Anonymous wrote:Do you think some of it is a sense of superiority? That's why they get into development? Because they feel they know how to fix the person's abysmal situation?

Its so hypocritical. What would a privileged white trust fund kid know about human rights? or human rights violations?

Do you think some of it is a sense of superiority? That's why they get into development? Because they feel they know how to fix the person's abysmal situation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always assumed it's because the rich, white girls were the ones who could afford to take lower paying jobs.

This is some of it. Also, with the less rich but still privileged, guilt. And with others, determination to give others the things that they themselves could have taken for granted.... and their parents raised them right to care about others.

I don't think it is guilt. Just because people are white does not mean they don't care.

Years ago, I visited a development project overseas. I was amazed at how well our government aid officials lived despite being there to reduce poverty. I was more impressed with the missionaries and the work they did on the very same type of project. They seemed more productive and neater.

So, I'm 12 years into an international development career. I am white, but certainly not a trust fund girl... I'm from "flyover" country with a solidly middle-class background. I recognized as a teen that I had it good, relatively speaking, and that not everyone was so lucky. Combine that with a sense of adventure lead me to join the Peace Corps after college. Peace Corps is not development, for sure, but its a great opportunity do some good.

There are better ways to facilitate development in other countries though, so I went to grad school to learn more and continue my education, but fundamentally I was motivated by "trying to make the world a better place" even if it was indirectly.

Now, my motivation is a little less clear. Part of that is just getting older and becoming a bit of a cynic, but also realizing that the "industry" requires a much more nuanced view of the world that has to do with geo-politics, human nature, and economics. I know without a doubt that the programs I've managed have made a difference in people's lives around the world, but are they necessarily sustainable or will have long-term results? I'm not sure.

No one in this industry assumes any of the people we work with around the world as "poor helpless others" and if we're vacationing in Paris its because we fly enough to have the miles and/or the stopover to make it happen (I've only been once, and it was under such circumstances - the only time I've been to Europe really).

My organization actively recruits people from other races and nationalities, but its a highly competitive industry with a lot of well-educated people willing to work for low wages to get their foot in the door. (Wages are not so low outside of entry level jobs.) I actually do know half a dozen Iraqi refugees that now work here in DC in this industry, but that gets really hard to do with immigration laws being what they are in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why are humanitarian and international development organizations staffed almost exclusively by white people?

i've been working in the development community for the past five years and im surprised by how all the jobs are held by white rich trust fund girls. it kind of baffles me because these are the most privileged people and they're trying to tweet about female maternal mortality in Kenya or India. The whole thing seems to fake to me.

I work in this field (human rights, not water sanitation or infrastructure) and our organization is actually pretty diverse. The teams with a regional focus often have folks from that region, or whose parents were from that region.

This was very true in my major non-profit as well. A common thread, however, was that they came from wealth. At the NGO level, they did try to hire locals because they had the most impact on the community we were trying to reach.

On the issue of hypocrisy: I absolutely saw it too and it bothered me quite a bit.

I'm the quoted PP - I was thinking about our DC office when I said that, but our local offices are all staffed by locals. Some regions are better than others at using locals and third-country nationals as Chiefs of Party. But I do not get the impression that the foreign-born folks who work in DC all come from wealth. Wealthier than some of their countrymen, yes, but definitely not the political and economic elite (who go into banking, not human rights).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why are humanitarian and international development organizations staffed almost exclusively by white people?

i've been working in the development community for the past five years and im surprised by how all the jobs are held by white rich trust fund girls. it kind of baffles me because these are the most privileged people and they're trying to tweet about female maternal mortality in Kenya or India. The whole thing seems to fake to me.

I work in this field (human rights, not water sanitation or infrastructure) and our organization is actually pretty diverse. The teams with a regional focus often have folks from that region, or whose parents were from that region.

This was very true in my major non-profit as well. A common thread, however, was that they came from wealth. At the NGO level, they did try to hire locals because they had the most impact on the community we were trying to reach.

On the issue of hypocrisy: I absolutely saw it too and it bothered me quite a bit.

