Assuaging consciences

Charity is bad. Nothing good ever comes out of it.

I got your attention, didn't I? You'd probably say I don't have a heart; that I am one of those *apathetic* souls who don't give a whit about the social realities around me.

On the contrary, though, I care. I care a lot.

Remember that old phrase, "Give a man a fish and he survives for a day, teach him to fish and he'll survive for many days" (or something like that)? Well, that is practically the point. Except that in my case, I don't believe that even "teaching" someone "to fish" would really solve the problem. With a problematic social strata like the Philippines, no matter how talented/gifted you are, you can never reach your full potential if you have to worry about basic necessities still. In short, these objective conditions will impede one's growth and shrink opportunities for development.

Anyway, back to charity. I started with *charity* on mind, too. However, I realized the so-called evils of charity soon enough.

Okay, let's take it one at a time. Let's start with small-time charities (e.g. giving alms). This sort of charity, well...the shallow analysis would be that it breeds laziness. But actually, the "evil" of this type of charity actually pertains to the giver, not the recipient (for in actuality, even if you are physically capable to do jobs, there are, again, little job opportunities in the country which you can take on). Charity of this sort, I believe, makes the giver feel good (smug, even), that he/she has done something morally right, as dictated by social standards. Thus, the level of social awareness will never go beyond giving alms or that sort of act. You give a peso or two and forget the social reality you saw. It soothes our bothered consciences; therefore we can put it at the back of our mind until another beggar comes along and stirs that deep-seated conscience once more.

Now, big-time charities (oh, you know all those charitable institutions, so I won't mention them). The sort that the rich occasionally take part in, in the spirit of generosity and giving and whatever crap they want to call it. Still, it's charity. And for me, it's still bad. Why? Well, essentially, what these charitable institutions do are kind of okay...however, to allow such acts to proliferate, we are actually sanctioning the state to abandon its duties to these institutions. Instead of providing funding for social services, the state then relies on charities to provide what its citizens need. And that, people, is what makes it bad. It becomes a scapegoat, an excuse for the government to shirk its duties.

Also, *some* charities are rather discriminating; there are some charitable institutions whose help is exclusively available to a certain sect or group (again, I won't mention names) alone. That nature of charity alone causes disparity and rifts among members of different groups, social classes and whatnot.

Point is, charity may be the entry level of social awareness, but to remain caught up in romanticizing charity as compassionate acts of kindness makes me retch. Charity may assuage our consciences for a moment, but in the end, we have not initiated true change.