As we maneuver our way through life, we’re constantly giving massive amounts of advice to one another every day — from what to wear to what music to download, from which classes to take to which books to read; the influence we have on one another is inescapable. And when we think we know what’s best, we try to share our gifts with others. In a way, it’s a good thing — and it makes us feel good, too.
We love feeling like we’re helping people who need us; we love thinking we’re making a difference.
In fact, there are entire companies dedicated to convincing people that they’re “making a difference;” I worked with one of them. These are programs where, if you just pay the company a few thousand dollars, you too can sign up to “change the world.” With several other American teenagers, I painted sea creatures on a school in Costa Rica in 2010 and taught English to the children of migrant workers in an impoverished part of rural China in 2011.
Both times, we all left feeling great as a result of the positive impact we thought we’d made on our world.
Yet, looking back on it now, there are a few discrepancies in what we felt we’d done and what little we had actually accomplished: Maybe the Costa Ricans didn’t need a bunch of rowdy teenagers painting pictures on a schoolhouse; maybe we American high schoolers — who, by the way, had little to no grasp of the Mandarin language — weren’t actually all that effective at teaching language to Chinese students who didn’t speak a word of English; maybe all of those people had much bigger problems to deal with than any of the ones that we could have helped with. Looking back on it, we did practically nothing to change the world — but none of us stopped to think that maybe our “help” was mostly just helping us.
Welcome to what’s called “White Savior Industrial Complex.” According to novelist Teju Cole, whose Twitter responses to the Kony 2012 video attracted widespread attention, it’s that same idea from colonial days — that it’s the white man’s burden to save people from their barbaric ways. “The White Savior Industrial Complex is … about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege,” and “there is much more to doing good work than ‘making a difference.’” Although most of us feel bad for starving African children, I doubt that many of us even understand what’s going on in Africa, let alone know what’s to be done. Which takes us right back to the concept of “making a difference.” When we try to help someone, we take a quick look at what is most likely a very complex problem and try to come to a quick solution. Most of the time, we end up fitting idealistic answers to realistic problems: Your boyfriend’s getting on your nerves? Dump him. Stressing out over school starting? Stop worrying. We can’t possibly understand all the variables to the problems other people face.
Although we’ll never know what it’s really like to walk in someone else’s shoes, we like thinking we have all the answers; it’s easy to feel like we’re the exception to the rules we’ve made, that we’re special.
The problem with us thinking that way is that we’re rarely willing to follow the advice we so readily give.
Which brings us to outright hypocrisy. The United States, despite being willing to start wars in order to eradicate nuclear weapons in other countries, has a massive stockpile of such weapons; the United States refused to support the environmental Kyoto protocol signed by 37 industrialized nations. There’s a Wikipedia page dedicated to “American exceptionalism” — the theory that the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific mission to spread liberty and democracy throughout the world.
Considering the fact that we in America definitely have our own economic and social issues to deal with, it’s extremely hypocritical of us to think it’s our duty to teach the entire rest of the world how they’re supposed to do things.
If we really want to make the world a better place, we’ve got to stop trying to throw simple solutions at intricate issues that we don’t necessarily understand.
As Teju Cole concludes, “The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.” He continues, “This world exists simply to satisfy the needs — including, importantly, the sentimental needs — of white people and Oprah.” We must understand that what really needs to be done in our world might not feed our desires to each feel like we’ve saved it. We’ve got to stop making believe we’re making a difference by doing things that are, although well-meaning, ultimately unhelpful to anyone but our ourselves.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Frankly, I can understand why people are a little upset with this article, because we do like to tell ourselves that we are in fact making a difference in the world. The fact is that, unfortunately, most of the people joining programs like yours (Teach for America, Global Leadership Adventures, etc.) are young people on the more affluent side of the spectrum (these programs do cost a lot of money) looking for something to add to their college applications and/or resumes. These programs go to places like Costa Rica or China and take jobs away from the native population, while giving the air of philanthropy.
More jobs are being created in the countries by those organizations than would be created without them. You think a painter lost a job painting a wall in Costa Rica? What actually happened is a number of people were hired to take Mia’s group to paint that wall, and that included the painter who had to help them. Then Mia’s group also paid for the painting, so Costa Rica made money and hired people because of Mia’s group.
