Our Response to the Haiti Earthquake

For what its worth:

We are saddened and praying for the victims and survivors of the Haiti Earthquake. Everywhere we turn, there is a link, a mass mailing, or suggestion for how to give as a response to the earthquakes. We have many generous friends who have given; some through organizations they personally know or have been a part of, others through my work where the company has matched all donations and even allowed it to be taken directly out (pre-tax?) from one's paycheck, others simply by giving to the Red Cross. In fact, I know many, many people I admire who are hands down more generous than we are.

I have mentioned before that natural disasters (tsunami's, floods, earthquakes, famine and the resulting starvation, etc.) actually have enough money given to provide the help that is needed. They are immediate enough and dramatic enough to make the evening news, plus they provide amazing television images, which have the effect of pulling ones heartstrings and motivating one to give even if that person does not regularly give to care for the poor. This is something I learned during training for Hunger Corps with Food for the Hungry in Bangladesh.

But things like chronic, persistent hunger, which aren't so flashy, or showy, or dramatic, do not evoke the needed response even though they kill many more people. How do you accurately capture through a television lens the need of someone who daily takes in fewer calories than he uses? How do you make this slow killer pressing enough, that it can be 'breaking news' on the evening news of a given night of the week?

What to do? If we were to get bitter at the lack of response to these other issues, that would certainly be the wrong response. Additionally, refusing to give to the Haitian relief efforts based on the fact that there are 'other pressing issues' and that plenty of money is being given by everyone else would not be correct. Our response cannot be a justification or rationalization for why we don't have to act.

Instead, what we have done, is used this immediate, pressing, natural disaster as a catapult to get us to act on the long term issues. We have given money, but not to the Haiti relief efforts. Instead, we gave money to fight chronic, persistent, hunger. My hope is that each time one of these disasters strikes, we will choose, like everyone else, to give over and above our regular giving. But that we would use it as a chance to give over and above towards a need that is being neglected by others.

---We realize that this post does not address issues such as waste, assumptions as to what is needed, creating dependency, and enabling vs. serving. The issue is certainly much more complex than 'To Give Money or Not To Give Money', but if we were to share our thoughts (and they are almost entirely thoughts rather than solutions) on all of it, well, you would not read that long and convoluted post.---