Africa's Poor Had The Best Week Ever

[Correction, 11/2/06: The percentage that AmEx Red donates to the Global Fund was incorrectly reported. See my note in paragraph 8.]

Africa's poor had, like, the best week ever. Not since the days of khaki colonialism has buying Africa been so sexy, so fashionable. Early last week, Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie swooped into the village of Mphandula in Malawi and adopted 13-month old David Banda. Price tag for this celebrity accessory du jour: $3 million to anti-poverty programs and $1 million to produce a documentary on the plight of Malawi's children, one million of whom are AIDS orphans (though little David is not, his father is very much alive and planned to reclaim the child until the Material Girl made an offer).

But don't worry, if an African baby is too pricey for you (and conjures up undesirable associations to Angelina Jolie or slavery), then you can buy Red instead. Launched this week in North America, Bono's campaign re-brands Motorola Rzr phones, Gap t-shirts, Armani sunglasses and Converse sneakers with the Product Red logo. Up to half of all profits will go to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS; a $199 Red Ipod Nano will, for example, lead to a $10 donation by Apple. Oprah, Steven Spielberg, Penelope Cruz, Christy Turlington, Chris Rock, Mary J. Blige and other celebrities have all endorsed the campaign. "Can a tank top change the world?" asks one Gap ad. In the UK, where AmEx Red donates 1% of all purchases to The Global Fund, the question was simply "Has there ever been a better reason to shop?"

Call me a curmudgeon but...Hello, hello? I'm at a place called vertigo. It's not that I think Bono's crusade has had a negative net impact on the fight against AIDS (though one could certainly make the case a la George Monbiot). And I'm not discouraging anyone who was already in the market for a $150 Gap denim jacket or Apple Ipod from buying Red. If you really need one, you might as well kick back a few bucks so that someone in Africa can live. But spare me the fantasy that shopping till you drop somehow affects radical change.

The perniciousness of this corporate consumerism masquerading as activism was best represented by Bono's partner in the Product Red endeavor, Bobby Shriver of the Kennedy clan who said to the New York Times:

"Gap in the beginning couldn't understand how they were going to make money. They wanted to do a T-shirt and give us all the money. But, we want them to make money. We don't want anyone to be thinking, ‘I'm not making money on this thing,' because then we failed. We want people buying houses in the Hamptons based on this because, if that happens, this thing is sustainable."

Aside from the sheer, murderous calculation involved (preserving the perception of corporate profitability at the cost of millions of dollars of charitable aid and thus at the cost of thousands of African lives), it's the whole notion that sustainability and success requires summer estates in the Hamptons that really rankles me.

Welcome to the gilded age of corporate empire or what its leading citizen Bill Gates calls "frictionless capitalism." In this universe there are no states, no rights to health care, no trade policies and corporate welfare programs that keep Big Pharma the most lucrative industry going. In the place of anything resembling citizenship we have consumer choices, "innovation" and above all brand marketing, which is even now in Product Red being cast as some sort of corporate largesse. ("Isn't it so great that the Gap and Apple would submerge their own brand identity," glowed many a business page article). Shopping is sharing, and the unprecedented accumulation of wealth squares entirely with "ending poverty" -- just ask Gates or Warren Buffet. In their world, fighting AIDS somehow never seems to query how Europe and the US underdeveloped Africa and how the continent's abundant resources are still exploited by the world's wealthy.

And as this smart blogger points out, the AmEx board is stacked with former and current CEOs and directors of major Pharma companies who waged a genocidal campaign against the generic production of AIDS drugs. At 1% of AmEx Red profits, absolution comes cheap these days, don't it? [Correction: According to Product Red CEO Bobby Shriver, AmEx Red donates "1% of a cardholder's bill" or roughly "40% of AMEX's gross revenue" to the Global Fund.]

