blogUT

I have been a U2 fan for a while, and I have great respect for Bono as a musician and a lyricist. And because I have respect for him as a musician and a lyricist, my ears are more open to him as an activist, and my mind subconsciously more yielding to his arguments. On October 22, Bono gave a speech at the California Women’s Conference, asking Americans for continued support for Africa even in the wake of the recent financial crisis. He made some interesting and important points, but for me, the speech also raised some questions about causes and their spokespeople. In the end, what are the words of a rock star? A necessary awakening, or too much noise? 

What it comes down to is that there are simply too many voices clamouring for our attention and eventually our support. Some yell, or sing, louder than others, and so these are heard and others are not. Does this make them more (or less) valid? Certainly not. Bono may talk about Africa, but what about the causes that have less famous advocates? What about the indigenous peoples of former colonies, who still sit on reservations watching others bicker over their land? What about single mothers, the homeless, prostitutes in India, the oppressed in Tibet, the suppressed in South America, the illiterate in our own back yard? What do we do about them? What makes a hungry child in Africa more worthy of our support than a war child in Afghanistan? In every case there is real suffering, and in every case someone really needs our help. The problem is, we simply cannot help them all.

Even if we want to. They appeal to our guilt: just 20 cents! 20 cents can cure a child from Malaria, 20 cents can feed a child, 20 cents can contribute to a cure for cancer. Just 20 cents! You, YOU are so callous to not simply give them your 20 cents. Then there’s another kind of guilt: You did this, your ancestors enslaved Africa, your ancestors took away the Indigenous peoples’ land. Or: if you don’t do something, your children will be living in a poisoned world. The thing is, each one of these is a valid point. 20 cents really can do that, and our ancestors really did take away someone else’s land. So how do we answer their calls, and our own consciences? The worst part of it all is that by yelling and screaming and guilting, the spokespeople are making us deaf to their cries. You’re apathetic, they chide, and it becomes so much easier to just admit it and walk away, rather than to sift through the noise. And yet people are suffering.

If this were simply about money, then there would be no problem. We would not need to choose causes or pool our efforts, we would (collectively) be able to support all of them, and some money would get to those who need it. The real problem arises when advocates ask us to do something, to organize rallies or lobby our governments on behalf of our chosen causes. By choosing which organization we are lobbying for, we are taking away vital support from other causes. A government can’t support every cause without seriously hurting their own citizens, who they are sworn to protect. Every choice to endorse a cause has a consequence – whether that is the money that it costs to help the environment, or the lives of peacekeepers sent into Darfur. We, as well, can only devote a significant amount of time and effort to a limited amount of organizations. In the end we need to choose, and choose wisely.

So should rock stars stop advocating for their causes? Of course not. Commanding the sympathies of millions, Bono and other celebrities are in a unique position to really change the world for the better, and their causes will (hopefully) be better off for it. And since we can’t know about everything anyway, at least the stars are opening our eyes to some of what is happening, and that can only be a good thing.

But what about us, how do we break through the choice paralysis? Children in Africa, or children in Afghanistan? I don’t know if there is an answer. Maybe all we can really do is make sure that we make informed decisions, and know our own motivations. Not every plan that we are presented with can really work, and, let’s face it, there are some causes that are simply not worthy. If we can support only a limited number of causes, at least we can know that we have chosen them for a good reason, and that our efforts are not doing more harm than good.
 
What do you think?

Picture from the U2 website

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am and is filed under Arts, General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.