First off, Emergency Sex, has the most kick-ass title of any book I’ve ever been assigned in a class. It’s also not at all what the book is about. Its full title, Emergency Sex (And Other Desperate Measures): True Stories From a War Zone, by Kenneth Cain, Heidi Postlewait and Andrew Thomson, gives a better idea of stories the three authors tell in this  memoir of humanitarian aid workers who join the United Nations with a dream making a difference. By weaving together their stories and perceptions of the time they spent as aid workers, the authors create a narrative of their friendship, the aid community, the challenges faced by war torn and developing countries and a heavy dose of personal stories about the relief they found in partying, drinking, and often – sex with pretty much whoever was available.

The book is set in the 1990’s, a time of enormous problems across the world. The three authors stories’ merge in Cambodia where they work to ensure the first free election since the end of the Vietnam war. Their lives and work continue to intersect in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia and Liberia. The book examines the personal lives of the aid workers, the successes and failures of the United Nations, and the complex global issues that face humanitarian workers as they struggle to make a difference in the lives of people in developing countries.

While each of the characters is changed enormously by their experiences working as foreign aid workers, Heidi, a social worker from New York, makes the biggest transformation. When the book begins she is a spoiled self involved, woman married to a modeling agent. She determines she is bored with her life and seeks something else, but she is not really sure what. Her journey to becoming a passionate aid worker begins in the secretarial pool at the United Nations. She comes off as a bit shallow and her initial reason for going to work in Cambodia has nothing to do with making life better for the people in that nation; she simply wants the extra combat pay that comes with the job. Over the course of the book, she is transformed into a committed global citizen who can’t see herself ever again living in the comfort of the United States.

While I think both of the male authors are more interesting, intellectual and complicated people, I would still choose to meet Heidi if given the chance. Her experience in the field was always colored by the fact that she is a woman, and as I consider the possibility of humanitarian aid work for myself, I would like to hear more about what it is like from a woman’s perspective.

At the start of her time in Cambodia, Heidi is utterly uninterested in Cambodia or her work. After complaining about her difficult boss she says, “this time I don’t care. I’m here for six months to make money and then she can fuck off.” (Cain, Postlewait, Thomson 50). But very quickly as she sees the difference this work makes in people’s lives, she becomes more and more committed to the work. On the day of the Cambodian Election, for example, she writes, “I find their presence moving.” And adds, “My own problems suddenly seem amazingly inconsequential.” (Cain, Postlewait, Thomson 82) As Heidi becomes more immersed in the cultures of the countries where she works, she becomes a truly passionate and committed humanitarian aid worker.

Heidi’s moral career is clearly demonstrated as she makes her personal journey throughout this book. Sociologist Erving Goffman defines a moral career as “…any social strand of any person’s course through life…the regular sequence of changes that career entails in the person’s self and in his imagery for judging himself and others.”  He goes on to say, “Each moral career, and behind this, each self, occurs within the confines of an institutional system…” (Goffman 168)

From the very beginning, Heidi is constantly assessing and measuring herself through the eyes of others. Whether fleeing in embarrassment when she chooses the wrong outfit for her husband’s office party, or fearing she will be seen as intellectually inadequate by her potential new roommates in Cambodia, Heidi defines herself by allowing those around her to function as a mirror. But, while she doesn’t yet know who or what she wants to be at the beginning of the book, Heidi recognizes that she is influenced in the wrong way by her surroundings with her husband in New York, and so she seeks a new life. As she makes her journey through war zones in the developing world, Heidi undergoes a transformation in her moral career just as she undergoes changes in her actual career.

By the end of the book, Heidi has lost lovers, husbands, and friends and has seen untold horrors in each of the countries where she worked. As she struggles with grief she realizes what she needs is a purpose,  “something to force me out of bed each day. I need to go back to work.” (Cain, Postlewait, Thomson 282)

Cross Border, by J, was my favorite book that we read in our class. That may be partly because it is fiction and therefore told in story form, and in the third person so it provided insight into the characters and their thinking; that is not possible using any other writing form. The author clearly had extensive experience and knowledge of the world of humanitarian aid and NGOs from both the field perspective and the headquarters perspective. By contrasting these two worlds and showing the challenges faced by the workers in each of them, as well as the citizens of Syria, J told the story of the unique world of humanitarian aid in the 21^stcentury.

