Yeah, I'm still talking about this.
As my sister says, sorry I'm not sorry.
Invisible Children has responded to the criticism. I appreciate the clarifications they offer regarding their finances--part of me thinks this info should have been more available up-front, but we can't all think of everything (though I think if you're asking for people's money in any significant amount this is one thing you really should think of). Regardless, kudos to them for getting it up quickly and for being relatively thorough.
However, I didn't see any response to what I actually find most troubling about them, which is the content and the nature of their discourse, especially in the video that's gone viral. One really can't escape the fact that this is a campaign for Ugandan children that is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly white-focused--I'm not going to go back and check the timing on the video to be sure, but I think something like ten minutes go by before you even see more than a glimpse of your first Ugandan. Even before it really hit me how problematic this thing is, I recall feeling unsettled by that. I was like... wait, isn't this supposed to be about Uganda? Dude, your kid is very cute and all, but when do we talk about the Ugandans?
Even Jacob, the footage of whom is heartrending and who I badly want to help in any way I can, is presented almost entirely as a victim. He has no agency. He has no power. One might respond that of course he has no power, his power has been taken away from him by a brutal and vicious man, and this would be at least partially correct, but he isn't even presented as possessing the possibility of power. His victimization is the most important thing about him. That's poisonous, no matter how good the intent.
There's a much better item-by-item criticism of the elements of the video here, but I really feel like it's worth restating: The Kony 2012 video combines the worst of subtle racism, overt over-simplification of a very complicated problem, and a white messianic complex. It's part of a discourse that is harmful, has always been harmful, and doesn't really have the capacity to be anything other than harmful. When you "raise awareness" by sharing it, you propagate that discourse.
This is where I've seen a lot of people say that "something is better than nothing." That seems to be the primary defense at the moment: "at least people know about it now and something is better than nothing."
And that's also a huge problem.
First of all, what was there in Uganda and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa before IC got there was not nothing, and to suggest that this is the case erases both the valuable work of better organized and better conceived charitable organizations, and the agency and strength of the African people themselves.
But secondly and more important, I'm hugely skeptical of this idea that "something is better than nothing."
I understand why we go there, cognitively. I understand why it makes sense to think that partially informed awareness is better than no awareness at all. I understand the logic behind it. But I think it's beyond wrong. I think something is often quite a lot worse than nothing, especially where guns are involved. Everyone who is offering this as a defense of IC's discourse: Go do some research on development and its history, especially where development shades into armed intervention in the affairs of other nations, and come back and tell me that something is always better than nothing.
This idea is really the dark side of the American spirit: That we, with our know-how and our expertise and our gumption and our determination and our righteousness, we can go out there and we can fix the world. We can make it all better. And our noble intentions will insulate us and others from catastrophe.
By some estimates, over 115,000 civilian men, women, and children are dead in Iraq right now because we thought that something would be better than nothing.
This does not provide its own justification. Anyone who honestly thinks that is a fool. A fool with good intentions, but still a fool. A dangerous fool who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near policy.
In IC's video, the conflict in Uganda is presented as an odd artifact of this time and place rather than a complex event with deep historical roots and profound implications for the role of the white West. Never, as far as I saw, is it suggested that we might want to consider our own role in the creation of Joseph Kony. Never once is the history of colonialism mentioned. Race just doesn't come up at all. Neither does the sheer complexity that always seems to characterize these conflicts. IC is telling a simple story; the problem is that this simple story is a story for children and as such it contains none of the information that an adult would require to act intelligently. And IC does not seem especially interested in suggesting that more information is needed. "Here," the video seems to me to be saying, "this is all you really need to know. Now do something."
Yes, I understand that this is what has allowed it to go as massively viral as it has. Nuance doesn't lend itself to a successful viral campaign. The interrogation of one's own privilege doesn't lend itself to a successful viral campaign.
But this campaign is about a push for advocacy, and as such it's about policy. And policy that's backed by this idea that "something must be better than nothing" is murderous. It is literally murderous. It gets people killed.
I teach college. I'm in higher education. I hate ignorance. But I think that simple ignorance is often much less harmful than bad information. So to all the people who are saying that "at least people know about this now": I don't buy that as a justification. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
[also] Hey, look, an actual Ugandan person with an opinion on this subject.
I am coherent enough to realize when someone is trying to genuinely do good. At the surface, there’s nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with assuming that the people who you are trying to help 1) need help, 2) want your help, or 3) can’t help themselves. IC and this video assumes all the above. Before anyone says ‘why haven’t you done anything to stop Kony?’, may I point out that it took the world’s most sophisticated army over a decade and billions of dollars to catch Osama bin Laden. Kony has been on the run for 25+ years. On a continent 3 times the size of America. Catching & stopping him is not a priority of immediate concern. You know what is? Finding a bed net so that millions of kids don’t die every day from malaria. How many of you know that more Ugandans died in road accidents last year (2838) than have died in the past 3 years from LRA attacks in whole of central Africa(2400)? We’ve picked our battles and we chose to simply try to live. And the world should be helping us live on our own terms, by respecting our agency to choose which battles to put capacity towards.
