Best philanthropy & charity books according to redditors

Yup, I am doing anthropological research in Haiti for my PhD and I've become so incredibly cynical about the vast majority of non-profit work done in Haiti and other places. For those who are unaware, I highly recommend two books: Killing with Kindness and Travesty in Haiti both of which document how destructive these kinds of things are.

Also relevant: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/?single_page=true

Edit: I should add that I don't think all non-profits, NGOs, and charities are a shit show. There are some great ones that I would even recommend to people. But in places like Haiti (AKA The Land of NGOs) there are thousands and thousands of them most of which are highly ineffective and some which are downright harmful. I'm a charity snob now in the sense that I never just hand out my money without investigating the organization first. I've seen too many examples of how well meaning people go into a community and do more harm than good with those donations. And I never donate used clothing to foreign countries (a few exceptions being natural disasters) because it is always damaging to local economies. Fuck the NFL and other groups who do that and try to spin it as a positive PR move. When presented with the opportunity to help either with donations or manpower think a minute about how it will impact that local community, look up how they've spent their donations, and do some research on the issue & organization.

TL;DR: Don't give up on non-profits, aid, and charities altogether. Just donate smart.

One of my profs in grad school worked extensively in Haiti on tree-planting projects. One of them involved purchasing plots of land and hiring locals to plant tree saplings; it didn't work very well as far as getting trees to grow since the same locals would let their goats onto the plots at night to eat the saplings.

My profs innovation was to instead give the saplings away for the locals to plant on their own property and raise as essentially a cash crop; it also largely bypassed the permanent chain of corruption running from DC through the Haitian government. Since the project was very successful, resulting in millions of trees planted, it of course had the plug pulled on it after three years.

For anyone interested in Haiti, I heartily recommend these two books: Travesty in Haiti and The Great Haiti Humanitarian Aid Swindle.

> deciding to be a part of society means that you agree to be taxed for the common good.

No it doesn't. I'm part of society and I don't agree to be taxed for the common good.

I don't even agree that it is for the common good (but even if it were, I'm not agreeing to pay).

>> Republicans, for example, give a lot more of their own money to charity than Democrats.

> lol, Source?

Uh, reality?

How about this? Here for a summary.

It's pretty much a commonplace now. Conservatives give about one-third more of their income than liberals.

I looked into it and found that you are mistaken. Unlike you, however, I will actually link to a source. Also, charitable giving is correlated w/ political leanings as well.

Who do you think would give more to charity? Someone who thinks that people should take it upon themselves to act or someone who thinks the government should do everything for them and give them "free stuff"?

Learn as much Creole as you can. Don't bring gifts you just give away. Also read the following books.

http://www.amazon.com/Travesty-Haiti-Christian-orphanages-trafficking/dp/1419698036

http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Truck-That-Went/dp/023034187X

Expect poverty. People will surprise you with their friendliness and generosity.

Also where did you go?

I'm looking at things through a new lens, also how identity politics derailed any conversation about the actual issue at occupy and it was turned into a farce.


Not really a new lens,. I have information that confirms my own suspicions.

This book that looks at how all "left" organizations in the US are controlled by the right

http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Public-Policy-Pluralism-Political/dp/0791456420


A marxist paper that looks at how social justice education has been appropriated.

Another that looks at the relationship between neoliberalism and post modernism.


etc.

Eu difinitivamente não sou conformista, muito pelo contrário, eu gostaria de uma mudança radical no tipo de sociedade em que vivemos.
Mas se vc quiser alguns dados: https://idis.org.br/pesquisadoacaobrasil/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/PBD_IDIS_Sumario_2016.pdf / https://www.ecodebate.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20171127-171127a.jpg / https://www.amazon.com/Philanthropy-Under-Fire-Encounter-Broadside/dp/1594037388 / https://www.fff.org/2017/01/04/charity-versus-welfare-state/

>This book was written in 2006, halfway through George W. Bush’s second term as president.

"Studies" like this have pre-determined conclusions.

George W. Bush wasn't conservative on issues that you should be conservative on, anyway. His tax cuts should've coincided with spending cuts. He expanded Medicare and sent out stimulus checks. He engaged in nation building. He was a progressive president - that's why he was a terrible president like Obama. Progressive presidents tend to be authoritarian. For example, FDR confiscated gold and re-valued it. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court to force through his unconstitutional policies. Woodrow Wilson said he wouldn't take us into war but then did. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam with no declaration of war. Nixon used a unilateral Executive Order to abandon Bretton-Woods.

Here's a quote from Amazon's editorial review of the book revenantae referenced:
Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers? Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

>They also assume that if we were taxed less that we would give more, which isn't necessarily the case, plus we already have charitable donations accounted for in our tax code.

To your first point, I'm reading a book on this right now, Who Really Cares?. It's fascinating and it basically says that, for people of a certain type (he posits religious people, I would argue it could be extended to married families in general), the less they are taxed the more they will give in charity.

What exactly do you mean by "we already have charitable donations accounted for in our tax code?" I assume you're referring to deductions here. The truth is they arent entirely accounted for at all...yes you're allowed to deduct upto 50% of your contribution base (look at 1(G)), and they don't give an incentive to donate per se, it just means that you can give the money to an organization that isn't the government.

The true question is, if there are organizations that can provide services more efficiently than the government (I completely agree with your last paragraph), why don't we let them, and then put the saved money towards other useful things?

>The point is you made an assertion that something is a myth without any evidence whatsoever.

It's based on my anecdotal experience. Like I said already, the original claim is not supported by any hard date either. To draw a comparison, there are no studies proving that unicorns don't exist, but you wouldn't criticize me for saying that they don't. Therefore, I feel no need to apologize for making a strong claim - in either case.

>that moreover others are propounding the contrary position (which like I said I've never heard before).

Here.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Is ABC reliable enough for you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

New York Times?

Or maybe you could just read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

That is a very offensive thing to say. Political Ideology has absolutely nothing to do with that at all. If anything it is the other way around. People who Identify as conservative donate vast amounts of money to charity, much more then Liberals do.
after 2 minutes of a google search, here Educate yourself
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465008216/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon

Read this book and then loan it to your friend. If your friend thinks the Catholic Church isn't making a profit off it's "charity" (or any church for that matter) she must be informed. Also have her read Hitchens book on Mother Theresa. Disgusting.

https://www.amazon.com/Travesty-Haiti-Christian-orphanages-trafficking/dp/1419698036

The "atheists aren't charitable" stereotype is grounded in some empirical truth, see: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters

Specifically, page 31, Chapter 2 onwards.

However, Buffet's and Gate's donations have probably moved the averages enough to compensate for generations of lower giving by secularists.

The fact is religious people do more for others: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters

Why don't you point out to us the great works of missionary charity undertaken by atheists throughout the world that merit support?

Since r/atheism is big on evidence, proof, stats, numbers, science, facts, instead of just shooting someone down for pointing out an inconvenient truth, I'm sure that standard of objectivity means nobody will mind it being pointed out that this one record is quite unlikely to change the fact that Religious people give more (money AND time) to charities and humanitarian aid than the non-religious.