charity = racism?
Europe's showing it's strange brand of racism this month when black rights groups questioned the honesty of having white performers raise money and support for dying black children in Africa. The concerts will be called "Live 8", dedicated to pressing the G8 nations to take seriously the problems with debt, disease and corruption rampant in Africa. The shows will be headlined by some of the biggest white names in music including U2, Madonna, Coldplay, Paul McCartney, Elton John, REM and a re-formed Pink Floyd (even Roger Waters - playing together for the first time since 1981) -- people who's music is popular; people audiences will come to see.
Shows will be played in London, Edinburgh, Philadelphia, Paris, Rome and Berlin for FREE. The goal is to get audiences to put pressure on their respective governments to take Africa's problems more seriously, culminating in a march on Edinburgh on July 6th, where the G8 conference will be getting started.
Despite 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, Mariah Carey and Ms. Dynamite also being on the bill, the concerts haven been criticized as "terribly white," and obscure black people like Baaba Maal, a Senegalese musician, are being given media time on networks like the BBC to whine about the fact that they weren't asked to play; nevermind the fact that their music is as about as popular internationally as a goiter. The concerts were also loudly criticized for perpetuating the idea of Africa as a poverty-stricken, "failing, ill", proving that some people still no nothing about Africa. (Chaos Rabbit? Care to prove me right?)
Whether or not the concerts are a worthwhile endeavor in the first place, or just more balding rock stars looking to regain some popularity and recording companies looking to sell albums, is another question. On the surface it looks like a good idea, and the fact that the concerts will be free shows that it's not whole-sale exploitation. Yet as some of these same artists proved in 2004 when they failed to prevent the re-election of Pres. Bush, politically motivated entertainment doesn't always produce meaningful results.
posted by RJ @ 7:50 AM
26 comments
26 Comments:
Speaking of music helping Africa, didn't MTV just launch a station there? I thought a TV station pushing sex and violence would be sufficient to solve the problems of a continent rife with civil war and an AIDS epidemic. I didn't know we needed free concerts too...
MTV in Africa:
http://www.biz-community.com/Article/196/66/4978.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4290587.stm
The tragedy of our times is that the race card will be played no matter what. It will continue until the MSM realizes it for what it is and stops giving anyone who shouts 'racism' air time regardless of the merits of their argument.
I hate to pick nits, but I have about 4, and they're so pickable.
1) I don't know if "THE" tragedy of our times is that the race card will be played, no matter what. I don't know what the tragedy of our times is. It might be Hamlet.
2) I see "the playing of the race card" as one necessary corollary of the civil rights movement. Until we approach the situation (the situation being that we have a permanent black underclass in this country) holistically, people will continue to get stupidly politically correct, for money, or attention, or what have you. I think this is a small price to pay for the progress we've made in this country since 620,000 people died in the civil war. What I'm saying is that I agree that blind political correctness is wrong, and bad; it's just something to be expected, something we can deal with, and something I prefer to violence.
3) When you say MSM, what you mean is the terrible, biased liberal tyrant that controls our airwaves and lets no dissenting points of view on. What's ironic about your view is that the MSM is indeed hegemonic, and owned by about 7 corporations; it's just not that liberal. I don't know if a comment in a blog will convince you, but words I'd use to describe this "MSM" entity would be stupid, myopic, ratings-driven, corporate, sensationalizing, banal... Have you ever read the New York Times op-ed page or CNN.com or seen the specials they run on ABC and CBS? They're just not that liberal. The Village Voice, Slate, Moveon, commondreams.org? Now we're getting liberal. But mainstream? I don't think so. MSM is cute as an acronym and all, but that's like me assigning a viewpoint to "white business-people" and then referring to them as "The WBP."
4) What I think this really shows about Europe is their hypocrisy. They can't play a soccer game against black people without making faces and chanting racist slurs, but then they go and do this. That's being two-faced, hypocritical and immature, not really politically correct.
1.) I vote Othello.
Is MSM "mass syndicated media?"
CBS runs some pretty damn biased specials. I've never seen it on ABC but I absoluetly have on NBC, and I don't watch the news enough to make any sweeping generalizations about the content. I'd agree that they're more ratings driven than anything, and my first criticism would be that it's sensationalist and irrelevant news rather than biased news, but Dan Rather....? As I've told you before, the Tom Brocaw going away special on NBC, for instance, was one of the most ridiculous pieces of biased journalistic trash I've ever seen.