[The United States, despite being willing to start wars in order to
eradicate nuclear weapons in other countries, has a massive stockpile of
such weapons]
How often do we threaten other nations with nuclear holocaust, and how many people genuinely fear that a rogue president in the USA is going to start launching nuclear missiles at our neighbors, little girl? There are some genuinely bad people in the world who either already have nuclear weapons, or are feverishly working on getting them by any means possible. If you think the world is going to suddenly become nicey-nice and full of peace and love just because we choose to unilaterally disarm, then you’re about as whacked out as the rest of Berkeley. Someday when you get out of college (provided you don’t become one of those cowards who refuse to leave the sheltered cocoon of misguided Berkeley idealism), you may just find that the world doesn’t work the way you have been taught in Peace and Conflict Studies. Most people in this country (and the world) don’t sit there fretting every day worrying about whether the US is going to conduct an unprovoked first strike against them. Can you say the same thing about your friends in the DPRK or the Islamic Republic of Iran?
[There’s a Wikipedia page dedicated to “American exceptionalism” — the
theory that the United States is different from other countries in that
it has a specific mission to spread liberty and democracy throughout the
world.]
Damn write there is, and your parents and grandparents would have probably been speaking another language if they believed otherwise. If that thought embarrasses you, feel free to take up residency somewhere else…
The United States tries to save some country over and over, usually doing more damage than good. From Vietnam in the 60′s to Iran in the 70′s to Iraq and Afghanistan most recently, many Americans still think we’re saving those folks, even as they die in large numbers. This piece points to a great need for us as individuals to understand ourselves in a deep way, to learn who we are, what our hidden psychological drives are. With such insights, we and our political leaders might adopt policies that might make a real difference for everyone in the world. Or at least do less harm.
Once again, you repeat the myths of the Left. For all our missteps in Vietnam, the murderous track record of the Communists makes it clear who was doing the greater damage. In addition, those genuinely innocent civilians dying in “large numbers” in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t being killed by us, but by deliberate acts of the militant Islamofascists trying to terrorize their own people as well as us.
Right, but Saddam Hussein managed to keep them in check by killing only ~200,000 over thirty years. We have been responsible for the deaths of well over a million Iraqis in the past decade. Such a deeply divided region required a military dictator to maintain the peace. We deposed the man doing it, and in so doing, killed ~1.2 million of them.
American elitism at its best.
Mia, although I do agree that it is a well-written article, I disagree with the overlying concept. There is no way that you could have volunteered in Costa Rica and China without the backing of non-profit organizations that have been providing such volunteering services to those countries, obviously legitimate and popular enough for you to trust traveling and volunteering through them. That being said, the people who work in these organizations have spent and dedicated a huge chunk of their lives to finding the best possible solution to such international problems. I think your claim in saying that we are selfish and do not actually know the needs of other countries is unwarranted and disregards the hard work of all the volunteers, researchers and philanthropists who spent a lot of time and money and effort trying to make the world a better place. Whether or not that is what the country being provided the services actually wants and deems their main priority is beyond the organizations and volunteers trying to “make a difference.” While the Costa Rican government might not regard your painting schools as of the utmost importance, you cannot tell me that the teachers and students were not grateful that you did something to liven up their lives a little and even maybe encouraged students to want to go to school due to the changed atmosphere. Again, this might be what you said as “rationalizing,” but it is hard to believe that you are the only one who actually benefited from your actions. Thus, you made a difference in at least one person’s life, and people do that everyday. I think the selfishness mostly comes from you saying that our “help” mostly helped us.
Terrible article. Again, the men who are horny for Mia will adulate her. The consequence of her writing is she says idealism is white guilt, and there’s no point to really trying because the world is too complicated. Helping others is selfish because you can’t really help them. No, Mia, suffering happens because people like you are too fatalistic to do anything about it, or you overintellectualize it: Like connecting America’s nuclear armament to American exceptionalism to American volunteering as evil.
It is fascinating how much that picture of Mia influences the responses to her articles.
Your criticism of her conclusion is valid, but I still think the article is terrific because it illustrates the thought processes of an idealistic privileged teen entering the seething anti-white cauldron of Berkeley’s PC environment. She could become a future Rachel Maddow or Ayn Rand, but it’s the journey that is interesting for us readers.
Man I hope she does better than becoming either of those women.
I’m sure she will live up to the Blue and Gold.
You really went too far, Matthew. In this day and age, after so many years of struggling for women’s rights, you’re really going to bring up a columnist’s sexuality because you didn’t like what she had to say? Discrimination. Mia, you’re being discriminated against by pigs who won’t even listen to what you’re trying to say.
I’m sorry, the world is awful.
