I have trouble seeing what’s wrong with donating used goods to a poorer population. The fact that they are making use of these hand-me-downs shows that they do need them, no? The money that go into a place like Haiti is spent in many essential constructions and care, and surely there isn’t enough money to cover new purchases of all the basic items for people there. And when there is a hand-me-down, that means someone somewhere else is thinking about what other use the shirt they wore twice can be put to – I’ve seen too many people who take out their clothes and other functioning products as garbage because they are too lazy with going through the donation process, or simply unwilling to let go of things they no longer need at home. Isn’t recycling and reusing the way to go now? Many countries started as developing, or undeveloped countries, and people then would all gladly embrace items donated to them. These things do help. But as long as the support is there to help educate them, and guidance for better farming or whatever means, they may one day turn into a country that can now help others.

I have no problems with recycling and reusing goods that are in good condition. It’s true that the living circumstances may be so dire that families will take anything offered to them. However, I want to challenge the notion that we (individuals and governments alike) give more than our spare change and leftovers. The developing world is an after-thought or even a non-thought: “people [...] too lazy with going through the donation process”.

The current global forums remind me of patriarchal families where the adults eat first and then the children eat whatever, if any, scraps remain. The developed world continues to dictate decisions for the developing world, instead of sitting as peers. Even if there are under-developed/developing children/nations/countries at the table, shouldn’t we give them the best as they are growing?

It’s all about contrast and our sensitivity to poverty. Village
poverty is wide spread through a village. Usually, the entire village
has very little, including the elders and leaders of the community.
Village poverty is more akin to rural poverty, in that people are
usually survive through subsistence activities. It is usually no
market economy. Also, villagers are usually more spread out having
more land with which to scavenge materials like firewood, as well as,
land for their cattle to roam. Slum poverty usually occurs in pockets
within a larger city. Slums are packed and congested, and usually
without proper sanitation or water. A lack of sanitation isn’t a
problem in isolation. The diseases occur when people are congested,
bringing the lack of sanitation closer to each person. Slum poverty
might be a stones throw from a 5-star hotel. I was once in the Ritz
Carlton in Shanghai, and it overlooked a neighbourhood on the other
end of the economic scale. It wasn’t necessarily a slum, but you can
easily translate the scenario to Africa, and Asia and shift the
economic scales downward.

So slum poverty akin to acute pain and village more like chronic pain.
If you stayed in villages and small towns for long enough, you become
inured to the standard of life that people “enjoy”. But in a city,
it’s easy to see the horrible conditions endured in the slums,
especially when you sleep in a nice house with guards at the door.

Your comments on this would be very appreciated. I haven’t fleshed this out completely, but it is still on my mind.