This entry was originally posted (with
comments) at my Dreamwidth.
Invisible Children has responded to the criticism. I appreciate the clarifications they offer regarding their finances--part of me thinks this info should have been more available up-front, but we can't all think of everything (though I think if you're asking for people's money in any significant amount this is one thing you really should think of). Regardless, kudos to them for getting it up quickly and for being relatively thorough.
However, I didn't see any response to what I actually find most troubling about them, which is the content and the nature of their discourse, especially in the video that's gone viral. One really can't escape the fact that this is a campaign for Ugandan children that is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly white-focused--I'm not going to go back and check the timing on the video to be sure, but I think something like ten minutes go by before you even see more than a glimpse of your first Ugandan. Even before it really hit me how problematic this thing is, I recall feeling unsettled by that. I was like... wait, isn't this supposed to be about Uganda? Dude, your kid is very cute and all, but when do we talk about the Ugandans?
Even Jacob, the footage of whom is heartrending and who I badly want to help in any way I can, is presented almost entirely as a victim. He has no agency. He has no power. One might respond that of course he has no power, his power has been taken away from him by a brutal and vicious man, and this would be at least partially correct, but he isn't even presented as possessing the possibility of power. His victimization is the most important thing about him. That's poisonous, no matter how good the intent.
There's a much better item-by-item criticism of the elements of the video here, but I really feel like it's worth restating: The Kony 2012 video combines the worst of subtle racism, overt over-simplification of a very complicated problem, and a white messianic complex. It's part of a discourse that is harmful, has always been harmful, and doesn't really have the capacity to be anything other than harmful. When you "raise awareness" by sharing it, you propagate that discourse.
This is where I've seen a lot of people say that "something is better than nothing." That seems to be the primary defense at the moment: "at least people know about it now and something is better than nothing."
And that's also a huge problem.
First of all, what was there in Uganda and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa before IC got there was not nothing, and to suggest that this is the case erases both the valuable work of better organized and better conceived charitable organizations, and the agency and strength of the African people themselves.
But secondly and more important, I'm hugely skeptical of this idea that "something is better than nothing."
I understand why we go there, cognitively. I understand why it makes sense to think that partially informed awareness is better than no awareness at all. I understand the logic behind it. But I think it's beyond wrong. I think something is often quite a lot worse than nothing, especially where guns are involved. Everyone who is offering this as a defense of IC's discourse: Go do some research on development and its history, especially where development shades into armed intervention in the affairs of other nations, and come back and tell me that something is always better than nothing.
This idea is really the dark side of the American spirit: That we, with our know-how and our expertise and our gumption and our determination and our righteousness, we can go out there and we can fix the world. We can make it all better. And our noble intentions will insulate us and others from catastrophe.
By some estimates, over 115,000 civilian men, women, and children are dead in Iraq right now because we thought that something would be better than nothing.
This does not provide its own justification. Anyone who honestly thinks that is a fool. A fool with good intentions, but still a fool. A dangerous fool who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near policy.
In IC's video, the conflict in Uganda is presented as an odd artifact of this time and place rather than a complex event with deep historical roots and profound implications for the role of the white West. Never, as far as I saw, is it suggested that we might want to consider our own role in the creation of Joseph Kony. Never once is the history of colonialism mentioned. Race just doesn't come up at all. Neither does the sheer complexity that always seems to characterize these conflicts. IC is telling a simple story; the problem is that this simple story is a story for children and as such it contains none of the information that an adult would require to act intelligently. And IC does not seem especially interested in suggesting that more information is needed. "Here," the video seems to me to be saying, "this is all you really need to know. Now do something."
Yes, I understand that this is what has allowed it to go as massively viral as it has. Nuance doesn't lend itself to a successful viral campaign. The interrogation of one's own privilege doesn't lend itself to a successful viral campaign.
But this campaign is about a push for advocacy, and as such it's about policy. And policy that's backed by this idea that "something must be better than nothing" is murderous. It is literally murderous. It gets people killed.
I teach college. I'm in higher education. I hate ignorance. But I think that simple ignorance is often much less harmful than bad information. So to all the people who are saying that "at least people know about this now": I don't buy that as a justification. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
[also] Hey, look, an actual Ugandan person with an opinion on this subject.
I am coherent enough to realize when someone is trying to genuinely do good. At the surface, there’s nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with assuming that the people who you are trying to help 1) need help, 2) want your help, or 3) can’t help themselves. IC and this video assumes all the above. Before anyone says ‘why haven’t you done anything to stop Kony?’, may I point out that it took the world’s most sophisticated army over a decade and billions of dollars to catch Osama bin Laden. Kony has been on the run for 25+ years. On a continent 3 times the size of America. Catching & stopping him is not a priority of immediate concern. You know what is? Finding a bed net so that millions of kids don’t die every day from malaria. How many of you know that more Ugandans died in road accidents last year (2838) than have died in the past 3 years from LRA attacks in whole of central Africa(2400)? We’ve picked our battles and we chose to simply try to live. And the world should be helping us live on our own terms, by respecting our agency to choose which battles to put capacity towards.
This entry was originally posted (with
comments) at my Dreamwidth.