Delight and I have, many times, had conversations about the credibility of celebrities voicing their opinions on scientific matters. I have no argument with DiCaprio's statement -- yes, I believe in climate change -- but just because he's a movie star, that doesn't mean that I will automatically go along with everything he says. (On the other hand, Delight thinks that celebrities, with their lives of leisure, have the time and resources to educate themselves beyond the abilities of the average working shmo; as a counterpoint, I give you Gwenyth Paltrow steaming her vagina and Jenny McCarthy "curing" autism with vitamins.) Therefore, it felt like a swipe at me when Delight posted on this picture: He has ruined his charm with his overreach, and has pissed many people off, once they're pissed off, they stop listening...I have heard and read the comments. It seems that it is always something with these "famous" people. If there is a bit of dirt on their face someone is going to point it out and the crowd goes with it. Is it a 'thing'? A psychological thing, where it becomes that "crowd mentality", without a lot of free think, or deep think, as I like to think of it as. Quite frankly, I have found that some pools are much deeper than others....if ya know what I mean. So, I'm not a member of the "deep pool" because I think that DiCaprio is overreaching with his social justice issues. Gotcha. And then to further illustrate her point, Delight added:
(Except that Delight took her copy of this quote from the Instagram account of Higher Perspectives, which might give a person an idea of where she gets her "science" from.)
Because this felt like it was directed at me, which stung a bit, I didn't reply there what I want to say here: I have zero respect for celebrities (like Neil Young, and Al Gore, and yes, Leonardo DiCaprio) who fly their private jets into Fort MacMurray (yes, I know, their jets run on faith and hope and pixie dust), allow themselves to be led around by anti-oil activists, refuse an offer from the oil industry to show the other side, and then pontificate on the need to shut down the Alberta oil industry. (I'm not even going to get into the world leading environmental recovery that goes on in Alberta, or point out that a person interested in social justice ought to have an opinion on whether their petrodollars go to Canadian or Middle Eastern coffers; I just want to point out the cold-hearted hypocrisy of megamillionaires demanding the shuttering of what was, until recently, the economic engine of this whole country.)
As for DiCaprio himself, he's not exactly Einstein when it comes to the facts. He recently stated that he saw the first hand effects of global warming while filming The Revenant in Alberta (as though exploiting the oil sands would have such a localised impact), saying, "We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come. It was scary. I’ve never experienced something so firsthand that was so dramatic." Yeah, Leo, those are called chinooks: that Native name for the warm winter winds off the mountains ought to tip you off to the fact that they were around long before the oil industry.
And speaking of Natives, DiCaprio used his Golden Globe win for The Revenant to say that he wanted to share it with the Native groups represented in the film and all indigenous people around the world. "It is time that we recognize your history and that we protect your indigenous lands from corporate interests and people that are out there to exploit them. It is time that we heard your voice and protected this planet for future generations." I wonder how much land a rich man like DiCaprio owns? And who he thinks may have originally "owned" that land? In response, some Native groups were pleased by the visibility, while others like Assiniboine activist Lauren Chief Elk-Young Bear protested, “I think that shoutout was him making Native people his mascot,” noting that he did not thank any groups or individuals specifically and instead relied on vague language that rendered all Native peoples a monolith. In a separate series of tweets the next day, she criticized his wording as part and parcel of “white saviorism.” Then again, she simply might not have been thinking from "the deep pool".
Know what I think? I think that if Leonardo DiCaprio cared about climate change, he would live a more simple lifestyle, giving up the mansions and the limos and the private jets. If he cared about Native rights, he'd use his Hollywood clout to denounce projects like Adam Sandler's The Ridiculous 6: a movie so stereotypically repugnant about Native Americans that its original cast of Native actors walked off the set.
Know what I think? I think that if Leonardo DiCaprio wants to make a real social justice statement, he ought to lend his voice to #OscarsSoWhite. Better yet, he ought to boycott the Oscars altogether. But he won't. Because he wants an Oscar. DiCaprio has zero compassion for Alberta families losing their livelihoods over the closing of the oil sands industry; he wants to continue jetsetting around the world, making meaningless entertainment, telling ordinary people to live more simple lives; he wants governments to intercede in resource exploitation in order to protect indigenous lands; but the only thing that he has a credible voice about -- a little gold statuette that means little to the world beyond the few hundred white faces in attendance at an incestuous salute to Hollywood excess -- is the one social justice issue that Leo is curiously silent on.
If this level of hypocrisy counts as "a bit of dirt on his face" that leads large groups of stupid people to resist "free think" or "deep think", then I guess I'm just one of the sheep. Don't quote DiCaprio to me, because I ain't listening.
