By Matt Whiteman
One of our colleagues and occasional contributors, Tanja Bergen, was criticized in the Provice today for a rant she wrote for us at 3 in the morning in which she criticizes ignorant (yet well-meaning) celebrities for oversimplifying something kind of important.
As the principal writer for this blog (and Tanja’s room mate), I want to state that I fully support 3am rants against overly-privileged people who exploit human guilt and encroach upon productive debate around something that’s already pretty awful such as mass rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Never mind that the author of the article in the Province didn’t cite his sources (hint: us), denying Tanja any sort of context for the single, cherry picked line… readers are further distracted from more pressing issues (for example, what the connections are between (trans)national corporations and conflict in the Global South, or what the United States’ real motivations for sending thousands of troops to Haiti might be) and are reduced to squabbling over the questionable behaviour of celebrity figureheads.
I do however, thank Ethan Baron for at least portraying the Africa-Canada Accountability Coalition in a positive light, as it well deserves.
Badvocacy needs to be squashed, no matter where it comes from, and that’s part of what Tanja and company do.
***
Here is the response I left:
I love it. Armchair critics criticizing legitimate activists criticizing armchair celebrity activists criticizing rapists. I feel like I’m in a Beckett play. Or maybe Tom Stoppard.
Attention all ye anonymous strangers who criticize Ms. Bergen for “blather[ing] about what other people are doing, do[ing] nothing themselves, then mov[ing] on to the next story they can critizise [sic]”… pay a visit to the Africa Canada Accountability Coalition website: http://acacdrcongo.org/ and actually look at the work being done by she and her colleagues before making accusations of armchair criticism.
A question we should all ask ourselves – celebrities included – is “who is being served by my actions?” We all have conflicting motivations for our behaviour, but what I do take issue with is that while lending your voice in solidarity is always well-intentioned, it is usually more harmful than helpful.
It is so easy to homogenize incredible complexity, and most people do it when talking about something they don’t understand. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize somebody such as Sienna Miller for perpetuating harmful stereotypes or for oversimplifying an issue as complex as rape in the DRC. Responsible advocates criticize anybody who exhibits ignorant, harmful behaviour – they don’t discriminate.
Of course you hear the criticism of celebrities more often. That’s why they are celebrities. To accuse people of taking pot shots at celebrities is a bit of a sampling bias there folks, don’tcha think?
To pose the question of “who cares why anyone does charity work so long as it’s being done?” is to incorrectly assume that the charity paradigm is inherently a good one. Why not focus on social justice or critical consciousness instead, which means respecting human dignity and valuing competence rather than paternalism.
Or as a friend of mine rhetorically pondered: “Who is served by the Make Poverty History Campaign? Why, I wonder, isn’t there a campaign called Make Affluence History?”
6 replies on “In which people stand up and sit in arm chairs and yell a lot”
For what its worth, here are my 2 cents
I admit that the blog post (https://blogs.ubc.ca/ethicsofisl/2009/10/15/8minutes/) from which you sourced my comments takes on an unnecessarily flippant, perhaps attacking, tone. In hindsight I would have changed the tone of my post, yet I stand fully behind my criticisms of Sienna Miller’s movie. My criticism of her movie, as well as a great deal of advocacy that focuses on the African continent and the African Diaspora (Haiti, Jamaica, etc.), is that it often relies on ‘received wisdom,’ instead of rigorous research, to make policy recommendations. By this, I mean advocacy efforts that employ negative stereotypes, through labeling, to promote a specific policy paradigm. This method is problematic because it often narrows the scope of policy debate, which can lead to flawed development policy and even harm those that we seek to help. In other words, my blog post questions if good intentions and a desire to help are enough. I conclude that they are not. Rather, research-backed policy and recognition of the agency of those affected by war, violence and other development challenges are necessary to truly stand in solidarity with people struggling to ensure their human rights and dignity. Sienna Miller’s movie ‘8 minutes,’ relies on labels and narratives – not rigorous research – to support a policy paradigm. Harmful stereotypes of Africa are constantly reinforced throughout this video. Black women are portrayed solely as helpless victims, “they are *all* afraid and they pray that someone, someday, will come and help them.” The stories of rape maximize the brutality, the horror, the ‘otherness’ of African peoples. Furthermore, these labels make human beings, just like you and I, into target groups or passive objects of policy, rather than active subjects with projects and agendas of their own. From its first scene the video shuts down the space to discuss policies that could link resources and funds to the many local Congolese organizations that are doing an excellent job of speaking for themselves and advocating for their own rights. It does however establish a narrative in which helpless black women are being brutalized by demonic black men, in turn reinforcing the idea that we, the benevolent and enlightened west, know what is best for these people – how save them, how to fix their problems (as we perceive them). I would like to concede that not all celebrity activism is bad and ACAC members certainly do not claim to be perfect advocates. Recently, in the wake of the current disaster in Haiti it has been generally heartening to see celebrities using their fame to encourage their fans to donate money to credible organizations that specialize in disaster relief (though I would question advocacy that portrays Haiti as helpless or worse, unfit to govern theirselves). I would also like to commend you for drawing attention to these important issues. To encourage constructive dialogue on these issues, ACAC is developing a workshop called “So You Want to ‘Save’ Africa?” We will be holding this workshop over UBC’s International Week (March 15 – 19th, 2010 – date to be confirmed either this week or next) and would be honoured if you (and the Greater Vancouver Community) would consider attending and writing about your experience. You can contact me at contact@acacdrcongo.org. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to continue this critical discussion.
ps,
Matty, <3 🙂
“Why, I wonder, isn’t there a campaign called Make Affluence History?” you ask.
Well – why don’t you start one!!
John
Well John… it seems I spoke too soon. There IS actually a campaign called Make Affluence History: http://www.geezmagazine.org/affluence/ but it’s fairly small and it doesn’t seem very active, although none of the entries are fully dated. Also, here is the description of the magazine the campaign is based out of:
“Geez magazine has set up camp in the outback of the spiritual commons. A bustling spot for the over-churched, out-churched, un-churched and maybe even the un-churchable. For wannabe contemplatives, front-line world-changers and restless cranks.”
Perhaps it is better that it remain humble and small, but I don’t know if it’s really all that accessible to a mainstream audience. You may be on to something though. I’ll have a good think about it…
Hi Mark
Good to hear. Actually I do touch of this in my new new book Beyond Reach? which tells the story of the Make Poverty History campaign. One of the comments on the book was:
A gripping and inspiring story of forbidden love and the struggle for justice. In a hundred years people will look back on our culture of greed and realise books like this helped change the world’ – Revd. David Rhodes.
There are details on http://www.johnmadeley.com
(Royalties from the book go to agencies working to eradicate poverty).
Hi Matt –
sorry, I called you Mark
J