Derick quit his job at Wal-Mart!

[formergothardite]

Yes, exactly, literally everything I just said is 100% endorsing the exploitation of poor people for selfish westerners. Where exactly did I say "give no shits about"? Do people who pay for shitty carwashes from children give zero shits about little league teams? Honestly, can no one possibly think in nuances? The literal ONLY POINT I was making is that there is almost no example of charity that comes with zero incentives (and I'm including tax write-offs for your own personal preferred method of writing a check and getting to keep a nice gulf between yourself The Great Unwashed so you don't have see them or smell them or feel bad because you're going to bed with food in your belly---see how easy it is to ascribe negative motivations to people you don't know?! How fun!)

Dreamworld, sure, we'd all give to any manner of charity or fundraiser just to give. No concerts, no rubber bracelets, no 10Ks, no pink Kitchenaids, no bake sales, no Christmas wreathes, no nothing. But newsflash: it's not a perfect world

*Part of* raising money for charity is getting people interested either by directly interacting with the people in question, or "getting something for their money". You can have a charitable intentions AND ALSO get something out of it. The two are not mutually exclusive (that's critical thinking speak for "they can exist at the same time--the one does not cancel the other out). Sure, of COURSE perfect dreamworld scenario, it would be different (also in a perfect dreamworld scenario there wouldn't be any children starving to death and people dying from drinking dirty water).

I'm not all for "voluntourism" and I am acutely aware of the problems that this phenomenon can create (CAN but not always there are many good international organizations that provide a very healthy mix of both), but I really don't think it's anyone's place to lecture *anyone* on how to spend their money, particularly if it is obvious to anyone but the folks on the highest of horses, that it is coming out of a genuine, if perhaps misguided place. Would you rather someone spend $2k on a vacation to the Dominican Republic and do nothing but laze around the resort gulping their umbrella drinks and maybe venturing out for a zipline in the jungle? All profits going to Sandals or whatever POS developer set up shop in countries chosen specifically for their non-existent labor laws where they'd be the biggest player in town, able to set their own prices for commodities and people, driving the economies down even farther? Or maybe getting out, trying to lend a hand and maybe learning something about the world in the process? Or just write the check and shut up and stay home? Next time, who should we all email before making these decisions? Or should we just pray to Jesus that we can all be as wise as you?

People are always really bothered about discussing if developing countries and even poor areas of America are actively harmed by people swooping in to get happy feelings and "help". And I think that is what really needs to change. People just need to stop being selfish when it comes to doing charity work. Yeah, it is a dream world, but it doesn't hurt to talk about it.

In a past thread on this subject someone brought up how they have volunteered in America in poor communities and how it was such a wonderful opportunity. After looking up the organization she mentioned I realized that I knew people who lived in one of the communities this organization went to. I asked the people about if this really helped and they just rolled their eyes. What their community needs is jobs. The poverty is astounding and there are just no jobs. This organization by bringing in volunteers to do things in the community is just compounding the issue because the guy who can do construction just has to sit there and watch people do it for free while he continues to sink into poverty. Yeah, these people have good intentions, but their actions are not helping really, they are just harming. To really help, they would need to not put their own desires first and instead of going themselves work with an reputable organization that would hire and pay local workers to do jobs that these people are doing for free. But, like you said, people are not going to do this and since things actually do need to get fixed in that area and no one has money, people just go along with it because to complain would mean that they most likely would get no help at all even if in the long run it makes things worse.

If you truly want to help others, don't ask Jesus, ask the people who you are going to help and don't get butt hurt if they don't actually need you physically there and instead need money or supplies. If you are donating money, make sure it is for an organization that is going to use the money in the way that the community needs it. If you are going on a vacation and don't want to support the big developers research, probably spend more money and try to find a way to spend your vacation supporting the local community. If you want to physically do something start in your own community.

I'm not going to sit here and act like any person goiing to a developing country or poor community to build something or teach something is actually helping because they very well could be hurting. And I for sure am not going to act like people going to spread the word of Christ are doing one iota of good.

[formergothardite]

I get that it takes money to get things done. How many of the execs at these charities make 6 figures a year? I don't know, but I've heard about quite a few...

My point though was, if you feel moved to write a check, write a check. If you feel moved to go and help, go and help. Just check it out beforehand.

