Comic Relief's white heroes and heroines...

Alejandrosdog

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

No, David Lammy is a campaigning racist with dual standards. He and his party are quite happy to promote the Palestinian cause and pedal antisematic dogma.

Is that the new Pinarello, maybe Sky are getting one for Moscon to ride ?

bompington

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You know that’s one of the main thrusts of his argument?

That a lot of people only really understand Africa through the lens of Europeans turning up, saying how awful it all is and only you, the European, has the power to save them.

That’s what he’d like to get away from.

I understand this. But at the end of the day, the current method generates great financial aid.

orraloon wrote:

Fair enough. Would that get as much dosh out of the UK resident TV watching population as current, or indeed a mix of the 2 approaches?

It saddens me, but his proposals won't work as well as the status quo.

... and while all the charity white saviours, the anti-colonial PC white saviours, the comfortable western black saviours and all the rest argue about how to help the poor helpless Africans...
... the Africans are doing their best to help themselves. Mostly by valuing education and working damned hard to earn a living. The most important thing here is free trade (not necessarily fair trade either - that relies on paternalistic control by people who abrogate the right to tell them how they should be trading).

African prosperity doesn't look like Geldof thinks it does (rows of tents with peaceful, well fed people eating handouts); it doesn't look like Lammy thinks it does (the usual semi-socialist control by the right-thinking elite); and it doesn't look like you think it does.
Or like I think it does either, and at least I've actually been there and talked about it with Africans who I regard as peers. I've seen enough to know that it looks messy, and it doesn't come without inequality, pollution and corruption (yes, there are plenty of Africans who are "helping themselves": before you judge, look at yourself and be sure that you wouldn't take that bribe if it was the only thing between your family and poverty, maybe starvation). But the first time I visited Africa poverty looked like a hut with a dirt floor and no posessions: the most recent, it looked like someone who had to save up their shillings to top up their mobile. I'd call that progress, and most of it hasn't come from aid.

The best thing we can do for Africans is support them in their own home-grown efforts to grow the prerequisites for an advanced economy - things like the rule of law and education. And fighting the things that Africans themselves identify as their biggest problems - corruption and tribalism.

Ben6899

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You know that’s one of the main thrusts of his argument?

That a lot of people only really understand Africa through the lens of Europeans turning up, saying how awful it all is and only you, the European, has the power to save them.

That’s what he’d like to get away from.

I understand this. But at the end of the day, the current method generates great financial aid.

orraloon wrote:

Fair enough. Would that get as much dosh out of the UK resident TV watching population as current, or indeed a mix of the 2 approaches?

It saddens me, but his proposals won't work as well as the status quo.

... and while all the charity white saviours, the anti-colonial PC white saviours, the comfortable western black saviours and all the rest argue about how to help the poor helpless Africans...
... the Africans are doing their best to help themselves. Mostly by valuing education and working damned hard to earn a living. The most important thing here is free trade (not necessarily fair trade either - that relies on paternalistic control by people who abrogate the right to tell them how they should be trading).

African prosperity doesn't look like Geldof thinks it does (rows of tents with peaceful, well fed people eating handouts); it doesn't look like Lammy thinks it does (the usual semi-socialist control by the right-thinking elite); and it doesn't look like you think it does.
Or like I think it does either, and at least I've actually been there and talked about it with Africans who I regard as peers. I've seen enough to know that it looks messy, and it doesn't come without inequality, pollution and corruption (yes, there are plenty of Africans who are "helping themselves": before you judge, look at yourself and be sure that you wouldn't take that bribe if it was the only thing between your family and poverty, maybe starvation). But the first time I visited Africa poverty looked like a hut with a dirt floor and no posessions: the most recent, it looked like someone who had to save up their shillings to top up their mobile. I'd call that progress, and most of it hasn't come from aid.

The best thing we can do for Africans is support them in their own home-grown efforts to grow the prerequisites for an advanced economy - things like the rule of law and education. And fighting the things that Africans themselves identify as their biggest problems - corruption and tribalism.

Not sure if this was directed solely at me, but it's making one or two assumptions! Good post otherwise and one that I agree with.

rick_chasey

I think you’re in agreement with Lammy there, bom.

Matthewfalle

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Lammy is a racist, but that aside , we should have stopped handing money to african dictators to spend on jets and guns years ago.

yeah - we can barely afford our own jets and guns.

#britishgunsforbritishpeople

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think you’re in agreement with Lammy there, bom.

Well, more than I would have expected ;-)

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

That a lot of people only really understand Africa through the lens of Europeans turning up, saying how awful it all is and only you, the European, has the power to save them.

Well, if you take the perspective of a missionary. I presume that was your suggestion?

Prior to 'Europeans' turning up, there was Chinese trade (14th Century and perhaps even earlier) and for many years, Arabic peoples. That's the problem, there is so little written history on Africa prior to colonisation. The only literate peoples were of Arabic/Persian descent.

Africa was not in isolation up to the point of Europeans colonisers.
Although Africa is sadly bereft of written history prior to that point.

Anyway, the above is simply a backdrop to which highlights the skewed ideas about Africa.
My take on this:

1. Is this a case of people/a person being offended on a Africa's behalf? What a strange notion. If you are a starving, displaced Sudanese, living in a tent (following exodus from war and atrocities). what slightest bit of relevance would it have to you?
2. Do you think impoverished Africans care that x, y and z personality is highlighting their plight? I bet they don't give a damn.

They need water, food, basic healthcare and then maybe even; education. It matters not in what form it is delivered.

