On The “Sorry”
Before I was a writer, I only had one really annoying trait. Well, I mean. I’ve always had flaws. I’m bad at picking up subtleties. I don’t have a conversational filter. I can’t back down from a fight, I whine, I obsess, I hold grudges, etc. All of this has always been true.
But before I wrote, I had only one trait that everyone who knew me complained about. People who disliked me, people who liked me: Everyone asked me to stop, at a certain point. Every single time I spoke, I said the word “sorry.”
Sorry, I’m not in the mood to go out tonight. Sorry, I think the mustard is on the other shelf. I really hope Bush doesn’t get re-elected, sorry. Your shirt is really nice, sorry if that’s weird to say. Sorry. It was constant. I felt that everything I said had to be prefaced or concluded with an apology for speaking. This is a gender thing: Women do this, lots of women do this, and I was one of them; my therapist eventually told me that I only got one use of the word “sorry” per session, and he would cut me off mid-word if I did it more than once, which I always did.
So, after a few years with that therapist, I lost the habit, and I became much more articulate. Once I wasn’t paralyzed with self-consciousness, and tripping over my words, I started to seem more intelligent, and people started to tell me that I was funny, and smart, and pretty good with words, and I should write, because what was the worst that could happen?
After a year and a half of writing, the “sorry” started again.
You Don’t Have My Vote
You must have heard of the viral video created by Invisible Children (IC), a U.S. organization that has launched a one-year campaign (expires December 31, 2012) to eliminate Joseph Kony, the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group in Northern Uganda that has been embroiled in civil conflict with the Ugandan government for 25+ years. The LRA has admittedly used atrocious tactics such as abductions to engage children in conflict, using boys as soldiers and girls as sex slaves. Needless to say, Kony and LRA must go. That’s where my agreement begins and ends with Invisible Children’s work. I appreciate the organization’s commitment to the issue and can see its good intent, but I strongly question the group’s approach, strategy, and work. Below are some of the reasons why.
Lack of context and nuance: in the video, the founder of Invisible Children tells his young son that Kony is a bad guy and he must go. Daddy will work on making sure he is caught. He goes on to state later, “if we succeed, we change the course of human history.” Such a humble undertaking! Simply, a long socioeconomic and political conflict that has lasted 25+ years and engaged multiple states and actors has been reduced to a story of the good vs bad guy. And if a three-year-old can understand it, so can you. You don’t have to learn anything about the children, Uganda, or Africa. You just have to make calls, put up flyers, sings songs, and you will liberate a poor, forgotten, and invisible people.
This approach obviously denies realities on the ground, inflates fantasies abroad, and strips Ugandans of their agency, dignity and humanity- the complexity of their story and history. The work, consequence, and impact are all focused on Uganda, but the agency, accountability, and resources lie among young American students. Clearly a dangerous imbalance of power and influence; one that can have adverse lasting effects on how and what people know of Uganda. It reduces the story of Northern Uganda, and perhaps even all of Uganda, into the dreaded single narrative of need and war, followed by western resolve and rescue. As we have seen from the past, without nuance and context, these stories stick in the collective memory of everyday people for years in their simplest forms: Uganda becomes wretched war. Whatever good IC may advance in raising more awareness on the issue or even contributing to the capture of Joseph Kony, it can never do enough to erase this unintended (I hope) impact.
Invisible to whom: these children have been very visible to their communities for years. After all, they’re somebody’s child, brother, sister, friend, niece, nephew, or neighbor. They’ve been visible to the shopkeepers and vendors in town who protected them. They’ve been visible to the family members who lost them and the community that cared for them. It’s because they’re so visible that Concerned Parents Association opened its doors in the 1990’s, after LRA abducted about 200 girls from a secondary school dormitory, to advocate for and bring to international light their plight. It’s because they’re visible that young people, including returnees from abductions, started Concerned Children and Youth Association. They’re visible to the people that matter, but apparently not to IC. The language we use in social change often denotes the approach we take, even if subconsciously. Since the children appear to be invisible to IC, then perhaps it’s clear why they’re represented as voiceless, dependent, and dis-empowered.