You're right - it does illustrate hypocrisy. I also think that we in the US are in the same position where ridiculous PC movements do nothing to stop (and sometimes encourage, by reminding us of how different we are) continued racial tensions.
I was exaggerating slightly when I claimed that it was 'the' tragedy of our times.
MSM stands for Main Stream Media. As for media bias, have you checked the New York Times front page? True bias is shown not just on the op-ed page but also by how a paper treats and titles the stories it prints. There are many ways to color a story and the networks and CNN almost always shade things somewhat in favor of Democrats (Charles, I read CNN.com all the time, more than FOXNEWS because of the LAW and POLITICS sections which I find convinient, but biased). I don't have a problem with bias, I actually prefer a biased source, I have a problem with the idea of the claim of 'objective reporting'. Far too many people in this country take that at face value and swallow a bias without even realizing it. I prefer openly biased sources because I know exactly where my information is coming from and can take that into account when reading it.
Charles, what do you mean by a 'holistic' approach to solving the problem of a stagnant black underclass?
I think that the continuous playing of the race card hurts our 'permanent black underclass'. In order to get ahead in the world one needs to be able to look critically at their own failings, take responsibility for them and work to rectify them. Blaming others for your problems may feel good for a little while but it doesn't do anything to improve your circumstances. Bill Cosby tried to begin some critical self-evaluation in the black community and was shot down for it.
Finally, I don't know about anti-black racism in Europe. But the resurgence of anti-semitism there scares me.
I think perhaps a better question is what are nits? and why do we feel so compelled to pick them?
1) I think the tragedy of our times is that hair cut people (since I can't call them barbers anymore and all the other names are too gay) expect a tip on a nine dollar haircut. I paid with a credit card and there was a gratuity section on my bill... did I miss something? Was there a meal included with my haircut? Is it going to be customary to tip the permanent black underclass working the drive through window when I receive my $2.13 order of two double cheeseburgers off the dollar menu? and if it is- could you still tip a normal percentage without being an asshole?
2) I agree with virtutis about getting my news from a biased source. Just read both sides and you can dialectic (yes i'm using it as a verb) your way to the truth. Furthermore, I believe its impossible to be totally objective about anything, I know I can't do it, and I'd like to think of myself as someone near the pinnacle of human ability. In defense of the MSM (I'll only defend it on this), I believe people tend to think that whatever view they have is objective- who would seriously believe something if they didn't think that a rational, logical view of the facts didn't support them? However, there is a difference between bias and a total disregard for truth- something that was displayed with the whole Dan Rather fiasco and also with the Newsweek Koran article. Also, as proof of the existing bias, just check out the labels next time you see a special report on the news. Oftentimes, someone along the lines of the ragin' cajun (James Carville for those of you who somehow missed the eight years of the Clinton administration) will be labled a "news consultant" while the other side will be the "conservative correspondant etc...". It's subtle, but its there.
3) I think this is from Bill O'Reilly (call me biased!) but it made sense to me... the problem with the black underclass is that they are represented by those without their best interests in mind. People such as Jesse Jackson or the Rev. Al Sharpton can only stay in power and command the attention that they do when the black underclass believes that they are oppressed by an unfair system. My opinion is that it is impossible to have such a dogmatic (like 91% liberal) group without a universal trump-all issue like oppression or racism. If the black underclass didn't believe they were the underclass and follow their demagogues so religiously- would anyone care what Rev. Al and JJ said? Al and Jesse know this- thats why they scream racism anytime a republican talks... and why they are strangely silent during the racist ripping of Janice Rogers Brown.
It's not like the WBP follow one partyline so blindly, well, besides free market economics...
Actually, if you ask me, the "tragedy of our times" is that everyone here is arguing about the media and supposed biases and the validity of the "race card" instead of saying..."There's a rally to help the sick and poor in Africa?? Sweet! How do I get in on this?" Screw politics. It's meaningless hot gas. DO SOMETHING! And this chastisment is as much for me as anyone.
I blogged about it - can I be exempt from your wrath?
I'm sorry if I got lost on a tangent. Objecting to help freely given in this case is obscene. Africa needs all the help it can get.
That said I worry that the money will get lost in corruption like all the rest. Africa is not poor for lack of western aid. Nor for lack of natural resources for that matter.
