What does it matter if new London School of Economics professor Angelina Jolie once wore vials of blood around her neck and dabbled in lesbianism, writes Lara de Matos
|||A View From The Top
Child model. Actress. Oddball. Oscar winner. Vixen. Mother. Homewrecker. Humanitarian.
She has been known by many titles over the years (not all of them particularly flattering) and now Angelina Jolie-Pitt is set to add “professor” to her ever-expanding repertoire. Well, a “visiting professor”, to be precise, who will be required to offer guest lectures, participate in public events and undertake a research programme during her year-long tenure.
News of the pillow-lipped beauty’s impending posting at the London School of Economics is likely to draw the ire of some English folk, who will no doubt regard her appointment as something of a slap in the face.
This is, after all, the same woman who, just two weeks earlier, dared to lecture Britons on their woefully inadequate response to the ongoing Syrian refugee crisis, during a live keynote address at the BBC Radio Theatre.
But hold on – it wasn’t only Britain she was singling out; it was Western countries (and their fear-mongering leaders) in general she took aim at, including her own homeland, the United States.
Oh well, never mind that inconvenient bit of trivia. Cue the onslaught of venomous vitriol from the British public and media enterprises at large, who have in turn declared Angelina should “open her doors to refugees – or shut up” (charming); and who, it seems, are subsequently hell-bent on dredging up every last fragment of unflattering (and really, completely passé) information on the star, in a flagrant attempt to discredit her efforts as a Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
What does it matter if she once wore vials of blood around her neck, dabbled in lesbianism (or was that bisexuality?) and liked to live dangerously? An examination of any average teenager-cum-20-something will reveal much the same story.
So what if she, along with hubby Brad, has a $60 million chateau in the South of France, a $18 million home in California, an estate in Los Feliz and a 650m2 mansion in New Orleans?
And how convenient that those throwing these stones brazenly ignore Jolie’s tireless good deeds.
Unlike the majority of her plastic peers in the entertainment industry, Angelina is a big believer in putting her money where her mouth is – and not simply for the sake of publicity!
From proceeds of assorted Brangelina family photos over the years totalling in the range of $21 million (all of which was donated to philanthropic causes), to the establishment of Europe’s first centre aimed at combating violence against women, the creation of the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative – all funded by her! – and her support of more than 30 other charity organisations, Angie has proven she is far from just another talking head.
And that’s not even to speak of the fact she insists on footing the bill for (and often providing!) her own travel, accommodation, transport and meals when travelling to various impoverished and war-torn countries in her capacity as a UN Ambassador.
Oh, and did we mention her making a home for three multi-national children who would have likely landed up as just another number on the worldwide stats of orphans with little prospects?
So again I ask, why such wrath from the Tommy camp? Could it be that the whole issue of displacement struck a nerve within their collective consciousness? Least we forget, the British Empire (God Save the Queen), along with its entrenched practice of colonisation and slavery, witnessed millions of people being uprooted from their homes and separated from their families over the better part of five centuries.
As such, perhaps the “shut up” crew would care to consider sage words once uttered by one of their own legendary leaders, Winston Churchill:
“We make a living by what we get. But we make a life by what we give.”