The story is told through the experiences of several characters each with a specific perspective on the world of humanitarian aid. It begins with locals at the border between Syria and Jordan, trying to get a truckload of medical supplies to a humanitarian relief organization – World Aid Corps. The workers are told by the border guard, “To pass this point, you need to pay a tax of ten percent of everything on the load.” The truck pulls over and the guards steal 10 percent of the contents of the truck – for who is never made clear, and it hardly matters. This scene sets up the reality of trying to provide humanitarian aid in a war torn country like Syria.

The perspective of the aid workers is told principally through two characters. Larry Smith is a by-the-book professional do-gooder. He got into development work after a stint in the Army followed by business school. He is a true believer in the value of humanitarian aid but he feels strongly that planning, protocol and following all procedures is the key to success. As such, he has disdain for many of the field workers who he feels act like cowboys, and put the success of the aid programs at risk with their reckless disregard for proper procedures.

Aksel is the head of WAC’s Syria crisis response and he works in the field based in Amman, Jordan. He is the rugged, golden boy who everyone but Larry puts up on a pedestal. As Larry reflects in the book, “Askel seemed to embody the ‘aid worker’ stereotype that everyone at WAC HQ idolized.” “Askel lived a life of high-adventure and charmed deprivation out on the leading edge of chaos and mayhem.” (J 72). Askel has little patience for bureaucracy and paperwork and does whatever he thinks he needs to do to get the job done. This includes bribing people across Syria and Jordan to overcome obstacles, to getting the aid where it needs to go. He has good intentions, but his lack of attention to procedures causes enormous problems for the organization and ultimately dooms the aid program he runs.

While there are several other important characters in the book, these two embody the central theme of the book: what is the best way to provide humanitarian aid in in war torn country where it is almost never clear who is in charge, what the proper procedures are and exactly where the biggest needs exists.

As the plot develops, it is clear there are problems with Aksel’s program in Syria and that he is under-spending the money provided by the donors. This is an enormous problem for the company because it is, at its core, a business and if they don’t meet expectations they will face serious consequences. The book presents all the ins and outs of how the Syria program goes off the rails, but ultimately it comes under scrutiny from investigators at the US Agency for International Development. In a meeting with the lead investigator, the company is accused of passing money to what are called “restricted entities,” which includes known terrorist organizations and enemies of the US Government. Aksel offers multiple explanations and excuses, each lamer than the last. Finally, Larry speaks up and risks his job by telling the USAID investigator: “What you’re looking at is a combination of executive negligence and field leadership incompetence. The executives of this organization [his boss] were negligent in that they did not adequately supervise and manage senior staff in the field. Staff like Aksel.” (J Location1949 and 1950)

Larry has finally exposed Aksel for the incompetent fool that he is and pointed out the importance of the work he (Larry) does as a headquarters aid worker. But then Larry goes on to use his expertise to save the company. He tells the investigator that he has thoroughly reviewed every file related to USAID grants and that the company has not committed the violations of which they are accused. “Let me skip straight to the big reveal. There’s no evidence that World Aid Corp directly or indirectly supported a terrorist organization. The best you are going to find, Ms. Boothby, is evidence of negligence and incompetence. Go on. Look all you want,” Larry tells her in front of both Aksel and his boss.

It seems from this scene that Larry has emerged victorious and that he has proven his position: “Humanitarian assistance getting into the hands of those who need it most depends on systems that work, policies that make sense – in other words – bureaucracy matters.” (J  Location 2178) While it’s true that Aksel’s mistakes and lax procedures in Syria have caused enormous problems, there still don’t seem to be any answers for the suffering people in Syria. The book ends with characters we have followed throughout the book, a young Syrian mother who is just trying to find a way to keep herself and her two children safe and fed and cared for. In the end, we see her trying to cross the border with her two little daughters. The narrator states: “Ahead in the light of a sinking afternoon sun Ranim could see the border fence, the guard towers, the light blue banner with ‘UNHCR’ on it in big white letters. And beyond that, the clean open desert of Jordan.” Ranim then turns to her oldest daughter and says, “Com on, hyati. We’re almost there!” The narrator concludes, “Inshallah [God Willing] they would be across the border before dark.” (J – Location 2183)

While J seems to take the position, that following proper procedures, is critical to the success, of any humanitarian aid program, he also has an understanding of the problems, faced by field workers, like Aksel, in trying to provide aid in a country, that has fallen into chaos while faced by the, “Iron Cage of Rationality.” J’s larger point is that providing aid is enormously complicated and that aid workers must avoid infighting and do their best to work together to provide desperately needed help to the victims of war and conflict.

