'But it's for a good cause!'

[Smidge]

I have very strong views on charitable causes - how images and messages are packaged, abused, misused and simply used by celebs and charities to gain greater awareness of a particular cause, and therefore to encourage donations.

I believe that individuals and our society should and can take a more pro-active approach by encompassing collective responsibility with and towards the less fortunate.

For instance, why is it mostly multi-millionaire, white people who make appeals for the poor of Africa? Doesn't that feed into a underlying belief that these people are already hopelessly and helplessly desperate? There are so many Africans who are actively and pro-actively involved in working towards alleviating their communities and countries circumstances but its rare that we see or hear from them.

Here's a clip shown at the weekend on BBC tv as part of the (seemingly) never ending Comic Relief TV programming. It's is both funny and worth watching.

All/any views are welcome - on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ia__1d_rM

 

[Wolfman]

For instance, why is it mostly multi-millionaire, white people who make appeals for the poor of Africa? Doesn't that feed into a underlying belief that these people are already hopelessly and helplessly desperate? There are so many Africans who are actively and pro-actively involved in working towards alleviating their communities and countries circumstances but its rare that we see or hear from them.

Two points that occur to me off the top of my head:

1) If these multi-millionaire white people were not doing anything for Africa, just sitting around enjoying their money, what would you say about them? Seems to me to be a case of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".

2) There are plenty of Africans who are doing a lot to try to improve their situation. But guess what. They're not famous. They're not rich. In many cases, they're not terribly charismatic or handsome/beautiful.

Why is it that when Richard Mbutu (a Kenyan friend of mine who works for Doctors Without Borders in Africa, and who is an incredible person) phones CNN to request an interview about AIDS issues, he's politely refused; but when Bono does it, he gets an immediate appearance? Because nobody knows (or particularly gives a damn) about Richard, but Bono is guaranteed to draw an audience.

I'm no huge Bill Gates fan (especially in the context of the monolithic Microsoft empire), but he has done more to focus attention and money (not just his own money, either) on AIDS, and other issues, than a whole legion of people before him. And regardless of what his motives may be, that is a good thing.

Its great to be idealistic and talk about how the world should be; but idealism doesn't accomplish jack ◊◊◊◊ for those who most need help. Pragmatic reality is that the majority of people will not listen to a 'nobody', or get particularly motivated to do something for them. But stick a big celebrity up there, and suddenly people get interested, and involved. That's the reality.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I like how megawealthy celebrities berate the general public for not contributing tons of money and time to various causes. If I had millions and millions of dollars, I could afford to be generous, too. And not spend my time doing what most people do, which is work to earn the insignificant money I do have.

 

[Smidge]

Two points that occur to me off the top of my head:

1) If these multi-millionaire white people were not doing anything for Africa, just sitting around enjoying their money, what would you say about them? Seems to me to be a case of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".

2) There are plenty of Africans who are doing a lot to try to improve their situation. But guess what. They're not famous. They're not rich. In many cases, they're not terribly charismatic or handsome/beautiful.

Why is it that when Richard Mbutu (a Kenyan friend of mine who works for Doctors Without Borders in Africa, and who is an incredible person) phones CNN to request an interview about AIDS issues, he's politely refused; but when Bono does it, he gets an immediate appearance? Because nobody knows (or particularly gives a damn) about Richard, but Bono is guaranteed to draw an audience.

I'm no huge Bill Gates fan (especially in the context of the monolithic Microsoft empire), but he has done more to focus attention and money (not just his own money, either) on AIDS, and other issues, than a whole legion of people before him. And regardless of what his motives may be, that is a good thing.

Its great to be idealistic and talk about how the world should be; but idealism doesn't accomplish jack ◊◊◊◊ for those who most need help. Pragmatic reality is that the majority of people will not listen to a 'nobody', or get particularly motivated to do something for them. But stick a big celebrity up there, and suddenly people get interested, and involved. That's the reality.

The reality is depressing but it's not universal. Not everyone responds to celebs positively or responds to them at all. There are people in the world who are capable of making their own minds up too!

There is a frightening statistic about a majority of people in the US believing what a celeb says above any other authoritative figure. That's very sad and an indictment of the cult of celebrity triumphing over intelligence and informed judgment.

It’s also dangerous. If a celeb chooses to change his/her mind about supporting a causes or gives incorrect information about an issue clearly the human sheep will follow suit and/or believe them.

BTW, I wasn't actually being idealistic in the opening (I have a very dry and wry way of expressing myself) - I led the thread with a deliberately open statement to stimulate discussion.

