This week from the book we read about international nonprofits and Michael O’Neill’s opinion of their increasing importance. I don’t know if it was the year that the book was written (2002) or O’Neill’s politics but I found myself strongly disagreeing with his subtle advocacy for the work of international nonprofits. He mentioned on the first page of the chapter that:
Although I believe this is absolutely true, I feel that the rest of his chapter defends the American tradition of budding in to other country’s issues and along with it, offering assistance when there is something in it for us.
I feel that international nonprofits are a whole new ball game than that of local nonprofits serving a specific cause and community. Although they do provide many good services, most of the time it is done with biased American views and ulterior motives. On page 173, O’Neill discusses “international organizations’ focus on complex, long-term issues such as food production, public health, education, economic development, and conflict prevention” by using the Green Revolution as an example. However, O’Neill did not include the horrible consequences that followed USAID’s effort for food security. Besides relying heavily on pesticides (which led to cancer in many parts of the world) and water, the green revolution destroyed many agricultural biodiversity and wild diversity. On top of everything else, famines still persisted because the real problem was the unequal distribution of wealth, not the lack of mono-crop corn.
I’d like to look back on the first quote about globalization acting as a major reality for American nonprofit work, and I’d like to point out the direct correlation between the work of the nonprofits within globalization and the benefits that businesses receive because of it. If we look at the work the nonprofits did during the Green Revolution, we recognize that their strategy of growing more food was merely just a band-aid for the real political problems where famines were occurring. So I’d like to ask who the Green Revolution really was helping. I bet Monsanto didn’t do too badly from all the pesticides and fertilizer they sold. Starbuck’s probably did okay from all coffee they sold that came from mono-crop coffee plants where rainforests used to grow. The only ones that benefited from the Green Revolution were businesses. I don’t know if the nonprofits participating within the Green Revolution meant for it to be like that or if they just lost sight of the real underlying issue, but I think that nonprofits should always remain local or should enable the locals abroad to fix their own problems on their own terms instead of making decisions about what is best for their people and culture.
This is a video of an interview with Dr. Johnson Nkuuye who is discussing the danger of the new farming technologies that will be used in Africa as a part of the UNDP's Millenium Goals for another Green Revolution. He discusses the problems with foreign help implementing irrigation and new technologies for free and then leaving, and in return leaving the natives worse off. Sounds really familiar...
“Globalization, which increasingly affects American business and government, is also a major reality in American nonprofit work.”
Although I believe this is absolutely true, I feel that the rest of his chapter defends the American tradition of budding in to other country’s issues and along with it, offering assistance when there is something in it for us.
I feel that international nonprofits are a whole new ball game than that of local nonprofits serving a specific cause and community. Although they do provide many good services, most of the time it is done with biased American views and ulterior motives. On page 173, O’Neill discusses “international organizations’ focus on complex, long-term issues such as food production, public health, education, economic development, and conflict prevention” by using the Green Revolution as an example. However, O’Neill did not include the horrible consequences that followed USAID’s effort for food security. Besides relying heavily on pesticides (which led to cancer in many parts of the world) and water, the green revolution destroyed many agricultural biodiversity and wild diversity. On top of everything else, famines still persisted because the real problem was the unequal distribution of wealth, not the lack of mono-crop corn.
I’d like to look back on the first quote about globalization acting as a major reality for American nonprofit work, and I’d like to point out the direct correlation between the work of the nonprofits within globalization and the benefits that businesses receive because of it. If we look at the work the nonprofits did during the Green Revolution, we recognize that their strategy of growing more food was merely just a band-aid for the real political problems where famines were occurring. So I’d like to ask who the Green Revolution really was helping. I bet Monsanto didn’t do too badly from all the pesticides and fertilizer they sold. Starbuck’s probably did okay from all coffee they sold that came from mono-crop coffee plants where rainforests used to grow. The only ones that benefited from the Green Revolution were businesses. I don’t know if the nonprofits participating within the Green Revolution meant for it to be like that or if they just lost sight of the real underlying issue, but I think that nonprofits should always remain local or should enable the locals abroad to fix their own problems on their own terms instead of making decisions about what is best for their people and culture.
This is a video of an interview with Dr. Johnson Nkuuye who is discussing the danger of the new farming technologies that will be used in Africa as a part of the UNDP's Millenium Goals for another Green Revolution. He discusses the problems with foreign help implementing irrigation and new technologies for free and then leaving, and in return leaving the natives worse off. Sounds really familiar...
0 Comments to "International Nonprofits"