Teaching women to be independent is in no way shame worthy. If no one was protecting them from rape, why would anyone help them become independent?

Writing a check to a good charity is in no way shame worthy. In most cases it does a lot of good.

How on EARTH is this a topic of arguement. FFS!

I think you might have missed the point of the debate. If a person feels moved to go help in a developing country when they aren't needed, they very well end up hurting the people they are trying to help. Teaching women skills to be independent is great. Taking a job from a person in that community because you can go do it for free isn't great. I think that most people don't want to find out that they ended up hurting the community they went to help. Having people come in to do jobs for free instead of paying local people hurts the community. Now if a person has a skill that is really needed, yes, it is good for them to go but if you don't, well by going you can end up doing more harm than good.

I think people react so strongly to this subject because it makes them uncomfortable with the idea that the charity work they have done might not be as wonderful as they thought. Most people want to help, so they need to be told the truth about what is often the long term impacts of people volunteering in areas instead of sending money to help boost the local community.

[DaisyD]

My question would be, was there no one in Haiti who had these crafting skills and who was able to teach the women? If there really was no one, then, yes, you had a skill that was actually needed and it was wise to go. But if there were people who had these crafting skill and who were available to teach the women, then it would have been much better for Haiti in the long term for the money spent on flying you down there and paying for your living expenses while you were there to go towards paying these women to do the training.

To be fair, I was much more irritated by this the first time read it. It really came off like you were implying that she should not have gone there to help these women.

I guess I just don't see how going somewhere to teach a skill that will help people improve their lot in life is ever going to hurt. If there was someone there teaching it, then it wouldn't be needed. Whether or not there are people who already know the skill there is irrelevant if they aren't teaching it. Many places have forgotten people that no amount of check writing is going to change. Like I said before people need to do their homework beforehand no matter what kind of help they are offering.

[Hera]

Gothardism really hits the being self-employed or doing things where you can be your own boss/manage yourself/set your own hours. (Real estate, car lot, the damn cell phone towers, the Bates' tree trimming business, being a doula, etc). A little bookkeeping business would be totally in line with that, or JB has him managing some sort of finances. I don't think WalMart could care less who their junior tax accountant is. I think this was something they were planning to announce pre-scandal.

This is part of the inherent illogical thought process of this movement to me. Employ yourself, which makes you a small business owner. And have all the kids. But, most small business owners are not wealthy. While you can make a decent living and support a normal sized family, you are never supporting 19+ on a small business owners' income.

(And I know. I own my own small law firm. I make a comfortable living. I cannot support 20 people on it. Not even 20 uneducated DIY people.)

[nastyhobbitses]

I hate that I'm going to sort of defend these tools, but even in developing countries there are areas with high standards of living and good healthcare if you have the money. Whitey McWhiterson missionaries and their kids are just fine. And there's no way that missionaries are using local doctors if they have the option. If there are missionary doctors available, that's who's treating them. They're not going to give a damn about using up resources for the people they are their to "help."

I didn't live in a third-world country, but I did live in China, where if you can help it, you stay the hell away from the local hospitals (I had two friends who almost died because of substandard care in hospitals in China, though these hospitals were in pretty rural regions where training isn't as good and resources are stretched thinner -- I went to local hospitals in the rural region where I worked for a year, and I did have good experiences, though my medical issues were very minor, and any mess-ups would result in discomfort at worst). When I moved to Shanghai for my new job, I went to a Western-standard private clinic twice for separate issues, and it was ridiculously expensive. Insanely expensive. Maybe I should have gone to the public hospital or just toughed it out expensive. Derick just quit his job; he better have some decent savings or the best insurance in the world if he's going to afford that nice fancy healthcare in Kathmandu that most Nepalis can only dream of.

Also, outside of health, if you want to live by Western standards of comfort in a third-world country, again, you better be flush with cash. I managed to save a lot of money in China (not a third world country, but for example's sake I'm talking about it) because I treated import products like a special treat and mostly ate at local restaurants and shopped at local supermarkets, and only went to the expat-frequented trendy clubs when my club promoter roommate could get me in for free. I knew other expats who refused to buy anything but Western imports or live anywhere but the most expat-y neighborhoods (my neighborhood was pretty much an even mix of Chinese and expat), and they were perpetually broke. If Derick and Jill want to live in a huge house or a fancy apartment with all the comforts of home and only buy brands they recognize, any money they have will be gone in a flash. I have faith that they'd be down with eating local food and not getting their panties in a bunch about the expat grocery store not having Ben and Jerry's, but I don't see Jill adapting well to the other aspects of living in a developing country, especially with a young baby to look after.

