In a separate post we discussed the “slumming it” [link to post] of adoptive parents. Along these lines, I came across today a CHIFF supporter blog which reads: “After all, the poor will always be with us”. Rather Calvinist, as I’m fond of saying. There was also this, from an article about Kenya entitled: “Treated like ‘animals’: inside Kenya’s slum tourism” [link to article].
“They come here and what interests them is the poverty side of it,” he told me. “So they rather have pictures of a boy next to a garbage spot, stranded dog or something like that. That suits them because that’s what they’re looking for.
“They’re not here to say ‘take me to my favourite pub’ and I show them: this is how our favourite pub looks like.”
Most locals say they don’t benefit from them. Instead, they feel they are just here to be looked at and pitied.
How much of adoption is wrapped up in “slum tourism”? How different (if so) is the mediation of adopter blogs from this kind of exploitation of the impoverished?