With what insane logic did you equate painting sea turtles on a wall in Costa Rica with the US fostering capitalism and democracy through hegemonic dominance of international institutions?
I think she’s saying we should just keep our hands to ourselves because we’re not exceptional and we’re not helping. BTW I disagree.
Where others may see cynicism in our words, I see enlightenment.
you had me fooled with your last bad boys/good girls article, it was a little fluffy. but this week’s one proves that you really do have substance to you. good job
I agree with mia. The real changes that need to be made to improve lives can’t be made through our own need to feel good. It shouldn’t be about us. interesting take
Everyone who’s getting caught up on the little Costa Rica/China volunteerwork is ultimately missing the point of this article. The point wasn’t that making little changes in individuals’ worlds is a bad thing; it’s that our need to “make a difference” is not necessarily something to strive for.
Very well-written. I fully expect you to get criticism for writing something so bold, but I’d just like to say, this was a refreshing perspective on something that most people are so sure of.
Mia, as usual you made me think which is why your writing is so terrific even when I don’t agree with some of what you write. Unlike most of us you actually went to do good deeds and came back a different person. What you describe as “White Savior Industrial Complex” may be something even more intrinsic to human nature: our desire to improve mankind. Missionaries of all religions and colors traveled all over the known world to spread their faiths in a genuine attempt to uplift the natives whether they wanted the help or not. Indian immigrants return to India every summer to build solar power and water sanitation projects. Japanese Médecins Sans Frontières travel to Africa to help victims of war. Though you may not think you made much difference, the locals know you tried, and that makes you a good ambassador for the American Way. There is no hypocrisy in what we do. We have learned from history that when we don’t confront small problems early, they lead to big worldwide problems. We are always the first country that victims of war or natural disaster turn to for help. It’s only natural that we try to remove nuclear arms from regimes that have acted irresponsibly. Who gave us the right to be the world’s policemen? Well, nobody, but no one appointed Rosa Parks to defy the racists or Occupy Wallstreet to take matters into their own hands either. Why didn’t we sign Kyoto? Because we are not the sacrificial lamb for the world. Don’t let the Eurotrash and liberal self-haters sow doubt in your mind. You’ve already done your part to improve the world, and you still have a lifetime to do more. If you want to.
“We are not the sacrificial lamb for the world”? What does that mean? We’re hardly victims here. We have more blood on our hands than most do
We only have more blood on our hands if you ignore history and the actual world around you. The US has prevented millions of deaths through its interactions with other countries. Try to think a bit about how many more would be dead and suffering in the world if the US was isolationist.
Yeah, I’m sure the innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians were overjoyed by our bombs and war crimes.
I am sure they are not overjoyed, but when human rights groups say the Saddam killed around 200,000 of his own people, and that doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands killed when he attacked Iran and Kuwait, maybe you get some idea of what they escaped. I think it would be a good lesson to you if you spent some time with women under the Taliban, and realized how their lives were a living hell under the old Afghan regime.
You need to learn about all the good the US has done to make the world a better place. Sometimes it had blood and death involved, but that blood and death was very small compared to the blood and death that would have resulted if we stayed within our borders and just ignored the rest of the world.
He killed 200,000 in some thirty years. We’ve been responsible for the death of ~1.2 million Iraqis in the past ~decade. The gross numbers don’t justify it in this case.
AnOski, I love you.
1.2 million if you take the number from a poll of 1,700. There are several more reliable sources that would provide you with better numbers. I don’t believe that going into Iraq was a good idea, but US actions around the world have more often helped to make the world a better place. Without US involvement it would be scary to think about how many would be dead or suffering from human rights abuses around the world.
Even if you dispute the 1.2 million figure, I don’t know a single source that puts it under 1 million from the date of the invasion. You can nit-pick numbers all you want, but the conclusion is the same. We are directly responsible for the death of several times the number of people that Saddam killed, and in a period of time that was a fraction of the length of his rule.
If you look at other US involvements, Korea is the only one I can think of in the past several decades that led to anything close to a positive conclusion. Vietnam was horribly executed and led to millions of needless deaths. US involvement in Central/South America and the Middle East….don’t get me started.
You are taking US involvement to only mean war efforts. US involvement covers a lot more than invasions. The Soviet Union, China, and numerous nations around the world were killing millions of their people, and the involvement of the US has reduced those killings tremendously. Through aid, the United Nations, and other diplomatic efforts tens of millions have been saved by US efforts. We are the only reason that there are human rights around the world. Without our efforts, the world would be a much darker place for most of the population of this planet.
