Analysis Of Angelina Jolie’s, Madonna’s And Akon's Philanthropy In The Developing World
Philanthropy can be rooted as the love of mankind, Phil comes from the Greek word which means loving and Philo-Anthropos is another Greek term for human, minor acts like helping the community by donating food to the less fortunate, rescuing lost pets like dogs, cats and major acts like contributing money to people in the developing world are all philanthropic acts for the love of mankind aimed to make the world a better living environment . A person who sets out to be a philanthropist gives their time, treasure, talent and money for a just cause to connect with people who are less privileged or have been affected by a natural disaster. Anybody can be a philanthropist because a simple campaign such as the anti-bullying campaign can make a huge difference to people in general. Philanthropy is fun especially at the receiving end of those who get genuine help, however, Philanthropy becomes dynamite when the philanthroper wants nothing but profit together with a hidden or second motif.
In 2014, Akon a renown American musician and philanthropist launched a project to bring solar energy in over twenty African rural communities, although his campaign was not easy he launched his project in countries like; Niger, Senegal, Guinea, Mali and Senegal because when he visited Dakar, Senegal (his country of origin) after being back from the United States he realized most of the people living in African rural communities lacked access to electricity. This meant that the people living in these rural communities were unable to study their school notes after sunset. Akon used his musical talent as a philanthroper to provide electricity to about 600 million people (mainly in West African rural communities) since he realized that electricity was unavailable, but the sun was, he used the solar energy project mainly because it was safer than using a kerosene lamp or candle which could easily burn down a house. I believe Akon lighting almost half of the African continent is a philanthropic act because he used his time, talent and money to help less fortunate Africans without having a second motif. In 1983, famine hit northern Ethiopia and the Ethiopian communist leader at the time Mengistu did not entirely help the famine situation, therefore American musicians such as; Billy Joel, Kenny Rogers, Michael Jackson and Paul Simon helped in minimizing the famine that struck northern Ethiopia. These American musicians also had humanitarian aid in which they collaborated and raised millions of dollars. In this scenario, a natural disaster(famine) engulfed northern Ethiopia and American celebrities who were more privileged used their time and talent to raise money to help people in a developing country like Ethiopia.
However, the hidden motive behind this American musician and the humanitarian aid in Ethiopia was that Mengistu was a communist and the American government under Reagan's administration took advantage of the famine situation since Ethiopia was vulnerable, the American government wanted to show that communism was a regime that was to be aborted and Mengistu failed as a communist leader. In the end, America’s hidden motive under president Reagan was to dissolve the communist regime in Ethiopia. The rest of the world saw Mengistu as a villain who was unable to help his people while the American musicians and humanitarian aid were the heroes.
Celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie go in developing countries on the African and Asian continent to help eradicate poverty by adopting quite a few children with the notion of ‘giving back ‘(the million-dollar salary they have obtained in Hollywood through helping impoverished infants) but the truth is that they take away from the developing world.
Firstly, since majority of women are voiceless in the developing world, they do not have a final say when philanthropist like Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopt children. Celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie give the notion to the rest of the world that the developing countries are archaic and unfit to take care of its own children, the public sees them as the ideal mums who save impoverished African and Asian children. Madonna and Angelina Jolie love the notion that the world sees them as kindhearted or “the white savior” who come to adopt impoverished diseased children in the developing world.
In both Madonna and Angelina Jolie's case, their philanthropy campaign on the African and Asian continent is not complex for them since they live in Beverly Hills and often go to remote villages in the developing world to raise ‘awareness” in developing countries. In Madonna's case adopting David Banda created a false picture in the global society, the huge difference between the lifestyle of poor people living in the developing world and Madonna with Angelina Jolie's Holly wood lifestyle makes their philanthropic campaign both achievable and believable to the public. The rest of the world see these celebrities as superheroes who are stepping outside their comfort Hollywood lifestyle to help poor children in remote villages with harmful diseases. In 2006, Angelina Jolie was interviewed by Anderson Cooper about her ‘philanthropic’ campaign in Africa, sad to say that she became the main focus in the interview instead of the poor African children she planned to adopt, she also proved that she had the ability to decide which developing nation her next adoption child will originate from, in short, she glorified herself as a mother and savior to the children of the developing world.
Philanthropic work is satisfying but becomes problematic when the people in the developing world face culture domination by hostile celebrities who see their western culture as superior and fail to interrogate the power dynamics that shape their stories in the developing world, in Madonna and Angelina Jolie's case the power dynamics would be the difficulties of international adoption and how it was made possible. Celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie bring more attention to themselves than the central issues faced by people in developing countries where they raise ‘awareness’. The aid of Hollywood and the media helps to glorify and hype them when in reality they are hostile because they feel that it is their right to help people living in a primitive cultural society, (cultural supremacy)they have hidden motifs of neo-colonizing through adopting children from impoverished developing countries, this way the public sees them as ‘white savior’ as they create personal brands.
I believe that a few celebrities like Akon are making a big difference in the developing world, Akon with his huge solar project designed to help at least 600 million people in African rural communities with electricity has made a huge difference in Africa. A true philanthropist is one whom the world is aware of where and how their consumption originally came from, one of the dangers celebrities create is that they become global consumers in the name of empathizing and helping with the victims from the developing world in kicking poverty, to make matters worse, the media especially social media and Hollywood industries give people who look up to these celebrities the hype that they are genuine superheroes to the developing world, this becomes quite dangerous because all the attention and sympathy is placed on celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie, instead of the real problem faced by people living in developing countries like poverty eradication.
Another problem is that celebrities experience the developing world with their own lens and that of the camera by taking thousands of pictures among poor African/Asian children and they fail to experience the developing world through the lens of the poor who already live in impoverished conditions. Philanthropic celebrities have created more complex issues because psychologists at the University of Liverpool, England concluded that since Madonna is a renown international celebrity this makes her a public figure, other women across the world have copied her by adopting third world children globally, psychologists in University of Liverpool coined this as the “Madonna effect”. Philanthropic work does not totally eradicate poverty in the developing world but helps the situation of the less fortunate, in order to minimize poverty in the developing world it is better for change to start with the poor people living in impoverished conditions rather than always depending on Philanthropic aid from the developed world ,this creates an independent-dependent power relation also Philanthropic aid tends to slow social change because of political and social dynamics, there is a huge and strong division between the rich and poor rather than destroying poverty itself.
In conclusion, the celebrity involvement in significant developmental issues in the developing world is both important and positive like Akon’s solar energy campaign on the African continent, however, these campaigns give a historical, over-simplistic view of complex issues when celebrities have hidden motifs, hostility, cultural supremacy ,they feel the urge to neo-colonization “white savior”, create personal brands, fail to address the main issue which is poverty, become capital consumers by bringing more attention to themselves than the central problem which is getting rid of poverty in all developing nations, philanthropic work must should not just benefit the donor(in this case the celebrities but those who are at the receiving end as well(impoverished children).