Well, the concerts themselves aren't intended to raise money; their intended to raise concern in the minds of enough people to pressure their respective and influential governments into doing something worthwhile. The guy running the thing wants an international (UN) military deployed (please resist the temptation to bash the UN at this time) and more attention given by the G8 nations to helping stop genocide in Africa.
From my perspective it's either very good or completely useless, but in no way detrimental.
1) virtutis, you wrote:
"As for media bias, have you checked the New York Times front page? True bias is shown not just on the op-ed page but also by how a paper treats and titles the stories it prints."
Yes, I have checked it--I read the NYT every day, and I don't find it that liberal. Can I have some examples of this flagrant bias, please?
2) A holistic approach would be, as mair so eloquently put it, doing something. =)
virtutis: you are a racist. There; I said it. Africa is poor because of direct and orchestrated measures taken by Western governments since about 500 years ago (although most thoroughly in the last 120 years). You are totally clueless about the reasons that Africa is a struggling, hungry, poor Continent, and, to clue you in, it isn't because of corruption or squandered opportunity. Also, your White Man's Burden complex isn't convincing as charity. Mair's comment was directed at you - so don't twist it to be against those protesting Live8. Also, don't just say "Africa needs all the help it can get" - you condescending, arrogant prick, go help people in Africa and stop lumping them all together by talking about the problem as "Africa."
jackscolon: neither you nor Bill O'Reilly know anything about the black underclass so stop while you are ahead.
PS - condescending bigot: don't you dare claim that I am playing the race card here. You are the one who has been relying on it for the entirety of this conversation. This isn't about race; this is about understanding the plight of millions of people no different than you or I as accurately as possible and then working to fix it rather than bitching about it. Africa isn’t full of helpless, clueless charity cases; it is full of hard working, striving people that are doing the best they can. Don’t feel sorry for them – help them as a peer.
Western countries absolutely exploited the African contintent in terrible ways through policies of imperialist expansion and deportation to the slave trade. But that's not the only factor that's kept the poverty-striken nations of Africa so; it's also the prevalence of dictatorship, through which a minority of powerful families and dynastys have been exploiting their communities wholesale since time immemorial. That phenomenon isn't limited to Africa - I think we see it around the world. The difference is that in places like Africa and the middle east it persists, while in Western countries it has largely disappeared.
I really don't think virtutis was trying to be condescending in saying that Africa needs all of the help it can get, j. morgan. Doesn't it? Isn't that along the same lines of what Mair said - Africa is in need, so how can we sit here and complain about the media instead of giving?
No one said the people in Africa are clueless and helpless - I certainly don't think so. I think they're oppressed people working very hard to make a living or just survive under the exploitation of outside governments and wholesale genocide of local warlords. The "racecard" and "underclass" comments were directed at discussing the situation in the US and Europe, and not meant to show any sort of less-than-peer view of the African people.
Everyone is a racist if they make any deference due to race. It doesn't have to be against a certain race, it can also be showing preference to a certain race. Things like affirmative action are, by definition, racist. That doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong or bad, it just means that race is a factor in their processes. Now, it may be that it is wrong and bad to ever be racist, which I tend to think it is, but I think that because of modern connotation we forget that the term racist doesn't necessarily mean that you look down on people of a certain race. Racist does not equal bigoted.
As for the African countries, a lot of their current plight is due to civil war. Right now the entire continent represents less than 6% of the global market (I heard that statistic on the radio the other day, haven't double checked). Thats down from ten or twenty years ago when it was closer to 12%. That implies that the situation in Africa is getting worse, not better. In the last few decades a few big things have happened that probably contributed the most to this statistic:
1. The AIDS epidemic has become one of monumental proprotions. More than 3% of the population of Africa has HIV. Thats huge on a continent of over 750 million people. In some places its as bad as 1 in 3 adults. War and especially religious strife have aggrevated the problem as there is a thriving sex trade of African's by Arab's living in the Northern African countries, especially the Sudan. Many times this is Muslims taking Christians as sex slaves. Additionally, in many countries women are raped or taken as sex slaves during raids on rival villages in civil wars. Lack of education and myths, like having sex with a virgin will cure HIV, are further spreading the disease. The end result is many countries where the average life expectancy is in the mid forties and many children have become orphans, losing both parents to AIDS, infected with HIV from birth.
