One of the non-profit blogs I follow – based in a country where English is not the language - recently had a comment from a person from that country which essentially said “why is there so much English on this blog?” The assumption being that if it were a true local effort, with the goal of only raising awareness of people in that country, there would be no need for English. I also took this to include the presumption that English was used in order to air the country’s dirty laundry to the world (in the view of the commenter) and also to garner foreign support.

Many people, fairly enough, don’t feel pleased when foreigners come to their country and “show” them how to do things the “right way.” Most of us don’t want to be told that what we are doing is wrong…and believing that things fit neatly into clear categories of right and wrong is usually not accurate.

I think it is in fact important to respect this; people have their own ways, and who are outsiders to come and say those ways are wrong.

At the same time, change has to come somehow and in my mind, change almost presupposes a catalyst. Maybe the catalyst can be someone in the group…but if it is someone from outside the group does that mean it will fail? I don’t think so, or I hope not. It would seem that creating a good situation is more important than the agent of change.

There is though something to be said for maintaining a given change. I do think that if a change comes from outside, while it’s not necessarily bad, maintaining it may be an uphill battle if there is little or no local will for it. Sometimes a community needs to want a change and things need a local population rooting for them before they will take root.

What does this mean in practice? Does it mean people should only ever try to change their own communities?

Obviously this is an issue worthy of a discussion longer than 361 words, and one that probably shouldn’t be a monologue…but what do you think?