100 Days 100 Dollars

Frank Ritchie aka Servant (link down the side) has got me thinking. He is currently doing 14 days just eating rice. Find out more on his blog. Anyway after all my ranting and raving about poverty and kingdom living and blah blah, I have found something. Not just something but 100 Days 100 Dollars. 100 Days 100 Dollars is a NZ campaign which challenges everyday NZers to roll up there sleeves and do something about poverty in Kiberia i.e. raise $100 in 100 days. I have joined.

- Kiberia has the population of Auckland residents, live in an area the size of the CBD of Auckland

- It is is a slum occupying 630 acres on the edge of Nairobi in Kenya, East Africa.

- With over a million people living in a space ¾ the size of New York's Central Park it is one of the most crowded places on earth, the largest slum in Africa, and one of the largest on earth.

- There are more than 100,000 orphaned children living in Kibera, the majority orphaned by AIDS.

- Parts of Kibera average only 1 square metre of floor space per person in a ramshackle house connected by mud filled alleys that are often only half a metre wide.

- There is no running water, garbage disposal, or utilities including electricity available for residents.

- To obtain water, residents pay up to ten times the going rate to fill buckets from a tap and carry it back through the slums to their home.

- There is only 1 toilet for every 500 people in the slum. Most people defecate in plastic bags and throw them into public places or onto roofs.

- Kibera is criss-crossed by open sewers and drains awash with human excrement from both inside and outside the slum as well as waste-water and garbage.

- Residents are often forced to pay exorbitant rents for tin shacks which are owned by landlords from outside of the slums.

- There are only 3 public schools in Kibera and children are trapped in an ever increasing cycle of poverty and lack of education.

- With open drains, sewers and pools of polluted water providing a breeding ground for mosquitoes, malaria is a significant year-round problem.

Wish to join me?

Posted in |

12 thoughts - add yours!:

  1. stan Says:

    special : )

    however, private charity isn't a good way to solve third world poverty

  2. Lisa Says:

    , Stan, I don't know whether to take that as a sarcastic comment or not, but I am going to give you the benefit of grace.,

    Firstly I believe poverty is a very complex issue. (As my friend Fi has discussed with me :P) I do not for one moment think that I myself can solve all of the worlds ills, nor do I claim too. It is one that needs to be tackled from bottom up and top down and hence effects all of us, and as Christians should rock us to the core of our being.

    Secondly I have great belief that as Christians we should be working to influence those in power to make change and influence those to solve the issue of poverty, hence my support of the Micah challenge - see link down the side.

    Thirdly as the beatitudes and Jesus teaching throughout the gospels show (and one can argue even throughout the Old Testament) God calls each INDIVIDUAL within the christian COMMUNITY to be active in the world and to love their neighbour. Seeking justice and kingdom principles. I believe I am doing this by 100 Days 100 Dollars.

    While I agree that 'private charity' as you put it Stan will not solve third world poverty, I do know that I am truely answering the call of Christ to be actively loving my neighbour and caring for those who God cares for.

    Fourthly may I humbly ask what you have done lately in the way of pursuing the cause of third world poverty?

  3. stan Says:

    firstly, what i was meaning was what is required to make a real difference is a change in government in those countries and the best way to help them is through politics

    so many charitable causes have come into existence recently and all ask for people to give, like Make Poverty History or 7% Aid, but they all ignore economic conditions and how the problem isn't solved through those means and in some circumstances the situation of those people are worsened because not only does the government end up exploiting the country but the people there become complacent in expecting the government to do anything because help comes from foreigners

    private charities like World Vision always show communities being helped and stuff but that makes up a tiny portion, and although it is arguable even saving a small life is worth it you have to ask whether the opportunity cost has been offset by how that money could have been spent otherwise. if you were going to spend your $40 a month on CDs or whatever then of course it's good to sponsor a child. however, there are other possibilities such as investing in businesses that trade with those countries' local industries which will help them with their economic development

    i don't know if you've ever studied economics before but you learn a lot through studying what makes countries richer and what causes them to stay in poverty, and private charity makes up a very small percentage, whereas productivity growth with accountable government can change a nation within a decade

    secondly, i'll check out the Micah link after i post this... so if what i've written is inapplicable in light of that just ignore what i wrote

    thirdly good on you : )

    fourthly Matthew chapter six...