This whole aid thing is jaw dropping in it's naivety. In rural areas, illiteracy is very high. The basic and most fundamental obstacle to assisting Africans is the lack of education and next in the pyramid of need, infrastructure, which is in turn intrinsically linked to political stability. Aid does not cure deficiencies in governance.
Understanding say, irrigation and water retention techniques (Highlands of Ethiopia - paddy fields?) for example. Rather than maize and goats.
Changing to different forms of crops more tolerant and potentially more nutritious coupled with better use of resources will take time and often, direct intervention.
For example: My brother in law works on engineering projects in Uganda and Kenya. Principally, roads.
In Kenya, finance was going to the Kenya Govt. for these projects directly but a large percentage of the monies disappeared, on a regular basis. The result was that the Kenya Govt. had to agree, if they wanted continued assistance in road maintenance, to allow the organisation delivering the repairs and construction to manage their own finances directly from the funders (UN and Denmark), or there would be a complete cessation of work by them in Kenya.
There's also a cultural problem; trying to get Africans to give up their goats (seen as an asset), the very beasts that cause massive desertification of savannah, degradation, soil loss and all the associated ramifications of the deterioration of land.
It's that biblical expression: 'Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime'. We do far too much of the former based on emotional knee jerk reactions to people in 3rd world countries in plight and not on foundations of need. Too much sympathy and not enough empathy.

David Lammy: Born in the UK, grew up in Tottenham.
He is ostensibly British, a European. His POV is European. Just because he is black, does not make him more qualified to make his observation, whether that observation has any merit or not.
Mr Lammy: Can Lenny Henry go to Africa but Stacey Dooley can't. Is that what you are saying?

The only caveat for me, is that we need to judge the outcome of the delivery of assistance (after being highlighted by whoever). Is it token/short lived? Did it have long term benefit? Was whatever project in whatever land shattered because of famine/civil war/fundamentalists/drought/political instability/corruption?

So getting hung up on a 'tired format' is scraping the top snowflake off the top of the iceberg. Why don't we ask the Africans what they think? If you are a starving/dehydrated/sick/impoverished African, where would you rate this odd political correctness in your list of concerns?

crispybug2

I’ve always thought that David Lammy comes across as a self serving tosspot who is happy to play the race card when it suits but to a certain degree he has a point in this case, I always feel the celebrities who do these to camera pieces do have their profile in the back of their minds when they do them, however the fact that Lammy has been asked to do work for Comic Relief and hasn’t replied means he now pretty much has to do a piece for them as it would now reflect badly on him if he doesn’t

However one consequence of this story is that I hold Stacey Dooley in much higher regard than before, a lot of celebrities when faced with this kind of criticism issue an immediate apology to anyone might be offended but no! She’s come back smartly and intelligently, well done her.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I don't wholly disagree, Bally.

However it's the only way some people really understand the poverty and desperate situations that other people find themselves in. L

You know that’s one of the main thrusts of his argument?

That a lot of people only really understand Africa through the lens of Europeans turning up, saying how awful it all is and only you, the European, has the power to save them.

That’s what he’d like to get away from.

What alternative approach has he proposed, an actual thought through one not a standard politico-speak wishy washy? Genuine q, not trolling, but cannot be arrised trawling through loads of back commentary.

He has proposed a using any of the myriad of local African celebs, farmers, film producers etc and working with them on a more constructive, modern approach.

Whilst I'm not a huge fan of Comic Relief and the whole celebrity charity stuff surely the reason that celebrities are used is because they bring with them a ready made market of donors and whilst the format is 30 years old I would have thought that this is an even bigger draw in the age of social media. Unfortunately there is a large part of the UK population that is totally ignorant of what goes on in other parts of the world and so the use of celebrities is a way that those people can be reached to maximise donations. As appears to have been alluded to above, the reaction of slightly pampered celebrities when they discover the grim reality of every day life for some people is more extreme than it is for someone who has lived or worked there for any amount of time which probably also helps.

To follow through with the rationale then Children in Need should start using real people and celebrities that have been raised in inner city poverty / the care system etc. but it doesn't so Lammy's point regarding colonialism doesn't really hold water. It's purely a way on maximising the publicity of an event and therefore the amount donated. In much the same way, Adidas or Nike don't use the bloke from your local Sunday league side or running club to endorse their products. It's marketing at the end of the day.

Pross

Mr Goo wrote:

There's a chap in my town who runs a second hand record store. He's ex navy and has all his memorabilia on the walls. He gets extremely vexed and animated when he talks about TV charity, especially Live Aid and the honorary knighthood bestowed upon Geldoff. Mainly because of his experience of seeing the rotting and decayed grain sat in warehouses on the East African coast. This because rather than Live Aid purchase and provide the lorries to transport the much needed life saving food. In their infinite wisdom the money was given to the government to source their own equipment...... Probably still accruing a nice rate of return in Swiss bank accounts for the old corrupt officials that appropriated the dosh.

To be fair to Geldof, there's no doubt in my mind that he acted entirely from the heart with Band Aid / Live Aid. From memory he ended up bankrupt not long afterwards so it certainly wasn't for self-serving reasons. Sure, there was probably an element of naivety there but I don't think NGOs / charities were as well organised back then (over 30 years ago now) and we may well have forgotten the sheer scale of the famine. However, the charities operating in another country and were entirely at the whim of that country's Government so spending the money on food and transport would not necessarily have been any more beneficial as they were reliant on the politicians to allow them access. I suspect more aid made it to those who needed it the way they did things than it would have done if they'd tried to cut out the politicians.