Travis Smith: my resume, bio and photos back to the main blog page

I had a disturbing conversation with several friends this weekend over breakfast.  Basically, they said they didn’t think Canadians ought to donate to the rescue efforts for Hurricane Katrina.

They’re mostly Canadian, one’s British.  I’m a dual citizen.  Here’s some of their reasoning, and my responses.

(Update: See this post for followup. I also fixed some typos here.)

U.S. citizens are the wealthiest in the world. They don’t need our money.

Well, first of all, money donated now will go to alleviate the suffering of the poor, the homeless, the injured, and the hungry.  Regardless of how well off these people were before the hurricane (hint: they weren’t)—they need help now.

The U.S. government is better able to take care of its own. We should donate our money elsewhere, where it makes a bigger difference.

The U.S. may be wealthy, but much of the recovery money comes from non-profit agencies like the Red Cross.  They are spending money on the U.S. now, and your money will make a difference.  If donating to the Red Cross wasn’t wrong before the hurricane, why is it not a good idea now?

If you don’t want to donate to the American Red Cross, donate to the Canadian Red Cross, which is sending, among other things, 100 volunteers to help.  Donating to them won’t help the rich rebuild condos, it will help those who help others help more.

There’s going to be enough $$$ sent—mine won’t make much difference.

First of all, there’s a logical problem with this—if everyone thought like you do, no one would donate, and there wouldn’t be enough sent.  Secondly, who are you, Einstein, to know how much money is needed.  If you wait to find out in six months exactly how much money the disaster cost and how much more was needed, it’ll be too late, people will have died and suffered needlessly.

Give now to be certain the money is there, and then in six months, you can check and see if you were right.  Besides, the Red Cross has said in past disasters when its coffers were full and no more aid was necessary—they haven’t said that yet, that’s for sure.

If you just give to Canadian charities, you’re overlooking the economic ripple effect that an American recession will cause.

I already give to worthy causes.

The amount of suffering in the world is not constant—sometimes there are more crises than others.  If you think a donation to Katrina would be “superfluous”—donate to something else instead, because some people will likely choose to send their donations Katrina’s way and other charities may get fewer donations meanwhile.  So a donation to another charity, in response to Hurricane Katrina, is fine, but NOT giving any money is unacceptable.

Katrina happened in the U.S., and I just give to Canadian charities.

The victims of Katrina are Americans.  I’m American, my wife is, and some of my friends, my family and my customers are American.  I’m sure some of yours are, too.  Americans are our ethnic twins, our geographic neighbours, and our economic partners.  I’m certain that Canada is in better shape today because of its proximity since our inception to the U.S.

So many other countries in the world have machine gun turrets pointed at their borders.  So many other countries have gone to war, have been attacked, have subjugated, poisoned, retaliated or sabotaged each other.  America and Canada have the longest unguarded border in the world.

Canada and the United States have disputes, sure.  But as countries, they get along better than most of my family members do. We ought to care for each other.  So honestly, I can’t think of a justifiable reason not to donate to Hurricane Katrina rescue and resettling.

Will you donate?  If not, why not?

Overheard

“Love is fire. But whether its gonna warm your heart or burn your house down you can never tell. ”

...who said it?

“My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure.”

...who said it?

“True love does not come by finding the perfect person, but by learning to see an imperfect person perfectly.”

...who said it?

“The most common human act that writing a novel resembles is lying. We lie daily, very complexly, and at great length. If not for our excessive vanity and our over-active imaginations, we would be quite difficult to deceive.”

...who said it?

“If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month.”

...who said it?

Comments

 

 

Why haven't I donated? A few reasons:

In the long view, global suffering is at a constant level. So, my charitable donations are at a constant level. If we examine the suffering over the, say, 40 year period I make donations in, I think you'll find it's fairly even.

Julie and I support three kinds of charities:

* Hyper-local ones, such as the Union Gospel Mission, because we believe in helping those in our own backyard.

* Environmental agencies like the WWF (not the wrestlers) or the David Suzuki Foundation. For me, saving the planet beats relieving human suffering any day of the week. That's a philosophical point, and one that I've arrived at after careful study and contemplation.

