So a friend sent me a link to the Visible Children Tumblr site and asked what I thought about. At first I thought, "Ugh! This is so long. I don't want to read it!!" LOL But it didn't take that long to read. It just looks long because of the formatting...but that's neither here nor there. Anywho, since I haven't blogged in a while, I figured I'd tell everyone what I think :) And those who care will actually read. I've posted quotes from the Visible Children site in bold and my response/thoughts below:
KONY 2012 is the product of a group called Invisible Children, a controversial activist group and not-for-profit. They’ve released 11 films, most with an accompanying bracelet colour (KONY 2012 is fittingly red), all of which focus on Joseph Kony. When we buy merch from them, when we link to their video, when we put up posters linking to their website, we support the organization. I don’t think that’s a good thing, and I’m not alone.
Agreed: I have criticized organizations for doing this for years. I, quite frankly, think it's a waste of time and money. The fact that you, teenager in America, Australia, Canada, or whatever developed nation you're from, is spending money on a whistle or colored (without the 'u' ;) bracelet and wearing it to "raise awareness" about a war means absolutely nothing. Your bracelet won't stop anything. Let's be honest; it makes you feel good about yourself because you can show all your friends your cute little bracelet and you sound really compassionate (and even worldly) because you actually KNOW there is a war in Uganda. You are even a step ahead because you know Uganda isn't next to Egypt. Keeping it 100, as they say, you're wasting your money. Needless to say, I won't be wearing a KONY 2012 bracelet.
Invisible Children has been condemned time and time again. As a registered not-for-profit, its finances are public. Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production.
Eeek. As a nonprofit organization founder and director I am a little more sensitive to this topic, BUT 32% going to direct services does seem a bit low. However, I'd do my own research first too see what exactly are being considered as "direct services" before I criticize IC. I've always looked at Invisible Children as an awareness organization. To me, they make movies and spread the word (which they do very well). In order to do that they have to spend money on salaries, office buildings, travel, etc. Most people don't realize that you can't just give $10 to an organization and in turn $10 will go to building a school, feeding someone, etc. That's not the way it works. Nonprofits need money for travel, salaries, phone bills, power bills, etc etc. I was actually surprised when I found out Invisible Children also builds schools and has "direct services." It actually makes me like them a little less. My personal opinion is that nonprofit organizations try to do too much. If you are good at making movies, make movies. If you are good at building schools, build schools. If you are good at feeding programs, feed people. It's as if the nonprofit world doesn't understand the idea of comparative advantage. Everyone is trying to do everything. Pick one thing. Be good at it, and partner with other organizations to do the rest.
The group is in favour of direct military intervention, and their money supports the Ugandan government’s army and various other military forces.
Well do you have another proposal? Perhaps we should just call Kony on his cell and ask him to stop? Or maybe just get a group of girl scouts to go out? I'm not one to support useless military action, violence, etc., but you just can't talk to some people.
Still, the bulk of Invisible Children’s spending isn’t on supporting African militias, but on awareness and filmmaking. Which can be great, except that Foreign Affairs has claimed that Invisible Children (among others) “manipulates facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil.” He’s certainly evil, but exaggeration and manipulation to capture the public eye is unproductive, unprofessional and dishonest.
Ok. If they are manipulating facts and figures then yeah, that's bad, especially in a situation like this where you don't actually NEED to. People are going to care and be outraged if there are 10,000 child soldiers or 30,000. You don't need to lie. People care about dead, sick, poor children. Period.
As Chris Blattman, a political scientist at Yale, writes on the topic of IC’s programming, “There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. […] It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming. Usually misconceived programming.”
Eh. Have to disagree here. I don't get that whole "We are white people here to save the world and relieve our guilt" feeling from Invisible Children. I do agree that many people (at least Americans because I can't speak for other citizens of developed nations because I haven't talked to them) do have that naive-let's-save-the-world motivation and it's quite annoying. I mean people ask me all the time what I'm "up to" and I, more often than not, say, "You know. Saving the world and what not"... but I don't ACTUALLY think that what I'm doing is going to save the world. Some people, on the other hand, do think they can actually save the entire world, or at least an entire poverty-stricken village. However, I don't think Invisible Children sends a, "Stop Kony, Save Africa" message. I don't get that savior deal from them.
Military intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away. If people know this and still support Invisible Children because they feel it’s the best solution based on their knowledge and research, I have no issue with that. But I don’t think most people are in that position, and that’s a problem.
Agreed. Do your research folks. Know the issues.
Giving your money and public support to Invisible Children so they can spend it on supporting ill-advised violent intervention and movie #12 isn’t helping. Do I have a better answer? No, I don’t, but that doesn’t mean that you should support KONY 2012 just because it’s something. Something isn’t always better than nothing. Sometimes it’s worse.
Well I personally think that if you don't have a better solution you shouldn't criticize what others are doing. At least they're doing SOMETHING. I don't think that not doing anything is a viable, or respectable, alternative. We didn't stop "fighting terrorism" (I put that in quotes because I'm still not sold on the fact that that's indeed what we were fighting) because terrorists might make more bombs. You don't choose not to fight Kony because he might abduct more children. He's going to abduct children anyway!
Overall, I'm quite proud of Invisible Children. As I said, I don't usually jump on the awareness bandwagon, but this movement actually has a goal. The point is to tell people who Kony is and motivate people to pressure the government to do something. The goal is simple: find Kony and arrest him. I will say that when I saw people posting KONY 2012 profile pictures I thought, "Whoa! Is this guy running for office?? Let me do some research." The method is ingenious honestly, especially since it's election season in the States. Will arresting Kony stop everything immediately? Of course not. Kony isn't going around to every village solo dolo kidnapping children. He has a team of supporters. Did killing Osama bin Laden stop terrorism?? No. But it was a step in the right direction. Will new programs to help integrate children back into society be needed? Most definitely. Will new funds be needed for counseling and housing and education? Of course. But it's almost impossible, and also ineffective for Invisible Children's mission to explain that to everyone. They've done a good job of keeping it simple, informative, and emotionally appealing. Unfortunately, the average person is about as smart as Gavin. Show them a picture, some facts, and get to the point. People don't have the capacity to soak in everything else. Overall, I applaud IC for this new campaign. I'm not going to buy a bracelet because I don't want to waste my money, but I will share the video and contact my reps.
No comments:
Post a Comment