I came to this class with what I thought was a lot of experience as a global citizen. I grew up in a diverse, international city. I had classmates all through school who came from many parts of the world and I took several classes in high school and college that focused on international themes. I also spent a J-term in Ghana and travelled all around the country meeting people, visiting villages and seeing the real Africa first-hand.

But this class, Being and Becoming a Global Citizen, opened my eyes to the biases we as privileged, white Americans bring to our interactions with people in developing countries. When I was in Ghana, I felt like a blonde, white, giant everywhere I went. Even thought I felt a kinship to the Ghanaian people, I knew that to them I seemed like an alien. No matter how hard we try to be true humanitarians and global citizens, we can never rid ourselves of the privilege the universe gave us by accident.

Dr. Arcaro’s lectures were truly inspiring. He has so much knowledge to impart and his stories of his travels and work in developing countries really made me feel what it was like to be there. His teaching style, using the Harkness method, created an open atmosphere where everyone felt welcome and comfortable speaking. His relationship with Aid workers brought us so many interesting speakers via Skype that we got to hear the real life experiences of humanitarian workers who had worked in the field and headquarters offices around the world. I liked talking with speakers via Skype because it gave us a chance to interact with them directly; you can read all you want but until you talk to someone and see their world you’re not going to learn everything they have to teach.

Our final speaker, Genevieve Goulding, was especially interesting to me. As an aid worker, she used empathy to absorb darkness and bring light. In her Skype session and in her thesis, Figuring the Refugee, she talked about the relationship between aid workers and refugees and how aid assistance programs makes refugees less than human and perpetuates existing problems. She also talked personally about how difficult the work was for her emotionally and mentally, but said she would do it all over again because it gives her life purpose and meaning.

I liked all the books we read but to be honest I found a lot of the material very disturbing. Reading about torture in Rwanda, or rape as a tool of war and oppression, or the destruction of families split apart by war, left me depressed thinking about the horrible state of so many people in the world. I was inspired by the aid workers and by my classmates, but I often felt pretty hopeless about the possibility of making a difference in the world.

Overall it was a great class. I know I had a hard time at the end with my own struggles, but I feel I learned something every day. To me, being a global citizen means not only caring about yourself or your own country, but also about the world. It means recognizing the struggles people face in the developing world and the tremendous privilege enjoyed by most of us in the developed world. It means seeing myself as a citizen of the planet and seeing all human beings as my brothers and sisters, and being willing to help and to fight for fairness and equity throughout my life – and I am committed to do that.

To produce this PSA, three artists/superheroes/global citizens/woke ladies, wrote, brainstormed, directed, filmed, and compiled this Public Safety Announcement. We believe it speaks to everyone’s reality (stereotypes are a thing for a reason, and nobody is immune). We wanted to capture that visceral, gut reaction, and I believe, we succeed. As a group, we bounced ideas off of each other, and we captured the gut reaction of each, willing participant. While each person said not more than two words, their reactions and facial expressions said it all. We tried to create this PSA, with everyone in mind, as a reminder to the world, that we are all the same, deep down, regardless of color, class, or creed. We are all global citizens, we just have to wake the fuck up.

Video:

Here are a few of my thoughts from this semester:

Day with Genevieve-

• Having humanitarian workers talk about their mental health should be something we talk about more. It is wild to think that her is Genevieve living with PTSD from her time overseas, home for a year before the diagnosis, and she hasn’t really talked about it with anyone. We have to start this conversation so that people know exactly what this work entails. I wonder thought if people start to talk about more if that will make people not want to do the work. Americans have a bad habit of not wanting to do things if it will negatively impact them in any way.
• In the case of the DRC it is hard to send people into an area where the government will not help to protect these people. They need aid work over there as I did research about Ebola in the country. Every time aid work decreases the Ebola rates rise. For countries such as them that can’t maintain stable infrastructure the importance of aid work has to be communicated. I did a epidemiology presentation on the Ebola crisis in the DRC which is why it interested me to hear her perspective. I didn’t realize how much I would talk about humanitarian aid in my presentation. It got me thinking more and more how Public Health and Sociology really go together and my knowledge in each of these majors has helped the other. Public health is everywhere and so is sociology.

