Christmas wish rudeness?

[RebeccainGA]

Having that poor kid, I'd say, it's better he didn't get that one big gift. Why? Pawn shop it would have gone, as soon as a parent ran short on cash (be it for groceries or booze or medical bills). Plus, those games aren't fun, most of the time, without internet access ($$), subscriptions to the service ($$), a good size TV ($$), and game discs ($$). It's be like buying a quilter the best Pfaff quilting machine they sell - and then telling them they can't have any fabric or thread.

Most of those charities have generic gifts - and that's exactly what they are, generic. Getting something that was at least chosen by someone who knew the age, if not the kid, was probably better than a generic gift from the pool of available things.

[Lady Snowdon]

It's very interesting to see how many posters are advocating looking at the wishlist before choosing a tag.  In my experience, there isn't any way to do that.  My workplace does an "Angel tree" every year, and the ornaments on it are put together in such a way that you cannot see what the child is wishing for before you pull it off the tree and open it up.  You can see the child's age and gender just fine, but the actual wish list itself is hidden.  This has actually put me off choosing to participate, because there's no way to know what the kid wants until you've committed yourself, and I don't want to take the chance that they're asking for something out of my budget. 

[camlan]

The reason you stick to the list is not because it is a charity or because they are a kid. It is because you don't even know who they are. Apart from the list you have no idea about their inerests, talents, responsibilities or experiences.

True. But in this case, the list contained only one item.

There were three ways this could have played out.

Someone picks the ornament and buys the expensive gift.

No one picks the ornament and the charity gives the kid a few generic gifts.

Someone picks the ornament, does not buy the one thing on the list, and gets some age-appropriate gifts.

Honestly, while there's a chance someone might have swooped in a day or two before Christmas and decided to buy the expensive gift, I don't think the odds were good. There's not a whole lot of difference between the other two options for the kid who is getting the gifts. And the OP saved the charity some money and now the charity has a few more generic gifts to spread around.

The charities in my area have to approve the children's list. They don't allow them to list "iPod," for example, but will let them ask for "MP3 player." The kids are steered away from the really expensive requests and are told to make multiple requests, say 3 or 4, to give the giver a few options.

[DottyG]

Understand that I'm not saying every organization works this way.  I'm sure there may be some that don't do this.  However, it is something that you need to be aware of, because the ones that do this aren't always up-front about it.

Many organizations that do these trees don't work the way you think they do.  When you get a child's name, that child may or may not actually get the gifts you buy.  What actually happens (and I think this is kind of sneaky on the part of the organization - one big one, in particular, that most people do these trees with) is that the gifts actually go into a warehouse type deal.  The gifts are sorted according to ages and each child gets to come in and pick X number of gifts from their section.  Yes, you think you're getting little Billy Bob a nice toy truck, but that doesn't mean that Billy Bob ended up with it.  His suggestion was just given in order to determine what a 6 year old boy wants these days.

While I can see that this evens out the goods - because some people do go for the really expensive items and some don't (and this could, conceivably, end up with one child in a family's getting something really expensive and one with something that's not), I think groups need to be honest about doing it.  If the people who are donating at least had this info, it would be more fair.  And it might cut down on the very issue this thread was started for.

This is actually why I won't do the trees anymore.  Because the year I found this out was the one in which I'd gone to a great deal of trouble to get my child some really great things - including some personalized ones.  Finding out that she may not even see what I'd bought for her discouraged me.
 
 

[Iris]

Having that poor kid, I'd say, it's better he didn't get that one big gift. Why? Pawn shop it would have gone, as soon as a parent ran short on cash (be it for groceries or booze or medical bills). Plus, those games aren't fun, most of the time, without internet access ($$), subscriptions to the service ($$), a good size TV ($$), and game discs ($$). It's be like buying a quilter the best Pfaff quilting machine they sell - and then telling them they can't have any fabric or thread.

Most of those charities have generic gifts - and that's exactly what they are, generic. Getting something that was at least chosen by someone who knew the age, if not the kid, was probably better than a generic gift from the pool of available things.

