To think if teenage girls from a private school can afford plane tickets ...

[Morgansports]

.... To visit the orphanage in Africa that they have been fundraising for, then the orphanage would be better served by just receiving the money they spent on their tickets. Seriously, what actual use to the orphanage is a group of hair-flicking, ugg boot wearing blondes???

And the bit that made me laugh is that other parents at the school were asked to help fundraise for the girls' trip.

AIBU?

Hahaha Procrasstinator.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so apologise if this has been mentioned before. I have links with an African childrens' charity. I got into trouble with them the only time I gave them any money (long story, involving me buying milk powder for a baby with measles.) This particular charity welcomes visitors - they understand the power of the visitor. We go home, and take with us first had experience of the places we go to, drum up support and finance. The parents at my daughter's school have just donated 28kgs of outgrown school uniform for me to take out there - no cash has changed hands, but the charity has benefitted from my presence as a visitor.

Since I'm on my soapbox, I will have a little plug here for my charity, and if anyone was thinking about sponsoring a child in Africa - providing an education, health care, and 2 good meals a day, you won't go far wrong with Hands for Hope. Every penny goes towards looking after the child. Thank you.

'Self- righteousness is the enemy of self-awareness'.

Peasabovesticks

I really couldn't resist it

This sort of thing is annoying, yes, but it's rare for charity to be completely altruistic. At least the girls will get more of an idea than they have now, about life for African orphans.

I used to run fundraisers for an overseas children's charity I supported. It worked like this:
My friends and I invited loads of overpaid, party-loving people.
I got the venues for nothing and the booze at a discount, ostensibly for the charity but really because the owners wanted our type of guest to like their brands.
We plastered the venues with charming photos of the children we were helping. We chose them to be heart-tugging, not upsetting.
The party-loving people paid over the odds for their drinks, giving me lots of profit for the project, and made nice big donations on the door.
They also got to know the name of the project and what it does, meaning they'd tell other 'opinion formers' about it. In fact we got some free advertising through this.
We raised sufficient funds to buy the project a house, which it still uses as a hostel/school/rehab/healthcare facility.
This house was bought by playing on rich people's vanity. So what? They did a very good thing. Their generosity will be supporting less-privileged people for generations.

peas

TBH though peas there is nothing self-righteous about my stand point. I would give just about anything for my family not to have endured the things they have, and for me not to know the things I do. Its broken so much.

oh, and if you'd like to fund our next trip to Africa, I can guarantee we will be doing good and people will be very pleased to see us

I'm sorry for your family pro. I was telling ds1 (11) today that life is very unfair. It's horrible that children wherever they are suffer. I certainly don't know what the answers are but personally I would never critisise somebody who means well and wants to help. By all means point them in a different direction, but don't sneer at them, belittle them or call them stupid.

but don't sneer at them, belittle them or call them stupid

i haven't done that at all

You were pretty rough towards LaQueen IMO. And the quote. Well, that
pretty much speaks for itself....

yes, i was horrid to LaQueen, i will give you that

but regarding the quote...there is nothing insulting about saying that someone doesnt have knowledge of a subject

And it is very true that if you assume to have the knowledge, you aren't receptive to actually gain it.......(which you do in saying you are capable of deciding for yourself etc etc)

Given that response I shall refer you once again to my own quote

ok- night night

in the words of Madame Gazelle...'Peace and Harmony'

I do hope so.

This is quite funny. Sorry if it's been posted already.

I must say, I find it really funny that someone takes the trouble to criticise another poster for using the term "third world" and then says they should use the term "developing world", a term that is also felt inappropriate by many!

Well said garlic baguette.

On the more substantive points:

• I'm sure that some harm comes from these visits, as well as some good. But that's true of every action we take in life: we can't buy anything with a completely clear conscience, for example; and every charitable act involves moral compromise if you peer closely enough at it. So I think we ought to be wary of over-emphasising the harms that may arise from this kind of trip. Certainly, complaints about the involvement of commercial organisations in the trips seem overblown: virtually every object in the orphanage will have been sold by a profit-making organisation, for example.
• I'm not sure why there's such an emphasis being made on how the trip participants will have nothing to offer because they're untrained. Surely there'll be toilets that need to be cleaned, flower beds to be dug, etc etc? It may that's not what they actually do when they're there, but it's certainly possible that they could do it. They don't need to spend their time trying to hug orphans who don't want to be hugged. And additionally, not all orphanages in Africa house victims of war crimes who are deeply traumatised in the way that some posters have described. It is just possible that these folks are going to an orphanage that has, say, mainly children whose parents succumbed to HIV or TB or malarai. Such children may be OK with a hug or a bedtime story
• Fostering clearly will have better outcomes. Same is true in the UK, after all (and we know here that adoption is best of all). But there is a shortage of foster parents here and that is likely to be just as true in many African countries, and I'm not really convinced that the number of trips from Western countries to visit orphanages is high enough to make a material difference to the overall ratio across African countries of fostered/adopted children:children in orphanages. I admit it's possible, but it doesn't really seem very plausible, although I'm sure there are some specific instances of orphanages which are open because of links to Western charity that would otherwise have shut. There are, however, also going to be places where an orphanage would be beneficial, but where there are actually no arrangements at all. Supply and need will not be perfectly in balance, far from it. It seems a bit unreasonable to pull out this kind of trip as being a highly significant factor, absent some actual evidence.
• Sexism always matters. As does making assumptions about the goodness in other people's hearts, and the limits of their capabilities. As others have said, it's fine to attack structures, it's not fine to attack young women
• The OP presents a false choice: go, or send the money it would have cost to go instead. Of those two options, the latter will clearly raise more money (but will miss out on the chance of one or more of the trip participants deciding to do something profound and ultimately helpful in the end, like enter development politics, or fundraise on a much larger scale, etc). But the latter assumes that the trip money would be made available for other purposes instead. That's really quite unlikely.