The dis-empowering and reductive narrative: the Invisible Children narrative on Uganda is one that paints the people as victims, lacking agency, voice, will, or power. It calls upon an external cadre of American students to liberate them by removing the bad guy who is causing their suffering. Well, this is a misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Fortunately, there are plenty of examples of child and youth advocates who have been fighting to address the very issues at the heart of IC’s work. Want evidence? In addition to the organizations I list above, also look at Art for Children, Friends of Orphans, and Children Chance International. It doesn’t quiet match the victim narrative, does it? I understand that IC is a US-based organization working to change US policy. But, it doesn’t absolve it from the responsibility of telling a more complete story, one that shows the challenges and trials along side the strength, resilience, and transformational work of affected communities.
Revival of the White savior: if you have watched the Invisible Children video and followed the organization’s work in the past, you will note a certain messianic/savior undertone to it all. “I will do anything I can to stop him,” declares the founder in the video. It’s quite individualistic and reeks of the dated colonial views of Africa and Africans as helpless beings who need to be saved and civilized. Where in that video do you see the agency of Ugandans? Where in that Video do you see Jacob open his eyes wide at the mere possibility of his own strength, as Jennifer Lentfer of How Matters describes here? Can we point out the problem with having one child speak on the desires, dreams, and hopes of a whole nation? I don’t even want to mention the paternalistic tone with which Jacob and Uganda (when did it become part of central Africa by the way?) are described, not excluding the condescending use of subtitles for someone who is clearly speaking English.
How many times in history do we have to see this model to know that it doesn’t work? Even if IC succeeds in bringing about short-term change (i.e. increased awareness or even the killing of Kony) it won’t eliminate Northern Uganda’s problems overnight. It won’t heal and sustain communities. In this era of protest and the protester, we have seen that change is best achieved when it comes from within. Let Ugandans champion their own, IC!
Privilege of giving: that was quite a 30-minute production? Where did they get the resources? How do they have that reach? Well, in the nonprofit world, the one thing that we have to learn, especially as Africans, is that privilege begets privilege. The IC video is another reminder of the ways in which privilege infiltrates the social justice world and determines the voices and organizations that are heard; simply those that can afford to be heard. There are several local organizations that could offer a nuanced and contextualized perspective on and solutions to the Northern Uganda conflict. They don’t have IC’s reach. They simple weren’t born into the world of financial, racial, social, and geopolitical privilege IC members are.
Lack of Africans in leadership: Invisible Children’s US staff is comprised exclusively of Americans, as is the entire Board. How do you represent Uganda and not have Ugandans in leadership? Couldn’t the organization find a single Ugandan? An African? Did it even think about that? Does that matter to current staff and board members? I understand that IC’s main audience is American and its focus is on American action. However, when your work and consequence affect a different group of people than your target audience, you must make it a priority to engage the voices of the affected population in a real and meaningful way, in places and spaces where programs are designed, strategies dissected, and decisions made.
Clearly, I think people should work across borders to address global issues. Obviously, there is a role for Americans in this issue. The problem here is the lack of balance on who speaks for Uganda (and Africa) and how. We need approaches that are strategic and respectful of the local reality, build on the action and desires of local activists and organizers, and act as partners and allies, not owners and drivers. When it comes to Africa, we have seen the IC approach play out time and time again, whether it was Ethiopia in the 1980s, Somalia in the early 2000s to date, Darfur in 2004, or now. History is on our side and it shows that these types of approaches often fail. At some point, we have to say enough is enough. Africans, raise your voice! Now and into the future.
For more on the IC campaign, please read:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/uganda.aspx
http://ericswanderings.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/invisible-children-and-joseph-kony/
http://www.how-matters.org/2012/03/06/good-guys-bad-guys/
Image courtesy of http://www.invisiblechildren.com/our-story
The Conundrum: Imaging and Aid
Here we go, again. Images of emaciated children and families are gracing newspaper headlines. Often, these images depict a distressed mother holding a dying child; a lone child in search of charity; or skeletal, distraught figures, in despair and loss.
You may call them pornographic. Disrespectful. Undignified. They’re making appearances in major news outlets like the New York Times.
