Today we watched the short documentary film Invisible Children, which has an associated a nonprofit organization to help children in war-torn southern Uganda. These children are constantly at risk of being conscripted into militias, so they cannot sleep in their rural homes, and travel into cities each night to avoid abduction. Our friend Greg Kendall-Ball is going to Gulu, Uganda in January to shoot photos for Invisible Chilren, and is accepting donations to support his trip.
If you haven’t seen the film, you might not know that it was made by three American college students, who didn’t know what they were going to do when they arrived in Africa. Invisible Children happened, and now their organization provides education and mental health care to help re-integrate former child soldiers into society (and prevent further abductions).
After watching Invisible Children in church today, we discussed the film and what we can do. The film bothered me because it comes from a rather arrogant, youthful American perspective. The filmmakers went to Africa to “conquer” it and fix whatever problems they encountered. Can you get any more imperialistic?
That got me thinking about actual imperialism and colonialism, which are now considered bad and wrong. Are things really any better now, though? I’m not suggesting that we go back to colonialism, but that we really look at why some things are worse now than they were under colonialism. The quality of governance comes to mind.
Again, though, it is not our job to solve another continent’s problems. We can help, but African leadership will be the ultimate source of solution to Africa’s problems. Oprah’s leadership school for girls comes to mind as a way to make a difference while encouraging local leadership.
Another question involves the proliferation of nonprofit organizations. Is it really necessary for every American who visits Africa to come home and start their own nonprofit? Doesn’t this just introduce more administrative overhead, wasting money that could be funneled into existing organizations that already have their overhead covered?
I checked and Invisible Children’s overhead is 14.6%, compared to 13.5% for World Vision. Compassion International’s is higher, at 16.2%. So, while it’s a bit silly to duplicate administrative functions for each organization, at least IC is keeping their expenses at a reasonable level (which is why, for example, Greg is raising his own support).
On the other hand, the proliferation of charities does give people a more personal connection to the work being done in other countries. For example, it’s much easier for people in Searcy to feel a part of the mission of the Kibo Group than the work of WorldVision, simply because the Kibo Group is based in Searcy (my college town).
The main problem in all of this is hubris. I too am inspired by the ambitions of the One Campaign and other groups to end extreme poverty in our generation. But it’s imperialism all over again to think that we can simply march in and fix the world’s problems.
David closed our gathering today with a prayer, in which he asked that we not be paralyzed by the complexity and difficulty of these problems. Indeed. Thoughts?
Thanks for talking a bit about the situation in northern Uganda (and it is “northern” rather than “southern”). The situation with the “invisible children” has indeed been tragic. I appreciate that these young men saw the need and set out to really make a difference.
A couple of comments:
1) Try to check out what is happening in/around Gulu NOW. Things have changed dramatically in recent months in that region, and the situation with the children is not the same as depicted in the documentary. Of course, it could all fall apart again. Situations like this can change rapidly, and if you become convicted about doing something, you need to get the latest information.
2) I appreciate your comments about non-profits–including mentioning the issue of overhead. But keep in mind that ministry “efficiency” (one measure of which might be low overhead) is not the only important mark of a good organization. Ministry “effectiveness” is also important. An organization can have a very low overhead and yet be ineffective in its mission. Conversely, it is possible for organizations with a higher overhead to be very effective. Another note about overhead is that not all organizations calculate their overhead the same, so it is hard to compare apples to apples. My only point is that if you want to be a good steward, you need to do more work. Personally, I support the work of organizations that I have gotten to know personally and deeply. (In my case, I know World Vision, International Justice Mission, and a few others well, and have come to respect the integrity, focus and effectiveness of their work among the poorest of the poor. These organizations are not only efficient, but also effective.)
I don’t think I made it clear that I believe in and support the work of all these groups. I have given financially to Greg, WorldVision, and Compassion, and am a member of the One Campaign, and I’m doing some website stuff for the Kibo Group.
The initial arrogance of the IC documentarians bothered me, though, and while the website now pokes fun at their naivete and indicates that the organization has grown up, I’m still not quite over it.
BTW, I should remind everyone that Greg still needs donations for his trip.
I still feel like you’ve got a huge blind spot in regards to this film; it’s like you latched on to one, brief statement in the first five minutes, and it sort drowned out everything else. The statement “We were going to conquer Africa” seemed so obviously tongue-in-cheek to me. The filmmakers were mocking themselves. The fact that it’s immediately followed up by scenes of them wandering aimlessly, getting dehydrated, and vomiting in ditches just reinforces that to me.
Besides that, their goal was never stated as “to fix the problems we encountered.” Their stated goal was “to find a story worth telling and share it with people back home.” I think the fact that they ended up founding a charity when they returned in order to help with what they encountered is a testament to the change that being there caused in them.
I don’t think that this has anything to do with making people who donate feel more connected to what’s going on (though it may have that added benefit). They did it because they wanted to help the people that they met. Sure, they could have raised a bunch of money to benefit another charity that was doing work in Africa, but how much would that have affected the lives of the individual human beings they encountered on their trip? There was aid being sent there; was it helping those children? It’s easy for us, as purely financial backers of a lot of charity actions, to see it as all being the same, because people get helped in one way or another. But they wanted to make a specific difference to specific people.
Look at it this way: If you had the money to help a friend who had dire medical need and couldn’t afford to pay for it himself, would you donate the money to an organization that helps people who can’t afford health insurance to get medical care and then tell your friend, “Well, I did my part; hopefully they’ll be willing and able to help you,” and leave it at that? Knowing you, I don’t think so. You’d use the money you had to help your friend directly, as you should. This is the same situation. These guys didn’t want “to raise money to help Africa.” They wanted to help Jacob go to school, etc. To us, it may be “just another charity started by an American that went to Africa.” To them, it’s personal.
Lukas -
Tongue in cheek or not, I found the statement, and the numerous subsequent instances of imperialistic terminology, offensive. Yes, they’re doing good, and that’s the point, but part of my response to this film is, and will continue to be, mild irritation at the approach the filmmakers started with (though, as you’ve said, they’ve come a long way since then).
I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s that different from what I’m saying. I think a better analogy would be starting an organization to help people with the medical problem your friend has, then signing your friend up to be their first client. Still a local, personal connection, just like the connections that are behind the Kibo Group. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother starting a foundation to help other people; they’d just support the people they met, much as the church we’re familiar with does for people in Zimbabwe.
For me, as what you termed a financial backer of a charity, you’re right - I don’t care whether they had an excellent adventure and really connected with some people. But if they can share that excitement with other people they way they are through this film, that’s a whole lot more powerful than a WorldVision mass-mailing.
But this film did make me aware of a specific problem that I wasn’t aware of before, so it has value beyond its use as a motivational and fundraising tool. I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t like it, just that it’s one of many things about which I’m conflicted.
I’ll stick with Kiva for now, but more power to these guys.
Steve, thanks for your comment. Really good points, all. I hadn’t thought about the difference between effectiveness and efficiency.
[...] Radical Congruency — Paradoxes of Making a Difference [...]