The needy: The "meek" or a "shower of basterds"?

Especially around Christmas time "charity" becomes a significant question.
The questions arise: who are the "needy"? Aren't most people somehow "needy" after the recession? Are the "needy" a token for the rich to rid themselves of emotional guilt? How much actually filters through charities' administrations to reach the needy?
Can people be politically needy? Can they require freedom, and ever get out of the way of war? Hasn't global propaganda already accepted their slaughter and doom (eg. the children of Gaza)?
Well, the Bible says that the "meek" shall inherit the earth. In the satirical film: "The Life of Brian" a rich spectator to the sermon comments: "Oh, it's good they're getting something, because the meek are having a terrible time".
Or perhaps one should look for more truth in the BBC's "Father Ted" comedy:
"What was it Father Jack used to say about the needy? He had a term for them:
- shower of Basterds". (Father Ted and Father Dougal, "Father Ted": In: "The funniest thing you never said" by Rosemarie Jarski, Ebury Press, p. 347).
Yes, most of society, religion and politics does in fact regard the "meek" as a "shower of basterds", and perhaps they are right?
Can other members affirm their own position and experiences of trying to help the needy?

[edit on 27-12-2009 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


My personal view is that one's wealth, success and happiness can change in an instant.

I can go from being one of those that looks at the needy and comments/helps/ignores, to actually being one of those needy persons in a blink of an eye.

Money, wealth and success are all fleeting.

I wouldn't like to say much more than that, except try not to judge, help however you can (within your means and abilities), for one day it may be you needing the help.

All the best, kiwifoot.







[edit on 27-12-2009 by kiwifoot]

reply to post by kiwifoot

And one could argue, poverty, homelessness and so forth can also be fleeting, especially in social welfare states. Here it could be presented as an issue of choice. (So saying "shower of basterds" in England is homorous. In Southern Africa it seems tragic.)
I think judgement is more for individual cases, while so far we seem still concerned with broad reality.
Your post had a real nice message, so thanks for that!
Today it is easy to stereotype tribal, native peoples as needy, yet once they fed the weary, starving Europeans.




[edit on 27-12-2009 by halfoldman]

My main problem is that charity is big buisness not about helping the needy. I once heard that for the red cross only 20p out of every pound went on those that need it, I am not sure if thats right or not but what I do know is right is that big charities are more out for themselves

I buy a lot of my books from charity shops and I have seen clothing priced at close to what it would have been new (this was in Oxfam)

For me charity begins at home I give nothing to any charity that works outside of my local area.

Its blunt and damm harsh but I would give a hungry man on the street here a meal long before I gave to anyone in another country.

reply to post by jpmail

Act local: good argument.
On the other hand this ultimately means the 3rd World may rock up literally on your door-step.
Well, I'm sure they're trying, and they will try and try again.

Originally posted by jpmail
My main problem is that charity is big buisness not about helping the needy. I once heard that for the red cross only 20p out of every pound went on those that need it, I am not sure if thats right or not but what I do know is right is that big charities are more out for themselves

I buy a lot of my books from charity shops and I have seen clothing priced at close to what it would have been new (this was in Oxfam)

For me charity begins at home I give nothing to any charity that works outside of my local area.

Its blunt and damm harsh but I would give a hungry man on the street here a meal long before I gave to anyone in another country.

I don't know if all the big charities are that bad, are they? There are still many that are legitimate.

I agree with you that charity starts at home. However, I don't see anything wrong with supporting both, either. There are people in many nations who have limited access to health care, not to mention food. Options are extremely limited.

Here in the first world, there are more options available to those who are in need. Many more organizations exist that help to feed, cloth and even shelter those that are unfortunate enough to live in poverty.

in my own worldview... the meek are not the same as the needy


the needy are the poor are those on the lower end of any social-economic ladder

the 'meek' are the non-confrontational, those who would not do well in a competitive world, the meek are those who would thrive in a pure socialist or communist community as the early Christian cult was...


and the phrase 'a shower of basterds' would be more precise if it were called an 'infestation' insetead, ~to my sense~

Charity Hilarity...