You make it sound as if the choice is to fly a girl over or provide funds for a kitchen/teacher etc. This is simply not true. The girl is travelling and wants to do some good, rather than pure pleasure, and they are encouraged to raise some of the money themselves rather than just ask parents. No one is obliged to support them. You can manage to turn them down, very easily and politely, by saying that you prefer to support.............
If they can't help they will just have the holiday- they will not be sending off the holiday money.
No one is pretending they are doing valuable charity work and given positions of trust. However, even vulnerable orphan children like a bit of escapism with visitors who will have a bit of fun. It will be a sad old world if you can't engage with a child unless you are going to have long term contact. If they don't want them to play cricket, teach a dance, some songs etc I can't see why, as slhilly says, they can't do some washing up, clean bathrooms, weed vegetable patches and free up the people doing it.
It isn't the best way- but both sides are getting something from it.
We are terribly money orientated over here. I wouldn't want to give teenagers the message that they never have to put themselves out, never have to get personally involved because there are people more qualified and all you need to do to any problem is send money.

Exotic -

Sorry - what you are saying makes no sense:

They would be going anyway, but they need to raise the money to go (why would they need to raise the money if they are going anyway?)

No one is claiming they are going on a charitable mission but they are asking people for donations towards the cost (why would people donate if they didn't think it was a charitable cause?)

Yes I agree young people should not be told that they should never help out, but they should also not be told that their desire to help out is more important than the best interests of the people they want to help.

Orphanages are over-funded relative to other kinds of children's services, to the point where they have become an economic preventing children being supported to stay in their extended family.

And yet we should encourage another generation to focus their compassion on orphanages, because that is most appealing to them as donors?

Because the donors good feelings matter more than the children's welfare?! WTF.

and I didn't call you stupid I called you naive- because if you think African orphanages are not a big tourist draw then you are naive. If you think the only thing that matters is that the children get to play together and no one gets hurt then you are naive.

I went to Mexico to build shelters for homeless elderly when I was 16 with the girl guides. State school, brown hair, not well off and my parents paid. It was hard work and a massive shock. I haven't done anything except donate since but it did teach me a few things that I still carry today.
A family who have no home giving you a drink of coca cola that they have begged for the money to buy , does teach you something whether you wear Uggs or not.

boerwarkids

Haven't read the whole thread, however I'm sick to the back teeth of being asked to contribute to these kind of trips. We've been asked to attend numerous "charity" balls, sponsored events and endless raffle tickets (usually at £5 a pop, "would you like a book of tickets?") etc etc

It gets beyond a joke when you know the families could very well afford the fare anyone, but as part of the process the dc are supposed to raise the money themselves. This actually means them pestering their parents' friends and us being asked to contribute over and over again.

I'd much rather give the money to established charities than to teenagers. Which we do.

And both my DDs were discouraged from doing these trips and have been encouraged to volunteer for charities locally. Dd1 now does voluntary admin for a charity one day a week whilst she is at uni. More teenagers should be encouraged to do this kind of thing IMO.

Slhilly - I am sure that 9 times out of 10 no terrible harm is done. some football is played and a wall gets painted (at great expense). No one is hurt, even if no real good is done. The teens are the main beneficiaries as they have a life enhancing experience.

But you know what 9 times out of 10 isn't good enough. We shouldn't be supporting organisations that take a 9 times out of 10 approach to child protection.

Beyond the risks to child welfare of bringing untrained rich world teens in and out of the lives of institutionalised children in another country, there is also the attitudes these programs support....

I think a big part of the harm is the "lessons" these program's teach donors- that poor people in Africa should take whatever assistance is offered, that the good feelings of the donors are more important than the best interests of the 'beneficiaries', that Africans are passive, corrupt and unskilled and need 'whites in shining armour' to fly in and paint walls for them, that supporting organisations that do the unglamorous business of employing local social workers, liasing and building the capacity of government institutions for child protection would be "throwing money at the problem" - that it is better to gather children whose families are in difficulty into institutions where they are convenient to enable compassionate teens to have life enhancing experiences.

Below is the final summery of an article by Professor Richter PHD- research fellow at the human sciences research council. The paper was titled: Inside the Thriving Industry of Aids Orphan Tourism.

1. Every available resource should be utilised to support families and extended kin to enable them to provide high quality care for their children. Out-of-home residential care should not be an option when support can be given to families to take care of their own children.
2. Children out of parental care have a right to protection, including against experiences that are harmful for them. In particular, they have a right to be protected against repeated broken attachments as a result of rapid staff turnover in orphanages, exacerbated by care provided by shortterm volunteers.
3. Welfare authorities must act against voluntourism companies and residential homes that exploit misguided international sympathies to make profits at the extent of children?s well-being.
4. Lastly, well-meaning young people should be made aware of the potential consequences of their own involvement in these care settings, be discouraged from taking part in such tourist expeditions, and be given guidelines on how to manage relationships to minimise negative outcomes for young children.