No, I’m not. Iran-Contra, Cuba, you name it. We’ve botched some big ones, but we’ve been involved in lengthening countless struggles, often for the sole goal of political or economic maneuvering (e.g. Iraq, Israel).
http://www.mercenary-wars.net/cia/index.html
The US often has its own interests at heart when making trade agreements or enacting sanctions. The sanctions on Iran and North Korea aren’t for the sake of those countries’ citizens, and aid for many countries is given in return for our own military access or right of passage.
You have an awfully rosy view of the US considering how much meddling we do. It would take years of research to come to the conclusion that the US’ policies had saved any lives at all; making the claim that the US has somehow saved millions seems ridiculous to me. It *might* be true, but seems highly unlikely given the millions we have been directly responsible for killing in armed conflicts.
It won’t take years of research. You can pop into office hours for any professor teaching something like cold war history or history of the Chinese cultural revolution. They would be able to explain how US involvement in the world drastically reduced the killings in the Soviet Union and China. Since the US came out of its more isolationist shell after WWII, deaths around the world have dropped dramatically. I will also predict that in the next 50 years the world will become even more peaceful because of the US. While our economy looks weak, it is still making other countries stronger. In 50 years, most of Asia will no longer be third world, and that will also reduce deaths dramatically.
What I mean is that if we had signed the Kyoto Protocol of ’97 then we would have had to severely curtail our economic output while rapidly industrializing nations like China and India faced no commitments. Why should we sacrifice for the sake of reducing global warming gasses when developing countries were rapidly building more coal powered generators and gasoline engines?
You do bring up a good point about whether we were victims. We certainly were victims of terrorism on 9/11. And because we are who we are, we also have the power to go after those terrorists all over the world.
[What I mean is that if we had signed the Kyoto Protocol of '97 then we
would have had to severely curtail our economic output while rapidly
industrializing nations like China and India faced no commitments.]
Little details that the indoctrinated little kiddies manage to overlook. Thanks for bringing this up.
“And because we are who we are, we also have the power to go after those terrorists all over the world.” –> That’s the same kind of thinking that caused the 9/11 attacks (ever heard of blowback?)
No. I believe your thinking is more in line with what caused 9/11. You live a lifestyle that terrorist groups deplore, but since you are more than happy to sit back and do nothing to protect yourself, they figure they can attack you. Notice how when terrorists learned the real blow back from the 9/11 attack, they have not increased their efforts. They have mostly gone into hiding.
Your reasoning is circular. “Because we go after terrorists, that caused 9/11 attacks”. President Clinton went after al Qaeda with an ineffective missile barrage and he bombed Saddam in Operation Desert Fox, but neither attack is believed to have caused 9/11. Some liberals blame Israel, but Osama never plotted against America during the years of Soviet occupation in which America also supported Israel as well as the Mujahadeens. The true reason for the 9/11 attack was probably the presence of American infidel troops on sacred Saudi Arabian land during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Thus us attacking terrorists is not what caused terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9j22G9HLE
“Policemen” has an oppressive connotation. Rosa Parks was fighting oppression.
This we-know-what’s-best philosophy is what the Nazi party used to rationalize eugenics.
That is some very poor logic.
No, it is not.
Yes, it is. Infinity. Since you don’t understand sound logic, I decided to beat your argument with an argument that is simple enough for you to understand.
As Confucius wisely reminds us, it’s much better to light a small candle than to curse the darkness. If little is to be achieved (at, least, you contend) by volunteering of our time and money, how do you suggest we go about tackling large problems that face the world? Should we just give up because we don’t have all of the answers? Of course not. Maybe we’re not all capable of understanding fully how to solve the world’s issues, but we’re doing the best we can. Who are you to say that everyone is as self-centered as Ayn Rand and volunteers only for a rush of serotonin?? Have you no more faith in humanity than that? Whether or not the “white man” has wronged the world in the past, “Making a difference” is not make believe. Organizations and charity groups around the world are measurably reducing poverty, increasing education, and raising health standards. How? Because millions of individuals have given of their time and money.
So let’s not be short-sided- sure, painting one mural won’t save the world. But everyone taking small steps to make the world a better place will.
Start by not volunteering for programs that have such intangible gains. Volunteer at a local homeless shelter or cafeteria, and make real human connections for FREE. Then donate your money to a worthy cause that fixes something you can’t.
Or settle for vacations disguised as helping others.
