# red cross question



## CerridwenLorelei (Aug 28, 2002)

I have a relative that will not donate to them due to what he saw in his days in WWII and boycotts them
It was unusual for a white man to stand up for others then but I was wondering if they were still not so nice?
he said they would give the gis free undies and socks but make the AA soldiers pay for theirs and that wasn't right and he refused to have anything to do with them from there on out..


----------



## Gitti (Dec 20, 2003)

I will not donate to Red Cross nor Unicef - nor cancer research!

But I do donate to Doctors without Boarders and Greenpeace. You really should find out where your donation goes to, many are just fronts for a completely different agenda. Too bad!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I've been really turned off when a friend informed me that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent refuses to admit Magen David Adom, the Israeli equivelent of the Red Cross, because they have a Star of David as their symbol.
The American Red Cross is pushing for the International organization to change its position.
http://www.redcross.org/services/in...,0_453_,00.html
Maybe there is more to it that I don't understand, but it just seems like senseless politicing to me. If someone wants to help, let them help for heaven's sake.
Annette


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gitti*
I will not donate to Red Cross nor Unicef - nor cancer research!

But I do donate to Doctors without Boarders and Greenpeace. You really should find out where your donation goes to, many are just fronts for a completely different agenda. Too bad!

I feel the same.

Kristi


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I know a lot of people don't donate to Red Cross because of their anti-gay stance.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
I know a lot of people don't donate to Red Cross because of their anti-gay stance.

I won't give them blood due to their anti-gay stance.

I prefer to give money to other organizations anyway.

DH does donate blood. He has a rare blood type, and feels that it's his responsibility to donate what he can.

Here's where you can find the issue I have with the Red Cross:

http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...7_,00.html#hiv

Quote:

Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:

* you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

* you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
Don't they also not allow donations from women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men?


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

I'm willing to bet that things have changed in the RedCross as far as the racism is concerned.

What we've been able to donate has gone through our UU church. They have a service branch that is up and running all the time, budgeted from the get go, so all of what we donate for tsunami relief goes to tsunami relief.

If we had more to give, I'd most likely go with Doctors Without Borders.
OTOH Brother's Brother operates out of Pittsburgh, shipping supplies where needed.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Lotusdebi, you are ignoring the reality that HIV in this country has been more prevelent among the gay community. Responding to a sad reality that is basically an accident of history--as in no one planned for it to be that way--is not prejudice IMO.

Now if that has changed, and the RC held to that stance, then I'd have a problem with it. In actuality I think they'd be smarter to screen for anyone with multiple partners or who is monogamous with someone who has multiple partners--but how many in that situation know or would be willing to acknowledge it?

They also don't want you to donate if you've been in Africa recently, or gotten a tattoo, or had a transfusion.

They're just trying to make the blood supply safer for everyone, regardless of race, creed, nationality, etc.


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meiri*
They also don't want you to donate if you've been in Africa recently, or gotten a tattoo, or had a transfusion.

Actually, their travel restrictions are extensive and very limiting. I forget the amount of time, but I think I can just barely donate blood now because I spent 6 months on a study abroad to Ireland back in '95. I think the limitation has to do with mad cow disease. I'm not big on donating my blood because I have difficult veins to find and most techs bruise me pretty good. However, I feel obligated since my type is one of the harder to get (not rare, but not O either). But being pregnant right now makes it all a moot point.

My mom refuses Red Cross because her understanding is that most of the funding pays administrative costs and salaries first, leaving very little of a true "donation." I haven't had the time to look this up, so can anyone else here confirm that?

And thanks for mentioning Doctors Without Borders. I've been wanting to make a small donation, but haven't found the right charity for me, IYKWIM.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Meiri,
You and I will just have to disagree on this.
I don't participate in any kind of public boycotts of the Red Cross.
I simply won't give them my blood or my money because of their position.
I consider their position to be out-of-date and discriminatory.
I'm waiting for them to start banning African American women from donating blood. I'm not holding my breath.
They screen the blood anyway.
I really believe that it is the heterosexual community that the Red Cross should be worried about. The gay community has already been bombarded with info on AIDS and HIV. A large number of heterosexuals are still thinking, "not me" because AIDS was known as "The Gay Plague" for so long. I've known very few heterosexuals who bothered to get tested for HIV, whereas most of my gay male friends have been tested regularly.
The attempts I've made to educate heterosexuals about HIV and AIDS have been largely in vain. I've repeatedly run into the attitude that "AIDS is a punishment from God" and "It won't happen to me - I don't have sex with gay men."
Perhaps the Red Cross should ask that everyone consent to an HIV test prior to giving blood, and bring in their results.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Lotusdebi, you are ignoring the reality that HIV in this country has been more prevelent among the gay community.
Actually, the fastest growing population for HIV is heterosexual women, who I assume are having sex with heterosexual men. Perhaps a better question would be "Have you ever had unprotected sex with a woman?"

