Looking Good or Doing Good

Originally written and published for Culture Club on July 3.

Voluntourism (noun): a form of tourism that involves traveler participation in voluntary work, typically for a charity

It’s summer — the season when countless Westerners may find themselves leaving the land of air-conditioning for fulfilling service trips abroad in the developing world.

Bright-eyed teens, young adults and well-meaning middle-aged professionals searching for a mid-career break will return armed with photos of smiling, gap-toothed black and brown children, a handful of souvenirs, and a swarthy tan as if to proclaim to the world “I conquered hardship.

What could be wrong with wanting to help? As it turns out, a lot.

In recent years, we have seen some pushback against the glossy yet flawed voluntourism industry. “The White-Savior Industrial Complex,” Teju Cole’s withering salvo on the “banality of sentimentality,” challenges the do-gooders of the world to do due diligence before launching on a crusade in the Global South. The new film “Framed,” featuring acclaimed Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainaina and activist Boniface Mwangi, rails against the “selling of suffering.”

The critiques of the industry are not only limited to Africans — former voluntourists Pippa Biddle and Lauren Kascak have written about the problems of voluntourism, cautioning those who wish to go on such trips against cultural insensitivity, meaningless work, and ill-conceived photo-ops. While the picture these authors offer is largely negative, I think there are some questions that people can ask themselves to make sure they actually do good while volunteering abroad:

1. Why do I want to go?

Are you looking to develop some professional experience, to learn a hard skill, to work on an issue you care about, to go on an adventure or to snap a few photos with locals for Facebook? Remember, volunteering is not supposed to be centered around you. Your focus should be on the community you are serving.

2. How will I contribute?

Instead of adding value to an organization’s work, volunteers often cost organizations time and money because of the effort involved in their training and management. To be an asset rather than a burden, volunteers must either devote a considerable amount of time in order to meet and surpass these costs or perform tasks that require little oversight.

As you decide where you want to perform volunteer work, figure out whether or not the organization will have work for you to do that will engage you productively and better the community. To that end, skills-based volunteering often helps the most. You don’t have to be a doctor or a lawyer. You can help by doing things like improving English proficiency or helping people become more comfortable with technological tools.

3. Who comprises the staff?

If the majority of the staff of your organization is based abroad rather than concentrated at your destination, there is a high chance that the work you are doing might be out of touch with the community’s needs. Look for a group that has a local staff or — at the very least — partners with local organizations.

4. How long can I stay?

If you are volunteering for merely two weeks, there is a likelihood that you won’t make much difference unless you are working on a clearly-defined project or something that requires urgent action (e.g. disaster relief). You need patience to make a difference. The Western world’s culture of instant gratification is often not well-suited for developing world challenges, which take time to address. If you’re working on structured project, six weeks might be a good target. If your project is more open-ended, you might want to consider stationing yourself in a country for a few months to develop a rapport with the local staff and community, get over your initial learning curve and culture shock, and actually make use of your time.

5. How will I sustain a relationship with the community?

If you are working on a short-term project, the community may be used to a rotating cycle of volunteers, so the expectation for a sustained relationship may be low. Nevertheless, you can translate your experience into some tangible outcome to help give back. If the organization could use some more resources, consider fundraising and elevating the profile of the group back home. If your home country pursues a policy that harms the community (e.g. American subsidies eroding the Haitian rice market), make efforts to lobby legislators to change government policies. If you have a long-term relationship with the community, maintain contact with people — especially children, who can be most devastated by a volunteer’s abrupt departure — by staying in touch via letter or e-mail (if the community has internet access).

Most importantly, avoid using people as props in poverty porn photographs.

Q: What about Africa inspires you?

A: The lack of an average… This can be disconcerting, but generally tends to make life more variable, and therefore more vibrant.

– Excerpt from my recent interview with Dayo Forster, founder of Toghal 

The Happy African

Below find a piece recently published in Ayiba Magazine’s “Power” issue. 

With his infectiously bright Motown and funk-inspired single “Happy,” Pharrell Williams brings a refreshing wave of joy to a world fatigued by disasters. From the tragedies of the recent Chibok kidnapping to the South Korean ferry accident, the song is a welcome reminder that happiness remains a fundamental human goal. “Happy” launched a movement across the world’s cities. From the streets of Kiev, where protestors went head-to-head with government forces, to the beautifularrondisements of Paris where people frolicked among the springtime flowers, happiness took on a renewed vigor. The UN even established March 20th the International Day of Happiness and partnered with Pharell to encourage people to clap their hands worldwide in a celebration of joy.

