Angelina hops on to the philanthropy bandwagon, again!
Why is Jolie getting being appreciated for being a philanthropist when our local celebs aren't getting any?
So when exactly did the concept of philanthropy change and how come no one told me? I look at the good guys of the past and compare them to the so-called humanity lovers of today and I feel like an imbecile who hibernated her way to modernity. The definition of the word philanthropy has apparently been transformed, much to my surprise.
As a baby, I was told by my mother that Buddha was the epitome of sacrifice because he gave up his Kingdom to find what people needed the most, Nirvana. Another figure, Mother Teresa, couldn’t keep more for herself than substandard white clothes and our famous or rather infamous messiah Gandhi, gave up the luxuries of life just to show he was one of the oppressed.
Today, when our gorgeous, rich and famous Angelina Jolie, whose net worth in 2011 was $30 million, popped out of nowhere and launched her boat in the philanthropy river, everyone loved her for it. Also worth mentioning here is that Jolie was Hollywood’s highest-paid actress in 2009 and 2011, according to Forbes. Hence, she draws quite a contrast to the Mother Teresas and Gandhis of yesterday.
As I write this piece, I already know that the men who still act like hormonal teenagers whenever Jolie makes an appearance in her thigh-high slits and women who treat her like their palpable Aphrodite will bombard me with criticism. But I can’t stop feeling that Jolie’s philanthropic streak is just a way for her to earn a few more years of limelight. I see news about her being “beautiful inside out” flood my Facebook page and I keep thinking that if celebrity charities are the in thing, why can’t our local ones get a pat on the back?
If we have become open to celebrities donning the superhero or superheroine cape, then why do we call Veena Malik a dramaybaaz and hungry for publicity when she gladly volunteered to be the sponsor mother of an Indian girl? Wasn’t that philanthropy enough for us? If Veena’s risqué photo shoot and very charming fling with Ashmeet Patel is keeping her from becoming our contemporary superwoman, why isn’t anyone judging Jolie for stealing someone else’s husband?
Read more by Taneeya here.
As a baby, I was told by my mother that Buddha was the epitome of sacrifice because he gave up his Kingdom to find what people needed the most, Nirvana. Another figure, Mother Teresa, couldn’t keep more for herself than substandard white clothes and our famous or rather infamous messiah Gandhi, gave up the luxuries of life just to show he was one of the oppressed.
Today, when our gorgeous, rich and famous Angelina Jolie, whose net worth in 2011 was $30 million, popped out of nowhere and launched her boat in the philanthropy river, everyone loved her for it. Also worth mentioning here is that Jolie was Hollywood’s highest-paid actress in 2009 and 2011, according to Forbes. Hence, she draws quite a contrast to the Mother Teresas and Gandhis of yesterday.
As I write this piece, I already know that the men who still act like hormonal teenagers whenever Jolie makes an appearance in her thigh-high slits and women who treat her like their palpable Aphrodite will bombard me with criticism. But I can’t stop feeling that Jolie’s philanthropic streak is just a way for her to earn a few more years of limelight. I see news about her being “beautiful inside out” flood my Facebook page and I keep thinking that if celebrity charities are the in thing, why can’t our local ones get a pat on the back?
If we have become open to celebrities donning the superhero or superheroine cape, then why do we call Veena Malik a dramaybaaz and hungry for publicity when she gladly volunteered to be the sponsor mother of an Indian girl? Wasn’t that philanthropy enough for us? If Veena’s risqué photo shoot and very charming fling with Ashmeet Patel is keeping her from becoming our contemporary superwoman, why isn’t anyone judging Jolie for stealing someone else’s husband?
Read more by Taneeya here.