Before I head into Part #2 of the 'Booty and the Bomb' blog, I wanted to introduce you to one of my favourite writers, and a concept known as the White Saviour Industrial Complex.
In March this year, just more than a week after the Kony2012 video went viral, Teju Cole tweeted a seven-part explanation of this complex, and took an articulate and witty lead on the backlash against this video made by Invisible Children.
In a follow-up to my blog about child sponsorship (you may recognise it as the one about my expanding "Kanina Kanene"), and in the lead-up to a blog about Ugandan politics and the media (and a safari which may see me bump into some hippos) I am copy-and-pasting this American-Nigerian writer's definition of this complex as some food for thought.
"1- From Sachs to Kristof to Invisible Children to TED, the fastest growth industry in the US is the White Savior Industrial Complex.
2- The white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, founds charities in the afternoon, and receives awards in the evening.
3- The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.
4- This world exists simply to satisfy the needs—including, importantly, the sentimental needs—of white people and Oprah.
5- The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.
6- Feverish worry over that awful African warlord. But close to 1.5 million Iraqis died from an American war of choice. Worry about that.
7- I deeply respect American sentimentality, the way one respects a wounded hippo. You must keep an eye on it, for you know it is deadly." **
My thoughts about the irresponsibility of the Kony2012 campaign, could fill 100 pages. Its inaccuracies, its lack of consultation with Ugandan people, its promotion of the justification of militarisation in a nation whose democracy is already under threat from such ideas. And I whole-heartedly agree with Teju Cole about the way Westerners support militarisation and conflict in areas such as Haiti, but will fill their do-good egos by donating when there is an earthquake in the region. However, while acknowledging Cole is mainly pointing out the hypocrisy of it all, I wonder if (in this particular White Saviour argument) he fails to recognise the separation of long-term and immediate needs and the value of small community-driven grass-roots approaches.
My questions are:
1. Are all of our attempted contributions to the smoothing out of inequalities in the world, merely selfish acts in the pursuit of a "big emotional experience" to validate our privilege?
2. If it makes a positive difference, does it matter if part of the motivation was a selfish?
3. Do all acts of kindness carry a selfish element, in our desire for the reward of seeing a smile on someone's face and feeling their gratitude? How do we give without receiving, and do we have to to make a positive contribution to the world around us?
4. How does the everyday person, who does not have time to research the political / social / cultural context of every nation in the world, make a responsible and educated contribution?
5. Many volunteers who come to Uganda, and other parts of the world, spend the majority of their time travelling and simply playing with children. There are no doubt more productive ways for them to contribute to the world around them, and an element of them simply looking for an opportunity to 'grow as an individual' and put something on their CV. But if they make a connection, learn something about human rights and wealth distribution inequalities, become more open-minded and open-hearted human beings, and have a broader perception of their place in the world, is it worth it?
6. How do people living in the developing world tell their stories, from their own perspective, and have them heard, when Invisible Children can flood Twitter while these people often don't speak English or even have a light globe?
7. How do we do a better job of educating people not just about the world's needs, but the reasons behind those needs? And if Robinah is one of the world's 'needs', and money and advocacy would be more effectively directed at the source of why she doesn't have a pen or a pair of shoes, do we ignore her immediate needs?
8. And most importantly - since I am ego-driven, self-conscious and use technology starting with 'i' (which explains my perception about where the centre of the universe is) - do you think I am a victim / perpetrator of Cole's Complex?! :)
**http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/
No comments:
Post a Comment