Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
A little cross about the monopoly
It's been dismaying, looking around the tabloid blogs, to see how Peter Garrett is being slagged because of his announced performance in a bushfire-benefit Midnight Oil concert. Party hacks from across the country have been shaking hands with each other as they troll their way across as many forums as possible. Their suggestion is that Garrett should stay as Midnight Oil singer because he's not adequate to be a politician.
The bushfire concerts in Melbourne and Sydney hope to make around 4 million dollars. It's achievable. A little concert in Adelaide last week of around three hundred people raised 12 thousand: Two stadiums full of people in the same mood of compassion and generousity can pull it off with room to spare. However, if the paltry number of Sydneysiders that turned out to the Opera House to watch the Bushfire service on Sunday (around 400) is any indicator, it appears that Sydney will, take its usual NIMBY stance and not bother much.
IWithout wanting to rain on the parade, I have personal misgivings over the monopoly the Red Cross seems to have on the charitable aspects of the tragedy. Their decision last week to postphone their traditional annual fundraiser to focus on bushfire relief didn't help. Personally warning bells went off while helping organise the Adelaide concert. Planning that we would give half the proceeds to Red Cross and the rest to the Salvation Army, I was surpised to be told, by someone experienced in organising such events, that a Red Cross logo would not be permitted to appear alongside the emblem of another charity. Hearing this made me look around and see that the Red Cross was on everything everywhere.
So what of the other charities that have been helping to assist? It's great to see that Sony has put out a fundraiser album (many top-flight musos donating tracks) with proceeds going to the Salvos. So what about Vinnies? Wesley Uniting? Are the Christian church based charities being swept aside as Red Cross becomes the Walmart of charity? I worry that we're putting too many eggs in the one basket.
Maybe I sound a bit like the net-trolls shooting at Garrett. I guess they make a fair point in that one set of circumstances can't be separated from another. Charity is needed, and as money gets more scarce a generous mindset may become much more important to the wellbeing of communities. However, it mightn't hurt to keep an eye on the motives and practices of those who help.
It's important, I think, to make sure that we're not only doing the right things, but also doing them for the right reasons. Otherwise as a society we potentially leave ourselves, while in an extremely vulnerable state, open to predators and scavengers, and whatever other opportunists there might be.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Reasonable reservations about the Red Cross.
My preference was to give to the Salvo's because of their very honourable track record of direct aid and because of their low administrative costs.
The Red Cross, as a major supplier of blood internationally, was very slow to screen for HIV despite numerous indications of the problem. I don't know why they failed but it left a poor impression on me.
My most serious reservations about the Red Cross, however, date back to the Holocaust and in particular to a report which is still used by Holocaust denialists to this very day. The report at the time was a significant set back to identifying the genocide. It is online these days at denialist sites:
http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm
I don't belive that the organisation has done near enough to remedy the damage that the report did at the time and continues to do to this day.
The Red Cross has apologised but it was a long time coming:
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/971010/redcross.shtml
The article at this link was published in 1996 which appears to me to be far too long after the war for the Red Cross to have finally admitted what it knew:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFDD1731F93AA25751C1A960958260
The issue appears to have been one of tracing survivors for which Red Cross records were of particular interest but for a long time it wouldn't co-operate.
Finally, if one Googles Red Cross and Crticism there appear to be significant examples of administrative failures and generalised bungling. I seem to recall an issue years ago involving the Red Cross and ambulances for Timor not being delivered due to having been built the wrong size (?).
I guess in the end my preference is always to deliver donations exactly to the people who will dispense the money rather than some sort of corporation.