Thoughts on Kony...
I have been watching the Kony 2012 movement unfold over the last few days--in my school, on my Facebook page, and in newspaper articles. After reading articles on both sides, looking at the research they cite, and putting on my best debate judge hat, here's what I think:
1. My experience in Rwanda this summer--visiting the genocide memorial/museum, talking to victims of the genocide, and talking to those that have been using US funding to put things back together--tells me that this idea that Africans want whites to stay away and let them solve their own problems isn't always true. While I am sure there are tons of times that we have stepped in before we were wanted and there are plenty of organizations that have the best of intentions but aren't really helpful, the message I received at the museum is that the Rwandan people are still dismayed at the lack of international help they received in a time of crisis. It was clear that what was going on needed outside attention. The feeling I got was that many still believe that the number killed would have been much lower if so many hadn't turned a blind eye to the situation. I didn't find anything in their telling of events that indicated that they were glad that we didn't play the white savior card or that they wanted to be left alone to deal with their situation.
I also was surprised by how often people mentioned how grateful they were that we had come to see the organizations that we visited. The amazing people I met repeatedly said they were so grateful for the financial support of Americans and they were grateful for the way individuals had supported efforts to rebuild the country. They said it showed our love for them that we would give to help people we had never met. Once again--no sense that they were angry that outsiders were helping. Quite the opposite!
I know that Rwanda and Uganda are different countries. I am not one of those people who think that all African countries are the same. But I am saying that the idea that all over Africa people just want white people to leave them alone is simply not true.
2. I know that we never want to embrace the idea that Africans are always victims without power and can do nothing unless we save them. But I also know that it seems silly to pretend like America doesn't have money and influence that can be used for good. I think it seems cruel to look at a child who clearly cannot stop a war lord and tell that child that we are not going to do anything because we don't want to treat him/her like a victim. That child is a victim. Let's be honest--just like a child being abused in a home in America would be a victim. Just like a woman being attacked by a soldier in her own home is a victim. Let's be honest for a minute--some people have more physical power and resources than others. There are plenty of situations in which I would be victim. It's not because I am a woman or white or young or anything else--I would be a victim simply because I am a law-abiding citizen and would be outmatched by anyone without moral constraints. It has nothing to do with my race or location. So when I decide to support a cause that wants to rid the world of an evil man, it's not because I am playing "white savior." It's because I believe I have a responsibility as a person who has been blessed with a life that affords me the leisure to research, contemplate, and take a stand. I want to use those resources of time and money for good purposes. I want to say to those who are using all of their energy to survive that they are not alone. That I don't see my resources as my own to squander (although heaven knows I do that plenty...). I want them to know that I understand that location and race do not mitigate a person's humanity. I want them to understand that I believe, even if it sounds cliched, that we are all an equally important part of humanity--so when one person suffers, others should care and respond. So I don't buy the argument that we should just leave people alone and let them take care of themselves. There are examples of times that we acted, thinking we were doing the right thing, and made things worse, and there are examples of times that we didn't act and later saw the foolishness of that choice. So there really is no clear stance one can take on action vs. inaction. It isn't always good or bad--which is a bummer since it would be much easier if it was a clear cut decision.
And I don't think that power is inherently bad. America has been able to do some good with its influence--not always--but often. To not use our influence to bring to light things that need to be addressed seems irresponsible. While I do worry about oversimplifying things and making an easily digestible version of a complex situation, I'm not convinced that it is bad to raise awareness and encourage people to compel their representatives to actually represent their interests.