Joey’s Presentation

• Honor among thieves
• cycle of poverty because farmers in the dry season have to try to work around certain things but in order to survive during the down season they put themselves deeper into poverty
  • This just adds proof that pulling oneself up by the bootstraps is not a good enough excuse to keep capitalism and the top economic system. All we keep doing is putting impoverished people in this false sense of consciousness that one day we can be like Bill Gates but the system was literally designed to not have that happen.
• sex trafficking- have to sell off their kids in order to make money
  • This is actually a global problem that no one really wants to talk about. We immediately want to shame the parents for doing what they did (because it is horrible at the end of the day) but we never talk about how the economic set up of a country forces then to do this.
• aid workers going into those areas are actually creating an environment that perpetuates the sex trafficking by having companies that is donating the money is pressuring the aid workers to do projects that don’t actually benefit the community and so the community has to keep doing the things that perpetuate their poverty and sex trafficking practices

Takeaway from J- sometimes fiction is the work around to talking about things you shouldn’t be talking about. Fiction lets us connect more to the people that need to hear the story than non-fiction. Nonfiction people see its about them and instantly get defensive but with fiction since you don’t immediately tie it to you, you can find patters and be like ‘ohhh that’s kind of what we do’ and hopefully change for the better. Interesting tactic (maybe there’s a better word than tactic) to use when trying to bring change to a unmoving machine.

Aid working being apolitical

• it shouldn’t exist
• it should exist
• can it exist?
• When it comes to natural disaster absolutely it should be apolitical because there is no force to combat because we can’t fight nature. Even if a tornado hits a country that could give us no political gain, if we have the tools to help them then we should
• When it comes to aid in conflict zones then here we should be political. If we know how to end a civil war in a country, then why not do that to overall prevent more deaths rather than just prolonging it. This gets tricky when the people committing the atrocities are people that can benefit the US in some way because then they wouldn’t be as inclined to stop their ‘allies.’

Overall takeaways:

• I thought I wanted to go into the peace corps and then I thought I didn’t and then this class made me for sure not want to go into the aid sector. But, part of me is also of the idea that I can try to fix things from the inside (because that’s just who I am) so now I think I want to go into the aid sector just to be a little rebel within.
• Globalization is the devil. I’ve learned so much about globalization (like how it impacts the physical structure of a city and therefore keeps impoverished people impoverished but makes it so we can’t see them and thus forget the exist) and now its impact on aid work. It really just makes everything so much more complicated than it needs to be and I get that we want to be connected to the world but globalization + capitalism= many bad things.
  • Plus, it makes it harder to save the planet
• Are there any straight answers in sociology? The answer is simply no. There are too many things to consider when trying to fix a problem. It’s not just looking at the government, or the economy, or the culture. It’s all of it. Maybe deep down at the start of modern society an intended latent function of all the systems was to become so interwoven that change becomes this impossible large task that no one wants to take on.

Theme of this class: Woah, well there’s no solution

NGOs in the Crisis Caravan

So many NGOs popped up for the first humanitarian crisis, displaying they had motives other than the humanitarian imperative. NGOs wanted to get popular, and market their brand, obviously if they went into help their name would make it to the big screens? Through Crisis Caravan I really saw the change in actions of humanitarian aid workers and the organizations themselves from then to now. They need clear goals, regulations, and devoted workers to properly functioning as an NGO. Letters Left Unsent reaffirms that the motivation to do aid work, or something to feel good is not enough, you must know what you’re doing, why you’re doing it or you’re better off leaving it alone.

Is the work doing anything

There is constant debate at whether the work of aid organizations is actually beneficial.  I have learned that sometimes no help is better, but small amounts of help are not utterly dangerous, a minimal positive change is better than none. The answers to many of these questions about ethicacy and doings of aid workers and organizations are not black and white, so it’s important to always ask questions and continue to think outside the box.      

Neutrality and War Zones

We have touched on the neutrality of aid organizations, and how it is a fundamental part in delivering aid in an area of crisis.  The last thing we would want is to fuel the opposing side, strengthening them to facilitate more violence and danger, but there is the possibility of that occurring.  We were presented with challenging scenarios during a book review presentation one of them being, if the only way to deliver aid was to go through a terrorist group would you do it, knowing that is the only way you can assist the country?  My gut answer would be of course not, because how could you shake hands with the devil, disregarding neutrality, that would not end up great and they could take advantage of the aid organization.

But we also learned this happens, and maybe there does have to be more relaxed law for aid organizations so that if it is the only way to deliver aid, they can evaluate and surrender some supplies for the ability to enter the crisis. It’s said to keep your friends close but your enemies closer, so possibly by doing a dealing with a corrupt group of people, you can gain more knowledge on them to strategize how to undermine them.  It makes me think is this even the responsibility of the aid organizations to communicate with the other countries powers, because their priority is first the suffering people and then rebuilding.