I would rather have blood from a gay man who had been monogamous than from a straight man who had unprotected sex with several women, the way straight men are likely to.

It would make sense for them to ask all donors if they have ever had unprotected sex with anyone, ever. But I suspect that would get rid of so many donors.

So they are saying it's better to have unprotected sex with several women than to have a monogamous relationship with one homosexual man.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Actually I agree with you both, Lotus and Greaseball.

And if the RC has not kept up with the times as far as who is really a risk factor, then shame on them. That is counterproductive to the goal of a safe blood supply.

Just because I know why they Did that doesn't mean I think they should continue, particularly since the demographics of the spread of HIV have changed. History should not remain current policy, in any group.

As I alluded to before, perhaps the question should be "have you had sex with multiple partners or anyone who has multiple partners?" Leave the gender of said partners out of it altogether.

I don't give blood anymore because they aren't set up to handle those of us who are allergic to latex. I last gave blood when DS was a baby and ended up sick, systemic type reaction, relatively mild, but enough... When I asked about this issue all I got was that I could keep my sleeve between my arm and the tourniquet--not acceptable.


----------



## guestmama9924 (Mar 16, 2002)

I don't give to the Red Cross because of their lack of utilizing the emergency feeding of infants guidelines. They still saturate areas with infant formula and that is just not sound when there are other guidelines in place developed by groups that are specialists in emergency infant feeding. That is just something that is particularly important to me, but there are other instances of funds misuse that causes concern for me as well.
I keep my donations with small groups that are very upfront about where the money goes. I give to PETA, local groups and the like.


----------



## orangebird (Jun 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gitti*
I will not donate to Red Cross nor Unicef - nor cancer research!

But I do donate to Doctors without Boarders and Greenpeace. You really should find out where your donation goes to, many are just fronts for a completely different agenda. Too bad!

So, I've now heard some of the reasons people here don't support the red cross (and I'd actually like to hear more about it because for some reason I thought they were one of the ones who spend less than others on administrative costs) but what is bad about Unicef? What about cancer research? I have given alot to cancer research, is there something I'm not seeing or is it a religious thing?


----------



## Too Busy (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mara*
So, I've now heard some of the reasons people here don't support the red cross (and I'd actually like to hear more about it because for some reason I thought they were one of the ones who spend less than others on administrative costs) but what is bad about Unicef? What about cancer research? I have given alot to cancer research, is there something I'm not seeing or is it a religious thing?

I believe that many do not give to UNICEF because of their stance on vaccinations. And Cancer research because it all goes to the pharma companies whose chemical can be the source of cancer in the first place (think a company that manufactures HRT and gets $ for cancer research).


----------



## girlzmommy00 (May 15, 2003)

I believe that my cousin used to work for CARE (she actually traveled to Africa on their behalf). Does anyone know more about them?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Just for clarification:

Does the red-cross have any other anti-gay policies (hiring, promotions, etc...) than the question before giving blood?

Additionally, I don't even understand this:

Quote:

I've been really turned off when a friend informed me that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent refuses to admit Magen David Adom, the Israeli equivelent of the Red Cross, because they have a Star of David as their symbol.








Admit them to where and *why* do they get to decide?

TIA for anyone w/answers!

Kay

PS Does UNICEF support manditory vaccinations or just vaccination choice for those without financial resources to make that choice?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*








Admit them to where and *why* do they get to decide?

Admit them as part of the international red cross, as they have the red crescent. I guess they get to decide because it's their organization...
Annette


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Admit them as part of the international red cross, as they have the red crescent. I guess they get to decide because it's their organization...
Oh, I get it. I guess I just didn't understand why they would want to "join" the Red Cross


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Hmmm... just clicked on my link and it is no longer there.
I guess joining the International Red Cross would maybe add validity when they go to help out in disasters- they would be under the umbrella of an internationally recognized group- I don't know.
But what sense does it make to keep them out simply because their symbol is not a red cross or red crescent?
Here's a link, although it's probably a little more biased and impassioned than my original link
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/heart.html

I also found this qoute

Quote:

"MDA, Red Crescent, and Red Cross all work very closely together, and the MDA representatives are increasingly part of the governance system of the federation," he said. "It's really more about international recognition of the MDA."
I'm trying to tread lightly here, because I admit that it is not something I know a whole lot about.

