Burma has been in the news lately because of an environmental disaster of epic proportions. While it's probably useless to believe any statistics being bandied about, the official death toll currently 84,537 dead, with 53,836 still missing, according to the Deputy Foreign Minister Kyaw Thu (source).
On the featured video section of youtube today, I happened across an awareness junket being put on by an organization called the US Campaign for Burma (see).
The campaign features 50 or so days of short skits and commentary, each one willingly acted out by an assortment of A, B, and C list celebrities trying to find creative ways to plug the dire circumstances of Burma, while simultaneously scraping out their primary objective of remaining lighthearted, witty or reverence for the situation (depending on who talking on what day). It seems to me as if each comedic actors have been given an explicit instruction to remember that they stand a better chance of being taken seriously if they are silly - since the general public apparently has little appetite for self-important actors who maintain interests in humanitarian causes as sideshows to remain in the public eye. Of course, some of the videos are more serious than others, and as such, the material for these clip were reserved for the more 'serious' actors - generally speaking, these more serious clips are either peddling a messianic complex of Aung San Suu Kui (see), or barely constraining a strangwe blood lust to overthrow the regime that is being blamed for the atrocities of Burma in the last fifty years. Our blood lust is keen sense in so many of us Americans, progressive and conservative alike [though lusting after different targets].
Of course. most of the youtube skits would have to be humorous in order for people to watch them. The primary sponsor of these videos, Fanista (A Community if Entertainment Enthusiasts) would not likely throw any money or support at this cause if it couldn't tag itself onto famous actors, and it couldn't attract a larger audience, in turn, to themselves. Of course, they are professing to be doing their part, as they are generously giving 10% of their proceeds from DVDs, CDs, and video games they sell to the Burma cause. Who knew that buying Grand Theft Auto could fill a dying kid's rice bowl in Burma?
Of course, I want you to view some of the videos yourself. Personally, I find them funny. And shallow. And disingenuous. I hope you will ask yourself, as I did, which parties are benefiting this campaign - in what ways, and in what degree. My own answers lead me to believe a significant change in public consciousness about these realities are not forthcoming.
I also found myself wondering, is having a gimmick such as the US Campaign for Burma [as it's presented on youtube and on a website sponsored by Fanista] necessary in order to bring such awareness about the people of Burma to the American public? Are there better ways, or other ways? Ways that, perhaps, can provide more focus and support on the real individuals and organizations working there already, and those who are trying to get there to doing community building and humanitarian work? If more real work needs to be cultivated, how do we focus there?
Something troubles me about this celebrity-media driven culture pandering to the larger public in order to establish our humanitarian priorities. Must we as a public always have to recognize the face of the speaker [through famous personalities] - in order to see ourselves and our own humanity in their words?
The more I see these kinds of campaigns, the more I wonder - must we sell our own souls to save the lives of others? Do these campaigns exist because it's effective? Do they exist for the sake of the cause itself - or for something else?
For someone like me, who believes campaigns like this reek with dishonesty, and barely disguise their greater capitalistic ulterior motives - how do we reconcile with the conflict of agreeing that a crisis actually exists [and something must be done about it], yet still be able to reject the exploitation, public placation, and under-handed methods through which these crisis's are packaged to us - so that all we have to do in order to save Burma is to buy a few CDs and shoot off a couple of emails to the Human Rights Action Center? And how can we reject these shallow solutions and mindsets - if we haven't any better answers of our own to offer?
I should be clear about this point - the militarization and brutal force of the Burmese army, the use of child solders, and of slavery, the devastation agricultural prospects across the entire country, the absence of human aid and social programs provided by the government are all dire crisis and sure causes to advocate, and to assert change.
Something is missing in all this. Our collective perspectives in dealing with humanitarian crisis seems to be woefully off the mark and inadequate. Our shared identity and obligation toward other human beings elsewhere in the world is either missing in whole, at the the very least, seriously diminished. What's the cause of this?
Has it ever been any different in our existence?
/*******/
See these other resources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/world/asia/18myanmar.html?ref=asia
[video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1zYQqx_GX9U]
(Ellen Page)
[video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=uTu06VMOMBQ&feature=user]
(Norman Lear)
[video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wOHV0C__jZI&feature=user]
(Jen Anniston)