Paul McCartney claims that he is "not a political animal [but] a humanitarian" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7636360.stm )
Really? What's wrong with a bit of political awareness?!!!
Isn't it possible for the same person to be both a political animal and a humanitarian?
Should one be a vegetable in order to be a humanitarian?
Oh, how I miss John Lennon and George Harrison.
2 comments:
.. very good points GS! Thinking about them made me want to add another bit: It is, I would argue, imperative to be political in order to be a true humanitarian. It's not enough to feed the poor, as celebrities often try to advertise doing; it is much more important to work on reversing the reasons that made the poor poor in the first place -- hence being political. Claiming to be a humanitarian without being political is simply cashing in on the prestige associated with the term, without actually doing anything or, as in the case of celebrities, enduring any heat that accompanies being a real humanitarian. Don't call yourself humanitarian if you're not willing to pay at least a small part of the price.
Welcome, Sami. I agree with you. I would argue that being a humanitarian without trying to understand the political context and implications amounts to being short-sighted, and can be quite damaging.
Happy to read you.
Post a Comment