Why do some people hate the Red Cross?

[dalej42]

Every now and then, I’ll run across a person who hates the Red Cross. I can think of two reasons:

The Red Cross will raise enormous amounts of money during major disasters. Not all of this money will be spent on that particular disaster.

There is probably a large layer of bureaucracy as is common in large charities.

Are either of these statements true? Are there other common reasons to dislike the Red Cross and refuse to donate to them?

[Skammer]

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50’s. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

[gazpacho]

@dalej42

The Red Cross will raise enormous amounts of money during major disasters. Not all of this money will be spent on that particular disaster.

This was a big problem in San Diego a few years back. There were some wildfires that (before the big one that burned houses in San Diego suburbs) burned a lot of Alpine. There was a big scandal about the Red Cross soliciting donations to help these people but spending very little of that money helping Alpine.

[Dewey_Finn]

I believe the Red Cross argues that their mission is immediate disaster relief. If more money is collected during a widely publicized disaster than needed for that event, they save the money to use on other disasters, some of which get less publicity.

[Ravenman]

@Skammer

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50’s. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

My grandfather sees things exactly the same way. Except the issue at hand was the Red Cross selling cups of coffee after a flood in his hometown in Iowa, but the Salvation Army gave coffee away, no charge.

[Skipper_Too]

@Skammer

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50’s. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

My grandfather had a similar experiece during WWII, while overseas Flying B17’s the Red Cross would sell cigarettes to the GIs, cigarettes that they got from donations here in the states, in his mind the Red Cross was trying to profit from it.

[Scumpup]

A friend’s dad served in the Korean war and hated the Red Cross. Reason: Selling donuts to the GI’s when the Salvation Army gave them away for free.

[zut]

@Skammer

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50’s. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

This site claims there’s more to the story than that, and that the blame lies elsewhere.

[Balle_M]

@Skipper Too

My grandfather had a similar experiece during WWII, while overseas Flying B17’s the Red Cross would sell cigarettes to the GIs, cigarettes that they got from donations here in the states, in his mind the Red Cross was trying to profit from it.

Ditto, ‘ceptin’ it was my father.

He was on a troop train going from Indiana to the east coast to ship out for England. While they were waiting for the ship the Salvation Army was handing out free coffee, donuts, shaving kits, etc. Then the Red Cross showed up, ran the SA off, and started charging for them.

The Red Cross is the one charity that I cannot remember him ever donating to.

[toadspittle]

@zut

This site claims there’s more to the story than that, and that the blame lies elsewhere.

Interesting.

B. The truth is that Red Cross officials and volunteers were just as upset about the sales as were the soldiers. The Red Cross was ordered to sell the refreshments rather than give them away as planned by Secretary of War Henry Stimson in 1942. Noting that American soldiers in Europe had more money than their Allied counterparts, Stimson feared that morale among the Allied troops was suffering. American soldier received refreshments free; Allied soldiers had to pay for them. To make living conditions more even, in the hopes of improving morale, Stimson ordered the Red Cross to charge for refreshments in the “rear area.” Mobile units that served at the front lines were exempted from the order and did not charge.

C. Although the incident occurred 50 years ago, many soldiers and their families continue to believe that the Red Cross used the war as a moneymaking opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A further question would be: ordered to sell or not, who ultimately kept the funds collected? Did the Red Cross keep the profits? Did the Army?

[toadspittle]

… and, in hindsight, maybe the Red Cross and the Army should have figured out a way to give out free refreshments to ALL Allied troops, regardless of nationality (and, yes, I do realize there are costs/limts/etc.)

[Foaming_Cleanser]

In Canada, the Red Cross ran the blood donation program, and allowed transfusions of contaminated blood

in which nearly 2,000 people contracted HIV and an estimated 20,000 people contracted hepatitis C. . . .

The Red Cross, thank Og, is out of the blood-donation picture now, but it still exists, like other evils in the world.

[Schnitte]

A fellow student of mine hates the Red Cross because he did his substitute service (Germany still has the military draft, which can be fulfilled at certain charitable institutions instead if you’re a conscientous objector) and it pissed him off. But I don’t think that’s what the OP asked for.

[bouv]

@Foaming Cleanser

In Canada, the Red Cross ran the blood donation program, and allowed transfusions of contaminated blood

The Red Cross, thank Og, is out of the blood-donation picture now, but it still exists, like other evils in the world.

So you condemn a world-wide organization for the acts of a few indivuduals in one of it’s national branches?

[Smeghead]

It still collects blood in the US, and last I heard, had angered the homosexual community for refusing to accept their blood, due to an out-of-date policy linking homosexual behavior to HIV.

[BubbaDog]

I just donated money to the RC for the hurricane effort. I’m not thrilled about the bureaucracy or inept leadership of any organization but its the best I can think of to help desperate people 700 miles away.

[dropzone]

@Smeghead

… due to an out-of-date policy linking homosexual behavior to HIV.

How is that out of date? According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure) male-male sex is still by far the primary means of transmission. I don’t suppose they want blood from intravenous drug users, either.
FTR, they don’t want mine, either.

[GorillaMan]

The Red Cross has a unique non-partisan position within the Geneva Conventions. I suspect there may be some correlation between people who have a problem with the Red Cross, and people who think the Geneva Conventions ‘outdated’ or similar.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Ravenman

but the Salvation Army gave coffee away, no charge.

Actually, it isn’t really free. You have to pray with them, or at least listen to them pray over you while you get the coffee. Even if it’s just them saying “God bless you” as they give you the coffee.

As a religious organization, the Salvation Army is trying to ‘save’ people, so the ‘free’ coffee is it’s come-on to get people to listen to it’s evangalism or to sit around and maybe read some of the literature they have around. Rather like the ‘free vacation’ you can get, if you are willing to attend a sales pitch at a vacation condo development.

Thus you are paying with your time and attention, even if you don’t have to shell out actual cash. So it really is not completely free. TANSTAAFL!

[Foaming_Cleanser]

@bouv

So you condemn a world-wide organization for the acts of a few indivuduals in one of it’s national branches?

More than a few individuals, and as is frequently the case in such stories, politics among big players was rampant. In any event, cheap, contaminated blood from an Arkansas prison has major-star status, and the Canadian Red Cross was a major player.

MURRAY DOBBIN, GLOBE AND MAIL, 2003 - It is a story that will not - and should not - die. The tainted-blood scandal is tale of bureaucratic indifference, corporate greed and regulatory failure resulting in hundreds of needless deaths from AIDS and the equally preventable infection of thousands with hepatitis C. An investigation by The Kansas City Star newspaper has jolted the story back to life in North America.

I don’t think I could be condemned, lets say, if I slammed a company for building exploding products on purpose when it didn’t do this in, for example, Australia. Consolodated Widgets is Consolodated Widgets, whether here, in the U.S. or Australia. Sticking Canada in front of its name means little.

But is this turning into a GD? I understand your objection, so maybe this should not continue here.