I love photography, but I hate the way it is misused, especially when legitimized and justified by aid and charity.
I love the ability of pictures to capture moments and assign them grammar that transcend linguistic barriers. Images evoke emotions that words could only explain. They enable the viewer to identify with the larger issue at hand by facilitating a personal connection with the subjects in the frame. And, hopefully extend that link to the pocketbook.
I hate the misuse and abuse of images, like the fact that most of the pictures we consume are probably taken without the consent of the subject. Imagine that. Would you allow someone to take a picture of you when you are in a spiritual and physical crisis? Really, would you?
These images also frame and shape perceptions. For example, when you see an image of a lone child, with sunken eyes and in the company of flies, it’s easy to assume that the child is alone. Abandoned. That is often far from the truth. There is usually a distraught mother or father nearby, offering what they can of their unconditional reserve of internal resources: love, comfort, touch, and care.
Not only do these images frame perceptions about that child, they also shape perceptions about that community…those people…that country. The emaciated child/person transcends his or her individual experience and becomes a macroscopic symbol for need, depravity, and loss, speaking for one and all at the same time. Please see my blog entitled The Price of a Single Story for more.
Finally, let’s be honest, we wouldn’t want pictures of us taken when we are having a bad day, wearing an unflattering outfit, or feeling down. So, why would we think otherwise for others? Yes, famine kills. Yes, the situation is harrowing. Yes, people need to be moved to give. Yes, pictures are an important part of the story. But, that doesn’t give you the right to deny others their dignity and humanity. Some things remain priceless.
Dear Jason Russell, After being bombarded with your KONY 2012 crusade, I have no choice but to respond to your highly inaccurate, offensive, and harmful propaganda. I realized I had to respond in hopes of stopping you before you cause more violence and deaths to the Acholi people (Northern Ugandans), the very people you are claiming to protect. Firstly, I would like to question your timing of this KONY 2012 crusade in Uganda when most of the violence from Joseph Kony and the LRA (The Lord’s Resistance Army) has subsided in Uganda in the past 5 years. The LRA has moved onto neighboring countries like the DRC and Sudan. Why are you not urging action in the countries he is currently in? Why are you worried about Kony all of a sudden when Ugandans are not at this present moment? This grossly illogical timing and statements on your website such as “Click here to buy your KONY 2012 products” makes me believe that the timing has more to do with your commercial interests than humanitarian interests. With the upcoming U.S. presidential elections and the waning interest in Invisible Children, it seems to be perfect timing to start a crusade. I also must add at this point how much it personally disgusts me the way in which you have commercialized a conflict in which thousands of people have died. Secondly, I would like to address the highly inaccurate content of your video. Your video did not leave the viewer any more knowledgeable about the conflict in Uganda, but only emotionally assaulted. I could not help but notice how conveniently one-sided the “explanation” in your video was. There was absolutely no mention of the role of the Ugandan government and military in the conflict. Let alone the role of the U.S. government and military. The only information given is “KONY MUST BE STOPPED.” I would like to inform you that stopping Kony would not end the conflict. (It is correctly pronounced “Kohn” by the way). This conflict is deeply embedded in Uganda’s history that neither starts nor ends with Kony. Therefore, your solution to the problem is flawed. There is no way to know the solution, without full knowledge of the problem itself. We must act on knowledge, not emotions. Joseph Kony formed the LRA in retaliation to the brutality of President Museveni (from the south) committing mass atrocities on the Acholi people (from the north) when President Museveni came to power in 1986. This follows a long history of Ugandan politics that can be traced back to pre-colonial times. The conflict must be contextualized within this history. (If you want to have this proper knowledge, I suggest you start by working with scholars, not celebrities). President Museveni is still in power and in his reign of 26 years he has arguably killed as many, if not more Acholi people, than Joseph Kony. Why is President Museveni not demonized, let alone mentioned? I would like to give you more credit than just ignorance. I have three guesses. One is that Invisible Children has close ties with the Ugandan government and military, which it has been accused of many times. Second, is that you are willing to fight Kony, but not the U.S. Government, which openly supports President Museveni. Third, is that Invisible Children feels the need to reduce the conflict to better