Response to "Changing the Face of Poverty"
In this article Diana George discusses how poverty is misrepresented by Habitats for Humanity and how this adversely affects the organization’s goal, which is to “eliminate poverty housing from the globe” (pg.4). In an effort to attract supporters the organization paints a very obvious picture of what poverty is in their publicity videos. They show people in rags, living in shacks with despair all around them, and suggests that the issue can simply be solved with good-willing volunteers. The problem with this is that it only shows one dimension of poverty which narrows the population’s ideas about what it is. In order to undermine this, Diana George suggests that we “change the face of poverty” because it doesn't just mean lack of material possessions. The poverty in one country may be different from that of another country. I think that this article addresses a very important issue. In a time when the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer it is necessary to give the best possible aid to those who need it most. As Diana George said, a consequence of Habitats for Humanity’s publicity videos is that potential applicants may not think that they qualify for help because they don’t see themselves as being as poor as the people in the video. Another consequence is that the videos suggest that poverty can be dealt with on an individual level. This is not completely false since everyone’s situation is different, however poverty is very much an institutional problem. In the United States the poor face several obstacles when trying to escape poverty. These days jobs are difficult to come by and the high paying jobs usually require that one has a college education. The staggering cost of a quality education is what blocks the road for many who are trying to move up the social class ladder. I found the part when the Bush administration was mentioned to be very humorous. It said, “The Bush administration confidently announced, that after looking