Somewhere I belong

Last time when I mention this issue in my blog, it was only a complaint from a concerned mother who sent her child to one of Bloom's study trip. The borrower her money funded a loan for didn't use it for dogs, so it raised concern, but did no harm. All we needed to do was to assure her that we would never support or engage in practicing animal cruelty. But till then, none of our borrowers want to borrow money to raise dogs. But the fear has finally come true. There is one request for loan to raise dogs, from a particularly difficult situation.

This matter has been discussed, and the result is likely to be a big "NO", because of the worry that "one bad comment/review on tripadvisor will hurt the business so bad". Precisely because Bloom is so young and dependent on words of mouth, we don't dare to do anything against the taste of our clients. And everyone knows where the most forceful animal activists come from. The West, of course. It is also where the most of our money come from.


So one disadvantage of combining tourism with mircrofinance is the need to please consumers. We more or less produce a service, they consume it, if they are happy, they pay, and with their money, we grow. When the customers have different values and beliefs than the people at the other end of this consumption, namely those who love eating dogs and rely heavily from money earned from them, this can create strains. If customers is more valued, i.e. demand of capital is higher than supply for capital, then it's their value and beliefs that are taken into account.


This particular woman is a special case. Here is what I wrote about her and put in the borrowers' database:




But she won't get a loan, as long as it is against the belief that dogs should not be eaten, held by those who supply the capital for her loan.
Isn't it very much imposing what you think are right on others? And you claim that you are trying to experience true and authentic Vietnamese culture, just want to do good and feel happy to make a difference? And what about "an equal exchange relationship"?

So the question is not whether we should eat dogs or not, but rather it is whether we should, according to our love for dogs and animal ethics backed by a comfortable life and secure livelihood, deny a woman a chance to feed her children and improve her life?