Annette


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Don't they also not allow donations from women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men?

Greaseball, they ask you questions like that when you donate blood. I donated blood for my Father and DH six times, and I heard the litany of questions over and over.

"...sex with an African..."

"...sex with someone who had been to Africa..."

"...sex with anyone who looked at Africa on a map... " No, not that one.

Anyway, the Red Cross had a bad reputation with my DH, also a veteran. The Red Cross always had their hand out for $$$. I recall working in L.A. during the 1994 earthquake at a Motel 6 and the most spoiled clients and the most demanding ones were the ones who were working for the Red Cross. One woman called the Red Cross Headquarters and said that she would refuse to stay at our motel and demanded to be put up at the Buenaventure since our place was uninhabitable.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
I know a lot of people don't donate to Red Cross because of their anti-gay stance.


Red Cross is anti-gay? And wouldn't give kit to AAs in WWII?

Man, I feel so naive sometimes.


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

Weren't the AAs paid less & put in more dangerous situations than the white troops in WWII?

The Red Cross were not operating in a vacumn, KWIM?


----------



## MyBabiesCome1st (Jul 14, 2003)

My family will not donate to the Red Cross. In addition to the reasons listed here, we've had a personal experience with the Red Cross that left a bad taste in our mouths.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calpurnia*
Weren't the AAs paid less & put in more dangerous situations than the white troops in WWII?

The Red Cross were not operating in a vacumn, KWIM?


That's true. But don't you think that as a relief organization they should have somehow been better behaved?

I'm conflicted on this issue. There are other companies or groups I boycott due to past behaviors which took place in a totally different time. You could blame it on Zeitgeist, but still......I dunno, some things are just so icky that there doesn't seem to be a valid excuse. Especially when others of the same time period display commendable behavior.

It all seems to boil down to choice. We have the option to take the high road, so to speak. Or not.

Also, I not sure I agree that people of 'the past' were somehow less knowledgable on what is right or wrong. Just becouse the laws of the society are jacked up, doesn't necessarily take away the ability to decide for yourself what is morally right, spiritually right, or humane.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Carolinamidwife (Dec 18, 2001)

nak

When my dad was in Vietnam (drafted) they made them purchase items rather than just give them the farking stuff.. and it was necessities, not frills. Grrr.... It really bothered him.


----------



## sistermama (May 6, 2003)

I wouldn't give money to them because I believe they bulked up their reserve funds using money earmarked for 9/11. Also, I work in a nonprofit and have seen examples of how they "help" people, after fires, etc. Not nearly the level of help I think they should give based on the amount of money they receive to help. Also, for example, after the hurricanes here, they were no where to be found as far as I could tell.

Don't know if any of you have heard about Guidestar, but it is a great, free site to look up lots of info about every single nonprofit org in the country. Its also a good way to look up and see if a charity is legit or not. If they aren't listed here, 99.9% sure they aren't legit! Try looking mine up if you'd like, "ESTEEM for Florida Youth".


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

annette, here's Wikipedia's very, very, very brief explanation in re the exclusion of the MDA (the Israeli medical relief organization) from the international community's ICRC.

The ACRC's explanation of their position.










Not sure why it makes a difference to join the ICRC. Am guessing it's more the principle of the thing that irks ...










Not surprised to learn of past discriminatory policies in the ACRC. Though if you went looking for an organization that *never* was discriminatory in the past, you might have to, well, look for an organization that didn't exist in the past. Meaning, it was the norm. Not meaning to say that it's right, just that it's the reality.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Thanks, Amy! The second link you posted looks a lot like the original link that I posted, but is no longer valid.
Annette


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UmmIlyas*
Also, I not sure I agree that people of 'the past' were somehow less knowledgable on what is right or wrong. Just becouse the laws of the society are jacked up, doesn't necessarily take away the ability to decide for yourself what is morally right, spiritually right, or humane.

Does that make any sense?

I am completely conflicted on this issue - how much we can expect people to be able to see past their times & context & assumptions... My grandparents are pretty racist (both happy to work with blacks & sit down next to them & share cutlery & food & live next door to them - it's not that bad - but were NOT happy at the idea my dad might have mixed race children) - but they grew up in South Africa in the 1920s. They voted on occasion for the National Party. They were in their seventies when the black majority got a vote. How far can I expect them to have seen past their times? Other people managed to do so - other people of their own generation, like Rusty Bernstein. Most people didn't. To overcome the weight of your whole society, of the thoughts of the majority of people like you... I don't think it's easy.

