The Kony 2012 video seems to be oversimplifying some things. generally i get the impression that the function of rebels is to resist government oppression and since they were started from the people, they should be even more for the people than the current govt. (although Libya and Syria proves otherwise) so putting them in such a light made me question some stuff alr. Kony was painted as a complete devil who abducted children and made them kill their parents/ sex slaves. Honestly i don't think anyone is completely evil? The American media has the tendency to paint the people they don't like as perpetrators if it's in the interest of their foreign policy to do so. I guess why i could look at this without going like "ohmygod. how can people like kony exist????" is not so much because i doubt what he does, but more because i watched blood diamonds a few years back and hence was already aware that such things exist. How i see Kony vs Uganda army is not bad guy vs good guy, but just two political parties that are struggling to fight against each other, unfortunately at the expense of the citizens. This just shows the failure of the Ugandan political system to elect a government that can be held accountable for the welfare of its citizens. (Not going to label it as a complete failure though. cause i believe there are still many in Uganda who enjoy a decent life and education. in fact, how Jacob can speak English so fluently is testimony to that). Additionally, some media literacy skills (coming from experience with making videos) warned me that some parts are.. deliberately cut to portray a certain meaning. Like how they cut in interviews abruptly. how i suspect Jacob's speeches (including the crying one) are scripted, re-enacted, and voiced over- really he's not much of an actor. how some photos are quite badly photoshopped etc.
However that doesn't mean i'm some cynical ignorant netizen (ohgosh there are SOMANYOFTHEM) who forever does not trust the original and yet believe all the critics on the internet. (oh the irony) Sidenote: grah there are so many online people who can't think for themselves or produce a coherent argument as to why they oppose it. One major idea that critics point out is that only 32% of the profits go directly to works in Uganda. My first response was: they never said they were going to help them directly what. i thought it was spelled out quite clearly in the video "to stop kony, we need to spread the word". Their primary objective is to advocate so that more people know about these things, and so i see no issue in them spending their money on publicity materials. People who think that this issue requires more direct action than advocacy are so wrong. Firstly, it shows that they do not understand the true meaning behind advocacy. Advocates campaign passionately about things because they believe that there is strength in numbers. There is only so much you as a person can do directly to benefit your target group. But if you can manage to educate the world such that more people know about it, it means more people care and will take action. Their target group is people in Uganda per se, but YOU, are too their target. so that YOU won't be someone apathetic who only cares about your toenails and bad hair day. Secondly, what makes them think there is a better option to military intervention? (ie, funding the Ugandan army) Honestly speaking i don't know if it's the best option- no time to research and you probably have to be there yourself for like 10years to judge and conduct a proper needs assessment. But i don't think other people on the net, esp this guy, knows either. Invisible children has been there, in Uganda, for 8 years, and you think you know better than they do? Things aren't as simple as "oh you will save the day if you provide military help. or food. or shelter. or even kill Kony" Okay, Kony might one day be arrested, but what makes you think the world would be a better place? The damage is done. The children are brainwashed to be desensitized to violence and will probably still be after Kony's dead. Who is going to give food to these children then? What skills do these children have to be able to survive in the world? Would it be even more painful for them to try to conform to Western ideals of freedom and democracy? Also, Kony is just one person, a mere representation/monarch of an entire organization. He can't kidnap 200,000 children on his own. There WILL be others who share the same values and beliefs as him. Sure, the toppling of their leader is going to shake them a little, but i'm sure there's always a deputy somewhere.
Kony 2012 is really a Hollywood film. It has the perfect formula for one: a good guy, and a bad guy. Except that in this case, it engages to audience to act AS the good guy, and the audience is compelled to so as to win the bad guy at the end of the day. And yes, so it sensationalizes things and doesn't put it in a very fair light. But what choice do they have? To fulfill their aim of reaching out to the masses, they have to cater to the wants of the masses. They don't have the liberty to include every single detail of their experience in Uganda that leads them to believe that what they are doing is right. The masses want something that is simple and captures their attention. And that's what Kony 2012 is.
As a friend of mine wisely puts it "as bystanders, we will never have perfect info on this sorta thing, and id rather take the chance to support a fake than pass over a real case bcuz of skepticism." yep, imma cynical optimist :)
