March 11, 2012
On the genre of “Raising Awareness about Someone Else’s Suffering"
Aaron Bady in The New Inquiry [h/t: Meghant Sudan]:
4. Elliot Prasse-Freeman’s case study, “Be Aware: Nick Kristof’s Anti-Politics.” Serious and vicious. Kristof isn’t the problem, but he’s a walking embodiment of it.
5. Mahmood Mamdani’s Saviors and Survivors, in which he argues that the War on Terror is the inescapable interpretive matrix through which to understand why American college students suddenly got so excited about Darfur, years after the violence had peaked and declined.
“One needs to bear in mind that the movement to Save Darfur – like the War on Terror – is not a peace movement: it calls for a military intervention rather than political reconciliation, punishment rather than peace…Iraq makes some Americans feel responsible and guilty, just as it compels other Americans to come to terms with the limits of American power. Darfur, in contrast, is an act not of responsibility but of philanthropy. Unlike Iraq, Darfur is a place for which Americans do not need to feel responsible but choose to take responsibility.”
If Mamdani’s book is controversial, it’s also indispensable (especially since a certain NGO working on the issue of the LRA got its start in the Save Darfur movement). But even if you ultimately answer “no” to the questions he asks, you still need to ask them. You need to think through this set of relations very carefully:"The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?
The most powerful mobilisation in New York City is in relation to Darfur, not Iraq. One would expect the reverse, for no other reason than that most New Yorkers are American citizens and so should feel directly responsible for the violence in occupied Iraq. But Iraq is a messy place in the American imagination, a place with messy politics. Americans worry about what their government should do in Iraq. Should it withdraw? What would happen if it did? In contrast, there is nothing messy about Darfur. It is a place without history and without politics; simply a site where perpetrators clearly identifiable as ‘Arabs’ confront victims clearly identifiable as ‘Africans’."
6. Teju Cole’s twitter feed, but particularly his thoughts on the banality of sentimentality.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 01:17 PM | Permalink






















Comments
I find the critique of Kristoff interesting in that it demands of him something well beyond his actual role. Whether he acknowledges it or not, Kristoff is in the advertising business. The only value the people he writes about have in his business is their ability to help him create a story that will attract an audience that can be sold stuff. He may have other aspirations, but his success depends on that audience.
When I was in high school, I organized a project to aide the starving victims in Biafra during the Nigerian civil war. Students gave up their lunch money for a day and we gave the proceeds to the Red Cross fund set up to help the Biafran's.
That project had no opposition from either school administrators or students. Had I attempted to raise money for the victims of US bombs in Vietnam, it would never have happened. It requires no great insight to understand why people take the path of least resistance if, as was true of me, they want to do something to help the world.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 11, 2012 2:09:13 PM
Two threads of thought here:
A) 'That thing you're doing to try to help— it isn't helping'
B) 'Actually, it's hurting'.
B points seem most telling, because they actually imply policy recommendations ('Stop that. Think more deeply about the incentives you create before doing anything else.')
A points trouble me because they're more common and I can't figure, as a person of privilege and of conscience, what I ought to do with those criticisms. Apathy and minding my own narrowly defined business is one effective way to avoid class A criticism, but I don't know that that's what anyone would wish for.
How do such criticisms affect your policy decisions? How do they guide how you give away money? What is a responsible and respectful way to be a person of both conscience and privilege?
Posted by: Evan Jones | Mar 11, 2012 3:22:53 PM
Take your pick. Kristof, or Praase-Freeman's counsel:
"Against Kristof’s double move—opening up the caesura, allowing the pressure to escape, closing it again—the project must become to begin thinking through ways of speaking our open secrets, of holding that caesura open and doing politics in the gap."
Strange, too, how overwritten is Praase-Freeman's piece, given that it's in the interest of exposing Kristof's own sensationalism.
Hold on while I get back to doing politics in the gap.
Posted by: Brendan | Mar 12, 2012 11:04:08 AM
For me Kristof is an egregious example of the Rescue Industry, as in: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/25/the-soft-side-of-imperialism/
Thanks for the mention the other day - could you perhaps have ended with 'brown men' plus an ellipsis? since it wasn't the end of my piece at all.
Best, Laura
Posted by: Laura Agustín | Mar 12, 2012 1:42:04 PM
"'brown men' plus an ellipsis? since it wasn't the end of my piece at all."
Done. Also, we only post excerpts.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 12, 2012 1:57:27 PM
Kristoff's fault is that he is actually trying to do something. Which, of course, is worse than doing nothing, because now you may not be doing that something perfectly.
Kristoff isnt gonna save the world. Nor is he pretending to! His role is to expose his remote American audience to some of the horrors that are present in the poorer parts of the world. He hopes to show individuals who have succeeded in helping out so as to encourage others to possibly be involved and help out.
I find the genre of criticizing Kristoff far more interesting than the genre Kristoff, especially since the former is inhabited by folks who do little more than sit on their computers and type.
Posted by: addicted | Mar 13, 2012 2:54:41 AM
How in the world do you know what anyone other than K or other famous people are doing?
Posted by: Laura Agustín | Mar 13, 2012 6:46:32 AM
Post a comment