* Charities in Africa. Because you know what? Having no fresh water, no food, no medical care and no roof over their head is an every-day-since-birth situation for millions of Africans. In the next month, every displaced, hungry or sick American citizen will get taken care of. How many Africans will?

 

Posted by Darren  at  10:34 pm on Sep. 5, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

Why I'm Not Donating to the Relief Effort

 

This may go down in history as the least popular posting on this site, but, in the immortal words of Han Solo, here goes nothing. Travis recently wondered why my Canadian friends won't donate to Katrina's victims. He made a...

 

Tracked from DarrenBarefoot.com  at  11:33 pm on Sep. 5, 2005

 

 

 

I'm Canadian and I donated. Still I understand where these people are coming from. Actually I was upset more by about 80% of the sites that I regularly visit (which are American)because they said nothing about the disaster. Ya that's right ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Not even a single sentence! That to me is much worse than not donating. At least put a link to the Red Cross to show that you care if you can't donate or even just put down your feelings about the disaster. More than anything I'm just sick about our societies push for not showing your emotions, as seen on newcasts or by government officials. Screw that, emotions make us feel and in feeling we are connected to one another. Too many leaders in business and government are disconnected from the people because of it.

 

Posted by Nollind Whachell  at  12:28 pm on Sep. 6, 2005

 

 

 

Wow. Your friends surprise me. Here in Calgary, people have a number of ways to give, besides the usual Red Cross etc. For example, it was made very easy when I was in Co-op recently. I just added my donation right onto the bill for my grocery purchases. The request for donations was right there at the register and I was glad to have the chance.

Besides the reasons you listed for giving, here's one of mine. As a friend said recently, "Putting aside what we think of their politics and worrisome economic influence, the thing about Americans is that, as individuals, they're great!"

Avid Reader

PS I think maybe you should start a 'Guest Column' feature on your blog 'cause my comment on this could be much longer than it already is!

 

Posted by Avid Reader  at  2:44 pm on Sep. 9, 2005

 

 

 

dude,
i'm a little hurt. it's hard to believe we were listening to the same conversation. the points you've listed may be what you heard, but they're different from what i interpreted, which might boil down to, "if i had to choose between donating to help the victims of a big disaster in the 3rd world and one in the u.s., i would choose the former. my money would be needed much more there. if no one donated any money, the u.s. would still have the cash to support its citizens, while a much poorer country might not." i think that's still a valid point. of course, i don't really have much right to be hurt by your interpretation, because i haven't personally donated in either case. thanks for at least causing me to examine why not.

 

Posted by jason Manikel  at  10:43 am on Sep. 10, 2005

 

 

 

oh, noriko reminded me that we did donate after the tsunami...

 

Posted by Jason Manikel  at  10:51 am on Sep. 10, 2005

 

 

 

if disasters were simultaneous and consistent, you might have to make that choice.

but there was also at the table a sense (and in conversations I've had since) of schadenfreude, and a sense that helping the victims of poor U.S. gov't policy choices, and of citizen-on-citizen looting and violence, was less noble than helping poor, huddling victims overseas.

 

Posted by Travis Smith  at  10:58 am on Sep. 10, 2005

Add a Comment

 

 

Name:


Email:


Location:


URL:


Submit the word you see below:


 

 

 

Your comment:


Remember my personal info


Email me about follow-ups


 

Syndication Links


Click here for the main
XML feed for this blog.



Column only



Side links only



Quotes only

 

I'm Listening To

2007/07/29 11:50

Zero 7
Garden State

MetaBlogs

AboutBlogs

Clients

Humor

Journalism

Los Angeles

Mac

News

Personal 1

Personal 2

Photos

Politics

Other A-F

Other G-Q

Other R-Z

SocialNetworking

Tech 1

Tech 2

Travel

Vancouver 1

Vancouver 2

Vancouver 3

Vancouver 4

BizBlogs

Back to Main

 

Powered by
Expression Engine

 

Copyright 1995 - 2005

 

 

Want Column?

Enter your email address:


It will NEVER be shared.
Unsubscribe

You can scroll right easily by holding down the SHIFT key and using your scroll wheel. (Firefox users trying this will end up jumping to old Web pages until a) Firefox releases a fix, b) they change their settings like so.)