[SassyPants]

I didn't live in a third-world country, but I did live in China, where if you can help it, you stay the hell away from the local hospitals (I had two friends who almost died because of substandard care in hospitals in China, though these hospitals were in pretty rural regions where training isn't as good and resources are stretched thinner -- I went to local hospitals in the rural region where I worked for a year, and I did have good experiences, though my medical issues were very minor, and any mess-ups would result in discomfort at worst). When I moved to Shanghai for my new job, I went to a Western-standard private clinic twice for separate issues, and it was ridiculously expensive. Insanely expensive. Maybe I should have gone to the public hospital or just toughed it out expensive. Derick just quit his job; he better have some decent savings or the best insurance in the world if he's going to afford that nice fancy healthcare in Kathmandu that most Nepalis can only dream of.

Also, outside of health, if you want to live by Western standards of comfort in a third-world country, again, you better be flush with cash. I managed to save a lot of money in China (not a third world country, but for example's sake I'm talking about it) because I treated import products like a special treat and mostly ate at local restaurants and shopped at local supermarkets, and only went to the expat-frequented trendy clubs when my club promoter roommate could get me in for free. I knew other expats who refused to buy anything but Western imports or live anywhere but the most expat-y neighborhoods (my neighborhood was pretty much an even mix of Chinese and expat), and they were perpetually broke. If Derick and Jill want to live in a huge house or a fancy apartment with all the comforts of home and only buy brands they recognize, any money they have will be gone in a flash. I have faith that they'd be down with eating local food and not getting their panties in a bunch about the expat grocery store not having Ben and Jerry's, but I don't see Jill adapting well to the other aspects of living in a developing country, especially with a young baby to look after.

I agree with everything you said here. My daughter lives in So America- in a very developed and bustling city. She has been hospitalized 4 times and has had 2 surgeries. She went to the Clinica Kennedy where most of the MDs are trained in the US and Europe, but for her income, it was very expensive, even with insurance. She did get very good care, probably better than she would have in the US- Most locals could never afford that facility.

Also totally agree about what you buy. Imported items are cost prohibitive, so my daughter only buys in the US and then gathers when she comes or when we go to visit. Unless you are extremely wealthy, you cannot expect to have the comforters of the US. Even if you could afford the items, the infrastructure in many of these places is incompatible with those items. For example, the ever present power surge blows appliances, so having washers, dryers, dishwashers, even water pumps becomes problematic. In terms of food, you eat the local fare and learn to enjoy it.

Some people can do it. I would probably have a hard time. My daughter does very well.

[formerlurkerchimingin]

What is up with this false dichotomy?!

Listen, I believe that many people who participate in voluntourism have good intentions. I really do. And following that, I believe that those of them that have good intentions want to know how best to help. I'm offering up my opinion on that. I don't think it's best to spend $2000 on a trip to do "work" that could be contracted out to local workers which would a) stimulate the local economy and b) be cheaper, allowing the extra money to go to other important projects.

It's not spending $2000 on a mission trip OR spending $2000 on a vacation. I mentioned above what I think is ideal-- volunteering with local organizations and supporting efforts overseas financially, if possible.

It's not a false dichotomy. That is also a way that people can (and do, by the millions) spend their free time and money. It had it's positives and negatives and good businesses and bad. Like with "voluntourism". Yes it would be better if people would just give that $2k away and work at their local soup kitchen. But that's simply not realistic 100% of the time. Money is a finite resource for most people. So why not approach it with a two birds one stone outlook? People get to [fill in the blank... travel, see a concert, win something they want at a silent auction] while also doing something worthwhile....or at least more worthwhile than sitting poolside all day. Some people, when faced with $2k (or whatever) of "extra" money just won't give it all away no matter how much anyone preaches that this is how it "should be". Is it perfect? No, of course not. Are some people nieve about the programs they choose and are some people insufferably self important about their projects? You betcha. But it's still bringing money and interest to a cause. And if the vehicle to get the money and attention is permitting someone to dare to get some enjoyment out of charity, where precisely is the problem?