So what's an MP3-stealing, cell phone-addicted fashion follower like myself to do? Here's my DIY solution that still involves shopping and branding. A red Sharpie marker costs about a $1. Go get one and mark up something you already own. A giant red A will suffice, I suppose, but don't be afraid to stretch your imagination. Then send $198 (or $149 or whatever you can afford) to the Global Fund. Or if you prefer an organization that does political advocacy instead of direct service, try HealthGap at the Mobilization Against AIDS. You may not be wearing the hottest shade of red, but your contribution will be significantly larger and cleaner.

Click on the links below or send checks or money orders to:

United Nations Foundation Attn: Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria Dept. 344 Washington D.C. 20055-0344

or

Mobilization Against AIDS (insert "Health GAP" in memo line) 584 Castro Street, Suite # 416 San Francisco, CA 94114

Comments (14)

1. you know what? i actually don't agree with this article one bit. shocking, i know.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2006 @ 9:15pm

2. You're kidding, Darla? This was among the rare cleverly written and thought out articles I've read on the Nation in a long time. Personally, I haven't and do not intend to send a penny to African aid, but Mr. Kim has made an excellent point. His closing paragraph hits it on the head.

   Posted by Person at 10/15/2006 @ 9:56pm

3. no, i'm not. and this statement pretty much makes me roll my eyes:

   "In their world, fighting AIDS somehow never seems to query how Europe and US underdeveloped Africa and how the continent's abundant resources are still exploited by the world's wealthy."

   this is simply outrageous, to couple the career narratives of gates and buffet with the multi-national, and trans-historical, exploitation of the african continent.

   do you actually expect gates and buffet, at this state in their lives, to try and reverse this course, instead of delivering billions right now?

   money is money. it all helps.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2006 @ 11:05pm

4. Darla,

   I agree to a certain extent - in a civil society where markets dominate the economic sphere, I don't really see any other way to do charitable work than through marketing. I mean, if 5% of every purchase of products made by US companies went to help fight AIDS in Africa, it would increase the amount of foreign aid from this country by over 2000%. (Current foreign aid from the US as a percentage of GNP is 0.22%). With millions dying per year in Africa, I don't think that their lives are worth a sense of moral outrage over pragmatic opportunism.

   On the other hand, the US is a very religious nation (95% of people are practicing.) One thing that all major world religions have in common is a concern for the vulnerable at the heart of religious practice. I am convinced that any large scale change in our (U.S.) society's motivation to help the vulnerable must come from our shared religious identity. I think that progressives (myself included) tend to try to ignore religion and often embarrassed by its misuse and misappropriation. But, this is one sphere where values are shared across most religious traditions: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc, and where religious identity can be used to accomplish something positive.

   -Matt

   Posted by twocinc at 10/16/2006 @ 09:10am

5. [EDIT] "I don't think that their lives are worth a sense of moral outrage over pragmatic opportunism."

   should be

   " I don't think a sense of moral outrage over pragmatic opportunism is worth their lives."

   Posted by twocinc at 10/16/2006 @ 09:12am

6. Posted by TWOCINC 10/16/2006 @ 09:10am

   95% practice religion?!

   I seriously doubt the number is that high. If it is, then I must know almost all of 5%.

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/16/2006 @ 10:06am

7. Urmy,

   You are correct.. I misquoted the number by about 10%. The actual percent of religious adherents in the U.S. is about 86%, or to put it another way, about 14% of folks here profess no religious preference, atheist, or agnostic.

   Source: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

   Posted by twocinc at 10/16/2006 @ 10:21am

8. Urmy,

   One further note for clarification: for the purposes of my original post I equate professing with practicing. This should be reasonable in context because I'm talking about religious identity as a motivator for societal change. I think it's fair to say that if people profess a faith then their perspective is, to a greater or lesser extent, informed by the values contained in that faith.

   Posted by twocinc at 10/16/2006 @ 10:36am

9. Why bring religion into this...? Religion has always been and will forever be the source of war, struggle and strife, not the salvation it promises.

   Posted by Rowdy at 10/16/2006 @ 3:57pm

10. Sigh,

    Ignoring religion seems to me to be similar to ignoring sex. Yes, there probably is a minority of the population that doesn't practice it or need it, but it remains constitutive of identity for the large majority, therefore it is often impossible to fully understand most people's motivations without taking religious impulses into account. My point is that rather than demonizing religion, which will only earn the enmity of the 80% of the world that practices religion, perhaps we should try to understand what is positive in religion and promote that for the good of society. I think that is fairly topical to the original post.