I don't have any answers. But I think about it a lot. It wasn't just a throw-away comment.

It makes me sad.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't see what is altogether wrong w/cancer research. If it wasn't for cancer research, mu husband would be dead.


----------



## Carolinamidwife (Dec 18, 2001)

Yeah, I didn't get that either. Cancer eventually killed my dad... so I kind of wish there were more cancer research. Can anyone explain that?


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

I think the reason was that donated money for cancer reseach goes to the pharmecutical companies that will develop the drugs, then patent them & make money for them... I think someone explained on the other page.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Believe me, I am no big fan of the pharm. comp., but it was an "experimental" medicine that helped save my husband's life. It is now commonly used and it greatly improving patients chances of living and staying in remission. I am so thankful for that.
And I understand that a lot of people are against donating for cancer research because of possible experiments on animals. That I can not comment on since I do not know enough about it.


----------



## Annoia (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calpurnia*
I am completely conflicted on this issue - how much we can expect people to be able to see past their times & context & assumptions...
I don't have any answers. But I think about it a lot. It wasn't just a throw-away comment.

It makes me sad.

I know it's not a throwaway comment, calpurnia.







I'm glad you brought it up. You can color me completely conflicted on this topic, as well


----------



## lilgreen (Dec 5, 2003)

Just to be fair, it's important to look at the flip side of the issue of the Red Cross not permitting Magen David Adom to join unless it removed the star of David symbol as their symbol.

It is essential for the Red Cross to remain as devoid of politics as possible. It cannot be seen as siding with any group or country over any other. The symbol of the star of David is the symbol of Israel. That is political. If the Magen David Adom group truly cared about helping as much as possible, why, then, does it not agree to remain non-political - both in policy and symbolism.

Really, I don't see the Red Cross having any other choice than to refuse them for the sake of maintaining its global credibility and expected neutralism.

History put aside, the amazing accomplishments of the Red Cross should not be overlooked. The Red Cross staffs remarkably skilled people and has the reputation, experience and skills to penetrate desperate regions of the world more effectively than most other organizations.

Just my two cents

Take care,
lilgreen


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilgreen*
It is essential for the Red Cross to remain as devoid of politics as possible. It cannot be seen as siding with any group or country over any other. The symbol of the star of David is the symbol of Israel. That is political. If the Magen David Adom group truly cared about helping as much as possible, why, then, does it not agree to remain non-political - both in policy and symbolism.

I thought the star of David was a symbol of Judeism, just as the cross is a symbol of Christianity and the crescent of Muslims? Individual countries may have incorporated these symbols into their countries' flags, but they were religious symbols before they were political symbols (if the two are ever truly seperate).
I would certainly not cast aspersions on Magen David Adom by accusing them on not wanting to help just because they have chosen a religious symbol other than a cross or a crescent. I mean really, would you expect a Jewish relief organization to adapt a cross or a crescent as a symbol?
Again, this is not my area of expertise, but I do not think it an unreasonable request for a Jewish Relief Organization to want to work under their own religious symbol...

Annette


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I thought the star of David was a symbol of Judeism, just as the cross is a symbol of Christianity and the crescent of Muslims?










There are many countries w/ a cross or crescent (or, for that matter, a form of star) on their flag.

That said, I can understand the view of the ARC that it is the Geneva convention that needs to be changed. BUT, why is the RC/RC (hey--- maybe *that* is the real issue--- the initials) needs to follow the geneva convention?


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

lilgreen, as PPs have noted, the Magen David is a symbol of Judaism. And as others have noted, plenty of Muslim countries have a crescent in their flags and as part of their national symbol.

The only reason there's only one country with a Magen David as part of its symbol ... is because there's only one country in the world where Jews are the majority. Israel. Which is why it's called "a Jewish country." Because Jews are the majority, and are in charge of their own destinies as such (well, within the Divine parameters, that is :LOL)

So by disallowing the Jewish symbol and by admitting the other religious symbols, it seems to me that it's the ICRC that's playing politics.

The MDA, BTW, has an extraordinary record of selfless assistance worldwide and need neither apologize nor explain itself for anything.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Thank you for jumping in! As I said, this is beyond my area of expertise, so to speak, so I certainly appreciate you clarifying. It simply didn't seem right to me.
Annette


----------



## art4babies (Mar 6, 2004)

:


----------

