By Mike Peeters, senior English and Information Science & Technology major at SLC
With technology
becoming ever-present in our day to day lives, it has become
impossible for us to escape the barrage of information that we absorb
throughout our days. From the constant vibrations from our phones to
the ad banners present on and off the screen, we are pummeled with so
much information and 'proven facts' that the average toddler can
contemplate an argument as to why McDonald's is the best restaurant
ever! And while this may seem like a silly example, in reality, the
grown ups aren't all that much better. From Kony 2012 to the ALS Ice
Bucket challenge, the average adult is on the same level as a
toddler. That is, they're eager to jump on band wagons with
prescribed facts as their voice and emotions as their driving force.
While this may sound insulting, let me ask you a question about the
latter since it's the freshest example in our minds: In regards to
the ALS charity, how much of your donation is actually helping
somebody and how much of your donation is going into somebody's
paycheck?
It would not
surprise me if you found yourself googling that very question. If you look them up on Charity Navigator, a watch dog
group that evaluates charities and how they handle themselves, you'll
find that the group has an excellent record in transparency and has a
proficient record in regards to finances. So, this
charity is actually a good charity as they dedicate $15.5 million towards their total $21 million budget for community services and research . However, what's to say that I didn't lie just
now and what's to say that the motives behind the drive weren't lies
from the start? How eager are we to accept the information that we're
given as fact especially when those 'facts' are encouraging us to
pursue something that's a 'good cause?'
Before I continue,
I will say that the information that I gave is correct- at least, in
regards to what Charity Navigator claims- a resource I've personally
found to be trustworthy. However, the question I asked still stands-
When we are presented with some cause that seems like a good cause,
why are we so eager to accept the facts they give as facts? When
asking this question, another movement comes to mind that became a
hot topic issue in 2011: The Kony 2012 movement. This movement- which
was pervasive in some areas and nearly absent in others, was a
movement driven by social media. The purpose of this movement was to
detain and prosecute Joseph Kony- a warlord from Uganda who's militia
employed child soldiers who were taken, by force, from their homes
and families and brainwashed to the point of where they would commit
atrocities against anyone standing in the militia's path.
Most people,
including myself, never heard of Kony until the organization,
Invisible Children, released a video on Youtube that swept through Facebook. This video reiterated the points made in the previous
paragraph while showing photographs and video footage of children
suffering because of the actions of this militia. As the video
propagated the masses, marches, campaigns and charity drives started
up throughout the US. And thanks to my presence on a UW campus at the
time, UW Platteville for those wondering, I found myself within a
student body that was infuriated and ready to fight for change.
From the
short-lived Kony 2012 club to the sidewalk markings scattered about
telling when meeting times were to all those damn stickers scattered
throughout the dorms and more importantly on my door... the campaign
was in full swing. The slogans were all the same:
Kony must be
stopped;
Kony must be caught; Kony must be prosecuted and then the
occasional, behind the scenes sayings that called for a summary
execution. Needless to say, there was an incredible amount of passion
throughout the campus. However, did anyone know anything besides what
that video (and later) what that organization claimed?
|
Image: www.mypercept.com |
One piece of advice
that was given by a former advisor of mine was to question everything while only accepting
proven facts. With some loose knowledge revolving around
Africa and the fact that the concept of a child soldier was
common throughout the militias, I decided to confront the Resident
Floor Assistant that I was under since his enthusiasm had lead to the
plastering of stickers and posters on our floor. While playing dumb,
I asked him what the movement was for. Who or what was Kony and why
did it matter? He proceeded to answer me with claims made by the
video. So then I took it a step further. I asked him why this one
warlord mattered when there were many just like him throughout
Africa- some worse; some better. The response he had was baseless and
incredibly emotive- a response that basically amounted to, “Well,
if we can get this one, then maybe the others will rethink what
they're doing.” So, with one last step, I asked him how he knew the
video was telling the truth.
At this point, all
reasoning was gone and emotion took over- his face turned from pale white to beat red as he
responded with questions like, “Why would someone lie about
something like that?”
In
reality, the footage within the video was over a decade old. Kony was
a real person who committed atrocities against his own people and
others. However, his peak was over a decade ago and at the time that
this video was released, his militia was mostly non-existent.
Furthermore, when the movement swept through the nation, several
people from Uganda came forward and spoke the reality they knew: Kony
was no longer relevant and worse, he was one of many- a group that
they claimed included Uganda's leader. To add on to the complexity,
many Ugandans (and westerners who had studied the culture) came out
saying that the issue was even more complex than ever by showing that
the region had been inhabited by two warring tribes who never got
along. So what was really going on?
While
being emotive when one is supposed to be objective is unacceptable, my R.A.'s question was legitimate: “Why do people lie about things like
that?”
The
answer is simple. People lie to get what they want--especially when
they know that what they want cannot be obtained through legitimate
means. This dark reality has always been present and within the realm
of social media and popular culture, it has been destructive.
Movements, like the anti-vaccine movement and homeopathy (the idea
that water, with a lower dilution than if you were to take a bottle
full of solute and place a drop in the ocean and that this diluted
water can heal you because 'like cures like'), persevere throughout
our culture even though there isn't a shred of proof in their favor.
Yet people cling to them and as a result, everyone suffers. Ultimately, the Kony 2012 movement wasn't any different.
No one
is completely sure of the overall impact this movement had. One of
the higher ups within the organization was caught touching himself in
public after temporarily losing his sanity. People kept on coming out
with new information both for and against Invisible Children, the
organization behind it. However, one thing that happened thanks to
the marches nation wide was that of the President sending military
advisors to Uganda to hunt down Kony, his group, and any other similar group. In other words, the president gave the screaming masses
their cake- and after doing so, the movement faded away as the sense
of victory swept through the followers. However, to the Council of
Foreign affairs- an independent organization that many academic
leaders and politicians are a part of--who evaluated the situation
shortly after the advisors were sent, this was anything but a
victory.
In their eyes, Invisible Children manipulated information by
“blowing up” Kony's impact on Africa. Furthermore, the council noted how the
organization ignored the atrocities committed by the local government
and suggested that with the campaign being humanitarian in nature, it
was a political benefit for those politicians who jumped on the band
wagon.
With assertions like this, to say that the masses were given
cake is an understatement. But even then, the truth still remains-
the impact of our actions is unknown at this point. And we may never
know what, if any impact, was made. It is for this reason then that we
must reevaluate how we handle information. In college, we are told
over and over again to use reputable sources- be they from books,
journals or from the databases available. And for many, this
requirement was present prior to college. So then, why are we so
eager to accept the information we see posted throughout social media
when, at the same time, we are incredibly selective to the
information used in our academic lives? As mentioned before, some
claimed that the region impacted was home to two warring tribes.
What's to say that our advisors didn't give one tribe the upper hand
needed to wipe out the other tribe? I guess all of
this can boil down to a single question: is blind faith truly
harmless after all?