These are just some of the charities one can donate to.
Why did I mention these? Well:
- I’ve been perusing Charity Choice, trying to work out just which charity (or charities) George Zimmerman intends to donate his earnings to from the ‘Celebrity Boxing Match’. Now I know the above website is a co.uk one, still, there should be similar ones in the US right?
- If Zimmerman is donating his earnings to a charity, would it not be best that you yourself donate the money to a charity directly rather than pay him? If none of the above is particularly appealing, Charity Choice has many more. A person, who watches the match, is paying to watch it. This then goes to the pocket of Zimmerman, who, then, decides which charity he wants to donate his earnings to.
Therefore, if you are going to pay to watch a match, and that money is going to a charity (part or all, I don’t know), then spend it on a charity of your choice. That’s my personal advice.
Now I want you to think about a few questions. Ask yourself,
- Is it ideal to watch and pay someone (we’re talking about Zimmerman here) without questioning his motives; give him a platform and media exposure without thinking about the consequences?
- Is it a good idea for a celebrity to get involved? Having a celebrity involved promotes the match (I know it’s a Celebrity Boxing Match) and gives it importance. But how or why is this important? Why isn’t the opponent, if indeed he/she is a celebrity, not getting involved in other ways, most specifically in a non–violent fashion? Yes, this is violent. And this time we cannot justify it by claiming it’s a sport. Their voices are powerful in the media. The media is a powerful weapon for change, just look through history.
- This leads me to the next question: Ok a celebrity is involved, and we know that this is not taking place as a friendly sport (consider the language used by those interested in boxing Zimmerman), then is it not promoting violence? Knowing why Zimmerman made headlines, and the fact that he was acquitted from what millions call murder regardless him claiming that it was for self-defence, one would then clearly conclude that it was most probably to get back at Zimmerman, teach him a lesson maybe, punish him for a crime which the court refused to do. Stating it is “legal” does it make the action right? Segregation was once a law, but did we agree with it? Slavery was permitted, it was perfectly legal to own one and treat them how the owner wished once upon a time, but we fought to abolish it because we knew it was morally wrong, did we not? Therefore, I ask you, is it right to spend your money to watch a match whereby Zimmerman is literally getting beaten up by a celebrity who is punishing him because the court refused to agree with him and million others? Will you not be part of this? Furthermore, is not promoting violence? Taking the law into your own hands?
- Also, it’s a “Celebrity Boxing Match”, therefore, are we not giving him a ‘celebrity’ status?
I know there are many points that one can throw back at me, most notably, Zimmerman came up with the idea, therefore….
I wonder what he was thinking….maybe….
“hmmm, I just murdered a guy, had tweets from millions condemning me, know that there’s a family out there who just lost a beloved young son because of me, did not have a justifiable cause to shoot him, but still got away with it, and now I want to do something for a charity. I will have a boxing match and donate all my earnings to charity. But can’t just be any match, I need it to be in the news so everyone will know. A Celebrity boxing match shall do nicely”
You can guess by my tone that I’m not exactly too fond about this. And why should I be? Actually, why should anyone be?
Yes it was his idea, but by paying attention to him and taking part, are we not falling into this trap of promoting violence, regardless that it is unintentional? I know one can quickly state that that was not the reason why Zimmerman put forward such a request. That he had good intentions. Even that I am moving into a completely wrong angle. So let’s ask why.
Why is this boxing match taking place? Why suddenly decide to get beaten up and donate all earnings to charity, knowing that he’s not exactly rich himself? Yes I know that even the poorest donate as they themselves know how it feels, but I can’t help just questioning his motives. So is this a good thing or something that we should look down upon?
This story has been mentioned all over the news for the past few weeks. And his opponent? Well Kanye West was mentioned quite a bit, but now every light is on DMX.
The media have been covering this story constantly. Here are just some of the most recent: Independent; CNN; TIME; Huffington Post; ABC; and Daily Mail. Type in “Zimmerman” and you’ll come across many more.
As most people know, Zimmerman was accused of the murder of Trayvon Martin, but acquitted from the charge. Everyone should know the whole story; therefore, I will not explain the whole event.
So here’s my analysis…
- He’s trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the public and indirectly apologise? Now if that’s the case, why does he need to? Is he admitting that he was wrong? That he should not have shot Martin? If that’s the case, then he should have been convicted of murder and faced the consequences right? Under the law, he took the right action, therefore, there’s no need.
- His earnings will go to charity, but what about the rest? Surely all that’s made is not going straight to his pocket. Some will go the organisers and manager no doubt – basically administration fees. So then it’s the question of just how much will go to charity?
- He’s now getting media exposure – a chance to create a new positive image of himself? Whether they will be covering the actual match remains to be seen, but considering the day-by-day coverage leading up to the match is just as good.
- He’ll be making money out of the interviews that he will carry out (inevitable).
I want to finish off with few final points.
If DMX or any celebrities do get involved in this ridiculous match, is it necessary to use such foul language? I believe in “freedom of speech” but people look up to them. Did Martin Luther King Jr, a figure revered around the world, use such language? Did Nelson Mandela or Gandhi ever use such threatening words to make a change? I’ve been covering the Enlightenment Era. And these intellectuals’ ideas have changed society and given rights and freedoms that we enjoy today. But they were articulate; just have a read of some of their books – John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau.
I know I haven’t discussed much about Trayvon Martin, but the point of the article was to ask you whether it is responsible, on our side, to support and look forward to this ‘celebrity’ boxing match. I have attempted to see the positive side to this, but I just cannot. Would a charity actually accept the money donated, knowing full well how it came about? It just does not seem logical, rational and certainly not moral to support this.
So if this fight is for a good cause, then I end with asking you:
What is the cause? Why is it good? And for whom is it really for, who really benefits?
(Views are my own)