If celebs did NOT get involved in causes I'd be absolutely delighted. There are more celebs who don't get involved than do and I'm certainly not slagging them off.

The point about Africans doing amazing work not being filmed, interviewed, shown speaking for themselves, etc, is exactly what I'm saying too. Bono and others like him can help get those people heard and give them the opportunity to be more empowered in the Western media. We would begin to accept these people as the ones to listen to on the issues concerning their country and they would appear on TV more. I’d appreciate that effort from Bono and believe I really do not like him.

Many huge US TV news corporations despite having the budget to do so will not highlight stories or causes that may not attract a good rating or audience. That the news is audience rather than issue led is another depressing and frightening fact. Though again this is not the same for the rest of the world.

The argument about being charismatic or beautiful is bizarre. You point proves, in a small way, that the packaging/branding of causes and charities has clearly been to the detriment of whatever message is attached to the cause. If some people will only respond to a beautiful person and not learn from what they are being told they are not thinking for themselves.

And that depressing point only underlines how powerful and ultimately damaging the cult of celebrity is.

As educated skeptical human beings in the privileged Western world we can do better. Leaving it up to the pretty others is not working.

 

[Smidge]

I'm bumping this to see if I can get more reactions/responses.

I'm not sure if this thread wasn't interesting enough, or that it had a youtube link to watch (which is more than 8 minutes long and is hard on anyone’s patience, but it is very much worth watching – really!) or whether it's about not questioning what charity is or should or could be about?

Or is this simply a boring thread....?

I thought it interesting, clearly as I started it but I'm intrigued as to the lack of responses and interest.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I didn't notice it originally. Sorry.

My view is that all direct charity to any African country should be immediately stopped as it harms the people of that country in the long term.

What should be done instead, is to open up the borders to free trade. The EU, for example, produces "wine lakes" and "sugar and wheat mountains" which they are unable to consume or to sell at a price which is even close to market price. These lakes and mountains are the result of subsidizing the farmers.

At the same time, the EU closes it borders for the import of these same things at a much, much lower price. And then provides aid to the countries who are poor because they can't sell their low-priced products to the EU as the EU won't allow these products across their border.

In short, total hypocracy.

The EU (and the US, Japan, etc) should simply open their borders for trade of all products.

 

[SimonD]

Kitten - when I created a thread to help promote the Irish language, you disagreed with the whole idea. I am neither a celeb, nor a 'beautiful person', just one person trying to make a difference.

Who decides what is worth while and what is not? You? Bono?

BTW - I saw a report on Bono what said that he does not pay taxes in Ireland because he is a musician. Prehaps he should contribute to his own country before worrying about another?

 

[Darth Rotor]

For instance, why is it mostly multi-millionaire, white people who make appeals for the poor of Africa? Doesn't that feed into a underlying belief that these people are already hopelessly and helplessly desperate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ia__1d_rM

The white man's burden, or the white man's guilt, or just the inspiration to charity that is a combined cultural influence of various philosophies and religions over the past few thousand years. Also, the realization that great piles of money are able to overcome a certain amount of inertia that small driblets can't, may induce a rich person to try and make a change to something easily recognized as needing change.

DR

 

[Smidge]

Kitten - when I created a thread to help promote the Irish language, you disagreed with the whole idea. I am neither a celeb, nor a 'beautiful person', just one person trying to make a difference.

I stated my opinions and reasons clearly in that thread. I didn' tobject to the thread in itself. When anyone posts somethng on a public forum all kinds of opinions can be posted. People cared so much about the issue you raised that they expressed themselves in that thread. It made for an interesting discussion and exchange of views.

However, you're thread had nothing to do with charity, how charity is branded and marketed and whether it is beneficial for a celebs to promote a particular cause.

I wonder if you read comments throughly enough. Maybe a second read would be a good idea.

I welcome all kinds of opinion here too. I asked a open question in the first post and then kick started the discussion again wondering if the thread turned peoepl off for whatever reasons. I hate repeating myself but I'm fairly certain that you haven't got th gist of what I'm saying.

I don't know how many if any people watched the clip, for instance. Maybe having a clip to download in a thread disinterests people in itself.

Who decides what is worth while and what is not? You? Bono?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. of course I don't decide what's worth while or not. How could I? That's a ridiculous silly idea. I'm not even proposing that I or anyone decides what's worth while or not - that is not the tenet of this thread. Again, I'm certain you're not reading comments closely enough before posting questions.

BTW - I saw a report on Bono what said that he does not pay taxes in Ireland because he is a musician. Prehaps he should contribute to his own country before worrying about another?

That report is incorrect.

