19-03-2010, 10:08 PM
Well, it is certainly emotive stuff and I have no problem making a donation. But for me it doesn't end there. The clip seems to imply that you can do your bit by making a donation to this organisation and then if they get enough money everything will change. Like clicking the mouse on a button and some one somewhere gets half a cup of rice donated through some sponsored advertising. In no way does it go any where near the cause of this suffering. It keeps people in their comfort zone and doesn't challenge them to realise their connection to others through their 'lifestyle' choices. It implies that people can continue to have their consumerist life style and make a donation and all is well or that that is enough. It isn't. But if these well meaning organisations do point out the connections people turn off and don't donate. If these organisations do challenge the systems which permit people to be treated this way then they lose their funding and get branded as 'terrorists' or 'communists' to boot. Education and activism is more effective than money in most cases but there will be none allowed if it is to connect the dots in causes of and effects of human suffering if it interferes with a system which permits the few to have power over and to make money off the misery of the many.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.