I would say Mia did make real human connections. Interacting with other countries face to face is a huge benefit. If we made our decisions based on cost, then we shut out the rest of the world and just value those close to us. I don’t think it is a compassionate argument to say that we should only care for those that live close to us and ignore the rest of the world. People are people, and even if it costs some more, we should not ignore those outside of our own community.
Which is why I say “Then donate your money to a worthy cause that fixes something you can’t.” Mia acknowledges that she can’t “fix Costa Rica” by painting it.
This is why I would advocate volunteering locally and then donating to a worthy cause that can help folks elsewhere, if you choose to make that your priority.
If we disagree on anything, it seems to be the idea that such paid vacation/service trips are doing a real service for the locals involved — but beyond that — that such trips provide the same level of help that trained professionals could offer if they had access to the tens of thousands of dollars of funding that is funneled into such vacation/service expeditions.
If you want to maximize the good that is being done, I don’t think there’s any doubt that such vacation/service trips do not come close to maximizing the benefits of the indigenous peoples involved when you look at the huge amounts of money being spent.
I suppose that’s my problem. All I see when I look at such trips is someone taking a vacation that they can feel good about because they’re doing a minimal amount of good on the side. You spend two weeks roaming about the Costa Rican countryside, and you spend time “working” by painting cute things for a few days.
No real infrastructure was created, nothing sustainable was made, and the school still offers the same standard of education that it did.
That’s what the many thousands of dollars bought for the locals. A painting, and the experience that people from places like America are not coldhearted, and have the time and money to travel the world performing small niceties for the locals.
So, no. I’m not saying that such folks should be ignored, or that we shouldn’t help them. I never said that. But I am saying that we shouldn’t pay attention to them, not help them in any meaningful way, and then feel as though we’ve done something for them, when all we have done is perform some self-serving pleasant work that will do them no real good.
I can see what you are saying. However, in a world where you either have a trip like Mia’s or the money doesn’t go to do anything, I would take Mia’s trip. In the real world, nobody is donating the money to help kids learn English in China or paint buildings in Costa Rica. So you achieve what you can through the means that people are willing to use.
Big assumption, a world like that.
As Confucius wisely reminds us, it’s much better to light a small candle than to curse the darkness. If little is to be achieved (at, least, you contend) by volunteering of our time and money, how do you suggest we go about tackling large problems that face the world? Should we just give up because we don’t have all of the answers? Of course not. Maybe we’re not all capable of understanding fully how to solve the world’s issues, but we’re doing the best we can. Who are you to say that everyone is as self-centered as Ayn Rand and volunteers only for a rush of serotonin?? Have you no more faith in humanity than that? Whether or not the “white man” has wronged the world in the past, “Making a difference” is not make believe. Organizations and charity groups around the world are measurably reducing poverty, increasing education, and raising health standards. How? Because millions of individuals have given of their time and money.
So let’s not be short-sided- sure, painting one mural won’t save the world. But everyone taking small steps to make the world a better place will.
I’m not quite sure how you can say that you didn’t “make a difference” in those places that you went to. So maybe the Chinese children didn’t end up fluent in English by the end of your stay, but I’m quite certain of one thing– they were overjoyed by the fact that someone cared about them. That someone took the time out of their day to make them smile, to play with them. These migrant children live lives of extreme poverty, instability, and suffering. A smile might not change the world of these children, but it very well might have changed their day for the better. You know, maybe your few days in the migrant schools didn’t change the world holistically– so what? With a mindset like that, we would never, ever progress. But if EVERYONE did their small part, we would be so much farther along. A lot of people don’t volunteer just to make themselves feel good about themselves, a lot of people volunteer as their way of contributing their small bit to make this world a better place. What those children in China got out of the days they spent with you and your peers was based on what you put into it. So what if you can’t put a value on a smile, or tag it with a measurable amount of progress? Even if one child went away that day with a newfound hope in his education and in his future, then your time was well spent. If anything, maybe you’re volunteering for the wrong reasons. I think you should take a moment to re-evaluate the phrases “making a difference” and “changing the world.” Even though it not be “making a difference” for everyone in the whole world, or “change the ENTIRE world” I think attempting to even change the world of one person for the better is well worth the effort.
Even more Chinese children would be taught english by unqualified teenagers and even more Costa Rican schools would have animals painted all over them. While these actions might well have a net positive effect on the world, the $50,000+ spent by the participants’ parents on each trip could probably have been put to greater net good.
