Personally, I don't believe anything about David Beckham. Through knowledge and experience, I have learned to doubt everything. So, I don't care if he is not benign or culpable and pretends to be a humanitarian only to get valuable awards, such as the knighthood and the title 'Sir'. There might be celebrities who do so. I don't care if he will become a knight or be called Sir David Beckham in the future. To me, honours don't matter; they only differentiate people and therefore they distract from the equality purpose. It goes the efforts all people to be regarded as equals backwards.
My view is that Beckham is targeted and is a victim; my belief is that most popular personalities share a common privacy. They are different in front of the public. They are different in their private lives. All people are like that and everyone has the right to maintain some things for himself. The problem really exists when celebrities appear to be moral, while in their real life they are not moral. And I am not talking about coincidental actions but frequent immoral stances. Then, they seem fake. Nevertheless, you cannot ignore their attempts to appear moral in front of everyone. Because society has to be directed towards the good and never learn the bad things that happen in the backstage, so as not to be influenced negatively.
We don't know and we cannot know if indeed Beckham sent those emails and what sort of emails he sent. Evil, jealousy, lies and hate revolve around people who have a high prestige from their haters, enemies, competitors or adversaries. If Beckham did send the emails as they were leaked or differently, we don't know if these opinions are his own or just a momentary explosion from his part to inadvertently create impressions for others. Here's my explanation about it: while society as a whole praises the fair, there are people who make fun of and bully celebrities if the latter show their sentient self. This is the case with ordinary people as well. Then, some celebrities -and ordinary people- might consider themselves as fools, let alone if they have a weak personality, and may sometimes acquire sensationalism opinions which contradict their good image. And they do that only to satisfy the doubtfulness about their own real selves as a counteraction from the curiosity of the bullies towards them and their work, which overall has positive outcomes.
Everyone wants to help the world, but first and foremost everyone wants to help oneself. So, there is the belief that celebrities only help other people to raise their status more. This is an understandable standpoint. Celebrities will continue to have more money than they should, even when they make donations, so their aiding actions look as hypocritical. Poor people will continue to suffer because some other people, notably celebrities, deprive money from society only to live in luxury. One can say that the celebrities have worth and should earn those money. I am not against that. I am against other people dying because they don't have anything to eat. It is a tragic irony!
The rich ones are sort of to blame about it, because they have money they don't actually need to live, but to make a fortune. And the most worrying thing is that they don't realise it and obviously they uphold themselves and their elitist strategies. But as life is, someone has to be rich! Therefore, humans are currently ensnared; society must change. Personally, I would be ashamed to be rich and have precious and expensive goods only to show to the other people that I have more worth than them when in some parts of the world there are people who suffer. No one has more worth than anyone. Everyone can be worthy if he has conditions in his life that enable him to reclaim his values. Worth lies in culture, not in appearance and possession. Besides, every person has his own mission in this world and everyone is valuable.
In my opinion, there should be a budget limit for every person, so as money could be distributed to the poor ones and no one to be in trouble surviving in life. But humans are greedy and will never accept that; it could cause more feuds and wars. And since my article was motivated by a sportsman (David Beckham), I will speak about a sports organization that has thought about it: NBA has budget limits to the teams (The NBA salary cap). Why this situation cannot be applied in the community too, as a solution to vanish the poverty? I am not a finance expert to think if it can be done and how it should be done. It's just an idea that came to my mind. Perhaps, economists have thought about it, but it looks impossible to them.
To return to the main point, there are celebrities who truly care for humans, but they also benefit from their social aid, if they make public their contribution to social issues. People see it and may appreciate those popular personalities more. It is also an act that gives a good example by motivating other people to help society. Other celebrities help people secretly and no one ever finds out about it. Perhaps, the latter are truer than the first, because it seems inevitable that, either intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or subconsciously, there will come a time when the famous stars who belong in the first category will see their contribution to society as a means to fulfill a dream, to achieve a goal, or to earn a recognition. This is not necessarily a person's attitude or fault, but the result of a systemic consequence, and then aiding loses its real meaning. Then, humans lose their real selves.Suggest a correction