Why Angelina Jolie Gets on my Nerves

Humanitarian aid is a complicated, heartbreaking and frustrating vocation. Since the second world war, nations have recognized the strategic and moral value of providing development assistance to other, less fortunate regions of the world. The Marshall Plan, Peace Corps, and the US Agency for International Development have added to the mix of war and trade policy that were once the sole means of foreign intervention. And this is only part of America's efforts towards providing humanitarian aid. Almost all members of the political spectrum have found an organization or cause whose aim is to alleviate suffering on foreign shores, from evangelical missions to the most secular-humanist AIDS coalitions.

It is simply unacceptable that in this day and age, people should continue to live in the misery and squalor that defined much of human history. With the growing prosperity that our economic and political systems have generated, development has gained a clear mandate from all but the most narrowly individualistic thinkers.

It is bitterly ironic, then, when narrow, individualistic thinkers attempt to control the discourse on humanitarian aid as if no one before them has given up their lives and livlihoods for these causes, or as if nothing is being done for the starving masses of Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The mission of Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie to save the world smacks of self-aggrandizement in a way that is as ugly as anyone who uses the hardship of others for personal gain.

Looking over the transcript from Angelina Jolie's interview with Anderson Cooper, what was noticably absent was:

1. the name of a humanitarian group that is currently involved in handling refugees and internally displaced persons in Africa or elsewhere, aside from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who can't even decide who is a refugee and who is not.

2. the activities or experiences of anyone beyond herself or her entourage.


Read this (emphasis added):


COOPER: Part of the problem that a lot of people watching this tonight, watching this on television, watching these stories, after a while, it becomes this blur of sort of endless suffering in Africa. And I think there's a lot of hopelessness. People sort of throw up their hands and say, well, look, I gave -- there's only so much you can do.

JOLIE: Yes.

COOPER: And it seems endless. Do you -- how do you fight that? How do you...

JOLIE: Well, I think to acknowledge that and say, yes, it is another -- we understand that. But the borders were drawn in Africa not that long ago. These people are tribal people. We have -- we colonized them. We have -- there's a lot of changes that's happened, even just between the blacks and whites so recently. There's a lot we need to -- to understand and be tolerant of, and help them to -- they have just recently learned to govern themselves. But there are also pockets where they're really trying to pull themselves together. And we need to be there to really support them at that time, to help them to understand how better to govern. It really is a work in progress. It's not just going to happen overnight.

COOPER: You're very modest. But you're -- you're not just talking the talk. You're walking the walk. I have read that you give a third of your income to refugees and other causes. Is that true?

Wow, does that sound modest to you?

...and read this:

JOLIE: It was one of my first lessons in Washington. It was like, oh, a bill. I'm pushing for a bill.(LAUGHTER)

JOLIE: The bill passed. Success. And then somebody said, and now the funding. And I thought, and now the funding? I thought was that was the whole...

COOPER: And it's still not funded.

JOLIE: But you realize that, no, that that's -- you know, first, they -- they make it a priority to do it. And then -- and I -- I don't -- I don't -- you know, there are a lot of people that are going to come together. And I will spend more time in Washington, try to raise this funding, and hope that the funding doesn't come from somewhere else.

Wow, does this sound like someone who understands the processes behind getting real programs planned, enacted , and executed? For that matter, does this sound like someone who would be willing to let someone else take a little credit in exchange for getting things done?

Listen, the UNHCR is necessary, and it does good. Jolie and Pitt's donation of $300,000 to a Namibian hospital does good. Bringing attention to some of the easily ignorable horrors out there is good. It's all good, and it beats the pants off of the moral negligence that people like Paris Hilton exemplify. But it takes the same simpleminded self-centeredness to create a sense that all the world needs is Angelina Jolie. It all started to get better when Jolie decided that there are problems, when she got the money together, and when she gave it to other good people. All it takes is her to go to Senegal, Namibia, or Cambodia and bare witness to the suffering, to talk about it, and then everything will be fine.

It is not her actions that are repugnant to me-- it's the overwhelming sense that this person sees herself as the messiah-- the source of all goodness and wisdom come to save us all from our lives as unwashed, unenlightened wretches.

Commandment 1: You shall have no other divas before me.

Movie stars can and should give money to charity. They can and should advocate for the causes that are important to them. In my opinion, to have that level of money and influence, and do nothing is as wrong as keeping a bucket of water for oneself while a neighbor is on fire. Nevertheless, movie stars should also have the humility to recognize that problems related to absolute poverty require complex, often boring solutions best left to complex, boring people.

Throwing around a lot of money in corrupt, lawless places can be hazardous to all parties concerned. The best intentions can lead to the further entrenchment of petty thieves and thugs that are endemic in many underdeveloped regions of the world, not to mention here. Doing it right takes a lot of careful planning. Movie stars should do what their natural talents lend themselves to: being a pretty face and a powerful voice.

Brad and Angelina should use their production company to make movies. Those movies can contain messages about the things they care about. I can think of a thousand plots related to humanitarian crises that would be riveting, inspiring, and thought-provoking. They should continue to tour the world bringing attention to its plights.

Advocates for causes are rarely the architects of the ideas they promote. They are strong personalities that bring attention to important matters. Most important, it's not about them. It's about the message.