Kony 2012

[Chris]

Yup. Your friend is right, Bryan. http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/nati ... undRaising

[Chris]

I'd like to bring your attention to the non-profit that is organizing this marketing blitz, Invisible Children.

I went through their financials in the original thread on the front page, and I'd like to share with you my concerns...

Of the $8.9 million they spent in 2011, this is the breakdown:

* $1.7 million in US employee salaries
* $357,000 in Film costs
* $850,000 in Production costs
* $685,000 in Computer equipement
* $244,000 in "professional services" (DC lobbyists)
* $1.07 million in travel expenses
* $400,000 in office rent in San Diego
* $16,000 in Entertainment etc...

Only 2.8 million (31%) made it to their charity program (which is further whittled down by local Ugandan government officials) - what do the children actually get?

Source on page 6 of their own financial report

Their rating on Charity Navigator is because they haven't had their financial books independently audited. ...which is not a surprising given the use of cash noted above.

You can also check out http://www.reddit.com/r/DAE/comments/ql ... ous_about/

and...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... rgid=12429

That's about .. wow.. only 31% made it to the children? Jesus.

[Shep]

Yep. Unreal.

[Sensfanjosh]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

[KapG]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

That's not really the best of arguments...

[bma]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

How about this? You give me $100..and I'll donate $31 to the charity of your choice. The other $69...we'll say its "operating expenses" (Mass Effect 3) since I'm doing the labour work for you..

[Tony]

TL;DW

[Sensfanjosh]

It's pretty easy to find excuses to not do something though isn't it?

[Tony]

oh for Christ's sake ...

[Sensfanjosh]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

That's not really the best of arguments...

And actually its a pretty good argument. Money can't just be thrown at a problem to make it go away. Its very very expensive to make sure that money donated to a charity organization actually goes to the people it is trying to help. More often than not organizations send money to countries wherein corrupt government officials simply pocket it, leading to disillusionment on the part of the Westerners who donated the money, and resentment on the part of the needy for not receiving what is there's. I'm not saying everybody on the forum needs to donate, my point is that its easy to look at statistics on the website and claim its not worth your time or money, and to be critical. It's much harder to actually act and enact a change in the world.

[Peter]

I have to agree with Josh, if my money is helping them travel and make videos etc along with donate I am cool with that.

[Chris]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

That's not really the best of arguments...

And actually its a pretty good argument. Money can't just be thrown at a problem to make it go away. Its very very expensive to make sure that money donated to a charity organization actually goes to the people it is trying to help. More often than not organizations send money to countries wherein corrupt government officials simply pocket it, leading to disillusionment on the part of the Westerners who donated the money, and resentment on the part of the needy for not receiving what is there's. I'm not saying everybody on the forum needs to donate, my point is that its easy to look at statistics on the website and claim its not worth your time or money, and to be critical. It's much harder to actually act and enact a change in the world.

Sure, but it's not hard to publicize operating expenses, something that Invisible Children has not done other than a declaration of expenditures. The point is, charities need to provide full disclosure of what they are spending their money on and why certain expenses are efficiency relevant. If we're getting into the philosophical doctrines of 'what, why, how, when, whom,' then that's another topic altogether -- there's corruption everywhere, and charities should -- need -- to do more to prevent waste.

[Sensfanjosh]

My entire point can be summed up as this. You may not agree with the organization's methods and don't want to donate. Cool, I myself am unlikely to donate to them in particular if I'm being perfectly honest. However rather than spending all of this time coming up with reasons why you shouldn't help them, why you consider them shady etc. Why not use the energy towards something productive such as finding ways you are more comfortable with in terms of helping? I think everyone can agree that what is going on is bad, and a solution to the problem is in the best interests of everyone.

[Chris]

And you know, it's great that people are talking about charities and donations because it means we're taking a harder look at how effective our money really is. What bothers me the most (and I was talking to Mash about this last night) is that these charities are vague in their blueprints for influencing social changes in political landscapes that are an ocean away. It's important to know these things, but in and of itself, it means very little to me because I quite simply don't think there's an inherent need to intervene in political and social upheaval perpetuated by these same changes in the first place. Order won't come with simple donations -- change will require far more persistence than money.

[Chris]

My entire point can be summed up as this. You may not agree with the organization's methods and don't want to donate. Cool, I myself am unlikely to donate to them in particular if I'm being perfectly honest. However rather than spending all of this time coming up with reasons why you shouldn't help them, why you consider them shady etc. Why not use the energy towards something productive such as finding ways you are more comfortable with in terms of helping? I think everyone can agree that what is going on is bad, and a solution to the problem is in the best interests of everyone.

Sure. But there are those who feel that Western Interventionalism are a contributing cause to these crimes against humanity in the first place.

[Sensfanjosh]

Exactly, I agree with you completely, you can't just send money you need to make sure its going into hands that will influence positive change. But again, that's an easy way to say I'm not going to help out, looking for a way to help to influence the change is a very different matter. Btw Chris I'm not attacking you or anyone else in particular just speaking in generalities.