Put another way: Susie Kansas can spend her money for Spring Break going to Cancun or the same amount and time doing some questionably effective "service project" in Guatemala. Should she just stay home and send all her money to Guatemala to hire some person for some project that doesn't need her? Probably. But you don't get to make that call for her (and something tells me that you'd also mercilessly make fun of her for being a provincial American who has never left the country if she did). As long as she's not actually taking a job from a local...where's the harm? Any halfway respectable program will leave a net dollar positive behind. Not the full amount that Susie spent on flights etc but... The opportunity cost of Susie's money that *could have* been spent hiring someone is fake...it was (perhaps) not ever on offer in that way anyway.

[lascuba]

It's not a false dichotomy. That is also a way that people can (and do, by the millions) spend their free time and money. It had it's positives and negatives and good businesses and bad. Like with "voluntourism". Yes it would be better if people would just give that $2k away and work at their local soup kitchen. But that's simply not realistic 100% of the time. Money is a finite resource for most people. So why not approach it with a two birds one stone outlook? People get to [fill in the blank... travel, see a concert, win something they want at a silent auction] while also doing something worthwhile....or at least more worthwhile than sitting poolside all day. Some people, when faced with $2k (or whatever) of "extra" money just won't give it all away no matter how much anyone preaches that this is how it "should be". Is it perfect? No, of course not. Are some people nieve about the programs they choose and are some people insufferably self important about their projects? You betcha. But it's still bringing money and interest to a cause. And if the vehicle to get the money and attention is permitting someone to dare to get some enjoyment out of charity, where precisely is the problem?

Put another way: Susie Kansas can spend her money for Spring Break going to Cancun or the same amount and time doing some questionably effective "service project" in Guatemala. Should she just stay home and send all her money to Guatemala to hire some person for some project that doesn't need her? Probably. But you don't get to make that call for her (and something tells me that you'd also mercilessly make fun of her for being a provincial American who has never left the country if she did). As long as she's not actually taking a job from a local...where's the harm? Any halfway respectable program will leave a net dollar positive behind. Not the full amount that Susie spent on flights etc but... The opportunity cost of Susie's money that *could have* been spent hiring someone is fake...it was (perhaps) not ever on offer in that way anyway.

But. It. Is. Not. Worthwhile. It's basically a vacation with bragging rights, which makes it a hell of a lot less noble than just being honest with yourself and going on vacation to some "exotic" locale. And I'd like to see the books, because no way are these voluntourism organisations ensuring that a good chunk of the money they collect goes to the local economy or to do any real help. Hell, if the Red fucking Cross only built 6 houses in Haiti with the billions they collected, what do you think an organisation that caters to the White Savior fantasies of upper middle classes young adults is going to do?

[J'Lurker]

Major non-profits are like corporations; they take in a whole lot, have a ton of overhead costs, and only a little trickle down. Smaller organizations are like small business; they may not make the most, but the effect on the community is more direct.

While of course the money people would spend on travel, food, etc., could be spent another way (i.e. direct donation to an aid organization) there absolutely IS value in having foreigners broaden their own horizons and learn about other cultures through experience. It changes their outlook on their own life and tends to make them more likely to be active in their own communities. It also creates a tangible link that influences those around them. These are the people who get their friends and families to donate to relief efforts that they are now passionate about because they have had the opportunity to experience it.

Edited for quoting issue....

[artdecades]

I'm pretty sure Jesus was Palestinian if I remember correctly; he had darker skin.

Jesus was a brown skinned Jew from Judea. Palestine did not exist at that time and calling him Palestinian politicizes his identity and erases the history of the Jewish people from that region. I am not going to go into detail, but this post explains why its really problematic littlegoythings.tumblr.com/post/120273973768/pls-clarify

[CorruptionInc.]

Jesus was a brown skinned Jew from Judea. Palestine did not exist at that time and calling him Palestinian politicizes his identity and erases the history of the Jewish people from that region. I am not going to go into detail, but this post explains why its really problematic littlegoythings.tumblr.com/post/120273973768/pls-clarify

Ah yes that's right! I haven't been learning much about Religion for years, thank you for clearing that up. :)

[Mama Mia]

I don't think it's right to use an impoverished people group as a tool to help ME think about others.