04/03/2019

I commented in class today that perhaps there was a notable difference in how to approach generations in terms of seeking aid. The example used was the effect of imagery in commercials on older generations versus younger. My argument was that it is more difficult to convenience younger people to donate, because they have been so overexposed to images of poverty/suffering. Professor Arcaro responded that this was a strategy used by marketing firms- deciding which market would be most likely to donate, and what are the best ways to access them. I think that this perspective (on the duty of marketers) is rather common, and also quite limiting. If you are going to segment potential markets, it seems to be that it would also be beneficial to segment what it is you want to receive. For example, if you’re going to target an older demographic for monetary donations, then you should come up with another area for young people to take interest in (ex. volunteering, innovation, research). The aid sector and certainly the idea of what aid is, needs as much help as it can get.  

04/30/2019

“Who should rule the world?”

This is a really interesting idea to me. I enjoy thinking about really philosophically abstract ideas but this is a new one for me. From the get-go I know that I don’t have an answer. Or at the very least I don’t have the type of answer that I think most people would want to hear. I think it’s challenging to approach such a subject that has no historical references. Who should rule the world? No one person has ever done it before. I don’t see a future in which anyone ever will (or should). It seems that every time a tyrant has tried, that desire has been the cause of drastically more death and destruction than the world normally sees. But who’s to say that if they were to eventually prevail, the death wouldn’t be simply a cost paid or means to an end, perhaps the world would be significantly better off once said tyrant was ruling. I don’t think so though.

I think it could potentially be argued that there have been rulers of the world. These rulers weren’t individuals but rather the countries, organizations, religions, and languages. When such things (like Christianity for example) are so widely spread and so heavily influential- they could be considered as “rulers”. I don’t mean to say that Christianity or anything else currently rules the world, but rather it could have. With this idea in mind, it is also important to recognize those small, indigenous, untouched populations who have no idea what is happening elsewhere and are thusly not being “ruled” by any type of modern culture. And even those who have experienced some exposure to the predominant worldly influences, have adamantly refused them. So I guess the conclusion I’ve come to here is that I don’t really believe it’s possible that anyone/thing can rule the world. I think humans are too free-spirited to all be contained under one absolute.

But this doesn’t really answer the question of who should rule the world. Maybe I ought to approach the idea from the perspective that someone will rule the world, who should it be? I wouldn’t suggest America solely for the reason that the people of our country are so divided on policies that people don’t feel safe or supported. If the people being ruled are at unrest, there is no true foundation to build on. I think that our freedom of speech is important, and I recognize that this right exasperates the division amongst us, and so I would say we have potential but certainly aren’t fit to rule yet. From another perspective, China seems a viable option because of their economic prowess- but if this characteristic takes priority over humanitarian rights, i’m not sure it’s in the best interest of the world. BUT looking at the big picture I don’t know which world power, person, or product should rule because I have never seen the practicality of this and perhaps those ideas that seem so terrible now would in fact be for the greater good. I think that my official answer to the question would have to be that no person or group of persons should rule the world. I would much rather support the rule of an idea. If we allowed the humanitarian imperative (whatever that may be) rule the world, perhaps then we would see beneficial change.

04/18/2019

“Is the global culture changing in spite of or because of our actions?”

I feel as though the answer is both. Or at least a little bit of both options. But as I type that perhaps that means really that global culture changes in spite of our actions, I don’t know. I do think that are decisions and innovations which have altered the path of humanity. But this applies much more on a superficial level rather than in the perspective of humanitarian aid. For example technology has heavily influenced global culture, and has also provided new avenues through which other changes have been made. But when asking whether our actions of aiding others are truly making a difference- or to what extent that difference is made is much less obvious. I think that the fluidity of the world and the progression of humanity is a strong force that cannot be halted or controlled. But somewhat like a marble rolling through a maze, I think our decisions help guide the direction in which we are moving. This would lead some to then question in what direction were moving- better or worse, right or wrong- but I don’t think it has THAT much effect. I think that the subject of if what decisions we have made were right or wrong is (though related) an entire other conversation. It feels as though even if we make decisions and there in turn make change, the marble rolls its own way. I am reminded of the recent senate election in Texas, when Beto O’Rourke’s campaign almost turned Texas blue. Everyone I knew voted for him, my entire world had been influenced by this candidate, and it was undeniably a monumental political change in America. Yet he didn’t win, and policies didn’t change and so I’m left to wonder if the culture was really changed. Perhaps our actions weigh more heavily than i’m giving credit to, but their effects are just so far in the future that I haven’t seen them yet. Regardless, I guess my answer is this: global culture changes in because of our actions, and sometimes in spite of them.

