David Lammy/Stacey Dooley

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!!

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

So notanan what charities do you support?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think it’s time for an apology.

Lily65 I hope you have not reported GG for hate crime. Think very carefully. Her post was badly worded, I think she meant it shouldn’t be necessary to educate people to get along. Anyone in authority reading her very first post on the matter will see she mentioned she agreed with David Lammy. I have been feeling uneasy about your motives recently. Other GN’s have tsk tsked at some of your comments but I have been pondering what you are hoping to achieve. You appear to be floating from thread to thread posting comments about racism wherever you can. For example, your ridiculous plantation blind comment and others of a similar nature. I am wondering if you are trying to stir up racial hatred where there is none. So I would be very careful that the authorities do not go through your posts and it comes back to bite you on the bum.

There really are too many genuinely white saviour types out there who DO need to be called out on their virtue signalling, its a shame its all fallen on staceys lap. There have been many photos like hers but its the TIMING of hers, not het actions, that have meant she is taking the fall for others who went before her if that makes sense.

She is less guilty than most of them. Perhaps she is somewhat guilty but she is nowhere near as bad as many of the others.

A general critcism of white saviour behaviour, with perhaps a montage of examples which may or may not have included her post, would have been fairer and more effective and would have got the message across better

Sadly an important message/discussion is being missed by having made this a personal Lammy Vs Stacey thing.

However it is a bit disappointing that she is involved in comic relief, I thought she had more grit than that and would expect to more likely see her on an espose of comic relief than IN it.

Comic relief is usually the realm of the Nottinghill brat pack who directly fund the poverty they weep about through their cocaine habits IMO

I do think white saviour sentiments exist and are an issue but I have seen a few of Staceys programs and she doesnt swoop in all "aww look at the poor brown people if only they had our western ways". She does credit people with seeking their own solutions etc

I agree with the sentiment but I think he picked the wrong person to hang this on. Stacey is a good journalist/presenter that actually goes into situations rather than just doing superficial photo ops and she would IMO be the first to condemn white saviourism/poverty tourism.

To be honest, I'm pretty disgusted by some of the remarks on here.

The phrase "playing the race card" is often used when non-white people stand up to discriminatory behaviour and practices. And it cannot be denied that racial prejudice and discrimination - whether conscious or unconscious - are very much present in all areas of public life. Statistical analysis and undercover research has shown quite clearly that non-white people have unequal access to employment, housing, justice, education, etc, etc.

A poster stated "racism won't be beaten until the resentment of the past is forgotten". I would turn that statement around and say "Resentment of past and present treatment will not be eliminated until racism is beaten".

It was also stated: "Most people have moved on from the days of colonialism". Tell that to the Chagossians who were forcibly removed from their homes - and are still dispossesed several decades later - or to the black South Africans who suffered under apartheid and who still see wealth and land overwhelmingly in the hands of white South Africans. Non-white people throughout the world can see what has happened and what continues to happen. It is not so easy for them to "move on" from the subject of colonialism.

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.

Non-white people were said to be intellectually, emotionally, culturally and morally inferior to white people. It provided a convenient reason for seizing power and stealing natural resources and the cheap labour of millions of people. In my view, the issue is about power and who holds and inherits that power, rather than race but race provided a useful tool to divide and rule.

Some of these colonialist-type views still exist - I believe Gabriella's comments clearly demonstrate this:

"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.".

It has also been reported on here that Lammy's comments have caused donors to state they will no longer support Comic Relief because of the "ingratitude" shown by his remarks. So, it appears that because a black person - Lammy - had the temerity to voice his opinions on an issue which he felt needed addressing and which he felt strongly about, people decide that black people should be punished. This smacks very much of the days of black slavery when, if one slave became "uppity" all the black workers were punished to teach them who was boss.

As far as I am aware, Lammy didn't accuse Dooley or anyone else of being racist - he objected to the image of Africa and African people being presented on programmes such as Comic Relief. It is he who has been described as "racist".

I can understand why Dooley was hurt by his remarks since they were aimed at her personally- and I initially felt rather sorry for her. I think it would have been better if he had spoken about the subject in more general terms. However, I think her response is likely to encourage even more bad feeling and, to my mind, 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. I would have admired her if she had expressed her hurt and asked Lammy to discuss the matter with her, rather than ramp up the bad feeling.

Joelsnan Prejudice is not always racist though. Racisim is about power and control.