Kony 2012 vs. Invisible Children

I’ll be frank, whatever the Invisible Children filmmakers did, it worked. I cried watching the Kony 2012 documentary, and, in a surge of emotion, carefully typed in my credit card number and ordered a Kony 2012 Action Pack.

Only afterwards did I decide to actually do some research on the topic, and what I discovered made me want to kick myself. For example, a short blog post written by Grant Oyston, a sociology and political science student at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada, expresses accusations of less-than savoury financial activity by the Invisible Children organization. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who’s squeaky-clean these days, but the possibility remains that the accusations are true and I was furious with myself for allowing their video to manipulate me in the way it did.

Oyston also describes Invisible Children’s strong support for the Ugandan Army and military action in general, citing a photo of the organization’s founders posing with Ugandan troops and weapons. While I think the photo itself is pretty pathetic and reminiscent of the behaviour of some of Facebook’s most braindead male users, I am not unsupportive of Invisible Children’s advocacy of military intervention, foreign or domestic. Joseph Kony has repeatedly failed to respond to diplomacy, leaving those affected by his atrocities, as well as the international community, with few remaining options.

I would like to return to Invisible Children’s financial misdemeanours, since they almost led to me booting myself in the skull. However, as I put on my heaviest shoe and prepared to perform a feat of gymnastics worthy of an Olympic athlete (or a Jackass member), I realized something: people and ideas are discrete categories. We are not prohibited, by any law whatsoever, from separating a noble idea (such as the Kony 2012 campaign) from its questionable origin (the Invisible Children organization). As such, it is entirely possible (and in my view, advisable) to support the Kony 2012 without supporting Invisible Children.

Oyston himself advocates something similar in his own blog post, urging us to “keep it about Joseph Kony, not KONY 2012.” I take his point, not least because of the strong manner in which Invisible Children associates itself with its own campaign. After all, how can we stick up posters which boldly proclaim “KONY 2012” and yet have “Invisible Children” strategically written below?

Nonetheless, I think it is entirely possible, and once again, advisable, to create some distance between Kony 2012 and Invisible Children. The Kony 2012 campaign has already gained so much momentum, it would be a waste of energy and an insult to all the noble-hearted individuals who helped drive it if we dismissed it altogether. But from this point onwards, let the Kony 2012 campaigners (myself included) explicitly state their disassociation from Invisible Children. Let us point to Invisible Children’s financial activities and state our disapproval. Rather than merely prompting defensive comments from Invisible Children, a large-scale disapproval from Kony 2012 supporters will urge the founders of the organization to clean up their act. We will be able to swiftly execute the internal reform needed to re-align the people with the idea, thereby emboldening both.

Whether you choose to buy Kony 2012 merchandise from Invisible Children is your call. If you are not comfortable doing it, don’t do it. Don’t let the absence of merchandise be a barrier between you and Kony 2012. The T-shirts are a bit overpriced anyway.

The link to Oyston’s blog is here: http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/