Todays figures in the Globe and Mail (Toronto)
estimate 6,000 homeless in the city.
Hmmm, how could that be; it's not Bush's jurisdiction?
estimate 4,779 homeless children
estimate 500 seniors
no of people using city's shelter system one or
more times in 2002: 31,985
Figures, City of Toronto Disaster Relief Committee
Shepaints said:
"...however well-intentioned, isn't making a food choice for the beggar rather paternalistic, treating him or her
much as one would a child[?]"
That's an important rhetorical question. We may never want to denigrate the "begger" to be a child whom "we adults" are supporting. As I said before, however, that only with the child and the beggar do we not expect reciprocity. Children do not have to buy their parents presents as they receive them, and beggars do not receive loans which they should repay. Nevertheless, I remember when beggars used to try to save face by providing objects "in exchange" for alms. Blind people typically sat behind a cup of pencils which the public would be invited to take IN EXCHANGE for money. I recall never taking a pencil, even though I once stirred them in the cup to make it sound like I was taking one "in exchange" for the money I dropped in the cup. In this way the "beggar" looks like an "adult" merchant "selling" pencils rather than a "child" beggar depending on others for support.
But I also remember a crippled, very charismatic beggar (imagine that, with his low social rank) in San Cristobal, Chiapas, Mexico who could intimidate people into giving him money. A veritable professional. I suspect he was proud of his craft.
Nobody said: Nevertheless, I remember when beggars used to try to save face by providing objects "in exchange" for alms.
This was also the case with the squeegee kids....They said "At least we are working for the money!" Irregardless, most drivers did not want a kid approaching their cars with a squeegee and cleaning their windscreens when they stopped at a traffic light!! Some would get incensed!
As for the morality issue, how moral is it to
give to one and disregard the other 5999 in need
in the city?
One is better than none.
I remember your painting about the squeegie kid. He must have made an impression you.
Thanks Nobody, I agree, one is better than none.
shepaints wrote:Nobody said: Nevertheless, I remember when beggars used to try to save face by providing objects "in exchange" for alms.
This was also the case with the squeegee kids....They said "At least we are working for the money!" Irregardless, most drivers did not want a kid approaching their cars with a squeegee and cleaning their windscreens when they stopped at a traffic light!! Some would get incensed!
As for the morality issue, how moral is it to
give to one and disregard the other 5999 in need
in the city?
Yes - I agree with your re-take on this one, Shepaints - not this comment - but, I wonder how often, in many areas, we are so overwhelmed by the sheer weight and numbers of need, that we do nothing, rather than some little bit that might make a real difference to someone, somewhere????
I am no longer discussing giving drink money to Rags - but just acting generally...
In the case of Toronto, it is worth noting that homeless people come from all over Canadia, and of course, Ontario in particular, because there are few to no services available elsewhere. When i first arrived in Columbus, Ohio, and worked in a shelter, the city was inundated with the homeless. Not only were these people waiting for some evidence of Ray-gun's trickle-down, but there was virtually no other city between Chicago and New York offering comprehensive services, nor services on the scale of Columbus.
