The ‘white saviour’ has been used for decades in academic and political research. It’s RECOGNISED terminology, not just with regards African countries, but worldwide. My particular academic knowledge is actually in relation to Native Americans but the grounding theories stay the same and they ultimately all lead to the them/us divide, which suits us perfectly:
For instance, people seem to be under the illusion that the foreign aid the government give is done so with little thought; it always comes with conditions that ultimately benefit us back in Britain, even with the ‘corrupt’ ones (conveniently forgetting that the majority of organisations of power are corrupt, ours included - DUP anyone?) We tell them what they HAVE to do with it.
We send our broken electrical household goods and other waste to sit in landfills in African countries, literally taking lived-on land and turning it into slums, and then we give to charity to help those in a situation that we have culpability in because we don’t know ‘we’re’ the cause.
Comic Relief isn’t the problem BUT they can be part of a much bigger, better and brighter solution.
And still we sit here, indignant that someone might have the good sense to call out the fact that it’s time we stop assuming what other humans must need whilst simultaneously controlling what they are allowed to have. Because we’re right, and we can either see the privilege of white/western privilege or continue the ‘I can’t help who I am’ POV.
If you donate to CR, fabulous, you want to help! Wouldn’t you rather hear about the charities right there on the ground, doing the work in their own words?
As I said earlier, Lammy’s race is neither here nor there but seems to be confusing the dialogue considerably. Would the point be clearer if a white MP had made it?