I have seen, heard of and have been invited to participate in these trips. Some are NGOs, some are religious groups.
Yeah, looking at it from the perspective she wrote, it seems ridiculous. It is an "industry", wrapped in a non-profit, save-the-world PR shroud, that caters to educated, Westerners who can afford to travel overseas. People feel good when they do good. Whether they other side perceives it as good, sometimes it is not clear.
One can ask, is it better if these "unskilled" people never left home? Maybe even with all the seeming waste and incompetence, it keeps people engaged. I suspect most of them would not have just taken the money for that plane ticket, and handed that check to a NGO that knows better how to spend it, and could build 10 libraries for all that money. But I am afraid it is either "send the volunteers and keep them engaged somehow" vs "don't send the volunteers at all and say goodbye to that money and resources".
People like to help others, people like to tell stories, like to have adventures. These trips cater to that aspect. Do people in Africa feel better knowing that foreigners want to come in and at least try to slap a brick on top of another even if they don't know how? I see a lot of criticism of this here, and rationally I agree, but I also feel there is a bit more too it and I personally am on the fence whether this is good thing or not.
The OP suggests that their presence is actually detrimental, not just useless.
If so, then, yes, it would be better for them just to stay home, even though only a fraction of the money that people would have spent on their own trips will be donated outright.
It seems likely to me.
It is comfortable and positive to think along the lines of "If even one Westerner gets more engaged, it's a success!" but why would Westerner 'engagement' be the metric of success? It's not about the Westerners.
> Do people in Africa feel better knowing that foreigners want to come in and at least try to slap a brick on top of another even if they don't know how?
The answer to this isn't really unknown or unknowable: No, hardly anyone feels that way. Why would you feel better because a foreigner is coming and fucking shit up while you have to pretend you believe they're helping because they have so much more power than you?
> The OP suggests that their presence is actually detrimental, not just useless.
Yeah I read that and I don't 100% agree, still mostly agree but maybe just 80%.
> "If even one Westerner gets more engaged, it's a success!
Not a success but better overall maybe if they just stayed home.
> It's not about the Westerners.
That is the big problem, and I think I talk about it as well (kind of snarky) how it is an industry that caters to Westerner's needs. However I am not convinced yet that not engaging them and not bothering is yet better.
> but why would Westerner 'engagement' be the metric of success?
It isn't the only metric of success. But even if it is, the answer could simply be because they have more resources and money to help in the future. Maybe 50 out 100 will end up being hippies living in the van down by the river, smoking pot and telling cool travel to Africa stories. But maybe 10 will actually come back and do something more positive next time.
It is also not black and white. Either come and "fuck shit up" as you put it or "come and rescue the country completely from disaster". There is a lot of in-between.
There are groups of skilled professional, namely doctors that go on specific missions to do one specific thing -- fix cleft palates, do eye exams and so on. Do they do more damage? Quite the opposite. There is a lot of in between. Sometimes there are skilled local professionals and they do work together. Sometimes money comes with the silly unskilled white college kid labor and well maybe the white college kids get to play soccer with the village kids while the local skilled labor build the schools.
> Why would you feel better because a foreigner is coming and fucking shit up
Well I do have a story for you. I grew up on a country were American volunteers also felt the need to come and "teach us" and "work with us". Nowhere near the situation in Africa. Nevertheless, I remember kids in our school chasing down Americans just to look at them as if they were from Mars or something. Rumors were how they distributed chewing gum and candy. I never got the candy I was too shy. Well now I live here in US, can buy tons of candy, and looking back, it just feels so stupid to do that. But I am glad they came and didn't just stay home. At worst, it was worth for a nice lifetime feel good moment for 10 year old boy.
I agree with almost all of your post in terms of business and how NGOs operate.
However, I'm going to offer a more cynical opinion on why people go to developing countries. I disagree that people who go there are somehow doing it because of moral reasons or because doing good makes them feel good.
It has become a trend - to go to Uganda and post statuses on facebook about how you are in Uganda helping poor, oppressed people.
I think recognizing that you are not really helping them by the virtue of being American/white/christian requires a lot of critical thinking these days, which most of those late teen girls do not possess.
I have first hand witnessed 100s of americans coming to visit(not an african country), strutting around like they're kings of the universe, not communicating with locals, not learning the language, not even TRYING to learn something. Posting messages on facebook about how they love, love, love the country, without ever speaking to a local.
They're just there so that 1) They can fill in their resume with volunteer/study abroad experience 2) To feed their own ago about how they're multicultural and risk-takers 3) for others to think that they're multicultural and risk takers.
Obviously, my post is very biased, but seriously, some people didn't even know how much they paid for flight tickets and board. Those are (sometimes) the kind of people that go and try to help impoverished communities.(I'm cross referencing, because the people I met had gone to African countries as well).
"Raising awareness" is such bullshit. It's a lie people tell themselves so they can feel good sitting in an air conditioned office earning a good wage running a "social media campaign" and never getting their hands dirty or having to meet any of the people they're "helping".
Yeah, looking at it from the perspective she wrote, it seems ridiculous. It is an "industry", wrapped in a non-profit, save-the-world PR shroud, that caters to educated, Westerners who can afford to travel overseas. People feel good when they do good. Whether they other side perceives it as good, sometimes it is not clear.
One can ask, is it better if these "unskilled" people never left home? Maybe even with all the seeming waste and incompetence, it keeps people engaged. I suspect most of them would not have just taken the money for that plane ticket, and handed that check to a NGO that knows better how to spend it, and could build 10 libraries for all that money. But I am afraid it is either "send the volunteers and keep them engaged somehow" vs "don't send the volunteers at all and say goodbye to that money and resources".
People like to help others, people like to tell stories, like to have adventures. These trips cater to that aspect. Do people in Africa feel better knowing that foreigners want to come in and at least try to slap a brick on top of another even if they don't know how? I see a lot of criticism of this here, and rationally I agree, but I also feel there is a bit more too it and I personally am on the fence whether this is good thing or not.