Here's my take on it-- get involved in local non-profits and volunteer your time there. That way, you are helping people who need it and helping foster a strong community.

To support overseas non-profits, donate money to them if you can manage it. Leave the work itself up to nationals and Westerners who can dedicate years of their lives to becoming a part of that particular community.

I guess I'm not getting , in this whole conversation, what the difference is in volunteering in your local community, and volunteering overseas? I mean, theoretically, in ALL cases, I get that it would be better to hire local people who need jobs to pay their bills to do the work the volunteers are doing. I don't see how that's any different whether it's in a nice middle class suburb , or a poverty stricken inner- city neighborhood, or in Haiti.

But the big problem -- in ANY of those environments -- is that non- profits use volunteers because they are free. Not volunteering doesn't make enough money appear to actually hire local people to do the work. Again, whether " local" is your middle class neighborhood , or the poverty stricken town where the plant shut down, or in a developing country half a world away .

In areas where you could argue that you get more bang for your buck - and the $ spent on travel and living expenses for the volunteer would be better spent hiring a local -- well -- maybe. But the cost of a plane ticket doesn't go that far -- you still need the non- profit staff, you need to recruit and train people and buy materials and supplies - and a rotating stream of short term volunteers might be more practical than hiring local people for just a few weeks until the cost of that ticket runs out. If volunteers are providing their own living expenses - than that money is also helping the local economy.

I don't know, believe me, I get that having upper middle class do- good ears can be obnoxious as hell,,and sometimes counter productive. I was an administrator at a non- profit - there is a lot about Volunteering that can be negative and patronizing as hell and takes time away from the actual work. But there are also a lot of good that can be done by them that there just isn't a feasible method of financing otherwise..

Just my take on it.

Eta: I get that there can be some other benefits to volunteering in your own community. And not all projects are the same as far as benefits and drawbacks. But even in your own community there can be additional problems related to class, etc.

[freegrandmaduggar]

Traveling to this country is very dangerous for a newborn, especially after this disaster. Hep B and C, cholera, and thyphoid could easily kill a baby who has not received shots. But Jill doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the pack.

[LilahBelle]

Traveling to this country is very dangerous for a newborn, especially after this disaster. Hep B and C, cholera, and thyphoid could easily kill a baby who has not received shots. But Jill doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the pack.

I agree, and there could be severe aftershocks for years. She also will likely give birth again in short order and with what she went through last time, she needs to be in a well-equipped hospital.

The people of Nepal needs MEDICAL PERSONNEL, not two missionaries with their babies and film crew.

[lascuba]

Major non-profits are like corporations; they take in a whole lot, have a ton of overhead costs, and only a little trickle down. Smaller organizations are like small business; they may not make the most, but the effect on the community is more direct.

While of course the money people would spend on travel, food, etc., could be spent another way (i.e. direct donation to an aid organization) there absolutely IS value in having foreigners broaden their own horizons and learn about other cultures through experience. It changes their outlook on their own life and tends to make them more likely to be active in their own communities. It also creates a tangible link that influences those around them. These are the people who get their friends and families to donate to relief efforts that they are now passionate about because they have had the opportunity to experience it.

Edited for quoting issue....

I don't see how that can possibly apply to organizations that lure in unskilled, moneyed volunteers who are looking for some kind of deep, existential experience.

And I have a major problem with the implication that broadening the horizons of rich foreigners is some how as important as bringing useful help and relief to areas that need them.

[iknowright]

Evidence suggests they are members at Cross Church, which is SBC. I agree with the rest of your post. :)

Do we know that they joined formally? Or are they regular attenders? Seriously, not trying to be snarky, but I've seen Gothardites from home churches start regularly attending mainstream churches, but they make no move to join officially and sort of just use it as a facade to cover up their real religion (Gothardism).

Sometimes, Gothardites/fundatmentalists will make a move to change the outward appearance of the frumper look especially if they're trying to prove they are not part of a cult that has recently gotten so much bad press. In this way, I think Derick proves to himself he couldn't have gotten himself connected to a cult and Jill doesn't come from a cult, because if that were true, then they wouldn't be able to attend other churches. But that is the sinister side of this cult...the denial.

