Offering multiple perspectives from many fields of human inquiry that may move all of us toward a more integrated understanding of who we are as conscious beings.
In the speedlinks this morning, I mentioned the partnership of Bono and Oprah to stop AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in Africa through a new clothing line (GAP), Apple iPods, Converse shoes, Motorola Inc. phones, and Emporio Armani. But as I watched the episode of Oprah that features this drive, I felt the need to give their effort a more prominent place.
Here is a clip from CNN in which Bono talks about the RED initiative:
This is worth doing -- and it isn't a handout, it's buying what we would already buy. And with GAP clothing, many of their products are made in Africa by the people whose lives will be saved.
Couldn't we do better helping the poor Chinese by shopping at Wal-mart?
Listen to Oprah and buy Red at Emporio Armani? I think it is about time to go the old-fashioned Red route and STORM THE WINTER PALACE, y'all. This effort strikes me as offensive. If Oprah is seriously concerned, let her repent this episode, as she did that book that she endorsed that proved to be fiction, and let's just have Oprah give a year of her salary to Africa.
The RED concept was Bono's -- he's been pushing it for more than four months now. He enlisted Oprah the way he always gets powerful people behind his ideas. If you want to bash someone, bash on Bono for wanting to make the world a better place. The RED campaign isn't Oprah's fault, nor is it a bad idea. They've already raised more than $12 million to help fight those three diseases -- which likely saved tens of thousands of lives.
The economic problem in the world is skewed, unjust consumption and not so much income disparities because if someone amasses a pile of wealth it is likely to exist as capital that creates jobs.
Oprah, because of her prominence, and her show and magazine, is to unjust consumption what Hitler was to unjust politics. I remain convinced that having Oprah as the poster girl for this effort is obscene. $12 million is one-month's income from her show for Oprah.
The rich simply shouldn't be begging from folks a thousand times poorer than they.
I understand your issues with this, but given that Americans ARE consumers, and that millions of people consume these particular products, why not take advantage of that to do some good? (I actually don't own anything by these companies, though I might buy some Converse high tops for old times sake and to help the cause -- because I can afford a pair of shoes.)
If I were Bono and I wanted to reach an affluent audience, where better to go than Oprah? When she tells her fans to do something, they do it, and they can afford to do it. Why not use that? It's a perfectly rational decision. In fact, this feels like materialistic/acheiver-self philanthropy to me, and why is that a bad thing? On Bono's part, this might be a second-tier manipulation to fulfill his idealist goals.
Oprah spends a LOT of money in Africa -- building hospitals and schools. And she spends a lot of money here. Could she do more? Yes. But why reject what she does do?
There's an article in Slate today, called "Charity is Selfish," which talks about how rather-arbitrary charity giving is. I don't think the findings presented in the article are particularly surprising, but they are a depressing truth.
I think the charity giving issue is a lot like the world's problem with North Korea. You want to take care of the people in the short term -- help them to subsist and survive NOW -- but it is pretty much the case that by doing so you're just kicking the can down the road. We don't deal with the roots of the problem.
The root of the problem with AIDS in Africa and charity giving, generally, is that (1) individuals giving to a specific charity never makes any sense because giving ought to relate directly to need. Charities often get much more money than they need and they then waste it. (2) Charities are notoriously badly run. Charitable efforts in Africa have been savaged by corruption. Recently, things have been getting better, but there is still a lot lost to evil players in the arena, which makes them more powerful. (3) It should be the single most important function of governments and world organizations funded by governments to deal with these issues. Only they can 'direct traffic' to properly get the aid to those most in need. (4) It is absurd and inefficient to use marketing to pull out 'a portion of profits' for charity. This causes people to buy things they don't really want or need and to be inattentive to price. It also motivates the worst instincts in most businesses to participate in something like this. AND it perpetuates the 'charity as selfishness' model that distances us from the real suffering of people in grave need. Thus, we perpetuate having situations like Darfur in the future. (5) People -- in America, especially -- remain blind to the grotesque income and wealth disparities that creates modern fuedal societies where massive waste and suffering is rationalized.
Of course, it is not to be expected that people will read the Red Manifesto. It is there to reassure people that the business model is upfront with what it is doing.
The problem for RED is that people MIGHT READ THE RED MANIFESTO!
Note that it says "(Red) is not a charity. It is simply a business model."
What is deceptive about all of this is that people are going to THINK THAT BUSINESSES ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS EFFORT. Thus, people are going to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the things they buy. But, in truth, the businesses involved aren't contributing, they are profitting.
What is further deceptive is the idea that the companies 'are giving up some of their profits' when you buy from them. People THINK this means the companies are sacrificing. Of course they are not. The rest of their profits THEY ARE KEEPING. And, the companies are hoping to hype demand by being involve in Red such that in the aggregate they are making more for themselves than they would have otherwise by being involved. Indeed, they can jack up prices.
