(This is written in response to imnaught's entry on "haves and have-nots".)
Interestingly, the concept of haves and have-nots has been proposed by the haves, not the have-nots.
The abundant and the bestowed usually have the prerogative and, sadly too, the presumptuousness to plaster labels on those they deem lesser than them. Who would you call dirty if you are not clean? Who would you call hungry if you are not full? Who would you call stupid if you (thought you) are not smart? Who would you call have-nots if you are not a have?
Stereotyping is another past time of the bullies. Some people think the world of literary authors; they feel these people have highlighted the plight of the downtrodden and oppressed. But what exactly have authors done apart from merely hanging over these people a guillitone-like sign that condemns them to yet a newer, further frontier from humanity's core? Or worse, constantly writing stuff that invoke people to renew their beliefs in the existing stereotypes.
The hypocrisy of the haves is also galling. If the upper-crust was indeed inclusive and these celebrities really believe in their AIDS cause in Africa, then why do they ask for sponsorship money rather than move there and stay with these people? Why slap on a label such as "AIDS orphans" or "Women with AIDS" and cause these people more misery? Why just ask for money, then run back to their resource and energy guzzling mansions in the Western world? Does Africa not have enough land for them to build another sprawling bungalow there? This is food for us to think about.
At this point, I just wanted to put on record what I said last night over dinner - Singapore is perhaps the only country where we get fewer and fewer live fund raising programmes. The main reason for this is perhaps the incongruence between the intent and the manifestation. But I shall not go beyond that, for it'll be flogging a dead horse.
Back to the observation about the sterotyping and labelling by the privileged: while thugs bully with their fists and knifes and guns, writers and authors bully with their pens and ideas. Their pen is mightier than others' swords. Small wonder many of them died of STDs.
5 comments:
Tef, you should offer a link to my entry from yours.
Tef, I agree with the comment above. Smart chap. ;)
http://bettyb.teacherlingo.com/archive/2008/04/22/take-a-moment-to-listen.aspx
Celebrities in Africa - yes I have mixed feelings about that too - but at least their attention does one thing, it raises awareness. If that's the only means by which the public will pay attention, sad though that is, then I am all for them using their profiles in a positive way.
What would you do meanwhile, Tef? What would you have Singapore do? You seem to take pride in a lack of empathy or willingness to approach the problem. You think labels are the biggest problem people with HIV face?
What does Singapore do then, for people living with HIV? How do we care for them? How do our legislators approach the problem?
Oh, that's right, ban homosexuality, that'll help.
I don't think you've thought this one through...
We have TTSH for all medical conundrums - cases which cannot be solved by traditional medicine. TTSH - Take Tonic Sure Heal.
On a more serious note, the AIDS argument is just an example. In the larger context, you have highlighted a large hypocrisy of human beings. They only take interest in what their idols are interested in. An Oprah Winfrey breast cancer awareness programme will be well-known whereas any other programme done by lesser women who've fought the scourge would be less effective. In the same vein, why do we not support Africa's AIDS cause on our own, but instead have to do it via the likes of whoever whoever?
The thought of it all makes me feel that the celebrities are merely additional cooks who stand beside the pots, merely stirring them and getting all the bloody credit. Another question to ask is why people were generally unwilling to donate directly to Africa. Yet another fact of life is the fact that the AIDS scourge is very much a Western world inflicted curse. The whoring activities of the ang mohs there... you know, it's pay back time?
I am a staunch believer of extinction. So I am extremely happy with deadly illnesses like cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, and what have you. I believe these are self-destruct mechanisms programmed into the human genome so as to keep the world population in check. I also believe in the need to keep the gene pool healthy. At the end of the gene's useful life, it should not re-enter the gene pool for further reproduction. I have previously argued that homosexuality is nature's way of ensuring that these genes die a natural death. So I may indeed come across and cold, callous and heartless, all of them compliments I would gladly accept.
Based on your line of argument, I am very sure you have heard about DSC at Kelantan Lane? You must have also known of other AIDS awareness/help organisations in Singapore. So why do you imply that nothing is done for those living with HIV?
As with all forms of help, no help is ever enough. Even if I manage to get my weight controlled and reduced to healthy levels, I will expect subsidised liposuction, skin tightening and stretch mark removals to complete my package.
The difficulty in any help programme is knowing where to draw the line between providing subsistence and supporting a luxurious, handicap lifestyle.
And think about what happens if we name the AIDS folks in Singapore. We might see KKK-style lynching.
On hindsight, that might not be such a bad idea...
Sorry, I can't continue this conversation. You disgust me.
Post a Comment