David Lammy/Stacey Dooley

calls into question whether it was her commitment to helping people in Africa which caused her to take part or her wish to remain in the public eye

See THIS is why I think right sentiment, wrong person.
Stacey isnt some pop star doing Comic relief cause her agent/manager told her to. Inequality IS actually her area of work/interest and she has been open to challenging her own preconceptions and role in the "system" and DOES get her hands dirty!. She is a good hard hitting documentary presenter who doesn't just point the finger at the "poor" 3rd world, she investigates poverty, crime and deprivation closer to home too.

as it cuts between people in a bath of beans to famine in the developing world

Last Comic relief I complained to my local Sainsburys because the did the HilArIous bean bath thing RIGHT BESIDE the local food bank box!

I questioned how, with local people having to use food banks for basics, they could have conceived that chucking away bathfuls of food would be funny and an appropriate way to raise money for poverty.

AND ANOTHER THING that I dislike about Comic relief while Im on the subject...

... the way they use schools and pester power is IMO immoral if the claim to be concerned about child poverty!

Those days are a nightmare for families on the breadline who also dont want their kids to be singled out for not buying the red nose. Or the pugsley onezie, or the sports relief teeshirt. (Especially as the red noses are A. So badly made that they wont last till next year and B. So environmentally unfriendly)

There is so much wrong with comic relief/children relief/sports relief. It DOES reek of white saviours in its current format and does need to change with the times and acknowledge that the old ways are no longer appropriate

A lot of important issues around it need to be raised.

But Stacey Dooley is not the problem. And singling her out is not the solution IMO.

So notanan what charities do you support?

Eloethan thanks for your thoughtful and excellent post. With you all the way.

I do think that it is a very sad situation we have come to. Rather than just being able to give a donation the public at large need something in return..the entertainment becomes the focus not the need or underlying problem that caused the need.
I see clearly wher Live Aid came from... a bunch of musicians couuld raise awareness and money for a desperate situation. It was laudable.
The first Comic Relief & Children in Need : very similar. But it has now become a bit hackneyed and overplayed. We need to rethink.

Do you know I am still smarting about those Romans. I just can’t let it go.

Invading us, raping, pillaging, enslaving the Saxons, building bypasses through our gardens and scoffing all our sheep.

Not only are you trivialising some very real feelings breeze but you're also displaying a sad ignorance of British history.

Excellent post, Eloethan ?

notanan I agree with you that perhaps Lammy picked the wrong person to hang this on - he made this person-specific which was unfair and unkind. He could have made his point in a more general way, but perhaps he did not do so deliberately because the co-founder of Comic Relief is himself black British like Lammy himself.

Stacey Dooley has become a scapegoat and this girl is no empty-headed celebrity - she has made some powerful, thought-provoking documentaries about troubling issues.

Lily65 just caught up with this thread and you are threatening to report a post as a hate crime, well I'm flabbergasted to say the least, could I ask you a question are you a person of colour, genuine question obviously you don't have to answer. Seems to me lots of people have chips on their shoulders at the moment with one thing or another.

Read the whole thread Maisied before passing your judgement. You will see i am not racist and used a tongue in cheek example of how far do you go back with resentment. My earlier posts were heartfelt and not trivial

I would also suggest you look up the roman invasion of Britain. They raped pre pubescent boys. They didn't just build roads

Eloethan

'POGS The scenario you set - a black man (or woman) holding a white child in a world where white people are, in the main, seriously disadvantaged as compared to black people and where black people provide them with aid - with strings attached - does not exist. There is no example of, for instance, a European, predominantly white, country being occupied and taken over by black people in order to strip that country of its resources and subjugate its people. '
----

David Lammy saw a white woman , he found it offensive and used the term ' White Saviour ' and that is typical of the sort of controversial comment I have heard David Lammy say over his time as a politician both at interviews and in Parliament so no real surprise this storm has been brewed.

As for your point above :-

' There is no example of, for instance, a European, predominantly white, country being occupied and taken over by black people in order to strip that country of its resources and subjugate its people.'

I will put forward a scenario that is not historical but a theoretical reason for a charity fundraising programme such as Children in need.

Italy suffers a series of earthquakes and there is a humanitarian need for help. The UK puts on a charity fundraising programme . Do you honestly think there would be a call for those involved should be all white because Italians are predominantly a white country?

If Lenny Henry was in Italy fundraising and pictured holding a white child and some prat thought it was not suitable then I would feel just as annoyed as I do as the comments over Stacey Dooley holding a black child, which are tantamount to being racist but that will be in the eye of the beholder.

How the hell will the world move forward if we go ' backward ' with regard to integration and helping one another if colour, religion is the predominant factor?

I hope Children in Need , which has a clue in it's title
' Children ' so no wonder it was a ' child ' in Stacey Dooleys photo , does not suffer from this Lammy comment and use of the term ' White Saviours ' because Children In Need finances , aids, charities that look after children of ALL skin colour because the colour of a child's skin or where they are from is not a concern and hopefully that will never change.

It's always a sad day when doing something charitable is seen as a chance to use it as a political football!

