Let's play a game. I'll say a word and then you say the first thing that pops into your head. OK?
Malawi - Madonna
South Africa - Oprah
Sudan - George Clooney
Sudan - George Clooney
OK so this game will not work with the more development-conscious among you, but for the general population, I think these are the most common associations.Recent research highlighted that development issues get almost no coverage in the mainstream Irish press, aside from celebrity stories. So, the vast majority of media consumers consume their development news through the prism of celebrity culture.
Take a look at this map and you'll see what I mean. You can click on individual countries for an explanation on why they've been assigned their particular celebrity face.
There's also a great time line for celbrity do-gooding in Africa here.
As one commenter put it, celebs have "too much money, too much time and too much guilt".
I think it's a bad idea. It belittles Africa and Africans. Do we expect Brangelina to deal with homelessness in Europe? We'd laugh them outta the place. It minimizes VERY complex problems into soundbites and gives the impression that there's an easy solution. There isn't.
But, Celebrities raise awareness, especially among demographics that don't usually care about these issues. Sure, it's not ideal that the mainstream media present the complex problems facing Malawi via the prism of Madonna, but it's better than nothing.
Right?
I think it's pretty pointless to send celebs. They arrive, they look around, they proclaim how their lives have changed. Sometimes they leave a tiny percentage of their worth behind to do some 'good works'. Sometimes, they start an advocacy organization and do a round of appearances on the chat shows. Maybe it gets some editorials which will be read by people who already know what's going on. Maybe they start a foundation, because what the world needs is another foundation doing the same thing usurping host governments who can't afford to say no but really don't like been lectured to by some Oscar-winner. I think celbrity trips are cringy for all involved.
Especially with their stupid shoe programs. (Rant alert!) The charity work de jour: a shoe drive. Coz when you're starving to death or dying of AIDS or you're teacher has stopped showing up or your're being raped, what you REALLY want is someone's old shoes. Sure, they might not match and they're probably not your size, and sure they may be ski boots and you live on the equator, but life is better now.
Jessica Simpson has been up to this. She designs and sells shoes, so such an initiative gets her some nice publicity and costs relatively little. She is, however, clogging up distribution channels with unecessary crap and putting local shoe makers out of business.I all for being charitable, but let's be SENSIBLE too.
Don't donate shoes to overseas organisations. Bring them to your local charity shop.
I love your style Clare! And your rants, too!
About these celebs. Do you think it would make sense if their actions were presented in a more sensible way, say, “Angie went to Africa to get another child, by the way, the situation there is as follows…”? I hate their self-advertising, money-wasting, “my life has changed” (so what? others’ hasn’t) campaigns too, but do you think there is a way they could be used for a good purpose?
It’s a trade off between the awareness raised by celebs and the unintentional damage they cause -
Hah, yes. Shoe rants have been going around in the blogosphere, both as literal and metaphorical examples. I like this one on donation advice: http://www.undispatch.com/node/9435
Also (more fuel for the fire), have you heard about the Lindsay Lohan BBC doc on child trafficking? I’m interested to see how that goes…
Good point Clare!
Thanks for the comments guys.
@Giedre: I am known for my ranting so expect many more on this blog
. I think that celebs raise awareness of issues (particularly among people who wouldn’t really be into these issues i.e. the kinds of people who do celebrity blogging, as opposed to development blogging.) If the awareness were translated in funds for an already established NGO with strong links to the area, that would be positive. Problem is that too often, celebs want the glory that comes with having their OWN organisation, without having a clue how to run it. Plus, they deflect resources from the real need and I (for one) think it’s pretty mortifying.
@Lara: I agree with you. It’s a neat balance between awareness raising and preventing unintentional damange.
@Maria: As for Lindsey Lohan, I think I better now watch for the sake of my blood pressure. Why we would send a messed up teen who hasn’t yet mastered social interaction without drugs and can’t quite keep her life in order to report on one of the biggest issues of our time, I don’t understand. If I were a child who was trafficked, I’d be pretty mortified at her talking down to me. She’s hardly a saint.
Looking forward to continuing the debate among the rest of you…don’t be shy!
Clare,
Interesting rants! Thank you for this piece….Though I did like Angelina Jolie’s books on her travels to Africa and Asia. It’s a straightforward, honest account.
Will check that out, thanks Iris.
This is an interesting perspective from AidWatch on whether some celebs can do good, and it reminded me of your post: http://aidwatchers.com/2010/04/hips-dont-lie-about-aid/