I so agree. In the long 1970s and 1980s #humanitarianism was based on #solidarity and #oneworldism. Thank you, Hugo! @HSlim_Oxford You don’t have to be neutral to be a good humanitarian: http://thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2020/0 … (@newhumanitarian)
-
-
You don't have to be - but I worry about risks from implying that community based humanitarianism can't be neutral.
@a_a_jackson@BenParker1402 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @PRHHO, @HSlim_Oxford ja
Good point Paul
@PRHHO. It is not to us to corner (local) organisations into particular identities and motivations. Yet, wherever I worked I met many great humanitarians with diverse values who felt ill at ease with the int’l humanitarian discourse. They need being heard too!1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @hilhorst_thea, @PRHHO ja
I didn’t read it as Paul did — I thought he was taking on the way neutrality has been used as an exclusionary principle. We have to rethink how the principles are interpreted, who “owns” them etc if we want to decolonize things in a way that makes aid more equitable + effective
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @a_a_jackson, @hilhorst_thea ja
I didn’t see him saying community based aid couldn’t be neutral. (By the same token: It’s definitely false to assume international actors de facto can be! *cough afghanistan cough somalia etc*) and tbh? Impartiality matters way more imo
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
And I love that he’s breathing new life into debates over the principles. God, it’s been a stale discussion for so long. And he’s challenging some entrenched assumptions and hopefully making space for a new kind of conversation. Thank goodness for that
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.