While “Happy” renditions in Northern Europe, which is routinely ranked as one of the happiest regions of the globe, may be expected, should versions of “Happy” in Sub-Saharan Africa, which contains some of the world’s poorest and most fragile states, come as a surprise? The narrative of African misery and poverty is the tale heard around the world, but the proliferation of “Happy” videos across the continent hints at a different story. It says that the world is missing something in its conception of Africa. There are videos from Cotonou, Benin, Kinshasa, DRC, Niamey, Niger; the list goes on and on to include cities from all corners of the continent. With nearly 40% of Benin’s population at the national poverty level, Kinshasha’s ranking as one of the “worst cities in the world” by CNN and the threat of ongoing terrorism in Niger, these places, in the Western imagination, are not supposed to be happy. Yet they are—they rebel against stereotypes and call for resilience and optimism in the midst of hardship.

A recent Gallup poll on countries’ optimism showed that Sub-Saharan countries are overwhelmingly optimistic. In Niger, 95% of people remain optimistic; in Benin, 94% and in DRC, 87%. In contrast, optimism in Northern European countries ranges from 30-40%. What does this mean? At first glance, it might be hard for some people to conceive of happiness in the midst of terrorist attacks, endemic corruption, and abject poverty. However, reflecting on Africa’s rising economies and entrepreneurial spirit, this alternative conception of Africa does not seem so misplaced. Perhaps it is the road to progress that makes people happy; it is hope for the future and a great deal of ambition that might fuel this outlook on life. There is a Swahili proverb that encapsulates this idea: “Subira yavuta heri, huleta kilicho mbali.” Patience attracts happiness; it brings near that which is far. The hope of a bright future is what makes the Africans on these city streets beam with joy as they clap their hands along with “Happy.“

The Ugly Side of a “Beautiful Game”

Earlier this year, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff wrote that Brazil  must “raise the banner of combating racial discrimination” during the World Cup.” Considering the seemingly neverending series of racist incidents on the football pitch, Rousseff’s concern is understandable.

In February, Peruvian fans taunted Tinga Cruise, who plays Brazilian team Cruzeiro, with monkey chants.

In March, Brazilian referee Marcio Chagas da Silva found his car vandalized with banana peels on the windshield.

In April, during a match at Villarreal’s El Madrigal Stadium, a spectator threw a banana at Barcelona defender Dani Alves. In response, Alves picked it up the banana, peeled it and ate it before throwing it to the sidelines. The opposing team was fined $12,000 due to the behavior of its fans. Alves’ teammates showed their support after the incident by creating a social media campaign featuring players eating bananas with the caption “We are all monkeys.”

As Brazil’s Marcelo made a mistake in the World Cup’s opening match with Croatia by kicking the ball into his own team’s net, Brazilians took to Twitter to blame the incident on race. Many tweeted “tinha que ser preto,” or “it had to be a black.”

Italian and French players have also faced similar incidents. Thierry Henry has been notably outspoken about racism in football through his previous work with Nike’s Stand Up, Speak Up campaign. Mario Balotelli’s career is a study in repeated racial slurs.

Lest we think that racism in sports is unique to Europe or Latin America, let us not forget this year’s Donald Sterling fiasco in the United States. How long should these players be expected to tolerate such a pernicious culture of racism? At the pinnacle of success in their careers, why should they endure such a blatant pattern of disrespect?

In light of these incidents, Rousseff, FIFA, and even the Pope have called for an end to racism on the football pitch in 2014. Enough is enough. The World Cup has the potential to set the tone for how we approach football if the players and fans collectively lead by example.

Article 3 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code states:

“Discrimination of any kind against a Country, private person or group of people on account of race, skin colour, ethnic, national or social origin, gender, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.”

Moreover, players found guilty of discriminatory behavior during games face a minimum 10-game bans. In the past, FIFA has also ordered stadium closures after racist incidents involving football fans.

Despite the epithets that some fans might hurl at players during the World Cup, one cannot deny that stars like Italy’s Mario Balotelli, England’s Danny Welbeck, France’s Paul Pogba, Germany’s Jerome Boateng and Belgium’s Vincent Kompany have contributed enormously to the success of their teams. In fact, according to a recent article in Global Post, when "defining ‘foreigner’ as anyone with at least one foreign-born parent, Switzerland would lose two-thirds of its players. France and the Netherlands might be knocked out of contention. And Algeria, Ghana, Turkey or even Suriname could win it all.”

While Brazilians blamed Croatia’s only goal in their match on Marcelo’s race, did they remember race as they praised Neymar for his two goals?

As the anti-immigrant sentiment contributes to the rise of right-wing European political parties and the political success of David Bratt in the United States, fans would be wise to consider how black players, who have endured ridicule and prejudice on and off the pitch, will contribute to their countries’ success at the World Cup.

