September 30, 2016 - 17:10
“A singer may be innocent; never the song.” What does this mean? In my opinion, the song stands for any issue like racism, sexism, classism, etc. The singers are the activist or not so active participants who contribute to the cause in a large range of ways. This can mean the people simply putting $5 in the donation box behind the cash register at McDonalds to those protesting in their communities. Teju Cole writes The White- Savior Industrial Complex stating not only the everyday American’s involvement, but his own, in fighting for a cause to alleviate their own emotional distress with an issue. This distress to a disturbing issue is generally alleviated by giving money to the issue or participate in various ways that fall into the “making a difference” banner. Cole does not give any clear solutions to what he considers this fail in activism. The quote from above ties in with his argument because Cole seems to be saying that American’s who try to participate in making a difference are innocent because they are trying to use somewhat surface level attempts at change but the real issue cannot be changed with this. An issue cannot leave the repercussions it causes thus it has no innocence whereas the singer, the American, can take a backseat when they want. Obviously I think bringing issues to people’s attention does add something to a fight but an issue cannot be alleviated. The point I challenge in Cole’s article is whether his use of the the quote in particular a singer’s innocence can be validated. I do not accuse Americans, in particular those who attempt at activism, of intentionally committing any harm but I wonder whether one can really be innocent if their privilege most likely profit off many whose troubles come from abroad. Examining Cole’s examples of white-savior industrial complex, we can understand how an activist cannot be innocent once they become aware of issues yet benefit because of privilege. An American’s role in activism in issues involving foreign countries is neither innocent nor guilty but one must be complacent with their unintentional profit from privilege because we can then hold ourselves accountable to allow ourselves to be rid of our own denial in conflict.
Cole discusses his motivation in writing this article and that was Kony 2012. Kony 2012 was a warlord/military leader, Joseph Kony, who would kidnap children and make them child-soldiers as part of the his militia. Cole’s issues with this was when he saw the Kony 2012 video is that it takes a stance that only speaks of change but does not implement any real change. The idea of the white- savior complex gets involved because the narrator of this film, Jason Russell, can in a very broad sense be seen as the figure who in history’s past has been white men who go and try to civilize various countries in Africa. This film can somewhat loosely be associated to this image because it serves to spread the word on how we can fix the situation in Uganda. Although the film was meant to serve a beneficial purpose to help this cause it still begs the question on how American’s should be involved in foreign politics. The issue Uganda was faced with was indeed a very unsettling issue but to relate Americans innocence is that one cannot fully comprehend the capacity of what any of these child-soldiers face. But they also do not need to. This maintains the singers innocence but also the privilege that Americans face after they learn of this issue leaves me to assume this innocence is not so clear. A baby is innocent, but people who can willingly know their privilege is helped by people who are being harmed are not innocent. They do not make the conscious decision to hurt these people for they are not guilty of harming these people either but they must understand that they are a willing party in the systemic role privilege benefits off of.
Oprah was a highlight of discussion when Cole named her in the white-savior industrial complex and he was called out for saying this. Oprah is very privileged, I even tend to believe her wealth is beyond privilege which allows the various other aspects of her identity which might have been oppressed to be overlooked. Despite her money, she is often seen as helpful and intelligent. She can be seen as one of the singers of the song in activism for various causes but particular her donations to build schools and give relief to the various impoverished countries in Africa. Though she does truly help in making a difference, she is known to try to pull at the emotions of her many viewers and probably alleviates some of her own emotional strain knowing these issues of what happens abroad. Yet when we put Oprah on the pedestal of a singer of these issues, can one say she is truly innocent once she understands the song? Oprah as one of the wealthiest women in America cannot be truly innocent because her success has been dictated off the work of many. Many of her materialistic things are probably made from different places abroad and though we do not hold her guilty of perpetrating issues like human sweatshops but we must remain aware that her songs do not hold her innocent either. Oprah is most definitely not alone in this fact and does stand for the many American activists who stand for foreign politics. Because the song or issue is most definitely not innocent, how can those who loosely benefit from it be.
Put simply American must be aware of our own role in the song or issue so foreign politics is not solely characterized as an “abroad” issue. I do not think Cole proves the point of the innocence of activist. He even mentions that his phone may even built off the work of a Chinese sweatshop worker. Though no one blames him for purchasing that phone, he still continues a problem that he is willingly taking part in because of the privilege he has. Kony 2012 and Oprah, show that a singer of activism can still benefit off their privilege unlike the issue. Through Teju Cole’s examples of the white savior industrial complex we can identify that an American’s role in activism in foreign politics is neither innocent nor guilty but one must be complacent with their unintentional profit from privilege because we can then hold ourselves accountable and make true change.