Charities really don't change anything, they just help to perpetuate a system that creates need in the first place.

Bail out the basement while there's holes in the roof.

If we were more community focused, and less self-serving, we would help our own. We wouldn't need charities, or the need to make people feel guilty before they realise other people are a part of their life and community.

In the present social system we live in people give up on people, and then people give up on themselves.

Originally posted by ANOK

If we were more community focused, and less self-serving, we would help our own. We wouldn't need charities, or the need to make people feel guilty before they realise other people are a part of their life and community.

In the present social system we live in people give up on people, and then people give up on themselves.

This is true. What would your ideal solution be in regards to our current societal structure?

Originally posted by St Udio



"in my own worldview... the meek are not the same as the needy


the needy are the poor are those on the lower end of any social-economic ladder

the 'meek' are the non-confrontational, those who would not do well in a competitive world, the meek are those who would thrive in a pure socialist or communist community as the early Christian cult was..."
and the phrase 'a shower of basterds' would be more precise if it were called an 'infestation' insetead, ~to my sense~

So confronted with two beggars, how could you tell apart the historically and economically "meek", and the genetically "competativelly" challenged?
I like the notion that the apostles and disciples would have been beggars by today's standards.
Perhaps the "meek" go quietly and with a degree of style. The "shower of basterds" will hit you from the outside. They may try to change the very society that gives succor and refuge.
[edit on 27-12-2009 by halfoldman]

[edit on 27-12-2009 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by Matrix777
This is true. What would your ideal solution be in regards to our current societal structure?

The first thing would be to abolish the private ownership of resources.

Resources privately owned are kept artificially scarce to maintain a profit margin for the private owner.

If this didn't happen resources, such as food and shelter, would be available in abundance and no one would need to go without the basics for life.

So much food and real estate is wasted to maintain the profits, and monopoly, of some minority group of 'owners'.

You are taught that economics is about the management of scarce resources, they fail to tell you how they are kept artificially scarce, such as farmers being paid to not produce, and bankers keeping money in short supply. All to maintain a false scarcity in order to maintain value.

We are being jacked from every direction. We don't need charity, we need a redistribution of resources that is fair to all of us, not just those lucky enough to be able to take advantage of a private ownership system.

[edit on 12/27/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

If resources are not private, who would you propose runs them?
Would recent immigrants count?
Sounds good, but a bit vague.
Sounds a bit like a federal version of a Native American reservation.
Well thinking back to my German parents: In the old East Germany there were NO beggars or unemployed people.
And yet, many wanted to flee and it was undesirable living in so many ways.

Originally posted by halfoldman
If resources are not private, who would you propose runs them?

Well that would depend on the needs of our communities. There are many ways to organize without 'private ownership'. The Spanish farmers organized and collectivized all their resources, during the 1939 Spanish revolution, forming an Anarchist/Socialist community that worked very well and made ALL the participants better off.

Don't think it can't be done, we are Human, you'd be amazed how adaptive and resourceful we can be when we're not being exploited and oppressed by the state.

The first thing is the means of production needs to be in the hands of those that produce.

Would recent immigrants count?

And why would you even bring that up? Immigrants are an invention of the State. No one is an immigrant, we're all from the same planet.

Sounds good, but a bit vague.

Well I could go on, and on, and on for pages, but I doubt you'd bother to read it.

Sounds a bit like a federal version of a Native American reservation.

What does?

Well thinking back to my German parents: In the old East Germany there were NO beggars or unemployed people.
And yet, many wanted to flee and it was undesirable living in so many ways.

And what does that have to do with anything I said? My views have less to do with 'feeding the starving' and 'housing the homeless' than it does with not being able to ignore that we live in a system that simply creates those problems, and we could have a better system that we can ALL benefit from, not just those in need.

Private ownership creates a wasteful system with needless middlemen and exploited, unfulfilled masses. Workers who benefit directly from their labour are better workers.

