<Back

Can you spare a million?

Why solving the world's problems takes more than throwing money at them

Dan Malarkey '08

The recent British film Millions, by Danny Boyle and Frank Cottrell Boyce, is a parable of sorts in which Christian charity, represented in the loving and wide-eyed seven year old character Damien, is meant to triumph over cynical attitudes about charitable organizations seen in Damien's brother.

Critics have lauded this film as promoting the credo "choose life," which seems to me entirely off topic, as does the filmmaker's bon mot that his film is about "believing in people."

In fact, I think this film raises more problems than it solves about the concept of charity; I think it should make us think more carefully about just what it means to give, in a world in which requests for giving are incessant and emotionally charged, and in which charity is forever seen as an act of rich giving (mostly monetarily) to poor.

Americans, constantly inundated with requests for charity give generously and often indiscriminately to any organization that tugs at our heartstrings. This way of giving rarely leads to sustainable change.

We need to closely examine the complexity of charity. The incorrect assumption that rich give to poor without gaining anything in return puts value entirely on monetary gain and economic progress.

In giving money to organizations, we are responsible for their actions. An organization that aids some people may directly or indirectly disfavor others.

The "charitable" work of some pharmaceutical companies in sub-Saharan Africa has caused serious damage to communities' health by addicting them to Western medicine while invalidating community medical practices.

Also, one only needs to research the history of NGOs to see how money has been misused in the name of charity through both honest and dishonest intentions.

A good cause is not synonymous with a good charitable organization. The reality that money does not always go where one intends could make us very cynical about giving to charity.

I'm not arguing that we should not give to charity. It is integral to our social and economic system. We benefit from it daily.

The important thing is to be discriminatory in how we give and how we receive, never forgetting generosity and gratefulness.

In supporting progressive, sustainable organizations, such as the Gates' Foundation, we can reconcile our desire to do good with our fear that our money will not make a difference in the long run.

The Gates' Foundation, which will outlive its founder, has made a commitment to effecting long term change in several specific areas.

Another way to give is through service, a theme frequently addressed at last week's symposium on genocide. Many of the speakers talked about the importance of charitable work both in their lives and the lives of others.

But we also have to keep in mind that many international service organizations strive to impose Western practices and values on other cultures. I'm not preaching radical cultural relativism, nor am I arguing that we should not give to, or serve with, charities.

I am hoping, though, that before you drop another dollar in a supermarket collection box, before you send another check by internet to some relief organization, that you will research the organization and reflect on both its mission and long term effectiveness.

You should not feel ashamed to say no. The film Millions tries to move us beyond cynicism, encourage us to give almost indiscriminately to those in need and "to believe in people" according to director Danny Boyle. First, I think we need to retain an amount of wariness.

Good charity is enlightened charity. Give wisely.

<Back