David Lammy/Stacey Dooley

I'm not sure why Stacey is trying to justify herself or why we are discussing it.

IMO Lenny Henry summed up David Lammy's attitude very succinctly.
Well done Sir Lenny Henry.

QED

Or bashing out a hundred?

David Lammy's attack was impulsive and immotive and Stacey Dooleys response was impulsive and emotive/defensive.

No constructive dialogue from either side.

Stacey would have been wiser to take a breath. Not reply on the attack/defensive, and acknowledge that the pic IS reminiscent of a problematic phenomonon, and then go on to explore what she already does (and maybe could do better) to try to be a contributer to solutions not problems.

Problem is that social media is so "instant" and people (on both sides in this case IMO) don't let the dust settle so they can see clearly before bashing out a post and hitting "send"

In short, the Stacey pic is IMO a bad example of what is a real issue. I think DL has done the opposite of raising awareness of the issue by singling her out. It's a shame all round.

I CAN see why at first glance the pic is reminiscent of so many "cuddle-a-orphan" pic on social media, and it causes real and lasting damage to the children used this way. But I do doubt that the story behind THIS pic was the same as the similar but problematic ones

Lily 65

Reporting posts to GNHQ is bad enough in my opinion but threatening a poster as you did earlier tells me to be more than a tad wary when you engage in a thread.

I have never known a poster to say this to another no matter how volatile an agreement between them:-

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

*Why certain countries, such as those in the continent of Africa, need to be taught how to look after and work together with their fellow countrymen and women, heaven knows.
Surely it's an inherent trait that even animals have.
If they need teaching the basics, there is no hope*

How can this be interpreted?

Of course people can help each other. But it can never be acceptable to insinuate that the inhabitants of a whole continent are lazy or fail to care for each other.

I have argued that Stacey is in fact in the former category not the latter and I would believe that that pic was an out of context snap shot of her having respectful meaningful interactions. But. I agree with the wider issues which are being lost by focusing on David V Stacey.

Noone has said stop giving to charity, can we please put that one to bed. We are saying that there are respectful and disrespectful ways to fund raise and there really is no excuse these days for the disrespectful kind. It is not the only way.

We can no longer claim the innocence/nativity/good intentions that can be applied to the use of this format in the "feed the world" days.

notanan yes, but it's what someone picks up on - I was moved by the short film of the African nurse funded by this charity doing her rounds of her patients. I hadn't even seen the picture of Stacey.

POGS Words fail me for once I agree, it is how something is interpreted that is key.
And lily65
If people cannot help others in need that is a sad day for the world. If someone is a different race, colour, creed should we not reach out to them whatever?

I hope that one day these charities will not be needed but that will not be something that will happen in the forseeable future. Without this aid people will die. With this aid children will live and be educated and there will be a hope for a better future.

Terribull a very reasoned and sensible post.

Not hard at all, notanan. Well said.

Exactly notanan

White saviour way:
" WE'RE here to bring fresh water to these adorable villagers who wouldnt have anything without our help. Look how cute and grateful they are! Aww Lets do a pan shot of cute brown kiddies"

Respectful way:
"We are here to hear what the people of this villages have to say about the challenges they face to get fresh water, how they are working towards improving things, and asking them what we can do to help. Cuts to articulate adult villager to hear what they have to say"

See. Middle ground. Not too hard is it?

Sorry I have no idea why this link keeps not working, if this doesnt work I give up, do your own googling www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-holland-lorenzo/i-dont-see-color_b_8401552.html

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_8401552?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_cs=CaE31VwvY7490p2o8J02Yw

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_8401552?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_cs=CaE31VwvY7490p2o8J02Yw

There are a gazillion more. If you type "I dont see colour statement" into google you will get tonnes of results and they are not in support of the statement

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/201602/i-dont-see-color

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
Are you really unable to see ANY middle ground between gratuitous saviourism, and not helping at all? Its not one or the other. There are other, better ways of achieving things if we learn from the past and move with the times

without seeing the colour of their skin. peoples heritage matters. Their experiences matters. It is a statement that demonstrates extreme privilidge to think that ones race/heritage/other differences just dont and shouldnt matter or be given any contextual consideration.

If you havent experienced why it DOES AND SHOULD matter. You are lucky.

It was considered progressive in the 80s/90s to promote the "dont see colour" idea. Since then there has been many many writings and academic discussions about why that sentiment is flawed. If you are at all interested there are many many texts out there explaining why.

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.

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.

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 '.

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.

Me too, POGS.

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

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.

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