whateve(red)
Not that I have absolutely no sympathy for those in Africa affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic characteristic of their continent (it really is a terrible disease, and I wouldn't mind having it erased from the earth), but who are we trying to fool?
Product (RED) taps into the beast that is American consumerism. Unlike our previously colorless lives, we can now take advantage of red-colored cellular phones, iPod nanos, shoes, watches, credit cards, and get this -- t-shirts. Before you think America has turned happy-go-Communist, check out the official press release. Not that I discourage those consumers who favor buying products which eventually impact the lives of those in other continents, but should we really sensationalize HIV/AIDS even more?
People living on (cue everyone's favorite statistic) less than around $2 a day are more likely to die of diarrhea -- a CURABLE disease -- than AIDS. But why isn't Bono jumping on the anti-diarrhea bandwagon? Maybe it's too difficult to come up with a diarrhea ribbon, or celebrities are afraid of attaching themselves to a highly unattractive disease. Maybe nobody wants to make a quilt for diarrhea. Maybe more people think that Magic Johnson with AIDS > Magic Johnson with diarrhea. Who knows.
Regardless, since the campaign is in full-swing, I wish those handling the $$$ take time to reflect on efficient distribution. It's about addressing what is most important at the time. Everybody's concerned about getting tested for HIV, sex education, and treatment, but those poor people still go home to crappy shacks with bad water. It's likely that more people worry about where to get water for themselves and their kids than skipping a dose of AZT.
So, if you're already guiltily holding your limited edition (RED) iPod nano for your Valentine, don't feel too bad. I'm sure a village in Africa will be getting some form of support. Hopefully, the support addresses the prudent hierarchy of problems.
There
That whole campaign puts me at unease. Yes it is better to buy from companies that are donating some money to somewhere. But its also better to just donate money. Maybe its better to become not only more involved, but more educated, and not just think you're off the hook because you bought a t-shirt. But like I said, on the flip side, if something is going to be 'popular', I guess its better that its something useful? Though, profiting off of AIDS in Africa is pretty disgusting.
I don't know how much I agree with you on the water vs. AZT though. Maybe putting money into research would be a good idea, and while usually I think that sounds like throwing it away, apparently scientists recently found a way to possibly save immune cells from damage from HIV, which is a movement in another direction I believe.
I also sometimes feel there is a patronizing tone, and that we're not thinking about them as people, but as a problem that we can solve if we all come together... but not as people living their daily lives, which I think you touched on.
So should we also be upset that Yoplait yogurt is profiting off of breast cancer? Is that also disgusting?
Whether or not you believe that AIDS in Africa should be at the top of the global health agenda, you can't deny that ultimately the Red Campaign is a good thing - an improvement on the status quo before the campaign existed. Consumers in the global north are going to throw their money away on trendy items with or without the campaign, but at least this way some countable, stackable benefit to society comes from our rampant consumerism.
However, I do agree that diarrhea should be higher on the global health agenda.
I disagree...(and I can't make a damn link)...
http://thecolonic.blogspot.com/2007/02/red.html