Rebuttal Essay-Kirsten Smith

Feed Them for the Rest of Their Lives

Common knowledge tells us that charity, in the form of donating goods and food, is always a good thing and always helpful because it gives people the tools they need to succeed and/or live a happy life because they did not have the means to do so otherwise. This logic, however, is not always right because is some cases, charity can be debilitating in more than one way. It can be harmful to a person’s health and or livelihood, and charity can also take away the opportunity for the people in need to figure out how to help themselves.  As the old and semi-over used Chinese proverb says: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. If charities would help make people/nations self-sufficient in regard to the problem/problems they are facing, the philanthropy will be much more helpful to the people who need help.

In an online article entitled, Solidarity, Not Charity: Helping Haitians Help Themselves by Randall Amster, he quotes Martin Luther King Jr.: “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth”. Joining with someone who needs help and helping them help themself is the greatest act of philanthropy you can do for a person.

The best way to help is first to determine what people need, then help them accomplish it. Handouts make people lazy and reliant on others. Just as doing too much for a child will create a spoiled and dependent child, doing too much for a person in need will make that person dependent on aid.  People aren’t going to buy something when they know it will be given to them for free. So making a needy person work for what they need, will make them more self-sufficient. TOMS, a shoe company that gives shoes out to children so that they can attend school, says right on its website that the company gives shoes to the same children on a regular basis. That means that the same few people are continuously being given shoes and will probably never have to buy a new pair for themselves. In this case, it would be more beneficial and probably cost effective to help these people make their own shoes and then they would be able to make shoes for themselves, their families, and friends.

Handing out “quick fixes” to people is as easy as raising money or getting people to donate goods and sending them to the affected area, while doing something that will make a lasting effect on people takes a lot more thought and effort. Handouts are very impersonal and make the people receiving the aid feel like they are being told what is best for them. In areas where polio still exists, anti-polio advocates are trying to rid the world of polio while natives who are suffering from other diseases are asking, “Why Polio?”, since most of them have never heard of or seen polio.  Resistant natives are looked at as uneducated and uninformed by the advocates, but they do know what is best for them, since they know the issues and problems their villages are facing on a daily basis.

Yes charity can be helpful, but when it isn’t carefully thought out and done, the effects can be more detrimental than helpful.  Philanthropists cannot just throw charity at a group of needy people or else those people will become dependent on that charity. To be beneficial, a philanthropist must listen to the true needs of a group of people, get involved, and help the people help themselves.

 Works Cited

TOMS Company Overview

They Need other Medicine too

Solidarity, Not Charity: Helping Haitians Help Themselves

This entry was posted in A13: Rebuttal Essay, Kirsten Smith, Portfolio. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rebuttal Essay-Kirsten Smith

  1. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Kirsten!
    I’m going to pick a fight with your premise here. It’s an important one to your overall thesis, so I don’t want to shy away from it.

    P1. I think you’ve mis-characterized common knowledge here. Common knowledge tells us that charity (when that means giving money, services, or material objects to needy people) is a good thing because it alleviates their need when they can’t afford to do so themselves. That part is probably correct. The misconception you seem to want to correct about charity is that giving away stuff in this way is the best way to help. Your position appears to be that helping people help themselves is the better approach. (But that’s not quite what your first sentences say.)

    Be sure to check out my recent post offering you a source about food aid to Africa and a hint about how to find another, more current source, soon.

    P2. Fails for grammar Rule 7. Also, the lead-in is clumsy in the “Randall Amster, he” area. Fails for grammar Rule 4. Fails for grammar Rule 12.

    King’s quote, even if it made your own argument perfectly, wouldn’t prove that argument. You’re not entitled to the conclusion you draw here that “donations don’t help in the long run.” You’re over-concluding early, (it’s called “begging the question” when you use your premise as proof of your premise), which costs you reader confidence.

    P3. Fails for grammar Rule 4, repeatedly. What a brilliant way to use the Toms mission statement to criticize them! Very nicely played.

    P4. “doing something” and “lasting effect” are vague. See “Try to Say Something.” I like both your arguments here, Kirsten 1) handouts are easy but don’t last long, and 2) donor goals don’t always match recipient needs; however, they don’t blend particularly well, and they each deserve a paragraph.

    P5. You haven’t earned the “charity can be detrimental” conclusion in this essay, Kirsten. Even though your short arguments are related, you can’t assume readers are reading them all. Each must stand on its own. You’ve claimed that receiving charity can result in charity dependence, but you’re a long way from proving it.

    This is strong, confident writing most of the way, Kirsten.
    Graded provisionally; revise to improve.

  2. smithk53 says:

    Thank you so much for the feedback! I think I fixed all the grammar mistakes in the parts of my final paper that I took from this one except for Rule 4. I’m not sure if I’m fixing it correctly it seems just as wrong when I try to fix it. Any advice? Here’s one that I think I fixed but it still seems weird.

    Original version:

    The best way to help someone is to listen to what their needs are first, and then to try to help that person accomplish their needs by themself.

    Fixed version:

    The best way to help people is to listen to what their needs are first, and then to try to help them accomplish their needs by themselves.

    • davidbdale says:

      Thanks for your reply, Kirsten. I’m glad you’re committed to getting this right. You’ve correctly changed all the nouns and pronouns to plurals, which means they all agree now. That’s technically correct, but still sounds weird? Consider using fewer nouns and pronouns.

      The best way to help is first to determine what people need, then help them accomplish it.
      (One noun, one pronoun, doesn’t sound weird.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s