This practice of "cause marketing" is highly distorting to what is beneficial in having supply and demand in tension. It makes consumers buy what they don't need and disregard prices. The losers here, big time, are consumers.
But, because we suppose that the pain -- the VERY REAL PAIN, I must add -- is distributed widely to a huge number of consumers, we come to believe it is of negligible significance. HARDLY. It is like secondhand smoke. For some, getting involved with RED will cause people to forego a college education or taking vitamins or getting their brakes fixed. Real lives will be shattered.
But, people say. But we can save lives in Africa for pennies. And this will get those pennies there.
Yes. We should pay for medications for Africa and a great many REAL charities are involved in that, including Bill Clinton's and the Gates'. We should be giving money directly to good charities and not envolving ourselves in these run-around-in-circles marketing schemes.
You people who are viewing this as a negative act is unbelievably ridiculous and SELFISH! At least these people are doing SOMETHING to help others in need. With all the negative perceptions which some of you may have, bottom line is this....some mother in Africa is happy because her child have been given the chance to live longer. Have you asked yourselves what you've done lately to help others in need? Instead of damn complaining, DO SOMETHING! You could've used the time you spent to complain about this issue looking for coins around your house and sending it somewhere in a third world country that could've helped a child eat for a day or two. Or better yet, go and volunteer yourselves somewhere in Africa, India, or in any third world country. You know what? I can bet my whole life that your perception will change in a hearbeat.
Charity giving -- particularly that intended for African relief -- has been a long-running scandal.
Oversight, planning, efficiency and efficacy have long been of vital importance. Billions have been almost wholly wasted, adding a lot more to corruption than to stomachs.
You are flat wrong to suppose that throwing money at Africa works. It infamously hasn't.
I also agree with anne i was moved completely when oprahs red campaign with bono episode aired here in australia it was only yesterday 28th jan 2008 how can someone let alone anyone criticise another person for their actions on wanting to help whether it be by throwing money at the situation as they say or using precious time which the african population doesnt have.If someone wants to give back for all the years they have taken for granted let them who are any of us to say otherwise and if u have a problem with whats goin on just get over it and enjoy tomorrow because there are people who cant even look forward to that let alone know whether they will see it. A big WELL DONE to everyone who wants to make a difference i never want to see my daughter with that sad look or with hunger pain imagine telling ur child they couldnt have medicine to feel better its sad isnt it! Wake up Earth we are in this together!
I just finished reading Paul Polak's new book "Out of Poverty, What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail." and am left feeling inspired and hopeful in what I can do to help end poverty. Anyone who really wants to help should check out this great book!
10 comments:
Couldn't we do better helping the poor Chinese by shopping at Wal-mart?
Listen to Oprah and buy Red at Emporio Armani? I think it is about time to go the old-fashioned Red route and STORM THE WINTER PALACE, y'all. This effort strikes me as offensive. If Oprah is seriously concerned, let her repent this episode, as she did that book that she endorsed that proved to be fiction, and let's just have Oprah give a year of her salary to Africa.
The RED concept was Bono's -- he's been pushing it for more than four months now. He enlisted Oprah the way he always gets powerful people behind his ideas. If you want to bash someone, bash on Bono for wanting to make the world a better place. The RED campaign isn't Oprah's fault, nor is it a bad idea. They've already raised more than $12 million to help fight those three diseases -- which likely saved tens of thousands of lives.
Peace,
Bill
The economic problem in the world is skewed, unjust consumption and not so much income disparities because if someone amasses a pile of wealth it is likely to exist as capital that creates jobs.
Oprah, because of her prominence, and her show and magazine, is to unjust consumption what Hitler was to unjust politics. I remain convinced that having Oprah as the poster girl for this effort is obscene. $12 million is one-month's income from her show for Oprah.
The rich simply shouldn't be begging from folks a thousand times poorer than they.
I understand your issues with this, but given that Americans ARE consumers, and that millions of people consume these particular products, why not take advantage of that to do some good? (I actually don't own anything by these companies, though I might buy some Converse high tops for old times sake and to help the cause -- because I can afford a pair of shoes.)
If I were Bono and I wanted to reach an affluent audience, where better to go than Oprah? When she tells her fans to do something, they do it, and they can afford to do it. Why not use that? It's a perfectly rational decision. In fact, this feels like materialistic/acheiver-self philanthropy to me, and why is that a bad thing? On Bono's part, this might be a second-tier manipulation to fulfill his idealist goals.
Oprah spends a LOT of money in Africa -- building hospitals and schools. And she spends a lot of money here. Could she do more? Yes. But why reject what she does do?
Peace,
Bill
Oprah isn't the solution; she's the problem.
