Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: politics of Oxfam America
Message-ID: <1651@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 15:52:09 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1651
Posted: Tue Dec 24 15:52:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 01:03:08 EST
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 33

[I tried sending this via personal mail, but failed.]

<answering Paul Torek's request for information>

Paul,

I gave money this year to Oxfam for Ethiopian famine relief.  I'd known
about them since the early 70s, when they impressed me as being not only
scrupulous & intelligent, but aware: ie, they didn't make a fetish out
of political neutrality to the point of blindering themselves to the
often ugly political realities and how these complicate humanitarianism.

This year I'd read a few nasty & slanderous attacks on Oxfam from the far 
right, accusing them of being dupes of Communism.

After donating, I started receiving the Oxfam newsletter, and was rather
startled to read fairly glowing articles on Mozambique, Nicaragua, & even
Ethiopia on subjects at best tangential to issues of humanitarian aid,
& myopic to the point of being immoral, given Oxfam's purpose and probably
its own self-image as effective and undeluded.

I wonder what's happened since the early 70s?  Have I moved to the right,
or has Oxfam (or at least, its newsletter) been "captured" by a decidedly
leftist faction which has broken with the organization's scrupulous 
traditions?  Or was I blind to similar leanings in Oxfam long ago?

I've decided not to give them another cent until they "clean up their
act."  Amnesty International, they're not; maybe they should be, that
is, strictly impartial but morally sensitive.


						Regards,
						Ron Rizzo