  4. stan Says: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
  5. Tim Says:

    Stan, you want a change of government to solve poverty. Kibera is in Kenya. Kenya is a democracy. Democracies work best when the voters are educated. Education is the main goal of 100 days 100 dollars.

  6. Huggies Says:

    Hey Lisa - thanks for putting that up! I've been interested in Kibera ever since I saw Sarah McLachlan's "World on Fire" video.

    Wonderful. I'm in too. Am aiming to ask 50 people for $2. Happy to contribute to your $100 if you want.

    Stan, you write... a lot :) There were some interesting points in there, but I skimmed quite a bit. Maybe you should start your own blog? (although I should warn you, they're addictive).

  7. Lisa Says:

    Stan I have deleted your last comment because like you said it was off on a tangent.

    I do think you bought up some good points though. I will address your comments from that particular post soon.


  8. stan Says:

    i guess you're right Tim, it's just disappointing that they have to rely on it being provided by outside organisations

    i have got my own blog (www.jesuscrux.net)... i just can't think of anything to post : P

  9. stan Says:

    and in case that last post sounded like i was being against loving your neighbours... what i'm saying is we have to look at why some nations are able to develop autonomously while others cannot - it really all comes down to the balance between Left and Right, and where power and capital is concentrated into the hands of the government (Left) then communities are unable to rise up and be strong for themselves

  10. servant Says:


    I think you're missing the point of what Lisa is saying.... top down, bottom up. This works on ALL levels.... government and private, from within those nations and from without.

    Attributing poverty simply to the governments within those nations is far too simplistic (and I'm guessing you know it).

    Historically many of those nations subjected themselves to debt with stupid interest rates that wealthier nations decided to charge. The money was used poorly and now we have a major problem on our hands. We have nations where more money is going out to pay debts than there is, aid going in. No matter how good a government is, that's going to cripple a nation.

    Then we have issues of trade. You say invest in businesses that trade with such nations, but the barriers to trade favour wealthier nations. Free trade deals generally are not free trade. You can find Coca Cola bottles in the back blocks of Africa because in order for debt to be reduced etc, some nations have had to open their borders to western product.... the same has not happened in return.

    Giving must be smart, but private charity can and does make a large difference, affecting whole communities. I personally sponsor a child where the money is given directly to the education centre that she attends. She is being educated because of the money I give. I also give to micro-enterprise where small loans are given so people can start small businesses... the money is then paid back and keeps working through the cycle. We also support Watoto Ministries which provides a family life for orphaned children in Uganda. The ministry has been around long enough to see some of the children grow up and head off to university.... studying things like law and medicine. There's a bottom up change.

    Private charity works at a ground level and is a very long term strategy. To ignore it is to take out one level of the building.

  11. servant Says:

    On the trade issue.... to give an example of how damaging it can be if not handled properly... we are seeing glimpses of the problem in our own nation where our manufacturing industry has been decimated by the loosening of trade with countries like China. Imagine a poor nation being flooded with products that destroy it's own industry in a very short span of time. It can take generations to readjust ones primary industries to diversify outside of the products ones country had a primary focus on.

    For instance, where farmers in some of these nations may have been supplying various farming produce, they may have had to open up to similar product from outside that may be better quality.... thus decimating the ability of their own farmers to compete.

    Or the coffee industry. Because coffee is a primary export for some nations and they know nothing else, often they are subjected to taking prices for the coffee that see them lose money rather than gain (the coffee industry is notorious for this).

    The issue is far more complex than any blog comment can delve into.

  12. stan Says:

    servant... your comment on China shows your lack of understanding on the issue. do you really think first world countries are exporting to third world countries and flanking their primary industries? imports from China for our local economy is good, it screws up our primary industry but it ought to because as long as we stay in that market we're encouraging our producers to stay at a level of production our competitors can do better - look up comparative advantage (even on Wikipedia) to understand a very simple economic concept. it's also good for poor countries because they're able to get into a sector that eventually benefits their economy and helps them grow

    anyhow, it's a pain debating these things with people who have little understanding of economics and quote Make Poverty History's official lines. we had a big discussion here where i made the effort to go into it so if you were genuinely interested in finding out how trade affects countries and why the examples you have given are, to put it bluntly, ignorant arguments based on a lack of understanding, you can see our discussion here


    if you prefer to see directly how private charity would work properly rather than Left-wing causes