To think Stacey Dooley was right in her response to David Lammy

[CoolCarrie]

“ Africa doesn’t need white saviours” says Lammy commenting on pictures of Stacey Dooley on a comic relief trip. Why pick on her? Loads of celebrities over the years have gone to Africa to show how money is helping the poorest of the poor, and the huge difference it has made over the years.
What Africa does need is governments that are not corrupt and better leaders.

I'm not expecting him to do anything, other than be a politician and sit on his arse whilst whinging that others are getting it wrong.

And I am not saying that he is wrong but if he really gave a fuck about these people he would do more.

“And I am not saying that he is wrong but if he really gave a fuck about these people he would do more.”

1. You have no idea what he does or does not do.
2. raising awareness of issue like this is very important- he has had discussions on several occasions with both Comic Relief and the BBC.

What “more” do you want him to do?

And people saying David Lammy should organise it himself are being ridiculous

Nope, its just an opinion.

there are lots of things I don't like that others are responsible for but that doesn't mean I should be responsible for doing them myself.

then they will never change

We could start with Brexit, maybe.

Who do you think organise the people's marches?
Who organised the various polls etc?

That would be people that didn't have to but did because they cared enough to do so.

Strangely enough comic relief would never have happened if the organisers took your view that someone else should do it.

100% agree with David Lammy.
Comic Relief perpetuates unhelpful cliches about Africa.
Perhaps Stacey Dooley could investigate corrupt
African governments.
There was a brilliant radio 4 programme recently about orphanages in Nigeria and how they’ve become a business model due to UK charitable support... resulting in children from large families being removed to these appalling orphanages.

BertrandRussell

1) You have no idea what he does or does not do.

Neither do you

2) raising awareness of issue like this is very important- he has had discussions on several occasions with both Comic Relief and the BBC.

Words are cheap

What “more” do you want him to do?

I don't want him to do anything, but I have already said what he could do, if he were so inclined.

I think David Lammy has a point. And he's right to speak out about it, it's kind of his job as an MP to speak out about stuff (and not to actually do stuff). Most charities are guilty of this kind of stunt. The victim/saviour thing is a very powerful tool to make us part with our cash. Animal charities do it too.

What I think is ridiculous is why does David Lammy think the main issue here is 'blackness' and not poverty, famine and disease? From what I can see he has no experience of living in true poverty, in unstable regions or surrounded by famine and disease. Focusing on skin colour seems incredibly selfish to me and a bit hypocritical of him to assume he has some kind of moral high ground.

its just an opinion

In my view, it's a ridiculous opinion. I'm sure you'll find others who agree with you.

someone else should do it

Not what I said. I said we shouldn't expect David Lammy to do something directly about it himself - because he has used his political position to criticise the way CR are doing things, entirely appropriately. And I know perfectly well how to try & effect political change as I'm an activist and campaigner myself. But we can't all do everything ourselves.

I agree he should have said 'western saviour'. But that would have made him also culpable as a privileged male westerner so you can see why he wanted to avoid that

The Ed Sheeran film last CR got a hell of a kicking
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42268637
CR said they’d try to improve their presentation of African aid projects in a more modern way. Lammy saw what looks like an egregious example of the same old shit and pointed it out.

In many ways it’s two examples of the same thing - the fact that we as human beings will respond better to a news story involving specific individuals we recognise than one that’s more abstract. Lammy has banged on for years about the problematic nature of some CR narratives, but it’s when he finds a specific picture of a celeb we “know” to hang it on and say “this is what I’m talking about” that we pay attention. That’s exactly the same factor that makes “Girls Aloud go to an orphanage” such a reliable CR film format but it’s not impossible for them to make compelling films that do the job better and let the people on the ground speak for themselves.

This debate reminds me of a comment on MN about someone's DD making a charity visit to Africa, along the lines of "why would they want to be visited by a group of privileged, Ugg boot-wearing blondes?".

Girls aloud went to a hospital one of girls aloud flapped her hands and said how awful it made her feel and fainted/keeled over the medical staff had to leave their patient to pick up girls aloud while she flapped her hands some more, girls aloud were never sent to Africa again.

Lammy is right.

