This is an editorial I wrote for the school newspaper. Excuse the length. >>Paris Hilton announced in late September that she was planning a visit to Africa to do missionary work. Obviously, there are multiple things wrong with that sentence.
First of all, I doubt Hilton is the best representative of Western society to go to Africa and spread the message of the Gospel. Anyone who hasn’t been snuggled under a rock for the past 5 years can come up with a dawdling list of reasons why.
Secondly, Hilton’s declaration is part of a general trend in the realm of celebrities and otherwise useless figures in the spotlight to improve the conditions in Africa in a manner totally inconsistent with the needs of the continent. And maybe it’s just me, but I sense their super star status has something to do with it.
For example, when Madonna was fighting the legal battle with the government of Malawi in order to adopt a child, it was unclear whether or not the boy’s father was aware of exactly what was going on. Furthermore, the Malawian government lashed out at the pop star for not respecting the nation’s sovereignty- adoption from outside the nation is illegal. This was a minor recantation of the issue that made the Berlin Conference so repulsive. In 1885, the leaders of the imperialistic European powers sat down together and put a map of Africa in front of them. From there, they proceeded to butcher it to fit their desires without any consideration from African leaders about the particular balance of culture, ethnic diversity, or economic and political conditions. The horror is the lack of respect used in regards to the citizens of Africa. The needs of the African people were outweighed by the interests of the European politicians. Similarly, I don’t think I could’ve adopted a child in Malawi when the government doesn’t allow it, but Madonna can because she has the funds for a lawsuit and because she doesn’t really need to respect the right of a nation to place and enforce its own laws.
Don’t get me wrong- I think it’s great that glamorous celebrities are looking beyond their haute couture and trying to work for the greater good. I also don’t think that we should pass off a lot of these acts as publicity stunts because we don’t know the true intents of rock stars and cinematic sensations. On, and I’m not just bashing on the pop diva- I love her music. A recent account I read of Tracy McGrady traveling to the Sudan struck me very deeply- it was really touching how McGrady felt for the devasted population personally and spent time actually living like a refugee. In that case, anyone could see that this low-key visit was not a stint to revamp a poor public image. Sadly, most philanthropic ventures turn into a naive account of good intentions. Madonna mentioned on Oprah that she was, “giving [the boy] a life,” which in turn promotes the belief that unless you can go swimming in your money, your life must suck. And all you orphans out there- know that a rich lady can walk into your life and decide to buy you at a whim.
Honestly, isn’t the point of all these philanthropic ventures to promote equality and the notion of tolerance? What gives stars the right to act sympathetic, and therefore superior, to those suffering plights? If that same boy that Madonna fought for was taken in by a middle class African family who loved him, provided him with an education, and sustained his spirit, would he be worse off?
But what may be worse then everything else is that well to-doers have been pumping money into Africa and screaming about aid for decades- and the fruits of their labor are most likely in the already lined pockets of corrupt charity workers, politicians, and members of the media. For example, Bono’s pioneering Product (RED) campaign in conjunction with big names such as Apple, GAP, Armani, Converse and a slew of other labels, donates a percentage of every item sold to a charity that is focused on providing relief for AIDS victims in Africa. So far, the profit that goes to the charity stands at around $80 million dollars. Yet the campaign has spent almost $200 million in advertising and promotion. Over $400 billion dollars of aid has been sent to Africa since 1970. Yet the continent still has the lowest gross domestic product and the highest rates of infant mortality and of particular diseases. Zimbabwe alone has an inflation rate of over 3000%. While debutantes throw a bash celebrating their fabulous efforts at improving the world, crooked politicians and dictatorships grab at the handouts and the people ultimately suffer. Also, no one stops to think about the fact that although adopting one child from an impoverished nation helps provide that child with a better life, it does nothing for the community. Madonna is “saving” that boy- not Malawi, not Africa, and certainly not the world.
The lesson to learn here is the quintessential Spiderman cliché- with great power comes great responsibility. Celebrities, you have lots of influence and resources. Use that in the best way possible. Opening up a school for African girls, as Oprah did, or living like a refugee so you can become the voice of an abandoned people is better than reinforcing a superiority complex. What makes me disgusted by the behavior at the Berlin Conference is the lack of respect for the individuality of Africa. Celebrities do the same thing. Africa is not a place that needs “rescuing;” it deserves to be treated as a unique entity full of potential. And the actions that anyone should take to tap into this potential should get to the source of the problem, and should not blatantly display racism, nor turn a blind eye to reality.
As for Paris Hilton, I advise everyone to bet on what gossip site, StarMuscle, says: in the days before Hilton is supposed to leave, she will fake an illness and it will breaking news on CNN, as well as on the front page of the newspaper. Then, the world will pray for her and Hilton will refuse to comment on the whole incident because she will move past it.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think hollywood is just drama
I struggle to distinguish the fine line between what kinds of actions celebrities can take to promote positivity as opposed to negativity. You make a reference to Paris Hilton, saying that she's doing all this charity crap in order to boost her status as an American celebrity. But then you go on to say that people such as Oprah has helped Africa by opening a school. So how is it different when Oprah does charitable things? It seems like the blog is focussing on the reputations---reputations primarily created by the stereotypical media---of celebrities as a whole. In other words, since Paris's Hilton's rep as a star is not up to par, you make inferences that she's doing these things just for her own good as opposed to Oprah (a person who is considered to be more legit by society). But isn't Oprah also doing these things in order to boost her status to some extent? All in all, my questions is: what is the legitimacy behind your claim when you would never know who the true Paris Hilton or Oprah is?
If I were rich I would skip the Berlin Conference-esque shit and just buy the whole continent. I need some good cheetah hunting grounds.
And you're right in that Africa is the sperm dumpster for philanthropic impulses