But Do The Lilies of the Field Wear Charity Wristbands?

[liadnan]

My father gave me many pieces of advice, some of which I followed. One of the more idiosyncratic was "never wear clothes with writing on". His particular loathing was for carrying an advert around on his clothes: he considered that if he was going to do that, even for a product he liked (the usual scapegoat was Guinness) he ought to be paid for it.

While it isn't the most important thing he ever told me, it's something I have actually observed, by and large. I own almost no clothing with writing or indeed logos or pictures, not only not adverts for Guinness but also nothing advertising the clothing manufacturer itself (this is of course a Snare and an Abomination in the Eyes of the Lord in any event, or if not that at least naff), nothing with external labels except my jeans, no band t-shirts or sweat shirts, and nothing with some terribly witty slogan. I think I do have have a couple of ancient t-shirts from shows I was in at university and also, I think, one Glastonbury 94 t-shirt and a Proms 95 t-shirt. None of which ever see the light of day. A pair of college trackie-bottoms, which I wear in bed when I'm cold, and a sweatshirt for some society or other. Oh, and some ancient school ties and a college tie count I suppose. And a scarf. And that's the lot.

All of which is no doubt terribly pretentious and I'm not particularly suggesting that anyone else should follow this line. But I was trying to work out why, precisely, those bloody charity wrist bands irritate me so much.

Wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is frequently said to be a bad thing to do. Deciding on a particular slogan as an encapsulation of one's heart, a summation of your identity, and literally wearing it on your sleeve, seems to me infinitely worse, and the more simplistic the slogan the worse it is.

"Wear a white bit of plastic round your wrist bearing an anodyne slogan with which no one could argue (or even a more contentious one, but still one which shows you're properly signed up to right-on politics) and do your bit to save the world." No. Fuck off and take your plastic with you. By the way, did anyone do an environmental impact survey on those things. "You wear one, you're one of us, you're signed up, you're part of the club. You don't wear one, you're bad and obviously don't give a toss about world poverty."

At least, that's my take on them. The slogan itself bugs me too. Slogans tend to. I think there was a West Wing epidode once (everything you need to know about politics, morality and good writing is in the West Wing and this is as good a moment as any to point people to Josh Lynam'sBradley Whitford's commencement address at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), during the re-election campaign debates storyline where Bartlett's team have decided to adopt his thick opponent's strategy of using the ten-word policy soundbite. At the end of the debate, the opponent uses one of those ten-word soundbites and Bartlett abandons the strategy. "What are the next ten words of your policy," he asks. Because in reality, if it's a genuine substantial and properly thought out argument, the next ten words of the summary would begin with a qualifier.

"Make Poverty History" is a three-word slogan of course, and hence more powerful. Even allowing the semantic assumption that poverty is, or in some senses can be, an absolute condition, not a relative one (which is certainly a sustainable position though I'm dubious), I still find it really means nothing.

There's a reasonable counter-argument, that it is actually clear what set of values the slogan stands for: world justice, compassion, charity in its pure sense. But heartily approving of those values isn't enough. Take "drop the debt". Um. No. At least, not quite. "Write off the most egregious elements of the debts of the world's poorest countries, since it's impossible for them to pay and much of that debt was taken on through the corruption of past leaders, so long as it can be established that similar debts will not be run up again, by introducing serious safeguards against corruption, an attempt to recover the public funds that have fled those countries to Swiss bank accounts, and a recognition of the rule of law and of democratic accountability, and having regard to the need to increase the credit-worthiness of the same countries so that they can raise necessary funds through private and public international investment for projects designed to help them unlock their wealth - after all they are sovereigns and could repudiate their debt when they wish, it's borrowing more money or seeking further investment when you've done so that's the problem." That's a policy I'll support, however I suspect it isn't catchy enough and it certainly won't fit on a wristband. Maybe a necklace. However, it is rather closer to the Blair/Brown plan.

I'll leave further argument on that substantive point to people who actually understand money, such as Simon. But don't expect me to wander round wearing what I see as a simplistic slogan, don't assume that because I'm not part of the club my views must be soulless, don't assume the problems of the world have three word answers, and don't assume that if you are wearing such a band you've saved the world.

I would like an "I shot JR" t-shirt though.

Comments

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Yes, to all of the above. I abhor be-sloganed clothing and own almost none, bar the inevitably-sloganed trainers. Thanks in particular for the Bradley Whitford speech, which was great :)

[beingfrank.livejournal.com]

My dad says the same thing about not wearing clothing with writing on it, and for exactly the same reasons.

I haven't seen the wrist band things here, but they do sound a bit daft. I have extremely low tolerance for people who try to imply I'm not socially conscious because I won't follow their latest fad cause. I tend to get stroppy and say things like '10 years volunteer work with kids in an area with a mix of serious disadvantage and refugee communities, and what do you do?' Which has more impact, wearing a $2 badge for a few days, or 2 hours a week hands on work for a decade?

