Africa has become the Gucci of the volunteer world

By: Devon Butler - The Cord

WATERLOO, Ont. (CUP) — It’s
become an unwritten rite of passage
in North American society for today’s
young humanitarians to engage in the
ultimate act of charity: travelling to a
developing country to volunteer.

However, not just any developing
region will do. To obtain that awe-
inspiring repute, Africa has become
the continent of choice.

Students on the brink of those
four glorious summer months
are faced with making decisions
regarding how to spend this time.

For most, it’s a simple matter of
working in order to pay for another
year of education. For the luckier few,
it’s a time to travel, explore and do
some good in the world.

At the risk of sounding
too cynical, I both support and
engage in charity work locally
and internationally. In fact, I have
considered it a probable summer
option.

However, I couldn’t ignore the

seemingly questionable motives

of volunteers and the marketing
techniques of organized volunteer
trips as a means to gain credentials to
succeed later in life.

An emphasis on volunteering is a
welcome change in student life— but
while it appears heroic on paper,
it is possible for some that it only
perpetuates the need to keep to the
latest trends while acquiring a well-
regarded status in society.

This is probably the most
disturbing development: Volunteerism
has become just another product to be
branded, marketed and exploited.

Non-religious volunteer
organizations no longer promote
their trips as a way to help others, but
focus it as a way to “find” oneself,
gain real-world experience and build
up one’s resume; coincidentally, these
reasons are also entirely self-serving.

In looking at the act of
international volunteerism as a
product, we can see the privileging of

 

 

some locations over others.

Just like in marketing, one
product label is often viewed as more
prestigious — and, sadly, Africa has
become the Gucci of the volunteer
world.

In our quest to spread charity
to the developing world, we have
instituted a hierarchical system
among those who have decided are
the most in need, the most prestigious
and perhaps even the most deserving.
A summer spent in Africa, for

 

instance, seems to be held in higher
regard than one spent in Romania or
Central America.

Overseas volunteer work
shouldn’t be discredited, as there are
many who want to better the world.
But for those who see African nations
as a place to develop self-confidence
and a means to pack your grad school
application, perhaps the money spent
on the trip would be better spent
donated to charity.

 

Tax the bad and subsidize the good — food that is

By Trevor Doré, Opinions Editor

inception of the ever-dreaded

HST. The new tax has changed
the final price of a variety of things,
increasing some while reducing
others. The B.C. government claims
that the new harmonized tax will
create jobs, increase wages and
lower prices; however, not everyone
is convinced of the proposed
advantages. There must be some sort
of silver lining to what appears to be
just another tax.

The new tax does not affect
basic groceries such as dairy, meat,
vegetable and canned foods. It does
however increase the cost of junk
food such as chips and pop as well as
the cost of dinning out. Snack-foods,
restaurant meals and the like now cost
an additional seven percent. While
this tax might hurt restaurant owners,
perhaps the money can be used to
help out the greater good.

Leonard Epstein and colleagues
recently published a study in the
journal of Psychological Science

E been a month now since the

that found that taxing bad foods
actually reduced overall household
caloric consumption. Could the HST
help fight the increasing problem

of obesity? Could it help encourage
people to eat healthier food?

If this study holds true, perhaps
we are on the right track to a healthier
society thanks to the HST. However,
I would like to suggest taking it one
step further. Why not tax the bad as
well as reduce the price of the good.
The studies showed that taxing bad
foods actually helped encourage
healthier eating more so than
subsidizing healthy food - but why
not do both?

When was the last time that
you were in a health food store or
at a local farmers market? So much
of the food looks so delicious until
you catch a glimpse of the price.
Products from farmers markets and
health food stores are often more
expensive than products from big
chain supermarkets. Perhaps if the
price of goods offered at these smaller
outlets was more comparable to the
prices at the bigger outlets, or even

 

lower than the price of junk food, it
might provide an added incentive to
buy healthy.

Many people complain that they
would eat healthier if only it didn’t
cost so much. Obviously, when the
price of a local organic meal costs
more than an imported fast food
meal, how can you blame someone
for choosing the less expensive,
although no doubt less healthy
option? Subsidizing the price of food
at farmers markets and health food
stores would also no doubt help out
the little guy and the local economy.

In the long run, it might also help
make the gradual, logical shift from
a diet of food import from around the
world to a more local diet.

For now, the HST continues to
reign, at least until Bill Vander Zalm
and the signatures of residents from
across B.C. have their say. In the
meantime, why not try to find a silver
lining?

Regardless, HST or no HST, I
think putting a higher price tag on
the junk and a lower price tag on the
good and the local will only benefit
us all.

13