on Saturday, March 26th, luca said

indeed.
that's the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie.

on Thursday, March 31st, lola said

Hmmm. I agree with you.

on Monday, April 11th, James said

I wouldn't agree with you there.

The wristbands aren't meant to solve anything.
They raise a bit of cash, but also raise awareness of Britains crucial global role this year, and to get people interested in the cause.

And if anything, it's a constant reminder.

on Monday, April 11th, Jon said

It's one thing to wear one as a constant reminder to yourself and those around you, and it's quite another to do anything about it. What Phil is saying (I think) is that they are being (ab)used by well-known people, including politicians, to:

1. Make it look like they care and therefore must be inherently good people
2. Make themselves feel like they've done their bit already

I give to worthwhile causes and charity, and feel NO need to show off to others that I've done so. The white wristband is such a tiny gesture when compared to the plight of the people that it seeks to represent, it's almost an insult to see people wearing it with pride.

If you are trying to persuade others to help, the best way is always to ask them. Too much charity relies entirely on guilt - on the knowledge that somebody else has done something and you haven't. The guilt is deliberate and manipulative - few would, if asked by a friend, refuse to donate to almost any cause (sponsored walks/swims/etcetc demonstrate this). Wearing the band absolves those who wear it of any further responsibility (the "I've already done my bit, see!" part), as well as making those around feel guilty and/or resentful (guilty if the person intends to donate but hasn't yet, resentful if either they have donated but didn't feel the need to show off, or that they intend not to donate because they have other causes they feel more worthy of their money.

I like the gesture of "solidarity" (it bears resemblance to the concepts in the origins of modern solidarity movements - namely Polish resistance to Communist rule), but disagree that it achieves anything - I think it is more divisive than constructive.

Jon

on Monday, April 11th, James said

I will agree that not all people that wear the wristband may know that full reasons and problems, and may not fully care, but the wristband is not about raising funds, it's about raising awareness and changing laws.

The whole point of this campaign is to not just throw money at the problem, but to try and create enough public support to push for fair trade rules and other political issues causing this poverty.

By wearing a wrist band, it should not show that "I've done my bit", but that "I want change".

(on your guilt for charity part, as an oxfam supporter/volunteer/donater, I often listen to people say that i shouldn't do certain things like buy electrical goods because i am so invlolved. This creates some sort of opinion that either you care and are saintly, or don't care and are normal. Letting people just wear a wristband if they want to let's them know that they can do small things, and charities will apreciate it, I know i will.)

on Tuesday, April 12th, James said

Oh, I see.

A good point well made.