![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
essius.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe other day I noticed the Kony 2012 video by Invisible Children that has been receiving a great deal of attention on the Internet as of late (it’s received over 56 million views on YouTube). I watched the video and was immediately curious. Evidently, the video has received multiple lines of serious criticism. No one denies, of course, that Joseph Kony must be brought to justice. But Invisible Children’s methods (and in some respects even intent) are highly questionable. I’ll mention just a few of the criticisms brought against the film and the movement.
Chris Blattman, a Poly Sci & Econ Assistant Professor at Yale, argues not only against the style of the film (“the hipster tie and cowboy hat” and the “macho bravado” tend to detract from the message) but also against the notion of rescuing or saving African children: “It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming.” One result, says Blattman, “is a lot of dangerously ill-prepared young people embarking on missions to save the children of this or that war zone. At best it’s hubris and egocentric. More often, though, it leads to bad programs, misallocated resources, or ill-conceived military adventures.” Finally, Blattman is also troubled by the film showing the faces of child soldiers, as well as implying (erroneously and incredibly) that the US and Invisible Children “were instrumental in getting the peace talks to happen.”
Grant Oyston, Sociology and Poly Sci student at Acadia University, has made several criticisms—such as the fact that “[m]ilitary intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away” (q.v.)—and also provided links to many others as well. Among the latter, perhaps the most important are lawyers Kate Cronin-Furman and Amanda Taub’s article, “Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of ‘Kony 2012’,” which raises methodological criticisms, and writer Joshua Keating’s post “Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things),” whose chief argument is that IC “has made virtually no effort to inform” concerning important details (such as where Kony is located, where the LRA’s members are currently distributed, and how many “mindless child soldiers” the LRA presently has).
Author Michael Deibert helpfully lays out some of the important historical details and concludes with another heavy charge against IC: “By blindly supporting Uganda’s current government and its military adventures beyond its borders, as Invisible Children suggests that people do, Invisible Children is in fact guaranteeing that there will be more violence, not less, in Central Africa.”
My father, a retired juvenile hall peace officer, was also pretty critical of the video and, in addition to some of the familiar criticisms, he said it “seemed to violate some pretty serious child rearing tenets, i.e., ‘tis not good to expose a child to an adult’s world as it robs them of their childhood, etc.; and, beyond that it seemed to prepare the film maker’s kid to early indoctrination (and believe me, he’ll get that soon enough as kindergarten is just around the corner for that boy)…”
Meanwhile, IC has responded to some of the above criticisms, and the group certainly has its defenders (e.g.), but it would seem IC has yet to address one of the main claims many are raising: that it is working with groups that are guilty of the same atrocities as the LRA.
Here is another recent source attempting to make sense of the issue.
I’m still wading through some of the various criticisms and IC’s response, but I tend to think IC’s basic motives are pure, but their methods and strategic intent are questionable and in various ways even dangerous. What do you think?
Chris Blattman, a Poly Sci & Econ Assistant Professor at Yale, argues not only against the style of the film (“the hipster tie and cowboy hat” and the “macho bravado” tend to detract from the message) but also against the notion of rescuing or saving African children: “It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming.” One result, says Blattman, “is a lot of dangerously ill-prepared young people embarking on missions to save the children of this or that war zone. At best it’s hubris and egocentric. More often, though, it leads to bad programs, misallocated resources, or ill-conceived military adventures.” Finally, Blattman is also troubled by the film showing the faces of child soldiers, as well as implying (erroneously and incredibly) that the US and Invisible Children “were instrumental in getting the peace talks to happen.”
Grant Oyston, Sociology and Poly Sci student at Acadia University, has made several criticisms—such as the fact that “[m]ilitary intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away” (q.v.)—and also provided links to many others as well. Among the latter, perhaps the most important are lawyers Kate Cronin-Furman and Amanda Taub’s article, “Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of ‘Kony 2012’,” which raises methodological criticisms, and writer Joshua Keating’s post “Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things),” whose chief argument is that IC “has made virtually no effort to inform” concerning important details (such as where Kony is located, where the LRA’s members are currently distributed, and how many “mindless child soldiers” the LRA presently has).
Author Michael Deibert helpfully lays out some of the important historical details and concludes with another heavy charge against IC: “By blindly supporting Uganda’s current government and its military adventures beyond its borders, as Invisible Children suggests that people do, Invisible Children is in fact guaranteeing that there will be more violence, not less, in Central Africa.”
My father, a retired juvenile hall peace officer, was also pretty critical of the video and, in addition to some of the familiar criticisms, he said it “seemed to violate some pretty serious child rearing tenets, i.e., ‘tis not good to expose a child to an adult’s world as it robs them of their childhood, etc.; and, beyond that it seemed to prepare the film maker’s kid to early indoctrination (and believe me, he’ll get that soon enough as kindergarten is just around the corner for that boy)…”
Meanwhile, IC has responded to some of the above criticisms, and the group certainly has its defenders (e.g.), but it would seem IC has yet to address one of the main claims many are raising: that it is working with groups that are guilty of the same atrocities as the LRA.
Here is another recent source attempting to make sense of the issue.
I’m still wading through some of the various criticisms and IC’s response, but I tend to think IC’s basic motives are pure, but their methods and strategic intent are questionable and in various ways even dangerous. What do you think?
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/12 04:12 (UTC)2) Quit evading my questions. I'm talking about 2,000 years of sustained bigotry and massacre. You seem to be either incapable or unwilling to address this point. God killed people for cheating on their tithes in the 1st Generation in the Church, but He promotes butchers and monsters to the Papacy. Thus, we can conclude God approved.
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/12 07:32 (UTC)2) The only question you've asked in this thread, thus far, is "So I suppose God allowed false agents of Satan to occupy the See of Rome during the Medieval ages, did He?" I responded by saying that I have a hard time knowing what was going through the heads of professing Christians throughout history who have commit atrocious acts against the Jews. I said that either they were true Christians (and thus not practicing Christianity's love commandments or any of the virtues listed in the New Testament) or they were not (though they claimed to be). Is there an alternative to these you'd prefer I adopt and, if so, on what grounds should I hold it? I don't know what other questions you have in mind, as you haven't been making very much use of the question mark in this thread. I, on the other hand, have been asking repeated questions, in order to better understand your positions, but you—while accusing me of evading questions you've never actually asked—have consistently evaded answering mine. By the way, I'm not a Roman Catholic, I don't hold that God always holds church leaders (Pope or otherwise) accountable in the present life for their actions, I don't believe in the Calvinist God who micromanages everything, and consequently I deny the formal validity of your argument.
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/12 13:41 (UTC)2) That point was to illustrate that Christ said that Satan would never, at any point, overcome His Church. And this in turn means when the pious Christians of yesteryear were putting ghettoes to the torch and expelling the Jews that they were in fact doing the will of God to the Jews. In which case one then is obliged to ask "What did the Jews do to God?".
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/12 20:27 (UTC)2) That illustration is moot if the church consists in the priesthood of believers, and not assumed church hierarchies. There have always been saints who have lived lives of love and compassion in Christianity. Your understanding of 'overcome' also seems more political or at least more outward than I believe Jesus intended. But, just to complicate things, and as a counterpoint to Jesus' remark concerning the church, there's a significant verse Kierkegaard would often quote: "'when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?'"