Offended by certain charity campaigns

[Missangrypants]

As a person from an ethnic minority I am increasingly angry about the use of starving malnourished black or brown children in charity campain videos.

I'm firmly of the opinion that videos of starving white babies and toddlers would never be shown in this way.

AIBU?

What, like when the Romanian orphanages were being shown everywhere? I get your point, but most famines and huge natural disasters tend not to be in European countries, for example.

I agree and look at this placement!

I hate to point out the obvious, but you’re not going to get that many white children in campaigns to help the starving in The Sudan.

Is this for real?

I need a bit of help with this one OP, the charity you've used to illustrate your pint is called 'Save the Children', it predominantly works out of the continent of Africa. What do you recommend as a visual? A llama? A tea pot? A crudely drawn illustration?

I get your point. It makes blackness synonymous with poverty and third world countries. However, I think we all understand that white people can be rich or poor, from a third world country, from a first world country. Do you think that people can't understand that same reality when it's black people. Like they are genuinely starving children out there and you're worried they're not great ambassadors for black people or something like that. That sounds snippy but I do get you. I am a nationality (not race) often maligned historically by the British and Americans and I hate lazy offensive stereotypes. Not quite the same but I think I understand you even though it you protest too much about this you're bound to be told off for getting your priorities wrong.

Surely a lot of starving children supported by charities live in places like Africa or India so, as a PP says, it would be misleading to show a white child. I’m sure starving white children would be shown in the same way if the charity in question were raising money to support them.

I've said many times on MN, just because you are offended doesn't make you right. I always get flamed for it, and told how offensive I'm being.

Perhaps this thread might have a few more people coming around to my viewpoint.

Though, thinking about it, there must be a lot of starving white children so now I’m wondering why we never see charity adverts supporting them!

I understand what you're saying OP - you feel they are being exploited.

Part of the nature of a more connected world is that in ten years time the child could potentially find a picture of themselves online, you can never really escape now. When these images used to appear pre internet it was far far less likely the child would find it -the image was used for the campaign and that was it. There were not the digital echoes.

I don't know the answer. The images used are used because they are so effective. I have no idea how you would duplicate the impact without those images, although I am sure it has been looked in to. There will be rules involved but I have no idea what they are or how they are observed.

With regard to the skin colour I would imagine it is two fold - where the crisis is (as a PP rightly said if you're campaigning for the Sudan the images need to reflect the population) but also, I imagine, the likelihood of the subject ever seeing the photo. That may need to be updated as the world changes and internet access increases.

There really isn't a right answer.

I've got child models wanted from this thread. Is that better?

Worked in a school where they had on the wall an artist's drawing of a starving black child. They'd bought themselves the picture to commemorate the large amount of money they'd raised for charity. I found it sickening.

But, the advertisers won't raise money by showing positive stories about Africa or wherever. They want to make people feel sad and guilty so they'll pay up.

I agree. It paints a very simplistic and narrow view of African life and people.

I'm more offended about the fact that it's all a scam and the children are purely used as a way of generating more money for the CEOs, corrupt governments etc, regardless of the colour of their skin. We still haven't found a permanent solution to providing safe drinking water in 40+ years and £billions in donations? Really??

What nationality do you realistically think that wee lad can be? I can't think of many European or white countries currently being bombed right now

I'm more offended about the fact that it's all a scam and the children are purely used as a way of generating more money for the CEOs

I worry about that with cancer charities, too. How do we know where the donations go?

If you want to know where your donations go read the annual reports, they can be a bit dry but it is all laid out there.

YANBU OP. They should be allowed to starve privately, with dignity. That's what any mother would want for her child.

That's what any mother would want for her child.

I think any mother would want her child NOT to starve and would do anything to try to get some help. If you sell them the idea that raising awareness will bring help, no one will refuse.

It's also true for parents whose kids are dying of rare cancer in our countries- they would prefer privacy, but the minuscule chance that help could be found is what push them to publish pictures.

Barbarian

YABU Op, i can kind of see your point but realistically, what else could be shown?

OP, I completely agree with you. I'm white but still think the stereotypical image of some poor starving African baby with flies around its eyes is utterly degrading. Third world nations are never going to be able to move forward if the first world persists in casting them as helpless. And then we send in the 'white saviours' to take selfies with the most photogenic ones...

I think I get where you’re coming from here (I’m white), it is the way people of colour are presented in the media. For charities, in death...there is something different about how people of colour are shown. There is a “for shock factor” element that is not apparent when it is white people.

I spoke about this with a friend the other day, who is a person of colour. It was that friend who highlighted it to me, before that, it hadn’t really crossed my mind because, so it was an eye opener for me but one I realised was true the second it was said. I am mindful of my privilege as a white person, I think I see a lot of the injustices levelled at people of colour on my own. But not all of them, how can I? I’m open to learning though.

What gets people to give money tends to be images that appeal emotionally and often those same images are not on an intellectual level not okay. So I agree with you OP, but the same issue is throughout the charity world in different ways. Look at how breast cancer charities raise money - those with breast cancer often hate the ways that are most effective t raise money. Or the domestic violence phrases about somebody's wife, somebody's daughter - misogynistic but they work to raise money.

These large charities have fundraising departments whose sole purpose is to raise as much money as possible. We live in a racist, sexist world. So what brings in the most money is not going to be free of those images. And what brings in money are emotional appeals. A starving child sparks emotion.

I agree, the flies in their eyes pictures are nauseating. As is the idea that pouring our money in will solve everything. Famines now are man made, in as much as they are entirely avoidable with foreplanning and cooperation. But regimes are too corrupt and greedy and despots get rich while their people starve, absolutely nothing to do with whether Doris from Bristol send £3 a month to "feed a starving African". Gets me all cross it does!