NP here. My assumption has always been that NGOs aren't socio-economically diverse. Most of the people who work for them come from wealth. The reason (again, my assumption) is that they all went to prestigious colleges/universities (and that is sort of expected at NGOs), but most low and middle income people cannot afford those colleges -- even with a partial scholarship.

I kind of think of NGOs as being similar to academia -- there's a preference for status (be it prestigious school, being published). I also think it's difficult to get those jobs without having the right connections, as it's the only way to get your resume seen and get in the door.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why are humanitarian and international development organizations staffed almost exclusively by white people?

i've been working in the development community for the past five years and im surprised by how all the jobs are held by white rich trust fund girls. it kind of baffles me because these are the most privileged people and they're trying to tweet about female maternal mortality in Kenya or India. The whole thing seems to fake to me.

I work in this field (human rights, not water sanitation or infrastructure) and our organization is actually pretty diverse. The teams with a regional focus often have folks from that region, or whose parents were from that region.

This was very true in my major non-profit as well. A common thread, however, was that they came from wealth. At the NGO level, they did try to hire locals because they had the most impact on the community we were trying to reach.

On the issue of hypocrisy: I absolutely saw it too and it bothered me quite a bit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always assumed it's because the rich, white girls were the ones who could afford to take lower paying jobs.

This is some of it. Also, with the less rich but still privileged, guilt. And with others, determination to give others the things that they themselves could have taken for granted.... and their parents raised them right to care about others.

Caring about others to what extent though? All non profits and charities operate under the the assumption that there are poor helpless set of others in exotic far away lands; cue stock photos with dark skinned Indian girls in traditional clothes. It seems disingenuous to me that a rich white girl who spends her holidays in Paris can realistically empathize with and care about a victim of gang rape in India.

Why aren't more indian girls or indian refugees or some kind given jobs at these organizations?

No, they don't.

Anonymous wrote:why are humanitarian and international development organizations staffed almost exclusively by white people?

i've been working in the development community for the past five years and im surprised by how all the jobs are held by white rich trust fund girls. it kind of baffles me because these are the most privileged people and they're trying to tweet about female maternal mortality in Kenya or India. The whole thing seems to fake to me.

I work in this field (human rights, not water sanitation or infrastructure) and our organization is actually pretty diverse. The teams with a regional focus often have folks from that region, or whose parents were from that region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always assumed it's because the rich, white girls were the ones who could afford to take lower paying jobs.

This is some of it. Also, with the less rich but still privileged, guilt. And with others, determination to give others the things that they themselves could have taken for granted.... and their parents raised them right to care about others.

Caring about others to what extent though? All non profits and charities operate under the the assumption that there are poor helpless set of others in exotic far away lands; cue stock photos with dark skinned Indian girls in traditional clothes. It seems disingenuous to me that a rich white girl who spends her holidays in Paris can realistically empathize with and care about a victim of gang rape in India.

Why aren't more indian girls or indian refugees or some kind given jobs at these organizations?

Anonymous wrote:why are humanitarian and international development organizations staffed almost exclusively by white people?

i've been working in the development community for the past five years and im surprised by how all the jobs are held by white rich trust fund girls. it kind of baffles me because these are the most privileged people and they're trying to tweet about female maternal mortality in Kenya or India. The whole thing seems to fake to me.

DC has an outrageous COL, that's why. I used to work in international development but I was middle class. No way could I support myself today on what they pay. As a single person, it was ok but not as a married person with kids.

Anonymous wrote:I always assumed it's because the rich, white girls were the ones who could afford to take lower paying jobs.

This is some of it. Also, with the less rich but still privileged, guilt. And with others, determination to give others the things that they themselves could have taken for granted.... and their parents raised them right to care about others.

I always assumed it's because the rich, white girls were the ones who could afford to take lower paying jobs.

why are humanitarian and international development organizations staffed almost exclusively by white people?

i've been working in the development community for the past five years and im surprised by how all the jobs are held by white rich trust fund girls. it kind of baffles me because these are the most privileged people and they're trying to tweet about female maternal mortality in Kenya or India. The whole thing seems to fake to me.