[Chris]

Exactly, I agree with you completely, you can't just send money you need to make sure its going into hands that will influence positive change. But again, that's an easy way to say I'm not going to help out, looking for a way to help to influence the change is a very different matter. Btw Chris I'm not attacking you or anyone else in particular just speaking in generalities.

No no, I was doing the same (speaking in generalities). I'm a little tired so I might not be fully coherent today haha

[bma]

It's also easy to watch a 30 minute video and go full gung ho on a cause without doing any research or being critical about it. I'm not saying don't go ahead and donate..that is ultimately your decision. I think it's important that people know the transparency of where their money is going before they decide whether or not to donate. That's all I'm saying.

Sidenote: I'm not making any excuses about not donating. There are many other ways to help this cause and influence change without donating to Invisible Children. I'm calling the organization shady because no one knows where the money is going...I could be wrong, but some transparency would be nice.

[Sensfanjosh]

I'd agree too generally speaking that the West is the source of most of the issues plaguing Africa right now well. But if we are the cause of the problem, then it really should be on us to work towards a solution. A joint effort between the West and the afflicted nations is the best course of action though, the people being helped need to want it, and the people in the West need to be responsible not only for giving aide but also making sure it's going where it needs to.


Actually Bryan I'm not even in favor of the organization as I said in a few posts, I just think people need to be more positive with the way that they discuss these issues. Far too many people (and not necessarily you) are critical to the point that they can rationalize being stagnant and not contributing anything. I'd just prefer that people make more of an effort to act than to find reasons not to.

[Chris]

"I do not doubt for a second that those involved in KONY 2012 have great intentions, nor do I doubt for a second that Joseph Kony is a very evil man. But despite this, I’m strongly opposed to the KONY 2012 campaign.

KONY 2012 is the product of a group called Invisible Children, a controversial activist group and not-for-profit. They’ve released 11 films, most with an accompanying bracelet colour (KONY 2012 is fittingly red), all of which focus on Joseph Kony. When we buy merch from them, when we link to their video, when we put up posters linking to their website, we support the organization. I don’t think that’s a good thing, and I’m not alone.

Invisible Children has been condemned time and time again. As a registered not-for-profit, its finances are public. Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production. This is far from ideal, and Charity Navigator rates their accountability 2/4 stars because they haven’t had their finances externally audited. But it goes way deeper than that.

The group is in favour of direct military intervention, and their money funds the Ugandan government’s army and various other military forces. Here’s a photo of the founders of Invisible Children posing with weapons and personnel of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Both the Ugandan army and Sudan People’s Liberation Army are riddled with accusations of rape and looting, but Invisible Children defends them, arguing that the Ugandan army is “better equipped than that of any of the other affected countries”, although Kony is no longer active in Uganda and hasn’t been since 2006 by their own admission.

Still, the bulk of Invisible Children’s spending isn’t on funding African militias, but on awareness and filmmaking. Which can be great, except that Foreign Affairs has claimed that Invisible Children (among others) “manipulates facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil.” He’s certainly evil, but exaggeration and manipulation to capture the public eye is unproductive, unprofessional and dishonest.

As Christ Blattman, a political scientist at Yale, writes on the topic of IC’s programming, “There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. […] It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming. Usually misconceived programming.”

Still, Kony’s a bad guy, and he’s been around a while. Which is why the US has been involved in stopping him for years. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has sent multiple missions to capture or kill Kony over the years. And they’ve failed time and time again, each provoking a ferocious response and increased retaliative slaughter. The issue with taking out a man who uses a child army is that his bodyguards are children. Any effort to capture or kill him will almost certainly result in many children’s deaths, an impact that needs to be minimized as much as possible. Each attempt brings more retaliation. And yet Invisible Children supports military intervention. Kony has been involved in peace talks in the past, which have fallen through. But Invisible Children is now focusing on military intervention.

Military intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away. If people know this and still support Invisible Children because they feel it’s the best solution based on their knowledge and research, I have no issue with that. But I don’t think most people are in that position, and that’s a problem.

Is awareness good? Yes. But these problems are highly complex, not one-dimensional and, frankly, aren’t of the nature that can be solved by postering, film-making and changing your Facebook profile picture, as hard as that is to swallow. Giving your money and public support to Invisible Children so they can spend it on supporting ill-advised violent intervention and movie #12 isn’t helping. Do I have a better answer? No, I don’t, but that doesn’t mean that you should support KONY 2012 just because it’s something. Something isn’t always better than nothing. Sometimes it’s worse.

If you want to write to your Member of Parliament or your Senator or the President or the Prime Minister, by all means, go ahead. If you want to post about Joseph Kony’s crimes on Facebook, go ahead. But let’s keep it about Joseph Kony, not KONY 2012."

~ Grant Oyston, visiblechildren@grantoyston.com

Grant Oyston is a sociology and political science student at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada. You can help spread the word about this by linking to his blog at visiblechildren.tumblr[dot]com anywhere you see posts about KONY 2012.

*BE AWARE, DON'T JUST SUPPORT A CAUSE BECAUSE IT'S THE "CAUSE OF THE WEEK". KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING/AGAINST. OR JUST DON'T BOTHER*