This is the problem that makes me uncomfortable with how the media presents Greta as a “global icon”. She is the child of a famous and wealthy family from a wealthy nation, this is how she can afford to do “the hard work we can’t”.
I don’t have a problem with her, or what she does, she is operating within her abilities to do the most she can. However, the way the media presents her comes off as white savior syndrome.
Only the offspring of the wealthy, who have been largely isolated from the consequences of climate change are fit to save the planet. And how do they do that…? Well by being “controversial” and increasing value for media conglomerates.
I think the media likes to only broadcast solutions for problems if they think they will benefit from the solving. They want people to believe if you don’t have the resources or the media’s eye, then you don’t have any power. In reality these figure heads serve a purpose, but the true change typically comes from the local small scale organization of mutual aid.
I agree with you. I still think that because of her wealthy background she is doing what we can’t. I can’t miss work to go on protests or I can’t make rent. I can’t get arrested or I couldn’t get a job in my field. I can’t go and be the voice of an idea because I have a family to provide for. Whatever the media is trying to sell us, she is making us aware of the lack of efficacy small scale organisation have to shift the public’s opinion, and consequently enpowring us to vote for the politicians that at least try to do something about this problem the planet is facing. But you’re not wrong.
Right… I’m not saying that climate change is good. I’m just saying that the media likes to pull focus on individuals who entertain us rather than have us focus on meaningful collective action.
This is the problem that makes me uncomfortable with how the media presents Greta as a “global icon”. She is the child of a famous and wealthy family from a wealthy nation, this is how she can afford to do “the hard work we can’t”.
I don’t have a problem with her, or what she does, she is operating within her abilities to do the most she can. However, the way the media presents her comes off as white savior syndrome.
Only the offspring of the wealthy, who have been largely isolated from the consequences of climate change are fit to save the planet. And how do they do that…? Well by being “controversial” and increasing value for media conglomerates.
I think the media likes to only broadcast solutions for problems if they think they will benefit from the solving. They want people to believe if you don’t have the resources or the media’s eye, then you don’t have any power. In reality these figure heads serve a purpose, but the true change typically comes from the local small scale organization of mutual aid.
I agree with you. I still think that because of her wealthy background she is doing what we can’t. I can’t miss work to go on protests or I can’t make rent. I can’t get arrested or I couldn’t get a job in my field. I can’t go and be the voice of an idea because I have a family to provide for. Whatever the media is trying to sell us, she is making us aware of the lack of efficacy small scale organisation have to shift the public’s opinion, and consequently enpowring us to vote for the politicians that at least try to do something about this problem the planet is facing. But you’re not wrong.
Because these are the kind of people that are currently running the country I live in love to the ground. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/19/sunaks-covid-startup-fund-invested-nearly-2m-in-firms-linked-to-his-wife
Right… I’m not saying that climate change is good. I’m just saying that the media likes to pull focus on individuals who entertain us rather than have us focus on meaningful collective action.