I Joined the Peace Corps to Keep From Becoming an Asshole (It Worked, Mostly) | Hacker News Reader

I Joined the Peace Corps to Keep From Becoming an Asshole (It Worked, Mostly)

thebillfold.com

31 pointstokenadult34 comments

Normally I prefer short articles, but this one had me particularly interested, and was disappointed that it was so short. I would have been interested in learning more about the things the author experienced.

To be honest, there was the article that came out recently, I think it was posted on HN, that talked about how when Peace Corp volunteers got raped, the Peace Corp would essentially blame the victim and not help them in any way. This portrayed the PC in a really bad light, so I was interested in what ways the Peace Corp appealed to the author.

What? I have not seen the article, and obviously I can't vouch for every single staff person in a global organization, but that is a very serious accusation. The PC staff members that I knew put PCV safety as their top priority. I was involved in evacuating a volunteer from a situation that involved getting landing permission for a emergency med flight out of South Africa, a scrambled French military helicopter flight with PC medical staff and the coordination of dozens of people and three governments. When a volunteer is in danger then it is an all hands on deck situation.

Sorry, it wasn't HN it was reddit that I saw the article. A woman had an AMA about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/uj3ym/iama_former_peac...

The most shocking aspect of this was how the Peace Corps did nothing to help her afterwards, and even basically blamed her.

There was a more broad news article on this problem, here's one from last year:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/peace-corps-gang-rape-voluntee...

From the submitted blog post: "third, that I understood how ridiculous it was to say that I had no money. Out-of-state tuition at the University of Virginia is almost $50,000 per year, and my scholarship alone put me in the world’s top 1% of earners."

I liked the point in the blog post that a United States student at a decent university with full financial support for studies is, by that fact alone, basically in the top 1 percent of the world in income. When I went overseas (to Taiwan in early 1982), it was also to gain perspective on another country and another level of income, and to get out of my narrow American rut. I would go back there (or to many other places outside the United States) in a heartbeat.

I'm curious, go back to live or to visit? If the former, why haven't you?

Hah, of course he doesn't want to live there! Who would!?

/bitter sarcasm

why haven't you?

My wife (originally from Taiwan) and minor children (one of whom was born overseas) all have plenty to keep them busy and happy here in the United States at the moment, so we are all here together. As our children grow up, as our first already has, the whole world is open to them in their minds as places to live. My wife and I are each well adapted to the OTHER'S native country, so we frequently have friendly debates about where to live in old age.

"I liked the point in the blog post that a United States student at a decent university with full financial support for studies is, by that fact alone, basically in the top 1 percent of the world in income."

What number are you (and the OP) referring to? Is it the $50,000 or the portion of the $50,000 paid for by scholarship that relates to living expenses?

Well, yes, but that $50K isn't exactly fungible is it?

A lot of nations (in Europe, etc) subsidize university education such that all people who qualify pay little or no tuition (e.g. €1000 / year or similar). As such, it's not only scholarship winners at US colleges that get such benefits.

$34K/year puts you in the global 1%.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/we_are_all_...

"Am I less of an asshole? Who knows. But Peace Corps does put you in your place. I’ve never met better people and never will."

Would be good if the OP detailed more on this and also defined what is meant by "better people".

True, so I'll take a shot at it. PC is a small, self-selecting group with a decent percentage of people that are adventure seeking do-gooders. If you make it through training there there is a very high probability that you are adaptable, self-motivated, and able to integrate into a new culture. If you make it to your post (most likely after a three day ride in a bus slightly bigger than an ice cream truck with a goat on your lap) you have shown a lot of courage and perseverance. If you are still at your post two (or three) years later then you have developed patience and humility. None of these things may make you "better" than anyone else, but they are traits that distinguish you for the rest of your life.

The problem is that a large percentage of the world isn't that way. So it might not be the best survival strategy once you are back in the real world among normals and their problems and back stabbing. Unless you are from a rich family and lead a life where money isn't as important.

Rich family or not, money is not as important as following your passion and doing something you love.

