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

[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.