True: U2 and the individual members of U2 are entitled to avail of a non- paying tax concession that the Irish government allows for full-time working artists in Ireland. There are various criteria that your must to fulfill to be deemed a full-time working artist.

True: Any Irish artist that fulfills the crtitera set out by the Irish government and the Irish Revenue Commissioners can qualify for this tax concession and therefore not be liable to pay tax. Some wealthy artists who avail of this are Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan - both film directors. There are lot and lots more Irish artists who do like wise no matter what their overall income is.

False: U2 don't pay tax because of this tax concession.

U2 have never availed of this tax concession evne though they are entitled to it.

However, they do avail of many other tax concssions that are available in Ireland - for example, as hotel owners and property owners they are allowed huge tax breaks.

I wrote that out as clearly as possible in order to make it easy to read. I hope I've achieved that. I also hope you re-read anything before posting questions or comments cos what you've said in relation to the theme of the thread and what I've posted here is confusing.

 

[Smidge]

The EU (and the US, Japan, etc) should simply open their borders for trade of all products.

Thanks for your opinion.

As fellow EU citizen I'm aware of the disgusting waste and over production of food stuffs.

Your last point is key - if international trade was a true fair playing field , especially between what we have termed the third world and the wealthy west there would be a huge difference in the balance of wealth. Keeping the term the third world isn't healthy. I can see why it was deemed to be called that but it keeps 'them' in their place so to speak.

There are many many countries that are deemed to be part of the Third World and not all are in Africa. Nearly all of these countries have valuable natural resources that could be traded.

For example, one country that's kept in it's place (so to speak) is the Philippines. It has valuable natural resources that it's forced to trade at fixed prices to pay off it's debt to the US.

The debt to the US get larger every day as the weak Filipino currency decreases in value against the US dollar thus ensuring that the Philippines is forever in poverty and it's poverty rate rises daily.

If the debt repayment rate was set at a fixed currency rate against the US dollar this would go a very long way to assisting the Philippines to get out of their debt.

One country that is worth watching closely is China. As it becomes a major global force in trade, commerce, production, etc, over time there will be a shift in world economic power.

 

[SimonD]

Kitten - I am trying to reply to your post, but can't seem to find the time, in between the jobs I have to do at work . I will get back to you soon, hopefully- thanks

 

[SimonD]

I stated my opinions and reasons clearly in that thread. I didn' tobject to the thread in itself. When anyone posts somethng on a public forum all kinds of opinions can be posted. People cared so much about the issue you raised that they expressed themselves in that thread. It made for an interesting discussion and exchange of views.

Thanks

However, you're thread had nothing to do with charity, how charity is branded and marketed and whether it is beneficial for a celebs to promote a particular cause.

True

I wonder if you read comments throughly enough. Maybe a second read would be a good idea.

I welcome all kinds of opinion here too. I asked a open question in the first post and then kick started the discussion again wondering if the thread turned peoepl off for whatever reasons. I hate repeating myself but I'm fairly certain that you haven't got th gist of what I'm saying.

I don't know how many if any people watched the clip, for instance. Maybe having a clip to download in a thread disinterests people in itself..

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. of course I don't decide what's worth while or not. How could I? That's a ridiculous silly idea. I'm not even proposing that I or anyone decides what's worth while or not - that is not the tenet of this thread. Again, I'm certain you're not reading comments closely enough before posting questions.

I have gone back and read everything you have written and I have to confess to misreading the posts. Sorry.

That report is incorrect.

True: U2 and the individual members of U2 are entitled to avail of a non- paying tax concession that the Irish government allows for full-time working artists in Ireland. There are various criteria that your must to fulfill to be deemed a full-time working artist.

True: Any Irish artist that fulfills the crtitera set out by the Irish government and the Irish Revenue Commissioners can qualify for this tax concession and therefore not be liable to pay tax. Some wealthy artists who avail of this are Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan - both film directors. There are lot and lots more Irish artists who do like wise no matter what their overall income is.

False: U2 don't pay tax because of this tax concession.

U2 have never availed of this tax concession evne though they are entitled to it.

However, they do avail of many other tax concssions that are available in Ireland - for example, as hotel owners and property owners they are allowed huge tax breaks..

Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read.

I wrote that out as clearly as possible in order to make it easy to read. I hope I've achieved that. I also hope you re-read anything before posting questions or comments cos what you've said in relation to the theme of the thread and what I've posted here is confusing.

The fault lies with me, not you.

I wasn't well when I was reading\posting. I should have waited till I was feeling better before saying anything. I misread what it is you where trying to say and now, not only do I have egg on my face, but have also wasted you time. I am very sorry to have done this to you.