Perhaps we can speak honestly about this terrible disease.
First we have to be clear. We must fight against any preventable death and ease all suffering, irrespective of gender, race, age or sexuality.
Sadly, the trend is the opposite. Governments are increasingly legalizing the killing of the elderly, the ill and the disabled. But when it comes to AIDS, it seems politicians and public figures cannot do enough, or at least be seen to be doing enough.
Movie stars, rock singers, authors and activists demand that we pump billions of dollars into their cause. The irony is that AIDS is one of the few diseases where personal behavior rather than medical research could save millions of lives.
AIDS in the West is still overwhelmingly a threat to male homosexuals and intravenous drug users.
It’s now found in other groups, but it has taken years for that to happen and they still represent the minority of sufferers. More than this, the bulk of the newly infected tend to be people who have contracted the virus through permissive sexual practices.
While sexual and chemical addiction are powerful habits, both place cause and effect squarely on the individual. Not so Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, most cancer and heart disease, leukemia or malaria.
The latter, by the way, still kills three million people a year in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet none of these or dozens of other illnesses receive anything like the publicity or funding given to AIDS.
In Africa, of course, the disease affects children and is often spread through ignorance or because of archaic attitudes towards women. Yet we ought not to play the politically correct card when lives are at risk.
There are dozens of nuances of course, such as babies born with the infection and infected men being unaware of their condition when they marry. None of these problems, however, can be dealt with merely with money and pop songs.
Cash is essential to build hospitals and pay medical staff to care for the ill and dying. It also helps to educate, but not if the education is dishonest. And dishonesty abounds.
Raise money to combat the medical horrors that are seldom exposed and kill so many and for which researchers are crying out for help. Even if it won’t earn you any television coverage or the cover of a magazine.

So, how can we make the society in which we are part of pay attention to a huge epidemic that is happening to humans- just like us- in another country?

Sure, we go over and help London, England when bombings occur in subways?

Sure, we pay close attention to the election of the new Pope in Rome, Italy- because we care so much about religion and whose to continue to lead us in our faith?

The fact of the matter is that as long as we don’t have to see it, it’s not a current event of ours.

Quite frankly it is. It is a responsibility to us as humans to take notice in something that is killing people by the hour. Killing innocent children by the minute. Murdering new born infants by the second. It is a neccessity for us to take notice and take action for human respect. Love- when there’s so much evil and hate already.

Now we’re taking notice- and all it took was to combine a touchy subject with celebrities-to whom we pay so much attention to already.

It’s brilliant! It’s got us writing responses about it, and everyone talking about the important subject- AIDS IN AFRICA.
I AM AFRICAN !!
Now, let’s do something about it.

Your point doesn’t seem to follow your examples. Your examples have to do with scientific/sociologic determinism. Where does that come into the “I am African” concept? Do you really think the small DNA mention isn’t followed/backed-up by an appeal for compassion to fellow humans (did you read all the text on the website)? I think the ideas are supposed to be complimentary and I don’t see how they can’t be, at least as attempted by this campaign.

The “I am African” campaign seems to be going for “we are all related/family; let’s help out those of us suffering.” As for “compassion, empathy and commitment to social justice,” the campaign is one part of a larger project that
certainly doesn’t only argue or talk about the “I am African” idea.

Mind you, I don’t think the ads are going to do much. I don’t know how effective something like this ever is or how much was expected it from it in the first place. As the child of African immigrants, I find the “dress-up” silly and a rather regressive idea combined with a progressive concept. But I highly doubt anyone in the campaign thinks this is all they can do to get the general public interested in AIDS in Africa and I think trying to argue that they believe that is ridiculous.

This has had an unfortunate effect of pushing aside and discrediting liberal, Enlightenment-based human values. In my opinion, this is a terrible thing. Instead of arguing for medical treatment and infrastructure development for Africa on principles of human rights and compassion we have to bring genetics into the picture. Why? Does it ultimately matter if we all have African ancestry or not? Shouldn’t “Because people in Africa are suffering, and deserve better, in the name of human rights” be enough?