2. Almost every country in Africa has experienced some form of civil war in the last two decades. Wars with other countries are generally good for a nation's economy. Civil wars ravage the nation in every way -- socially, politically, and economically. Many countries have destroyed much of their industrial base and what they do have is geared towards war, not towards generating capital.
Many of the problems today are no doubt the result of Western nations interfering in less-developed cultures centuries ago. Additionally, further exploitation by Western nations for economic gain -- even into recent years -- has made the problem evenr worse. And now, the lack of action by Western nations, like intervention in the Darfur crisis or Sudanese politics in general, is letting the problem get even more out of hand. We, being Western nations, upset their political systems, enslaved their people, drew arbitrary country lines, and then gave them just enough technology to fight the wars that would naturally ensue from such a situation. Africa is not full of stupid stone-age people, but it is far behind the West technologically speaking. Many areas lack essentials like clean water, nevermind electricity or other commodities that allow a society to thrive, or even exist, in the modern world market. The biggest reason for these deficiencies is money. The countries simply cannot afford to create the technology that would allow them to progress from their current situation. So they are left with the few powerful fighting for what resources they can get. Thats why things like the proposed debt relief are so important. Anything that gives the African nation a means to be stable economically and progess technologically will go a long way to ending the political and social, not to mention medical, distress they currently are in.
In the last sentence I meant to say "African nations" not "African nation". I am aware that there are many countries in Africa, not one African nation.
While I'm not disputing that there has been African exploitation by the first world (If you can describe industrialized countries as the first world, I'm not even sure about the legality of that term, by using the word "first" am I ascribing a value judgment? Am I saying the rest of the world is inferior? or is the tragedy of our times that people have to analyze every single statement they make to ensure the language is so precise that not a single part can be taken out of context to convey a sense of subtle racism? Am I racist because I poke fun at political correctness?) Last time I looked into it, a big part of the slave trade was coastal Africans selling interior Africans. Racism isn't strictly limited to a black and white issue. If it was, the Hutu and Tutsi massacre or the problems in Sudan wouldn't exist.
Also, it is ludicrous to think that all of Africa's problems have been caused by some kind of racist, premeditated exploitation. Historically (based on the thousands of years of different cultures interacting), it was only a matter of time before Africa, being less sophisticated (developmentally- i'm not making any cultural or quality of life judgements etc here), behind technologically and militarily, struggled to adapt and exist with whatever culture it came in contact with first. As to how Africa and other cultures lagged behind in the first place, that seems outside the scope of this post. With the exception of the US recently, the focus of power has always been on empire building and exploitation of the less powerful. It doesn't matter if its the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Mayans, 19th century Britain, the Nazis, or China and the Islamics today. If the situation had been reversed and Africa developed faster, the fortunes would be reversed today. It's seems futile to me to exercise this kind of moral outrage against a group of people who actually seem to want to help based on the actions of their forefathers 200+ years ago.
j. morgan caler- Why do I have to be racist just because I don't believe certain groups are aptly represented? Being anti-taliban doesn't make me anti-afghani, being anti-saddam doesn't make me anti-iraqi, hating communism doesn't make me anti-chinese, hating Chirac doesn't mean I'm anti-french (ok- I'll admit I am a touch anti-french) and disagreeing with Al and Jesse doesn't make me a white supremicist. I'm strongly on the side of anyone who thinks for themselves and doesn't follow popular opinion because its popular.
Furthermore, do I think race relations are improved by Democrat leaders (white and black) hanging posters showing some 1960's civil rights activist getting sprayed with a hose with a caption implying Republicans are trying to suppress the black vote? I think that screams propaganda... and you only need propaganda if you don't actually represent the views and values of the people you represent.
j. morgan caler: you are a troll. There; I said it.
Thank you everyone for defending me while I was away.
My previous comment was an apology for going off on a tangent, all the ones prior to that were comments on the US and Western European nations, not Africa.
I think Redhurt, Standingout, and Jackscolon have said enough about the reasons why many African nations are in bad shape, and why it is not racist to point that out. I would like to also point out that corruption IS a big part of why many African nations are in bad shape, but I am most certainly not implying that corruption is somehow uniquely African. Look at the UN, the Gulf States, Canada, and Tennessee for recent example of corruption in the rest of the world (in descending orders of magnitude).