3. Some have even noted that the name Invisible Children is wrong because these children are known to those in their lives. I honestly believe this is intentionally misinterpreting the intentions of an organization. I don't think the people who started this organization were ever saying that these children were invisible in Uganda. They were saying that no one outside the country realized what was happening to children young enough that they couldn't defend themselves. And I think the documentary makers were bringing up a legitimate point--that all over the world there are children (and adults for that matter) that are facing horrifying situations, and they are invisible to the international community. The name of the organization forces people to deal with the fact that we need to bring the invisible to light. We need to discuss the child soldiers, and the children trapped in brothels, and the men and women trapped in modern day slavery at factories in other countries. We need to talk about the people enslaved in the US. We need to talk about those trapped in poverty due to crappy schools and minimum wage that doesn't cover the minimum. To those in power, those that don't know how to access the system are invisible. And it is insulting to those people to pretend that because they are known by their parents that their concerns are on the radars of those who control what the general population thinks about, discusses, funds, and demands action for. Once again, I think if you talked to the Ugandans associated with Invisible Children and told them that they were mislabeled, they might disagree with you.
4. I am fine with people not wanting to fund Invisible Children, but the debate coach in me says that one of the first things I teach my debaters is that you can't win a debate if all you do is say that the plan being presented isn't perfect. You have to show me that the plan causes more damage than the status quo and has no chance of being effective. Everything I have read from those opposing Invisible Children seems to question their effective use of resources--but nothing is conclusive. They also say that the Ugandan army has flaws, but not so many that they are seen as worse than the LRA. So, in that case, I'm not sure that I understand why using an army that has, albeit disconcerting, problems to capture a man that is substantially more damaging is a bad idea. Some say he is laying low--but once again this doesn't convince me not to act. Some say that he will use children to fight the advanced movement to capture him, but isn't he already using children? I also hear people say that Kony isn't the only bad one out there--to that I say, "Okay--let's get #1 and then go after the next one!" Why does knowing there is more than one bad person mean that we don't go after any of them? And the final argument I hear is that you can give your money to other organizations, but at this point, I have yet to see a reference to an organization that does the same thing that Invisible Children does. So I don't feel comfortable telling these children that I am going to donate to an organization that provides other services when what they really want is for this man to stop terrorizing them.
So--It's not that I am in love with this particular organization. I have no loyalty to Invisible Children, but I have not been thoroughly convinced that the dangers outweigh the potential benefits. I guess my thought is that if you can show me a better alternative that directly addresses this particular issue and is mutually exclusive with the Invisible Children efforts, I'll be more than happy to change my stance.
1. My experience in Rwanda this summer--visiting the genocide memorial/museum, talking to victims of the genocide, and talking to those that have been using US funding to put things back together--tells me that this idea that Africans want whites to stay away and let them solve their own problems isn't always true. While I am sure there are tons of times that we have stepped in before we were wanted and there are plenty of organizations that have the best of intentions but aren't really helpful, the message I received at the museum is that the Rwandan people are still dismayed at the lack of international help they received in a time of crisis. It was clear that what was going on needed outside attention. The feeling I got was that many still believe that the number killed would have been much lower if so many hadn't turned a blind eye to the situation. I didn't find anything in their telling of events that indicated that they were glad that we didn't play the white savior card or that they wanted to be left alone to deal with their situation.
I also was surprised by how often people mentioned how grateful they were that we had come to see the organizations that we visited. The amazing people I met repeatedly said they were so grateful for the financial support of Americans and they were grateful for the way individuals had supported efforts to rebuild the country. They said it showed our love for them that we would give to help people we had never met. Once again--no sense that they were angry that outsiders were helping. Quite the opposite!
I know that Rwanda and Uganda are different countries. I am not one of those people who think that all African countries are the same. But I am saying that the idea that all over Africa people just want white people to leave them alone is simply not true.
