White saviour? Stacey Dooley in row with labour Mp David Lammy

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

SomeWelshGuy123

Had to Google him, never heard of him before.I will admit, I wasn't surprised to find out he's a SOAS alumni.

Reply 21

username4454836

Original post by 999tigger

No it isnt because plenty of people dont understand the situation over there, because they are in a UK bubble.
You do get to hear from the actual people and the people helping them.

No amount of celebs in poverty porn are going to help them understand if they are wilfully ignorant.

Reply 22

999tigger

Original post by Decahedron

No amount of celebs in poverty porn are going to help them understand if they are wilfully ignorant.

You need to explain that.
Are you attacking the celebs [ of various colours] giving their time up and going out there to see for themselves or the viewers who contribute money?

Reply 23

username4454836

Original post by 999tigger

You need to explain that.
Are you attacking the celebs [ of various colours] giving their time up and going out there to see for themselves or the viewers who contribute money?

Anyone that isn't aware of the poverty in Africa must have buried their heads in the sand over the issue.

My issue is with CR's strategy for getting donations with poverty porn.

Reply 24

LeapingLucy

I don't think it's right that people are criticising Comic Relief/Stacey Dooley for "not letting Africans speak for themselves" when the films they've shot there haven't aired yet - we have no idea what form they're going to take. It always annoys me when people criticise something they haven't read/seen.

I do think her instagram posts were slightly problematic though.

Reply 25

Good bloke

Original post by Fullofsurprises

He isn't wrong though that the charity sector have continued to spread a particular view of Africa (starving children and desperate women) that does well for donations but isn't in any way representative of the continent as a whole. In fact, many African countries have made considerable progress in improving living standards and dealing with poverty. That's a story we don't get exposed to but we are constantly assailed by the negative imagery.

On the white/black thing, it's also been true in the past that the classic charity posture was the white man/woman holding little black babies and weeping. There was a hidden suggestion there that all the Africans need is white do-gooding and they will be fine. They in fact do need more generosity from us, but it's to do with the terms of trade. The EU have fierce protectionist barriers against African goods, which makes it hard for them to export to us. The UK may or may not drop these on leaving, but the UK also has a long history of blocking African exports, so perhaps nothing will change.

For students on gap years, white voluntourism also often has very negative effects.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/pippa-biddle/little-white-girls-voluntourism_b_4834574.html

Of course he is wrong. All forms of identity politics are deeply corrosive and unhelpful to all concerned. To take your points in order:

1. The charity sector seeks to help people in poverty in Africa. If what you say is correct and they don't need the help then the whole thing is a sham, and I shall stop paying to them and find a better outlet for my money. If the help is needed then portraying those they seek to help in the reality of their condition is an obvious and sensible way to maximise the money they receive.

2. Improving their record isn't saying much, is it? If large numbers of people live in deep poverty then they have not improved anywhere near enough. As for negative imagery, if it is reasonable to depict the truth (and it obviously is) then any offence is taken, not intended. The charities do not intend to criticise the governments but to help the people. To complain of such help seems churlish.

3. To complain that too many white people are depicted helping black people is ridiculous in the extreme. The vast majority of Britons (and Europeans, of course) are white! It is inevitable.

You and the arch-racist Lammy are essentially arguing that we should not aid Africans. So, do they need our aid, or don't they?

You argue against EU tariff barriers, yet you also wage a fear-mongering campaign against Brexit, which has the potential to lower or remove those barriers for trade with Britain. You should understand that the girl that sits on the fence is likely to tear her skirt or trousers.

Reply 26

username4349612

Lammy has a point, there are a lot of people like Stacey who think they are white saviours and treat non whites as their cute little pets. However Lammy is still a bigot so whatever.

Reply 27

999tigger

Original post by Decahedron

Anyone that isn't aware of the poverty in Africa must have buried their heads in the sand over the issue.

My issue is with CR's strategy for getting donations with poverty porn.

People like to see where their money is going.
I cant see how you educate people without reporting on the issue and need.
They do the same for the UK segments.
There is still poverty in both countries. If thats where the need is , then makes sense to show how they cna make a difference.

What would you like them to do show affluent middle classes and then ask them to donate?

Its quite easy though dont donate .

Reply 28

999tigger

Original post by Pachuco

Lammy has a point, there are a lot of people like Stacey who think they are white saviours and treat non whites as their cute little pets. However Lammy is still a bigot so whatever.

I notice Lammy hasnt taken up the offer to get off his backside an o out there to make a film himself.

Reply 29

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

I also take it Lammy therefore supports us scrapping foreign aid. That surely qualifies as “white saviour.”

Reply 30

username4454836

Original post by 999tigger

They can show poverty without the need for celebrities.

Reply 31

Just my opinion

Here's an idea then.
Set up a black aid charity, use only black presentrs and send only black celebs to Africa to hold black babies and weep.
You could even call it black nose Day and sell black noses for contributions.
I'm sure with his amazing organisational Lammey would be up for it. 👍

Reply 32

999tigger

Original post by Decahedron

They can show poverty without the need for celebrities.

But they get more viewers and raise more money to help more people?

Reply 33

username4454836

Original post by 999tigger

But they get more viewers and raise more money to help more people?

Do people really donate more just because a celebrity is fronting it? That is pretty depressing.

Reply 34

Guru Jason

Original post by Decahedron

Do people really donate more just because a celebrity is fronting it? That is pretty depressing.

It might be depressing but people do donate more when there is a familiar or relatable face. This isn't just a charity thing either or why would advertisement spend money on celebs to endorse their product.

Reply 35

DuckDodgers

I thought he was right, to be honest.

I realise why people might turn off given proliferation of identity politics but what he says is also covered by Zizek when he reflects on how consumption of Starbucks 'ethical' coffee plays into the idea that we use third-parties to do the hard work of bettering 'poor' Africa. It creates an illusion that we send saviours over to help when we could be doing more. It also perpetuates the notion that only rich, middle class or celebrities should be going over to do their bit. The gap yah bunch.

Beyond that, media generally perpetuates lots of negative stereotypes about Africa. The entire continent looks dirt poor if you judge it by the few times you see it portrayed on television. The truth is far from that of course. I mean, could people here give a realistic assessment of, say, the state of higher education in Ghana? I couldn't. How can you? You never see anything about it anywhere.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 36

999tigger

Original post by Decahedron

Do people really donate more just because a celebrity is fronting it? That is pretty depressing.

Live Aid being a prime example.
Children In Need.

it really seeing the point of objection.

Reply 37

chazwomaq

Original post by Good bloke

2. Improving their record isn't saying much, is it? If large numbers of people live in deep poverty then they have not improved anywhere near enough.

You're off target here. Check out Hans Rosling's excellent TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty?language=en#t-816673

African economic and health development over the past 50 years has been much, much faster than say Europe's from the same starting point (of course they have the benefit of some modern technology). The number of people living in extreme poverty and on the edge of starvation has been decreasing very rapidly.

You can always argue that it isn't enough until the poverty rate is 0 but you have to see the rapid progress being made.

Reply 38

Good bloke

Original post by chazwomaq

I'm not saying progress hasn't been made, just that insufficient progress has been made that aid isn't helpful.

Africa's fast progress relative to that of Europe is partly due to, yes, modern technology but also help from the developed nations - the very thing that Lammy and FoS appear to be rejecting as (to paraphrase) 'it is insulting and critcising them to help them'.