While some suggest that aid should be given to their compatriots by charity organizations, others believe it would be better if they assist people in great need regardless of their living place. This essay will analyze both points of view before concluding with my own opinion.
On one hand, it is reasonable for activists to support their fellow countrymen, on the grounds of close connection. These sorts of people live in the same country as the members working for charity, which means there is a tight relationship, or fellow citizenship, encouraging many benefactors to back up needy residents. For example, due to the love for the domestic, many donors gave their backing during the Yagi storm. Furthermore, humanitarian aid is not peculiar to one nation; therefore, it is not necessary to help those from other countries; their government will be the one taking responsibility instead. Besides, there might be a limit on enough funding for a range of the struggling. People may only be capable of lending a hand to their compatriots, let alone foreigners with whom they might feel unfamiliar.
However, I am convinced that despite geographical barriers, charitable foundations should always prioritize miserable lives. Because philanthropic actions stem from one’s kindness and generosity, there shall be no exception for anyone coming from different places. If this assistance is limited particularly to a kind of person, then it might be devoid of true benevolence and altruism. Additionally, in the case of lacking financial subsidies, global philanthropists can collaborate with each other, so that the sources for backing will be addressed while still making contributions to tragic lives.
All things considered, charitable organizations have their right to save those in their homeland; nonetheless, I contend that anyone calling for demands should be the primary focus, irrespective of their whereabouts.