Lately in the media, celebrity causes and activism have been creeping up. Whether it be CobraStarship's appeal to stop animal cruelty, Bono's encouragement to help Africa, or the article in Seventeen Magazine that discusses how celebs are changing the world and how you can to, it is hard to find a cause without a celebrity leader and cult following. Even on YN, the My Cause Is... and the Cause Channels are full of celebrity influence.

Because of celebrities, more and more causes seem to be gaining awareness in the public eye and more and more people seem to be helping out. However, is this such a good thing, or are the people helping out not because they care, but because it's what's "in?" Also, what about causes not championed by celebrities: Are they as worthy or, because it is hard to get the word out with the Average Joe leading, do they seem less important? Finally, if a Celeb is needed to champion a cause, then what happens with the Average Jane who has worked her life at a cause, but never gets it going because Hollywood Superstars Cause gains more attention? Or what if Jane loses all due recognition because a celeb steps in and takes notice?

Does celebrity-inspired activism harm or hurt? And does it take away the importance of knowing that the average person-- with enough work-- can change the world?

Hmm. I agree with the majority of people in this thread, it's good that more people are getting involved but bad that they're only doing it because a celebrity brought it to their attention.

I think it's nice that celebs are using their fame to help a cause, but there are a lot of "average" people out there who are working a lot harder to get attention for THEIR cause. A celebrity can snap their fingers and say "Pay attention to [cause]" and it will automatically be important. Then there are "average" people who work day and night to help a cause and still get not attention.

quote:

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that there is a leader.

That's the point. People seem to think we can't lead ourselves, that we need a celeb or someone older to lead us. At least that's the impression I've been recently getting.

quote:

I'm sorry, but what does it matter if they have a celeb leader?

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that there is a leader.

As you probably noticed, I'm not a fan of celebrity-inspired activism. It was okay at first, but now, everywhere I look, it's "This celeb is doing this" and "this celeb is doing this." I probably could still block it out if it hadn't been for two things: 1. The fact that I read an article (I don't have the link anymore, I'm sorry) about how there were all these teen activists and all they needed now was a celebrity leader; and 2. The fact that YN speaks about being "For Youth, By Youth" but has greatly increased it's "Cause Celebrities" in the past couple months.

I'm sorry, but what does it matter if they have a celeb leader? All of this stuff-- telling us we can do anything we put our minds to then not letting us is not helping any of us. They want us to do things, but then tell us that we can't lead it ourselves, that we need an adult or a celebrity to step up and take to the plate really bothers me. Also, when you get a celeb activist, I have to wonder: how many are doing it for them, and how many are doing it because it's what they need to get recognition for roles?

I know a lot of this is unfounded, but it really bothers me. If we're supposed to be taking the reigns and changing the world, then let us. Don't tell us we can do it, then bring in a few celebrities as spokes people or as the leaders just to get recognition.

quote:

I do feel sorry for people who don't gain recognition - but it's not like recognition is their goal right? Even so, it is a pity.

However, without support a cause is nothing. They wouldn't succeed without members.

I do feel sorry for people who don't gain recognition - but it's not like recognition is their goal right? Even so, it is a pity.

Even if people are doing it because it's 'in' hell the power to them atleast their doing something and atleast opening their eyes. It's good that celebs do it for the right reasons, or at least some do.

And now you've said it, Ikki14Reed, it does maybe give the wrong impression you need to be famous to change the world.

quote:

I think celebrity-inspired activism is more good than bad. I don't agree with helping out with a cause because it's "in" but at least it gets people to help out who maybe weren't before.

I have mixed feelings about this. It makes me sad that some people only join causes and become activists because it is what a celebrity believes in or is a spokesperson for, but at least they are starting to become more aware of things going on in the world. Also, some very important causes might not have become well-known without the celebrity spokespeople. Another thing to think about is that sometimes, people want to help but don't know how, and seeing some of what is available to them through the celebs might help them find things that they are interested in doing to help. Seeing the celebrities might also spark people's interest, that they might have simply never thought of supporting something before, but then become activists because of the celebrities they saw. However, I am still disappointed that causes and campaigns can't survive without the celebrity support sometimes.

I think celebrity-inspired activism is more good than bad. I don't agree with helping out with a cause because it's "in" but at least it gets people to help out who maybe weren't before.

I would say its definately annoying that celebrity activism gets more attention then the average person's. However I don't think its detrimental. I don't think the cult like following for the cause really took anyone away from any other cause. Before celeb. activism only people who were dedicated to something did anything. Now you have media slaves helping out while the less known causes still have their dedicated following as well.