I assume the only people who do not yet know what all this "KONY 2012" noise is about are those of you not on Facebook. To briefly catch you up: A non-profit called Invisible Children (IC) released a slick, 30-minute video about the many war crimes of Joseph Kony, the man whose Lord's Resistance Army terrorized Uganda and brutalized its children for years. The video went viral and received more than 70 million views in less than a week. Within that same time frame, hundreds of highly critical articles were shared about Invisible Children. Criticisms targeted the group's financial management, its seemingly self-serving attitude and its failure to address the other serious human rights problems in Uganda.
It is great when a charity's financial practices are being scrutinized - they can only be improved with public attention. It is also fully appropriate to question IC's tactics, as no well-intentioned cause is above critical examination. But a number of critics are wrong in saying that IC does more harm than good. To say the world is worse off with the presence of this charity and the renewed attention it has brought to the condition of central Africa is absurd.
One of the easiest attacks to make against IC is that it spends most of its money on raising awareness. Visible Children, a blog which critiques IC's latest campaign, notes that 37 percent of IC's budget goes directly to programs in Africa, compared to 43 percent which goes to awareness programs. Critics cite this to display what they believe to be a shocking lack of priorities, but what it really shows is the sad reality behind most Westerners' knowledge of issues in Africa.
Before last week, millions of ordinary people in the United States had no idea about a single problem plaguing Uganda. Without raising awareness of Kony's bloody legacy, IC would not have any money to use for its work on an actual solution. Visible Children points out IC raised $9 million in 2011. So, going by the percentages previously stated, this group put a little more than $3 million into direct action that year. Does this mean the awareness funds were squandered? Of course not.
Within a week of the launch of their expensive awareness campaign KONY 2012, IC had brought in a staggering $15 million. If the organization only spent a third of that money on helping people in Africa, IC's revenue from a single week has contributed more to programs in Africa than it did all of last year; it is also more than its expenditure last year on awareness. This may come as a shock to some of the more idealistic critics of IC, but the old adage "you have to spend money to make money" applies to charities, as well.
Of course, this is only one of the many points of criticism against IC. The other major Western criticisms against IC are presented in The Atlantic by Max Fisher. In his article "The Soft Bigotry of Kony 2012," Fisher says the "damage" done by IC is twofold: First, it is likely to lessen the amount of aid going to central Africa. Second, the campaign reinforces the idea "that well-meaning Westerners need to come in and fix" Africa, perpetuating a perverted, updated version of colonialism. We can ignore the contradiction inherent in holding these two premises simultaneously - people will not actually help, but then they will go and help with the wrong attitude! - and take their flawed reasoning apart separately.
Fisher's first argument seems to hinge on the assumption that the people giving to KONY 2012 would be instead giving to better causes in Africa if IC did not exist. Is it really safe to assume that people who were only just made aware of one of Africa's worst war criminals were so well-informed about Africa before viewing the KONY 2012 video that they would be doing better without IC? Slim chances.
As for charity being the new "white man's burden": The idea that the white men behind IC may be a little in love with themselves can be safely drawn from their video. But IC's website specifically points out that they act "with continuous input from, and in respect of the knowledge and experience of, local communities and their leaders." A broader point about helping those in need is behind this issue. Philosopher Peter Singer famously defended foreign aid in his classic essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." He compared donating to those in need to wading into a shallow pond to save a drowning child - if it doesn't cost you anything significant, how can you refuse to do it? Singer is clearly not being a neo-imperialist or hoping to deprive Africans of agency. He simply presents a notion that, if widely held, would vastly improve the world: those with power - or money - ought to help those in need. Americans have a lot of power and money. Using those things wisely to assist the less fortunate is the only humane option.
The voices speaking out against IC are numerous, and the criticisms that advocate for alternative actions are by far the strongest. I cannot refute those Ugandan critics who suggest that IC misrepresents their national situation, but I do think there is some reason for optimism. This campaign has caused millions to show an interest in Uganda and will hopefully lead to further notice. The problems of Uganda, including the human rights abuses of its sitting government, are terrible in their own right and more than worthy of attention. If anything, the KONY 2012 campaign has provided a blueprint of success for other humanitarians: If you want to make people aware of your cause, you've got to advertise it attractively and succinctly. People want opportunities to do good. Give them that opportunity, and you can change the world.
Sam Carrigan's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.carrigan@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