Ha!

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't wear clothes with writing on them either, partly because I prefer to keep my tastes (political, musical etc.) to myself, because I don't like being stereotyped through them, and partly because of reasons similar to the above. I also particularly hate brand name snobbery, where people pay a major status tax to have a Prada handbag when they could buy one more or less identical for a tenth the price if they got over their need to flaunt (or fake) their position in the financial pecking order. I like fashion, but for its artistic, aesthetic element. I'd rather dress head to toe in clothes that are flattering, quirky and resourcefully sourced at reasonable price than give myself airs about being a style icon because I buy into a high status fashion label. Yiccch.

Re: Ha!

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I have a lot of of these labeled bags, shoes and watches. Got them as gifts and found that most of the items are comfortable/convenient/pretty. Wouldn't waste money buying them though [I *never* waste money buying useless stuff like clothes, accessories etc - I either save, give it it away, or invest in books].

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

I am thinking about getting a "feed lindsay" t-shirt.

Does everyone really thin do coke?

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Clothes with writing on them are a rarity here. I spent most of my teens wanting a t-shirt which said read: VIIIIIP - Very Important, Incredibly Intelligent Immensely Interesting Person'. No luck, alas.

About the slogan, one of the daily cartoon featured two emaciated Africans. First one said, 'Make poverty history'. The second one responded with a 'It already is out history. Wonder if it'll keep repeating itself...'

[etherealfionna.livejournal.com]

There's an easy way to spot when somebody actually understands what the slogan they are sporting stands for, and when they are following the herd.

If, in response to your counter-argument, they reply (f'rinstance) "so, you think poverty is a good thing, then?", you can safely assume that there is no thought going on.

Anyway, today I am proudly wearing a t-shirt that says "Finncon '04". It's one of my favourites.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

All of which is no doubt terribly pretentious and I'm not particularly suggesting that anyone else should follow this line. But I was trying to work out why, precisely, those bloody charity wrist bands irritate me so much.

They bug the pants off me as well.

I can take an implicit holier-than-thou if the person has actually got up off their backsides and done something about it. If their sole 'contribution' to ending world poverty has been to turn up at a rock concert, eat fast food and drop litter all over Hyde Park, then they've done sweet F.A.


By the way, did anyone do an environmental impact survey on those things.

AFAIAA, the majority of them were produced (http://money.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/29/nwrist29.xml) by the Tat Shing Rubber Manufacturing Company in a sweatshop in Shenzen.

Oxfam, to their partial credit (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/mph_pr07.htm), changed suppliers on being criticised.

But yes, you're talking about wristbands made from petrochemicals. Not what anyone really needs.

"You wear one, you're one of us, you're signed up, you're part of the club. You don't wear one, you're bad and obviously don't give a toss about world poverty."

Which is the implicit kicker that really pisses me off.

At least, that's my take on them. The slogan itself bugs me too. Slogans tend to.

Slogans are an essential part of the modern apparatus for programming other people en masse.

As I've said to you before, I think my favourite book touching this is Brave New World Revisited - as written by Huxley in 1959.



There's a reasonable counter-argument, that it is actually clear what set of values the slogan stands for: world justice, compassion, charity in its pure sense. But heartily approving of those values isn't enough.

Even those are open to reinterpretation as and when anyone feels the need; justice, compassion and charity were all cited as reasons to invade Iraq.

Unless someone is prepared to undergo cross-examination on their slogans, they shouldn't be trusted with them; there is no-one here to synchronize your dogmas.

Take "drop the debt". Um. No. At least, not quite. ..."

(Had to cut this to make comment <4300 chars. Sorry.)

I would take a certain issue with this. Much of 'the debt' was incurred on the Third World's behalf by Western countries; and much of the skimming was done by leaders installed and supported by Western countries - who turned Nelson's eye to their domestic abuses as long as they made labour and resources cheap for the Western companies involved.

As people should know, much of 'the debt' comes from the fact that Western organisations pushed stupidly large and cheap loans on the newly-independent Third World nations so that they could modernise, build infrastructure and join the capitalist world in Western-approved fashion.

Then came the oil inflation of 1973; and all these countries with new industrial infrastructure found their running costs had gone through the roof. As a result of Western-dictated policy, the vast majority of the Third World ended up owing absurd amounts of money to the West.

Cue more loans to pay off the loans and IMF 'structural adjustment' (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp).

(IM admittedly somewhat left-wing O, it was simply the replacement of physical imperialism with economic imperialism; instead of ruling their countries directly, we simply force them to sell off their resources and industry, and do our best to prevent Third World governments having any form of jurisdiction over Western companies working in the Third World.)

We should certainly do our best to make sure that economic aid goes to the right places; but we should also recognise that the debt is substantially due to Western bodies - who effectively acted as a combined protection racket and loan-shark in the period between 1950 and 1990.