"following your passion and doing something you love"

Unfortunately you simply can't consider that w/o taking into account money as part of the decision. While some people might be able to live off the grid w/o normal comforts (and without access to healthcare whereby the rest of us pay when they go to the ER which has to treat them) not everyone could live like that.

Yeah, it's not always a simple solution. And money is a factor even when people wish it weren't.

Voluntary service is a beautiful thing.

I don't like the idea being tossed around in the US about 'mandatory service' - hello oxymoron.

Service means that you're serving other people. You can certainly be forced into that.

Typically service, when used in this context, implies that you do something for somebody else at no or little benefit to yourself.

The only way this can be forced on anyone is if the government does it -- which is pretty much the reason why I am in favour of as small a government as possible.

> Typically service, when used in this context, implies that you do something for somebody else at no or little benefit to yourself

And in another context it just means "serving". So it's silly to call it an oxymoron when it's quite easy to be an involuntary servant. In fact, involuntary servitude has a long and proud history, it's called "slavery".

Or you could get paid for your service. That's not "volunteer" work but I don't think it counts as involuntary :)

Draft in US will probably slightly reign in its tendency to throw armies around in one war after another on a whim. I think that is the outcome people tossing around the idea are hoping for.

Given the military history of the US, I think that is wishful thinking. It didn't stop Vietnam or Korea from happening. Since better connected men and all women are exempt, it was unfair.

The only thing a draft in the US will do is to get a lot of people really, really angry and cause the politicians who support it to lose their offices (despite everything and all the PACS, if you have something 80% of Americans support, it will be done). If Obama does it, I would not be surprised if Texas, possibly with some of its neighboring states, leaves the union.

But yeah, it would end the system that the US has today. You can't have permanent bases overseas staffed with men drafted from their homes.

Nobody is seriously discussing a military draft in the US. Nobody actually wants it -- certainly not the generals, who already have all the volunteers they need and have no interest in babysitting a bunch of shiftless eighteen-year-olds who'd rather be anywhere else. Modern military forces require lots of expensive hardware controlled by a small number of well-trained people; we don't do cannon fodder any more.

A non-military draft to force eighteen-year-olds to go out and plant trees or pick up litter is one of those stupid ideas that gets floated around from time to time by people complaining about kids these days, but apart from being vastly politically unpopular it's almost certainly unconstitutional; the Supreme Court upheld conscription in 1918 under Congress's power to declare war and raise armies, but conscripting people for non-military purposes couldn't possibly have the same legal justification so it would have to be against the thirteenth amendment "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist"

When I read about this stuff, I wonder if the American's perspective and insight on the needs of the community they're helping could be used to help the people in other ways, by creating businesses and commerce (for example, exports for the potato harvest/getting better technology or practices, better power generation, etc.. ).

The more you get to see other realities, the better empathy you can get with them, and the less you can justify acts like import quotas (so far, I believe globalization is a net positive, but there's a long way to go still).

Some Peace Corps roles include helping build up IT infrastructure and entrepreneurship. I met with a couple once who had gone to Ecuador, she went as a nutritionist and he helped with business education and worked with entrepreneurs to get their businesses started. This isn't available in every country, and as I understand it the countries have to ask for specific roles to be filled. The other issue, in many countries they prefer (perhaps rightfully) older (perceived as experienced) individuals to provide fill the role of business mentor, educator. That creates issues due to the availability of volunteers with that background and in the age range desired.

Start here to get an idea of what it's like to join PC:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/f2tqu/peace...

"the world’s biggest problem—the fact that comfort for the few rests on exploitation of the many"

Having thrown that into this piece, I wish the author had provided some observations from her travels to back it up.

Yeah, it sounds a little bit socialist.

Snarky political asides do no one any good.

"Socialist" as a pejorative is completely non-sensical when talking about a species that has succeeded precisely because of our communal nature.

Hey, this is America here, no positive talk about socialism allowed. ;)

I can assure you that the title alone shows it didn't work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com