Those who agree with David Lammy may have a point. However, they underestimate the British public, the majority of which would not put their hand in their pocket without their heart strings being pulled at. When Comic Relief was set up there was no instagram/SM and now it's everywhere. Distasteful? Undoubtedly. Does it increase donations? I don't have stats but I would say without a doubt.

Like it or not (and I don't personally) CR is a big night of 'entertainment' for many many people with the added bonus of making themselves feel like they're doing something to help others less fortunate. I find it distasteful and don't watch.

I guess Stacey Dooley would have got a different response had she and other slebs, spent months or a year helping the needy and trying to make a difference instead of using it as a photo opportunity. However I am detecting a lot of negativity and disgust against disgust against white people, on here which makes me extremely uncomfortable. Like white people should be ashamed of being white and all they stand for!

“This debate reminds me of a comment on MN about someone's DD making a charity visit to Africa, along the lines of "why would they want to be visited by a group of privileged, Ugg boot-wearing blondes?".”
An excellent point. Not just blondes, of course, and Uggs have thankfully fallen out of favour. But the principle remains sound. Voluntourisn is wrong on many levels.

Sorry just repeated myself a bit, Autistic dd was trying to get my attention when I was typing. But the general gist of what I am tying to say is there.

I think the pose of the Instagram picture is very Inappropriate. Why is she laughing her head off as if she is having a whale of a time in that setting?

He used ‘white saviour’ because that is the trope.

He used SD as the catalyst because she had just posted.

He’s pointing out that people don’t have any knowledge of how much has changed. There’s still a narrative of missionary to all this, where ‘we’ go in and give money to make them more like ‘us’ rather than acknowledging that their is value in their own way of life and asking them how best we can help.

Education is vital but if the child goes through school but then still wants to return to their town or village and work on their family’s farm, that’s absolutely ok. Lammy is pointing out that it’s not for us to tell Africa how to live. That’s not the help they need and can often put people into dangerous situations.

So on the one hand this thread is saying that Africa is in a mess because of white colonialism. Then OTOH, it's saying that Africa isn't as bad as is made out, that there's money and wealth and that 'white saviours' aren't needed. Which is it? If there's wealth then why are people still dying?
Personally I feel no responsibility for things Britain did historically - I wasn't there, I had no part in it and my ancestors weren't the rich land owning class who made a mint out of exploitation and who've handed me a big arse estate in the country. I don't feel I have a greater responsibility to help there than anywhere else. Lammy was rude and the only effect his words will have is to make white people say 'fine, I'll keep my white money then, sort your own problems'. As seen from the comments section of other internet sites. All he's done is potentially hurt the people who benefit from CR. Since he called out SD personally, she's within her rights to respond and see if he's actually doing anything to help.
Sometimes even if the message is right, if the delivery causes harm then you need to rethink what you say and when. Alienating people who are trying to help (and clearly that help is needed) is an irresponsible thing to do - it's not David Lammy's life at risk if money isn't raised.

David Lammy has brought to light an important issue that has been talked about in the Black community since 'feed the world'. If this conversation makes CR think more and slebs more respectfully about how they portray Africa and Africans then that will be a good thing - they seem to do it well enough when they talk about UK charities.

So what many are trying to say is that, Africa is ok, and they should be left alone to do it themselves with no help. OK, that would mean withdrawing oversees aid then from the West. I can really see that working.

How much money actually reaches those in need though? I remember controversy a while ago over funding arms or something? I'm sure others of you will be more knowledgeable. Big organisations like Oxfam, CR, Peta, RSPCA, Barnardos, etc have all had their scandals and obviously this is more probable the larger a company becomes but I feel like giving money to them is just chucking money into a void.

Pleased to see there are some folk who agree with me re SD - I hadn't come across anyone who didn't think she was God's gift to journalism till now.

White people are not expected to be ashamed of being white and all they stand for, that's some stretch.

There's a historical and cultural context around race, racism, colonialism, voluntourism, paternalism and charity in Africa and understanding how a picture is read within that context requires a level of critical thinking that is not above the average journalist.

Leaning on lazy tropes to invoke a feel good factor to inspire apathetic Brits to stick their hand in their pockets might seem a reasonable means to an end but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Understanding how it feeds into our own society, that struggles racism, requires a more sophisticated approach.