I'm afraid I thought that too. If a family is very poor then a high priced item that can be exchanged for cash almost certainly will be. Not saying that that is the intent, but if you can't buy one child medicine (or food!) and a brand new item worth $$$$ falls into the lap of the other child...

[Sharnita]

Having that poor kid, I'd say, it's better he didn't get that one big gift. Why? Pawn shop it would have gone, as soon as a parent ran short on cash (be it for groceries or booze or medical bills). Plus, those games aren't fun, most of the time, without internet access ($$), subscriptions to the service ($$), a good size TV ($$), and game discs ($$). It's be like buying a quilter the best Pfaff quilting machine they sell - and then telling them they can't have any fabric or thread.

Most of those charities have generic gifts - and that's exactly what they are, generic. Getting something that was at least chosen by someone who knew the age, if not the kid, was probably better than a generic gift from the pool of available things.

I think the assumptions made here are pretty insulting but I have to see planning to make sure that even if they need money for food or medicine that they can't get it from the monetary value of a CHristmas gift actually strikes me as pretty twisted.  I mean are we seriously sayning that it is important to make sure that even if the family gets to that point people will get satisfaction knowing the hingry/sick family members won't get anything for their Monopoly game?

I'm afraid I thought that too. If a family is very poor then a high priced item that can be exchanged for cash almost certainly will be. Not saying that that is the intent, but if you can't buy one child medicine (or food!) and a brand new item worth $$$$ falls into the lap of the other child...

[Iris]

Having that poor kid, I'd say, it's better he didn't get that one big gift. Why? Pawn shop it would have gone, as soon as a parent ran short on cash (be it for groceries or booze or medical bills). Plus, those games aren't fun, most of the time, without internet access ($$), subscriptions to the service ($$), a good size TV ($$), and game discs ($$). It's be like buying a quilter the best Pfaff quilting machine they sell - and then telling them they can't have any fabric or thread.

Most of those charities have generic gifts - and that's exactly what they are, generic. Getting something that was at least chosen by someone who knew the age, if not the kid, was probably better than a generic gift from the pool of available things.

I think the assumptions made here are pretty insulting but I have to see planning to make sure that even if they need money for food or medicine that they can't get it from the monetary value of a CHristmas gift actually strikes me as pretty twisted.  I mean are we seriously sayning that it is important to make sure that even if the family gets to that point people will get satisfaction knowing the hingry/sick family members won't get anything for their Monopoly game?

I'm afraid I thought that too. If a family is very poor then a high priced item that can be exchanged for cash almost certainly will be. Not saying that that is the intent, but if you can't buy one child medicine (or food!) and a brand new item worth $$$$ falls into the lap of the other child...

Wow, Sharnita. Don't hold back. Let us know what you REALLY think.

Anyway, who's making plans? Presumably if one wanted to give a gift to a child it's because one wants that child to have a gift. If one wanted to feed the hungry, one would be better off turning up at their house with a basket of food, not giving their child something that can be returned for cash. RebeccainGA was merely pointing out that although a child from a very poor family may WANT (say) a playstation, there is a reasonable chance that they won't get to keep the playstation. The reality is that that's true - I personally know someone whose child won an OS holiday, but since there was no way that their family could afford the extras such as passports, meals etc, they sold the trip to other people and used the cash to buy some sorely needed things. I don't have a problem with that at all, but if your main aim was to give that child a happy occasion then that failed, because child (although a lovely and mature child) was still bitterly disappointed to have this trip waved in front of their face and taken away.

That is the reality of extreme poverty. If you don't like it I can't help that, but neither RebeccainGA or I at all suggested that one should 'plan to make sure that they can't get monetary value from a christmas gift'. We merely stated the fact that people probably WOULD get monetary value from a christmas gift of that type.

