MSC archived stories - October 13, 2024
I extracted some points from this article (dated April 2023) and in response to Prof. Cockburn (adjunct professor at University of Toronto, Canada) given my views on CI.
https://theobserver-qiaa.org/the-consequences-of-child-sponsorship
1) The dignity of a child diminishes through sponsorship. When sponsored, they must give frequent updates—including letters and photos—to the donor.
> I know, the family has to agree to CI minimal requirements before enrolling a child in the sponsorship program. Even if they really don't feel committing to this at the start the program benefits outweigh any resentment on their end.
2) The child and their family must divulge intimate facts about their lives to a stranger; this can lead to feelings of duty and pressure. The sponsorship procedure dehumanizes the child, turning them into a cause for sympathy or posting them in the format of a shopping catalog.
> We are obligated to protect children’s privacy (i.e. confidential information), however as Dr Cockburn alluded is 'shopping cart' on CI website really necessary? I always approach CT directly whenever seeking a new sponsorship.
3) Child sponsorship programs foster dependence. A child or community may struggle to deal with difficulties independently and become reliant on support for their fundamental necessities. It ultimately harms their independence and self-reliance. Once the children are unqualified for child sponsorship programs, the degree of dependence may lead to self-destruction.
> That's true, whenever I send gifts they are targeted or based on specific reason and timing rather than promoting constant dependency.
4) Donors usually approach child sponsorship with a "one size fits all" approach, which is damaging because children require different domains of assistance based on location and income. For instance, donors frequently have specific sponsorship objectives, such as ensuring the child can access healthcare or education. The objectives might not align with what the child or the neighborhood requires, as more priority should be placed on food or shelter. Another common example is that the donor might prioritize education more than other needs, such as having access to clean water or wholesome food.
> CI field staff are well-versed on the needs of the families, thus I trust and rely on their advice when come to investing in children. They know the situation and always give the best advice (even against my own thoughts!) I can only expect CI to support children gaining an education, then into employment but ultimately the responsibility lies with their governments.
In short, sponsorship is an insurance policy for the future (of our world), which I'm making my monthly donation.
My 2 cents: this is why the letter writing portion of the CI program is important. Thru the letters, sponsor befriends the kids, becomes a source of warmth, care, hope, and inspiration. I will argue that It’s more damaging to self reliance if kids just get benefits with zero accountability. The sponsor/kid relationship is important, that personal touch is important.I had sometimes wondered how the kids feel about having their picture taken with items bought by EG funding. I think the smiling face shows there is no problem, even feeling lucky and thankful to be chosen. It’s like being given a much desired break. Who wouldn’t want one in such dire circumstances?
ReplyDeleteOctober 13, 2024
regarding Adjunct Professor at University of Toronto Lynn Cockburn's description of child sponsorship as a dysfunctional dynamic, and the description "propagating a white savior complex”: This appears to be an academic, arms-length, alarmist analysis by someone who has not experienced prolonged food insecurity (also known as starving) or been denied entry to school because they don't have shoes. It is difficult to imagine Cockburn has ever seen the smile of a child who now has shoes and is now in school because a sponsor bought them those shoes. Moreover, it appears Cockburn also does not know that people other than whites sponsor children and youths. The adjunct professor's comments are coldly slanted-- but the entire article is preposterous on many levels -- the primary one, of course, being the piece is unbalanced academic blathering presented as serious reportage.
