Featured      Archived      Forum

Student Life

FEATURED ARTICLES           Wednesday, September 08, 2010                                Email to a Friend

African Orphan Babies: Altrusitic or Trendy?

By Valerie Bevilacqua

It was your typical, abnormally frigid day at York, when I was skimming through MSN Sympatico for the latest catastrophes instilling trepidation into the world today…just for something to write about. Suddenly, something catches my eye – not something totally depressing for a change – that’s intentionally parodic, and even though I do appreciate the “I couldn’t stop laughing for so long someone thought I was high” moments once in a while, I couldn’t help but feel a breeze of rage cloud over me, when I realized they were poking fun at such a something like it was nothing.

African orphans are being sold on eBay for as cheap as US $20 each and not only do they come with a price like every other human being should (hypothetical prostitution, ahem, cough, cough…), they’re made to be pretty like them, too; ragdolls fabricated with brown yarn, and ornamented with red Kabbalah bracelets on their wrists. Now, when we hear the word “Kaballah” and adoption of an African orphan (like she did with a male infant from Malawi last month), we instantly know who to point our fingers at, and in which direction, as well (hey; Madge need no introduction!). Look, I love the Queen of Pop as much as you do; she’s one of my greatest vocal inspirations, because without her feminist emphasis on sexual liberation, my other influences wouldn’t even exist in the same business that she does, excluding their versatile talents. But, still – her glorifying presence cannot even begin to overshadow the disturbing idea of transforming these kids into accessories as a part of this so-called “glamorous” celebrity lifestyle, when we should be crying along with them, like they do on a daily basis (and with good reason), as well as helping them out. How dare stars be as greedy and pretentious to even pull this as a publicity stunt?

I’m very aware that the mission of April Winchell – “an L.A. comic, talk-radio personality,” and promoter of what I would consider cyber bullying” – is to actually target stars, and show how African orphans have almost morphed into a fad. But, unless with the goodness of the celebrities’ conformity to the media they find in their hearts that they shall purchase a real African orphan (to match the ragdoll, of course!) and help a world, ending our problems once and for all (eventually, of course, it wouldn’t be totally corrected, since these trends last only for so long), there would be no purpose in this satirical attempt on Winchell’s part (it’s not like we can Dr. Phil celebrity’s and our obsession with novelty!).

Also, I foresee other issues occurring with this protest of Winchell’s; the (slave) “masters” of these poor kids could become ravenous (okay, even more than I did, when I read this article!), and retaliate (so not good!), if the cause of saving these children possibly inspired by these dolls were to come true. Then again, these masters could even be grateful, because they’d be saving themselves even more money, if they didn’t have any orphans to pay; the reason they pay so little anyhow is because they have little to pay for themselves, right? Either way, the initial cause this would be has already happened, and now we’re paying for the emotional consequences (remorse, more specifically), nevertheless like the African orphans.

I could incessantly repeat how we’re degrading African orphans by making them synonymous to certain trends and like objects with no feelings towards their poverty. But, not like how we would then pull them into this huge transition towards where they’d feel so “spoiled” with celebrities as stepparents, in contrast to their previous lifestyle, when sweat, blood, and tears were the true costs of earning just a mere cent. We live in such a binary society, where you’re either rich or poor, and nothing in between. And even with this make-believe lifestyle these orphans would have, according to Winchell, they’d still be treated as slaves: “These orphans don’t need to be fed or clothed, so you can fire the nanny! You can even leave them in the cat with the windows rolled up…” They’d be neglecting them like the others did in Africa; only, these celebrities would have better resources to provide them with those physical needs! Of course, they’re not putting the kids in sweatshops or whorehouses, but if the goal in this is to make celebrities these orphans’ masters, then maybe the desired result here isn’t all about just taking the celebrities down a notch by mimicking them, but them bringing them back up by allowing them to reclaim their “rightful” throne once again.

So, the real question here is who’s winning, and why?

Home    Contact Us    About Us    On Stands Now    Events & Calendar    Forum

Copyright © 2008 Campus Life Magazine. All rights reserved. All trademarks are properties of their respective owners. Reproduction of material from any original Campuslifemagazine.ca pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.