I am routinely emotionally assaulted by television commercials exhibiting a poor malnourished child in a third-world country wearing a pitiful expression as a commentator paces nearby pleading with the viewer to do something about it. It's a matter of course that the "something" they want you to do is to send them money. But I can't help but notice how blithely the commentator can ignore the presence of the child a mere arm's length away from them while begging viewers thousands of miles away to take action. Isn't the commentator the closest and most logical person to aide the child? Obviously he/she has more money than I do to be able to travel to these parts of the world, so they certainly can afford the insignificant two or three dollars they request.
Right about now, half my readers have moved on to the next blog post, shaking their head at my insensitivity to human suffering. The truth is however, that I am incredibly touched by this demeaning exploitation of children and equally offended at there obtuse nature. Hunger, famine, war and poverty are very real and much more common than we can easily imagine here in America with our decadence and self-consumed lifestyles motivated by greed and momentary personal gratification. I will never deny the existence of such tragedies. But do we really need to spend several hundred hard-earned dollars to travel to a foreign country in order to find these tremendous needs? Are ALL Americans so well-off that hunger, poverty and famine have no footholds in our own communities?
I firmly believe that charity begins at home. I use the word home in an ever-expanding and progressive globally encapsulating manner, yet simultaneously in the most common and literal way. How many families have you observed in an Escalade with a custom paint job, elaborate decals and spinning rims parking at the liquor store while the children run barefoot on the dirtiest streets in town and barely able to put one to two meals on the table per day? I have also seen families that could ill-afford to pay their rent, set aside grocery money to put in the offering plate at church to help some starving children in Africa. Do I begrudge the starving children in Africa the aid they may receive? Absolutely not. (I use the word "may" deliberately in light of the numerous scandals involving these so-called charitable organizations). I begrudge financial sacrifices offered by the "pious" and "generous" on the altar of their own families. Our duties are to those closest to us first. That is not to say that it should end there, only that home is where it should begin.
After the home is secure, then we should look to our local community, starting with next-door neighbors. At one time, neighbors were those from whom you could borrow a cup of sugar in exchange for lending a cup of flower next week. Now most of us don't even know our neighbor's names, let alone how they are doing in other aspects of life. How many CEOs pass by the beggar on the street because they already donate to charities? This is a blatant reversal of the true order of things and demonstrates greed instead of charity. It is easy to condemn those who utilize the aid of Welfare, but are unwilling to assist people ourselves. The sense of community has vanished from the American horizon. This also applies to corporations, maybe more so since their available funds for charity vastly dwarf those of the individual. Yet they pursue the tax deductions and write-offs they get from charitable organizations rather than the true spirit of charity. They pursue the bottom line and highest profits. How many jobs could, for example, be created by Walmart if it were to remove all its self-checkout lines and replace them with real live people? That would be far more charitable than for walmart to send "charitable" donations overseas.
Is this perspective selfish? Not even close. It is simple common sense. If your next door neighbor is starving, and you are barely making ends meet, you might be able to buy them a meal or two, but beyond that, they are still going to be having a rough go of it. In the long run, you haven't helped them a bit. But if you first improve your own situation to where you can afford to send them to college to get a more useable degree, and assist them in their job hunting by offering them transportation, then you have truly helped and been charitable. The same principle applies to global charity. How can we expect to end world hunger if we refuse to help alleviate local hunger. Your town is part of the world too. Let's not feed foreigners to spite the local citizens. Lets revive the true neighborhood spirit, and become more charitable in fact instead of show.