BTW I just realized how off topic this is so I apologize and sign off, till the next thread....

[edit on 12/27/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

I don't think it was off topic at all.
I think you make a good point for communal ownership in particularly agricultural production.
Unfortunately my specific knowledge on this in the Americas is not good. I suppose most people worked that way in history, although at the end, everything still belonged to a feudal lord.
I suppose nowadays farming requires mechanization and specialization to be profitable. Most of the former white farms in South Africa that were handed back to communities are spectacular failures.
The Amish and some religious groups still work like that, and I wish there were more such farms for the needy (or even aimless youngsters). It could certainly provide one "solution" to neediness.
The critique would of course come from hardcore capitalists who would say this is socialism, or communism. One way of breaking up tribal, communal structure was to prohibit communal farming and giving each family a small allotment of land. This only seems to have increased neediness.
Israel, for example has used the kibbutz system to great effect.



[edit on 28-12-2009 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by halfoldman
I don't think it was off topic at all.
I think you make a good point for communal ownership in particularly agricultural production.

Thanks. Let's not get confused here though, it actually is socialism but it's not necessarily communal. First off we need to learn what 'socialism' actually is and not what we've been conditioned to believe it is. Socialism is simply the 'workers ownership of the means of production', capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production'. System of economy not politics.

We were better off under feudalism, the workers had a lot more direct contact with the 'owner' to address grievances. Under capitalism we had the unions, but they became corrupted, and demonized, by the state system. People mostly owned their means of production.

Having said that though you can't really just give farms to people in a capitalist system, and expect them to be a success. People have to be educated, or re-educated. The whole system would have to change to accommodate the new ways of doing things. It would take time, but the first thing that needs to happen is people need to know there is this alternative to what we have, and it's not what this state system has conditioned us to think it is, i.e. socialism means Russia or China.

Socialism is what WE make it, the only thing it requires is to get rid of middle-man owners who take the biggest slice of the cake for doing nothing but owning the knife that cut it.

reply to post by halfoldman

The needy: The "meek" or a "shower of basterds"?

This is just one man's opinion; my own.

In the world in which we live, there are many charlatans who would leech from the better natures of their bretheren. But at the same time, there are many who are, through no real fault of their own, in dire need of help.

We are simply not smart enough, nor do most of us have the time to scrutinize every person who is presented before us asking for a coin of a hand. In that moment of decision, we wonder whether we are doing the right thing to help... or are we being taken.

Well, I submit that if you help someone who is NOT in that need they present to you, the sin becomes theirs to answer to. But if we turn away someone in genuine need... the sin is ours.

Never turn away a beggar... no matter how much you doubt their need. That is my rule of thumb and life.

Cheers

reply to post by redoubt

That's a great sentiment.
In urban South Africa however there is constant begging, and if one gave to everyone one would have nothing left.
Apart from the door-to-door beggars there are hordes at some traffic lights. Although there's much genuine need, much of the money goes to drugs and alcohol. The government gives out child grants, and yet young women weave through the traffic with babies in their arms for sympathy. Apparently people even borrow young kids for the porpose. Some of the older kids are schoolchildren who get into tattered clothing to beg for holiday money in the afternoons. We have even seen people changing clothes behind the bushes. It's become a fulltime job, with regular knock-off times around 5.
Then there are the beggars with glorified job descriptions, such as the ubiquitous "car gaurds", who are usually given money out of a mixture of guilt and intimidation.
Revoltingly one hears that in some Asian countries children are deliberately handicapped and deformed to become "professional beggars". I hope we never get to that point.
We already have apparently blind Zimbabweans being led through the traffic (they can make up to R150 a day, which is very good money), although our associations for the blind have warned people not to give them money. Food and any coins under R1 are usually tossed away - one lady made R300 in half a year from the discarded small change she found at traffic lights and parking lots. In fact people have been asked not to give to beggars, but to rather support accredited charities. But some people just won't listen.