    To be honest, this century, it has seemed like money, power, resources, racism, and nationalism have dominated as sources of war, struggle, and strife. Admittedly religion is a factor in some of these, but not the only factor.

    I don't think that religion is a panacea, but I also don't think that it's the opiate of the masses. No government, no union, no NGO, no other type of organization on the planet has both the numbers religious organizations do and also the intrinsic mandate to protect and assist the vulnerable.

    Posted by twocinc at 10/16/2006 @ 4:31pm

11. WOW, do u think "Apple" can afford the 10 bucks? gee golly gosh, now "WE" have to consummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmme more and more to what make the rich richer- my ass. get "our darling Oprah" to take some of the 1 BILLION dollars she has and.......... why don't we just send $$$$$$$$$$$$ to africa? why cause some ass will rip it off and stick it into his pocket. what we need is to find non-bureaucratic, non adminisration top-heavy, money wasting organizations to actually do something like Mr. Yuhus. we need to plant the poor regions, compost, feed not shop! Hurray BONO, Hurray Oprah-shop/shop/shop/shop/shop/shop/shop till ya drop, spend/spend/spend/spend/spend-whoopie, buy/buy/buy/buy/buy!!!!!!!!!!!!!more crap!

    Posted by nowhereman at 10/17/2006 @ 03:54am

12. Richard Kim,

    Bono is helping millions of poor people by getting millions of other people who wouldn't have helped to help.

    and you piss on that?

    how much money have you personally raised for poverty relief this year?

    what i won't be fooled by is your critical drivel.

    -joe

    Posted by joesmithrocs at 10/17/2006 @ 10:09am

13. While these charitable organizations are great, you only need to give the charity 10% of your profits/donations. It is a great way to make a ton of money. What is 1% of 1 billion and then what is 10% of that? If my math is right, in the end all Africa really gets for Aids is $1 million.

    Then don't forget if the Government gets that money first then they can do what ever they want with it. The reason Aids is so rampant in Africa is because government officials don't care. People are starving and sick because they can use the money the US gives to buy a new yacht, instead of helping their people, because that's whatever. Without sanctions on what they can use the money for, I doubt these charitable actions will do much good.

    To conclude a million dollars is better than no dollars, lets just hope it goes to the right place.

    Posted by Foxfire at 10/17/2006 @ 11:03am

14. While I've been to my share of benefits that cost more than they raised (begging the question, "Why not donate the cost of producing the benefit directly to the charity?"), I feel like this article misses a couple of important points. Personally, I thought I was going to gag when I was flipping channels the other day and saw Oprah buy ten cellphones and ten ipods at a time, but the campaign raises AWARENESS among a demographic that has never had to suffer. In previous generations a charitable organization could invoke the memories of the Great Depression or the World Wars or the fear of polio or influenza. Today most people think of war, famine, and plague as fictional plot-devices for videogames and science fiction movies. Yes, the campaign is cynical for trying to make sure the corporations that participate maintain their bottom line- but how much more impact will be felt if a new crop of folks who drink the Kool-Ade at Fox realize there are problems in the world beyond whether skinny jeans are still "in." I've heard many people I consider to be intelligent individuals argue that foreign aid- particularly to Africa (which I find shockingly racist to oppose) doesn't benefit America and should be halted and redirected toward blighted, impoverished communities here at home. While I would love more than anything to see New Orleans restored to it's former, decadent glory and see a coherant strategy for improving education here, I can't help but wonder if these people believe that eradicating polio didn't benefit us? What will it take to make people sympathetic to the idea that a disease doesn't recognize national boundaries? Or is the problem that we still view AIDS through the Reagan-tinted glasses that show the disease as a problem for people who are considered undesirable and therefore unworthy of help?

    Posted by brennial at 10/17/2006 @ 1:26pm