Duggars/Bates may make many moves like this (visiting/attending main stream churches, clothing changes, etc), but until you see them exit the ATI conferences and resign from IBLP boards and denounce Gothard himself, they're still in the cult.

[luv2laugh]

I believed it was mentioned that Derick did some mission or pastoral training or has the desire to. I honestly believe he is making a career change to either work in missions or to become a pastor.

[iknowright]

He for sure did mission work with the International Mission Board (Southern Baptist missions) before Jill. However, if they choose to go as a couple with IMB this time, Jill would also have to fulfill their requirements, which would take quite a bit of time (classes, learning the language, support raising, etc...) and require her to be a member of a local southern baptist church (and not for just a few weeks). You can't just decide one day to become involved with missions with southern baptist denomination and then the IMB just presto whamo approves you and you're in.

But if they're going with a fundie mission's group, then those qualifications can just be thrown out the window.

[MatthewDuggar]

I believed it was mentioned that Derick did some mission or pastoral training or has the desire to. I honestly believe he is making a career change to either work in missions or to become a pastor.

I could see Derrick becoming a pastor over Ben at least in terms of being able to want to understand other religions in comparison to Christianity. Neither of them is very charismatic however. Ben has more potential in that area, but he needs to be a bit more open to understanding other's viewpoints.

[DuggarWatch]

Walmart released a statement that Derick indeed quit his job and was not fired:

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/d ... peaks-out/

[Firiel]

Major non-profits are like corporations; they take in a whole lot, have a ton of overhead costs, and only a little trickle down. Smaller organizations are like small business; they may not make the most, but the effect on the community is more direct.

While of course the money people would spend on travel, food, etc., could be spent another way (i.e. direct donation to an aid organization) there absolutely IS value in having foreigners broaden their own horizons and learn about other cultures through experience. It changes their outlook on their own life and tends to make them more likely to be active in their own communities. It also creates a tangible link that influences those around them. These are the people who get their friends and families to donate to relief efforts that they are now passionate about because they have had the opportunity to experience it.

Edited for quoting issue....

Again, I don't think it's appropriate to use an entire impoverished people group as a stepping stone to a better outlook on your own life. It screams of colonialism, the white savior complex, and the noble savage complex all in one.

I know it serves this function for some people, but shouldn't we be trying to instill this understanding/compassion in others without using real people in real, abject poverty as a fucking teaching tool?

[Firiel]

It's not a false dichotomy. That is also a way that people can (and do, by the millions) spend their free time and money. It had it's positives and negatives and good businesses and bad. Like with "voluntourism". Yes it would be better if people would just give that $2k away and work at their local soup kitchen. But that's simply not realistic 100% of the time. Money is a finite resource for most people. So why not approach it with a two birds one stone outlook? People get to [fill in the blank... travel, see a concert, win something they want at a silent auction] while also doing something worthwhile....or at least more worthwhile than sitting poolside all day. Some people, when faced with $2k (or whatever) of "extra" money just won't give it all away no matter how much anyone preaches that this is how it "should be". Is it perfect? No, of course not. Are some people nieve about the programs they choose and are some people insufferably self important about their projects? You betcha. But it's still bringing money and interest to a cause. And if the vehicle to get the money and attention is permitting someone to dare to get some enjoyment out of charity, where precisely is the problem?

Put another way: Susie Kansas can spend her money for Spring Break going to Cancun or the same amount and time doing some questionably effective "service project" in Guatemala. Should she just stay home and send all her money to Guatemala to hire some person for some project that doesn't need her? Probably. But you don't get to make that call for her (and something tells me that you'd also mercilessly make fun of her for being a provincial American who has never left the country if she did). As long as she's not actually taking a job from a local...where's the harm? Any halfway respectable program will leave a net dollar positive behind. Not the full amount that Susie spent on flights etc but... The opportunity cost of Susie's money that *could have* been spent hiring someone is fake...it was (perhaps) not ever on offer in that way anyway.

Yes, it is a false dichotomy. Susie Random who is thinking of raising $2500 for a mission trip but learns that her work will not be all that useful and the money could be better spent is likely not going to say, "Fuck it!" and set up a $2500 GoFundMe for her trip to Cancun. And nowhere have I suggested that there should be legislation outlawing voluntourism, so I fail to see how I have been advocating that I should be able to make that call for people. And no, I would not "mercilessly make fun" of someone for not traveling. In the US, extensive international travel is a privilege of people who are at least upper-middle class. Why in the world would I make fun of someone for not having as much privilege as someone else?