There's an article in Slate today, called "Charity is Selfish," which talks about how rather-arbitrary charity giving is. I don't think the findings presented in the article are particularly surprising, but they are a depressing truth.
I think the charity giving issue is a lot like the world's problem with North Korea. You want to take care of the people in the short term -- help them to subsist and survive NOW -- but it is pretty much the case that by doing so you're just kicking the can down the road. We don't deal with the roots of the problem.
The root of the problem with AIDS in Africa and charity giving, generally, is that (1) individuals giving to a specific charity never makes any sense because giving ought to relate directly to need. Charities often get much more money than they need and they then waste it. (2) Charities are notoriously badly run. Charitable efforts in Africa have been savaged by corruption. Recently, things have been getting better, but there is still a lot lost to evil players in the arena, which makes them more powerful. (3) It should be the single most important function of governments and world organizations funded by governments to deal with these issues. Only they can 'direct traffic' to properly get the aid to those most in need. (4) It is absurd and inefficient to use marketing to pull out 'a portion of profits' for charity. This causes people to buy things they don't really want or need and to be inattentive to price. It also motivates the worst instincts in most businesses to participate in something like this. AND it perpetuates the 'charity as selfishness' model that distances us from the real suffering of people in grave need. Thus, we perpetuate having situations like Darfur in the future. (5) People -- in America, especially -- remain blind to the grotesque income and wealth disparities that creates modern fuedal societies where massive waste and suffering is rationalized.
Of course, it is not to be expected that people will read the Red Manifesto. It is there to reassure people that the business model is upfront with what it is doing.
The problem for RED is that people MIGHT READ THE RED MANIFESTO!
Note that it says "(Red) is not a charity. It is simply a business model."
What is deceptive about all of this is that people are going to THINK THAT BUSINESSES ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS EFFORT. Thus, people are going to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the things they buy. But, in truth, the businesses involved aren't contributing, they are profitting.
What is further deceptive is the idea that the companies 'are giving up some of their profits' when you buy from them. People THINK this means the companies are sacrificing. Of course they are not. The rest of their profits THEY ARE KEEPING. And, the companies are hoping to hype demand by being involve in Red such that in the aggregate they are making more for themselves than they would have otherwise by being involved. Indeed, they can jack up prices.
This practice of "cause marketing" is highly distorting to what is beneficial in having supply and demand in tension. It makes consumers buy what they don't need and disregard prices. The losers here, big time, are consumers.
But, because we suppose that the pain -- the VERY REAL PAIN, I must add -- is distributed widely to a huge number of consumers, we come to believe it is of negligible significance. HARDLY. It is like secondhand smoke. For some, getting involved with RED will cause people to forego a college education or taking vitamins or getting their brakes fixed. Real lives will be shattered.
But, people say. But we can save lives in Africa for pennies. And this will get those pennies there.
Yes. We should pay for medications for Africa and a great many REAL charities are involved in that, including Bill Clinton's and the Gates'. We should be giving money directly to good charities and not envolving ourselves in these run-around-in-circles marketing schemes.
You people who are viewing this as a negative act is unbelievably ridiculous and SELFISH! At least these people are doing SOMETHING to help others in need. With all the negative perceptions which some of you may have, bottom line is this....some mother in Africa is happy because her child have been given the chance to live longer. Have you asked yourselves what you've done lately to help others in need? Instead of damn complaining, DO SOMETHING! You could've used the time you spent to complain about this issue looking for coins around your house and sending it somewhere in a third world country that could've helped a child eat for a day or two. Or better yet, go and volunteer yourselves somewhere in Africa, India, or in any third world country. You know what? I can bet my whole life that your perception will change in a hearbeat.
Anne,
Charity giving -- particularly that intended for African relief -- has been a long-running scandal.
Oversight, planning, efficiency and efficacy have long been of vital importance. Billions have been almost wholly wasted, adding a lot more to corruption than to stomachs.
You are flat wrong to suppose that throwing money at Africa works. It infamously hasn't.
I also agree with anne i was moved completely when oprahs red campaign with bono episode aired here in australia it was only yesterday 28th jan 2008 how can someone let alone anyone criticise another person for their actions on wanting to help whether it be by throwing money at the situation as they say or using precious time which the african population doesnt have.If someone wants to give back for all the years they have taken for granted let them who are any of us to say otherwise and if u have a problem with whats goin on just get over it and enjoy tomorrow because there are people who cant even look forward to that let alone know whether they will see it. A big WELL DONE to everyone who wants to make a difference i never want to see my daughter with that sad look or with hunger pain imagine telling ur child they couldnt have medicine to feel better its sad isnt it! Wake up Earth we are in this together!
I just finished reading Paul Polak's new book "Out of Poverty, What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail."
and am left feeling inspired and hopeful in what I can do to help end poverty. Anyone who really wants to help should check out this great book!
Post a Comment