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.

Bertrand, easy target in the sense that, as others have said, he's taken aim at her and not Bob Geldof or Lenny Henry.

This pisses me off. When I saw the photo, I just see a woman holding a child ffs. The child's colour doesn't register.

This is such a crap argument. Black people have been oppressed by white people for hundreds of years. To say you 'don't see colour' is to just dismiss all that entirely.

It's a bit like when people say 'transwomen are women because what's between your legs doesn't matter' (sorry to go there but it's true).

There's a great TED talk that touches on this by Chimamanda Adichie.
It's about only hearing/presenting one story and the dangers of that. www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/up-next

He explicitly said: "This isn't personal and I don't question your good motives." She made it about her, not the other way around, he was talking about the formula in general.

He made it about her when he chose to use her example of something he doesn’t like. Raise it with Comic Relief, write a tweet about it in general terms, don’t respond to a picture she posted with a “no offence but” comment then pretend you aren’t calling her out.

It’s currently on trend to be offended by this on other people’s behalf.

White people shouldn’t raise money for Black people living in poverty? What kind of nonsense is that? Of course Africa has a growing middle class, and perhaps they are helping those in poverty too. Perhaps some benefitted from sponsorship programmes which gave them opportunities to go to school. Mary’s Meals has now feeds over a million school children, giving many access to school they wouldn’t otherwise have had. The backpack appeal has helped provide much needed supplies. Water Aid has helped provide clean water. We shouldn’t support these because we are white? Because they have white people running them? Because they have white celebrities as ambassadors? What a load of nonsense. His own words were he refused to go to be used as “some kind of PR exercise” So, he doesn’t want charities to use well known names to boost donations?

He made it about race and he shouldn’t have. I’m not a fan of the tired, formulaic way these appeals work and there are far better things to call them out on than taking the “white saviour” route.

Oh the old 'I don't see colour' chestnut.

“This pisses me off. When I saw the photo, I just see a woman holding a child ffs. The child's colour doesn't register. ”
Bollocks.

He is saying he is not making it personal whilst naming her out of all the people who have done this.

I am more worried that an MP seems to have a profound lack of understanding of what encourages people in this country to donate to charity.

Yes, morally and intellectually he probably has a point, but its a pretty out of touch and crass way of doing it.

Isn’t it interesting that not being able to spell racist seems to be an indicator of particular views.

Hopefully if you are white and your children are white you made sure they didn't take part in any charitable events at their primary school where the money may have gone to black people.

Much more important to take some cock-eyed, imaginary moral high ground!

I think he's a misogynistic arse.

Ok, sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone I'm just saying what I think. I don't mean to down play anything.

Look, this isn't an either/or thing.

Lammy was 100% right about the white saviour issue, and the way Red Nose Day patronises the people it sets out to help and reduces Africa and its many countries, ethic groups, cultures and political groupings to a single amorphous image, and lets Europeans off the hook for the shitefest that is postcolonialism.

But he was wrong to make this about Dooley - and he did do that - he was the one who made it personal by selecting an image of her to illustrate what was otherwise a point which was spot on the money.

This pisses me off. When I saw the photo, I just see a woman holding a child ffs. The child's colour doesn't register. Bollocks. I have to agree, Bertrand People who say they don't see colour confuse me a bit.

I do like Stacey dooley and what she does but she did start life on on a reality programme lets not pretend she isn't a "sleb

Em. Say what now?

I’m not patronising her. I’m pointing out a trend in selection of target for criticism by labour male politicians. Which is clear, to those of us not wilfully blinding ourselves to it.

Don't be ridiculous Fazackerley. The point is to encourage Comic Relief not to trade on the back of unhelpful, racist and patronising tropes to gain funding.

exactly donald

BertandRussell...sue me for my typo. Please explain what you mean by particular view?? If more people didn't 'see colour' I'm damn sure this world would be a kinder place. Ffs

not at all ridiculous!

I honestly think that lots of posters must be being disingenuous for some reason best known to themselves. How can people not get Lammy’s point? He might have been better not to cite Dooley, but the attempt to present her as a brainless bimbo, or a naive teenager are characterisations which I am sure would piss her off....

Your extrapolation is ridiculous.

If he had made that point about Comic Relief without using poor old Stacey Dooley then I would have had some sympathy.

cittigirl, genuine question - if you don't see skin colour, how can you see racism?

But he was wrong to make this about Dooley - and he did do that - he was the one who made it personal by selecting an image of her to illustrate what was otherwise a point which was spot on the money.

Yes and thinking about it he could extend a bit more courtesy to Lenny Henry in the way he raises this.

Being right about the main principle doesn't excuse his approach.