ps. I have attached a Ted Talk that I found but didn’t have time to bring up in class about “What Makes a Humanitarian”

For this book review, I read “Where Soldiers Fear to Tread” by John Burnett. Although the title of this novel alludes towards the experience of a soldier, it actually is a narrative of the author himself based on his experiences as a humanitarian aid worker. Burnett does an excellent job of describing the background of the places he describes, making reading the novel as educational as it is an experience. For example, towards the beginning of Burnett’s experience, you can tell his confusion with the state of Somalia but informs the reader background information as well. For example, we learn that “there are basically five or six families in Somalia, each with its own turf. When the government collapsed, the country was left in the hands of the clans, and most of them fought for the ports, airports, main roads– wherever money could be made. They run import and export activities in narcotics, charcoal, and guns. Many of the clans print their own money” (78). With this information, the reader is able to learn while Burnett is learning as well; adding to the depth and understanding of his experiences. Below is a video that further describes the issues within Somalia.

While reading this novel, one can relate it to our class by including another humanitarian perspective within our knowledge. Even while reading this novel it becomes clear how different one humanitarian’s experience can be comparable to others. From this, we learn that when entering into this sector, one must not set any expectations. Also while reading this novel, I was challenged to ask questions and redefine preconceived statuses in a sociological manner. One particular instance where the novel made me think back to class was when discussing the type of humanitarian needed in the particular moment. Burnett describes that “each humanitarian crisis is different, but the Somalia flood crisis had all the ingredients of the worst that could befall mankind: It was a natural disaster that had occurred without warning; thousands suffered from malnutrition and starvation and required immediate rescue; it was a part of the world that was poorly mapped; it was within a combat area; there were diseases known and unknown; and so far there was no much money to do the job (24). In class, we discussed the difference of a natural disaster that affects everyone and aid needed within a war zone (SOC 376: 4/01/19). However in this particular case; both instances were present.  

Personally, reading this novel helped me better understand the challenges associated with working within the humanitarian aid sector. Even from the beginning of Burnett’s work I could feel the layering of questions develop, with no definitive answer. The introduction of the novel posed very powerful questions stating “why would relatively normal people knowingly risk their lives to help others in areas too dangerous to send soldiers? Personality deficiency? Or merely a different personality? It is a question that I sought to answer, not just about the others in the field but about myself” (9). There are answers I came across while reading such as the satisfaction of saving the lives of others, the distraction of one’s own reality, and the opportunity to travel in places untraveled by most. I researched outside of the novel to develop more answers and came across an article called “We Asked Our Staff: What Does Being a Humanitarian Mean to You” found on the Mercy Corps website. Below are some of the responses found within this article…

• “To have human values and an understanding of all human situations that we share, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion and social status. It’s working towards common human goals and ensuring we support people with respect and dignity” (Tirhas)
• “I can reduce the suffering of people and help them, and also help create long-lasting change” (Dia’a)
• “I have developed a new perspective to everything around me and I see the world differently. I am more conscious of people and their daily struggles to survive” (Clara).

However, I have come to the conclusion that while this question is important, there is not one overlying answer. Even when continuing throughout the novel one can evaluate Burnett’s perspectives and understand that he is learning as he is experiencing as well. For example, after the meeting with the Somalian sultan one can almost feel the frustration and confusion Burnett places upon his identities and roles when he claims “I’m not even sure what I’m supposed to do here. I’ve got some boats, but I am told there is no river” (78). “Where Soldiers Fear to Tread” is an interesting narrative in which the author gives us a personal experience towards the humanitarian aid sector and the issues that arise.

References

Burnett, John S. Where Soldiers Fear to Tread: a Relief Worker’s Tale of Survival. Bantam Books, 2006.

Network, OnePath, director. What Is Going on in Somalia? YouTube, YouTube, 19 Oct. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1MiwrJgJ7Q.

Soc 376 “Being/Becoming Global Citizens”: 04/01/2019

“We Asked Our Staff: What Does Being a Humanitarian Mean to You?” Mercy Corps, 19 Aug. 2015, www.mercycorps.org/articles/we-asked-our-staff-what-does-being-humanitarian-mean-you.