is nearly always a child. Why? Because it works. The reason many agencies use the child sponsorship model of fundraising is because it brings in cash. Granted, much needed cash for life-saving work. However, if donors and supporters purchase useful gifts, the ambassador changes in our minds from a child to an adult who will use that gift. Adults who know a thing or two about their community and where they live – their culture, their land.
Take the example of food production. As I have written before, women produce the majority of Africa's food, yet our global food system works against that long-standing practice. A needs-based approach to poverty is reactive and may result in say, transnational food corporations providing a short term solution to the demand for food by introducing new farming techniques. Conversely, a rights-based approach identifies that people within a community have the right to produce food in their own way. Many agencies champion this rights-based approach.
For example, take Elizabeth, a 15-year-old young woman from Zambia. She works for the realisation of child rights in her community, particularly focusing on resisting forced marriage. Child brides are common in her village in Zambia. Elizabeth partners with her family, her friends, her traditional leaders and Plan International to defy a practice that perpetuates poverty.
And Florence from Uganda who works with ActionAid, tells how she resisted her cultural practice of bride payment. She says,
'I have managed to challenge and defy culture. I married without payment, something for which I should be considered an outcast within my culture... I worked with cultural institutions and they were able to acknowledge the need to reform bride wealth. To revise cultural bride laws and reform it takes care of women's rights.'
My point here is that Elizabeth and Florence are incredibly capable. Not needy with big brown eyes and flies buzzing around their snotty noses. No, they are strong, with fiery eyes, and possess knowledge of their communities that I, for one, simply do not have. They have a right to resist damaging cultural norms such as gender-based violence and early marriage and can do so in a very effective way.
Useful gifts provide us with an exciting opportunity to change our perspective and consider who the change agent is, and who it should be. Recognising the power those who live in poverty have within themselves and an acknowledgment for the need for them to be active agents and participants of change, is much more sustainable than viewing them as simply recipients of our aid.
Useful gifts also provide us with an opportunity to not only think about aid at a micro level, but also to think about the overarching structures and systems that continue to disadvantage the poor and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
Finally, consider making a donation to anti-poverty agencies and advocacy groups who are doing good work but may not have the money or resources to put into marketing their programs into cute packages for us. Otherwise, go crazy. Spend up on one of the many gifts, be it a goat, a cow, a duck, a football, a bucket hygiene kit, a birthing kit, a fishing boat, a handloom, cattle poo, a canoe, guitar lessons, a whistle, a water testing kit or perhaps invest in peace building ($10 to train someone in conflict resolution, negotiation skills and peace-building! Good value!).
Go on. Get your goat on. |