I have read somewhere, sorry I cannot remember where exactly a quote along the lines of "employing/using a person of colour is an act of tokenism, not using /employing a person of colour is an act of racism"

Until every single human on this wonderful and bountiful planet stops seeing colour of skin before a persons soul this type of debate will continue ad infinitim

The original concept of Band Aid was admirable and I can remember being swept along by Bob Geldof's passion to try and do something positive to eradicate the devastating famine at that time. Fast forward to where we are today whilst we know that Bob Geldof's impetus did much for the greater good, there have undoubtedly been negatives as a result, some of the aid being misappropriated and the blanket approach to the distribution resulting in the demise of thriving cottage industries in Africa. Possibly due to a lack of understanding of the nuances of how individual local cultures operate. The abuse of local women and children by unscrupulous aid workers, the voices of Africans themselves telling us that aid has not lead to empowerment, just dependency.

With all that in mind and now being more than 30 years down the road of the "white saviour crusade" I can understand where DL was coming from particularly with the Stacey Dooley picture, another hackneyed cliched image which we have become all too used to. To be fair to her, her response did indicate that she was sincere in her endeavours to actually do something to help. Although I did think maybe his comments had been triggered by her unfortunate and facile "obsessed" remark on her Twitter feed, presumably referring to the child she was holding but quite honestly she might just as well have been referring to a puppy. I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here, but I'm maybe feeling he thought" when she puts that child down she will be flying back to her comfortable world and then that whole scenario will be played out again with someone else next year"

Times have changed "Feed the World" would no doubt be repudiated today for some of the contentious lyrics for example "Do they know it's Christmas time at all?" well no they wouldn't, if it was a Muslim country. Back in the 1980s and from those words, the implication was that Africa was a homogenised mass where everything was exactly the same hence "where nothing ever grows" another misnomer. Of course that song was thrown together in haste to maximise the sales of the record and raise as much money for what was undoubtedly a heroic effort to stave of the famine in Ethiopia but hardly reflects the many facets of Africa, anymore than one particular country in Europe would be representative of the continent per se.

I can see both sides of the argument I understand those who just want to do what they can to help and feel insulted by his comments, but there was something about his observations that struck a chord.

Until every single human on this wonderful and bountiful planet stops seeing colour of skin before a persons soul this type of debate will continue ad infinitim

"Not seeing colour" is not a good thing. Only white people say that you know. People actually do want their collective histories and experiences of being POC seen/recognised/acknowledged. It matters. It gives context.

If Lenny Henry was in Italy fundraising and pictured holding a white child
How can you not see how incomparable the two are?

notanan, I know we all have different histories, and I am not saying they should not be recognised.

I was trying to put across somewhat clumsily by other posters standards, that we are all human and more than just the colour of our skin.

You have no idea of my race or heritage, but hey ho!

So notanan what charities do you support? Several. Directly. Whose beneficiaries dont have to be paraded in front of my in a misery poverty/entertainment format!

Oh and I HAVE to support all the "reliefs" via school or my girls would be the only ones not in sports gear/pugsley onezies/red noses. Its only optional on paper. Luckily in MY house that doesnt mean we dont eat that week.....

And I didnt say END comic relief/children in need/sports relief I said CHANGE the flippin format!!!

It was forgivable as innocently well intentioned in the 80s / 90s but now we do know better so should be doing better!!

Have you all seen white saviour barbie? Google it if not

Lily 65 Sat 02-Mar-19 18:59:10

'That is absolutely vile and has been passed on to the relevant authorities. It is classifies as hate crime.'
-----

Words fail me for once.

Me too, POGS.

notanan, thank you for my introduction to White Saviour Barbie. So funny!

Same old same old

"aid show format is exploitative"

"But anything that raises money for charity is by default acceptable... cause it raises money"

"So what are you really saying? That you wont give as much of your income to charity unless "poor brave souls" perform some misery porn for you?"

"But but It raises money! If you criticise HOW they do it it means you hate all charity and sick/poor people"

K.

Notanan

" But anything that raises money for charity is by default acceptable... cause it raises money"
-

What are you saying?

If you are white you are therefore a virtue signalling ' White Saviour ' if you give money to a charity that wants to help black children because you belong to a white race with a Colonial past.

Forget Children in Need what are posters and Lammy saying in their posts.? White should look after White, Black should look after Black and there is no room for integration, looking after others without seeing the colour of their skin.

Hells bells I am glad my circle of friends and family from various races do not think , nor see Children in Need as ' White Saviour /Virtue Signalling '.

Put Stacey Dooley and David Lammy to one side for a moment.

Can you not possibly, just possibly consider the image is tired and outdated and it is possibly preferable to work alongside people rather than rescue them?

If people can't see that the notion of racial superiority is flawed and offensive well.....words fail.

If you are white you are therefore a virtue signalling ' White Saviour ' if you give money to a charity that wants to help black children because you belong to a white race with a Colonial past.

Nope. Didnt say that at all.

There is a respectful conscientious way of doing it.
And a grotesque gratuitous white saviour way of doing it.

Lets do it with respect. Thats it.