Class divide: Maui fires bring celebrity relief efforts under question

As of this month, devastating wildfires have engulfed Hawaii in what is being described as the deadliest natural disaster to hit the state since 1959. The wildfires are wreaking immense havoc, claiming lives and displacing people, particularly from Maui. In such dire circumstances, while charities step up to the task of relief work and conversations on social media abound about the inexplicability of the raging fires, another controversy appears to be unfolding – that of celebrity aid to those affected in Hawaii. 

As of August 19, the total death toll from the ignited wildfires had reached 114 (including children) and was said to be concentrated mainly around the area of Lahaina, as reported by CNN. With more than 2,000 burned homes and businesses, the search for victims continues. According to CNN, 1000 lives still remain unaccounted for. Survivors struggle with the loss of their homes, families, belongings, and streams of income on what has been ancestral land. A report by The Washington Post recently revealed that residents are distrustful of government relief efforts as they struggle to find daily necessities, medical aid, or even transportation to recovery centres. 

Celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Jeff Bezos, Jason Momoa, Dwayne Johnson and others seem to be doing their part by calling for action to support the citizens of Maui. However, while some actions to provide aid will undoubtedly benefit local citizens, other actions seem to cast doubt on this supposed act of civic heroism. For instance, Winfrey was criticised for the duplicity of her efforts after appearing at a local gymnasium-turned-shelter distributing supplies.  

The discourse surrounding celebrity coverage of this natural disaster is not just a matter of judgment about whether these efforts are genuine or contrived. Rather, the disconnect between the on-ground reality and the privileged few that possess the financial means to facilitate change actually serves as proof that the class divide is evident, with upper-class individuals refusing to acknowledge the sheer irony of their efforts. 

Questioning intentions

Observing instances of celebrity efforts does pose a very relevant question: How can one differentiate between superficial and genuine relief efforts? Celebrity visits to charities, relief sights and camps are almost always documented, alongside the amount they choose to donate. This raises the question of whether involvement in events like these stems from the basic will to assist or whether it comes from a place of acquiring good press.

Jeff Bezos’ $100 million fund was widely reported by many portals, such as Forbes. Winfrey is also known to have brought a camera crew along with her as she visited relief shelters, later speaking to BCC about her visit. While the popular talk show host was mindful of cameras not being allowed into the shelter, the intention behind creating a photo op can be seen as a crafted PR exercise. While one may argue that Winfrey’s intention was to put a face to a horrific tragedy, it is worth considering the effects these intentions have given that a shift in focus to donations from billionaires may follow. 

While many news outlets have been reporting this heartwrenching tragedy, an equal, if not greater, amount of coverage has been about celebrity donations. Thus, while Winfrey’s efforts to quell the situation seem well-meaning, coverage of the response to her donation eventually proves that a focus on celebrity donations is being given preference over the spearheading of meaningful discussions around the Maui fires. 

The ultimate irony of gentrification 

Maui houses land that has remained in ancestral families for decades. In the words of the Maui County website, “The island’s archaeological artefacts, folklore, historic buildings, landscapes, people, traditions, languages, and lifestyles are all a part of its history. Cultural, historic and archaeological resources provide [the people] with a connection to the past and a sense of identity and place.” 

During a time where, despite ruin and heartache, displaced families still choose to stay put near their destructed homes out of fear of outsiders leaping at the chance to forcefully inhabit their ancestral establishments, celebrities like Winfrey and Bezos choose to own over a thousand acres of Maui land, as reported by The New York Times. Thus, while it cannot be denied that both the influential figures' donations may be generous in nature and rehabilitate victims, such efforts are minuscule when the same individuals are responsible for, as many people on social media channels have said, “stealing” land from the native population. 

The argument, thus, also surpasses questioning the intention behind relief efforts, leading to the larger issue of such a vast class divide. The ability to construct extravagant vacation homes on thousands of acres of land that have remained in generational families for decades points towards a tone-deaf act of gentrification. The simple ability of multi-millionaires to purchase large areas of land drives up prices for locals. Additionally, in such a context, minimal efforts of simply donating a few products seem one-dimensional when equally large efforts pertaining to the lifestyle that celebrities actually embody can be made. The lack of such acts displays a disconnect that is exhibited when attempting to assist disaster-affected communities. 

Colonial mindset

The idea of the rich, upper-class individuals from supposedly first-world countries stepping into sites of disaster to aid “the other” is a common trope. While originating from the times of traditional colonial rule, what is this if not a repeat of a saviour complex in the name of betterment? 

Undeniably, it is commendable when celebrities work with local charities and shelters to better understand the needs of those who are actively on the ground, but this particular situation is a reminder of the colonial mindset; one that believes the first-world nation is better suited to aid "the other" in a manner that they see fit, ultimately failing to acknowledge the repercussions of their own decisions. While one may argue that decisions pertaining to ownership of privately owned land lie in the hands of the owner, it is difficult to ignore the reality of how large numbers of people have been displaced and are currently residing in claustrophobic gymnasiums and hotel lobbies while lavish estates exist untouched on the same land.