2. I know that we never want to embrace the idea that Africans are always victims without power and can do nothing unless we save them. But I also know that it seems silly to pretend like America doesn't have money and influence that can be used for good. I think it seems cruel to look at a child who clearly cannot stop a war lord and tell that child that we are not going to do anything because we don't want to treat him/her like a victim. That child is a victim. Let's be honest--just like a child being abused in a home in America would be a victim. Just like a woman being attacked by a soldier in her own home is a victim. Let's be honest for a minute--some people have more physical power and resources than others. There are plenty of situations in which I would be victim. It's not because I am a woman or white or young or anything else--I would be a victim simply because I am a law-abiding citizen and would be outmatched by anyone without moral constraints. It has nothing to do with my race or location. So when I decide to support a cause that wants to rid the world of an evil man, it's not because I am playing "white savior." It's because I believe I have a responsibility as a person who has been blessed with a life that affords me the leisure to research, contemplate, and take a stand. I want to use those resources of time and money for good purposes. I want to say to those who are using all of their energy to survive that they are not alone. That I don't see my resources as my own to squander (although heaven knows I do that plenty...). I want them to know that I understand that location and race do not mitigate a person's humanity. I want them to understand that I believe, even if it sounds cliched, that we are all an equally important part of humanity--so when one person suffers, others should care and respond. So I don't buy the argument that we should just leave people alone and let them take care of themselves. There are examples of times that we acted, thinking we were doing the right thing, and made things worse, and there are examples of times that we didn't act and later saw the foolishness of that choice. So there really is no clear stance one can take on action vs. inaction. It isn't always good or bad--which is a bummer since it would be much easier if it was a clear cut decision.
And I don't think that power is inherently bad. America has been able to do some good with its influence--not always--but often. To not use our influence to bring to light things that need to be addressed seems irresponsible. While I do worry about oversimplifying things and making an easily digestible version of a complex situation, I'm not convinced that it is bad to raise awareness and encourage people to compel their representatives to actually represent their interests.
3. Some have even noted that the name Invisible Children is wrong because these children are known to those in their lives. I honestly believe this is intentionally misinterpreting the intentions of an organization. I don't think the people who started this organization were ever saying that these children were invisible in Uganda. They were saying that no one outside the country realized what was happening to children young enough that they couldn't defend themselves. And I think the documentary makers were bringing up a legitimate point--that all over the world there are children (and adults for that matter) that are facing horrifying situations, and they are invisible to the international community. The name of the organization forces people to deal with the fact that we need to bring the invisible to light. We need to discuss the child soldiers, and the children trapped in brothels, and the men and women trapped in modern day slavery at factories in other countries. We need to talk about the people enslaved in the US. We need to talk about those trapped in poverty due to crappy schools and minimum wage that doesn't cover the minimum. To those in power, those that don't know how to access the system are invisible. And it is insulting to those people to pretend that because they are known by their parents that their concerns are on the radars of those who control what the general population thinks about, discusses, funds, and demands action for. Once again, I think if you talked to the Ugandans associated with Invisible Children and told them that they were mislabeled, they might disagree with you.
4. I am fine with people not wanting to fund Invisible Children, but the debate coach in me says that one of the first things I teach my debaters is that you can't win a debate if all you do is say that the plan being presented isn't perfect. You have to show me that the plan causes more damage than the status quo and has no chance of being effective. Everything I have read from those opposing Invisible Children seems to question their effective use of resources--but nothing is conclusive. They also say that the Ugandan army has flaws, but not so many that they are seen as worse than the LRA. So, in that case, I'm not sure that I understand why using an army that has, albeit disconcerting, problems to capture a man that is substantially more damaging is a bad idea. Some say he is laying low--but once again this doesn't convince me not to act. Some say that he will use children to fight the advanced movement to capture him, but isn't he already using children? I also hear people say that Kony isn't the only bad one out there--to that I say, "Okay--let's get #1 and then go after the next one!" Why does knowing there is more than one bad person mean that we don't go after any of them? And the final argument I hear is that you can give your money to other organizations, but at this point, I have yet to see a reference to an organization that does the same thing that Invisible Children does. So I don't feel comfortable telling these children that I am going to donate to an organization that provides other services when what they really want is for this man to stop terrorizing them.
So--It's not that I am in love with this particular organization. I have no loyalty to Invisible Children, but I have not been thoroughly convinced that the dangers outweigh the potential benefits. I guess my thought is that if you can show me a better alternative that directly addresses this particular issue and is mutually exclusive with the Invisible Children efforts, I'll be more than happy to change my stance.
Comments