ReplyDeleteOctober 14, 2024
Gabor2025
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things wrong with that article, I don't even know where to begin, but I'll try to keep it brief. For example, this part: "The donor has all the power, and the recipient is vulnerable." This is not exclusive to child sponsorship, but to all instances of one person (or organization) helping someone else. The person being helped is in a vulnerable position - that's a given or else they would not need help. So what? It's bad to help someone because it's possible to use that imbalance of power to exploit them? Secondly, I don't know about other organizations, but I don't think CI shares any details about the child with sponsors that's so personal that it's exploitative to share that information. I mean, as sponsors, what do we really know? What community the child lives in, some details about their dwelling and access to clean water and electricity, some info about their parents and their occupation, the names and ages of their siblings and the child's interests/hobbies and favourite subjects in school and that's about it. This professor also makes it all seem very transactional as a sort of: "I'm going to give you this donation every month, but you better write me letters and have your picture taken and share information about yourself that you wouldn't normally want to share with strangers or no money!" I doubt any organizations that do child sponsorship "prioritize education more than other needs, such as having access to clean water or wholesome food" or allow sponsors to have so much influence that they get to choose to fund one specific thing (like education or health care) while the child starves or has nowhere to live or frame their activities in a way that emphasizes the fact that the operation is funded by donations and the children better be thankful for what they get. Seriously??? The article reeks of someone with an existing bias making no effort to educate themselves before commenting about something they seem to know very little about.
October 15, 2024
Trite and basic arguments; nothing you wouldn't expect from a liberal academic. Not to get political, but I feel I have to: you see similar attitudes when it comes to domestic housing policy. Here in Chicago "affordable" housing advocates would rather keep substandard housing as opposed to gentrification: housing with bedbug infestations, numerous code violations, and other unsafe conditions just to avoid "white gentrification." Articles like this are ironically their own means of a "white savior" complex: one that would claim the virtue of the poor remaining poor is better than the vile, colonizing hand out of another. High on their own supply of self righteousness, "academics" like this think they are solving a problem by finding a perverse beauty in abject poverty and suffering. It's nothing I haven't heard before, and nothing I won't hear again in many other areas of life and policy.
ReplyDeleteOctober 17, 2024
Now, when it comes to Child Sponsorship in particular, one of the largest critical feedback I receive from laypersons (rather than academics) is "the money isn't going to help the kids." There is a cynicism that money is pocketed by bureaucracy. Therefore, the child sponsorship model helps assure the donor-sponsor that their dollars are indeed going to the sponsored youth, the programs, and the stated goal. Whereas one calls it exploitative, I would rather call it accountability and trust building. How many times on MSC have we seen new sponsors wondering - often with frustration - if their kids get their letters or EGs just due to time delay logistics? There is a lot of worry about fraud. The sponsorship model allows a relationship to be curated and the donations to continue.
ReplyDeleteOctober 17, 2024
If you haven't noticed, The Observer is a journal of students at Queen's University, Ontario. If you check under Articles [theobserver-qiaa.org], it covers many interesting topics relating to international affairs. No doubt the youth writers there would love to see their work spark such debate or even controversy because they tell what they hear from faculties. Listening out of respect for Cockburn, they felt that child sponsorship is basically waste of money, so I turned it around to question this (title of my story) to see if you could explore the 4 points (thank you @peppy007) without judging the person behind.
ReplyDeleteOctober 17, 2024
@Chelaka, U R always thought provoking :). But I just have to point out that I have also liked all other comments on this post. The responses show how super committed to help, deeply, and sincerely invested the sponsors here are. At times, debate points are made and explained later that it was a debate. And therein possibly lies the problem. Lack of sincerity. Making points for the heck of it, or just to be challenging, or complete an assignment article. It’s noise! I recall having to debate/defend slavery in HS. That was a sick assignment (though I’m sure teacher had a different target goal in mind). For solution seeking exercises, there is a balancing act of logic and heart, and a need for earnest sincerity to be observed. Otherwise, we just remain left, right, and in paralysis mode. So, perhaps, just got to beware of this as well, and also to be glad that we are in the company of candid, and daring to be real group.
ReplyDeleteOctober 18, 2024
Gabor2025
ReplyDelete@Chelaka: I think it's fair to judge any person on the content they put out there. I don't think the author of the article made any effort to be fair and unbiased. It was a low-effort article that exclusively regurgitated one person's view without analyzing or questioning it in any way.
October 18, 2024