[iknowright]

And I wanted to add this. Even on short term mission trips (from a few days to months), even if all of the requirements are fulfilled for the SBC, the mission they would be staying with in any country could tell them that they cannot accommodate infants or children at this time. I've seen this happen when a couple with children wants to go on a short term trip with their church and the mission in the country they were going to said they could not accommodate infants and children and only persons older than sixteen could be allowed at the mission.

So, again, that was with SBC and not a fundie organization. Ironically, there are certain aspects of legalist fundie world that rules do not apply or there are none.

All that to say, I'm not convinced they are trying to do mission work in Nepal. I'm just stating how it would be even remotely possible and who would or would not sponsor them (church wise).

[Firiel]

I guess I'm not getting , in this whole conversation, what the difference is in volunteering in your local community, and volunteering overseas? I mean, theoretically, in ALL cases, I get that it would be better to hire local people who need jobs to pay their bills to do the work the volunteers are doing. I don't see how that's any different whether it's in a nice middle class suburb , or a poverty stricken inner- city neighborhood, or in Haiti.

But the big problem -- in ANY of those environments -- is that non- profits use volunteers because they are free. Not volunteering doesn't make enough money appear to actually hire local people to do the work. Again, whether " local" is your middle class neighborhood , or the poverty stricken town where the plant shut down, or in a developing country half a world away .

In areas where you could argue that you get more bang for your buck - and the $ spent on travel and living expenses for the volunteer would be better spent hiring a local -- well -- maybe. But the cost of a plane ticket doesn't go that far -- you still need the non- profit staff, you need to recruit and train people and buy materials and supplies - and a rotating stream of short term volunteers might be more practical than hiring local people for just a few weeks until the cost of that ticket runs out. If volunteers are providing their own living expenses - than that money is also helping the local economy.

I don't know, believe me, I get that having upper middle class do- good ears can be obnoxious as hell,,and sometimes counter productive. I was an administrator at a non- profit - there is a lot about Volunteering that can be negative and patronizing as hell and takes time away from the actual work. But there are also a lot of good that can be done by them that there just isn't a feasible method of financing otherwise..

Just my take on it.

Eta: I get that there can be some other benefits to volunteering in your own community. And not all projects are the same as far as benefits and drawbacks. But even in your own community there can be additional problems related to class, etc.

I guess it's possible that there are areas where a steady stream of overseas volunteers is better economically. If that's the case, then I would not be against short-term aid trips in those circumstances.

But usually, the $2500 used to truck one person (usually with no training) down to Haiti to paint houses or whatever could be used by the non-profit to hire multiple locals for the same amount of time. And considering Haiti's minimum wage was $4.50 a day as of 2014, you could hire quite a few and pay them very well. Again, there may be cases where it doesn't work like this, but I have a hard time imagining how, for instance, ten high schoolers are going to be able to help as much as fifty local workers would be able to.

I want to note that I don't advocate saying "Voluntourism sucks. I'm gonna go buy a new bike/PlayStation/whatever." I think it would be great if, instead of raising $2500 to go on a mission trip, someone donate $100/month. Or, if they don't have that ability, if they arranged a fundraiser for an overseas non-profit and raised $500 or $1000 that they could donate. And, if they are really passionate about a certain issue or group or whatever, I would definitely encourage them to get the actual training needed to help address that problem (becoming a nurse, a licensed therapist, a teacher, etc.), get educated in the culture they feel passionate about, and going there long-term to help address the problem and train other people locally to do the same.

EDIT: Oh, and I think local volunteering is better because it doesn't cost a ton of money in overhead to do so-- it is actually free. You should still look into the organization you are working with, of course, and make sure they are actually helping. And I think it's best if you can get involved with a group regularly (which, full disclosure, I am not right now... I'm new-ish to the area and haven't plugged in).

Oh, another note! For people who want to help overseas but don't have a ton of money-- see if there are any US offices for that charity. I know in my small-ish hometown, there are two local offices that are involved in overseas charities that always welcome volunteers. I was employed at one for a while, and we really appreciated our local volunteers.

[karen77]

Maybe their destination isn't Nepal, maybe they are going to Central or South America instead?