I think that’s the point of the article. Great, they had the right intentions. We know that. The author points it out above, and you restate it in your comment as though it’s something new.
The trouble is that they didn’t know enough about the places they were going to to make any real difference or help the locals in a substantial manner. I could paint dolphins all over the side of any building in the US, and…I’d be arrested if I were seen doing it.
It’s not that these folks didn’t have the best of intentions. They just didn’t necessarily do anything good. Having an inexperienced kid stand in front of you speaking an unintelligible language might really inspire a child, as you suggest above. The trouble is that it seems perhaps more likely that it will do next to nothing.
And you haven’t really said anything to the contrary.
Mia, how did you manage to live in San Francisco and go to Costa Rica and China with only other white teenagers? I have never been involved in something that didn’t have around half of the group not being white. The president and so many of the powerful people of color are doing things related to helping other countries, and all the credit still goes to white people. Or did the mostly white church group building houses in Tijuana do something wrong, while the Latino church group building houses did things correctly?
I don’t think the point was that it’s white. I think you’re missing it. It’s that people feel like they can help things that is the problem
Even though she mostly refers to the “white savior industrial complex”, we can remove race from the argument and still find the same issues with her argument. She doesn’t think she is helping, but she is. Look around the world, and you can see how the prosperous like the US have helped make the world a much better place in a variety of ways. Without the influence of the people of the US, she couldn’t even visit China to make a connection with some children. China would look much more like it did after the revolution and possibly much more like the Soviet Union before the US started interacting with it. Remember the Soviet Union before the US started interacting with it? Millions were being killed and repressed. The interactions with the US forced the Soviet Union to change their practices. And it was often through things that didn’t seem important like sports. These same kinds of interactions have kept China from continuing the massive killing and repression of its people that were happening after the revolution.
You seem to be suggesting that the kids learned English. I learned French through several years of studying with trained teachers throughout high school. I doubt I would speak much if some francophones visited my elementary school and spoke French at me.
I am suggesting that MIa’s group helped the children learn more than they knew before Mia’s group showed up. In French, you learned more with each class. Think of Mia’s group as teaching several English classes. One of the best ways to get a boost to learning a language is actually being able to speak with a native speaker.
I was lucky. Our teachers were native French speakers. If they’d spoken only French to us through our first few years of classes, I doubt any of us would have picked up on anything.
Again, you’re looking at a trip that cost probably between $2 and 4 thousand dollars per head, and resulted in negligible gain. The money that went into the trip for 20 kids could have paid the salaries of two full-time English teachers for a year.
It’s a glorified vacation. Get over it.
This isn’t about just teaching the kids better English than they would get from some full time teachers in China. These groups are more about having the youth in different countries interacting with each other so that both can better understand the other in ways that vacationing tourists wouldn’t.
Her programs weren’t SF-based, they were nation-wide, it’s absolutely ridiculous to assume that she sought out programs with a white majority.
We know she didn’t seek out programs based on the racial makeup of the participants. SF based or nationwide, it is unlikely that the groups she was a part of where all white kids, so it doesn’t make sense for her to start talking about white savior complex.
It’s the basic concept that holds true. The White Savior Complex, although yes, literally the “white” savior complex, is, essentially, just a Savior Complex. Your argument is invalid, and short-sided.
What about the argument was invalid and “shortsighted”?
The “white savior complex” is analogous. White folks tend to be more privileged than the brown folks who live elsewhere. So….American…white…no difference. Point out race if you must, but that wasn’t the point of the article. I am amused by how often overly PC folks make race an issue when it wasn’t even being thought of in the first place.
Your point says that we are doing much better with race relations in the US, when you don’t even think of “white savior complex” as indicating race any more. However, the author Mia references made his statements in 2012. He was thinking about race and not about prosperous Americans.
What are you talking about. Did you even read what I said?
>The “white savior complex” is analogous. White folks tend to be more privileged than >the brown folks who live elsewhere. So….American…white…no difference.
The author may well have been writing about that, but it makes no difference for the point of the article.
You should read what I say before simply disagreeing with it because *I* said it.
I read what you said. You said that what the “white savior complex” means the same as the if we say “American savior complex”. Mia might have meant just what you said, but Teju Cole didn’t. If she is going to start using an author’s idea, then she should understand that the more thorough readers are going to think she means just what the author says. Any professor at Cal would object to a student quoting Teju Cole as someone who was not talking about race relations.
Well, take that up with Mia, I guess. Don’t care about her misquoting someone so much as the point that’s being put forth in the article.