commercialize it. This brings me to my third issue, the highly offensive nature of your video. Firstly, it is offensive to your viewer. The scene with your “explanation” of the conflict to your toddler son suggests that the viewers have the mental capacity of a toddler and can only handle information given in such a reductionist manner. I would like to think American teenagers and young adults (which is clearly your target audience) are smarter than your toddler son. I would hope that we are able to realize that it is not a “Star Wars” game with aliens and robots in some far off galaxy as your son suggests, but a real world conflict with real world people in Uganda. This is a real life conflict with real life consequences. Secondly, and more importantly, it is offensive to Ugandans. The very name “Invisible Children” is offensive. You claim you make the invisible, visible. The statements, “We have seen these kids.” and “No one knew about these kids.” are part of your slogan. You seem to be strongly hinting that you somehow have validated and found these kids and their struggles. Whether you see them or not, they were always there. Your having seen the kids does not validate their existence in any shape or form or bring it any more significance. You say “no one” knew about the kids. What about the kids themselves? What about the families of the kids who were killed and abducted? Are they “no one?” Are they not human? These children are not invisible, you are making them invisible by silencing, dehumanizing, marketing, and invalidating them. Last year I went to Gulu, Uganda, where Invisible Children is based, and interviewed over 50 locals. Every single person questioned Invisible Children’s legitimacy and intention. Every single person. If anything, it seemed the people saw Invisible Children as a bigger threat than Joseph Kony at the time. Why is it the very people you are trying to “help” feel more offense than relief with your aid? “They come here to make money and use us.” “It makes us feel terrible to be presented as being so stupid and helpless.” These are direct quotes. This was the sentiment of the majority of the people that I interviewed in varying degrees. I definitely didn’t see or hear these voices or opinions in your video. If you are to be “saving” the Acholi people, the very least you can be doing is holding yourself accountable to them and actually listening to what they have to say. This offensive, inaccurate misconstruction of Ugandans and its conflict makes me wonder what and whom this is really about. It seems that you feel very good about yourself being a savior, a Luke Skywalker of sorts, and same with the girl in your video who passionately states, “This is what defines us”. Therefore, I can’t help but wonder if Invisible Children is more about defining the American do-gooders (and making them feel good), rather than the Ugandans; profiteering the American military and corporations (which Invisible Children is officially and legally) than the conflict. Lastly, I would like to address the harmful nature of your propaganda. I believe your actions will actually bring back the fighting in Northern Uganda. You are not asking for peace, but violence. The fighting has stopped in the past 5 years and the Acholi are finally enjoying some peace. You will be inviting the LRA and the fighting back into Uganda and disturbing this peace. The last time Invisible Children got politically involved and began lobbying it actually caused more violence and deaths. I beg you not to do it again. If you open your eyes and see the actions of the Ugandan government and the U.S. government, you will see why. Why is it that suddenly in October of 2011 when there has been relative peace in Uganda for 4 years, President Obama decided to send troops into Uganda? Why is it that the U.S. military is so involved with AFRICOM, which has been pervading African countries, including Uganda? Why is it that U.S. has been traced to creating the very weapons that has been used in the violence? The U.S. is entering Uganda and other countries in Africa not to stop violence, but to create a new battlefield. You end your video with saying, “You will stop at nothing”. If nothing else, will you not stop for the lives of the Acholi people? Haven’t enough Acholi people suffered in the violence between the LRA and the Ugandan government? Our alliance should not be with the U.S. government or the Ugandan military or the LRA, but the Acholi people. There is a Ugandan saying that goes, “The grass will always suffer when two elephants fight.” Isn’t it time we let the grass grow? Thank you. Sincerely,
In your video you urge that the first course of action is that the Ugandan military needs American military and weapons. You are giving weapons to the very people who were killing the Acholi people in the first place. You are helping to open the grounds for America to make Uganda into a battlefield in which it can profit and gain power. Please recognize this is all part of a bigger military movement, not a humanitarian movement. This will cause deaths, not save lives. This will be doing more harm, than good.
Amber Ha
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
- Banksy