I got featured in New York Magazine today with a bunch of fellow DC interns. While I wish that more context had been given to my quote (the original question: How did you get interested in politics?), I’m grateful for this interesting opportunity.

Although, this photo does bear a slightly unfortunate resemblance to Gossip Girl, according to some of my good friends…

Nevertheless, all credit for my interest in politics and international affairs goes to my beloved alma mater, Sidwell Friends, which always inspires its students to think critically about big questions across borders, and my parents, who always allowed me to sit at the grown-up table.

A Bitter Divorce? Scotland’s Independence Referendum

J.K. Rowling recently donated £1m donation to Better Together, an organization campaigning for a No vote in the upcoming Scottish independence referendum. In the wake of that donation, Rowling released a statement explaining the reasoning behind the donation, noting the “fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence.” Rowling may have had reason to preemptively issue such a cautious statement given the wave of online backlash that followed its release. Scottish charity The Dignity Project tweeted that Rowling was a “bitch.” Other Internet trolls have chosen more creative and nasty epithets by calling her a “Union cowbag” and a “disgrace.”

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton even joined the debate to caution Scots against turning their backs on the Union.

Why such rancor? For those across the Atlantic who have not been steadily following the heated debate between Yes Scotland and its Better Together, here’s what you need to know:

While the United Kingdom is frequently heralded as one of the world’s most successful (and longest-running) multinational states, it is clear that the strength of the nation is under threat. In 1707, the Act of Union joined the kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland. For 307 years, this Union has remained in tact under minimal threat of dissolution. At least, that was the case until May 2011, when the Scottish National Party took the country by surprise by winning the majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament. The growing support for the SNP likely stems from increasing differences between conservative Westminster and more liberal Holyrood.

Yes Scotland, the major group supporting the upcoming referendum, believes that Scotland’s decisions should purely be made by Scots. At the other end of the spectrum, Better Together advocates for a distinctive Scottish Parliament while remaining a part of the United Kingdom. On September 18, 2014, the two sides will come to a head as Scotland votes on the referendum. According to recent polls, 44% of Scots say “no” to independence while 39% of Scots say “yes”. The remaining crucial 17% are undecided.

Given Scotland’s unique cultural history, a greater desire for autonomy makes sense. So why might this be a bad idea? As CNN puts it, Scotland’s independence movement is “rich on idealism and light on practicalities.”

1. Under Salmond (the First Minister of Scotland)’s proposals, a newly independent Scotland would continue using the pound. However, critics have pointed out that such a move might undermine Scotland’s legitimacy as the new nation would have no control over interest rates, and thus, its own monetary policy. The Bank of England’s chancellor has already ruled out the possibility of a shared monetary union, meaning that Scotland’s monetary policy would be fundamentally affected and determined by UK interests.
2. Even if Scotland chose to forego adopting the pound in favor of the euro (another proposal), it would face significant roadblocks. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barrorso has stated that an independent Scotland would have to go through the traditional EU accession process - no fast-tracking. Such a process is likely to end unsuccessfully due to possible opposition from the UK as well as countries like Spain, which has been grappling with its own separatist movements and may fear setting a dangerous precedent.
3. A major motivation behind Yes Scotland has been the push for greater control of North Sea oil and gas fields, but relying on finite resources comes with obvious risks.
4. SNP's white paper on an independent Scotland calls for an annual military budget of around £2.3 billion. Considering that independence would force Scotland to take on its share of the UK’s debt - a figure that could be in the tens of billions, the new nation might struggle to budget such costs. With a newly independent Scotland facing a budget deficit of 5.5% of GDP – £8.6bn – an independent Scotland would be off to a rocky start.
5. According to the Treasury Department, Scotland would need almost 500,000 immigrants in order to maintain the same balance of pensioners and working age adults as the UK. This point is particularly concerning given that Scotland is projected to age more rapidly than the UK. If Scotland is unable to rapidly attract more immigrants, it would face a poor dependency ratio (the number of people receiving pensions in relation to working age adults) that could further undermine its fiscal stability.

If Scotland were to exit the United Kingdom, the dissolution is unlikely to resemble the smooth, seamless nature of Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Divorce” as recent months have shown the referendum to be a source of bitterness and intense debate. In light of that concern as well as reasons outlined above, Better Together’s focus on greater dissolution as a way to address Scottish concerns about autonomy may be a better proposal for Scotland’s economy and future. Westminster has already shown a willingness to make concessions as evidenced by Cameron's recent support for proposals to give Scottish Parliament the power to set its own income tax rates.

However, even if the referendum fails, the United Kingdom faces a difficult path in repairing the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the nation. One can only hope that Scotland avoids the fate of Quebec, where a local sovereignty movement has entrenched divisions between the Quebecois and their fellow countrymen.