[Sharnita]

That seems to be exactly what you are both suggesting.  As far as the reality of extreme poverty, I am pretty familiar with it - I have worked with many students who fell into that category.  There are actually a few other realities.  A family that was doing well last year could have a change in circumstances this year so they might have the tv Rebeccaine seemed concerned about.  There is also the reality that if they are at the point of pawning stuff for food and medicine they could end up homeless and have to get rid of a good deal of their belngings, including many of the items they couldn't pawn or sell.

FInally, stating they probably wouldget monetary value from a gift like that is make a leap of pretty large proportions and strikes me as extremely disturbing. If people are participating in these kinds of gift giving charities with that level of cynical suspicion then perhaps they would be better off staying away.

[WillyNilly]

Aw heck I'm not even poor - when my brother gave me a PlayStation I took that box straight to GameStop unopened and sold it! Sure a game system is nice, but I had things I need/wanted more then a system that runs on $20-40 games!

[Sharnita]

Aw heck I'm not even poor - when my brother gave me a PlayStation I took that box straight to GameStop unopened and sold it! Sure a game system is nice, but I had things I need/wanted more then a system that runs on $20-40 games!

Did you specifically ask for it?

[oogyda]

So what happens if the kid asks for a $300. gaming system and no one buys it?  Does that kid go without anything for Xmas?  I doubt the charity is going to spend that much on one present, so what happens to that kid?  No Christmas at all?

OP, your kindness and generosity are heartwarming to me.  Good on you for sponsoring not only one but two children this Holiday season.  I think you did just right sending the gift receipts for the clothing but not the toys.  Even if the clothing is returned for cash for something the parents want, the kids will be able to keep the toys. 

I don't think you were rude for taking this boys name even though you couldn't afford to buy him the expensive item he wanted.  There were only 3-4 names left, and I am afraid he would have received nothing at all if you hadn't taken his name.

Don't we say here that wish lists are guidelines and no one should expect to receive everything (or anything) on their list?  Why does this change now?  Because it is a charity or because it is a kid (or maybe both)?

Funny how you took my thoughts and put them to words so much better than I could have. 

[WillyNilly]

Aw heck I'm not even poor - when my brother gave me a PlayStation I took that box straight to GameStop unopened and sold it! Sure a game system is nice, but I had things I need/wanted more then a system that runs on $20-40 games!

Did you specifically ask for it?

No... but I knew he was going to give it to me in advance and knew my choice was PlayStation or nothing else and I didn't tell him to not send it. I said thank you and gushed over the generousity and sold it.

People do do things like that.

Years ago I gave my BF at the time a Rolex that had been my uncle's. BF & I were living paycheck to paycheck on a tight budget at the time. His friend - a well off guy with a nice income - saw it and first hing he said was "you should sell that!"

[Sharnita]

Even in the situation you describe that is significantly different from being able to ask for anything and asking for something with the intention of turning around and pawing it which is the assumption being made here.

[penelope2017]

Aw heck I'm not even poor - when my brother gave me a PlayStation I took that box straight to GameStop unopened and sold it! Sure a game system is nice, but I had things I need/wanted more then a system that runs on $20-40 games!

Did you specifically ask for it?

No... but I knew he was going to give it to me in advance and knew my choice was PlayStation or nothing else and I didn't tell him to not send it. I said thank you and gushed over the generousity and sold it.

People do do things like that.

Years ago I gave my BF at the time a Rolex that had been my uncle's. BF & I were living paycheck to paycheck on a tight budget at the time. His friend - a well off guy with a nice income - saw it and first hing he said was "you should sell that!"

Wait, you told your brother you'd accept no other gaming system than PlayStation. You knew he was buying it for you and allowed him to buy you this expensive gift with the intention to immediately turn it over for the cash? I'm sorry if I misunderstood. But that's what it sounded like you said.

If that's what actually happened, I'm sorry but that sounds unethical to me to do to anyone, let alone to a generous sibling. If you don't need a gaming system why didn't you tell him that knowing he was buying it? Did he know you did that?

[JenJay]

I think WN meant her brother told her she WAS getting the play station and that was that. If she  had refused the PS she'd have received nothing.