Also I would like to address the 'White Man's Burden' accusation. The one time that the US actually took up that silly 'burden' was when we took over the Philippines after the Spanish-American war, our one and only dance with Empire. And the one point I will extrapolate into a line to demonstrate that the US well and truly sucks at Imperial governance. I don't for a second think that as white men we need to go in and rule the 'noble savages' for their own good. Frankly I think the US has no business committing any troops to Africa for nation building, wearing our hats or blue ones.
PS - potty mouth: I know that you weren’t playing the race card, you were simply indulging in childish name calling. I can tell the difference between the two.
What am I going to say?
How about: what's so racist about not using question marks?
Why do you think Africa isn't in as bad of shape as the reporters claim? What evidence do you have to support such a statement? I can think of a lot of ways to support the idea that Africa IS that bad, but I'd like to hear why you say it isn't. Have you ever been there? Do you read about it? Have you even watched the Lion King?
Well, virtutis thinks I am a troll. And that’s fair. I rescind my accusation that virtutis is a racist. I apologize for the comment. To clarify, I want you to know that my comments were directed at nothing more than you apology for going off on a tangent (or actually what followed in that post) and nothing before it (although I object to that, too). I also think that I should have chosen the word “paternalistic” rather than “racist,” but that’s water under the bridge now. Here is what rubbed me the wrong way: virtutis’s argument (echoed by jackscolon and standingoutinthecold) amount to an implicit (or sometimes explicit) indictment of Africans for their current situation rather than those who actually caused and continue to cause it. It is a far more complex situation than any of us have been able to get at in a blog conversation. Let it suffice to say that all of the things you are pointing to as problems (corruption, technological backwardness, disease, hunger, civil war, etc.) are real and immediate problems, but they are problems that Western governments and corporations have actively caused and continue to cause to exploit Africa. It is better to think of them (coruption, hunger, civil war, etc.) as tools rather than causes. None of the things you mentioned, while true, amount to a condition in Africa, but rather amount to a condition in America, UK, France, Canada, etc. That’s where the problem lies and I find it insulting that virtutis made it to be otherwise and jackscolon and standingoutinthecold tried to back him up on it. That being said, I shouldn’t have called him a racist.
jack:
1) You can't talk about warlords ruining everything and then say "they," implicating everyone else on the continent as well. It's not the fault of the black Africans in Darfur, for example, that they're getting murdered.
2) It's just not as easy (read: impossible) for women to say no to sex in Africa. Go tell the women there to insist on using a condom or to refuse sex so they stop getting AIDS. See how far you get.
3) "Their little AIDS"? AIDS is not the fault of the 4 million children who are orphaned because of it--they didn't do anything and don't deserve the lives their consigned to.
You need to read up. Go to my blog
http://pragmaticism.blogspot.com
And start there.
J Morgan, did you read my comment before you commented on it? I don't see how I was implying that Africa's current situation is more their fault than anyone else's. This is what I said "We, being Western nations, upset their political systems, enslaved their people, drew arbitrary country lines, and then gave them just enough technology to fight the wars that would naturally ensue from such a situation." And I also said that a current lack of intervention aimed at helping by Western nations was a further problem. Finally, I said that things like the current debt relief plan are important and necessary actions that we should take to help. I know it was a long comment, but I feel like you assumed I was saying something I wasn't.
Fair enough, I wrote that cold and you are right - I had forgotten a lot of what you wrote. My apologies.
jack, did you check out the damn links from the "Africa" post on my damn blog yet?
Chaos:
1. no, you cannot begin a statement with the word "what" when it is being used in the normal way (not to say "what we need here is.." or something like that)
2. I do want more out of you, but I absolutely do not want you to go on for hours. I want more content - I want your sentences to make more sense and to be filled with more carefully reasoned statements that contribute to the conversation. Currently you tend to pop in with some poorly punctuated and thoroughly useless nonsense...and I feel like if you spent at least 5 minutes thinking before you wrote, it could be much better. Please try it or stop posting - I'm fighting hard not to delete your posts, but they're so inane it's getting harder every day.
The spelling and grammar are appalling as well for someone who claims to be 15. And once again, your visual style is lacking. Its like you don't even care.
But seriously, if you are going to try to make intellectual arguments to people about something -- like why anarchy is a desirable thing -- you should not write in a way that offends the intellect. Microsoft Word offers spelling AND grammar correction, all in one convenient location.
Post a Comment
<< Home