Red Cross, Jena 6 and Johnson & Johnson. What is at Stake?

By Compuwise, published Oct 02, 2007
Published Content: 51  Total Views: 18,022  Favorited By: 39 CPs
Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites
Rating: 3.3 of 5
 
Font
 
Font
 
Grab this
I am a little up in the air on this one. I am an ARC volunteer and part of me is okay with them doing what they thought was right, helping people. But another side of me says that they went out side of their bounds by being associated (and yes now they are forever associated) with a racially fueled event. Furthermore, I have to ask if they misused funds set aside for disaster relief. Let every church and citizen in the country attend to the needs of the people on site and I would say "okay". That is their duty and their right.

The ARC goes to great pains to make sure they remain viewed as a neutral organization, going so far as to trade their very recognizable cross symbol for a crescent as to not offend Muslims (while in Muslim countries). In my opinion, being at such a rally as the one in Jena could put that neutrality on the line.

The ARC seems to be getting involved in other heated areas. They were recently sued by Johnson & Johnson over the use of the red cross emblem. In response the ARC has filed a counter claim, accusing the for-profit pharmaceutical company of improperly using the Red Cross emblem.

Like it or not, the ARC has ended up in the middle of a controversy that could shake its very foundation. What are your thoughts?

 
Share
 
Save For Later
 
Publish Yours
 
Print
More by Compuwise
View all »
Red Cross, Jena 6 and Johnson & Johnson. What is at Stake?

a red cross

Credit: unknown

Copyright: anyone

You may also like...
Other topics: 
Resources
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 14 of 14
 
 
Tax dollars do not go the Red Cross. The Red Cross served marchers, cops, and the community in Jena. As to the poster who wrote: "...the ARC says that they were asked to come to Jena by the Parish of LaSalle and the State of Louisiana. I have verified that it was the other way around, the ARC requested to come to Jena." post yoour proof. You won;t, because you will have none. The state made the request, end of story.

Add a Comment

Posted on 01/22/2008 at 9:01:38 AM

 
It is a funny thing, the ARC says that they were asked to come to Jena by the Parish of LaSalle and the State of Louisiana. I have verified that it was the other way around, the ARC requested to come to Jena. My bone of contention with the ARC is simply the mission statement and the manner in which donations are solicited and spent. People are asked for donations to be used for disaster relief and believe that that is where their donations are used. If people knew where their donations are really going, would they still give? I think it is time for the ARC to tell the truth, or in the very least change their mission statement to cover other situations. It has been said that I feel this way because of race and I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth. The ARC has no business being at any event that is not a disaster. I would allow the possibility of being on site for a potential medical emergency if the local medical facilities would be overwhelmed by the situation. These

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/10/2007 at 12:10:00 PM

 
So, if 20,000 people lock themselves out of their cars the increased number means that they are no longer responsible for their independent actions and decisions? Or does the temperature make the difference? Either is illogical, and, like your opinion on taxes and the fact that you were happy to see the ARC there, both are irrelevant to a fundamental belief that contributions should be used for what they were donated to be used for. Do you really believe that it acceptable to solicit donations for one cause and then use them for another?

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/09/2007 at 11:10:00 AM

 
By the way the article I put up on Positvie Black Potential has no comments. Maybe because it is less controversial?

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/07/2007 at 12:10:00 PM

 
I am dismayed that ARC would use my voluntary contribution to support anything other than a true disaster or emergency. People who attended the demonstration in Jena did so of their own free will, whether the temperature was 91 or -91. If the conditions were such that they required support or supplies, then the rally organizers should have provided this - not voluntary contributors to ARC. Additionally, I read that local businesses only chose to close because rally leaders had instructed people NOT to support those businesses, as a part of their protest. My own belief or support of the rally isn't relevant at all. It's the inappropriate use of my money that bothers me, the arrogance of protestors who think it's some sort of right to benefit from my contributions, and the further arrogance of ARC to misuse contributions in this way. Protestors have a right to protest, ARC apparently has a right to use funds as they see fit......and I have a right to never contribute to ARC again.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/06/2007 at 10:10:00 AM

 
Your analogy for locking yourself out of the car and being around 20,000 people in 91 degree weather is not logical. Again, the ARC could've come out for the people of Jena and the protestors alike. Fact is, you can complain about them being there all you want. They were there. They were helpful. They were friendly. I was happy to see them. I am back. It is done.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/06/2007 at 12:10:00 AM

 
Taxes are mandatory; what is done with the taxes is NOT mandatory. If people were given the option to take out mandatory taxes and donate them to causes that they believed in, WMD would NOT be working/tested by so much more of the community. Man would've probably never gone to the moon. Health care, homelessness, better housing, less gentrification and so forth would improve. You cannot say for sure whether they volunteered to go or was it a mandatory visit from someone higher up, especially considering Jena residents felt there would be a riot. Did it ever occur to you that they may have shown up to help the folks of Jena who swore up and down that ralliers came to tear up their ratty neighborhoods?

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/06/2007 at 12:10:00 AM

 
Samontiel: To compare your taxes (which are mandatory) to contributions (which are voluntary) is not a logical comparison. Also, while there may have been people who ended up in a situation where they required assistance because of the choice that they made to be there, that is not the same as 'being in need'. If I lock myself out of my car, the ACR won't help. It's my own fault and it would be absurd for me to receive assistance that was intended to go elsewhere.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/05/2007 at 8:10:00 AM

 
I write these articles sometimes without a solid stance of my own. I look to people like Shamontiel and ScottInMA to educate me.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/05/2007 at 7:10:00 AM

 
ScottinMA, there were people "in need" while we were there. One passenger fell out from heat stroke. Regardless of whether it's voluntary or not, the ARC felt that they should be there, and I'm sure the ones who didn't want to go had the right to not go. I don't approve of the war or the WMD that Bush is harping over, but it's not like I can withhold my tax dollars for that. I think the idea of going to the moon is insanely stupid, but you better believe they're using my tax money for that. I'm a vegetarian, but I'm pretty sure some of my money is going to science to test animals. You either deal with it or take it up with Bush.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/04/2007 at 11:10:00 PM

 
As a former ARC volunteer I have to say there is a question as to whether or not the ARC over stepped it's bounds. As a person who went to Jena and drank ARC's water, I can only say, "I'm glad they were there."

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/04/2007 at 8:10:00 AM

 
I am offended at the events. Not so much because of the association with this particular event, but because people (like myself) make contributions to the ARC with the expectation that those donations will be used to provide assistance to people in need during times of disaster and emergency. My understanding is that the local authorities declared an 'emergency' but the reality is that there was no actual emergency (unless you consider poor planning an emergency), no disaster, and no one who could reasonably be considered 'in need' since they were all there voluntarily.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/04/2007 at 7:10:00 AM

 
I think that the ARC should just remain neutral to avoid any controversy :)

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/03/2007 at 8:10:00 PM

 
In my hometown, Saginaw, Michigan, I have seen the Red Cross at events on hot summer days, such as outdoor basketball tournaments. Plus any Red Cross volunteer who did not want to go, did not have to go.

Add a Comment

Posted on 10/03/2007 at 6:10:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 14 of 14
 
Most Commented On