G.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Rather more frivolously, I do like in principle the idea of cleverly sloganed political t-shirts. Alas, these are rarely also stylish pieces of clothing. One day I will get around to making my own, which will be pleasing to the eye but also have subtle slogans in misleadingly cute styles. ORWELL WAS AN OPTIMIST is one such.

[susumu.livejournal.com]

I've got a lovely one that says "Democracy Delivers", accompanied by a fighter jet 'delivering' some bombs.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Oh, nice.

[sshi.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the no-clothes-with-writing-on, ever since I was a little one. Don't like paying to be someone else's advertising hoarding.

And on the rubber wristband thing, it is indeed an incredibly simplistic and idealistic view of the whole situation - it seems to be more about proclaiming sympathy than actually doing anything about issue-of-your-choice. In my experience anyway, the only people I have seen in Dublin with them are firmly in the college student bracket, which tends to tie in with the 'very idealistic, but having no clue how to actually make a difference' thing...

[red11.livejournal.com]

I've got two wristbands on right now. Neither of them are for charities, which to my amazement offended someone. One says "Fight the ban" and the other says "Bollocks to Blair". I think they are admirably concise.

"Make Poverty History"... clearly means "Set a record level of poverty". Or advocates the replacment of kings and battles in the curriculum with a lack of something, which should make for an easy exam. Or is it a desire to eliminate that neccessary precursor of grace, as in Matthew, v.3 ? Sounds like bad news for certain monastic orders.

[nicnac.livejournal.com]

I'd be happy enough with them if:

* They were made out of environmentally friendly biodegradable materials, so that when the craze passes they could be recycled instead of filling up landfill sites.
* They were sold at a decent price and the profits passed on to actually achieve something other than an inane mouthing of a meaningless phrase. A couple of people on my flist have commented they have received several in the post free from Oxfam. What is the point of that?

[joffstar.livejournal.com]

That's not a bad idea. If they cost a tenner or twenty squid, then at least it'd be a) more of a contribution and b) you'd be able to look smugger.

And within a day or two you'd see knock-offs for 50p down the market...

Of course, you could always donate more when you get one. But who does that, really?


The bigger issue here, which I've heard voiced in defence of Christianity, is that moral concern shouldn't be limited to intellectual understanding. If people think poverty is bad, and they don't understand the debt situation, it's probably better to have this on a band than a whole policy they don't understand. Plus size, obviously. I'd wear one of yours, Marcus.

Slogans are too powerful, but you can't uninvent them. Maybe I should wear a T-shirt saying 'Un-invent the Slogan'. Odd, like No Logo's dead cool logo. Has that made it to a T-shirt yet?

[liadnan]

Steph tells me there are already knock-offs in Bankok

moral concern shouldn't be limited to intellectual understanding.

[liadnan]

I don't think I agree with this. A moral standpoint without some understanding of the issues underlying it can surely amount to little more than saying "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice". Which is true but of little assistance.

An ill-informed moral opinion is nevertheless a moral opinion. But not a very convincing one.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

A moral standpoint without some understanding of the issues underlying it can surely amount to little more than saying "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice". Which is true but of little assistance.

Unfortunately, people tend to have a big fat blind spot when it comes to the difference between an opinion and a qualified opinion; and tend to conflate the right to hold an opinion (however absurd) and their right to inflict it upon others without subjecting it to any cross-examination.

(Except me, of course. I'm perfect.)

The one I've come across most often is the faulty (and horribly simplistic) syllogism:

1. Everyone has the right to their own opinion.
2. Everyone believes their opinion to be valid.
3. All opinions are therefore equally valid.

G.

Re: moral concern shouldn't be limited to intellectual understanding.

[joffstar.livejournal.com]

And also, if everyone was nice, it'd be horrible.

But how do you define 'some understanding', Mr Lawyer man, eh? Your understanding? Tony Blair's? Mine? Not mine, actually, mine is almost non-existent. Ho, as you so eloquently put it, hum.

I don't really agree with it either, to be honest! I was just chucking it out there. But the fact of the matter is that until everyone is extremely clever and well-informed, there'll be more people with opinions than insights.

How does it go again? "The best lack all conviction..."

Re: moral concern shouldn't be limited to intellectual understanding.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

But how do you define 'some understanding'

A capacity to defend it when questioned.

But the fact of the matter is that until everyone is extremely clever and well-informed, there'll be more people with opinions than insights.

Not even extremely; merely educated *enough* to form their own opinion on stuff and to recognise the limits of opinions founded on insufficient evidence.

I happen to think that this has no real chance of happening given the status quo ante, as:

1) The populace would be effectively ungovernable.

2) The organised churches would throw a major hissy fit.

There's a metric buttload of money and power to be had from keeping the rank and file stupid and distracted. As long as that situation remains, we really can't expect the rich and powerful to be in favour of intelligent proles.